Where could the blackhole created after the event creating sol and nearby systems be?

[Sirrobert]

No data? What about the mass? Compare the black hole that K^2 referenced to Cygnus X-1. How do we know that Sagittarius-A* is about 300 000 times as massive as Cygnus X-1? Both are very good black hole candidates. We have a good idea of how much mass is within each of their respective event horizons. That is data about what is inside, isn't it? How did it get out?

Mass is data. Mass is NOT data that's being transmitted.

NOTHING can escape a black hole. Including in this nothing is any kind of radiation/photon/radiowave/anything-esle-I-negleted-to-mention-in-this-example carying some form of data (light is a form of data)

And we got it just as we get everything else we know about black holes (or THINK we know about black holes). Indirect observation.

Besides, how did we figure out the mass of the sun? We didn't put it on a scale, I can tell you that.

We used it's gravity. check it out

Edited July 12, 2013 by Sirrobert

[stupid_chris]

NOTHING can escape a black hole. Including in this nothing is any kind of radiation/photon/radiowave/anything-esle-I-negleted-to-mention-in-this-example carying some form of data (light is a form of data)

Black holes can emit gamma radiations though. Especially when consuming matter, jet's of high energy gamma radiation going at ridiculous speeds can be emitted from the black hole's pole.

[Themohawkninja]

Black holes can emit gamma radiations though. Especially when consuming matter, jet's of high energy gamma radiation going at ridiculous speeds can be emitted from the black hole's pole.

Only when consuming matter as I understand it. Black holes (excluding the very faint Hawking radiation) emit nothing when they are not consuming matter.

[stupid_chris]

Only when consuming matter as I understand it. Black holes (excluding the very faint Hawking radiation) emit nothing when they are not consuming matter.

Black hole collisions can also create gamma flashes if I'm not mistaken. But yes, the only chances you would have of detecting one is while it's eating breakfast.

[Themohawkninja]

Could you cite your source where you got the information of the origin of Sol from? I know that Sol is a generation II star, which means that another stellar object came before it, but that object didn't necessarily have to end it's life as a neutron star or a black hole. It could have been the result of a hypergiant star who's mass exceeded the Eddington limit, and thereby the stellar material was throw off into space, or Sol could have been the result of some other event.

[Themohawkninja]

Black hole collisions can also create gamma flashes if I'm not mistaken. But yes, the only chances you would have of detecting one is while it's eating breakfast.

Would a black hole merger count as consuming matter?

Yeah, black hole mergers do a lot more crazy things than just that. The magnetic fields fluctuate a lot, and gravity waves are emitted... violent stuff.

[stupid_chris]

Would a black hole merger count as consuming matter?

Yeah, black hole mergers do a lot more crazy things than just that. The magnetic fields fluctuate a lot, and gravity waves are emitted... violent stuff.

Idk we'd hae to discuss the fact of "Is a black hole actual matter" and that question can go from a philosophical point of view to a scientific one and I'd rather not, my head hurts tonight xD

[Themohawkninja]

Idk we'd hae to discuss the fact of "Is a black hole actual matter" and that question can go from a philosophical point of view to a scientific one and I'd rather not, my head hurts tonight xD

It has mass, and takes up space... isn't that all you need for something to be matter?

[Kryten]

It doesn't take up space though. The 'radius' of a black hole is simply the distance where the gravitational attraction reaches the point of no return.

[Themohawkninja]

It doesn't take up space though. The 'radius' of a black hole is simply the distance where the gravitational attraction reaches the point of no return.

Oh... now I see where this debate can get out of hand, because my first thought to reading that is: "But black holes are made from normal matter imploding, so it should still be matter, even if it takes up a super-tiny space." Then I realized that unless we discover some quantum version of electron/quark degeneracy force, there is no resistance to gravity.

[stupid_chris]

Oh... now I see where this debate can get out of hand, because my first thought to reading that is: "But black holes are made from normal matter imploding, so it should still be matter, even if it takes up a super-tiny space." Then I realized that unless we discover some quantum version of electron/quark degeneracy force, there is no resistance to gravity.

Well technically, black holes are a singularity. They virtually have no volume and no surface area. They're just... there. They have a mass and an infinite density, and that's about what we know about them.

[Themohawkninja]

Well technically, black holes are a singularity. They virtually have no volume and no surface area. They're just... there. They have a mass and an infinite density, and that's about what we know about them.

Here is where I can throw a real curveball (that I have just learned as of a few minutes ago from watching a cool video on black holes). Black holes that spin create a centripetal force that pushes the matter that makes up the singularity outwards, which thereby (and this is where my though process comes in) should create volume.

[WestAir]

It doesn't take up space though. The 'radius' of a black hole is simply the distance where the gravitational attraction reaches the point of no return.

