As we all know the General Theory of Relativity also talks about blackholes. And by this scientists have interpreted that not one can escape a blackhole's eventhorizon even light. According to an article in scientific american, Stephen Hawkings said that light was needed not to escape a blackhole's eventhorizon because it doesnt even get in there anyway. The light is trapped on the surface or boundary of the event horizon.That, accord. To them creates an illusion of light being sucked in.

If this is so does scientists have a substantial evidence that a matter can be really absorbed by the blackhole? Coz blackholes are invisible and can only be identified by the speed of its surrounding objects. Do they really have an evidence of this or is it yet to be developed?

No one has ever seen or even documented a black hole with sensors, they are just theories. Hawkings has a theory that Einsteins theory is wrong, that's all. Both of their theories are based on what we know so far, but neither can be proven or disproven.

Too bad women are so complicated, maybe women should learn to see the simplicity in things... like simple truths

So how did they locate blackholes if they havent documented any? How do you explain such phenomena as event horizon?

You might need to look up the difference between a Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory!

Why would I do that, it doesn't change that the existence of black holes has never been confirmed. Event horizons of black holes are also theories. We have seen things that suggest that black holes do exist, we just haven't been able to prove it as they are only gravitational distortions with nothing at the center. Conrad, look up your own information and leave me alone please

Then what happens when a star dies? Arent blackholes created? Arent blackholes a term given to a certain observation? And arent these observations documented? Would it then be justifiable to say that these observations, which we call blackholes, do not exist?

Yes when a star dies the gravitational distortion left behind is called a black whole. We've never seen one, all we've seen is the absence of light which is part of how the THEORY of black holes came about. But since we lack the technology to actually go and study one, all we can do is use theory to attempt a rational explanation for what we see or don't see. My understanding is that the scientific community has not been able to prove definitively that they exist, or that they don't exist.

I get your point. And also i got the other's point since this thread has been posted days ago (and was duplicated intentionally) mightymoe and vanaheim commented on the subject matter as well and they have good evidences. I will try to analyze the comments you all have made and see what i can form. Thank you for your point-of-view.

I am not sure of your question.
White dwarf formation is typically less than 1.4 solar masses and would only become a neutron star, modified supanova or black hole - with the addition of another body.
Supernova requires approx 1.4 solar masses - Chandrasekhar limit
Neutron star formation is typically around 4-8 solar masses
Black hole is typical 16 solar masses or greater

Hmm that doesn’t seem right let me check…..erm I went to the fridge for wine, no matter

Anyhows those are the main causes, or various combinations for black hole formation eg white dwarf plus say sol, or two neutron stars, and their coming together.

Electron degeneracy most of us have come across in chemistry or scone making
Neutron degeneracy is about as much as my mind can manage….

Someone said gravitational distortion is left – that is not correct – he most likely meant singularity

The point being we have something both enormous in eg mass and teeny in size, a point if you like…warping the very fabric of space time in every imaginable direction…This is never shown on any tv program, it makes me very upset…same with orbits etc


So now we have gravity – no-one actually understands. But for Einstein and me and that dude on those documentaries it is merely a flow in space time in all direction around a point, not distortion

To prove the existence of a black hole thusly requires an immense gravity field Chandrasekhar –what a clever man - in Einstein’s day..the former got the nobel whatever that means..as they give out for dark nonsense

Oh dear this is a bit long…. And that guy what’s his name from the max planck institute won the nobel for black holes (or did he erm) – supermassive

So there you have your ingredients; there are many, proof by inference and stuff whirling around and observation..I am certain I posted here on the speed of light or black whole thingie about what could or not travel faster or escape..although it may have all been a lucid dream from too much cheese eating late at night.

