How fundamental would the particles be that eventually fell into a black hole?

[John FX]

Stuff gets ripped apart when falling into a black hole. How ripped apart does it get? Do atoms get ripped apart? Quarks? Subquarks? Smaller?

Would it be some sort of theoretical ultimately fundamental particles? Would it not even be matter any more?

Does the spacetime which supports the existence of particles get ripped apart?

Does the question not even makes sense when dealing with black holes?

[Steel]

21 minutes ago, John FX said:

Stuff gets ripped apart when falling into a black hole. How ripped apart does it get? Do atoms get ripped apart? Quarks? Subquarks? Smaller?

Would it be some sort of theoretical ultimately fundamental particles? Would it not even be matter any more?

Does the spacetime which supports the existence of particles get ripped apart?

Does the question not even makes sense when dealing with black holes?

Well according to the standard model, quarks are fundamental, so that's about as far as you can go.

In answer to your other question, you'd probably be broken down to some extent. We don't know a huge amount about being inside black holes, but assuming that the gravitational gradient keeps getting steeper until you "hit the singularity", it might get large enough to overcome the weak and strong interactions, thus splitting things down to fundamental parts, though you'd require some near-infinite gradients to do so, and I'm not sure exactly the conditions you actually get.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Steel

[Gaarst]

We don't know.

We do know that black holes have no hair which is a bit of a problem. As of now pretty much all theories on what information becomes inside a black hole violate a different bunch of quantum principles.

[cratercracker]

Stuff don't get ripped inside a blackhole. It rips when crossing the event horizon. Actually materia (like your space ship,star,meteor or whatever falls into a blakchole) is splitting into atoms and then diving into singularity. But when it comes to atoms itself,they split into quarks,leptons and pull it so hard that they move at the speed of light due to extreme gravity. Though the most interesting part is when boson particle dives into blackhole. Boson particles like photon is already moving at the speed of light,but happens when a black hole pulls such particle?

Check this video it is very infromative!

 

[Steel]

2 minutes ago, cratercracker said:

Stuff don't get ripped inside a blackhole. It rips when crossing the event horizon.

That's not true, it gets ripped apart when the gravity gradient gets large enough, and that is dependent on the mass of the black hole.

18 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

We don't know.

We do know that black holes have no hair which is a bit of a problem. As of now pretty much all theories on what information becomes inside a black hole violate a different bunch of quantum principles.

Yeah I'd forgotten about the No Hair thing. From the point of view of an observer outside the black hole, when anything passes the event horizon it no longer is defined by anything other than mass, angular momentum and charge (all other properties like baryon number and stuff like that - i.e. "hair" - are no longer conserved). So there is literally no way of telling what happens to anything within.

However, form the point of view of an observer within the black hole, being broken down into constituent parts would be a very real thing.

[Green Baron]

First: i do not pretend that i understand that much of the matter, so i can only add to the list questions.

If you mean with "black hole" the event horizon, then if it is bigger than the singularity (singularity smaller than the Schwarzschild-Radius) why couldn't things exist under the event horizon ? Everything has a Schwarzschild-Radius, but usually no singularity, or am i understanding something wrong ? For the sun it is 3km i read, but nobody assumes a black hole in the sun.

As to what happens to matter in the singularity: as far as i understand it does not exist. If a collapse of a large mass continues from the neutron-star stage towards the singularity then the formulas we use for describing the state stop working, so "we don't know".

Edited February 26, 2017 by Green Baron

[Gaarst]

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

As to what happens to matter in the singularity: as far as i understand it does not exist. If a collapse of a large mass continues from the neutron-star stage towards the singularity then the formulas we use for describing the state stop working, so "we don't know".

That's the problem. As Steel said, external observations of the black hole as a whole suggest that it is only defined by its mass, charge and angular momentum. But in quantum physics you have information encoded in particles through superposition of states, according to general relativity this information is lost, which shouldn't be possible when looking at things at the quantum level.

There are a few workarounds to make things not too bad, but we'll need a ToE for that one.

[Green Baron]

13 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

That's the problem. As Steel said, external observations of the black hole as a whole suggest that it is only defined by its mass, charge and angular momentum. But in quantum physics you have information encoded in particles through superposition of states, according to general relativity this information is lost, which shouldn't be possible when looking at things at the quantum level.

