black holes can't be made of matter (off-topic from Quantum Fluctuations/Foam)

[MarkE]

5 hours ago, interested said:

How does a zero energy universe expalin the expansion of space and black holes.

The zero-energy Universe states that there's just as much gravitational potential energy as "normal" energy (the Standard Model particles). In other words, the "not stuff" is equal to "stuff". Not only objects (made of energetic particles) can exert mass. Massless photons for instance are attracted to black holes as well, and black holes can't be made of matter. How do we know this? Because a neutron star is the densest form of matter known, with a mass between 1,4 and 3 Solar masses (though before this state a neutron star was a normal star, with about 10 – 30 Solar masses), in which the electrons have been driven into the nuclei by reverse beta decay. Black holes of course can have a much more mass than 3 Solar masses, so a black hole therefore can't be an object (made of Standard Model "stuff") which exerts attraction to its surroundings. We've created the concept "dark matter" for the same reason, because our "normal" Standard Model matter can't explain all the mass we measure.

Edited May 15, 2018 by MarkE

[Mordred]

When one studies the mathematics a white hole makes the least amount of sense. The model attempts makes numerous different attempts to maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe in order to counter various WH and BH dynamics. Spin and torsion being only two.

 

3 minutes ago, MarkE said:

 Because a neutron star is the densest form of matter known (with masses between 1,4 and 3 Solar masses), in which the electrons have been driven into the nuclei by reverse beta decay. Black holes of course can have a much more mass than 3 Solar masses, so a black hole therefore can't be an object (made of Standard Model "stuff") 

 

 This is incorrect a BH can and is most likely still made up of SM particles, only fermions count as matter particles. Simply because we can measure a neutron star and not the insides of an EH does not preclude the possibility of greater densities than a neutron star.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, MarkE said:

  black holes can't be made of matter.

...

a black hole therefore can't be an object (made of Standard Model "stuff") which exerts attraction to its surroundings.

Um, what?

[MarkE]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Um, what?

In GR, massless photons are attracted by a black hole. How would that be possible if only objects would be able exert gravitational attraction to (massive) objects? There's no evidence which shows that black holes are actual objects. So therefore:

18 minutes ago, Mordred said:

a BH can and is most likely still made up of SM particles

is not evident. I'm not supporting it. On what grounds? Because not only SM objects are able to have mass (called "dark matter").  

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by MarkE

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, MarkE said:

In GR, massless photons are attracted by a black hole. How would that be possible if only objects would be able exert gravitational attraction to (massive) objects?

In GR (and, in fact, in Newtonian gravity) photons are affected by any mass. Hence gravitational lensing.

Quote

There's no evidence which shows that black holes are actual objects.

How are you defining "object"?

Edited May 15, 2018 by Strange

[MarkE]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

How are you defining "object"?

Made of particles that are on the Standard Model.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, MarkE said:

In GR, massless photons are attracted by a black hole. How would that be possible if only objects would be able exert gravitational attraction to (massive) objects?

GR doesn't claim that gravity only affect massive objects.

21 minutes ago, MarkE said:

There's no evidence which shows that black holes are actual objects. So therefore:

Again, what?

21 minutes ago, MarkE said:

is not evident. I'm not supporting it. On what grounds? Because not only SM objects are able to have mass (called "dark matter").  

 

I don't care if you support it or not. If it's not mainstream physics, keep it out of the discussion.

[MarkE]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I don't care if you support it or not. If it's not mainstream physics, keep it out of the discussion.

Mainstream physics? There's no established physics regarding this subject, since the scientific community doesn't quite know what dark matter is. But if I understand you correctly, you don't want to discuss that subject outside of the borders of mainstream physics that you do understand. I'll respect that, so I won't mingle anymore in this topic with my viewpoints.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, MarkE said:

There's no established physics regarding this subject

The subjects is quantum fluctuations. This is part of (mainstream) quantum theory. And has little or nothing to do with black holes or dark matter.

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, MarkE said:

Black holes of course can have a much more mass than 3 Solar masses, so a black hole therefore can't be an object (made of Standard Model "stuff") which exerts attraction to its surroundings. We've created the concept "dark matter" for the same reason, because our "normal" Standard Model matter can't explain all the mass we measure.

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Students need the mainstream sections free of non-mainstream concepts.

 

[swansont]

Now that this has been moved: on what basis do you claim that black holes are not made of matter? You can form them from remnants of regular stars, which are made of matter.

 

[beecee]

10 hours ago, MarkE said:

In GR, massless photons are attracted by a black hole. How would that be possible if only objects would be able exert gravitational attraction to (massive) objects? There's no evidence which shows that black holes are actual objects. So therefore:

In GR photons follow geodesics, and the curvature of spacetime: This curvature reaches a critical stage at EH's of BH's where there is no geodesics leading out.

