|
Science Forum Index » Astronomy Forum » Black Holes in Early Universe
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Akh |
 Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
Please post web sites on these topics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| rdowning |
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Search Google: primordial black hole
~ 35K hits...
"Akh" <oneguy_ks@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1533ac.0312141855.1b3f376e@posting.google.com...
Quote: I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
Please post web sites on these topics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| variable magnitude |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Akh" <oneguy_ks@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1533ac.0312141855.1b3f376e@posting.google.com...
Quote: I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
I guess there were no black holes back then, at least not the kind we think
exist now (remains of stars)
Quote: What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
I would not know, but any situation with high enough density mass will know
black holes, I guess that at the beginning of the universe, all mass was
compressed into a very small volume, hence it was probably a black hole (if
photons did exist back then)
Quote: Please post web sites on these topics.
sorry, I suggest you use google. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| onegod |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Akh" <oneguy_ks@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1533ac.0312141855.1b3f376e@posting.google.com...
Quote: I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
Please post web sites on these topics.
Here's my theory (of course someone else could have had same theory though
mine is independent)...
There were always been black hole and matter....
Silly religious idea that universe must have BEGINNING is probably wrong....
And "the" big bang is just "a" big bang cause by collision of 2 black holes.
It is possible that such collision causes mini black holes.... Or it is
possible that result will be one black hole, but with large energy release.
You can think of it this way.... Water evaperate (big bang), cool and
condenses forms cloud (form matter), rain (star/black hole) and cycle begin
again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg Neill |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Akh" <oneguy_ks@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1533ac.0312141855.1b3f376e@posting.google.com...
Quote: I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
Simply collect enough matter in a finite region of space.
This would probably not be too difficult to do in the
early, denser universe. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rajesh Khanna |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There are no black holes, they are only theoretical object. If you can not
see it, it do not exist. All this stuff is fucking cooked up Theoreticians.
"Akh" <oneguy_ks@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1533ac.0312141855.1b3f376e@posting.google.com...
Quote: I have two questions.
How were black holes formed in early universe when there were no starts?
What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
Please post web sites on these topics.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/12/2003 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jonathan Silverlight |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <58zDb.72021$K17.52442@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, Rajesh
Khanna <paresh123@sbcglobal.net> writes
Quote: There are no black holes, they are only theoretical object. If you can not
see it, it do not exist. All this stuff is fucking cooked up Theoreticians.
Plonk.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| G=EMC^2 Glazier |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One could easily have the idea that out of the big bang came blackholes
that were the size of a proton. That could be used to answer many
mysteries of the structure and placement of hydrogen clouds. Could be
the dark matter to help add to the 95% of the gravity(mass) missing.
Well I posted that explosion of 1908 could have been a BH the size of a
proton going through the Earth. A BH the size of a proton in deep space
could keep a rock the size of a mountain orbiting around it. Problem is
both would be invisible. Still it could be reality. Maybe that
great explosion in Siberia was telling us that BH the size of protons
are out there,and keeping the Earth rotating around the galaxy Bert.
PS Could be the one pole particle that was theorized to come out of the
BB was really a BH the size of a proton ????? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6855-3FE081B1-10@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Quote: One could easily have the idea that out of the big bang came blackholes
that were the size of a proton. That could be used to answer many
mysteries of the structure and placement of hydrogen clouds. Could be
the dark matter to help add to the 95% of the gravity(mass) missing.
Well I posted that explosion of 1908 could have been a BH the size of a
proton going through the Earth. A BH the size of a proton in deep space
could keep a rock the size of a mountain orbiting around it. Problem is
both would be invisible. Still it could be reality.
A proton is ~ 1fm in diameter, so a proton sized black hole would have a
mass of
~ 300 x 10^9 kg.
I don't know the mass of any mountains off hand, but we can model one as a
pyramid of rock with 1 km^2 base and 1km high. I guess that would be a
smallish mountain, as Everest is around 8km high. If a mean density of 3
g/cm^3 is assumed, the small mountain would have a mass of 10^12 kg. So, a
small mountain would have a higher mass than a proton sized black hole.
DaveL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jonathan Silverlight |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <brq69g$6d2sh$1@ID-203465.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave
<davejlythgoe@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Quote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6855-3FE081B1-10@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
One could easily have the idea that out of the big bang came blackholes
that were the size of a proton. That could be used to answer many
mysteries of the structure and placement of hydrogen clouds. Could be
the dark matter to help add to the 95% of the gravity(mass) missing.
