1) There are two classes of "microsingularities", the natural ones and the artificial ones. The natural ones were created very early in the evolution of the Universe and are among those called primordial black holes. All of those that would amount to microsingularities have long since evaporated. The artificial ones are by and large the result of man-made high energy physics experiments. Or rather will be, once CERN's LHC comes on line. Some boneheads have been going around claiming that these things will destroy Earth as we know it. First off the odds of even creating one are exceedingly tiny, and even if one was created, it would evaporate almost the instant it was created.
2) Yes, you would need to know the mass in order to calculate the force field. The event horizon is normally inferred by the mass. A real black hole however will likely be rotating and that complicates matters a little. Suffice it to say, that rotating black holes can produce jets of streaming matter that escape along the axis of rotation. This escaping matter can carry away some of the black hole's angular momentum and very gradually slow the rotation down.
The way light bends around a black hole is trivial (if you understand General Relativity). Light simply follows a geodesic in spacetime. The light itself isn't bending, it is the spacetime that is bent. The light just takes the 'straightest' path it can in the region of spacetime it traverses. So the question really boils down to 'how does spacetime curve in the region near a mass?' The answer first requires understanding how spacetime curves in the presence of mass, and then understanding how spacetime curves in the immediate vincinity of curved spacetime. See, mass bends the spacetime it occupies in a certain way. That bent spacetime then curves the spacetime immediately outside the mass in a different manner. And that spacetime curves the spacetime neighboring it and so on and so forth. For the simple case of a nonrotating spherical black hole (or any spherical mass really), the geodesic light would follow is a parabola if the path does not intersect the event horizon. The closer the path is to the mass, and the larger the mass is, the more curved the geodesic is. For something the size of a solar mass, the curvature is very tiny. For a game, you can tweak it till it looks good.
Black Holes
Quote:1) What are the "microsingularities" I hear about in books/TV/magazines/games/whatever else?Dramatic elements, or in the words of the famous "Bastard Operator From Hell": "DUMMY MODE ON".
"Our hyperspace drive creates a pocket in subspace and is powered by a microsingularity / quantum singularity / zero-point-energy / dilithium matrix (choose one)".
You won't even think about objecting to the existence of a hyperspace drive (or about the fact that people travelling faster than light still live in the same time frame as everybody else and can fire laser rays and "beam" living people in and out of other starships travelling faster than light, and can communicate via "subspace radio" with anyone in the galaxy without any noticeable lag, regardless of relative speed).
After all, the guys producing the TV show are obviously a lot smarter than you because they use words like that. They must know what they're talking about. :)
Quote:2) What would you need to know to calculate a black hole's gravitational force? Probably mass, right? Can you calculate mass from size of event horizon?Do you really need to know? Will the user know? Will the user notice? The gravitational force of your black hole is whatever is good for gameplay.
Quote:... and a request for further information on the way light bends around black holes. How much? Why?Why? Gravitational force, and wave-particle duality. Does it matter? No.
How much: does it matter? Again: No. the user won't notice.
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg and produce a distortion effect that looks remotely like that, and everybody will cheer at you for your cool physically correct black hole effects.
A probably good way would be to render the stuff behind the black hole to a texture, and do some kind of distorted lookup in the area around it, similar to a typical refraction shader on a sphere. Who could tell whether it is physically accurate... all that matters is that people *believe* it.
Quote:Original post by Damon Shamkite
"Our hyperspace drive creates a pocket in subspace and is powered by a microsingularity / quantum singularity / zero-point-energy / dilithium matrix (choose one)".
Don't blame the scifi writers for all this these are all ideas physists actually had regardless of how beyond pratical they are. Except for dilithium matrix that one is completely made up but if you had said matter/anti-matter reactor then it would fit in with the rest.
Some incorrect stuff here that I gathered while skimming:
There is no rule that a black holes will eventualy consume the universe. Even before dark energy (NOT dark matter) was discovered, it was quite possible that the universe would expand forever (depending on a value called Omega, where Omega = 1 represents a universe which expands to a limit, Omega < 1 represents a universe a universe that will eventualy collapse, and Omega > 1 represents a universe that expands without bound) .. Dark Energy confounds the matter further.
There is no rule that a black hole needs to be above a certain mass or size threshhold. Density is the determining factor, and as such its a combination of BOTH mass and size. If someone cares to try, plug in the theoretical mass of the universe into the event horizon equation and be shocked. Pretty big huh? Damn near the size of the visible universe! Maybe we know exactly what its like to be within one!
(edit: the larger a black hole is, the less dense it is! counter-intuitive, but true)
Black holes can be so massive that you can pass through the event horizon without the tidal forces stretching you into a long thin string of putty. The larger it is, the less the tidal forces at the event horizon.
There is no rule that a black holes will eventualy consume the universe. Even before dark energy (NOT dark matter) was discovered, it was quite possible that the universe would expand forever (depending on a value called Omega, where Omega = 1 represents a universe which expands to a limit, Omega < 1 represents a universe a universe that will eventualy collapse, and Omega > 1 represents a universe that expands without bound) .. Dark Energy confounds the matter further.
