Talk:Black hole/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Black hole. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Black hole formation

Let's talk about the improvement of the article. I think how the article is written now, causes a misunderstanding of how the formation works. From the viewpoint of the falling observer the collapse of a star happens in finite time, but from the viewpoint of the external observer, the matter is frozen just above the horizon, due to the dilation of the time. For the understanding of black holes it's crucial that the both viewpoints be more emphasized, either in the "Properties and structure" or the "Formation and evolution" section. Currently there is a only a sentence in History/General Relativity section. What do you think? Prot D (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is somewhat underrepresented at present. I think there are two possible locations to add a paragraph about this in the article: 1) in the event horizon section right after the discussion of gravitational redshift. 2) As a last paragraph of the intro of the formation and evolution section. A third option would be to add it as a footnote somewhere, but that doesn't seem quite right.

Also, does anybody know a reliable modern source that discusses this issue directly? This would be very helpful in providing references for whatever we decide to write. TimothyRias (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it wasn't in MTW somewhere. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the gravitational collapse section with a link to an article by Penrose. Would you have a look to see if it is clear, and check for any mistakes. TimothyRias (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the phrasing a bit. I also added a caveat about most of the energy emission happening early. The energy emission mechanism is mostly thermal emission from hot accreting matter, with some energy invested in polar jets as well, but adding detail about that would have unnecessarily bloated the paragraph. The only other caveat that I can think of is that the last light seen by a distant observer is actually seen in a finite length of time, as past a certain point it's possible to show that there isn't enough energy left to emit a photon of the appropriate temperature, if I'm remembering correctly. I left this out because I don't have a reference for it handy, and it would also have cluttered the paragraph (your description covered all of the points that would be confusing to a layman).

Long story short, looks good, and I made minor tweaks. Thanks for digging up the reference. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Essays by 204.52.246.120

Archived self-published work.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The newly established Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory

Mechanism-Revealed Physics (28/40) & Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory (1/2)

 The newly established Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory (MRBHT): based on the newly established and verified MRGT (= Mechanism-Revealed Gravitational Theory, P. 445 ~ 514, Ch.4B, reference #1), MRBHT is established (P. 541 ~ 548, 5.5, Ch.5B, reference #1).  MRBHT reveals the mechanism and identifies the essence of black holes, thus discovers the fundamental nature of black holes, for the first time in the history of physics and science. 
   The main points of MRBHT include: (i) the mechanism of MRBHT is that the existence of a hugely massive astronomical object reduces the scales of length (space) and time in its vicinity to such an extent that all visible lights become invisible, thus the essence of MRBHT is the tremendous reduction in the scales of length (space) and time.  (ii) The ratio of visible light boundary wavelength (Rvlb) is the ratio of lower to upper boundary wavelength of visible light, i.e., Rvlb = 380 nm/760 nm (or 390 nm/780 nm) = 1/2.   (iii) Zhao’s black hole radius (RZhao), being determined by satisfying the length scale and time scale equal to Rvlb, is the threshold radius that marks the boundary of a black hole on which entering visible light begins to become invisible, whereas leaving invisible light begins to become visible. 
Zhao’s black hole radius equation is provided as following (P. 543, reference #1) (but appeared here):

 The key to understanding of MRBHT:  (i) the mechanism thus/and essence of MRBHT is the theoretical core of MRGT, because MRBHT is based MRGT. (ii) As long as you want to know why space and time are variable thus relative in gravitational field, you will readily understand MRBHT, because MRBHT tells the why.  (iii) As long as you have known the greatest equation in the history of science, which is Einstein’s famous mass-energy equation (E = mc2 or E0 = mc2), you will easily understand MRBHT, because the law of object’s mass doing work (P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1), which lays the foundation of MRBHT, also reveals the mechanism behind the greatest equation (P. 114 ~ 118, Ch.1B, reference #1).

 The fundamentally profound applications of MRBHT: MRBHT is the key to solving the following fundamentally important problems in physics and astronomy, including:  the mystery of dark matter (P. 560 ~ 567, 5.7, Ch.5C, reference #1), the mysterious source of gamma ray bursts (P. 567 ~ 574, 5.8, Ch.5C, reference #1), the mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 574 ~ 577, 5.9, Ch.5C, reference #1), and the famous puzzle of GZK paradox (P. 578 ~ 580, 5.10, Ch.5C, reference #1), as well as the long-standing “black hole information paradox” (P. 580 ~ 582, 5.11.1, Ch.5C, reference #1).

Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3.

Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao, The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics” 1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163 USA. Email: bczhao12@gmail.com or bzhao34@yahoo.com or bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.120 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Revealing the fundamental nature of Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole

Mechanism-Revealed Physics (29/40) & Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory (2/2)

  Revealing the fundamental nature of black holes with the newly established Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole (MRBHT) (P. 541 ~ 548, 5.5, Ch.5B, reference #1).   [*Note, the black holes involved here refer to the black holes revealed and explained with the newly established MRBHT (i.e., mechanism-revealed black holes), for making a distinction from the black holes that are described and interpreted with current postulate-based black hole theory]. 
   MRBHT reveals the following fundamental natures of black holes (P. 544 ~ 548, reference #1). (i) The gravitational scales of space (length) and time increase radially outward from the central region of a black hole — first rapidly then slowly; and in the sequence of inside, on and outside Zhao’s black hole radius (RZhao), the gravitational scales of space (length) and time sequentially undergo the sub-regions of  < (1/2), = (1/2) and > (1/2) across the entire region of the black hole. (ii) Black hole bulk density decreases rapidly with the increase in the value of RZhao, and the concept of black hole bulk density demonstrates the mechanistically thus essentially feasible nature of MRBHT.  (iii) The constituents of black holes are not essentially unique (i.e., not essentially mysterious), comparing to other ordinary astronomical objects (P. 548, reference #1). (iv) Black holes can emit light, though the lights emitted from and by black holes are invisible within the boundary marked by RZhao.  (v) The visible lights that do not vertically travel towards a black hole are deflected away from the black hole (P. 546 ~ 547, reference #1).  The equation calculating black hole bulk density is provided as following (P. 546, reference #1)(though not appeared here):

 The definition of black hole (i.e., mechanism-revealed black hole): a black hole is a region where, due to the existence of a hugely massive astronomical object, the gravitational scales of length (space) and time are reduced to such an extent that all visible lights entering the region become invisible and all lights emitted from and by the black hole are also invisible in the region (P. 547, reference #1).  In addition, based on the principle of gravitational light bending embedded on MRGT (= Mechanism-Revealed Gravitational Theory, P. 445 ~ 514, Ch.4B, reference #1), all visible lights not vertically traveling towards a black hole are deflected away from the black hole; more extensively, all visible lights, as long as not traveling towards the center of a black hole, are deflected away from the black hole by the gravitational scale contour lines of space and time in the gravitational field generated by the black hole. Stated plainly, a black hole is the region surrounding a hugely massive astronomical object that makes all visible lights become invisible via hugely reducing the scales of length and time around it. Stated loosely, a black hole is a hugely massive astronomical object that causes all visible lights to become invisible.

Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3.

Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao, The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics” 1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163 USA. Email: bczhao12@gmail.com or bzhao34@yahoo.com or bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.120 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to try to publish or popularize your own ideas. See WP:OR and WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's Deletions

Fuzzballs

Jehochman removed this as OR. Fuzzballs are interesting recent work to resolve the singularity within string theory. There are dozens of very good references to this, although the language is suboptimal:

Fuzzballs

Fuzzballs are theorized by some superstring theory scientists to be the true quantum description of black holes. The theory resolves two intractable problems that classic black holes pose for modern physics:

The information paradox wherein the quantum information bound in in‑falling matter and energy entirely disappears into a singularity; that is, the black hole would undergo zero physical change in its composition regardless of the nature of what fell into it.
The singularity at the heart of the black hole, where conventional black hole theory says there is infinite spacetime curvature due to an infinitely intense gravitational field from a region of zero volume. Modern physics breaks down when such parameters are infinite and zero.^[1]

Fuzzball theory replaces the singularity at the heart of a black hole by positing that the entire region within the black hole’s event horizon is actually a ball of strings, which are advanced as the ultimate building blocks of matter and energy. Strings are thought to be bundles of energy vibrating in complex ways in both the three physical dimensions of space as well as in compact directions—extra dimensions interwoven in the quantum foam (also known as spacetime foam).

