Let's talk about Black Holes

Black Hole Feats in Fictio

I believe this^ page could make a better work on explaining what are the minimum requirements to consider a supposed black hole to be one, which should be done clearly. I have heard that are A) warping light or B) being called black hole, but this is apparently not enough.

That said I've seen many users believing that this is enough, giving Black Hole Creation to characters who can't create real BHs as well as Resistance to them, and promoting the acceptation of calcs with presumably false BHs.

So basically I don't want to make a BH calc that obviously gives details about it and still have people being worried about if it is a real BH or not, this is something everyone should be able to identify based on information stated somewhere.

I read the page and while getting the basic just of it it seems very confusing and I doubt anyone would want to read it to actually see so I full heartedly agree

Bump.

Bump.

My apologies, but fiction is filled with supposed "black holes" that do not remotely share the properties of real ones, so the current instruction page (written by DontTalkDT) should preferably mostly stay the way it is.

You can ask DontTalkDT for help with making the page easier to understand though.

Well, requirements are basically just that they look like black holes, are called black holes and don't violate basic black hole properties. It's the latter 99% of all fictional black holes fail at and what is explained on the page.

Black hole creation is also given for powers that create fake black holes, I believe. Though ideally people should write a sentence more to the power, as for every power, to specify the details.


When it comes to simplifying the page... I guess I can rewrite it into a more usual format for science pages, albeit it will be a bit different since the explanations should stay.
The page originally was a blog and it shows.
Will take time until I get to rewriting the page, though, as I have exams and there are also more important wiki projects I should take care of first. (the common references page)

Thanks. There is no hurry, I can bump this in some months.

@DontTalkDT

Thank you for the help. All of the requirements and information should stay, yes.

Gravity and Radiation Manipulation, but that has nothing to do with this.

@Everyone I'll first bumping this thread again, our standards for black holes could still improve.

I didn't say Radiation

Some errors.

>For example Hawking radiation does not actually remove energy/matter from the black hole. Instead it produces energy at the border of the event horizon and, to uphold conservation of energy, shoots particles with negative energy into the black hole, so that the energy within it lessens.

This is not correct, and it gives people the wrong view. I.e. it makes people assume negative energy is a real thing, and not a consequence of how it is useful to use terms like negative energy to explain concepts, or to treat it as a short cut to simplify what you are attempting to calculate.

Particles do not fall into a black hole with negative energy.

Particles are not particles, they are not waves, nor are they sometimes one, or sometimes the other.

It is beneficial to think of them that way, but truly they are an excitation of a field that exhibits properties we would associate with particles or waves. They are there own entity.

All particles are excitations of their respective constitiuent fields.

A particle can be thought of as a stable "ripple" within that field. Fields can couple and interact. The photon field is also known as the electromagnetic field. There exists an electron field, quark fields, gluon fields etc. Forces are conveyed via the interaction and coupling between fields.

These fields are not steady state with little ripples flowing through them known as particles either. They are chaotic and in a sense particles "Pop in an out of existence" you can see this as unstable ripples within that field. To exist they must only come into an existence with a pair, that has opposite amplitude and can cancel each other out.

So effectively they "Borrow energy" for a brief peroid of time to exist, then cancel each other out.

When particles move and interact, it is these unstable chaotic ripples that move and cause the actual interactions between particles and fields interacting.

SO now that we have a basic understand, and skipping a lot, and there is some inaccuracy in those statements as well but it's good enough for now; how does this relate to black holes?

Well, fields exist everywhere. At the event horizon the same thing is happening as listed above. Borrow energy, cancel each other out, give energy back.

What if one particle is created inside, and one outside? Well by definition they are seperated via casuality, particle outside has a potential to escape, and if we do the math, 2 units of energy were borrowed, 1 left, 1 returned.

Where was the energy borrowed from? Well the black hole itself.

There is no mystical "negative energy" happening here.

Please be aware that is highly simplified.

>The second reason is that in order to destroy a black hole one would have to somehow remove mass/energy out of it. But that is in common physics impossible, since even with infinite energy one could not accelerate matter above the speed of light. While that can be ignored in case of characters going FTL, when it comes to destroying something it has to be considered, since destruction in almost all cases is done through energy.