[Mordred]

 Seems to me one of the confusions is association of only matter causes mass.

 This is incorrect all forms of energy density whether or not comprised of bosons or fermions can result ib mass. (resistance to inertia change).

 

[MigL]

GR predicts Black Holes are singular, which means infinite density at the singularity, and is obviously an impossibility for any type of SM matter.
We have no other workable theory of BH formation, so until we do, the best we can say is that theory predicts that BHs are not made of SM matter.

That would be the only thing I could say with our present understanding.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

GR predicts Black Holes are singular, which means infinite density at the singularity, and is obviously an impossibility for any type of SM matter.
We have no other workable theory of BH formation, so until we do, the best we can say is that theory predicts that BHs are not made of SM matter.

That would be the only thing I could say with our present understanding.

I don't see how that follows.

We know GR does not work at small scales, and singularities/infinities are considered unphysical. Further, we know of no mechanism to change the matter into something else. So why would one assume that the theory can be used to draw your conclusion?

[MigL]

We also don't know of any mechanism that can stop gravitational collapse once a certain mass is reached in a given radius.
And the only 'working' theory we currently have is GR.
Speculating on what a theory we don't yet have ( quantum gravity ) would predict, is a bigger stretch; although I agree, singularities imply something is not right, and I don't believe they exist either.
( but without a theory to back it up, its just a hunch )

Edited May 16, 2018 by MigL

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

We also don't know of any mechanism that can stop gravitational collapse once a certain mass is reached in a given radius.
And the only 'working' theory we currently have is GR.
Speculating on what a theory we don't yet have ( quantum gravity ) would predict, is a bigger stretch; although I agree, singularities imply something is not right, and I don't believe they exist either.
( but without a theory to back it up, its just a hunch )

I'm not relying on a theory that doesn't exist, though. I'm just not banking on the part of a theory where we know it to be wrong. Your version of "black holes aren't made of SM matter" position relies on that, plus some unknown mechanism to transform this matter into something else.

[beecee]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

GR predicts Black Holes are singular, which means infinite density at the singularity, and is obviously an impossibility for any type of SM matter.
We have no other workable theory of BH formation, so until we do, the best we can say is that theory predicts that BHs are not made of SM matter.

That would be the only thing I could say with our present understanding.

But GR and any other physical law we are aware of also are non applicable at the quantum/Planck scale...GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory once the Schwarzchild radius is reached. Relying on that then, we can envisage  normal matter continuing to collapse and be broken down into its most basic constituent parts, until the quantum/Planck level: Nothing about any change...So I'm at a loss to understand how we can assume BH's are made of anything other then good old normal standard matter. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

But GR and any other physical law we are aware of also are non applicable at the quantum/Planck scale...GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory once the Schwarzchild radius is reached. Relying on that then, we can envisage  normal matter continuing to collapse and be broken down into its most basic constituent parts, until the quantum/Planck level: Nothing about any change...So I'm at a loss to understand how we can assume BH's are made of anything other then good old normal standard matter. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Perhaps the answer in this link I posted in another thread may clear this up.......

and from https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-general-theory-of-relativity-break-down-at-the-center-of-a-black-hole

extract:

"Although general relativity has no upper limit on how much you can compress matter, theories of quantum gravity might say that it cannot be compressed beyond the Planck Density. It proposes that rather than collapsing into a singularity, the matter within a black hole will collapse until it is about a trillionth of a meter in size. At that point its density would be on the order of the Planck density".

[MigL]

"...quantum gravity MIGHT say that it cannot be compressed beyond the Planck Density"
We just don't know.
You are assuming that at the Planck level, some new mechanism steps in to resist further gravitational collapse.
But we have no idea what this mechanism is, or if it even exists.

What we do know is that compressing SM particles beyond a certain point, sets up an event horizon, effectively separating space-time from the interior of the EH. I'm not saying that the ultimate fate is necessarily a singularity, but, we know GR predicts that, at that point, nothing can stop the overwhelming crush of gravity.

IOW, I can only base predictions on what I know, not what I don't know.
G

[Mordred]

Well on a strictly speculative state, with some viability with thermal equilibrium. I suspect you will have a form of Bose-Einstein condensate state. However that is strictly speculative. In this state one would not be able to distinquish any individual particles but rather a bulk state where all Compton wavelengths will in essence overlap. Under the assumption that the lowest measurable state is in Planck units the density being at Planck density.  This will correspond to the Planck temperature.

 However this is an assumption on the UV upper bounds.

  I might be pushing it with speculating that it will be of a bosonic nature, as bosons can occupy the same space while fermions cannot, that and the theories involving fermion degeneracy past the theoretical quark degeneracy of roughly 10^20 gm/cm^3. Its been proposed that this can also reach a critical point at which time the fermionic state becomes bosonic.  

