Skip to main content


What did you always wonder about #BlackHoles? Something that you always wanted to ask an astronomer working on them?

Collecting questions for a reason, maybe even answering them in the comments (or at a later point).

#VicisAstro

Dr. Victoria Grinberg reshared this.

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

At what mass does a black hole start to radiate? Do all galaxies have super massive b.h. at their core? Why do those exist?
in reply to Joe

Excellent questions! But what do you mean with "radiate"? Hawking radiation or something else?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Yes, I don't know. I've read several things and to be honest, I'm confused. So most of what we know is black holes just take on mass, but Hawking showed us how they radiate, but wasn't there other work that showed they had massive bursts of energy too? Anyway, perhaps the longer question is do they just take on mass or does something else happen as well?
in reply to Joe

@RegGuy aaah, this helps actually. Especially the confusion part, this points me to possibly some things that are not well explained.
@Joe
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Popular sci-fi always tells the tale that time gets much “slower” the nearer you come the singularity.
So, within the singularity, is there something similar to our concept of time?
And how long would a person on earth need to wait for an “in singularity breewed three minute tea”?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Nicolas Dufour

@nrdufour I'm a bit confused what you are talking about. Could you provide some context where you heard about them? (Or is this a joke about "black holes habe no hair" theorem?)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

hello, ah yes I think I used the wrong term.
It seems described as "quantum hair".
Ah yes, the no-hair theorem must be the one. Sorry, I'm definitively not a specialist in this domain.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Nicolas Dufour

@nrdufour no worries, this a cool question and it helps me trying to understand where people are confused! Thank you so much!
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I’m most curious about gravitational time dilation. Could the gravity of a black hole become so strong, that time inside the black hole essentially stands still?
in reply to Mikael Lundin 🍀🥦♻️

@mikaellundin This question is excellent. I would have asked the same. From the point of view of an external observer anything that falls into a black hole gets eventually "frozen" due to time dilation and never reach the events horizon. From the point of view of whatever is falling into the black hole there is no time dilation locally and the fall time to an hypothetical singularity would be finite. How to solve this paradox? A solution to this question would mean that we have pushed the boundaries of physics or our understanding of it.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jose Sabater

I'm not sure I agree on the pushing - I feel that it's just the failure of our little monkey brains to imagine things that are outside of our experience. We can describe this mathematically! But in a way this is more philosophy than physics 😀
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Mikael Lundin 🍀🥦♻️

Excellent question! That's one of the things that I find people struggle to get their way around in theory of relativity - that time is not something absolute! To be honest, this is also not something I can easily imagine, because it's so outside of my experience even though i could (after some refreshing of the maths) calculate it.

To an observer outside, the time seems to stand still. But to the person falling in, it will actually keep going at a normal pace!

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What's the actual physical representation of the concept of a black hole?
There's a "surface" (event horizon) below light cannot escape.
There's the (mathematically) construct of a singularity in the middle.
But what's between those?
And what the frick is this singularity?! 😵‍💫
in reply to Andreas

@ePD5qRxX the actual physical representation are the formulae of the general relativity 😀

I think our failure to imagine clearly what this means except by using images and metaphors from our everyday life just shows that our brains are not very well equipped imaging things that are not within our own experience. We have very clear expectations how space should behave ...

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What percentage of "all mass" (if that phrase even has meaning) is in black holes? And is there anything useful we can say about how that percentage evolves in time?
in reply to Bart Smit / ⲁⲗⲍⲓⲙⲟⲛ

@alzimon A really small part! For example, the mass of the supermassive black hole in our own Galaxy is 4.3 million solar masses, but the mass of the Milky Way are several hundred billion solar masses. Even if we count all the stellar mass black hole in the Milky Way additionally, it will still be a very small part. Similar consideration apply to other Galaxies.

It will grow over time as more stars die and become stellar black holes and as supermassive black holes grow but sloooooowly.