I've always had a problem with comprehending the concept of "infinitely small radius." and "infinite density."

I've heard there's a point where an object can be too large to exist. (If a Star grows too large, the photon pressure actually tears it apart, creating a physical upward limit on the size of a star, or any object really). As for infinitely small, I feel like there should be a point where clumps of subatomic particles can get no closer. You mean to tell me all of the matter/energy/particles that make up entire stars can be squished into a space smaller than the Planck Length? That there's no force or resistance that says "Uh, it's kind of crowded in here. Why don't you particles just have a seat over there?"? - I mean, we know their are forces that stop an atom from imploding, or stop the quarks in subatomic particles from colliding. We know that matter can not exist in the same space, at the same time, as other matter. I just feel like an actual textbook singularity is an impossibility, but my specialty is aeronautical science, not astronomy, and I'm not even that great at that.

Back on topic, I want to agree with the other posters that suggest the singularity in question, if it ever existed, was probably ejected from the MWG or at the very least found its way to a completely different orbit than that of the Sol System.

[Themohawkninja]

I've always had a problem with comprehending the concept of "infinitely small radius." and "infinite density."

It's because when you do the math, you end up with the answer being 1/0, which equals "complex infinity" that is always described as "just" infinity.

[stupid_chris]

I've always had a problem with comprehending the concept of "infinitely small radius." and "infinite density."

I've heard there's a point where an object can be too large to exist. (If a Star grows too large, the photon pressure actually tears it apart, creating a physical upward limit on the size of a star, or any object really). As for infinitely small, I feel like there should be a point where clumps of subatomic particles can get no closer. You mean to tell me all of the matter/energy/particles that make up entire stars can be squished into a space smaller than the Planck Length? That there's no force or resistance that says "Uh, it's kind of crowded in here. Why don't you particles just have a seat over there?"? - I mean, we know their are forces that stop an atom from imploding, or stop the quarks in subatomic particles from colliding. We know that matter can not exist in the same space, at the same time, as other matter. I just feel like an actual textbook singularity is an impossibility, but my specialty is aeronautical science, not astronomy, and I'm not even that great at that.

Actually, that's exactly the problem with black holes. They really have no volume at all. It's hard as crap to understand, and the concept of infinity has some trouble sinking in for me too, but that's probably the truth. A black hole happens when something collapses on itself. Many things can trigger this, but the result is the same in the end: an object of an incredible density. So dense, that it pulls on it's outer layer strongly enough to pull it closer. And as it does, it's density keeps increasing. And that causes the outer layer to come in closer, and increasing the density and... you see the pattern, right? In the end, you're left with an object who's mass can vary, but whose density is infinite. This necessarily comes along with a volume of zero.

At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity

Now everybody throw your hands in the air for physics and logic!

EDIT:

Here is where I can throw a real curveball (that I have just learned as of a few minutes ago from watching a cool video on black holes). Black holes that spin create a centripetal force that pushes the matter that makes up the singularity outwards, which thereby (and this is where my though process comes in) should create volume.

Ouch, my head still hurts too much for this tonight. I'll watch it tomorrow, but IIRC, another special thing about black holes that spin is that they form a disk... that still doesn't have any volume. But it's different from other black holes because when they don't spin, they're just a point singularity, but when they spin they become a disk singularity and they both don't have any volume and... my brain is gonna kill me. Seriously, this headache is not pleasant. I'll try to limit my brain usage for tonight and go do a few calculus exercises, nothing better to relax. (Not really, I'm just gonna go watch Mythbusters)

Edited July 12, 2013 by stupid_chris

[Sirrobert]

Mythbusters is just explosions, I call that relaxing

Wait I mean science: They write it down

Anyway: This is why I love black holes. So extremely complex, so impossible to understand, that I want to know more of them

[tomf]

Isn't it that we don't know what is going on at the center of a black hole, Relativity predicts a point of infinite density, but at the scales involved we require quantum theory and no-one yet knows how to combine the two?

[stupid_chris]

Isn't it that we don't know what is going on at the center of a black hole, Relativity predicts a point of infinite density, but at the scales involved we require quantum theory and no-one yet knows how to combine the two?

There are a few theories about black holes, you can always look at the wikipedia page, I think the main two are explained there pretty well. But basically most theories agree that a spinning black hole behaves and looks differently than a static one. So much for the laws of physics.

[InfinityArch]

There's also the fact that the singularity model of a black hole violates the notion in quantum mechanics that states a particle cannot occupy a space smaller than its wavelength, one of the reasons most(? Correct me if I'm wrong here, high level QM has always made me "WUT") theories of quantum gravity do away with the singularity.

Edited July 15, 2013 by InfinityArch