There is no rule that a black hole needs to be above a certain mass or size threshhold. Density is the determining factor, and as such its a combination of BOTH mass and size. If someone cares to try, plug in the theoretical mass of the universe into the event horizon equation and be shocked. Pretty big huh? Damn near the size of the visible universe! Maybe we know exactly what its like to be within one!
(edit: the larger a black hole is, the less dense it is! counter-intuitive, but true)
Black holes can be so massive that you can pass through the event horizon without the tidal forces stretching you into a long thin string of putty. The larger it is, the less the tidal forces at the event horizon.
Quote:Original post by Rockoon1 There is no rule that a black hole needs to be above a certain mass or size threshhold. Density is the determining factor, and as such its a combination of BOTH mass and size. If someone cares to try, plug in the theoretical mass of the universe into the event horizon equation and be shocked. Pretty big huh? Damn near the size of the visible universe! Maybe we know exactly what its like to be within one!
My comments where based more on the work of theoretician like Chandrasekhar
Who won a novel price for proving that no clump of mass smaller than 1.4 solar masses can became a black hole. Later that was confirmed to be about 3 to 4 solar masses for active starts with the potential to explode in supernovae.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html
Maybe you are right and I am wrong, and there had been some new discovery probing the existence arbitrary small mass size black holes based only on the idea of density.
Do you have some reference to some publications or some observations of any of these arbitrarily smalls black hole? I have not read any and i am an astromy reader buff ;)
Quote:Original post by Rockoon1
There is no rule that a black hole needs to be above a certain mass or size threshhold. Density is the determining factor, and as such its a combination of BOTH mass and size.
Sure, but then one needs to consider how such high density could be achieved. If it was solely through gravitational collapse alone, then yes there is an absolute limit.
Quote:Original post by jovaniQuote:Original post by Rockoon1 There is no rule that a black hole needs to be above a certain mass or size threshhold. Density is the determining factor, and as such its a combination of BOTH mass and size. If someone cares to try, plug in the theoretical mass of the universe into the event horizon equation and be shocked. Pretty big huh? Damn near the size of the visible universe! Maybe we know exactly what its like to be within one!
My comments where based more on the work of theoretician like Chandrasekhar
Who won a novel price for proving that no clump of mass smaller than 1.4 solar masses can became a black hole. Later that was confirmed to be about 3 to 4 solar masses for active starts with the potential to explode in supernovae.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html
Maybe you are right and I am wrong, and there had been some new discovery probing the existence arbitrary small mass size black holes based only on the idea of density.
Do you have some reference to some publications or some observations of any of these arbitrarily smalls black hole? I have not read any and i am an astromy reader buff ;)
It's not that you're wrong per se, it's just that you blindly trust the theories of others, and they are wrong.
Evidence to the contrary of the immutability of Chandrasekhar's limit has been found. Perhaps Eddington wasn't quick to judge after all:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/09/21/supernova.html
I now revert back to the audience. This conversation is very... entertaining. :)
P.S. I think we need to remember that the man behind all of this theory was humble enough to state that only one piece of contrary evidence is needed to disprove a theory.
Theories are only rule sets made up to explain the game we perceive through emperical knowledge. They are meant to be played together, as everyone is doing well enough in this thread, but hardly anyone is demonstrating the fact that it's only a game.
Really, it is only a game, never fully reality. If it were reality, it would be called the Law of General Relativity. So enjoy yourselves, and do not revel in divisive behaviour. That is not what science is about.
[Edited by - taby on November 2, 2006 12:21:32 PM]
Quote:Original post by taby
It's not that you're wrong per se, it's just that you blindly trust the theories of others, and they are wrong.
Ha thank you for the remark I will try to be more careful with my sources.
I must say however that I am nobody to contradict 80 years of observations that seems to confirm over and over again Chandra Limit’s theory.
It seems I am not the only one that blindly believe his theoretical deductions, since he was awarded a novel prize and NASA named their more advanced and powerful observatory satellite after him, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory.
What I find estrange is that you accuse me of blindly trusting a theory of others, that you say it is wrong. Yet you are believe in “another theory of others” that for some reason you think is true.
I think that if you are going to make such claim you need to produce more evidence than a TV news flash about an observation of one particular supernova as proof.
I remind you that what Chandra limits states is that the critical value for a star to end its life as black hole is 1.4 solar masses, it does not say anything about more massive stars.
I read the TV news report and here is a quote from it.
Quote: The study's co-author, Mark Sullivan of the University of Toronto, dubbed it a "rogue supernova." The team that found the supernova has two theories about how the white dwarf got so big before it exploded.
One is that the star was spinning at such a high speed that gravity couldn't pull it in and crush it at the normal Chandrasekhar limit.Another theory is that the observed supernova is the result of two white dwarfs merging and that the two stars together exceeded the limit only briefly before exploding.
