Environmental Graffiti’s Guide to Black Holes

Fri, Feb 6, 2009

Featured

Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.

Singularity, the Event Horizon, Donuts and Falling into a Black Hole
Black Hole - artist conception
Image: NASA Artist’s conception of a black hole with plasma jets and accretion disk

Some stars die in massive implosions that only stabilize with the creation of a ’singularity’ – often a supernova, or super star implosion/explosion – which throws vast quantities of dust, gas and radiation at several wavelengths into the universe. The spectral pattern across the radiation spectrum is distinctive and sometimes meets the requirements for the signature of a black hole. Radiation, including visible light, that is captured by a black hole cannot escape and astronomers cannot ’see’ a black hole at any wavelength. The boundary beyond which all matter is sucked into the black hole and can never escape is the ‘event horizon’. Astronomers can see and study what happens to gas and radiation at the event horizon immediately before the material is drawn into the black hole by its immense gravitational force. Radiation is emitted at several wavelengths and objects can orbit a black hole indefinitely at the event horizon. Einstein had predicted the existence of black holes, and spectral analysis of the radiation released by the violent activity just outside the event horizon led astronomers to the discovery of the spectral pattern that identifies real black holes in our real universe. A complicated analysis of gas spirals as they fall inward towards the event horizon revealed X-ray emission whose intensity varies over a regular repeating pattern. This Quasi-Periodic Oscillation depends on the mass of the black hole. The higher the QPO frequency, the closer the event horizon is to a black hole. Small black holes have close-in event horizons and high QPO. Large black holes have event horizons further out and lower QPO frequency.

Supermassive Black Hole
black hole - Supermassive Black Hole.
Image: Harvard University

We will never see black holes directly, but we can determine where they live, their coordinates and much of what they do. The very low thermal radiation predicted by Stephen Hawking to be emitted by black holes is controversial and has never been confirmed. The black hole itself, invisible except for the atomic radiation events just outside its edge, possesses massive gravity whose strength has no equal anywhere in the universe. A black hole is a ’singularity’, which in the specialized vocabulary of atomic physics and quantum dynamics means that the laws of physics as we know them in the visible universe do not apply. What does apply is only beginning to be understood because black holes have infinite mass, but no volume and no dimensions. Furthermore, black holes are surrounded by a region of space-time (the true 4th dimension) called the ergosphere in which it is impossible to stand still. Research announced in December, 2008 confirmed that black holes and the material just outside the event horizon can be pictured as a donut. A comprehensive study was made of the centers of 245 galaxies that are powered by disks of hot material feeding a super-massive black hole. Results revealed an ordered physical structure shaped like a donut that is independent of the black hole’s size. The black hole itself, of course, is the hole in the donut.

Black Hole – Ergosphere
black hole - ergosphere.
Image: Wikipedia

Let’s talk about falling into a black hole – something to be avoided at all costs. A black hole’s gravity is so strong, it can pull objects apart at the atomic level when they are just inside the event horizon. Hadrons in the nucleus will be torn apart into their constituent quarks. The process is called spaghettification – although no one predicts the creation of pasta shaped objects. Spaghettification is odd because how gravity interacts over distance is the defining parameter not the absolute strength of the gravitational field. Small black holes have the greatest capacity to tear objects apart while objects falling into massive black holes might remain largely intact.

Imagine we are close to a black hole, our space ship has stopped not far from the event horizon of a black hole and we are watching a planet with intelligent life and civilizations that has been captured by the immense gravity of a black hole. Before the planet crosses the event horizon, it experiences time dilation – the slowing down of time – relative to those of us beyond the gravitational field of the black hole and outside the event horizon . As we watch, all active processes on the planet seem to be slowing down as it approaches the event horizon. Gravitational time dilation will approach infinity for the falling planet as it travels closer and closer to the event horizon. When it is very close to the event horizon, we notice that the planet appears red because as objects approach the speed of light, their visible light spectrum shifts towards red wavelengths. The planet is also becoming very faint and difficult to see. At a point just before the event horizon, it ‘disappears’. Faint red light carries very little energy because the frequency of light now completes fewer cycle per ‘tick’ of the clocks we watch as outside observers. However, from the viewpoint of those on the planet falling into the black hole, we appear blue because distant objects as viewed from this planet inside the event horizon appear blue-shifted.

To those of us watching outside the event horizon, it appears to take an infinite amount of time for the planet to cross the event horizon. To those on the planet, at first there is nothing unusual that can be seen or heard and objects outside the event horizon are still visible. When it is very close to the black hole singularity, everything on this captured planet is torn apart down to the atomic level where subatomic particles are ripped away from one another. Once inside the black hole – in the singularity – we have almost no ideas and no good theories for what happens.

Black Hole disrupts and swallows nearby star
Supermassive Black Hole.
Image: Harvard University

albert einstein The History of the Black Hole >

black holes, singularity, what happens when you fall inside a black hole Tiny Black Holes that Devour Stuff!>

Pages: 1 2 3 4

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes

“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”


This post was written by:

Bennett - who has written 65 posts on Environmental Graffiti.


