black hole theory

[Alien-Carrot]

Ok, i have this theory about black holes, and i just need a little help destroying it.

THEORY: Black holes ar mearly supermassive neutrons, and all efects we see from black holes ar the same effects seen in neutrons, only porportionaly larger.

Now i know this theory has major holes in it, and being no science major, i cant find them.

But my real question is this. What, if any, is the gravitational pull of a neutron. Specifically one that is not attached to any other particles.

And what is the stated mass of a neutron.

From this information, i hope to calculate the mass/gravity ratio of a neutron with the mass of a black hole, vs a black hole.

Let the flaming of my scientific ignorance begin, but hopefully with the answers i need to kill this theory. It keeps rattling around in my head, and keeps me awake at night.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ok, i have this theory about black holes, and i just need a little help destroying it.

THEORY: Black holes ar mearly supermassive neutrons, and all efects we see from black holes ar the same effects seen in neutrons, only porportionaly larger.

Now i know this theory has major holes in it, and being no science major, i cant find them.

But my real question is this. What, if any, is the gravitational pull of a neutron. Specifically one that is not attached to any other particles.

And what is the stated mass of a neutron.

From this information, i hope to calculate the mass/gravity ratio of a neutron with the mass of a black hole, vs a black hole.

Let the flaming of my scientific ignorance begin, but hopefully with the answers i need to kill this theory. It keeps rattling around in my head, and keeps me awake at night.

For starters, you are mixing up Neutron stars, which are made of neutrons, with Black Holes. Singularities are not made of neutron stars. They are made of very dense matter yes, but what it is hasn't been discovered yet.

[SCRawl]

Wow.

I'm not sure where to start.

A neutron can't be "super massive", except in relative terms. As in, "a neutron is super massive relative to an electron". IIRC the rest mass of a neutron is on the order of 10^-27 kg. This is not very much mass.

(A thought just occurred to me; if you accelerate a neutron (or anything else) to something close to the speed of light, its mass increases. Not sure how it would help your theory, but take it for what it's worth.)

The gravitational "pull" of a neutron...the mass/gravity ratio of a neutron...these concepts don't mean very much to me. The force due to gravity goes like this:

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2

where G is a constant, m1 is the mass of one object, m2 is the mass of the other object, and r is the distance between them.

This is pretty much high school physics I've mentioned here. Should I bother whether or not you've taken it yet?

[Surlethe]

Black holes can have electric fields. Neutrons are electrically neutral.

[andrewgpaul]

Also, when you say "...with the mass of a balck hole", that's meaningless; a black hole can be of any mass.

[SCRawl]

Also, when you say "...with the mass of a balck hole", that's meaningless; a black hole can be of any mass.

While I suppose that's true, is it not also true that for a body to become a black hole (in the manner with which our theory is familiar) its mass would have to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit (of about 1.4 solar masses)?

[Zixinus]

Funny things happen inside a black hole. I recall that there may be particles that may even go faster then light. As for what it is composed of, I think it's far more denser then what would be neutrons.

[andrewgpaul]

Also, when you say "...with the mass of a balck hole", that's meaningless; a black hole can be of any mass.

While I suppose that's true, is it not also true that for a body to become a black hole (in the manner with which our theory is familiar) its mass would have to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit (of about 1.4 solar masses)?

For a star to do so, yes, that's the case. However, some have predicted that the Big Bang should have produced 'micro black holes', of much smaller mass, some of which may have survived. In addition, black holes evaporate; even one which started out with a mass greater than the Chandresekhar limit could now have a much smaller mass (IIRC, the evaporation rate is inversely correlated with the mass of the hole; small holes evaporate faster).

In addition, black holes can be substantially moremassive than 1.4x the mass of the Sun; consider Sagittarius A*, thought to be a supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy, with a mass of 2.6 million time the mass of the Sun.

[andrewgpaul]

Also, note that the Chandresekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses refers to the matter left after the supernova; a star needs to be about 20 solar masses before its remnants will be sufficiently massive.

[SCRawl]

Funny things happen inside a black hole. I recall that there may be particles that may even go faster then light. As for what it is composed of, I think it's far more denser then what would be neutrons.

It's supposed to be infinitely dense -- the collapse won't be stopped by anything, and will eventually turn the stellar remnant into a point. (This is according to GR, if my memory is any good.)

Also, note that the Chandresekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses refers to the matter left after the supernova; a star needs to be about 20 solar masses before its remnants will be sufficiently massive.

