Go back
A physics question from a conversation I had

A physics question from a conversation I had

Posers and Puzzles

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
That brings to mind a test, assuming you found yourself inside something with a huge gravitation, how do you know if you are in a black hole? If that idea is right, if the speed of sound = the speed of light, you are in a black hole, then whacking something and producing a sound then measuring its velocity would give you an independent test of what medium you were in, wouldn't it?
If you're alive then it's not a black hole.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
That brings to mind a test, assuming you found yourself inside something with a huge gravitation, how do you know if you are in a black hole? If that idea is right, if the speed of sound = the speed of light, you are in a black hole, then whacking something and producing a sound then measuring its velocity would give you an independent test of what medium you were in, wouldn't it?
Um, no. The speed of sound only approaches the speed of light as a neutron star gets heavier. It makes no sense to talk about the speed of sound in a black hole, because there is no sound in a singularity. If you whack a singularity it is not going to vibrate.

Note that while a black hole appears to be a sphere, it is actually a point; the sphere is merely the volume from which light cannot escape. Nothing particularly special happens if you pass the event horizon and enter the sphere. The speed of sound in the metal of your xylophone is still the same.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by GregM
Um, no. The speed of sound only approaches the speed of light as a neutron star gets heavier. It makes no sense to talk about the speed of sound in a black hole, because there is no sound in a singularity. If you whack a singularity it is not going to vibrate.

Note that while a black hole appears to be a sphere, it is actually a point; the sphere is merely ...[text shortened]... rizon and enter the sphere. The speed of sound in the metal of your xylophone is still the same.
The idea of the singularity being a point is in contention by a lot of scientists, it is a bit pedantic to just repeat the dogma of the last century, there are newer theories that say the density does not go infinite but instead is the conduit to a white hole, that is to say, a big bang forming another universe so the point idea is not universally held.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
The idea of the singularity being a point is in contention by a lot of scientists, it is a bit pedantic to just repeat the dogma of the last century, there are newer theories that say the density does not go infinite but instead is the conduit to a white hole, that is to say, a big bang forming another universe so the point idea is not universally held.
I was reading about this and it's not clear that what you've described is stable, no-one has ever observed a white hole. The singularity is a mathematical nicety, it doesn't ever actually occur - at or before the Planck scale we expect new physics to take over and it's not clear what happens then. With spinning black holes it's all rather complicated but I don't think it changes what I'm about to say.

Suppose you travel through space and find a non-rotating star which is heavy enough that when the core collapses it goes straight to a black hole - you are sufficiently far away to be reasonably close to being an asymptotic observer but close enough to see what is going on (ie a couple of light hours) - and all the material of the star is gravitationally bound, there is no supernova. As the density increases material cannot escape and everything falls towards the event horizon. But because the rate at which clocks run is slower for observers in a gravitational well the material falling into the black hole appears to take an infinite amount of time to do so. So for an asymptotic observer (you) the black hole is always forming - but never quite getting there.

Let's say you send in a probe to see things close up. As it gets closer to the black hole it's signals to you get more and more stretched out in time as time dilation effects take over. Eventually it will fail due to gravitational tidal forces and be torn into it's constituent particles and thermalized - but let's pretend that we have some engineering solution to that problem and the probe can get messages out via a wormhole (or other convenient science fiction device). The probe then shows the material being compressed, heated and thermalized (as you can see from the ship), but because it's clock is running slower to see anything different to what's on the ship these messages have to go back in time... It sends out pictures of the material falling through the event horizon and then - because the space in the black hole is moving faster than light (*) it cannot show the singularity - or anything in front of it - or even anything behind it since it is moving away faster than light from the in-falling material behind it can go.

For an asymptotic observer sound waves would exist in the material falling in, their speed of propagation would depend on their direction and the wave-forms would be unusual due to the particularly powerful doppler effect. Inside the event horizon waves in the in-falling material cannot propagate as points at different radii have become causally disconnected so there is no way to compress the material at the wave front. So the only waves could be compression waves moving around on points at equal radius from the black hole, they'd be limited by the speed of light.

Since from the point of view of an asymptotic observer the material of the star almost but never quite falls inside it's event horizon it is possible that black holes never happen as Hawking evaporation destroys them before they have time to form.