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Just to have a ballpark figure for the order of magnitude, I'll take that to be around 10 to the minus 5 (a thousandth of a percent). Wow. That is waaaay less then I imagined (thankfully not more; that would have been scary). Thanks!
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Are there any *other* metaphors to describe black holes (which are not simply "black holes"^^)?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Henrik Schönemann

@lavaeolus I'm going to ask you to specify what you mean by metaphor - in a certain way any description we create with words is a metaphor, the closest we get to not being one is maths, but everything else is an image we create...?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I should have specified: "... any *other* metaphors"^^

And yes, I agree with your assessment re metaphors as a whole
(spoken with a background in literature studies)

in reply to Henrik Schönemann

@lavaeolus I'm endorsing this because that would have been my question as well. we call it a black hole but how does the reality differ from our armchair metaphor?
in reply to Tarnport

that depends a bit on what your exact metaphor is - when someone says "black hole", I imagine likely something very different than someone who has not worked on them. I don't know what image the words create in someone's head. Hope this makes sense! But it's hard to disentangle.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

what happens to those tiny black holes that allegedly could be created during particle collision experiments?
in reply to Ives

@ives the short version: they could not really. For this to be probable, the energies of the collisions need to be close to Planck energy and we are very, very far away from this - in fact not even giant space explosions (where lots of particles with energies much higher than we can reach in the colliders collide) such as supernovae don't seem to produce them. In any case, they would immediately evaporate. Poof ;)
@Ives
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

That last bit is what I don't quite get. How does a black hole evaporate if nothing can get out?
in reply to Ives

quantum mechanics (or rather quantum field theory, so kinda the next step in complexity)! To get it really, you'd have to sit down and do the high level maths of rather complex physics. It's a bit complex to explain even in a simple image in a thread online, but I may try later.
It's still nothing getting out, as mind-boggling it sounds; but this is where our simple understanding breaks down because this is so far outside of how world works in our everyday experience!
This entry was edited (6 days ago)
in reply to Sarah Brown

arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841
@goatsarah
in reply to Sarah Brown

@goatsarah
I was trying to work out how to word this idea; I think you've done a really good job of it!
in reply to Tommaths (he/him)

@TeaKayB @goatsarah I've answered the question here: mastodon.social/@vicgrinberg/1…


@goatsarah when things get very small, so when things get close to singularity, we need to use both General Relativity and quantum mechanics, however so far we do not know how to combine both. Finding this "Quantum theory of gravity" or "Theory of Everything" is one of the big questions of today's physics! So a singularity is a handy description within the general relativity but we know that general relativity is (likely) not enough...

in reply to Sarah Brown

@goatsarah when things get very small, so when things get close to singularity, we need to use both General Relativity and quantum mechanics, however so far we do not know how to combine both. Finding this "Quantum theory of gravity" or "Theory of Everything" is one of the big questions of today's physics! So a singularity is a handy description within the general relativity but we know that general relativity is (likely) not enough...
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Seem to recall there are equations for rotating black holes, and equations for non-rotating black holes.

Are there equations for "black holes that don't rotate very much at all, slow as molasses but not completely still"?

...or, alternatively...

Is there such a thing as "non-rotating" at all anywhere in any reference frame? Is "non-rotating" just a simplification that doesn't really exist?

in reply to kzurell

@kzurell that's a great question! Yes, we do have those equations - maximally rotating (so called Kerr, after Roy Kerr who discovered this solution) and totally still black holes (Schwarzschild black holes, since Karl Schwarzschild was the first to get this solution) are "edge cases" that were important at starting point, but we know how to deal with stuff in the middle, too.
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I want to understand how black holes produce sound that causes ripples in gasses a gazillion number of light years away. What kind of immense power would that take?
in reply to B Thoreau

@Thoreau thanks for the question! I'm a bit confused what you mean with the sound here - can you explain a bit more or point me to where you read it?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Yes, NASA released a recording, adjusted to the human range of hearing. There are some other videos that use this recording and explain these cause ripples.

youtu.be/NWBkZ3bMSV0?si=6mxznz…

in reply to B Thoreau

The viral audio, to be clear, is not a recording: it has been produced by 'sonifying' data taken from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (another space telescope). The audio produced was originally 57 octaves below middle C, which meant the frequency had to be raised 'quadrillions' of times to be heard by human ears.Sep 1, 2022
in reply to B Thoreau

@Thoreau ah! think a bit about what happens when you move a ball through water, even just a bit - it causes all kinds of ripples. Same happen for a black hole in the middle of the gas in a galaxy. Move it around a bit, and you get a very similar effect!
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What are the theoretical upper and lower limits to their size/mass?
in reply to dana

@dana cool, thanks, that a great question! To immediately give you an answer: there are none from general relativity! For the upper limit it holds that there is no limit, the lower one gets murky because for the very small (thing smaller than the nucleus of an atom) quantum mechanics starts playing a role and we don't know yet how to mix quantum mechanism and relativity!
@dana
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

@dana

I had to bookmark this reply. I'm struggling to comprehend the potential of a black hole so tiny! I love it 🤯

@dana
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

So, black holes are entirely a concept of relativity theory, confirmed by astrophysical observation? But there is no quantum mechanical theory of black holes? That's very interesting.