Wormholes

Yet again, without shame, he calls this 1940's result of Einstein and Rosen, verified and accepted for decades, original research.

Worm holes

General relativity describes the possibility of configurations in which two black holes are connected to each other. Such a configuration is usually called a wormhole. Wormholes have inspired science fiction authors because they offer a means to travel quickly over long distances and even time travel. In practice, such configurations seem completely unfeasible in astrophysics, because no known process seems to allow the formation of such objects.

Reversibility and Information loss

This material was deleted next: I don't know the precise source for this unlike the others, but I do know that it is well accepted material.

Reversibility and information loss

Black holes, however, might violate this rule. The position under classical general relativity is subtle but straightforward: because of the classical no hair theorem, it can never be determined what went into the black hole. However, as seen from the outside, information is never actually destroyed, as matter falling into the black hole takes an infinite time to reach the event horizon.

It should be pointed out that the equations of general relativity in fact obey T-symmetry, and given that the logic above comes from application of (classical) general relativity, one should be suspicious. This is due to the fact that it should not be possible to derive time-reversal-asymmetric conclusions from a time-symmetric theory (Loschmidt's paradox), which is general relativity in this case. Rindler coordinates, which apply near the event horizon for an observer "held" just outside the black hole, are T-symmetric and therefore there should not exist any such thing as an 'irreversible' process. It is possible that the 'paradox' is a result of applying time-asymmetric boundary conditions to the time-symmetric theory, making it a form of Loschmidt's paradox.

Ideas about quantum gravity, on the other hand, suggest that there can only be a limited finite entropy (i.e. a maximum finite amount of information) associated with the space near the horizon; but the change in the entropy of the horizon plus the entropy of the Hawking radiation is always sufficient to take up all of the entropy of matter and energy falling into the black hole.

Many physicists are concerned, however, that this is still not sufficiently well understood. In particular, at a quantum level, is the quantum state of the Hawking radiation uniquely determined by the history of what has fallen into the black hole; and is the history of what has fallen into the black hole uniquely determined by the quantum state of the black hole and the radiation? This is what determinism, and unitarity, would require.

For a long time Stephen Hawking had opposed such ideas, holding to his original 1975 position that the Hawking radiation is entirely thermal and therefore entirely random, containing none of the information held in material the hole has swallowed in the past; this information he reasoned had been lost. However, on 21 July 2004 he presented a new argument, reversing his previous position.^[2] On this new calculation, the entropy (and hence information) associated with the black hole escapes in the Hawking radiation itself. However, making sense of it, even in principle, is difficult until the black hole completes its evaporation. Until then it is impossible to relate in a 1:1 way the information in the Hawking radiation (embodied in its detailed internal correlations) to the initial state of the system. Once the black hole evaporates completely, such identification can be made, and unitarity is preserved.

By the time Hawking completed his calculation, it was already very clear from the AdS/CFT correspondence that black holes are aswome

in a unitary way. This is because the fireballs in gauge theories, which are analogous to Hawking is good

, are unquestionably unitary. Hawking's new calculation has not been evaluated by the specialist scientific community, because the methods he uses are unfamiliar and of dubious consistency; but Hawking himself found it sufficiently convincing to pay out on a bet he had made in 1997 with Caltech physicist John Preskill, to considerable media interest.

more info loss

He continues his deletion with this, which I don't know the source for, but is well known folklore:

The loss of information in black holes is puzzling even classically, because general relativity is a Lagrangian theory, which superficially appears to be time reversible and Hamiltonian. But because of the horizon, a black hole is not time reversible: matter can enter but it cannot escape. The time reverse of a classical black hole has been called a white hole, although entropy considerations and quantum mechanics suggest that white holes are just the same as black holes.

The no-hair theorem makes some assumptions about the nature of our universe and the matter it contains, and other assumptions lead to different conclusions. For example, if Magnetic monopoles exist, as predicted by some theories,^[3] the magnetic charge would be a fourth parameter for a classical black hole

Taken together, these deletions make a strong case that Jehochman probably should brush up on the literature before making any more edits.Likebox (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to your personal attacks. Comment on the article, not the editor. The edits you now complain about happened on November 30, 2009, nearly five months ago, and were discussed at the time. Since then editing has moved on. Why are you complaining now? It looks like you are wikihounding me, and attempting to retaliate for my comments on this thread. I think this comment by you is very telling. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't personal--- I was actually surprised to find that you were the one behind these ridiculous edits. I was astounded that someone could make these deletions without making the slightest attempt to do the research to see if there are sources. The FA drive should not lead to the article becoming decimated. If you wish to remove good content, place it on the talk page here, or on a related article.

However, I do have to say, this type of editing is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. There is a good chance that if this type of negative editing is tolerated, only this type of negative editing will happen in the future.Likebox (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal was done months ago, discussed months ago, and partly-undone months ago. The fact that you are picking up on it right now, immediately after reappearning and joining an AN/I thread involving User:Jehochman, suggests that very little surprise was actually involved on your part, and that it was indeed personal. Please stop turning article and wikiproject pages into political battlegrounds. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you like--- I am telling you the truth. I went over articles I contributed to (the ones I remembered), and I saw this one and all my contributions systematically deleted (along with those of others). The only thing I did know (because I read it on some talk page) was that Jehochman was involved in this article, but I didn't realise that it was he who systematically deleted all the stuff.

I put only the deleted contributions of others above. I contributed the intro, which Jehochman also deleted (but it wasn't so great, it was about escape velocity, which is inappropriate, so Ok, but it wasn't OR), and I expanded the list of cases under which the black hole no-hair theorem fails. That list should be restored, it is difficult but possible to source.

More importantly, like infraparticle, large essential chunks of this article is being deleted by someone who has not done the basic reading required to determine what is and what isn't OR. That's borders on outright vandalism in my view, and it is certainly inappropriate to not store the material somewhere accessible.Likebox (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting claim... Can you support it? Everybody contributions are being edited and deleted all the time. I think you'll have a hard time proving that a certain editor was specifically tracking down your edits and deleting your contributions. I can try making some stats (with a wiki bot) onto how long your contributions are staying and who has deleted the most. Should be a fun mini project. ;) --Dc987 (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This once again shows the importance of properly sourcing contributions. Although Jehochman was some what loose lipped with the term OR (which I told him at the time), the material he deleted suffered from various other problems. Among which not having any references, but also digressing from the mainline of the article. A single wikipedia article is not enough space to cover everything that has been said about black holes in the literature, as such this article needs to stick to a certain core leaving a lot of technical details to various other articles. (Such Schwarzschild metric and Black hole information loss paradox) Jehochman's deletions gave a good starting point for further improvement of the article. (In which some of the deleted topic were later readded in another form. TimothyRias (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the very extensive discussions at WT:PHYS and elsewhere, the onus is on the person who adds material to source it at the time. By failing to do so, you're waiving the right to complain about it being removed. Sure, in an ideal world, someone might come along and source it later, but they are by no means required to do so. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't believe that my contributions were removed on purpose to spite me! I'm not paranoid. I am just saying that the dispute here with Jehochman's edits and the disputes on AN/I with Jehochman's attempts to sanction editors are unrelated. In all honesty: I did note at some point on some talk page that Jehochman was active here, and that might have been a motivation to look at the article again.