 There is some research into high temp BEC's but its still a fairly new branch of research

Here is one such article involving pions at the LHC.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.09157

 Either way sheerly hypothetical however there is some useful equations involved though it may take me a bit of time to relocate them. (more specifically on the quark degeneracy) electron, proton and neutron degeneracy are easier to track down

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

 What we do know is that compressing SM particles beyond a certain point, sets up an event horizon, effectively separating space-time from the interior of the EH. I'm not saying that the ultimate fate is necessarily a singularity, but, we know GR predicts that, at that point, nothing can stop the overwhelming crush of gravity.

IOW, I can only base predictions on what I know, not what I don't know.
G

And you know that GR fails to work before you get to a singularity, which means this is based on something you don't know.

You also know that QM says you can't have this singularity, since the position would be a delta function, and that would mean the momentum was indeterminate. But the momentum has limitations on its value, so we know that the mass can't be confined to a point.

Plus the original assertion was that "black holes can't be made of matter" implying that there is some conclusive argument (i.e. extant theory) which tells us this. The best you can assert is that we don't know. At least your arguments are tied to some physics. I can't say the same of MarkeE's assertion.

[MarkE]

On 5/15/2018 at 7:28 PM, swansont said:

Now that this has been moved: on what basis do you claim that black holes are not made of matter? You can form them from remnants of regular stars, which are made of matter.

1: There is evidence that not only matter can have mass (called: dark matter).
2: A neutron star (max 1-3 Solar masses) is the densest possible form of matter. SMBHs have much more mass than that.

It seems to me it's more far-fetched to suggest that a black hole is made of SM particles, rather than to suggest that they can't be made of SM particles. 

So what is the nature of mass anyway? I for one haven’t still been able to wrap my head around the idea that a particle, the Higgs boson, as an excitation of the Higgs field, which “gives mass to all other particles”, but this particle itself also has mass!? (Multiple masses even). Who claims to understand that?

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Further, we know of no mechanism to change the matter into something else.

Planck area is the area by which the surface of a black hole increases when a black hole swallows one bit of information (as was proven by Jacob Berkenstein). E=mc². Conversely, Hawking radiation is the decrease of a black hole's EH in size, by evaporating mass into virtual particles (which then can turn into real particles). mc²=E.

Edited May 17, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

1: There is evidence that not only matter can have mass (called: dark matter).

Dark matter is still matter (hint: it's in the name), but that's not part of this particular discussion.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

2: A neutron star (max 1-3 Solar masses) is the densest possible form of matter. SMBHs have much more mass than that.

You have asserted this, but have not supported the assertion. Repeating it is not support.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

It seems to me it's more far-fetched to suggest that a black hole is made of SM particles, rather than to suggest that they can't be made of SM particles. 

And you have provided zero physics to back you up.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

So what is the nature of mass anyway? I for one haven’t still been able to wrap my head around the idea that a particle, the Higgs boson, as an excitation of the Higgs field, which “gives mass to all other particles”, but this particle itself also has mass!? (Multiple masses even). Who claims to understand that?

Fortunately it doesn't depend on whether you understand it or not.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Planck area is the area by which the surface of a black hole increases when a black hole swallows one bit of information (as was proven by Jacob Berkenstein). E=mc². Conversely, Hawking radiation is the decrease of a black hole's EH in size, by evaporating mass into virtual particles (which then can turn into real particles). mc²=E.

And? These say nothing about your hypothetical conversion of matter into something else inside the black hole. Just that E = mc^2

 

[Mordred]

Well for one thing mass has a very definitive definition.

Mass is resistance to inertia change.

this resistance is not only involved in matter but is also involved in the field coupling constants. Every force type field has its own coupling constant which resists the inertia change of the particles being measured provided those particles interact with said field.

 mass sources include electro magnetic mass, gravitational mass, strong force mass etc. The Higgs field itself provides mass only to certain SM partivles. Ir accounts for less than 1 % the mass of a proton for example.

 

On 15/05/2018 at 6:06 PM, Mordred said:

 Seems to me one of the confusions is association of only matter causes mass.

 This is incorrect all forms of energy density whether or not comprised of bosons or fermions can result ib mass. (resistance to inertia change).

 

 

 I stated this previously above, should have been enough of a hint as I included the correct definition of mass...

 A neutron star is not the densest possible form of matter. It is the densest observed form, however there is a denser form that is theoretically viable. Ie Quark degenercy which is the theoretical step after neutron degeneracy. 

 I find it strange however that after being told only fermions count as matter particles ( which may include DM) that the Higgs field which is bosonic gives rise to mass term to certain particles that you still maintain the misconception that only matter gives rise to mass. When the Higgs field is an example of a non matter field that provides a mass term....

edit just checked above on my previous posts I forgot to include that only fermions count as matter..thought I had previous.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Mordred