Other side of a black hole?

[qwew80]

I wonder what's on the other side of a black hole?   
Some scientists theorize that it is a portal to another dimension.
I wonder how much in common we have with other dimensions?

[Bla]

On the other side?
Isn't it better to say inside?

I sometimes thinks we've gone too far and the portal ideas of black holes and stuff like that is only here for feeding the games, videos and books. I don't know how much it has to do with real science.
Or does it?

[qwew80]

When i say a portal to another dimention, I mean the time-space warping of the extreme gravity creates a virtual hole in space. I theorize that black holes lead to parralel dimentions, which is why I said the other side. I was asking what you'd see because there's no knowing when or where you'd emerge. There's also no guarantee that you'd emerge immediately, or if there's some kind of middle point, a.k.a. point blank(I think).

[FGFG]

I don't think that black holes could lead to other places (in this or other universes) because some of the mass should escape the black hole making it becoming less massive with the time, thing that doesn't happen.

[atomic7732]

Under the emense gravity, I bilieve it actually tears, and pulls in space, and throws it out somewhere else, like a tree (space thrown out) sticking out of the GROUND (normal space).

[qwew80]

Your theory is very credible NeutronStar, and this does happen, of a sorts. Oh, and FGFG, black holes do lose mass over time. Also, scientists theorise the existence of mini black holes that are dissapearing all around us.

[hbmp88]

Wrong wrong wrong new possibility supporting my idea in White holes suggesting that the heat inside needs to escape somehow: At a certain moment the black hole explodes and vaporizes into dark matter.

[Naru523]

Just like the Bermuda Triangle, its likes a black hole. And Dragon's Triangle is like a white hole. Possibly, Dragon and Bermuda could be connected, I saw this on History Channel.

[atomic7732]

Where is the whitehole topic. i can't find it.

[Naru523]

http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,593.0.html

[atomic7732]

I found it while you posted that.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Wrong wrong wrong new possibility supporting my idea in White holes suggesting that the heat inside needs to escape somehow: At a certain moment the black hole explodes and vaporizes into dark matter.

No, I have to say the Black Hole Fusion Density Theory works well... Thechnically, this theory is a hypothesis. But whatever.

The Black Hole Fusion Density Theory states that:

Black holes are one of a kind, since the density is infinity (if it is a singularity/if not, then close to that), It should be able to induce fusion like a star. They emit much more energy than a star, in the x and gamma range, there is more energy, and more mass to fuse hydrogen to helium to carbon, and eventually to elements not yet discovered, eventually getting so dense, they collapse (like they can! haha) and implode, expelling any material inside, in (possibly) highly radioactive, dense material.

that goes along with hbmp88's theory.

[hbmp88]

I found my new supportive hypothesis on history channel on a show called the universe.

[Bla]

A black hole emits Hawking radiation.

The smaller it is, the faster it happens/the more it radiates.

So, very massive black holes will slowly shrink, and in the end "explode".
I still don't see why black holes should be connected with white holes or something like that.

Yes, it might warp the spacetime or something like that, but that only makes time very slow I guess... Which is like reducing the temperature? Hmm. Confuzzling.

[hbmp88]

All it does is bend light, which can easily be explained by the fact that light is grvitationally effected by it.

[FGFG]

The Hawking radiation doesn't came from the inside of a black hole... I've already explained this more than one time...

However Black holes evaporate, yes, but in a very very very very very slow way. The black holes will be the last objects of the universe and will "die" in very very very very long times (billion and billions and billions of years) as it is written in the different timelines posted in the forum.

From wikipedia:

In 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation. He got this result by applying quantum field theory in a static black hole background. The result of his calculations is that a black hole should emit particles in a perfect black body spectrum. This effect has become known as Hawking radiation. Since Hawking's result, many others have verified the effect through various methods. If his theory of black hole radiation is correct then black holes are expected to emit a thermal spectrum of radiation, and thereby lose mass, because according to the theory of relativity mass is just highly condensed energy (E = mc2). Black holes will shrink and evaporate over time. The temperature of this spectrum (Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole, which in turn is inversely proportional to the mass. Large black holes, therefore, emit less radiation than small black holes.
A stellar black hole of 5 solar masses has a Hawking temperature of about 12 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K produced by the cosmic microwave background. Stellar mass (and larger) black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and will thus grow instead of shrink. In order to have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate) a black hole needs to be lighter than the Moon (and therefore a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter).
On the other hand if a black hole is very small, the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car (~10-24 m) would only take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun. Lighter black holes are expected to evaporate even faster, for example a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10-88 seconds to evaporate completely. Of course, for such a small black hole quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could even – although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so – hypothetically make such a small black hole stable.

