Distant Universe

[Courier 6]

John Michael Godier --> https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnMichaelGodier

Event Horizon --> https://www.youtube.com/c/EventHorizonShow

 

[Space Lynx]

Behold the Magnetar, nature’s ultimate superweapon

Their magnetic fields—the strongest we've observed—could melt you from 1,000 km away.

arstechnica.com

Magnetars are more badass than I realized, black holes ain't got **** on magnetars!!!

I want to see a show down, a collision between a black hole and magnetar, who wins? Or would it shred the existence of reality as we know? @lexluthermiester

 

[Shrek]

A black hole is untouchable, it wins.

 

[Space Lynx]

A black hole is untouchable, it wins.

Do we actually know this for sure though? Has a magnetar ever been observed close to a black hole?

 

[Shrek]

According to our present understanding the area of the event horizon can only grow.

 

[Space Lynx]

According to our present understanding the area of the event horizon can only grow.

Something must defeat a black hole though, otherwise, why wouldn't the black hole expand with compounding interest at each thing it gobbles up? Or do black holes stay the same size all the time unless they merge with another black hole?

 

[Shrek]

Because it eats up its surrounds and that leaves nothing more for it to gobble; it defeats itself... until two galaxies collide... then it gets fed again...

 

[ModEl4]

I have some catching up to do, when I was in high school, it was the Big Bang Theory, I guess it's proven (somehow lol) in the last 20 years?

 

[Shrek]

Nothing is proven in science, but there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang.

 

[Ivan Bliminse]

I didn't talk about light. They could travel towards primordial light
What's q?

John de Lancie = 'Q'

 

[ModEl4]

So still a theory, huh?

 

[Shrek]

There are no proofs in science, that is why mathematics is a separate discipline.

 

[ModEl4]

I prefer mathematics, probably less chance politics involved shape the whatever prevalent view.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Something must defeat a black hole though, otherwise, why wouldn't the black hole expand with compounding interest at each thing it gobbles up? Or do black holes stay the same size all the time unless they merge with another black hole?

Yes, but all gravity works that way. Universal expansion keeps them apart.
I assume a black hole absorbs the energy a magnetar produces. I doubt the sub(sub?) atomic particles fused together could be pulled apart by even a magnetar's magnetic fields.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I want to see a show down, a collision between a black hole and magnetar, who wins?

Sherk is correct, a Black Hole would gobble up a magnetar is short order. Magnetars are a unique form of Neutron star. It's an expired stellar core that has not completely converted all of it's mass to neutrons. They also are generally thought to have very high rotational speeds, which is what would cause the extreme magnetic field generation. Another way of looking at a magnetar is that it is a star core that is spinning so quickly that centrifugal force prevents it from collapsing into a Black Hole. Once it slows down, collapse takes place and a new Black Hole is born.

Do we actually know this for sure though?

Yes, we know this for certain. Nothing escapes a Black Hole once it crosses the event horizon.

Has a magnetar ever been observed close to a black hole?

No, but the math is conclusive, Black Hole VS Magnetar = Black Hole + Magnetar = Black Hole with increased mass.

Something must defeat a black hole though

No. That's not how a Black Hole works. A Black Hole is the end game.

Or do black holes stay the same size all the time unless they merge with another black hole?

Black Holes increase in mass and physical size as they continue to absorb matter. The event horizon continues to expand proportionately as the mass increases and the force of gravity increases with it.

it was the Big Bang Theory, I guess it's proven (somehow lol) in the last 20 years?

Sort of. We have been able to map the movements of enough galaxies in enough places to show that all observable matter is expanding away from a central point that is well beyond our observable range. In other words, the Universe is MUCH larger than we can readily measure do to the limitations of the speed of light. So if all matter expanded from one point the theory of the Big Bang is correct on at least some level.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Sherk is correct, a Black Hole would gobble up a magnetar is short order. Magnetars are a unique form of Neutron star. It's an expired stellar core that has not completely converted all of it's mass to neutrons. They also are generally thought to have very high rotational speeds, which is what would cause the extreme magnetic field generation. Another way of looking at a magnetar is that it is a star core that is spinning so quickly that centrifugal force prevents it from collapsing into a Black Hole. Once it slows down, collapse takes place and a new Black Hole is born.

Per the link provided, it seems that they turn into a normal neutron star. The mass of black holes are much larger, as they come from larger stars. The difference between a neutron star and a magnetar comes simply from a magnetar being in a certain window of rotational speed when forming. I realize that this does not affect your point, just wanted to get it straight.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Per the link provided, it seems that they turn into a normal neutron star.

That is just one stage and is not all inclusive to the total lifespan of such an object.

The mass of black holes are much larger, as they come from larger stars.

This is not always true. What causes matter to collapse into a "Black Hole" state is not the ultimate defined mass of an object but rather it is a balance of how much mass is compressed into a certain space. The causal factor of the creation of a Black Hole object is a factor of the force of gravity overcoming the the atomic forces keeping mass from collapsing in on itself. Once that balance shifts past a critical point, mass collapses into a Black Hole, regardless of the amount of mass in question.

Put another way: When gravity in a specific volume of space becomes great enough to over-power the forces keeping atoms from collapsing in on themselves, matter compresses and a Black Hole is created.

