Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [AB] Some black holes may be older than time
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AB] Some black holes may be older than time - Page 11

post #101 of 132
say you could get sucked into the center of a black hole without getting ripped apart at a quantum scale. what do you think would happen? would you keep going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole? would it ever spit you back out somewhere? would you just sit at the center of a bowl of super-dense energy eventually? would you get sucked into a gateway of sorts but end up trapped in the center?

hmm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #102 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyujmn View Post
Nah it's not a contradiction. Did you read the article? They're basing it on the assumption that there was a previous universe before ours that had collapsed in a "big crunch". Our universe then reopened in the big bang, but some black holes before the big crunch apparently remained.
That's assuming there was another universe which has yet to be proven.

There are a lot of problems with our understanding of the big bang. For example, in theory anti matter should have been created in equal amounts as matter. Yet it wasn't. So what happened to all of it?

No one really has a good answer yet. Doesn't the whole big crunch theory run into problems with Gauss's law? Or does that not apply since there is enough gravity from lower "shells" to pull everything together?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #103 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_neon View Post
say you could get sucked into the center of a black hole without getting ripped apart at a quantum scale. what do you think would happen? would you keep going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole? would it ever spit you back out somewhere? would you just sit at the center of a bowl of super-dense energy eventually? would you get sucked into a gateway of sorts but end up trapped in the center?

hmm
You would probably undergo a mass-energy conversion where the matter of your body is turned into energy.

The basic misunderstanding of black holes is that they are incredibly massive, they really aren't in fact. a black hole at most can only be as massive as all the energy it has ever accumulated plus the energy it held onto from its formation.

So if our sun were to turn into a black hole we would not be sucked in, we would still maintain our orbit... actually our orbital distance would increase. Assuming of course that the supernova managed not to kill us.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #104 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_neon View Post
say you could get sucked into the center of a black hole without getting ripped apart at a quantum scale. what do you think would happen? would you keep going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole? would it ever spit you back out somewhere? would you just sit at the center of a bowl of super-dense energy eventually? would you get sucked into a gateway of sorts but end up trapped in the center?

hmm
The tidal forces would probably kill you first..... the part that is 1cm closer would be pulled more than the part that is 1cm further!

Also, don't you end up "falling" for a really long time due relativity?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
There are a lot of problems with our understanding of the big bang. For example, in theory anti matter should have been created in equal amounts as matter. Yet it wasn't. So what happened to all of it?
I thought an answer to imbalance was proposed last year? Matter and anti-matter are not perfectly symmetrical.

Might be it: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/14508.html
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #105 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
You would probably undergo a mass-energy conversion where the matter of your body is turned into energy.
At the mass/energy levels of a black hole, there would be no actual differentiation between mass and energy - they are one and the same, and there would be no converson, per se, except to our perspective as an outsider.

The consequence of the absurdity of falling into a black hole is that the acceleration is so great, so great light can not attain escape velocity, that "low energy" quantum mechanics simply falls apart, because we simply do not have a unified theory that works. Same with the events immediately after the incident of the big bang, where our mathematics and theories simply do not hold water at those extreme energy levels.

Quote:
The basic misunderstanding of black holes is that they are incredibly massive, they really aren't in fact. a black hole at most can only be as massive as all the energy it has ever accumulated plus the energy it held onto from its formation.
Black holes are not just about massiveness, but mass packed into the tiniest singularity - like that of 8 of our Suns packed into a space smaller than a single atom. It's about density, incredible density coupled with incredible gravitational forces.
Edited by EvanPitts - 5/12/11 at 10:33am
post #106 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Do you concede that a "scientific theory" is different from a "scientific fact"? Not all scientific facts are scientific theories. i.e. Standard gravity accelerates objects at 9.807 m/s^2 is a fact... but not a theory.
All I said was that scientific theories are accepted as facts. No, not every fact about the universe is supported by a theory but I didn't say that. The theory of gravity is a fact though and it explains why gravity would accelerate you if you jumped out of an airplane at 32.2 feet per second until you reached terminal velocity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
I guess biology application is a special case then. Evolution is a fact due to "personal feelings" though. Is evolution's status as scientific fact arbitary or not? If not, what is the explicit requirements from a theory to fact?

