Is there anybody out there?

Gateways.

File: 1485440858628.gif (110KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 460x460px

>>18570320
To where? Or what?

>>18570330
The real world.

>what does a black hole look like in 3d space

A black sphere with no defining surface, so a circle then.

>if particles enter where do they go

Behind the event. That black surface. Their mass is still there, you just can't see it.

>could blackholes be shortcuts in space

No

>do we really know

There are things we don't know about them, but not the answers to your questions

>have we sent probes in

No, they're far too distant.

>>18570310
A black hole isn't actually a hole

Its an incredibly dense mass with a gravitational pull so strong that everything seems to be drawn towards it, including light.

>>18570310
First thing to understand: THERE IS NO HOLE. A black hole is a ball of matter, like a sun or a planet, but with so much mass that light gets trapped in its gravity well.

A black hole would look like a sphere of nothing with severe visual distortion around the edges. If there is matter currently being sucked into the gravity well, the closest imagining of that visual is the black hole in Interstellar.

Light that enters the event horizon becomes trapped because the warping of time space by the mass means there is no path for the light to travel that leads away from the black hole. However it appears particles CAN escape a black hole: look up Hawking Radiation.

Mathematically, a black hole could potentially create a wormhole or some other shortcut in space, but there's not even a hypothesis as to how to survive the crushing forces involved.

We have not sent probes anywhere near a black hole, let alone beyond the event horizon of one.

>>18570353
>A black hole would look like a sphere of nothing with severe visual distortion around the edges
This is the only right answer.
You will only see light from behind it distorted by its presence.

>>18570310
>What does a Black Hole look like in three dimensional space?
They are black spheres, with intense gravitational lensing surrounding them.

>What's behind the hole? Can you get sucked in from the back??
I'm not sure what you mean by this. In our space a black hole has no back or front.

Where stuff goes when it enters is up for debate, we can only speculate mathematically for the most part. The math suggests that the intense gravitational force is strong enough to overcome nuclear forces that traditionally keep matter from occupying the same physical space. As such any matter entering the black hole should collapse into a single spatial point, referred to as a singularity. Some theories suggest the singularity may punch a hole through our spacetime, where it leads is speculation, maybe to a different point in spacetime. Using them as shortcuts would be incredibly hard for humans however, as we would have to overcome, not only the atomic deconstruction of your body, but the massive time dilation that would occur in the proximity of the black hole (time slows down in high gravity).

>Do we really know? Or is it all speculation.
Like i said above it's mostly mathematical, actually observing a black hole is very difficulty.

>Have we sent probes in?
no, they are hard enough to find, and there are no known black holes anywhere close enough for us to even consider doing that, plus it would be largely pointless, even if the probe could somehow survive, our transmissions are radio frequencies, a form of light, meaning they wouldn't escape the black hole either. We'd also have to deal with the time dilation again.

>>18570310
>>18570373
Adding to my already lengthy post, I should stress that the interior constructions of black holes are very much mathematical speculation and vary based on approaches to the subject, for instance whether or not the black hole is rotating would effect the theoretical appearance of the singularity. Furthermore, the high gravitation would force particles so close together where they would then have to be described using quantum formulation (and you get into stuff with pauli exclusion and uncertainty), but gravitational theory and quantum formulation don't yet get along well (last I heard at least).

The short is that once you go past the event horizon, a lot of it is up for debate.

I watch a lot of PBS Space Time

How big (or small) can black holes be?
Like, a grain of sand? An atom? Light years across?

I'm kinda stupid in the brain, but I like reading about these things.

>>18570429
microblackholes can be smaller than an atom.

There's not an upper limit on how big they can get, except of course for mass. That is, if you put all the mass in the universe together in one black hole, I don't know how big that would be.

The supermassive black holes that have been observed have radii on the scale of the distance from the sun to Uranus.

I like to fuck them?.
Wait.. what?
Oh.. I thought you said black hoes.....

>>18570447
Thanks, anon!
That is terrifying, but interesting to know.