The fundamental mechanic is the force of gravity within a specific volume of space, not the overall volume of mass. Example: Take the Earth. In it's current state, it can never collapse into a Black Hole. However, compress the all the mass of Earth down into the size of a golf ball and boom, you get a Black Hole with the mass of Earth. And because all of the mass is compressed to tightly in such a small space, that Black Hole will never explode back out. It will only ever consume matter from there forward. But remember, it still only has the same mass as Earth and thus the same gravity of Earth. So it will not collect mass at great rate than it would as it currently is. The difference would be that a Black Hole Earth would have an event horizon with no escape velocity. That event horizon would be very small, approx the size of a beach ball.

The difference between a neutron star and a magnetar comes simply from a magnetar being in a certain window of rotational speed when forming.

That's only part of the process. Magnetars must have amounts of non-neutron matter as a part of their mass structure, otherwise the ultra intense magnetic fields would not be possible. Neutron can created a magnetic field to a small degree, but not a powerful as non-neutron matter. This is why a Neutron Star can never be a Magnetar.

 

[ModEl4]

So if all matter expanded from one point the theory of the Big Bang is correct on at least some level.

That's a big if.
It's just a theory, early days yet I suppose, I can't wait for the Big Bangs theory (all matter expanded from 2 antipodal points) just kidding!

 

[lexluthermiester]

That's a big if.

Not an all. It's a logical and very reasonable conclusion.

It's just a theory, early days yet I suppose, I can't wait for the Big Bangs theory (all matter expanded from 2 antipodal points) just kidding!

I think your understanding of the fundamentals of the Big Bang need some revision.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

That is just one stage and is not all inclusive to the total lifespan of such an object.

That's only part of the process. Magnetars must have amounts of non-neutron matter as a part of their mass structure, otherwise the ultra intense magnetic fields would not be possible. Neutron can created a magnetic field to a small degree, but not a powerful as non-neutron matter. This is why a Neutron Star can never be a Magnetar.

Here is the basis for my statements, from the article. Please feel free to correct me if they are wrong.

If the neutron star is rotating fast enough (which can occur if its parent star was also rapidly spinning), the combination of fast spin, convection currents, and freely moving charges sets up a dynamo mechanism: the circulating electric charges generate a weak magnetic field. Then the motion of the convention cells causes the magnetic field to fold in over itself, which amplifies it. With every rotation, the magnetic field grows stronger.

Similar mechanisms happen inside the Earth's core to generate our magnetic field, just at much lower energies. With the energies involved in neutron stars, things can quickly spiral out of control.

In as little as 10 seconds, a newborn neutron star can generate the strongest magnetic fields in the known Universe. In that same amount of time, the frenetic convection and spinning cool the neutron star off, shutting off the dynamo mechanism. Normally, this would cause the magnetic field to disappear (if the Earth's core cooled off, that's what would happen to ours). But because of the strange physics of neutron stars, the protons and electrons become a superfluid and can maintain their motion without any electrical resistance. This allows the magnetic field to lock in, remaining long after the neutron star has cooled off.

Oddly, if the newborn neutron star is spinning too fast, it won't generate a strong magnetic field because the convection will cool off the neutron star before it has a chance to build up the dynamo mechanism. So only some neutron stars, roughly one in 10, can become magnetars.

Alas, like all good things, the party must come to an end. The extreme magnetic fields act as a drag, slowing down the spin of the magnetar and providing an avenue for energy to escape. Within about 10,000 years, a magnetar will turn into just another normal neutron star—still exotic but without that sharp magnetic edge.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Here is the basis for my statements, from the article. Please feel free to correct me if they are wrong.

That's more a description of the process. A Magnetar is a Neutron Star in the making. Magentars become Neutron Stars which over time and collection of more mass, become Black Holes.

It should be noted, not all Neutron Stars have strong magnetic fields and not all Magnetars will become Neutron Stars.

 

[ModEl4]

Not an all. It's a logical and very reasonable conclusion.

I think your understanding of the fundamentals of the Big Bang need some revision.

The phrase I used usually has the meaning «that is not certain at all, implying also unlikeliness to happen» but I used it more in the sense that «it's both important and uncertain» maybe i misspoke and you reply that is a logical and very reasonable conclusion, from when something logical and reasonable constitute certainty?
Regarding understanding, maybe your understanding of «just kidding» needs a revision?

 

[lexluthermiester]

The phrase I used usually has the meaning «that is not certain at all, implying also unlikeliness to happen» but I used it more in the sense that «it's both important and uncertain» maybe i misspoke and you reply that is a logical and very reasonable conclusion, from when something logical and reasonable constitute certainty?
Regarding understanding, maybe your understanding of «just kidding» needs a revision?

This thread is a discussion about science, not ego. Let's remember to stay focused.

 

[Space Lynx]

I know this thread is technically the wrong thread, but for those of you who only a "watch thread" a few of these space ones, this is just a friendly reminder July 12th we get the first images from the JWST.... really excited and nervous myself. Really it's more fascinating than landing a person on Mars imo... deep down, as humans I think we really want to know how far we can actually see, what's out there, exploration, more physics, etc.

I am super tired at the moment, so apologies if my wording is off.

 

[Shrek]

We live in exciting times.