Black holes: known physics is irrelevant..I could escape it if I was running for the last muffin in tescos
Apparently it pulls space time in faster than the speed of light…which seems a bit odd given there is no such thingy as true vacuum (it means that anon true vacuum bumf is traveling, at times, faster than light…How you like em apples Newton or Einstein

Hmmm. Scientific American shouldn't have published a paper that far off, but it might have come from a letter or comments section. There are many current astronomical observations of black holes now. The physics of feeding black holes, quasars, and closely interacting gravitational bodies (such as at the center of the Milky Way) are now well documented. Black holes exist.

The physics of a black hole is rather simple. Once the gravitational field is strong enough to collapse (overwhelm) the electromagnetic repulsion of electrons and protons, matter falls into itself initially forming the equivalent of a neutron star. If the gravitational field is strong enough to crush even the neutrons, it collapses even farther to a theoretical singularity but no one actually knows because the physics we understand doesn't work at this level due to a "divide by zero" error.

As currently proven, Einstein's theory of general relativity describes the action of the event horizon without difficulty (you have to get close to the center of a black hole for the physics to fail). Gravity warps or stretches space/time essentially pulling it into the black hole. At the point where space/time is falling into the hole at the speed of light, the event horizon occurs. At that distance from the center and closer to the center of the black hole, space/time is falling into the hole faster than the speed of light so light cannot escape. Since time is dilated (stretched) also, time slows as the center of the black hole is reached approaching no time movement at all.

But the major gravitational effects occur near the center of a black hole, not the event horizon. Standard physics works just fine at the event horizon.

A situation that Einstein didn't cover deals with quantum physics and the spontaneous creation of virtual particle pairs. This event occurring near the event horizon can lead to the escape of particles known as Hawking Radiation named for Stephen Hawking. The loss of mass would then result in the evaporation of the black hole over time.

Thank you metalwing, that was very informative :) And also maybe that's why Einstein said that his theory is just a stepping stone, not the end in itself.

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes': http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

This has some good information about Hawking's theories if you want to read more

Thank you indignus.

Here is a good source.

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/

You will need to explore the website a bit to find specific information.

And here is a modern look as to how we are finding Black Holes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3310504501&feature=iv&src_vid=KCADH3x56eE&v=qyyqx2rq3C8

There are three different methods used to identify a black hole.



Hawking hasn't released a hypothesis yet, he has offered no equations and very little detail.

The theory has nothing to do with observations, Albert Einstein arrived at the theory before we had the ability to observe black holes.

They are as confirmed as just about anything we haven't experienced personally can be.

All this hullabaloo is to preserve a theory in Quantum mechanics. Maybe that theory is wrong and Einstein is correct. Hawking has gotten more reckless and attention seeking as the years go by.

I think that the term black hole was coined by John A. Wheeler, who worked on continuing Ein’s work and is known for his x without the x statements. He noticed that the objects would not be seen when he was in meetings discussing the extreme of Gr physics. He needed a quick jargon word for his concept to communicate it clearly, and to do this, the black hole one was invented. It simply meant at that time that the objects would not be seen by direct stellar observation, and not all of the jazz that has been tacked on later since then.

I think also that having a boundary in a theory is really just a weird notion, I mean why would there be such a stopping point in the universe. As I see it, there would have to be a way of looking that has energy or light or info- all of the mass-energy ingredients, exist in such a way so that these blocks just need not exist. Perhaps a black hole is simply a point where energy behaves differently than what is normally so. I think what is called for is an information physics, you know, getting the decoding of that wacky info around BH’s down. Whether light or bodies get in or pierce a horizon, the question still remains as to why data and materials do condense around these points. What is the relevant dynamics? Those are what are begging to be found.

Now, that is a flaw in theory if there ever was one.

Time isn't something that is tangible.
Instead, time is a metric, a measurement.

It would appear you have no knowledge of General Relativity. My statement is concise and accurate regarding modern Einsteiniem physics. It has also been well proven in practical everyday science. The science which occurs at the center of a black hole is still a mystery, but the science getting there is pretty much old school.

Trust me. Your statement makes you look ignorant.