The deleted article text should be left here, uncollapsed, because it needs to be replaced in the article or in similar articles. The material that was deleted is all physics folk-knowledge, people should be careful when deleting it.Likebox (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that all this is not really OR, I do think that a FA article on Black Hole cannot contain too much detail about all these subject (and bringing this article to FA status is the goal behind the recent editing drive). I think the removed detailed explanations can be moved to the more specialized articles for further reading. You could try to keep a summary of the most important points for the general reader here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was 103K. During this sequence of edits, I and others chopped it down to 84k. This is still too long, and we should be looking to trim additional words from the article by copy editing for conciseness, moving content to related articles or daughter articles, and removing content that is not verified. My edits were done without regard for which editor inserted the content. Frankly, I don't care. Once contributed, content is not owned by anybody and may be edited mercilessly. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

84k is not that long for a physics FA. If you look at other recent physics FA articles like quark, electron or general relativity, you will see that they are respectively 66k, 113k and 163k. This is a complicated subject of very wide scope and thus can be longer than your average FA. Also the article contains a lot of reference. Each ref being about 300 bytes and having nearly 100 references mean that the references alone are around 30k. If this article (with references) can stay below 100k to become FA ready that would already be a great achievement. TimothyRias (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Likebox, you should try see the half filled cup as half full not as half empty. Sure, you did not get everything you want in this article. But there is still room for you put your texts in other articles. If you cannot get the text edited in anywhere on Wikipedia because of oppositions similar to what we saw in case of the infraparticle article, then that would be a problem. But also note that the infraparticle article is in the state you wanted it to be in. So, why not count that as a success?

You correctly noticed there is sometimes a problem on Wikipedia regarding technical texts inappropriately being labeled as OR. You confronted that problem head on in that infraparticle article. Then precisely because you were right about the existence of that problem, that led to some editing disputes on that page. So, you should not make too much of that. Instead, look at the state of the infraparticle after the smoke cleared, as it is now.

On the positive side: If this article becomes a FA, it will appear from time to time on the front page. That may lead to many people also visiting the daughter articles. On those daughter particles there is far more room to put in more technical texts, mathematical appendices etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not too unhappy with the article here, so long as there are links to more technical articles elsewhere. I am only trying to make sure that people treat text here with respect. That means that when you delete technical text, store it on the talk page, and try to find a home for it on other articles. The only reason this wasn't done in this case is because the editor that removed the text labelled it OR because of his lack of familiarity with the content.Likebox (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Classification by mass section

Currently the "by mass" subsection of the "classification" section contains a list of black hole "types" by mass with a description of each type. These descriptions contain a lot of information that is redundant with the rest of the article. I propose that we bring back these descriptions back to one sentence each. Any details not already mentioned elsewhere should be integrated in the appropriate sections. Do others agree? TimothyRias (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Singularity- shouldn't the article have more theories?

It is logical that black holes consist of quarks, other "exotic" non-nuclear plasma, and energy. It is probably baloney that black holes are a singularity, infinitely small, with infinite temperature. Rules of physics still work in a black hole: there is equilibrium and pressure balance. Temperatures would be very high and would start at 200 MeV minimum (for nuclear disintegration and quark production) and go well into the TeV region. Exotic particles would be generated until there is pressure balance. Note that most effective mass might be in the form of photon energy, although these would have a very short mean free path before being absorbed and re-emitted. So most of the mass in our universe, if its in the form of black holes, could be in the form of energy. Note that likely any particle in the black hole, no matter how small, would have almost the same energy as the largest quark, similar to tokamak plasmas where the electron and proton energy is about the same.

Perhaps a black hole could become unstable and explode, but it is more likely that a black hole explosion would occur by instability when 2 black holes of approximate similar mass merge. Evidence for this are in a few galaxies where some enormous explosion fills the whole galaxy. These explosions are centered in the galaxy. And what's in the center of a galaxy?

So a black hole, inside the event horizon, has temperature, pressure, size, shape, probably a strong magnetic field, angular momentum, and effective mass summation, all of which can be described by physics. It is poor logic (Hawkins?) to state a black hole has infinite temperature and no size. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.170.182 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Beyond a certain point, it is impossible for degeneracy pressure to support _any_ material, due to relativistic effects. Above a certain finite mass, probably in the neighbourhood of 4 solar masses, your "quark plasma" would have zero radius. You are also overlooking the event horizon, which is unrelated to the type of matter that forms the black hole. If any given amount of mass is compressed within a given radius (the schwarzschild radius), all rays from the future light-cones at any point within that radius point inwards (i.e., in the direction of decreasing radius). Further shrinking is as inevitable as moving forward in time, as there are literally no timelike paths that do not fall further inwards. Result: collapse to a singularity. There are reasons to believe that this picture is modified when the resulting object is sufficiently small (Planck radius), but your argument doesn't touch on this. Instead, you're ignoring the two points I noted above.

Alternatives to black holes that are considered plausible by the scientific community are already mentioned in the article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that energy is contained in the system and light does not escape, but doubt that a black hole's mass-energy structure has zero size or infinite temperature. Light-cones in the outer shell point inwards, except near the center where there is zero or little net gravitational force, just intense pressure (which they add to). The great increase in temperature could provide pressure balance through radiation pressure alone, not even counting for particle pressure or angular momentum. If temperatures were high enough for neutron disintegration, quarks and other particles would form at a temperature of roughly 2000 GK, resulting in a radiation pressure increase of Ten to the 13th power more than a base temperature of 1 GK, which would prevent collapse. Einstein didn’t believe a black hole has zero size. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.21.153 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Light cones at all points within the event horizon point inwards. Radiation pressure can't stabilize things, as there is no way for photons to move outwards to apply such pressure on outer layers of your hypothetical ball of plasma! This applies to all methods of transmitting force (force-carrying particles travel at the speed of light or slower). It can be at 1 GK, 1 TK, 1 PK, or the Planck temperature - it still falls inwards.

As for your other statements, the acceleration applied by gravity grow stronger as you move inwards - you'd only get "zero or little net gravitational force" if you were inside a distributed mass, not approaching a pointlike mass. You are correct in noticing that, at the exact center, there is no "inward" direction in which to go; that's part of why this type of situation is called a "singularity" (from mathematical singularity, a "singularity" is a region in which the equations describing a system cease to have well-defined values). At all points besides the exact, geometric center of the hole, the description given by general relativity is well-defined, and has the properties I described above. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it is a distributed mass, with a core where light bounces around. Outside the core light heads inwards, the opposite of a conventional star where light heads outwards. I doubt gravity could overcome a force that increases with the fourth power. - BG

You can doubt away all you want, but you might want to leave classical physical intuition behind and actually study GR to understand why what you are saying is flawed. TimothyRias (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein understood GR and didn’t believe a black hole has zero size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.31.39 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He believed that the presence of a singularity in the mathematical description of black holes in GR meant that that description wasn't accurate. That doesn't mean he thought your description was right. Why not look up things that he did propose as alternatives? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed structure still fails. Consider a shell of matter of some finite thickness, with a hollow region inside with your photons. At the outer edge of the shell, matter experiences exactly the same gravitational forces as if all of the enclosed mass was a point mass. Per the description above, this means all light-cones on the outermost layer of the shell point inwards, which causes two things to happen. First, the outside edge of the shell contracts as inevitably as moving forward in time (there are no allowable paths that do not result in contraction). Second, the outermost layer of the shell can feel no forces whatsoever from inside itself, because there is no way for force-carrying particles (or any other particles) to propagate outwards towards it. This violates one of the assumptions made by your hypothesis (that the whole structure ends up being stable with a fixed radius), showing that your assumptions are inconsistent (i.e., that it's impossible for a relativistic object to behave in the manner you propose). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statements are logical and I do not have a satisfactory counter arguement at this time. Mathematically everything inside the event horizon should head inwards. Perhaps gravity does not scale linearly, but this smacks of cop-out logic. Perhaps there is a limit to energy density with a given mass. Perhaps radiation pressure overcomes gravitational contraction. We agree on something basic - as the mass contracts, temperature rises. I just think there is something illogical about a singularity. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.141.65 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that having the model predict singularities is unsatisfactory. It's usually taken to mean that the model being used is incomplete. Scientists studying the topic still disagree about what an accurate mathematical description of a black hole would be. Some of the proposals are linked from this article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One year after the claimed Big Bang the universe was smaller than the Schwarzchild radius, but it did not collapse. How is that explained? - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.18.247 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a page to discuss black holes or GR. Nor is it a page to educate you in physics or cosmology. Your question is answered by inflation and reheating. TimothyRias (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know why the Big Bang was able to expand, and did not collapse under its own gravity. Can that point be covered in the article, or a link provided to an explanation elsewhere. Wikipedia is for educating the masses. When somebody comes here and asks a question like this, it may indicate a gap in the article's coverage. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a question that should (and is) be answered in the Big Bang article. It basically is the question if the density of the universe is above or below the critical density. If it is above the whole universe would (eventually) collapse in to a singularity known as a Big crunch. The reason that this hasn't happened is that the universe was never (far) above the critical density. (This has to do with inflation and reheating, etc.) But all these questions have only very tangentially to do with black holes (and the only real relation is the formation of GR singularities), they clearly fall beyond the scope of the article. TimothyRias (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the question. The question is how it was possible for the universe to expand, given that when you're sufficiently close to the Big Bang, density should have been high enough for any given region to have a Schwarzschild radius smaller than the observable universe, and so inevitably collapse rather than be able to expand.

