Jump to content
Steve de Jonge

The ebb and flow of the light.

Recommended Posts

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.
 
I can understand early astronomers thinking that stars explode (there was literally nothing else to think) but once the existence of black holes was established, surely a rethink was required.
 
Take a step back, from what you think you know about cosmology, and have another look, considering this: The greater universe is littered with vast bright objects emitting eternal light and vast dark objects absorbing it - anyone with any imagination, at all, ought to wonder, "is this some sort of cycle?"
 
Stars are about implosion, not explosion, and have the perfect mechanism for releasing the heat energy generated. black holes, on the other hand, which must continue to generate heat right up to the moment of reaching maximum density, have no such mechanism and must, therefore, be considered explosive. Consider what a black hole is (all of the matter from a star's universe, all planets and debris reabsorbed, minus most of its light) and what it does (sits in space for billions of years harvesting light from every star it can see) and think what will happen when it has finally absorbed exactly, down to the last photon, the same amount of light that it emitted as a star.
 
Einstein hasn't helped here, by his assertion that - the equal and opposite reaction to a ten billion year implosion is a wormhole to Narnia; but surely, on regaining all its light, it comes up hard against the point of critical mass, and begins the two stage (emission/absorption) implosion phase of the cycle (yet again) with a 'Big Bang'? It's a solar system, not a series of random solar incidents.
 
Merry Christmas,
Steve de Jonge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many total photons does a star emit in its life and how many photons does a black hole absorb in a given amount of time? And finally, how long will it take a black hole to absorb the number of photons it emitted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Steve de Jonge said:
I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings in your post. 

Quote
I can understand early astronomers thinking that stars explode (there was literally nothing else to think) but once the existence of black holes was established, surely a rethink was required.

Not sure how you define "recent" but the idea that stars explode dates back to about 1860, and was based on observational evidence (e.g. spectroscopy).

Quote
Take a step back, from what you think you know about cosmology, and have another look, considering this: The greater universe is littered with vast bright objects emitting eternal light and vast dark objects absorbing it - anyone with any imagination, at all, ought to wonder, "is this some sort of cycle?"

It is a cycle in the sense that black holes are (mainly) created by supernova explosions. But that's t. It is pretty much a one way street.

Quote
Stars are about implosion, not explosion, and have the perfect mechanism for releasing the heat energy generated. black holes, on the other hand, which must continue to generate heat right up to the moment of reaching maximum density, have no such mechanism and must, therefore, be considered explosive.

During their lifetime, stars are neither implosion nor explosion. They steadily "burn" hydrogen by fusion to create helium and, eventually, some heavier elements. That is a fairly stable process, until the star starts to run out of hydrogen. Then the energy from fusion is no longer enough to stop gravitational collapse. At that point, the star can implode and form a neutron star or a black hole, depending on the mass of the star. This is also an explosion, as a large part of the mass is blown away by the energy released. 

Black holes do not release energy or explode, unless they are really, really tiny. And, as far as we know, no such small black holes exist.

Quote
Consider what a black hole is (all of the matter from a star's universe, all planets and debris reabsorbed, minus most of its light) and what it does (sits in space for billions of years harvesting light from every star it can see) and think what will happen when it has finally absorbed exactly, down to the last photon, the same amount of light that it emitted as a star.

That is not what a black hole is. Most appear to be formed from the death of stars. The really supermassive ones may have been created by direct collapse of large clouds of gas, but we don't really know yet.

While it is is true that light will fall into a black hole and not escape, that is not from "every star they can see". Black holes are relatively small so the amount of light that falls into them will be minute, as a proportion of the light emitted by stars.

Most of the growth of black holes comes from matter that falls in. Typically from stars or clouds of gas that get too close.

A black hole can grow much larger than the star that formed it. Especially if it merges with another black hole, for example. There is, as far as we know, no limit to how large a black hole can get. So the answer to "what will happen" is ... nothing. It will just carry on absorbing any matter or light that gets too close.

Quote
Einstein hasn't helped here, by his assertion that - the equal and opposite reaction to a ten billion year implosion is a wormhole to Narnia

I am not aware that Einstein ever said anything about a wormhole to Narnia. Can you provide a reference?

Quote
; but surely, on regaining all its light, it comes up hard against the point of critical mass, and begins the two stage (emission/absorption) implosion phase of the cycle (yet again) with a 'Big Bang'? It's a solar system, not a series of random solar incidents.

No. It does not come up against any sort of critical mass. Nor does it explode to create a solar system (if that is what you are suggesting).

Quote
Merry Christmas,
Steve de Jonge

And to you.

 

!

Moderator Note

As you are not asking questions but making assertions (with no real evidence) I have to move this to Speculations. Please read the special rules associated with this part of the forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve de Jonge said:

 

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

 

AFAIK supernova models matches observations pretty well. Since you have reason to believe that to be plain wrong, can you provide a reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve de Jonge said:

I recently had cause to look up the definition of supernova, and can only conclude that it is just plain wrong.

 

There is couple different types of supernovas. e.g.

Supernova explosion can be result of collapse. Star's core runs out of fuel which can readily fuse. Iron atom cannot fuse with other iron atom at low temperatures as it is highly endothermic reaction. Therefor outer layers of star are no longer pushed away by particles created by core during regular fusion, and they collapse toward core. During this stage particles of outer layers accelerate to significant velocities gaining kinetic energy (prior explosion super giant star can have hundred millions kilometers diameter). When they hit core, or other particles from outer layers, explosion of supernova begins..

Do you agree with this? If you disagree, with this type of supernova, explain with details.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Not sure how you define "recent" but the idea that stars explode dates back to about 1860, and was based on observational evidence (e.g. spectroscopy).

Kepler's Supernova was in 1604.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_Supernova

In 1572 there was supernova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572

In 1885 there was supernova in Andromeda galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1885A

 

 

 

Wikipedia article of SN 1572 reveals origin of name of supernova. Tycho Brahe on stellar map and in his book called it "nova stella" (new star).

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sensei said:

Kepler's Supernova was in 1604.

But they didn’t know it was an explosion, then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.