This is also false. While equations break down and become nonsensical when talking about FTL, that's a consequence of how our universe works.

There is no speed above the speed of light, and I wish it wasn't called the speed of light.

It is the speed of information itself. Photons, making up light, since they are massless, massless particles travel at the speed of light. Photons aren't special, gluons are also massless. The only reason they travel at that speed is due to this fact, but the actual speed limit is much more profound then that.

Because when you hear something like the speed of light, you assume that means physics says you can't go faster, but a faster speed must exist, at least as an idea.

That's where you would be wrong, and how illogical our universe truly can be. Information and casuality itself can not locally exceed c. There is no speed greater. It is akin to asking what is north of the north pole. It is akin to asking what's bigger then infinity.

It doesn't exist. However the biggest reason I hate black hole misinformation, is how fast light travels has absolutely nothing to do with why light can't escape.

A black hole isn't "pulling" space like a conveyor belt into the black hole, if you could go faster you could escape! No, even if there were FTL, you still couldn't escape a black hole.

The event horizon is special because it is the moment where everything flips. Just like the question, what's north of the north pole, what speed is faster than c, there is no outside to the event horizon.

But it get's even weirder then that.

Space itself at the event horizon becomes so distorted, all world lines lead to the singularity. This means space no longer leads out of the black hole. I.e. speed won't matter. Singularity beyond you and you walk away from it? You just walked towards it.

All directions of movement, any line you can draw, they all lead to the singularity. There is not a single line that can be drawn, that leads further away from the singularity.

Space itself is broken past the event horizon. It might as well be another universe completely, forever, and utterly cut off and inescapable once inside.

Thank you for the information. However, it is best if somebody asks DontTalkDT to comment here again, to decide how said information should be incorporated into our explanation pages.

Isn't the singularity model outdated? It is my understanding that quantum physics takes over as conventional physics breaks down as you aproach a black hole. So while it may be impossible to escape a black hole through conventional physics, it certainly isn't impossible for quantum physics.

Also I belive Hawking disproved the theory that black holes are essentially a seperate universe due to the fact that information is preserved.

Not exactly. Conventional Physics breaks down and General Relativity takes over. At the singularity Relativity breaks down and what lies there is unknown. The only successful way of combining Quantum Physics and General Relativity has currently been Hawking Radiation.

The Wave Function also ceases to work on Black Holes, so not even Quantum Tunneling is a given.

Antvasima said:

Thank you for the information. However, it is best if somebody asks DontTalkDT to comment here again, to decide how said information should be incorporated into our explanation pages.

Click to expand...

^

this thread is cool

Is somebody willing to remind DontTalkDT about this?

Just wanted to say that for Eficiente's recent calc, where does the 5.693E41 come from?

Antvasima said:

Is somebody willing to remind DontTalkDT about this?

Click to expand...

Anyone?

Just did.

Thanks.

Cizuzj said:

This is not correct, and it gives people the wrong view. I.e. it makes people assume negative energy is a real thing, and not a consequence of how it is useful to use terms like negative energy to explain concepts, or to treat it as a short cut to simplify what you are attempting to calculate.

[Imagine the rest here for shortness]

Click to expand...

As xkcd ones pointed out in a humoristic manner, it is certainly true that for complete correctness one would describe space-time as a set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation, but that isn't a very good read. So let's try to keep things as simple as the points we are trying to make allow it.

I don't see why you explain basics of quantum field theory in that explanation, since the rest of what you explain doesn't hinge on this analogy.

In any case, for what is relevant to the point the article makes you would rather call it "borrowed energy" then negative energy, yes? I usually see it referred to as negative energy in articles giving a basic explanation of the idea. And negative energy and borrowed energy is pretty much the same idea either way.

The relevant point is that a person inside the black hole wouldn't be exposed to energy equal to the hawking radiation, but would at most get energy from it taken equal to the energy emitted in hawking radiation (and the inescapability of the black hole is not violated in that).