#astrophysics

in reply to dana

@dana in short: yes! 😊 It's really cool because studying astrophysical black holes really makes us reach a parameter space where we could see our theories break down (alas, so far all the observations confirm what we know from general relativity, so we need to push further).
@dana
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

what does it mean that black holes have the most entropy that can be put into a volume? Does this have implications for the universe as a whole?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

How likely is it that black holes are the motive force at the center of all galaxies? In other words, if there weren't black holes, galaxies wouldn't spin on an axis and be shaped as they are.
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What happens to information that falls into a black hole, and is it truly lost, or does it eventually emerge in some form that could be understood by an outside observer?
in reply to Trebor Resro

@TreborResro cool question and it's literally something that people work on today. According to general relativity it is truly lost, but quantum mechanics really does not like this ...
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

"when" is a black hole fully formed, from the perspective of a distant observer? Suppose we see a supernova, can we say how much later the remnant becomes a black hole? (In a general order of magnitude) Naive explanations of relativistic time dilation seem to indicate "forever or just short of it". Is there something easy to explain about where this simplification becomes misleading? E.g. Wikipedia says

> To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole would appear to tick more slowly than those farther away from the black hole. Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite amount of time to reach it.

in reply to Stylus

@stylus this is a bit mind-boggling because this is totally outside of our everyday experience. In a way, to the outside observer, there is never a fully formed black hole. But at the same time there is no difference between "a fully formed" black hole and an almost formed one to the outside observer.

Things like this a somewhat hard to grasp (but well described in maths), because it's so far outside of our experience of how the world and spacetime works ...

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

how close is the closest known one from us? I know of Sag A* but that’s not exactly near
in reply to Virginicus

@Virginicus AFAIK the first proof that black holes exist in reality came with the LIGO measurement. The pictures of M87 and Sag A* came later. So it’s possible that there’s not actually a list of known Black holes beyond what LIGO measured (those aren’t exactly close ) and the two Event Horizon Telescope pictures. Which would make a list somewhere in the hundreds (or did the gravitational waves give us way more than that?)
in reply to Andre

@ComPod @Virginicus oh no, we have known of black holes long before!

There is indeed no list of known black holes, but this is mostly because there are so many. There are tons and tons of AGN - active galactic nuclei - so accreting black holes in centers of galaxies known. The first eRosita catalog alone contains over 700 000 black holes aip.de/en/news/erosita_dr1/, but we known a lot even before and long before LIGO.

There are also several handful of confirmed stellar mass black holes.

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

do they have a "core"? If matter enters, will it be added to it? If two different elements enter, are they still distinguishable once they are inside?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I'd like to see a really thorough exploration (/debunking/etc.) of the idea that the space within a black hole's event horizon is another universe. Like, it's an appealing notion that the formation of a black hole creates another universe, and thus perhaps our (visible) universe is inside another, larger universe's black hole, and so on. The CMB kind of 'feels like' a black hole's event horizon, too. 1/2
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Are black holes the source of a Big Bang in another dimension?

I mean I know in theory that all the mass is concentrated to a point, and supposedly it's all still there making the black hole, but it feels like the mass has to go somewhere.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Wyatt H Knott

@whknott ot really, at least not according to how we understand general relativity. We as humans like to draw parallels and find patterns in things, but do keep in mind that the "images" we have of black hole or big bang are just cartoon representations, while to truly understand them we'd have to get into the maths of it!
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

one thing I always wondered about: what's between the event horizon (a sphere with a certain radius, right?) and the central singularity (a zero size point at the center?). Vacuum? Cake? Or do we just not know?
in reply to Misja van Laatum

@misjavanlaatum spacetime! Or if something is in the process of falling into the black hole, than the material.

Keep in mind that the event horizon is not like the surface of a planet, it's more an imaginary line along the floor that people are not allowed to step over. It's not like there is suddenly a walk of cake on the other side. Does this comparison help?

