|
Top Document: [sci.astro] Astrophysics (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (4/9) Previous Document: D.07 Do gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Next Document: D.09 How can gravity escape from a black hole? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge P.S. Laplace wrote in 1798: "A luminous star, of the same density of Earth, and whose diameter should be two hundred and fifty times larger than that of the Sun would not in consequence of its attraction, allow any of its rays to arrive at us; it is therefore possible that the largest luminous bodies in the universe may, through this cause, be invisible." _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler presents a dialog explaining why black holes deserve their name. (It is on pp 872--875 in the 1978 paperback edition, ISBN 0-7167-0344-0.) As explained in D.03, light rays follow geodesics in spacetime. To describe things fully you need Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. In these coordinates it's pretty easy to see there is a 'surface of last influence'. In fact, page 873 of MTW has a pretty good graphic showing just that. The surface of last influence is the 'birthpoint' of the black hole. It's also clear that in the normal sense of things, 'up' doesn't exist on the surface of a black hole. As a matter of fact, black holes don't really have solid surfaces as you might be thinking. Black holes have horizons, but that's a region in space, not a solid surface. If you draw various world lines of observers travelling in and around black holes you will see that the light cones of observers who don't cross the event horizon have some segment of those cones above the horizon. Those observers who do cross the event horizon of a black hole are constrained to fall toward the center eventually. There simply are not any geodesics that cross the horizon in the outward direction. At the center there is a region of infinite density and zero volume where everything ends up. This is a problem in the classical understanding of black holes. Recent attempts to understand black holes on a quantum level have indicated that they radiate thermally (they have a finite temperature, though one incredibly low if the black hole is of reasonable size) that is proportional to the gradient of the gravity field. This is due to the capture of virtual particles decaying from the vacuum at the horizon. These are created in pairs and one of them is caught in the black hole and the other is radiated externally. This has been interpreted by Hawking as a tunneling effect and as a form of Unruh radiation. This may give some clever and knowledgeable researcher enough information to figure out what's happening at the center someday. Another way to think about things is to consider basic geometry. The surface area of a ball is related to its diameter by pi. A = pi*d^2. But any gravitating body distorts space so that a light beam travelling through the center of the body measures a diameter slightly larger than that indicated by the surface from which it is measured. In the case of a black hole the diameter measured in this way is infinite, while the surface area is finite. User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Astrophysics (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (4/9) Previous Document: D.07 Do gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? Next Document: D.09 How can gravity escape from a black hole? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|

with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP