I have an idea (not nearly anything as formal as a theory, mind you) about the density involved in black holes and singularities.

Atoms are mostly empty space, as we remember. But there should be some fundamental point where you can no longer compress material. Even as the density of matter increases to some density d, it will reach a threshold where not even sub-atomic particles of matter can be compressed, such as quarks. It may be a matter of finding how much these sub-atomic particles can be compressed.

That's really all I have now, but I thought it'd be fun to present this and have the wonderful members here tear it apart.

~Josh

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

you've heard of a neutron star?


from what I understand it's when the electons are pushed into the nucleus and negate the protons.

thus there is no more atom, just a bunch of neutrons. since there is no electormagnetic force pushing it back apart, we have very high density.

maybe that's what you're talking about?


Black holes are a little more complicated. and I don't pretend to understand what happens inside (there is no evidence that we can obtain anyway)




by the way, I find that when I have a theory or idea, someone else beat me to it.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/pulsar.html

Black holes collapse to a single point according to relativity, although we can't directly probe the geometry inside the horizon. It's clear that everything must collapse to at least within the horizon, though, so that could give you an idea of the minimum density of any matter inside it, and the kind of pressure you'd feel at the center. Although there's nothing to say, nessiscaraly, that there's any kind of minimum that thigns can't be compressed beyond, though, given enough force. That's not to say there is no minimum, it's very likely that you can get something out of a theory of quantum gravity that talks about a minimum size (in fact, loop quantum gravity talks about things like this, and iirc, some versions of string theory). If its correct or not is another matter. But nothing less than a theory of quantum gravity will answer this question with much certainty.

Who is to say what other realms of physics exist on planes we cannot imagine. After all our entire universe once fit into that tiny thing that became the big bang. We might currnetly consider the quark to be the ultimate tiny particle, but at the densities and energies in black holes, there may be other processes we cannot define.


Or not...

There are no black holes..

just massive bodies of nucleon matter, which may have varied densities, and may appear to be black holes.. but are not.

matter is basically a ball of 3 dimensionally energied fields of spatial tension, such as gravity and electro-static, and electromagnetic fields (photons).
All rolled up, and concentrated... with varied levels of density depending on which dimensional level that matter is existing at in this universe.

I.e.. for black holes.. 3 planes exist.. the supercluster plane.. the 9th dimensional level. the galactic plane.. the 10th dimension.. and the stellar plane.. which we commonly see as dwarfs and nuetron stars.. the 11th dimension.. 8D matter may still exist.. but i doubt it.

see my thread.. Mosheh thezions cosmology... and ask questions.

-MT

And I say there is no Mosheh Thezion!

Poof!

Hey, where'd MT go?

Sorry about that, I guess...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

If only it were so easy!

I think that black holes exist. If not, it'd have to something very similiar in mass. We haven't actually observed a naked black hole yet, but when we look at suspected ones, we see this disk of matter thats been excited to the point of releasing x-rays like there's no tomorrow. And indeed, for some of the matter, there is none.

I know of neutron stars, I think they are pretty dang nifty. I'm wondering how much room is left between each neutron, though. Even then, what about the density capacity of subatomic particles? I think that there could be a point where you can't squeeze it together anymore.

One of the professors at my college is doing research on pulsars, she's been doing data gathering and analysis for some time now. Hopefully I'll be getting my foot in the door and doing some research with her later on this semester.

~Josh

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

well, if they're all strings then "as dense as you want"


the Big Bang occured from a point. that's probably a limiting idea.



Speaking of me, I can only squeeze so tight. I can't even get all the juice out of a lemon. But I don't think big/ er / small enough.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

IIRC, neutron stars are thought to be about six times as dense as heavy atomic nuclei. At some point however, there is could be enough pressure that the neutrons (and other particles in a neutron star) can be forced to break down into quarks. We don't know for sure if we've ever seen an object in which this has happened in a big way, but our current ideas support this.

It remains to be seen whether something unmassive enough that it has no event horizon can be compressed enough to break quarks apart somehow. We have no real theory or evidence about such a state of matter.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Density

A few speculative comments on extreme Density.

A neutron star is formed when there is sufficient pressure to force electrons into the Protons, resulting in the formation of a region compose entirely of neutrons.

According to my unconventional definition of dimension, the formation of a neutron star represents a dimensional collapse. The spatial measure associated with charge is destroyed within the volume of the neutron star; there can be no positive or negative charge in this region of spacetime. A fundamental property of space-time does not exist within the neutron star. (Some may argue that the positive and negative regions exist “virtually” due to quantum variations).

If one allows the idea of dimensional collapse as a basis for prediction, a highly speculative extrapolation of such an idea would be to ponder the next potential form of dimensional collapse.

When matter is sufficiently compressed, i.e. a certain amount of energy is contained within a given volume of space, the quark limit is reached. At these energy densities it is possible to detect the destruction of matter into it’s “pieces” and based upon the patterns observed, the existence of Quarks are inferred. Quarks are not attached to the “fabric of reality” and as such they are out of our “plane” of reality and they “disappear”.

Where do the quarks go? In laboratory tests, the quarks quickly recombine forming matter again. But what would happen if the pressure was so great that the quarks could not reemerge? Would a “singularity” form? I think not. I believe that matter is actually composed of relationships of spacetime, and there are two “sides” to spacetime. These “sides” are more like changes in state, somewhat like how water can be liquid or frozen. We live in the “frozen” reality, but on the “other side” there is the liquid state. Dirac gave a similar hypothesis in which he conjectured that we were like fish living in a sea, not really aware of the ocean we were swimming in.

The influx of spacetime (or matter) into the “liquid” region of spacetime causes a “ripple” or what we perceive as a gamma ray burst.

Snowflake.

If a dimensional collapse is possible, then why not a dimensional rise?
-MT

Read about the Plank units.

Accepted theory is that you can't tell if something is compressed beyond a certain point, so in many ways you can treat that as a limit. You can't resolve a "thing" in a smaller volume, so what does it mean to state that the thing is smaller? You only know a range of possible positions for it.

Work-in-progress theories take that to a more literal meaning, where space or particles stop showing more detail below that scale, really.

Hi MT
I believe as you, that dimensions can, "rise". There is some logic to having a point translate to a line, and a line to a plane, etc. But prediciting such relationships, or testing the validity of them is difficult.

It is my belief such an "expansion" of dimensions is how the universe "hatched".

Snowflake

that is exactly the point i have tried to address in my endless rantings..

i must rest....
-MT