There are a few workarounds to make things not too bad, but we'll need a ToE for that one.

ToE ? Vertebrate distal parts of the skeleton come to my mind :-)

 

Edit: i got it "Theory of Everything" !

Edited February 26, 2017 by Green Baron

[John FX]

3 hours ago, Gaarst said:

That's the problem. As Steel said, external observations of the black hole as a whole suggest that it is only defined by its mass, charge and angular momentum. But in quantum physics you have information encoded in particles through superposition of states, according to general relativity this information is lost, which shouldn't be possible when looking at things at the quantum level.

There are a few workarounds to make things not too bad, but we'll need a ToE for that one.

You bring up an interesting point with quantum information. If we had two entangled photons and one fell into a black hole, could we infer information about the state of the entangled photon inside the event horizon by examining the one remaining outside?

It is said that information can be passed from one to the other faster than the speed of light which implies we could get information about a place it is not possible to return from physically. Like the camera which produces an image of a subject from photons which have not interacted with the subject image.

[kerbiloid]

If the info gets lost, how this physical process can be time-invariant?

[p1t1o]

Lots of interesting comments so I will not quote everything, but some relevant points:

Quantum entanglement - It has not so far been shown that quantum entanglement can be used to transmit any kind of information. The concept is more akin to an encryption key, than a transmitted message.

Event horizons - The event horizon is only a virtual boundary where escape velocity = 1.0c, nothing in particular special necessarily occurs there. With large black holes (like the super-heavy ones you find in galactic centres) the gravity gradient at the event horizon can be very, very mild - in that you would not actually notice *anything* as you crossed it. Oh, I mean you'd definitley notice that you were falling towards a giant black hole, but nothing would happen to you as you crossed the horizon. With smaller holes, the horizon is closer to where the extreme gradients start.

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If the info gets lost, how this physical process can be time-invariant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by p1t1o

[YNM]

18 hours ago, John FX said:

If we had two entangled photons and one fell into a black hole, could we infer information about the state of the entangled photon inside the event horizon by examining the one remaining outside?

That's a problem - you can't keep photon stationary...

The only way to do an entanglement measurement is by measuring both objects. If you send one into a blackhole, who would measure that end ?

[WinkAllKerb'']

it (may happen that it) collide f a s t

acretion disk @pole axis + reverted tornado/syphon/sink ... ... fragmentation grenades anyone + rotation + centrifugation + keppler + saturn ring, so  ? (sort of ... mays be ... seem legit ... ) ... more simple that some may think somehow 

Edited February 28, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
hint hint .. oh wand while sayin' i m sayin nothin' ... *freetaunt* on/off

[HebaruSan]

On 2/27/2017 at 3:34 AM, p1t1o said:

Event horizons - The event horizon is only a virtual boundary where escape velocity = 1.0c, nothing in particular special necessarily occurs there.

Agreed that no special gravitational tidal force-related events occur, but I thought it was still an open question whether you hit a "firewall" falling in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)

[John FX]

On 27/02/2017 at 10:55 AM, YNM said:

That's a problem - you can't keep photon stationary...

The only way to do an entanglement measurement is by measuring both objects. If you send one into a blackhole, who would measure that end ?

Did a bit of googling and found that entanglement is useless for sending data (can`t send information) but invaluable for using a shared key when encrypting and decrypting so you`re absolutely right about needing to measure both ends. Also found this at stackexchange in answer to a similar question.
 

It`s rather long so I have put it inside a spoiler

Spoiler

 

This question is the black hole information paradox. If you take two entangled particles, make a black hole by colliding two highly energetic photons, throw in one of the two entangled particles, and wait for the black hole to decay, is the remaining untouched particle entangled with anything anymore?

In Hawking's original view, the infalling particle would no longer be in communication with our universe, and the entanglement would be converted to a pure density matrix from our point of view. The particle outside would no longer be entangled with anything we can see in our causal part of the universe. Then when the black hole decays, the outgoing Hawking particles of the decay would not be entangled with the untouched particle.

This point of view is incompatible with quantum mechanics, since it takes a pure state to a density matrix. It is known today to be incorrect, since in models of quantum gravity when AdS/CFT works, the theory is still completely unitary.