Yeah, got me there. I got my point across, but my information was incorrect. Mea culpa. In my defence, the one and only astrophysics course I took was back in 1992.

[Winston Blake]

Let the flaming of my scientific ignorance begin, but hopefully with the answers i need to kill this theory. It keeps rattling around in my head, and keeps me awake at night.

First, how old are you and are you still in high school?

I doubt people will bother flaming you about this, simply because your 'theory' makes about as much sense as Time Cube. You probably have a good imagination, but I think you're seriously overestimating your own understanding. You need to learn the basics before you start using specific terms like 'theory'. I think you should borrow a high school physics textbook and start at the beginning - everything should be much clearer.

Coincidentally, there's a neat little idea that the electron might be a black hole, but for different and much more substantial reasons than your neutron idea.

[Ryan Thunder]

Also, when you say "...with the mass of a balck hole", that's meaningless; a black hole can be of any mass.

While I suppose that's true, is it not also true that for a body to become a black hole (in the manner with which our theory is familiar) its mass would have to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit (of about 1.4 solar masses)?

Any gathering of mass can become a black hole if it is compressed to a sufficient density. Theoretically, you could have a blackhole with a mass of a gram.*


*(Unless I'm mistaken, of course. I've never actually studied this formally.)

[Patrick Degan]

Also, when you say "...with the mass of a balck hole", that's meaningless; a black hole can be of any mass.

While I suppose that's true, is it not also true that for a body to become a black hole (in the manner with which our theory is familiar) its mass would have to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit (of about 1.4 solar masses)?

Any gathering of mass can become a black hole if it is compressed to a sufficient density. Theoretically, you could have a blackhole with a mass of a gram.*


*(Unless I'm mistaken, of course. I've never actually studied this formally.)

A 1g black hole could exist, but it would expire very quickly.

[Alien-Carrot]

First off, no, i didn't finish highschool.

And what i was asking is, would a neutron with say, 10 solar masses have the same gravitational pull as a blackhole with the same mass?


I remember from something i read, about 15 years ago, that a star is crushed until the electrons break orbit and crunch in on the protons, cancelling out to make neutrons. Thus a neutron star.

And if the gravity is great enough, the neutrons collapse, but into what was unknown in the book.

My theory is that the neutrons merge into one massive neutron.


An remember i wanted this theory squashed, so i could quit thinking about it.

[Master of Cards]

And what i was asking is, would a neutron with say, 10 solar masses have the same gravitational pull as a blackhole with the same mass?

I don't know enough to say why the rest is wrong, but this is just mass.
Carrot Gravity is based off mass. No matter what type of mass it is, it has the same gravity.

[SCRawl]

My theory is that the neutrons merge into one massive neutron.

Let's try it like this: if you had an enormous body the size of the sun composed entirely of, say, cars, and it collapsed in on itself, would you consider the body to be one gigantic car?

[Duckie]

And what i was asking is, would a neutron with say, 10 solar masses have the same gravitational pull as a blackhole with the same mass?

Yes. Gravity isn't based off of material. However, Black Holes as far as I know are sort of an anomaly, I'm not certain if their mass is measurable in the same way as a star or a soda can is. That sort of comes with being a Singularity, I would suppose.

An remember i wanted this theory squashed, so i could quit thinking about it.

I hate to tell you, but the fact that you not only aren't in[ high school but didn't finish it at all means your theory is by default almost certain to be completely false and based around misconceptions.

Also, there is a good point brought up in the prior quote- One, neutrons don't merge like drops of water into a bigger neutron, they just sort of bounce off each other (thus why nuclear fission can be created by splitting an atom and having its neutrons hit other atoms, knocking other neutrons out and causing a chain reaction).

Secondly, Black Holes could be made entirely of neutrons assuming you brought enough together, which would make some kind of ball of neutronium or neutron matter or whatever. But once their mass exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit it's not really going to be made of neutrons or exhibit neutronlike tendencies.

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- From what I know, the tidal forces of the singularity will eventually rip apart anything that gets close to it beyond the Schwarzchild Radius into its most base component pieces, so Neutrons probably be torn into an up and two down quarks and thus not retain neutron-like properties.

However, I have no clue if that'd also affect what's already in the black hole and originally formed it or a bunch of other good questions about this, since I'm just a high school senior and I haven't really any formal physics knowledge beyond what I've picked up and a single class.

[Winston Blake]

And if the gravity is great enough, the neutrons collapse, but into what was unknown in the book.