The only answer I can think of is that the assumption in the last sentence doesn't hold, and that at any given time space was expanding quickly enough that the "observable universe" was smaller than the Schwarzschild radius of uniformly-distributed matter at that density, but having actual confirmation of that from a source would be nice. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In the end that is basically what the critical density argument comes down to. The critical density is basically the density at which the Hubble and Schwarzschild radius coincide. With the caveat that you should be careful about what you mean with "radius" in an expanding universe. This indeed means that universe was never "small than the Schwarschild radius" making the original question. Also fundamentally this a question that should be and is adressed in the big bang and FRW metric articles, not in the black hole article. TimothyRias (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are forces that can make a black hole ~~expand~~explode, then surely there are also forces that can prevent it from compressing to zero size. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.209.75 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There also are no forces that can make a black hole expand, so your point is moot. TimothyRias (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by forces that "can make a black hole explode". My best guess is that you are referring to evaporation of black holes due to Hawking radiation. But that is a quantum gravitational effect, there are no classical forces involved. (In case you didn't know the concept of "force" does not make sense on the quantum level.) It is quite generally assumed that quantum gravitational effects will also prevent the formation of a singularity. This is mentioned several times in the article. TimothyRias (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's referring to that. Near as I can tell, he saw "expansion of space prevents the universe from becoming a black hole" in preceding paragraphs, and jumped on that as a mechanism for his own conjectures about black holes from earlier in this thread.

Short answer is, "no, nothing known can magically make cosmic inflation or other metric expansion of space start within a black hole or within collapsing matter that will become a black hole". Starting within a black hole wouldn't do anything detectable anyways (from the outside, it'll always look like a black hole once it forms; you'll just get a disconnected baby universe inside). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an example of black holes exploding is an explosion that fills the whole galaxy. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.58.231 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly are you getting this? It doesn't seem to be based on any known properties of black holes or of galaxies. If you're talking about quasars, they're very hot accretion discs around very massive black holes. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

2 subjects: (1) Probably my mistake on an explosion filling a galaxy. An old source said M82 looked like it had an explosion that filled the galaxy, and it does look that way. Now its said M82 had an encounter with another galaxy that caused it, so I will read up on it. (2) If "It is quite generally assumed that quantum gravitational effects will also prevent the formation of a singularity.", why does the article say " the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.17.73 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The second statement refers to the description of black holes provided by general relativity. Under general relativity, you can show that all matter inevitably collapses to a region (point, line, or ring) of zero volume containing all of the mass of the hole. General relativity's description is not expected to be exact (though it seems to work very well as an approximation). Quantum gravity is expected to change the picture of what happens near the singularity (in a system where volume is quantized, regions of zero volume probably can't occur). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph you are quoting from starts of with the clause "... as described by general relativity ...", in which context does statements can be proven rigorously. The last paragraph of that section discusses that the appearance of singularities in GR singles that the theory is incomplete. Please let us known if you find that last paragraph unclear, and if so what you think is unclear about it. We can then try to fix it. TimothyRias (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that a black hole/onion displaces the spacetime/aether that was once in its location, thus creating a dense conglomeration of spacetime, exerting enormous inward pressure on the hole/onion, akin to an air bubble displacing water? Because the spacetime has no other place to go it conglomerates on the surface of the hole/onion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.208.2 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of the history section

The history section is currently somewhat incomplete. What topics are missing exactly? Somethings from the top of my hat that should definately be mentioned:

Developement of Black hole mechanics during golden age of GR.
Modern results in describing micro states (Strominger, Vafa, Maldacena, etc.)

Any other topics that we are currently missing. TimothyRias (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you break it out into a sub-article and leave a summary here? The article is still very long. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Long, yes. Excessively long? I'm not so sure about that. The threshold for "too long" seems to be about 150k-200k, based on automated notices while editing. I'd worry more about whether or not sections are unnecessarily verbose, rather than absolute size. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At the good article nomination page, articles greater than 40k are considered long. We frequently do write longer articles, but I think going over 80k is pushing it. Gamma ray burst

is only 69k. Jehochman ^Talk 08:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you take a sensus of the physics top importance FA's you'll find:

Atom 96k
Big Bang 77k
[[Electron] 113k
General relativity 164k
Photon 86k
Star 103k
Sun 114k

This article is right on track with 83k. Moreover, note that length discussions in GA are always about readable prose, which does not include footnotes, images, references etc. TimothyRias (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not that long, especially for the breadth of the topic. As for splitting the history section to a different article, I think the proper course is to first expand it so that it at least covers all the points. If it turns out that it becomes too overly detailed we can then split it off to a different article and leave a summary style section. As it is however the history section simply doesn't cover all the necessary points. TimothyRias (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The history should mention Eddington's rejection of horizons, and Einstein's. The modern results in describing microstates is the 90s unification of black hole physics and string physics. The charged solutions are important there, so you should mention the Reissner Nordstrom history, and the generalization to p-branes (Gibbons?)

There some very very important recent results that need to be emphasized:

The Gregory LaFlamme instability: uncharged extended black lines/sheets in higher dimensions tend to fall apart into separate spherical black holes. The instability discovered in the early 90s by Gregory and Laflamme, but in the early part of 2000's some argued (incorrectly--- but that's OR) that null character of the horizon did not allow a long black line to break up into separate black holes. This argument was picked up by Gubser, but I believe it is discredited now (not certain about the sociology--- I only know the argument is incorrect).
Emparan Reall black holes--- this is from a few years ago--- in higher dimensions, rotating black holes can be rings! The horizon can be like a donut. This is a violation of the no-hair theorem, since the Kerr solution works in any dimension. A condition on horizon topology was recently discovered which links up the work to pure mathematics.
The Kerr Solution in De Sitter space was recently worked out by Kerr's original method by Gibbons.
The information problem is solved (although some people don't accept this)

If you want to find all the recent results, go over the gr-qc archive month by month. There are many others.Likebox (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the so-called "golden age" you want Carter's theorem on local constancy of temperature (surface gravity), there's a proof in the 1979 Einstein centenary symposium. That, along with Hawking's area law and the no-hair theorem, was the foundation of black hole thermodynamics. The Penrose process is already mentioned here.

The Gott time machine is an interesting example, and it involves the 2+1 dimensional analog of the black hole solution, which is the conical defect. There's also a 90's two-d black hole analog which was studied to death.Likebox (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think for the history section we should not to get too much into recent results. For one there is a lot of nonsense published about black holes, most of which is quickly forgotten. In that sense it is better to stick with things that have proven their worth and are still around after a decade.

As for many of the black holes in higher dimensions results, I think those are best off in a separate black holes in higher dimensions article. There are some excellent lecture notes around (Obers or Reall and Emparan) to start such an article. For this article this will be going to far, and it is probably best to stick with the classical notion of black holes, there is plenty to say about that. TimothyRias (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any nonsense published about black holes in the professional literature, and accurate technical results that are quickly forgotten take twenty years to be slowly unforgotten. The goal of Wikipedia is to make sure that the material is not quickly forgotten.

If the material can be verified by reading the literature, then it belongs here, although perhaps on a more advanced article. All the stuff I mentioned is well accepted physics, and central to understanding black holes. That is, all except for Horowitz's argument that there is a stable nonuniform neutral black string. Even that argument is well accepted in the narrow sense, in that the proof he gives is technically correct, but leaves loopholes for evasion. The technical literature is not as unreliable as you say, and waiting some decades is not a good way of evaluating. The only reliable way to evaluate technical content is to read it, read the stuff that reference it, and include all the claims and counterclaims in a comprehending way.

