Black hole conundrum

Posted: April 13, 2020 by oldbrew in Astrophysics

‘After an international coalition of scientists released the first-ever image of a black hole last year, we now have the ultimate follow-up: a video of a supermassive black hole spewing a brilliant jet of particles.’ – Futurism.

Talkshop comment:
How does visible material escaping from somewhere that nothing is supposed to escape from, work?

– – –
From Wikipedia:
‘A black hole is a region of spacetime exhibiting gravitational attraction so strong that nothing—no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from it. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole. The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon.’

Seems clear, except that ‘nothing–no particles'(Wiki) and ‘brilliant jet of particles'(report) don’t go together too well?

Futurism reports:
Scientists Release Incredible Video of Black Hole Spewing Matter
It’s the “equivalent of someone on Earth identifying an orange on the Moon.”
APRIL 8TH 2020

‘These jets leave the black hole at 99.5 percent of the speed of light, thanks to the immense forces involved in the black hole sucking up matter.’
– – –
Something doesn’t quite add up 🤔

  1. cognog2 says:

    An armchair suggestion: If two black holes get close enough for their event horizons to merge, then perhaps this would enable materials etc. to pass between them.

  2. Damian says:

    Einstein didn’t agree with Schwarzschild‘s use of his tensor equations as the Schwarzschild Radius was nothing more than a mathematical abstraction.
    Schwarzschild disagreed with the theory of Black Holes as the Schwarzschild radius stretches out to infinity and would therefore encapsulate the entire Universe.
    Einstein later wrote a paper falsifying the collapsing disc theory of Black Hole and Star formation because, as the disc collapses it retains its angular momentum and centripetal action would overcome the force of gravity causing the collapse to cease.
    Oppenheimer wrote a paper falsifying the collapsing disc model as the electromagnetic force is trillions of times stronger than gravity and would cause the collapse to cease long before nuclear fusion could be attained never mind a singularity being formed.
    You can’t have more than one Black Hole according to Black Hole theory as the event horizon is asymptotic and stretches out to infinity which also means the math can’t be used to describe anything in a Big Bang Universe as the theory describe a finite Universe.

  3. JB says:

    The entire idea is a house of cards, built on an old presumption about the universe that is false.

    Per this release, the first error is in thinking that space and time are physical entities. The second error is that they can be associated, having similar qualities such as dimension. The third a grossest of errors is reach the erroneous conclusion that there can exist more than one black hole, when Einstein’s postulate stipulated only ONE in a universe that consisted of only one mass.

    Several intelligent people have pointed this out, but no one in academia at least wants to acknowledge the fallacies.

    “There used to be a philosophical error known as ‘reification’ which was what happened when people forgot that abstract nouns were not things, and imagined Truth sitting in state in a scarlet robe, for example. This is a very, very unfashionable kind of mistake to make today (because sometimes when people did it, it was a sign that they were taking the Outside too seriously).–Celia Green

    “The theory of relativity is just a mass of error, and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to commonsense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error.”

    “Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.”–Nikola Tesla

    “The fact is that relativity, as now constituted and reduced to practice, is not a falsifiable theory. It is thus an inhabitant of the realm of religion, not of science.” —Aperion V16 #4 p514 Thomas Phipps

    “…if it isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t empirically testable—and if it is not empirically testable, it is not science at all.”–Karl Popper

    “Healthy science consists of more than experiments. If there are no experiments, its called religion. Falsifiable experiments includes disentangling belief from what is thought to be evidence.”–Dr. Alexander Unzicker


  4. oldbrew says:

    Whatever the theories are, they can’t be saying ‘no particles can escape’ alongside ‘look at those particles escaping’, without getting some pushback.

    Caption: Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape. [bold added]

    Once a particle is inside the horizon, moving into the hole is as inevitable as moving forward in time, and can actually be thought of as equivalent to doing so, depending on the spacetime coordinate system used.

  5. Kip Hansen says:

    Blackholes are THEORETICAL — that is, there is an idea that blackholes might exist based on some of Einstein’s work. There is some data that some astrophysicists believe is supporting evidence for the idea.

    This piece of news — “equivalent of someone on Earth identifying an orange on the Moon” — is apt. It is impossible for the human eye to see something of that size over that distance — and, more importantly, oranges don’t grow on the Moon so no one will be seeing one anytime soon.