My theory is that the neutrons merge into one massive neutron.


An remember i wanted this theory squashed, so i could quit thinking about it.

OK, well I haven't actually studied any astrophysics, but I do know that if you try to crush neutron star material down even further, you pass a limit called the Schwarzschild radius. No particle is 'strong' enough to withstand such huge density. For example, if you took the Earth and crushed it into a ball 8.9mm in radius, then it would transform from neutron star matter into a black hole. That's the end of the road - at that point, all particles cease to exist, like stepping on a grape.

If you crush the matter inside a star, it stays solid is because it's 'inflated' with 'electron degeneracy pressure'. If you exceed that pressure, it collapses into bizarro matter which itself is only solid because it's held up by 'neutron degeneracy pressure'. If you exceed that pressure as well, it's got nowhere to go, so instead of becoming a giant neutron or anything, it just sort of catastrophically collapses, becoming denser and denser without limit. The infinitely dense, infinitely small point left over is a black hole.

Overall, if you squeeze hard enough, nothing can survive, not even matter.

(Sorry to all the people who are shaking their heads at how oversimplified and naive this explanation is).

[Kuroneko]

The Chandrasekhar limit is the limit for neutron star formation, not black hole formation. It is the mass to overcome electron degeneracy pressure (assuming composition similar to that of the sun)--i.e., around that mass and beyond, protons and electrons fuse into neutrons. A would-be black hole also needs to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure.

[Duckie]

The Chandrasekhar limit is the limit for neutron star formation, not black hole formation. It is the mass to overcome electron degeneracy pressure (assuming composition similar to that of the sun)--i.e., around that mass and beyond, protons and electrons fuse into neutrons. A would-be black hole also needs to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure.

My mistake. I just remembered Chandrasekhar's work as having something to do with Black Hole Formation due to the fact that some physicists objected to his mathematics on the basis that they would make Black Holes possible, and indeed likely, to exist.

[Feil]

A theory is a rigorously tested, predictively powerful explanation of how things work. What you have here is a hypothesis - a guess which needs to be compared to the evidence.


As to your hypothesis,

Black holes can have charge.
Neutrons, by definition, are chargeless.
Therefore, a black hole is not a neutron.

[Gullible Jones]

A neutron is a composite particle composed of three smaller particles - two down quarks and an up quark. These quarks are elementary particles with set rest masses. A giant, super-massive neutron is therefore impossible.

I *think* what Alien-carrot is getting at is an electrically neutral object composed of huge numbers of bound up quarks, i.e. a quark star. These are theoretically possible, but they're quite different from black holes.

[Sriad]

And what i was asking is, would a neutron with say, 10 solar masses have the same gravitational pull as a blackhole with the same mass?

Yes. Gravity isn't based off of material. However, Black Holes as far as I know are sort of an anomaly, I'm not certain if their mass is measurable in the same way as a star or a soda can is. That sort of comes with being a Singularity, I would suppose.

The mass of a black hole, once you get past the exotic and dangerous qualities of its gravity, is just like any other mass. If you threw a neutron star at a black hole, Newton's equations would tell you how fast and in what direction the black hole would be moving afterward. If you replaced the sun with a one solar mass black hole the solar system would only change by getting considerably colder and less windy.

Once you get inside the event horizon and your space-time charts flip around, things get much weirder.

For a star to do so, yes, that's the case. However, some have predicted that the Big Bang should have produced 'micro black holes', of much smaller mass, some of which may have survived. In addition, black holes evaporate; even one which started out with a mass greater than the Chandresekhar limit could now have a much smaller mass (IIRC, the evaporation rate is inversely correlated with the mass of the hole; small holes evaporate faster).

Actually, even black holes formed from stars which haven't captured any extra matter will mass infinitesimally more when formed: the cosmic microwave background is much more intense than the Hawking radiation of a conventionally formed black hole, so they gain more mass than they lose until the universe has expanded enough that the CMBR is colder than the black hole under consideration:

Black holes on the 3 to 10 solar mass scale will take ~10^70 years to evaporate, during which time it will turn into, say, 10^49 joules of energy, an average of 1/10^21 joules per year over a surface area of 1000ish square kilometers, notwithstanding the fact that since Hawking radiation is relative to the cube of the black hole's mass, the radiation is much less intense for the first 8/9ths of the process. In other words, they are very cold indeed.

[Sriad]

Ahem:

"...even black holes formed from stars which haven't captured any extra matter will mass infinitesimally more THANwhen formed."