(*) Looking at the space-time dimensions from the "point of view" of the asymptotic observer, for the probe inside the black hole space-time is so distorted that the radial direction and time have kind of swapped round so that for it the future is the singularity.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Talked with a player here, Joe Shmo, we got to talking about physics and stuff, and the speed of sound, he was suprised the speed of sound underwater was faster than in air. I told him it was some 15 times faster than in air because the speed of sound is greater when the density of the material is greater, so the speed of sound in an iron rail is greater ye ...[text shortened]... e speed of light? I assume there is no reason why sound could not propagate inside a black hole.
owkay, so it is a hard question to anwer. And there are many well worked out replies.

But......

Please remind me,...

Why do we care?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I know surprisingly little about everything previously mentioned, I have not yet taken physics so I have little understanding of the concepts, however, I find this very interesting and will probably go down to the library or wait till school starts and talk to my physics teacher in an attempt to gain a slight understanding of the ideas addressed above.

Why do I care; I dunno, I find it interesting.

Why do you care to play chess?

Edit - grammar

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Drew L
I know surprisingly little about everything previously mentioned, I have not yet taken physics so I have little understanding of the concepts, however, I find this very interesting and will probably go down to the library or wait till school starts and talk to my physics teacher in an attempt to gain a slight understanding of the ideas addressed above.

Wh ...[text shortened]... do I care; I dunno, I find it interesting.

Why do you care to play chess?

Edit - grammar
amd you have every right to find it interesting, as it is

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by joe shmo
amd you have every right to find it interesting, as it is
good luck on you reaserch

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Drew L
I know surprisingly little about everything previously mentioned, I have not yet taken physics so I have little understanding of the concepts, however, I find this very interesting and will probably go down to the library or wait till school starts and talk to my physics teacher in an attempt to gain a slight understanding of the ideas addressed above.

Wh ...[text shortened]... do I care; I dunno, I find it interesting.

Why do you care to play chess?

Edit - grammar
I like to play chess because it is both competitive and relaxing to me.

And offcourse so can be this discussion to anyone else.

No offence ment.

-Edit-

threadid=74737

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Talked with a player here, Joe Shmo, we got to talking about physics and stuff, and the speed of sound, he was suprised the speed of sound underwater was faster than in air. I told him it was some 15 times faster than in air because the speed of sound is greater when the density of the material is greater, so the speed of sound in an iron rail is greater ye ...[text shortened]... e speed of light? I assume there is no reason why sound could not propagate inside a black hole.
Interesting question. I suppose the real question would be: is a black hole a medium? Can it transmit sound?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Talked with a player here, Joe Shmo, we got to talking about physics and stuff, and the speed of sound, he was suprised the speed of sound underwater was faster than in air. I told him it was some 15 times faster than in air because the speed of sound is greater when the density of the material is greater, so the speed of sound in an iron rail is greater ye ...[text shortened]... e speed of light? I assume there is no reason why sound could not propagate inside a black hole.
http://universalfacts.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-you-hear-sound-in-space.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kenan
http://universalfacts.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-you-hear-sound-in-space.html
This blog is wrong. Sound is not only a earthly phenomenon. How can astronauts communicate with earth?

And remember:
(1) Planets are in space.
(2) Earth is a planet.
...therefore...
(3) Earth is in space.
(4) You can hear sound on Earth.
Ergo - you can hear sounds in space.

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This blog is wrong. Sound is not only a earthly phenomenon. How can astronauts communicate with earth?

And remember:
(1) Planets are in space.
(2) Earth is a planet.
...therefore...
(3) Earth is in space.
(4) You can hear sound on Earth.
Ergo - you can hear sounds in space.
The blog is wrong because the entire universe is not consisted of a big vacuum.

edit: Astronauts communicate using radio vawes.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This blog is wrong. Sound is not only a earthly phenomenon. How can astronauts communicate with earth?

And remember:
(1) Planets are in space.
(2) Earth is a planet.
...therefore...
(3) Earth is in space.
(4) You can hear sound on Earth.
Ergo - you can hear sounds in space.
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=1127&id=41655

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kenan
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=1127&id=41655
good article, it definately touched on the subject, but does'nt mention a speed.......are decipals and frequency directly related to speed?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.