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Neutron stars have quark degeneracy pressure to hold back the gravity. Then, if it accretes mass beyond the Tolkov Oppenheimer Volkov limit, quarks compress further into.... nothing? I'm very curious what we know about the dynamics of black hole formation.
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

what's the status of white holes? Can they exist or would they recollapse into a black hole?
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Dr. Victoria Grinberg
@gdsherif @dana what do you mean? The size or the mass?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

For someone who last read any scientific research about black holes when Hawking was still working on them, what's the (in your opinion) coolest new knowledge/theory that has been published/postulated about black holes in the last decade?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I read a book recently about the discovery of gravitational waves. Beyond interferometers as LIGO and VIRGO other two projects were introduced, both still in development or still collecting the needed data before showing actual results: the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna and the Pulsar Timing Array. Are there any relevant updates about this projects and which gap of informations are they going to fill in the overall understanding of gravitational waves and black holes in general?
in reply to Fedo ¶

@fdrc_ff what a cool question! both are measuring different wavelength of gravitational waves - Earth-bound GW detector you are limited by the size of the Earth, space based you can go larger and measure GW from merging supermassive black holes (LISA) and from primordial gravity fluctuations (PTA).

LISA was adopted to be built by ESA in 2024 - esa.int/Science_Exploration/Sp…

For PTA, there are multiple collaborations observing pulsar for such studies eg these folks here epta.eu.org/

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What would be considered the minimum safe distance to Sagittarius A* before radiation or other nastiness would become lethal? Also, can you tell something about time effects when you near a black hole the size of Sagittarius A*? When would you really start to notice (or people looking at you)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Are you hopeful for an underlying mathematical basis that satisfies physics 'inside' and outside of black holes? Without converting between systems of algebra - a generalization?

Related: do we have biases in our understanding or perspective that are a barrier to that? (a philosophical and non-political question!)

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Photons can get trapped in circular orbits around a black hole in the so called "photon sphere", right?

So the longer a black hole exists, the more the photons trapped (the more the energy in the photon sphere).

1. Will I get "fried" by all these photons before reaching the event horizon?

2. Can we measure the amount of energy trapped in these photon spheres?

3. Can this amount of energy be used to measure the age of a black hole?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_s…

Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Dr. Victoria Grinberg
@gdsherif @dana cool, thanks! So the singularity itself is literally a point, so zero size in a sense. For the black hole size, aka radius of event horizon, there is no reason to not be so small. That said, we don't know of any current pathway to make a black hole that small.
Much small, closer to Planck scale, things get tricky because we need to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics and that's one big question of modern physics how to do this...
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Black Hole knowledge seems to be rising rapidly these days, yet they remain pretty mysterious.

Questions:

Do you think human technology will ever get to the point where we could travel into one safely and possibly arrive on the other side?

If yes, how long do you think it might take to get to that point?

What is your best guess of what will be on the other "side"?

in reply to Daleus, Curmudgeon-at-Large

great question! No - this is not a question of technology but of laws of physics. Technology cannot change those and a black hole is something nothing can exit from.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I get what you're saying.

Are you sure we have a complete knowledge of physics at this moment?

Could developments and new insights in the future, make it possible?

Might that be improbable, but not impossible?

in reply to Daleus, Curmudgeon-at-Large

@Dale_Poole no, I'm not saying this. But similar how General Relativity is, in the limit of not too large velocities and not too compact masses, equivalent to Newtonian mechanics any new theory - and we know that we need a theory of quantum gravity - will have to be consistent with GR and QM wherever both of them have shown to be true so far (and we still haven't found where either of them breaks down). So the chances that the theory will allow that kind of technology are rather nil.
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

You realize you're wrecking my dreams of the future, as portrayed in the voluminous history of Science Fiction literature!

Oh well, Science Fact reigns supreme!

Perchance, we'll find some other way to flit around the universe than stupid black holes.

<disappointedly scuffs toes in the loose dirt>.

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

About Hawking radiation: Why it steales energy from the black hole, but not from the void's energy?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

OK, the collapse of mass into a dimensionless point always seems so absurd to me. Why doesn't collapse stop once you have all particles pushed up against each other (that is called degenerate matter isn't it?) How do we know there is a pressure beyond which the exclusion principle fails?. Is it purely from maths or can we experimentally observe it?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

The singularity has no dimensional length in our universe, but could it have length/size in another universe or dimension?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Is the common 2D depiction of a black hole as a heavy object at the bottom of a dimple in a sheet of space very misleading? It implies you can approach the black hole from somewhere outside the sheet and not be affected by it, and also that there is another side to the hole if you pass through it. Aren't they instead hugely condensed spheres of mass that pull everything, everywhere all at once inwards. Iow, isn't calling them holes an inadequate use of language?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

How does Hawking radiation work? If a matter/antimatter particle pair is created at the event horizon and one falls in, do they cancel out inside the BH? Also, the photon from which they are created should come from outside, so why does the BH lose mass?