    Imagery is just that — it is not proof of the existence of blackholes nor of the contradictory idea that blackholes spew out what they are, by definition, supposed to be sucking in.

    PS: I don’t think we have any solid evidence of exo-planets either — just speculation. Note: Of course there are planets circling other stars — I just don’t believe we can detect them from Earth — and certainly not predict what conditions are like on them (as the popular press often claims).

  6. oldbrew says:

    From Event Horizon Telescope: Something is Lurking in the Heart of Quasar 3C 279
    April 7, 2020

    First Event Horizon Telescope Images of a Black-Hole Powered Jet

  7. Graeme No.3 says:

    I wonder how long before someone claims it is caused by Global Warming in the black hole?

    After all there is a direct connection between a black hole and increased expenditure.

  8. konradwp1 says:

    I’m on the side of the “rice bubbles” universe (snap, crackle and pop). No big bang, just continuous fizz.

    In this model, a “black hole” is just a gravitational vortex that strips matter back to energy and sprays it from the poles, where it later condenses back to matter and new star formation begins.

  9. pochas94 says:

    Because of time dilation (as gravity gets stronger, clocks tick slower per A. Einstein) as one approaches the event horizon time theoretically stops, so infalling matter cannot fall into the BH. What it can do is flow toward a region of weaker gravity, and if the infalling matter comes from a flat disk the weakest field will be on an axis perpendicular to the plane of the disk, and that is where the jets appear.

  10. gallopingcamel says:

    JB says:
    “The entire idea is a house of cards, built on an old presumption about the universe that is false.”

    As you suggest, no theory of physics can be proved to be correct. Even if we stumbled on something that was true we could never be sure that it was true.

    That said, some of those quotes you cited were BS since Einstein’s relativity theories can be falsified, regardless of what Thomas Phipps may have believed.

    For example, Karl Popper considered the Eddington test a valid attempt to falsify relativity.

    Today we don’t need a total eclipse of the sun to test the theory of relativity. I built and operated a relativistic synchrotron that conformed to Einstein’s mechanics rather than Newton’s. If we lived in a Newtonian universe, mass would be constant so the forty bending magnets in our synchrotron would be set at 5 Gauss.

    In the real world our electrons had a mass 2,000 times their rest mass so the magnets had to be set at 10,000 Gauss (1 Tesla).

    Perhaps a more immediate application of relativistic mechanics can be found in your cell phone. Absent three separate relativistic corrections your GPS system would become useless in a matter of hours.

    The theories of relativity may be false but I plan to keep using them until something better comes along.

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    About 1970 I concocted an idea for how things could work that I called “The Steady State Big Bang” theory. It goes something like this:

    As matter falls into the singularity, time and space end. Eventually matter will all be in various black holes and our time & space become meaningless and empty.

    Momentum and energy are conserved. But in a no-space no-time context, the start of time and end of time are equal. All the matter falling in over our billions of years, comes rushing out in the instsnt when time begins, as energy, so lacking gravity. This dot of enegy is The Big Bang white hole singularity.

    Then the process of that energy turning to mass begins, gravity begins to shape the universe. Stars and galaxies form. Singularities begin sucking up all the mass, and we pick up this story where we are now.

    Time is just the arrow of momentum through space, and when space goes to zero, so does the time vector. And all that energy returns to the beginning of time, the beginning of space.

    Oh, and as mass enters the singularity, it picks up speed, which increases mass which increases gravity. Singularities keep creating more gravity until the end of time. Eventually reaching speed of light in the infalling matter, but with time stopping. We start with an all energy white hole of no mass / gravity, and end in an infinity gravity crush that returns everything to its start as just a point of energy.

    So that’s it…

    As for black holes spewing things: can’t that be crap infalling but not taken over the event horizon? Think of gravity assist orbits and such. Or magnetic heating in the solor Corona. Some stuff falling in hits the singularity and is never seen again. Other stuff gets enough energy boost to be flung back out before crossing the event horizon.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Black holes are supposed to hold particles in forever because the required escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. A video showing ‘brilliant jets’ of particles coming from a black hole (if that’s what it is) surely puts a big dent in that concept.