Well I posted that explosion of 1908 could have been a BH the size of a
proton going through the Earth. A BH the size of a proton in deep space
could keep a rock the size of a mountain orbiting around it. Problem is
both would be invisible. Still it could be reality.
A proton is ~ 1fm in diameter, so a proton sized black hole would have a
mass of
~ 300 x 10^9 kg.
I don't know the mass of any mountains off hand, but we can model one as a
pyramid of rock with 1 km^2 base and 1km high. I guess that would be a
smallish mountain, as Everest is around 8km high. If a mean density of 3
g/cm^3 is assumed, the small mountain would have a mass of 10^12 kg. So, a
small mountain would have a higher mass than a proton sized black hole.
DaveL
Also, these tiny black holes aren't stable and are evaporating because
of Hawking radiation. There's a pretty good idea of how many primordial
BHs there are because this radiation hasn't been observed.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg Neill |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dave" <davejlythgoe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:brq69g$6d2sh$1@ID-203465.news.uni-berlin.de...
Quote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6855-3FE081B1-10@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
One could easily have the idea that out of the big bang came blackholes
that were the size of a proton. That could be used to answer many
mysteries of the structure and placement of hydrogen clouds. Could be
the dark matter to help add to the 95% of the gravity(mass) missing.
Well I posted that explosion of 1908 could have been a BH the size of a
proton going through the Earth. A BH the size of a proton in deep space
could keep a rock the size of a mountain orbiting around it. Problem is
both would be invisible. Still it could be reality.
A proton is ~ 1fm in diameter, so a proton sized black hole would have a
mass of
~ 300 x 10^9 kg.
I don't know the mass of any mountains off hand, but we can model one as a
pyramid of rock with 1 km^2 base and 1km high. I guess that would be a
smallish mountain, as Everest is around 8km high. If a mean density of 3
g/cm^3 is assumed, the small mountain would have a mass of 10^12 kg. So, a
small mountain would have a higher mass than a proton sized black hole.
DaveL
Also, teensy black holes evaporate very quickly and with a
great deal of rather obvious radiation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Matthew Montchalin |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, variable magnitude wrote:
|> What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
|
|I would not know, but any situation with high enough density mass will
|know black holes, I guess that at the beginning of the universe, all
|mass was compressed into a very small volume, hence it was probably a
|black hole (if photons did exist back then)
Why did the early universe begin to decouple, then?
You don't think that black holes are capable of rotational periods close
to the speed of light? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Matthew Montchalin |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, onegod wrote:
|Here's my theory (of course someone else could have had same theory though
|mine is independent)...
|
|There were always been black hole and matter....
That's like saying that there has always been a straight line. If you
define a straight line as the distance between two points as followed
by light, that isn't going to work in the long run. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| variable magnitude |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Matthew Montchalin" <mmontcha@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0312182032190.1080-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
Quote: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, variable magnitude wrote:
|> What other ways black holes are formed besides supre nova explosions?
|
|I would not know, but any situation with high enough density mass will
|know black holes, I guess that at the beginning of the universe, all
|mass was compressed into a very small volume, hence it was probably a
|black hole (if photons did exist back then)
Why did the early universe begin to decouple, then?
hm, good question, I guess it was not a black hole after all then
Quote: You don't think that black holes are capable of rotational periods close
to the speed of light?
I don't know why they should not be capable of such rotational speeds? why
do you ask this question in response to my posting? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Matthew Montchalin |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, variable magnitude wrote:
|> You don't think that black holes are capable of rotational periods close
|> to the speed of light?
|
|I don't know why they should not be capable of such rotational speeds?
If the rotational period is close to the speed of light, and the speed
of light happens to be the escape velocity for anything captured by
the black hole, then the shape of the event horizon will be elongated
along the equator, as opposed to the poles. The greater the rotational
period, the greater the elongation. This is reflected in the accretion
disk that you find surrounding a black hole.
|why do you ask this question in response to my posting?
Wouldn't a deformed event horizon be problematical for any particle to
stay in orbit around the black hole?
If an event horizon 'vibrates' like a string, due to the exceptional
speed of rotation, then it will make it even harder for particles to
remain in orbit around the black hole. Either they fall in, or they
fall out. Since it is not possible to know in advance whether they
are destined to fall in, or fall out, we have to assume that there
is a fifty-fifty chance of falling in or falling out. This is like
Hawking radiation for very small black holes, but in this case, it
applies to black holes of any size, but which have a great rotational
speed, and from interference with material that is falling in, will
be subjected to turbulence - eddies or wrinkles - at the event
horizon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
