I know that advanced physics is a very complicated subject. I’m also aware that I’m not even an amateur when it comes to black holes and the physics involved, I’m merely an interested fiddler. I do however, understand the basic physical principles behind many things.
For example, I understand about planets being formed because mass clumps together, I understand that the gravity there can cause it to compress and heat up, I understand black holes being formed because there is somuch mass that the whole thing collapses and compresses to a very small space. I also understand how the gravity well created by a black hole won’t allow anything to escape, even light, and thus we have an event horizon. The line in space past which light can’t escape where before it can.
Now in my simple mind we should be able to lower some sensors on a bit of rope beyond the event horizon and see what is there. Ok, It’ll have to be strong rope but the principle is still the same.
What I don’t understand is how we can change some parameters such as angular velocity and make the event horizon vanish. What sort of energy requirement is that going to take? But isn’t that simply spinning the black hole to reduce it’s gravity anyway? Simply moving the event horizon nearing the singularity itself. Still leaving the singularity shrouded though. And if you made the angular velocity sufficient to remove the event horizon surely it wouldn’t be a black hole then? It’ll just be a large spinning mass on the verge of being a black hole. Better get working on a very long yet stong piece of string then if you want to see beyond the event horizon.
I was particularly impressed with the phrase ‘Getting rid of the event horizon is simply a question of increasing the angular momentum and …..’ A new definition of the word simply I fear.
I can’t help wondering if black holes a resultant figment of the Einstein theories as is the speed of light, after all the M & M experiment did give a difference result even if it was half that calculated.
In many ways the scientific establishment has held back progress by not looking at alternatives. Just look at quantum physics where they seem to make up particles to fit the current theory.
One of the best ‘digs’ at light speed I read many years ago – it might have been in Galaxy but I’m not sure, was:
The captain of a space ship turns to the pilot, “I thought I told you to get us to 0.9 c.”
The pilot replies , “we are at 0.9 c relative to our space.”
“What about that galaxy over there?” asks the captain.
“It’s receding at 0.9 c.”
“Then I want us up to 0.9 c relative to that galaxy” orders the captain.
Why has no one tried to look at the speed of light in any gravity well? If it is gravity that is preventing light from escaping from a black hole, how much does it slow down light near the sun and planets? Maybe light speed isn’t constant after all – then what?
Ivan,
Like I said it makes my head hurt. I still think that things that can’t be explained to an interested layman in a few minutes with analogies means that it is not fully understood.
Theories abound but few practical answers. I just want to know where my FTL drive is?
I just know it’s best not to be caught in one.
James,
From experience or you just don’t like the sound of it. I think you are right though. Best avoided.
Ivan – the fact that gravity causes light to slow (or more properly, to take a longer path in space-time) is what causes Mercury to appear in a different position than it really is, when the line of sight is close to the edge of the Sun. That was one confirmation of General relativity.
As for lowering a probe, time slows down near the event horizon, so you couldn’t get a signal out.
Timothy,
Even with the time issues at the event horizon I don’t see it stopping us sending a signal up the line connected to the probe and even if we only get one picture every day similar to ELF in submarines we should still be able to see more than we can from here.
We are just talking about edging closer and closer and as technology improves so should our ability to handle the issues at the event horizon.
It’s been a while since I looked at it. If I recall, the event horizon not only stretches out time, but also distance, so the probe would be smeared throughout the hole. I suspect that tidal stresses would tear any material obeject apart.
Timothy,
I remember that from my SciFi days but I’m taking about a heavy armoured and really small digital camera. When we have the technology to get to a Black Hole surely we will have the technology to protect a mini camera for a few minutes.
We have have to compensate at the recieving end but considering what we can do now with image manipulation already should be a doddle. Relatively speaking (Pun intentional)
I don’t think that armour is going to help. The camera will be stretched out over millions of miles, due to the fabric of space being bent.
Timothy,
Human iIngenuity will find a way for us to make a camera that will work when it is stretched and we can compensate for the image.
There are some smart cookies out there.
Oh forgot to add.
If someone can figure out how to change the angular velocity of a Black Hole then I think a small digital camera is easy in comparison.
Lord T – … except for the fact that the stretching is such that the atoms themselves are torn apart.
Timothy,
Don’t forget we have access to the densest material in the universe. Socialists. We could make those atoms hold together for the fraction of a second we need.
Plus we could have invented other things by the time we get to the stage of exploring Blacks Holes.
Sorry. It still doesn’t work. The atoms themselves are torn apart.
Timothy,
Even with my super new dense materials, my force field and something else that isn’t invented yet but guarantees atoms won’t be damaged in any Black Holes if this stuff is applied before crossing the event horizon.
I know we can’t do anything now but we can’t even get to our nearest planet yet so I have my fingers crossed by the time we get to a Black Hole we have improved technology a bit.
Until then of course you are perfectly correct.