Black hole physics has undergone a rapid evolution these last two decades, more rapid than even during the most golden of golden ages. The number of advances since 1995 are greater than all the advances which came before put together. To ignore these advances is counterproductive, and makes Wikipedia into a reactionary force.Likebox (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

History suggestion: William Sidis

Should be in history:

The first to clearly predict the existence of black holes, according to the 1979 opinion of American mathematician Buckminster Fuller (among others), was American mathematician William Sidis, who in 1920 explained that in certain regions of negative space “all radiant energy would tend to be absorbed by the stars, which would constitute perfectly black bodies.”^[4]^[5]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.168.44 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"In 1925 he published The Animate and the Inanimate, advancing the theory of black holes 15 years before physicists and astronomers warmed to it." (Article: "Good Will Sidis", Harvard Magazine, 1998) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.168.44 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Sidis was not talking about black holes at all. He was talking about hypothetical regions of space in which the second law of thermodynamics would be reversed, a consequence of which would be (according toi him) that stars instead of radiating energy , would absorb all radiation. This does not mean that the stars would be black holes (any more than that ordinary stars are white holes). Note that in a black hole the second law of thermodynamics is not in anyway reversed. TimothyRias (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to debate or interpret historically established theories. The fact of the matter is that dozens of book references credit Sidis as having predicted the existence of black holes, prior to anyone else, subsequently he should be mentioned in the history section. A basic history is found here:

● Black hole – Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics.

Even a simple sentence mention would do, for the sake of others who may be interested in reading his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.116.82 (talk) on 15:31, 30 March 2010

I have yet to see a reliable source that backs up this claim. TimothyRias (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The first reference is the 1979 letter from Buckminster Fuller to editor Gerard Piel of Scientific American:

http://www.sidis.net/Buckyltr.htm

Dozens more can be found on Google books, citing that Sidis first conceived of black holes in 1915, when he was 17, during his stay at the Rice Institute. Prior to this it is well known that Sidis, in 1908 (age 10), had been checking Einstein's work for errors, and thus would have had mass-energy-relativity logic in his head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.124.141 (talk) on 08:58, 31 March 2010

None of those are from phycists or other people remotely suspected of understanding what a black hole is. TimothyRias (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Black holes

Black holes are quite a mystery, though they are just a theory. Black holes are made by an old dying star that creates an enormous supernova (which happens very rarely). Black holes suck everything that gets to close, even light going approximately 186,282 miles per second can't escape a black hole! There's actually a helpful black hole in the very centre of our vast galaxy keeping all our planets and stars together. Absolutely no one knows what is inside a black hole, but we do know what happens to something that enters a black hole: first you get extremely squashed and get crushed, and then the temperature gets so hot that you literally boil! You can't see a black hole; the only way to spot one is if you see loads of stars franticly spinning around in a circle. This happens because the black hole is sucking up the dazzling stars.

By Kailo, age 8, 31/3/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.142.226 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Black hole temperature

Why are black holes "hot"? Shouldn't it be very cold around a black hole? --BrandiAlwaysSmiles (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two things that happen near black holes that result in heating. The first is that matter falling towards a black hole forms an accretion disc, a disc-shaped cloud of matter that spirals in. Different parts of the disc are orbiting at different speeds, so there's friction. This causes the gas in the disc to heat up (it ends up converting gravitational potential energy of infalling matter into heat).

The second phenomenon is Hawking radiation given off by the black hole itself. Due to quantum effects described in that article, the black hole's event horizon looks like it has a nonzero temperature. For large holes (stellar-mass and up), this is indeed very cold (but not perfectly cold). For very small holes, however, this can be very hot. As holes give off thermal radiation, they lose mass, growing hotter and giving off even more thermal radiation, until they vanish in a flash of very bright, very hot radiation (as far as our present understanding of black holes goes).

I hope this addresses your question. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

...where "indeed very cold" means "much colder than the cosmic background radiation". ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki towards Swahili Wikipedia!

Hi admins. I've been waiting for quite sometime now, but I've never seen any bot adding an interwiki towards the Swahili Wikipedia. For this case, would the admin can take the chance? Just to add an interwiki: [[sw:Shimo jeusi]] enough! I would really appreciate it if somene help to add it. Yours,--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done TimothyRias (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are now two links http://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimo_nyeusi and

http://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimo_jeusi Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. sw:Shimo_nyeusiis the redirect form. Shimo Jeusi is the exactly name of the article. So, don't bother about the NYEUSI! And of course thanks to the admin who add the interwiki towards my homewiki. Thanks a lot.--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

Am I the only one to notice that the picture looks suspiciously like human eye ?

nirax (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the article itself . . . Okay, now that you point it out, it does eerily resemble a human eye. However, the explanation for the features within the picture is included. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Put in black hole shape?

I was just wondering if we should put in info on a black hole's shape. Are they round? Do they have a back or sides? This might be helpful for people reading the article. --BrandiAlwaysSmiles (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed to some extent in the last paragraph of the event horizon section. Do you think this is not clear enough? TimothyRias (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BrandiAlwaysSmiles the newest view seems to be as a round ball or "Black Sphere" and when I went to school in the early 80's they were always mentioned as funnels, one sided things that disappeared into a point. This article doesn't mention this 'funnel' as these early views continually mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.133.169 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Black holes have never been considered to be funnel-shaped. The pictures you saw that showed something like that were using the rubber sheet analogy for illustrating gravitational potential energy near objects. As the gravitational potential energy measured by a distant observer can look arbitrarily large for a black hole (depending on the coordinate systems used), the gravity well of a black hole looks like a bottomless funnel in this sort of graph, instead of the rounded depression shown for other celestial bodies. In short, this is a picture used for teaching a related concept, and doesn't show the actual shape of black holes. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapse to a black hole

Chris - As a large mass collapses to a black hole, and neutrons are converted into radiation and some quark matter, the pressure of the radiation is P = Dc² , where D is the equivalent mass density of the energy. This pressure would prevent collapse to a single point. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.203.90 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First, you have the formula for degeneracy pressure wrong. Second, past a certain density, collapse is inevitable no matter how high the internal pressure, due to the "future" half of all light-cones pointing inwards once a given amount of mass is within its own Schwarzschild radius. For a rigorous mathematical description, check the references at Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

The "gravitational collapse" section of the article should probably be edited to spell this out, as we get questions about this every few months. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1) The singularity theorems do not actually say that collapse will happen. Their statement is basically that once a trapped surface forms, a singularity forms as well. In principle, it could be that nature conspires against the formation of trapped surfaces.

2)That this isn't the case is the domain of the generalized TOV arguments, as discussed in the collapse section.

I agree however that this section could be clearer. (As could most of this article.) They you have any specific suggestions for clarifying this section? TimothyRias (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The singularity theorems say that collapse will happen once matter is compressed within the Schwarzschild radius (for the nonrotating, noncharged case, etc etc). Degeneracy pressure is finite at all points before then, no matter what particle we assume the degenerate gas is composed of, removing anon's case for arbitrarily high pressure preventing collapse.

Per above, this came up previously at /Archive 12#Singularity- shouldn't the article have more theories? (apparently from the same anon).

Changes to the collapse section that would help are 1) a paragraph stating that a TOV-like limit happens (zero radius at finite mass due to SR effects) no matter what type of degenerate matter we assume (neutron-degenerate, quark-degenerate, preon-degenerate, etc), and 2) a paragraph describing the singularity theorems, pointing out that once the matter is compressed beyond a certain _nonzero_ radius (the Schwartzschild radius), further collapse is inevitable under the GR description of black holes.