It seems to me that what is said is that they found a supernovae that originated from a larger than 1.4 solar masses white dwarf, and they are given two possible reasons for it. Basically they think some internal forces are working to prevent the implosion into a supernovae when the dwarf was 1.4 solar masses.
It does not say that they found a supernova that originated from a smaller than 1.4 solar masses white dwarfs, which is what would be requiered to prove your theory of the density as the reason for black holes formations.
.........
You insinuated that Arthur Eddington was right, and Chandra was wrong.
Quote:Original post by taby
Evidence to the contrary of the immutability of Chandrasekhar's limit has been found. Perhaps Eddington wasn't quick to judge after all:
That was not the only thing Arthur Eddington was famous for;
He did not believe in the decay of the electron either, in fact he is quite famous since he also claimed he had a secret formulae that can calculates the exact number of protons in the universe. Legend said that he was prompt to fabricate scientific facts in order to discredit other fellow researchers.
I think if he was still around hi would had good chance at been hire by Gene Rodenberry as Star Trek writer.
[Edited by - jovani on November 2, 2006 3:29:34 PM]
Here is another article on the failure of Einsteinian gravity. Unless you consider NASA to be a flash in the pan authority, that is.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/21/dark.matter/index.html
Either way, Chandrasekhar, Eddington, and of course Einstein himself were all very intelligent and creative men, and I admire them for that.
I simply find it annoying that Eddington has been consistently vilified for his treatment of Chandrasekhar.
I am not on anyone's side, for that matter. In fact, it's little known that Eddington's data analysis which led to the confirmation of General Relativity was performed incorrectly, but not noticed until after further confirmations had arrived from other experiments. No body's perfect, obviously.
I just find it highly impractical to see someone pin their own reality on the theories of others, especially when the evidence against the entire GR hierarchy of theories is mounting on almost a daily basis now.
As for the theory of black hole formation, I said no such things. To conclude my theories from the lack of belief in another is not something one should do, with any degree of certainty anyway. It is much less black and white than that. As for my true theories, only time will tell if they are correct. I'll make sure that you are one of the first to get a copy of them upon publish.
I enjoy your conversation, and I'm not here to prove you, or anyone else wrong. I for one do not blame those who followed Ptolemic ideals for their folly. At least they had the inquisitiveness and passion to believe in something at all. That's a lot more than I can say for the majority of the people I meet today, in this so-called Information Age.
P.S. As for those who would have your warning/user rating negatively altered for your views, well, we all know how strong their inner convictions really must be. I think it's a perfect example of the spiritless people mentioned in paragraph above. Rating++ for you. It would be rating-- for them, if they weren't so cowardly as to act anonymously.
[Edited by - taby on November 2, 2006 5:57:20 PM]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/21/dark.matter/index.html
Either way, Chandrasekhar, Eddington, and of course Einstein himself were all very intelligent and creative men, and I admire them for that.
I simply find it annoying that Eddington has been consistently vilified for his treatment of Chandrasekhar.
I am not on anyone's side, for that matter. In fact, it's little known that Eddington's data analysis which led to the confirmation of General Relativity was performed incorrectly, but not noticed until after further confirmations had arrived from other experiments. No body's perfect, obviously.
I just find it highly impractical to see someone pin their own reality on the theories of others, especially when the evidence against the entire GR hierarchy of theories is mounting on almost a daily basis now.
As for the theory of black hole formation, I said no such things. To conclude my theories from the lack of belief in another is not something one should do, with any degree of certainty anyway. It is much less black and white than that. As for my true theories, only time will tell if they are correct. I'll make sure that you are one of the first to get a copy of them upon publish.
I enjoy your conversation, and I'm not here to prove you, or anyone else wrong. I for one do not blame those who followed Ptolemic ideals for their folly. At least they had the inquisitiveness and passion to believe in something at all. That's a lot more than I can say for the majority of the people I meet today, in this so-called Information Age.
P.S. As for those who would have your warning/user rating negatively altered for your views, well, we all know how strong their inner convictions really must be. I think it's a perfect example of the spiritless people mentioned in paragraph above. Rating++ for you. It would be rating-- for them, if they weren't so cowardly as to act anonymously.
[Edited by - taby on November 2, 2006 5:57:20 PM]
A black hole is just a localization of energy such that the escape velocity at the furthest point from the mean is larger than the speed of light.
Gravity is all the same. Some black holes have more gravity than some stars. Some stars have more gravity than some black holes. If you take away some of the lighter hydrogen from a star, thereby increasing it's density (via supernova)...voila, black hole.
In terms of simulating the physics: same as gravity for everything else.
The only difference is that the Roche limit is pretty far away from the center. But they would not be controlling a spaceship anywhere close to the Roche limit...
Gravity is all the same. Some black holes have more gravity than some stars. Some stars have more gravity than some black holes. If you take away some of the lighter hydrogen from a star, thereby increasing it's density (via supernova)...voila, black hole.
In terms of simulating the physics: same as gravity for everything else.
The only difference is that the Roche limit is pretty far away from the center. But they would not be controlling a spaceship anywhere close to the Roche limit...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement