the event horizon of a black hole should be colorful

[Biftheunderstudy]

That is correct, Security Theatre.

I didn't elaborate very much, but that is included in the outward pressure in the form of degenerate matter. For a white dwarf, that is electron degenerate matter. After the Chandrasekhar limit, neutron degeneracy and a speculative quark degeneracy after that.

If there is still more mass, there is nothing else left to prevent the collapse.

That said, we still can't simulate the formation of a black hole from the supernova and observations are too incomplete to know where the true minimum mass for a black hole to form is.

 

[aigomorla]

As far as I understand the collapse of stars, there is a minimum mass, below which you won't ever form a black hole.

Edit: A brief Google turns up the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit.

From wikiedpedia: "A black hole formed by the collapse of an individual star must have mass exceeding the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit."

I read that to mean that without gaining mass at some point, a stellar body smaller than 1.5-3.0 solar masses simply won't collapse into a black hole due to force effects between the particles within the star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

i thought it was more on the atoms being super compressed so they go inside that radius in which it can never escape.

The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole.

the mass was a result from them not being able to escape, however once mass enters that swartz radius it becomes near infinite due to mass and velocity relationship of relativity...
ie... the faster u approach the speed of light, the infinite mass it attains, and the whole notion of a black hole being able to contain light.

Also we have microblack holes happen on our magnetic spheres... the mass is so tiny, it only survives for a fraction before it collapses on itself according to theories.
CERN is also estimated to be able to create micro micro black holes from smashing particles together...

I dont think mass has anything to do with black holes... its the fact they can enter that swartz radius where nothing can come back out.
And as nothing can come back out, it attains more and more mass... if it has nothing to absorb, then it collapses under its own gravity and disappears.

Conversely, a small mass has an extremely small Schwarzschild radius. A mass similar to Mount Everest has a Schwarzschild radius smaller than a nanometre. Its average density at that size would be so high that no known mechanism could form such extremely compact objects. Such black holes might possibly be formed in an early stage of the evolution of the universe, just after the Big Bang, when densities were extremely high. Therefore these hypothetical miniature black holes are called primordial black holes.

and the oposite of a blackhole is a neutron star no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

when the atoms can not go inside the swartz, and the star does go nova, the star turns into a neutron.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

i thought it was more on the atoms being super compressed so they go inside that radius in which it can never escape.



the mass was a result from them not being able to escape, however once mass enters that swartz radius it becomes near infinite due to mass and velocity relationship of relativity...
ie... the faster u approach the speed of light, the infinite mass it attains, and the whole notion of a black hole being able to contain light.

Also we have microblack holes happen on our magnetic spheres... the mass is so tiny, it only survives for a fraction before it collapses on itself according to theories.
CERN is also estimated to be able to create micro micro black holes from smashing particles together...

I dont think mass has anything to do with black holes... its the fact they can enter that swartz radius where nothing can come back out.
And as nothing can come back out, it attains more and more mass... if it has nothing to absorb, then it collapses under its own gravity and disappears.




and the oposite of a blackhole is a neutron star no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

when the atoms can not go inside the swartz, and the star does go nova, the star turns into a neutron.

As far as I can tell, the oppenheimer limit is the minimum size at which normal matter will collapse in on itself.

At a smaller mass, the neutrons in the matter will generate sufficient expansion force to counteract the crushing force of gravity and will hold steady at some radius larger than the Swartz radius.

There is also the "planck" mass, which is the smallest mass that can form a black hole. That is, where the swartz radius is planck length (the smallest possible length). This mass is about 22 micrograms (if I recall from my reading the other night).

If this calculation is, indeed, true, then CERN does not have the capability to form micro black holes, simply because they aren't smashing anywhere near 22 micrograms of material.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Basically, every object is supported against gravity by some pressure. This is called hydrostatic equilibrium. If you remove the pressure, a simple application of newton's laws will lead to this object collapsing.

In ordinary everyday sized objects, electrostatic forces are enough to keep an object from collapsing to a point. It's the same thing that keeps your hand from "passing through" a table.

If the mass gets big enough, it's own self gravity might be able to overcome these forces. Indeed, fusion is really this process. Gravity forces hydrogen atoms so close together that they can quantum tunnel through the repulsion that they feel (hydrogen atoms, being simply a proton are positively charged).

If the star has enough mass, this process happens with heavier and more positively charged atoms until you get to iron. Iron is special in that it *costs* you energy to fuse it, rather than releasing energy. So when a star gets to the point where it would want to fuse iron, it suddenly loses its pressure support. Fusion isn't providing power anymore, and the star will collapse.

If the star doesn't have enough mass, it might stop before it can burn iron (or several steps before that, say Carbon). This is because gravity can't overcome another force to achieve the density needed to burn these elements. This force is due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Since there are a lot of electrons around (its a plasma), they can't be in the same quantum state and be in the same place which acts as a sort of pressure.

If there is enough mass, you can force the electrons to combine with protons to give you a neutron and thus form a neutron star. The amount of mass you need to overcome this repulsion is the Chandrasekhar limit.

The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit is the analogous mechanism except with neutrons instead of electrons. But this time, the star will collapse all the way to a black hole since there are no more fermions left in which could support it. (Maybe perhaps quarks, but this is very speculative)

**Sorry for the longwinded reply....

 

[Paul98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

i thought it was more on the atoms being super compressed so they go inside that radius in which it can never escape.



the mass was a result from them not being able to escape, however once mass enters that swartz radius it becomes near infinite due to mass and velocity relationship of relativity...
ie... the faster u approach the speed of light, the infinite mass it attains, and the whole notion of a black hole being able to contain light.

Also we have microblack holes happen on our magnetic spheres... the mass is so tiny, it only survives for a fraction before it collapses on itself according to theories.
CERN is also estimated to be able to create micro micro black holes from smashing particles together...

I dont think mass has anything to do with black holes... its the fact they can enter that swartz radius where nothing can come back out.
And as nothing can come back out, it attains more and more mass... if it has nothing to absorb, then it collapses under its own gravity and disappears.




and the oposite of a blackhole is a neutron star no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

when the atoms can not go inside the swartz, and the star does go nova, the star turns into a neutron.

There is almost nothing correct in this post.

 

[aigomorla]

There is almost nothing correct in this post.

please share with me where i am wrong.

i would genuinely would like to know as i love discussions on black holes.

However to my understanding... physics breaks up at a black hole, so there is no fact relating to anything a black hole is.

All we know is what happens b4 the event horizon, and relativity does state, the closer an object approaches the speed of light the more infinite the mass becomes.

As things get spun around the event horizon right b4 it enters, it is said to approach like .99 of the speed of light.


Or are u stating my comment about CERN not being fact?
When many many controversies on the entire facility was on a scare propaganda of opening a black hole in the middle of eurpoe?

 

[videogames101]

the event horizon is where gravity is strong enough to suck light back into the hole.

that means just outside, the light is in orbit around the hole.

as time goes by, more light accumulates at this layer. (any photon foolish enough to approach the black hole at just the right angle and distance from it s center gets captured)

this light will never be absorbed because nothing else is in this layer.
particles traverse this layer much less frequently than photons because there are many more photons than particles in our universe. so there is a net increase in orbiting photons over time. Black holes should increase in energy.

And more energetic light (higher frequency) should have a higher orbit than redder light.

So, if you could travel through the event horizon, you would see a rainbow. but since you can't, you have to look for light that is deflected out of its orbit by a particle crashing into a black hole.

why isnt this seen?

I think you are overestimating the resolution of our equipment. When we 'look' at a black hole, we can look at spectral density but there are so many different sources of em radiation that simply saying 'here is the black hole rainbow" would be near impossible, were your conjecture to be true.

Although beyond my expertise, I know that X-rays are often used to identify celestial bodies. Here's a paper on a model and subsequent observations of the spectral density of x-rays produced by black holes.

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/pca/dwei_thesis.pdf

It even has a graph of power spectral density up through 10^5 Hz which might be interesting to you. However I would have expected to see a graph of the X-ray range, so you might have to read some of the paper to understand exactly whats going on in its pages. But it mentions resonance in accretion discs which is likely closely related to your query.

Alternately, here are some pretty pictures:

Ooohhh

 

[Paul98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

i thought it was more on the atoms being super compressed so they go inside that radius in which it can never escape.

Atoms as they cross the radius from their point of view won't notice any local differences. They don't escape because space is warped so much.

the mass was a result from them not being able to escape, however once mass enters that swartz radius it becomes near infinite due to mass and velocity relationship of relativity...
ie... the faster u approach the speed of light, the infinite mass it attains, and the whole notion of a black hole being able to contain light.

There is a big difference between relativistic mass and rest mass. We are traveling at many different relative velocities. Relative to your computer your speed is 0, relative to the sun it's a different speed, to some galaxies we are traveling .99c. If you take the expansion of space which isn't bound by the speed of light you get even higher velocities( though through space the galaxies aren't moving faster than .99c relative to us. )

massive objects can never go the speed of light.

Also we have microblack holes happen on our magnetic spheres... the mass is so tiny, it only survives for a fraction before it collapses on itself according to theories.
CERN is also estimated to be able to create micro micro black holes from smashing particles together...

no for the most part it is not estimated to be able to do that. Also a micro doesn't last for a very short period not because it collapses on itself. It lasts a very short time because it will evaporate quickly through hawking radiation because it doesn't have time to gain more mass before that.

I dont think mass has anything to do with black holes... its the fact they can enter that swartz radius where nothing can come back out.
And as nothing can come back out, it attains more and more mass... if it has nothing to absorb, then it collapses under its own gravity and disappears.

No, the mass/energy just doesn't disappear. Mass/energy is the main reason for the black hole, you won't have a black hole with out it. Black holes do evaporate now very slowly because they are so massive, but there isn't a loss of mass/energy they lose it through hawking radiation. Collapsing under it's own gravity doesn't even make sense.

and the oposite of a blackhole is a neutron star no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

when the atoms can not go inside the swartz, and the star does go nova, the star turns into a neutron.

No, a white hole is the opposite of a black hole. Also no



I really tried to dumb it down so that it isn't technical at all, but really without understanding the basics you may not understand what I am actually trying to say. If you really want to understand I would suggest starting with SR, then see if you actually want to try dealing with Einstein field equations.