I agree that our picture of black holes is likely to be changed by a proper theory of quantum gravity, and that it's quite likely to remove singularities and possibly leave an object that never collapses past the Schwartzschild radius, but these are already mentioned in the chapter about extensions to the GR model. The main body of the article sticks with the non-extended version (GR for large-scale features, semiclassical analysis for things like Hawking radiation). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris, the issues you raise seem to be mostly of an organizational nature. All the things you mention are treated somewhere in the article. The generalized TOV limit is mentioned in the "alternatives" section when mentioning quark stars and preon stars. The singularity theorems are discussed in the paragraph preceding the "gravitational collapse" section. We could reorganize stuff, such all these end up in the collapse section, but this might not be the best thing to do. Any specific ideas on improving the presentation of these subjects? TimothyRias (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not offhand, due to having obligations that prevent me from devoting the time to make a detailed assessment at this time. Otherwise I'd have made the changes myself. It's good to see that you're on top of the article, though; sorry that I can't contribute more actively. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Its simpler than that. I should have clearly stated that P would be the expected amount of radiation pressure in a closed system when a significant amount of mass is converted to radiation. Pressure, normally defined as F/A, also equals the (available energy)/volume. If m is the amount of mass converted to radiation in a closed volume V, then P = mc²/V = Dc² .

I think you are over-complicating the issue by bringing up light cones. The gravitational forces are maximum at the surface of a gravitational object, but are trivial when compared to the forces in the core. Again, I was referring to internal core pressure caused by radiation pressure, not degeneracy pressure. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.130.118 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I really advise you to pick up a book on general relativity. Light cones are not over complicating the issue at all, they quite effectively desrcibe what is going on in a black hole. Namely, that you would need more that infinite pressure to keep the thing from collapsing. TimothyRias (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Black holes are distortion in spacetime, possibly the most evil phenomenon of all that we know about this space that we live in. God should'nt allow their existence.

By R.K.Bali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.59.158 (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Andricik, 25 June 2010

Please chance "relatvity" to "relativity". It's typo. The whole sentence is "Finkelstein's results came at can at the beginning of period now known as the golden age of general relativity, which is marked by general relatvity and black holes becoming mainstream subjects of research.", in the Golden Age paragraph.

Andricik (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hope that looks OK...?

bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black hole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On hold (leaning support). The content is OK, AFAICT (though I'm not a great expert in general relativity), but the level could be improved, by making it more accessible towards the begin and more technical as it proceeds. (For example, in section 1.1 the first paragraph takes for granted that the readers knows what "singular" means, then the third paragraph gives a link to mathematical singularity and briefly explains the concept; the reverse would make more sense. There are several similar issues in the article.) ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've rearranged/rephrased the first mention of singularity, hopefully this is better. Could you maybe point out the other places where you found this an issue? It is tremendously helpful to have a fresh pair of non-expert eyes on the article.TimothyRias (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read it, and the other similar issues I had noticed were in fact when something was mentioned in the "History" section but explained more clearly later (the Schwarzschild radius, the no-hair theorem, the laws of black hole mechanics); now that I think about it that's not so inappropriate, because the history section would have to become way too long otherwise. (Another idea could be moving the history section to the end, but that wouldn't look right to me.) So the article is fine as it is; if I can think of more tweaks, I'll just apply them to the article. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So are there any particular issues that you want to see improved? Or did you just have no time to further look at the article? Am asking because I'm not sure if you were waiting for some type of response from me. TimothyRias (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have time for a very careful examination, but I've skimmed it and it looks fine. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be away from wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. Please, do make any tweaks you see fit. Hopefully, others will pick up the review, otherwise I will respond when I get back. TimothyRias (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been a month now, is the review going to be completed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, haven't seen A di M around much.TimothyRias (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on holiday now, so I won't have much time for Wikipedia for a couple weeks. A. di M. (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much. Considering the time of year it was either vacation or conference :)TimothyRias (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This has now been on hold for two months. Are there any outstanding issues? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it satisfies the good article criteria, now. A. di M. (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean you are passing the article for GA?TimothyRias (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Promoted. A. di M. (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Stability of residues of evaporated black holes

I'm still a bit concerned by the statement

for such a small black hole quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could even – although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so [74] – hypothetically make such a small black hole stable. (emphasis added).

I'm not sure the reference in question entirely settles the question.

On a very quick look, the reference appears primarily aimed to address the popular media hype "CERN could create a black hole that could eat the earth", which it dispels on the basis that

Cosmic rays reach CERN-type energies without damaging the earth; and
To damage the earth, an accretion process would be needed around the mini black holes (which seems unlikely), and if it could occur, it already would have occured, due to accretion around cosmic rays of that energy.

However, these are rather different points than those needed to say that "small black holes cannot be stable".

In particular, what I have in mind is the scenario where Hawking radiation does occur, but gets quenched out leaving a final residue, once the thermal energy of the Hawking radiation particle becomes similar to the total energy of the residue.

This is expected to occur when the mass of the residue falls to roughly a Planck mass; though some people, it seems, who believe in extra dimensions, apparently believe that this could bring the Planck energy down to lab-scale levels. (Sounds to me like a cooked-together rationalisation for looking under the lamppost you can get at, rather than anything particularly credible, but there you go: some people it seems do believe that the mass of a black hole residue could be down at the TeV/c² level).

But would such a residue black hole lead to an accretion process? I don't think so. Remember, we're supposing that Hawking radiation does exist and is a real process. It seems to me that the entropy factors that lead to the quantum perturbations ripping apart tiny small black holes would also rip up a delicately arranged accretion structure around a tiny small black hole residue. The maximum-entropy (for a given energy) equilibrium is not obtained with all the mass becoming concentrated together; rather it occurs when the particles are rather more separated from each other, giving them rather more freedom to move around.

So the catastrophic accretion scenario doesn't occur. But we conclude that it wouldn't have done anyway. And so we conclude that the non-occurrence of the catastrophic accretion scenario cannot be used to demonstrate the non-occurrence of stable mini black-hole residues. Jheald (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make is exactly the point that is addressed in the Giddings paper. He starts out by stressing that there is no reason to think that Planck mass black holes are stable (in fact, that would be contradictory to quantum mechanics as we know it, a point famously agrued by 't Hooft in the 90s.) He then continues by making the (in his words) "extremely hypothetical" assumption that Planck mass BHs would be stable and that extra dimensional (or other) effects place the effective planck scale at 1 TeV, and continues to show such black holes still would not accrete enough mass to be dangorous, and if they would they would destabilize neutron stars etc. The is the meat of the article. But the introduction very explicitly stresses that there is no theoretical ground to assume that micro BHs would be stable. This same point is also stressed in the Peskin article, although he does not give much of an argument.TimothyRias (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Inside A Black Hole

May i Know What is exactly inside a Black Hole??? Is composition ??? And does time really stops inside an black hole ???? and is Black hole a way of time travel????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.74.135 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See article :). PS. this is not the place to ask general questions about black holes. For venue to ask such questions see the top of this page. TimothyRias (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

light or radiation?

The article states: The event horizon is referred to as such because if an event occurs within the boundary, light from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.[35]" end quote. I gather that one can detemine if an event occurred by other means then light. Should this sentence then not be altered? Aixroot (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replace light with information in that sentence. Hopefully that makes it clearer. TimothyRias (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.242.0.183, 24 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} refer Dr.Stephen Hawkings books and videos for more correct information

117.242.0.183 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: PLease be more specific about the content you would like to add to the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from GregoryCJohnson, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Besides being arbitrary and capricious, in the context of physics this is immaterial and outside the discussion. (Alternately, it is inflammatory and/or discouraging, but let's be positive):

"However, the term itself has been subject of racial controversy for some."

In context, this merits a footnote. Kindly make it so.

GregoryCJohnson (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. That should have been reverted as soon as it was added. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Just marking to remove request from category. --Stickee (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Calculating the pressure and density profile in a black hole

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When a star above several solar masses collapses, the neutrons in the core disintegrate into radiation and some quark matter. As the collapse continues and temperature rises further virtually all matter converts to radiation. If the radiation is contained in the system, the pressure of the radiation is P = Dc² , where D is the equivalent mass density of the energy. The contained radiation, which has mass, also acts like a compressed gas.

With the terminology D(c) for the radiation density at the core, and D(r) the radiation density at radius r, and using the expected density profile of D(r) = D(c) (1 - r²/R²), the following equation should give the core pressure P(c) in a dark energy star. For math principles see: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100213141613AAkCtWi .