Contact the author

7 Comments For This Post

Leave a Reply

  1. Ryan Haupt Says:

    I think it is intellectually irresponsible to claim that the black holes potentially produced by the LHC could be life-threatening. If the comment was made in jest it should be noted that the tone was lost in the writing. Furthermore, from what I could find you cite no sources for these “very worried physicists”.

    Here is a link to the Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC (http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf). If you don’t care to read it allow me to sum it all up with a quote: “Thus we conclude that black-hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal processes.”

    Hope this helps.

  2. Spencer Says:

    This article is a complete waste of time. As a guide to black holes it is utterly useless.

  3. jos Says:

    Looks cool…but are they really black.

  4. Bennett (author) Says:

    Ryan -
    The article you reference was read and understood by me some time ago. It is noted in this article that a ‘few’ scientists are worried about dangers they perceive (?imagine) might result from micro black holes produced by the next round of experiments at CERN. I agree these worries are ‘fringe’ concerns and not supported by the research reported in the link provided. Mentioning them is not ‘intellectually irresponsible’, it merely notice of events that have appeared in recent news as the result of several petitions to US and European courts. For a good discussion of these fears and the studies that led to potential lawsuits, read this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. This article has an extensive bibliography with many links and references to flawed research by those upset by the design of the CERN experiments, news reports of court petitions, independent safety studies commissioned by CERN etc. At the end of the day, these ‘concerns’ appear to have no substance and have been solidly refuted as you correctly point out.

    Re-read the last paragraph of this article.. slowly. “Minute black holes, such as those modeled for the LHC experiments, are predicted by many physicists to undergo runaway evaporation and disappear in a final burst of radiation.” That is, they are harmless. The tiniest of black holes end their short lives in a burst of minute radiation. I think we are both in agreement.

    Thanks for checking in and commenting..

    Bennett

  5. Ryan Haupt Says:

    Bennett,

    Yeah, I’ll agree that calling it “intellectually irresponsible” was overly harsh. I apologize for that. Upon first reading it seemed a little sensational and I suppose that I am just overly sensitive to perceived misreporting.

    The one lawsuit I remember hearing reported was the botanist from Hawaii who frankly seemed not to have the slightest idea what he was talking about, scientifically or legally.

    While this entire LHC experiment is hugely novel it seems that every precaution is being taken to keep Earth safe. The science also seems to support the claim that the LHC is a safe machine. This quality analysis and relative consensus among the scientific community should be given weight over the claims of a few ‘fringe’ scientists, to say nothing of any ulterior motives for outspoken disapproval. I don’t mean to discount the possibility of a revolutionary discovery proving the consensus wrong, but such events are rare enough that the should not come to be expected.

    My own fields (evolution and climatology) are extremely susceptible to reporting that portrays both sides of the “debate” as equal in scale and legitimacy and I was worried that a similar misrepresentation was occurring here.

    I also did not mean to imply that you wouldn’t have read the necessary prerequisite literature on the subject, my intention posting the article with my summary quote was for the larger reading public, that in all likelihood wouldn’t bother reading such a dense and technical document.

    To finish, I agree that we are also in agreement. Thanks for the thoughtful response. It’s nice to find that is it indeed possible to have a civil and open discussion online that is drowned out by noise and name calling.

    Best,
    Ryan

  6. Moogle Says:

    I have to agree with Ryan’s first comment more than his second.

    From your response, it’s clear that you’re AWARE that the argument you put on the intro is bull, and that you put it on the front page makes it clear that you intend to use the controversy to make the article more ‘dramatic’.

    A short blurb at the end about how ‘most’ ‘predict’ it won’t be a problem doesn’t make you innocent. It’s an incredibly weak statement, especially in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the area. How hard would have been to mention that collisions as and more powerful than LHC’s happen in our atmosphere all the time and have been for billions of years, which anyone can understand nullifies the concerns without depending on what scientists say? And it’s still irresponsible to overstate the problem on the intro and retract it on the last page.

    The disparity in language between lay use and science is a huge sticking point. We’re all aware that if you’re being pedantic, nothing’s 100% certain, ever. This doesn’t make it acceptable to skew facts just to hold the interest of people who come here for interesting and factual information. When ‘a few physicists’ means ‘a vanishingly small number of people who don’t work in the field’ and ‘most’ is ‘everyone who knows what they’re talking about’, then yes, you’re being intellectually irresponsible, even if those statements are technically true.

    Sorry to go on at such length, I’m not angry or anything. I just want to make it clear that over-dramatized science reporting is a problem that leads to the kinds of stupid lawsuits and public misunderstanding that hurt the research that you report on. Really, it’s possible to hold people’s interest without having to stretch a scenario where the subject matter might kill them.

    Cheers

  7. kylie Says:

    hey spencer, you’re utterly useless ?!(and stupid)

ss_blog_claim=68ded206efcf0b5d4bf955123f191aba