This means that the particle stays entangled with something as its partner crosses the horizon. This "thing" is whatever degrees of freedom the black hole has, those degrees of freedom that make up its entropy. When the black hole decays completely, the outgoing particles are determined by these microscopic variables, and at no point was there ever a loss of coherence in the entanglement.

This point of view requires that the information about the particle that fell through the horizon is also contained in the measurable outside state of the black hole. This is t'Hoofts holographic principle as extended into Susskind's black hole complementarity, the principle that the degrees of freedom of a black hole encode the infalling matter completely in externally measurable variables. This point of view is nearly universal today, because we have model quantum gravity situations where this is clearly what happens.

 

 

Followed it up to the last paragraph or so.

Edited February 28, 2017 by John FX

[p1t1o]

13 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Agreed that no special gravitational tidal force-related events occur, but I thought it was still an open question whether you hit a "firewall" falling in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)

Well to be fair, there are lots of open questions about BHs!

Im not a professional astrophysicist, but hypotheses like "arbitrarily hot barriers" tend not to resolve if you ask me. Thats just my gut though, very unscientific. When science starts talking about information as a physical quantity, my mind starts to swim.

Edited March 1, 2017 by p1t1o
spelling

[Green Baron]

That's where physics and metaphysics blend. Experiments, the very basic principle of natural science to test a hypothesis, are difficult or in the case of black holes impossible. Thought experiments instead are only a weak substitute. They depend, like the geoscientists beloved simulations, on available data and knowledge.

Quantum entanglement: if your partner drives with you to the airport, then boards a plane, you return to the car but do not find the key you immediately know that it is on the plane :-)

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

No particle can be treated as fundamental until it is a pure mathematics, a pure wave function.

Also, what's "into" in this context? We already know what's "inside"? Afaik, quantum and relativistic theories still not got married.

[YNM]

5 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Quantum entanglement: if your partner drives with you to the airport, then boards a plane, you return to the car but do not find the key you immediately know that it is on the plane :-)

There's a massive gap for them to fall in the way, get stolen, passed to another person, flew by the wind...

It also applies to quantum entanglement : measurements don't tell you it's actual wavefunction. It's only the state it fell to, and it may be different in both cases (of either entangled ends). You can only say whether it's close or not. That's why most encryption schemes over quantum link asks for state of measurements.

[Nathair]

On 2017-02-26 at 7:10 AM, Gaarst said:

We do know that black holes have no hair which is a bit of a problem.

Do Black Holes Have No Hair?

(plus)

Edited March 1, 2017 by Nathair

[Zerxal]

Nobody honestly knows what happens inside a black whole - even if you could enter it. You would get spaggetified very quickly, too fast to see what was going on. 

[WinkAllKerb'']

mathematisation & conceptualisation walk side by side, often at some point they merge, and some time new branchs open afterward

entering one is fairly easy, (without speaking of the time required as for now to reach one), the concern is how to use the way it behave to get something back ^^ and this is where imo there an apple falling on someone head simple trick to "exploit", because a black hole seem to "poo" dust top & bottom, so if we send something in, can we make the black hole "poo" it afterward away from the event horizon and eventually get data back.

me think there a way to achieve that in a lot of later generation data recovery exploiting that "poo poo" mechanics ^^^^ the fun it might be energy free to get out ^^ the concern is more to get something still readable after bein' pooed out ^^ but why not why not ^^

-----

just a question, any size idea about thoose accretion disk particle single element ? because depending size, it depend what can be inside in a fonctionning/marked/readable state afterward ^^ and how to maximize statistically that someething get pooopooed , but frag grenade concept may help here and "data"/"mark" copy within the said frag may help // container structural integrety and captor stuff, undoable not sure ... it's a bet about aiming a specific location to maximize the chance of getting usable pooed fragment/element ... 
if a good bet, anyway the data harvest will be in very very very later ^^ but it might worth a try ^^

edit & refs after some searchs: "relativistic beaming" and "astrophisical jet", are metaphorically a form of "poo", there's definetly more info to get from thoose phenomenom than actually imo

Edited March 4, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
[log]§[/log]