Given that we are not extending this on any further physics models I would rather stick to the common terminology used in pop-science articles on the subject. Keeping it at familiar terms is easier on the reader.

There is no speed above the speed of light, and I wish it wasn't called the speed of light.

It is the speed of information itself.

[imagine more text here]

I'm aware of this and would find it cool for someone to bring it up, if it weren't irrelevant to the subject at hand. Fictional characters can go FTL, we have to deal with that fact.

A black hole isn't "pulling" space like a conveyor belt into the black hole, if you could go faster you could escape!

An analogy that is specifically avoided in the page in question, which is why it uses the light cone analogy instead.

No, even if there were FTL, you still couldn't escape a black hole.

The event horizon is special because it is the moment where everything flips. Just like the question, what's north of the north pole, what speed is faster than c, there is no outside to the event horizon.

But it get's even weirder then that.

Space itself at the event horizon becomes so distorted, all world lines lead to the singularity. This means space no longer leads out of the black hole. I.e. speed won't matter. Singularity beyond you and you walk away from it? You just walked towards it.

All directions of movement, any line you can draw, they all lead to the singularity. There is not a single line that can be drawn, that leads further away from the singularity.

Space itself is broken past the event horizon. It might as well be another universe completely, forever, and utterly cut off and inescapable once inside.

And at this point I have to actually disagree with the point you make.

Yes, after the event horizon all worldlines lead to the singularity. However, possible worldlines in these models are determined on the assumption that things don't go FTL.

As you yourself pointed out the speed of light as the speed of causality, so logically someone going FTL isn't directly bound by it.

I believe the antitelephone is a well known idea in regards to theoretical faster-than-light things. In other words moving into the past is a common consequence of FTL travel.

If you travel FTL you can leave your light cone, go to the past and by that take paths through spacetime that are usually not possible. Instead of just being able to move in spatial directions and forward in time at different rates, with FTL travel you could pretty much navigate time not unlike a spatial dimension (in the sense that you can move both forwards and backwards in it). In theory, you could use that to escape black holes.

Of course the entire premise violates science, which is why the idea only makes limited sense, but we can't exactly claim the opposite for a fiction were FTL movement exists.

@DontTalkDT

Thank you for helping out.

So are no changes necessary for our black hole explanation pages then?

Dvorak1902 said:

Not exactly. Conventional Physics breaks down and General Relativity takes over. At the singularity Relativity breaks down and what lies there is unknown. The only successful way of combining Quantum Physics and General Relativity has currently been Hawking Radiation.
The Wave Function also ceases to work on Black Holes, so not even Quantum Tunneling is a given.

Click to expand...

So quantum fields are nonexistent or absorbed in a Black hole?

Edit:Also since the event horizon is broken space time does that mean associated symmetries are broken as well? If a person were to survive tidal forces/immense gravity would the symmetries being broken have an effect?

The link to the Powerpoint were it says the Time translational symmetries are nulled therefore the energy of particles is zero.

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/33393306/17-black-hole-thermodynamics-part-2/2

Can somebody ask DontTalkDT to comment here again please?

How does one get a hold of DontTalkDT?

Here.

Antvasima said:

Here.

Click to expand...

Well, I already did that on his blog post when I ask my question about 20 days ago. Guess another try wouldn't hurt.

Okay. Remember to clearly state what you want in the headline.

Antvasima said:

Okay. Remember to clearly state what you want in the headline.

Click to expand...

Alright, my apologies. I took your advice made it clear I can. Thank you, Antvasima.

No problem.

Can the thing about infinite durability being an outlier be removed, as that is not always the case?

What do you mean specifically?

Said character has been repeatedly stated to have infinite strength, and withstood an attack that traveled at the speed of light, despite the series acknowledging that this would require infinite force.

I handled it: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Black_Hole_Feats_in_Fiction&diff=5469512&oldid=4576944

Thank you.

Would anyone here have answers to a power of a character having the energy to neutralise a black hole to destroy it? Idk if i'm reading it correctly, but what sort of level would that make them?

High 3-A or Low 2-C? The center of a black hole is time and space folding infinitely upon itself so I would assume low 2-C?