Can a BH become smaller than the planck length? Can things still "fall in"? And what happens if it becomes smaller in only one direction? E.g. by moving close to lightspeed towards it? Would we see an infinitely thin "BH disk"?

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Hi, amateur question:, what stops a super-massive blackhole from steadily absorbing it's surrounding galaxy? I'm presuming it's very large gravitational field continues beyond the event horizon?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Why are there (hypothesised to be) _small_ black holes? (Primordial ones, for instance.) Without the pressure and gravity of several solar masses' worth of stuff, why wouldn't the black hole matter immediately "pop back out" into being normal matter again? There aren't AFAIK arbitrarily-small neutron stars, for exactly that reason, so why do people think black holes can be small?
in reply to Peter Hartley

@TalesFromTheArmchair
Black holes form when something provides enough energy to overcome the pressure that stops things collapsing in on themselves. One of the things that can provide enough energy is gravity, if you have enough of it, and that gravity comes from getting an enormous amount of matter together in one place.

Another way of overcoming that pressure is by smacking things together _really_ hard. If you could smack two peas together hard enough that the matter that made those peas ended up inside their own event horizon, you'd have made a tiny black hole.

There are some very high-energy things whizzing about the universe. If they hit the right things in the right way, they could form tiny black holes.

Regarding the not popping back out again: once that stuff is inside its own event horizon, there's no popping out: nothing crosses the boundary the other way.

in reply to Tommaths (he/him)

@TeaKayB @TalesFromTheArmchair eeeeeh - most things out there in the Universe, even the very high energy ones, don't have enough energy to create black holes. You'd need to get pretty close to the Planck energy (assuming spacetime does not have extra dimensions which we so far seen no evidence of) and there are no known processes that can bring stuff there.
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

@TalesFromTheArmchair
Cool. Are the energies required feasible from, say, a future particle accelerator? Or is that asking too much of human technology?
in reply to Tommaths (he/him)

Excellent question! No, definitely not. Not even in the big natural space-accelerators such as supernovae etc.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

I remember being a teenager and having a 'this is deep' idea after reading a Brian Greene book, that black holes are actually in some way covers for collapsed stars to repair themselves. Is there any merit to this idea? How would you describe the relationship between black holes and their progenitor stars?
@Franziska_Naja
in reply to blan©k.

uhm I honestly don't remember that idea? Sorry!
But I can tell a bit about the relationship: black holes have 3 properties - mass, spin and charge. Stellar mass black holes get all three mostly from their progenitor stars. So if we know how many black holes of e.g. different masses there are we can say something about what kind of stars made them, same if we look at black hole spin and try to derive how their progenitors rotated.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Dr. Victoria Grinberg
@Tarnport @lavaeolus thanks for explaining! Imho, any visualization is going to be cutting corners - we can't visualise 4-dimensional things (or at least I can't). The "ground truth" is maths but we are not used to trust maths and not our senses in a way.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Dr. Victoria Grinberg
@lavaeolus @Tarnport what I meant with visualisation is everything that creates a picture - visual picture or audio picture - in your head, so any set of words.
Unknown parent

@Tarnport But I'm not only talking about visualizations - also about how can we talk about phenomena like 'black holes'?
What other language/phrasing/metaphors can we use to talk about it?
in reply to @ NovaNaturalist🇨🇦🇩🇰🇬🇱🇵🇦🇲🇽 FBPE

@NovaNaturalist great question! this answer may be helpful: mastodon.social/@vicgrinberg/1…


@dana cool, thanks, that a great question! To immediately give you an answer: there are none from general relativity! For the upper limit it holds that there is no limit, the lower one gets murky because for the very small (thing smaller than the nucleus of an atom) quantum mechanics starts playing a role and we don't know yet how to mix quantum mechanism and relativity!

in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

a more general astronomy question but that's also relates to black holes: when we view light from a star - it's so far away and a singular point - does that mean that everyone viewing it at the same time is entangled with the same photon. With gravitational lensing - does this also mean that with each instance of an object projected are we seeing the same entangled light - or is it different photons?
in reply to Dr. Victoria Grinberg

What fraction of the total (baryonic) mass of the universe has been consumed by AGN (just the central BH, not counting the host galaxies)?