  13. JohnM says:

    “Black holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction. Classically, the gravitation generated by the gravitational singularity inside a black hole is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation, can escape from the black hole. It is yet unknown how gravity can be incorporated into quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, far from the black hole, the gravitational effects can be weak enough for calculations to be reliably performed in the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. Hawking showed that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black-body radiation. The electromagnetic radiation is produced as if emitted by a black body with a temperature inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole”

  14. oldbrew says:

    in the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime

    Good luck with that.

  15. peterandnen says:

    Is that the Hawking that also believed in a Climate Change Tipping Point?

  16. Damian says:

    Black Holes were attractive to theorists as they were initially supposed to be completely undetectable. Theorists love that as it allows a broader canvas to work with.
    As technology improved and were able to look deeper into the cosmos we started to detect large gravitational sinks which could be candidates for Black Holes, except these were almost always exceptionally energetic, some of the brightest objects detected.
    Instead of throwing out the failed theory it was simply curve fitted to the new data, more complexity added to the theory so that the waffling could continue.
    Experiments that give the smallest amount of data seem to be the most expensive and get the most prestige and press. Extrasolar planets, CERN, AGW.
    Piffling amounts of highly equivocated data being used to formulate theories based on hypothesis which are entirely unsubstantiated. None of it can used for anything useful.

    From the Cyberiad:
    Dragons of Probability

    “Only then did it become clear that those odious beasts enjoyed an existence quite different from that of ordinary cupboards, tables and chairs; for dragons are distinguished by their probability rather than by their actuality, though granted, that probability is overwhelming once they’ve actually come into being. Suppose, for example, one organizes a hunt for such a dragon, surrounds it, closes in, beating the brush. The circle of sportsmen, their weapons cocked and ready, finds only a burnt patch of earth and an unmistakable smell: the dragon, seeing itself cornered, has slipped from real to configurational space. An extremely obtuse and brutal creature, it does this instinctively, of course. Now, ignorant and backward persons will occasionally demand that you show them this configurational space of yours, apparently unaware that electrons, whose existence no one in his right mind would question, also move exclusively in configurational space, their comings and goings fully dependent on curves of probability. Though it is easier not to believe in electrons than in dragons: electrons, at least taken singly, won’t try to make a meal of you.”

  17. tom0mason says:

    The major problem that always comes to the fore in these kinds of questions is that we do not know what time is.
    Time appears to be a progression from a particular past to some unknown but definite future. Without a proper understanding of what time is then hypotheses such as ‘black-holes’ and their properties will continue to be postulated, even as the qualities of this ‘time’ parameter are quite unknown.

  18. hm says:

    maybe Halton Arp’s ideas? Just looking at them a bit he seemed to think of black holes as not super special, just matter within a range of compression values. enough to override Planck’s constant but not so much as keep absorbing. eventually creating jets or quasars?

    from the HaltonArp website
    “Question: What happens when gravitons encounter a black hole? ..If the density inside the concentration of matter is very high the steady flux of gravitons absorbed will eventually heat the core and eventually this energy must escape. After all it is only a local concentration of matter against the continuous push of the whole of intergalactic space. Is it reasonable to say it will escape through the path of least resistance, for example through the flattened pole of a spinning sphere which is usual picture of the nucleus? Hence the directional nature of the observed plasmoid ejections.”

  19. stpaulchuck says:

    who said those jets are going out (on their own impulse)? Why not postulate them as a counter-strike to an inward strike of some energy or unseen particles like lightning does? We’ve got dark energy and dark matter postulated, so why not try them?

    I consider 10 or 11 dimensions as reasonable (but not proven of course). So then, why not a strike from outside our 4? or even an impulse from out there due to the massive gravity warping space-time to the point it opens a crack or a door across to this part of space-time. <— where sarcasm and good writing come to play with your mind *grin* [and generate conceptual thinking of the type needed to solve this issue IMHO]

  20. Damian says:

    I kind of see multidimensional solutions as the inverse of the flat Earth position.
    A flat Earth requires one to wilfully ignore a lot of evidence for the sake of the theory whereas more than 3 dimensions requires evidence that does not exist for the sake of the theory.
    Maybe I am just a flat Universer lol.

  21. ivan says:

    I can’t help wondering if black holes are like the mythical dark matter that is used to try and fit the universe into someone’s idea of how it should work rather than looking at what they can see and fitting their ideas to that.

  22. Damian says:

    Dark Matter
    When you look through a telescope, find the Universe doesn’t conform to your theory and decide that it is the Universe that is wrong lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s