This is from the section "Evaporation" of the article of wikipedia about black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Evaporation

Is it clear now why black holes aren't wormholes and don't lose mass??

[qwew80]

Everyone, I made a poll to show our opinions. Please vote there if an option compares to what you want.

[atomic7732]

What about my thought? Btw, if you left it blank, it will dissapear.

[FGFG]

Here one of my previous explanation of the hawking radiation:

[...]

If nothing can escape, why the black hole emits radiation like x-ray?

The answer must be found into the quantistic theory.

In the vacuum, everywhere in the universe, a couple of particles are created, one of matter and one of antimatter. After an infinitesimal time, they join and annihilate.
But what happens when the particles are created just near an events' horizon? One particle fall into the black hole, and the other escape at the speed of light. That's it. The x-ray emission is not created directly by the black hole, it doesn't come from the singularity. Nothing can escape a black hole.

[Bla]

I votes none of the above.
I think it's a point of extremely high density, but not infinite. I don't like infinities.
But ofc if science proves that there is infinite density inside a black hole, so be it. I just don't see why there should, since infinite density isn't required to make a black hole (where the escape velocity just has to be higher than c).

[qwew80]

I see the credibility of everyone's theories, and if anyone wants to send me more theories, send me a mail message to my account, or to qwew80@gmail.com (my E-mail account).

[Naru523]

You spelt dimension wrong btw.

[FGFG]

I votes none of the above.
I think it's a point of extremely high density, but not infinite. I don't like infinities.

I don't like rain, but...

I just don't see why there should, since infinite density isn't required to make a black hole (where the escape velocity just has to be higher than c).

But where does the matter of the black hole find the energy to not collapse in a singularity?

Stars not collapse because the core creates energy with the fusion of the hydrogen into helium, (then the helium in heavier elements etc.); the gravity of a black hole is too strong to permit even to protons and neutrons to exist...

[Bla]

I votes none of the above.
I think it's a point of extremely high density, but not infinite. I don't like infinities.

I don't like rain, but...

I just don't see why there should, since infinite density isn't required to make a black hole (where the escape velocity just has to be higher than c).

But where does the matter of the black hole find the energy to not collapse in a singularity?

Stars not collapse because the core creates energy with the fusion of the hydrogen into helium, (then the helium in heavier elements etc.); the gravity of a black hole is too strong to permit even to protons and neutrons to exist...

By "I don't like", I just meant that I don't think it could be possible.
Infinity just sounds unlogical, since it's not 10, 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. All these are 0% of infinite. How can anything become infinite? I'm not good at understanding infinity.
But it wasn't meant in that denial way. I try to state very clearly in my comments that I'm not ignorant.

Anyways.
Even if the gravity is too strong to allow protons and neutrons to exist, what about quarks? What about the smaller particles they probably consist of? And so on. Perhaps it eats itself in the tail, since when the gravity has become big enough to destroy protons, they will collapse to even more dense things that then don't allow the existence of quarks.
But infinity... That must mean that all these particles actually melt together, and all parts of them are in the exactly same point, like if it was a 1-dimensional point.

Thanks for explaining it btw, I think I'm going towards understanding it.

[qwew80]

I'm glad I could make this topic, and I hope that in the near future we all will know better about these kinds of things. I, also, learned some stuff while doing this. I hope you keep on filling out your ideas because I will not close down this topic!!!!!

[atomic7732]

A point is 0-dimensional 
1-dimensinal line

[FGFG]

If you find strange a singularity, you should find strange even quarks and those kind of particles as most of them are point-like, just like the singularities inside black holes.
The gravity of the black hole is so strong that presses every particle in the same point, it's so strong that there isn't a force sufficient to separate them.

[Bla]

Fine enough.
Then I assume it proves that the matter from a black hole won't get into another point in space...

[FGFG]

no...

[Bla]

no...

Why not?

[FGFG]

no... the matter inside a black hole won't get into another point of space