P(c) = (15/16)GM²/(πR⁴)

(Added by 172.162.147.96 on 01:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC).)

This formula may not be correct because it assumes a density profile of 1/r², but P(c) would still be proportional to M²/R⁴ for other density profiles.

(End of added content.)

Its easy to understand why the structure is stable and doesn’t collapse. Gravity varies as 1/R². The support mechanism is pressure, which is proportional to density, and varies as 1/R³. Note the ratio of mass/r is essentially constant if the density profile is 1/r² .

Because M is proportional to R ( R = 2GM/c² ), an interesting result is a more massive star (black hole) has lower internal pressure.

The logical conclusion is a black hole, or dark energy star, consists of intense radiation, with perhaps a thin atmosphere of quark type matter just below the Schwarzchild radius. A magnetic field could exist within the structure.

I realize some prefer to believe all this mass and energy converges to a point. 172.163.116.82 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) BG Sep 12, 2010

First, this article is supposed to reflect material published in academic literature, not on answers.yahoo.com, so you'll need a source matching WP:RS if you want any of it changed. Second, this article is supposed to give explanations space in proportion to the fraction of the scientific community that considers those explanations either plausible or otherwise-noteworthy, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. For scientific topics, this is usually evaluated by the number of independent groups writing papers about a given topic, and for individual papers, the number of citations of it by unrelated groups' papers.

Third, the argument for volume approaching zero does not require conversion of matter. The TOV limit exists for the same reason the Chandrasekhar limit does: relativistic effects cause the radius of a ball of neutron-degenerate matter to approach zero at some finite mass, rather than at infinite mass. A similar limit exists no matter what form of matter you assume the star is made of. Fourth, the argument for matter compressed within an event horizon collapsing to a black hole holds no matter how high you assume pressure is. See Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems for details.

Fifthly, you are mistaken about one of your assumptions. Gravity does not vary as 1/r^2 in relativistic stars like black holes. That equation only applies in the weak-field limit, when you're working with something that looks like Newtonian gravity.

I hope this adequately addresses your post. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if gravity doesn't vary as 1/r², shouldn't the article explain that in Physical Properties? After all the article is about a gravitational object. Presently the article says "there is no observable difference between the gravitational field of such a black hole and that of any other spherical object of the same mass." 172.130.21.182 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) BG

The gravitational field of any other spherical object of the same mass also does not vary with 1/r². At large distances (compared to the Schwarzschild radius) the corrections are very minor and negligible. At shorter distance they become relevant and the description of the gravitational field by a Newtonian potential breaks down, and more complicated mathematical machinery is needed to describe it (the Newtonian potential is essentially replaced by a 16-component rank 2 tensor). That the gravitational field as described by general relativity is different than the one from Newtonian gravity should come as no surprise as the theories are different. This currently is somewhat implicit in the article. I'll have a look if this can be made more explicit. TimothyRias (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is interesting, and could be mentioned in the article with a link to the page/section with the relevant physics and math. Jehochman ^Talk 09:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of relativistic gravitational factors, but it makes sense. Could relativistic effects on gravity and pressure cancel? A conventional gas pressure model should still work so long as the force of gravity varies less extremely than 1/r³. And the factor of (15/16) could be off by -50% to +100 % depending on the density profile. I think a profile of almost constant density could make the formulas converge better, but I can't justify that. Could the "temperature" of space within the Schwarzchild radius be constant? 172.162.199.222 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BG

Just as a point of order, per the big green banner near the top of this page, this really isn't a good place for general questions about how black holes work. The physics form (linked in that banner) would probably be the best place to get into an extended discussion of this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know we are breaking or stretching the rules. But it looks like some good will come out of this already - soon the article might explain how gravity can be expected to work within the Schwarzchild radius for both a point mass and possibly a distributed mass. This section will surely be deleted in the future anyway. Critics who speak out usually help resolve a situation; most are silent. 172.130.98.130 (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC) BG

The problem is that the vast majority of this thread hasn't been about how to improve the article - it's been about explaining where a misconception has occurred in your own model of black holes. As with your February thread, that is not what this page is for. I'll usually answer questions when people ask them, as it's often faster than steering people towards external references and occasionally it does point out a deficiency in the article, but you've been proposing your own models here for quite a while now, and Wikipedia was not intended to be used as a sounding-board for your own work.

If you have specific questions about article content, or specific suggestions about how the article should be improved, please make them. If you have an interesting new idea about how black holes might work, please bring them to a forum that is better suited for that purpose (you'll get better answers and longer discussions there). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The proper way to do the calculation you tried to do is discussed in Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation. The results of that calculation are currently (IMHO) adequately treated in this article.TimothyRias (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Those equations look like a gold mine! I will try to digest them this weekend.172.162.165.106 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)BG

This is exactly the same type of situation I described above, as well as in the February thread, so I'm puzzled that you are treating this as something new.

A ball of degenerate matter (electron-degenerate, neutron-degenerate, or any other kind), shrinks when you add mass. At all times, there is a balance between gravitational pressure (lowering gravitational potential energy when the ball compresses) and degeneracy pressure (lowering particle energies when the ball expands to give them longer wavelengths). When treated only with non-relativistic mechanics, the ball approaches zero size as its mass approaches infinity. When treated with relativistic mechanics, it turns out to approach zero size as its mass approaches some finite value (the Chandrasekhar limit for electron-degenerate matter, and the TOV limit for neutron-degenerate matter). A ball of highly-relativistic degenerate matter is made mostly of particles that look a lot like photons as far as mass and wavelength are concerned (as most of the mass of any given particle is relativistic mass, not rest mass). Expanding the ball (making wavelengths longer) changes the energy by a different amount than for non-relativistic matter, with the net effect of lowering the degeneracy pressure (eventually to the point where it can't support the object against gravity).

The key difference between a ball of relativistic degenerate matter and a ball of photons is that the exclusion principle prevents any two particles in the ball of degenerate matter from having the same energy and momentum (and quantum spin and yadda yadda). You don't get a thermal distribution of energies. In fact, by some arguments, it's at a very low temperature even though kinetic energy of individual components is very high (it's a highly ordered structure, close to its ground state in terms of particle configuration). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You and Tim understand ten times more details about black holes than I ever will, but I think there is a simple radiation support mechanism for black holes that has somehow been overlooked, mainly P = Dc². This equation provides conceivable support pressures that only need to be perhaps an order of magnitude or so higher than in a large neutron star. I don’t have the skill to solve the complicated Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equations, but think a logical density profile exists that is consistant with these equations, R = 2GM/c² , and P = Dc². Please leave this section posted for at least several days to see if there are any other inputs, then I don’t mind if its deleted if you think it has little merit. Thanks for your input and patience. 172.129.144.117 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC) BG

Since this thread is in no way about improving the article, but an IP being arrogant enough to think the has found something that has been overlooked for almost a century consisting of some of the greatest minds to walk this planet, it is time to close and archive it.TimothyRias (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know why you aren’t more civil; maybe you are insecure about a point singularity, or are constantly being questioned by others who doubt a point singularity. No big deal, you’ve taken the time to respond, which I appreciate. I thought the best thing to do was to back away politely because you and Chris are just not receptive to the idea of a distributed mass of radiation inside the Schwarzchild radius. This is certainly your right and I do value your input. Yes, the WWII generation were incredible mental giants but they did not have access to the relatively recent information that matter essentially converts to radiation at extremely high temperatures. I am not alone in thinking Hawkins’ book was a shallow dissapointment, explained little, and glossed over the singularity concept, but this is just opinion. I think Chris is in error when applying degeneracy pressure concepts IF matter has already converted to radiation, and I think the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation wouldn’t apply to distributed radiation within the Schwarzchild radius either. Again, thanks for your time and I won’t bother you fusspots (not nearly as bad as arrogant!) any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.2.80 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC) You might as well archive this reply as well.172.130.2.80 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)BG

We have been incredibly civil, considering the fact that you have consistently ignored the fact that WP talk pages are NOT for discussing the subject of the article, but for discussing improvements to the article. Please read WP:TALK to understand why your behaviour on this talk page is unacceptable.TimothyRias (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To repeat something that was told to you in February: If you feel that the scientific community is wrong about something, the first thing you should do is learn why they think they're right. Even if you aren't in a position to take a course on relativity, you can easily pick up the MTW textbook from your local library. If you still need something explained to you, or if you think that there is an error in the textbook (after reading it and understanding its arguments and mathematics), I suggest asking at sci.physics.research or one of the other places linked in the big green banner up top, underneath the big warning sign about this not being the place to post personal theories.

