|
Temperature of singularity
|
| According to the book "Illustrate the brief history of time", the temperature of a massive object, is cooler (cold), but in opposite a lightler mass object has hoter temperature (like our Sun... 1 solar mass) do you agree with that? As for my question, singularity is a final form of a massive object (perhaps the core), do you think that such object will have a temperature rate of more than 30 million K? Or maybe below absoute zero? |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
i know nothing but here's a guess Temperature is in part a measure of i guess the velocity of atomic particles in a sample. Singularity is like super compressed mass. So then the temp should be really low since the velocity of the particles is really low since its been smashed into something ultra dense, a very highly exothermic process. Of course, the pull is greater than the speed of light so that heat can never escape from the point of singularity. But then there is no medium to which the heat can be transferred to anyways, so it must be converted into some other form of energy. I'll call this Dark Energy, some kind of free floating energy. It is energy in a form that we have not yet dubbed anything in particular (as opposed to the energy in light, heat, sound, work, and others). All this is based on a monster assumption. That once inside singularity, our basic laws of thermodynamics still apply. Of course entering it is a different story. But considering we were able to get and be there, our laws would again be valid. |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
This is a good guess but you are indeed making one hell of a "monster assumption". The idea that temperature should not change with the decrease in motion due to current velocity causing a decrease in any measureable chronologic scale is...foolish really. The dark energy you mentioned however is very astute and I commend you for acknoledging it but it has to come from somewhere. I believe those changes can only be detected by measuring energy so small it cannot be severly altered by gravimetric force. I think the most effective way of going about this (although not feasible for the foreseable future since it would be cost prohibitive for hundreds of years from now) would be to set up detection equipment in an sphere around the outside of the event horizon of said singularity provided also you can think of a way to detect earlier mentioned energy. Next would be to purposly send matter into it and wait for the reaction.
It wouldnt be as much fun if it were easy.
|
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
We have already theorized about the idea of black holes (singularities) giving off radiation. Stevean Hawking came up with Hawking radiation. It stems from a theory that two sub-atomic particals can pop into existance taking energy from the srounding area if they analite each other giving that energy back. Most places we can't see this except on the event horizian of the black hole. Have one partical appear on one side, and the other on the other side, and we have a black hole emiting sub-atomic particals. I like the idea with dark energy, but it has one small problem. It's assuming it's not electro-magnetic, and it doesn't follow some of the laws of physics. For something to leave the center of a black hole, it needs to start slow, and then speed up to FASTER then the speed of light. We have theorized, (I'm not sure if have actually proven yet) sub-atomic particals called tau, that travel faster then the speed of light, but they can't cross the barrier. Going to the theory of relitivity, anything with mass can't get to the speed of light, cause it's mass aproches infinity. So anything that isn't light can't cross the barrier. Anything that is light goes the speed of light. That's why it's called that. You theory on dark energy assumes that it's not related to energy in any way, but still has no mass. |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
Link |
by TarMinastir
on 2004-11-07 14:20:22
|
|
I do not agree with the first statement. A blue giant is much hotter than our sun, and much more massive. Red dwarves are smaller than our sun, and cooler. For your question, it probably (nearly certainly, in my mind) does not have a temperature of 3x10^7+ K (if it did, there would be a great deal of motion, and radiation? as a result), and absolute zero is "absolute"- there is no temperature below it. Kelvin has no negative numbers, becuase that would imply negative energy. Sub-zero temperatures are defined as impossible on the Kelvin scale. I think it just above absolute zero, perhaps just billionths of a degree above absoute zero (or many orders of magnitude less). "All this is based on a monster assumption. That once inside singularity, our basic laws of thermodynamics still apply. Of course entering it is a different story. But considering we were able to get and be there, our laws would again be valid." I don't want to try to make any conjectures of my own, since I do not know very much about physics, and I cannot do the math required to understand it. I think we must all assume that singularities are not infinite in their density, that they have volume, etc., since the laws of physics DO break down at singularities. That's what made Hawking really mad- if it is a singularity, we lose all ability to measure or predict it, becuase nothing we have applies to it any longer. Edit: Whoa. Sorry, this was my first post, I did not realize post orders were from newest-oldest. Should have. The above was in reply to the first post, which I assumed was the last. Apologies! |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
hmm *skips almost everything and reads red dwarf/blue giant arguement* other things than size obviously affect the temperature of an object, and the biggest factor has to be it's composition. a red dwarf is a ball of mostly iron, while giants have lots of hydrogen etc. that is able to fuse and create lots of heat, so that's a bad example for this. instead, it would be better to compare enormous and small balls of iron for their temperature. though I can't see how their temperatures could be any different. what does the composition of the objects have to be for a small object to be hotter than a huge one? |
Aramis|
Re: Temperature of singularity
Link |
by
on 2004-11-10 11:37:26 |
|
Aramis: are you high? Red Dwarfs are not made of iron! they are STARS! stars are made of plasma, hydrogen and helium. Furthermore, Red Dwarfs are up to 10 times COLDER than Blue Giants. blue flame is hotter than red flame, try it on your own stove at home 
|
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
Actually he's correct to a point. The cores of large starts are made out of iron. The way fusion works in stars is, hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, carbon to sulfer, sulfer to the iron elements (Mn, Fe, Co, Ni) The bigger the elements being fused, the hotter the reaction must be. So the Iron stars he's talking about aren't actually red dwarves, those are cold hydrogen to helium stars. Most iron stars are small white dwarves. Very small, very hot. Most white dwarves we see are mostly carbon. Smaller then that we get iron stars. Smaller still we just get neutron stars which aren't really combosed of atoms too much anymore. So his asumption that there are stars made of iron isn't wrong, but the asumption that they are red dwarves is. |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
|
yeah, sorry about that... anyways since the question of this topic was..is something in the lines of "is a less massive object hotter than a massive object" and as an example, there is "do you agree that the sun could be hotter than a more massive star" my answer is "yeah, depends on what it's made of" but if we are not supposed to take anything but the object's mass in consideration, then i believe more mass = more temperature. even in the case of two iron balls, actually - they heat up, even if a fusion reaction can't start. even when stars are born, the heat for igniting the fusion reaction has to come from somewhere..and it comes when the object is massive enough. |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
Link |
by
on 2005-02-05 14:28:17 |
|
First oof, isn't the singlarity the core of a black hole? The densest non-black hole object is a neutron star and from what I know of them they are actually quite cold. What destroys you is actually the intense gravity. As for the original question, "What temperature is a singularity?" I can only dumb logic. Black hole are effectively natural law destroyers so wouldn't the very question of its temperature be nulled by sheer fact that the laws that govern heat would have been wiped out. Not to mention the thermometer would'v e be "spaghettified" at the event horizon. Spaghettified is a term I heard an actual physicist use on a Discovery Channel special :) |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
|
| this entire thread is absurd. Even if a singularity had a temperature we would never know it. The singularity of a black hole has such an immense mass that it is impossible for anything (taht we know of) to escape. Including the telemetry that we(could not)receive from what ever is trying to dteremine the singularity's termperature. |
|
Re: Temperature of singularity
Link |
by
on 2005-02-26 22:04:54 (edited 2005-02-26 22:05:33)
|
|
not so absurd at all, steven hawking himself admitted that some information may escape from a singularity. and, Patrick, your point might be more thought provoking were you to spell correctly...
|