>>18570429
Theoretically speaking, black holes are speculated to cause the death and life of the universe, as they are ever expandig. The gravitational pull from super black holes (bigger and older black holes) actually affect the whole galaxy, because they slowly drag anything and everything towards them. As for the death life theory, its said that the super black holes eventually will eat up all there is in the universe, until theres only the black holes left, which will merge together, creating a even bigger and more powerful black hole, and then, when there is nothing more for the black hole to consume, it will "die" explode, and once again all the material from the previous universe will spread out in the split of a milisecond, and we have a new big bang

>>18570511
That's pretty cool.
I wish it were possible to watch it.

I kinda want to see the Andromeda galaxy looming in on us too.

>>18570310
You should check out Issac Arthur on youtube for this sort of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qam5BkXIEhQ

>>18570511
Nah, all wrong, you made that all up or some asshole lied to you.

The oldest, most massive black holes will evaporate in something like 6*10^90 years. The universe is bigger than you, apparently, can comprehend so all the black holes in the universe will not merge.

After the last proton decays in 4*10^120 years the universe will be permanently swallowed by entropy.

>>18570310
Interstellar has the most realistic blackhole to date.

Could you get a reverse black hole?

>>18570564
nigger fuck you, its a theory when the universe stps expanding, and the gravitational forces will eventually cause black holes to conusme the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_aOIA-vyBo

>>18570310
I think a black hole is basically Spaces toilet. It sucks matter in then shits it out, creating dark matter and expanding the universe.

>>18570310
They simply join the big black circle of voidness

a black hole is 2d

but inside it it has many more dimensions

anything that joins it simply becomes a part of it and nothing else

its the strongest force on earth

>>18570447
So do micro blackholes eventually gain go much mass that they continously grow in size?

>>18570601
Looks like you took the big crunch the wrong way then. Sorry you're so stupid.

Also there is no way to know if the universe will "bounce" or not.

One more thing, astrophysicists pretty much agree with a .04% margin or error that the universe is flat. That means heat death one way or another.

>>18570607
>on earth
Care to elaborate?

File: tw5e2ad.jpg (913KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1600x1600px

Largest black hole known is S5 0014+81, with 40,000,000,000 solar masses and a diameter of about 1600 astronomical units

>>18570626
That's... fucked up to think about.

>>18570609
No, they lose mass very quickly and almost instantly evaporate.

>>18570511
Black holes are not ever-expanding. Without a constant input of matter, they will eventually dissapate. Micro-black holes appear and dissapear in less than a millisecond. Again, look up Hawking Radiation.

>>18570598
There's a hypothesis that such an object could exist. Look up white holes.

>>18570310
in a three dimensional space it looks like a cell shaded cartoon 2d sphere.

File: 1484002653660.jpg (6KB, 187x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 187x250px

>>18570310
>Can you get sucked from the back??
yes.

File: 4581194252_f6fe719505.jpg (204KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 500x375px

>>18570310

like this but denser and denser.

>>18570310

A black hole is nothing more than something we see on the horizon. It could be a round tunnel to another part of the universe wich would also look like licht is sucked in.

Just because math indicates that it is caused by gravity does not mean that theory is true

Look up any drawing that is drawn in perspective and everything gets smaller towards it

Everything.

Anything in our known universe can be sucked inside a blackhole, and the black hole can contain anything.

File: r-really.gif (850KB, 400x426px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 400x426px

>>18571001
>Anything in our known universe can be sucked inside a blackhole

>>18570620

>the universe is flat

What the FUCK is that supossed to mean?

>>18571233
It means if you keep going in one direction you'll keep going in one direction, instead of looping back to your starting point like in Pac-man.

>>18571237

Oh alright then that I like. So theres a way we can go to the center right? We just have to go to the right direction right?

>>18570353
Particles definitely cannot escape a black hole, I don't think you fully understand Hawking radiation

>>18570972
The math doesn't "indicate" that it's due to gravity. They are DEFINED as being caused by gravity. The fact that we have detected objects that match the definition were just a happy fortune.

>>18571260
it means there is no center, that space is expanding in every direction faster than light

I think black holes are a gateway to other universes

Like how the Big Bang happened

>>18571498
>Physicist Stephen Hawking famously realized that on the microscopic, quantum mechanical level, things can escape from black holes. He predicted that black holes will spontaneously emit particles in a process he dubbed Hawking radiation.

No, I don't understand Hawing radiation. I doubt anyone on this board does. It's why I said look it up instead of trying to explain it.

>>18571498
>>18572091
Graduate physics major here, even I don't fully understand hawking radiation, because it involves perturbations in quantum field theory, which is something I'm currently learning right now.

The simple summary that is often used is that fluctuations in space can be described quantum mechanically as virtual particle pairs (pairs meaning a particle and antiparticle) which appear and immediately annihilate one another. Near the even horizon of a black hole, one of these virtual particles may become trapped within the black hole, while the other is just outside the point of no return, potentially allowing it to escape. This escape would force it to no longer be virtual, meaning it would have mass and momentum, in other words, energy. However, conservation of energy demands this energy come from somewhere, so the only possible source is the black hole. The particle escapes annihilation and in turn steals some energy from the black hole.

>>18571498
>>18572370
I should also stress that in quantum mechanics, "particles" is a fairly broad term, one that includes photons (light). So keep that in mind when you hear particles in the context of physics.

If black holes suck up practically everything including light, can it then be used as a time machine of sorts? If you could peer into a black hole in any way couldn't you look back at the universe several millions of years ago?

>>18573430
Same physics guy here again, that's a question that is difficult. If you're truly interested read a little into this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

The short is, we don't know for sure, but it's thought that no, we couldn't as the once stuff goes in it appears to devolve to the same state, not indicative of what it was in the past. I'd try to explain it more, but I'm on my phone and it sucks to type.

>>18570750
>>18570626
No, that is just the width of the area inside which gravity is to powerful for even light to escape... The actual "black hole" is Very small... Like others have said, it is a singularity. They have different masses, causing them to have stronger or weaker gravitational fields.
They are not objects... Size does not apply to them in the same way it applies to us.

>>18573917
*too *very

If our moon for some reason started to orbit earth in near light-speeds (50% or more)... after x years, would it continue to be in its' expected place? or would it end up being ahead of earth's orbit due to time dilation? if a person lived on that moon, and had a webcam showing earth and vice versa... would he be seeing things here going slightly on fast forward? would we be seeing things there being slower than normal?

>>18570938
Hawking radiation is only speculated to exist. There is no proof that it actually can cause a black hole to evaporate.

>>18572091
I understand it, and while it is theoretically possilbe, there is no proof it actually exists.

>>18570310
black holes are part of modern cosmology, they are made-up SCI-FI tier bullshits. The closest match to a black hole in the real world are Rahu and Ketu, the two orbs made of invisible light that you can see during eclipses when they pass in front or behind the Sun and Moon, for that reason they are also called the black Sun and the black Moon, or even the black hole Sun by some.

>>18570352
Serious question - What would happen if we sent a satellite into a black hole with a rope attached to it, with the ropped attached here, would the earth be pulled?

>>18572370
>>18572398
>>18573468
These are educated responses.

>>18574039
>>18574042
This is the Dunning-Krueger effect. Note the differences so you can spot it in the future.

>>18574184
Facepalm 2x10e100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

>>18570310
Death by black hole wouldn't be so bad.

>>18570352
Would you say space is an Incredably fence mass? What if black holes are just our space being views in the 4th dimension, being shown in the 3rd?

If you put a 3D being near a 2d being, it would see a 2d being. Don't you think that would be the same for our dimentional if there were others?

>>18570310
Why the fuck is this on paranormal you can access all of this information and answer most of those questions with a quick google search.

Could my dick fit inside a black hole. I mean that my shit is of universal/cosmic proportions.

File: tmnt-gif1.gif (562KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 500x388px

>>18570607
>> a black hole is 2d
Wrong...
>> but inside it it has many more dimensions
Wrong again..
>> anything that joins it simply becomes a part of it and nothing else
Also wrong..
>> its the strongest force on earth
WTFSTFU!?! please lurk more in this actual reality,

>>18575952
Most metal post so far..^^

>>18570310
How does the energy of heat escape it?

Culture yourselves faggots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-P5IFTqB98