Arguing without making an effort to understand our counterarguments shows disrespect to all of us. Arguing that the scientific community is making grave errors without first trying to understand what exactly it is you're claiming to poke holes in shows poorly-placed priorities. And ignoring repeated statements that this is not a good venue for this sort of discussion shows disrespect for Wikipedia's rules. That last bit is usually not a good idea. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Xronon, 13 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} REASON: The indispensable role of Charles Misner and the major contribution of Martin Kruskal are omitted. The importance of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates is overstated compared to Birkhoff's Theorem.

REPLACE THE PARAGRAPH

Golden age

In 1958, David Finkelstein introduced the concept of the event horizon by presenting Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates, which enabled him to show that "The Schwarzschild surface r = 2m [in geometrized units, i.e. 2Gm/c²] is not a singularity, but that it acts as a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it in only one direction".^[6] This did not strictly contradict Oppenheimer's results, but extended them to include the point of view of infalling observers.

BY THE PARAGRAPH

Golden age

An event horizon, a persistent boundary that signals could cross in only one sense, came to attention in 1958 when David Finkelstein and Charles Misner found one in the basic topological soliton of the gravitational field, the {\em gravitational kink}. ^[7] Guided by this example, Finkelstein found that "the Schwarzschild surface r = 2m [in geometrized units, i.e. 2Gm/c2] is not a singularity, but that it acts as a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it in only one direction"; and that the apparent singularity resulted from forcing a static description on a non-static event horizon. ^[8] A still greater manifold with two event horizons, one inwardly directed and the other outwardly, had already been found and mapped by Martin Kruskal, who was later persuaded to publish it. ^[9] It was also found by George Szekeres. Schwarzschild, Finkelstein, and Kruskal mapped, respectively, three successively larger parts of the same gravitational black hole: its wholly static outer husk, an inward extension that is not static but persists without change, resembling a stationary vortex in this respect, and a doubling that is wholly dynamical, beginning and ending in singularities. These discoveries did not strictly contradict Oppenheimer's results, but extended them to include the point of view of infalling observers.

IF THIS CHANGE SPOILS THE BALANCE OF THE ARTICLE:

Delete the sentence in the proposal "Schwarzschild, Finkelstein, and Kruskal mapped,... in singularities,"

Xronon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the valid and referenced information! --Wolfnix • Talk • 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} or {{Whisper Back}} message on my talk page.

Edit request , 1st October 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The Article begins badly 'According to the general theory of relativity' - I don't think that the general theory states anything at all about black holes - yes, they fit in with it. I'd remove that phrase and, if referring to the GTR at all, put it much later in the paragraph and avoid the word 'according to' - maybe 'in agreement with' or something.

I agree that that phrase is awkward, and probably unnecessary. I've removed it for now. The whole lead can use some tweaking though.TimothyRias (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This was added many years ago due to many, many talk page threads and text-additions about proposed objects that looked like black holes but that could be escaped. The response usually given was that this article was about black holes as described by general relativity, making such additions off-topic. Nowadays we'd probably cite WP:UNDUE, but I still think the "as described by GR" bit is useful to have somewhere.

Black holes are indeed a prediction derived from general relativity. the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems provide a proof that formation is inevitable past a certain density for any given volume, and special relativity provides a justification for the speed of light being an upper bound on velocity and rules for addition of velocity. Otherwise you could escape from, say, a Newtonian "dark star" by either having a velocity greater than that of light or by using a rocket with a delta-v greater than C (even though your travel speed at any given time is less than C). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Add another language link

Please add sinhala/සිංහල/si language link for this article --- si:කළු කුහර —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yapanuwan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (14 November 2010)

Please consider using the StarDate Black Holes Encyclopedia at http://blackholes.stardate.org/resources/ as an external link. It provides a directory of all the known black holes, as well as history, news, and resources. It will soon offer interviews with astronomers studying black holes. It is easy-to-understand and reliable. (Sandra Preston (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

I would like to change "A Black Hole is a region of space ..." into, "A Black Hole is a hypotethical region of space ...". There are no evidences of BH existence yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.7 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a very large amount of circumstantial evidence for them, described in the "observational evidence" section of the article. Also, per the previous edit request, other editors removed a similar caveat that used to be there (so I'm reluctant to re-add it). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is unnecessary since the statement "a black hole is a region of space" does not say if such a region exists. The set of such regions in reality could be empty.TimothyRias (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA'S Chandra Finds Youngest Nearby Black Hole

A recent discovery of a 30 year old black hole was announced and I was wondering if it would improve this article to add information about it. Here is one of the sources with information about it. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_10-299_CHANDRA.html DavidR2010 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

The evidence for it being a black hole is strong, but not conclusive, according to the article you link. It'd probably be a good fit somewhere in the supernova article, though. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I will take it over there can you help me get the information in the article if it is a good fit? DavidR2010 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

The dialogue needs to be simplified. Basically, "Has anyone ever seen a black hole? Answer: No." So why can't this point be stated more clearly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.239.130 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

^ The smallest linear dimension in physics that has any meaning in the measurement of spacetime is the Planck length, which is 1.616252(81)×10⁻³⁵ m (CODATA value). Below the Planck length, the effects of quantum foam dominate and it is meaningless to conjecture about length at a finer scale—much like how meaningless it would be to measure ocean tides at a precision of one centimeter in storm-tossed seas. A singularity is thought to have a diameter that doesn’t amount to even one Planck length; which is to say, zero.
^ "Hawking changes his mind about black holes". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news040712-12. Retrieved 2006-03-25.
^ "Black holes with magnetic charge and quantized mass" (PDF). Research Centre for High Energy Physics, School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved 2009-03-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ [1] – Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics.
^ Lyons, Viktoria and Fitzgerald, Michael. (2005). Asperger Syndrome: a Gift or a Curse? (pg. 164). Nova Publisher.
^ Finkelstein, David (1958). "Past-Future Asymmetry of the Gravitational Field of a Point Particle". Phys. Rev. 110: 965–967. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.110.965. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Finkelstein, D. and Misner, C.W. '"Some new conservation laws." ' ' Annals of Physics ' ' 6:230--243, 1959.
^ Finkelstein, David. "Past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle." ' ' Physical Review ' ' 110:965, 1958
^ Kruskal, Martin D. "Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric." ' ' Physical Review ' ' 119:1743, 1960.

[1] The smallest linear dimension in physics that has any meaning in the measurement of spacetime is the Planck length, which is 1.616252(81)×10⁻³⁵ m (CODATA value). Below the Planck length, the effects of quantum foam dominate and it is meaningless to conjecture about length at a finer scale—much like how meaningless it would be to measure ocean tides at a precision of one centimeter in storm-tossed seas. A singularity is thought to have a diameter that doesn’t amount to even one Planck length; which is to say, zero.

[Nature-20040407-2] "Hawking changes his mind about black holes". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news040712-12. Retrieved 2006-03-25.

[3] "Black holes with magnetic charge and quantized mass" (PDF). Research Centre for High Energy Physics, School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved 2009-03-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] [1] – Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics.

[5] Lyons, Viktoria and Fitzgerald, Michael. (2005). Asperger Syndrome: a Gift or a Curse? (pg. 164). Nova Publisher.

[6] Finkelstein, David (1958). "Past-Future Asymmetry of the Gravitational Field of a Point Particle". Phys. Rev. 110: 965–967. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.110.965. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[7] Finkelstein, D. and Misner, C.W. '"Some new conservation laws." ' ' Annals of Physics ' ' 6:230--243, 1959.

[8] Finkelstein, David. "Past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle." ' ' Physical Review ' ' 110:965, 1958

[9] Kruskal, Martin D. "Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric." ' ' Physical Review ' ' 119:1743, 1960.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]