From my experience, physicist generally do not declare scientific theories as fact. It is not just semantics but the difference in the meanings of those two terms.


Of course... this is why scientists do not talk/write in the absolute. Nothing "is" but "is likely", "is probable", "is high percentage of certainity", etc.
Evolution is a fact in that it does actually happen and is an accurate description on the subject to the best of our knowledge. Yes, the exact process of how evolution works isn't 100% defined yet and is continually updated with newer information. All fields of science make sure to note the degree of uncertainty in their measurements. Even biologists make note of this in their experiments. The theory of the Big Bang is a fact. The theory of gravity is a fact. The theory of motion is a fact. The age of the universe is a fact. All with degrees of uncertainty listed in their measurements such as the universe being 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years old.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
You had said scientists detected dark matter... they would have said "In most likelyhood, we have detected dark matter".
We've detected dark matter just as we've detected the effect of giant massed objects bending light around them from galaxies behind them that we wouldn't otherwise be able to see due to the galaxy we're looking at being in the way as predicted by Einstein in general relativity. The degree of certainty on what is causing the effect dark matter is having isn't as well known as the effects of gravitational lensing are for example. It's still a valid theory though.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 5/12/11 at 11:24am
post #107 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
You would probably undergo a mass-energy conversion where the matter of your body is turned into energy.

The basic misunderstanding of black holes is that they are incredibly massive, they really aren't in fact. a black hole at most can only be as massive as all the energy it has ever accumulated plus the energy it held onto from its formation.

So if our sun were to turn into a black hole we would not be sucked in, we would still maintain our orbit... actually our orbital distance would increase. Assuming of course that the supernova managed not to kill us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
The tidal forces would probably kill you first..... the part that is 1cm closer would be pulled more than the part that is 1cm further!

Also, don't you end up "falling" for a really long time due relativity?
ya missed the first sentence in my pondering.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #108 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
That's assuming there was another universe which has yet to be proven.

There are a lot of problems with our understanding of the big bang. For example, in theory anti matter should have been created in equal amounts as matter. Yet it wasn't. So what happened to all of it?
Anti-matter and matter were created in equal parts in the beginning. The reason why there is slightly more matter now than anti-matter is a very good question.

This reminds me of a cool video about the beginning of the universe:

Someone asks a very similar question about anti-matter in this lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson(skip to 23:15)

There's also a lot of good questions that come up a lot about Astronomy in there as well such as an earlier poster's question about whether there is a center of the universe(46 mins in)
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 5/12/11 at 11:26am
post #109 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Evolution is a fact in that it does actually happen and is an accurate description on the subject to the best of our knowledge. Yes, the exact process of how evolution works isn't 100% defined yet and is continually updated with newer information. All fields of science make sure to note the degree of uncertainty in their measurements. Even biologists make note of this in their experiments. The theory of the Big Bang is a fact. The theory of gravity is a fact. The theory of motion is a fact. The age of the universe is a fact. All with degrees of uncertainty listed in their measurements.
I've watched this go back and forth and I have to put an end to it. You're both wrong to a certain extent. You're mixing up terms.

Evolution is a fact. We've watched it happen. The explanation of why it happens is the theory.

Gravity is a fact. Why it happens is the theory.

Theory =/= fact. However, that's not to say that the theory of evolution can't be, for all intents and purposes, regarded as fact, but it still can't be called a fact.
Edited by aroc91 - 5/12/11 at 11:18am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #110 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
The tidal forces would probably kill you first..... the part that is 1cm closer would be pulled more than the part that is 1cm further!

Also, don't you end up "falling" for a really long time due relativity?



I thought an answer to imbalance was proposed last year? Matter and anti-matter are not perfectly symmetrical.

Might be it: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/14508.html
relative to an outside observer you would, but probably not from your perspective.

The asymmetry could explain it... if there is a reason as to why it seems to favor our version of matter rather then antimatter. But it could also have a lot to do with the nature of the experiment itself. It's asymmetry could have been emphasized due to the way the experiment was run.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [AB] Some black holes may be older than time