XMM-Newton takes astronomers to a black hole’s edge (swallowing equivalent of two Earths per hour)

European Space Agency ^ | 5/27/09 | ESA

[NormsRevenge]

[Global2010]

Have scientists ever probed into a black hole, like to see what is inside/otherside?

I didnt read the article to deep for me.

[RexBeach]

I think Maximillian Schell did that once with Yvette Mimeux.

[NormsRevenge]

Think of it as a giant RAID roach motel. nothing gets out.

the sky is full of ‘em.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The “edge” of a black hole is the event horizon.

Basically, there are no laws of physics, no time, nothing inside a black hole. We can only infer its properties from the effect it has on the local gravitational field near the edge.

[Global2010]

Thanks for explaining.

Maybe that is where all the UFO aliens reside. /sarc

[Verginius Rufus]

Two earths an hour...and all Bush's fault!

What an excellent opportunity for Obama to hold another hour-long prime-time press conference to talk about how his administration's deep space policies represent a repudiation of the failed policies of the past. No need to worry that he'll be asked what he would do differently.

[LRS]

Basically, there are no laws of physics, no time, nothing inside a black hole. We can only infer its properties from the effect it has on the local gravitational field near the edge.

And the never ending taxes, when it comes to the D.C. variety of black holes...

[SunkenCiv]

---

· Google ·

---

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·

[LibWhacker]

There's no way to tell what's going on inside a black hole except what the theoretical models tell us about it. That's because nothing can get out. So information about the interior can't be carried out on a beam of light, say, because light itself can't get out. The gravity is way too strong to allow anything to get out (there is a major exception to that but, unfortunately, it can't tell us anything about what's going on inside).

Even the laws of physics might be totally different and bizarre inside a black hole but there is no way we'll [ever] be able to directly observe it. I'm hedging my bets a little bit by putting 'ever' in brackets because I think it's kind of presumptuous to put limits on what our descendants will be able to do or not do thousands or millions or billions of years from now, if they're still around.

[Moonman62]

XMM-Newton takes astronomers to a black hole’s edge (swallowing equivalent of two Earths per hour)

I heard they are going to name it Oprah.

[LomanBill]

>>Basically, there are no laws of physics, no time, nothing inside a black hole

Incorrect.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hawking+Radiation+Black+Holes&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1

[Global2010]

Well now I am really curious.

I bet those who study the science of astronomy are super curious to know what is on the other side/ in side these black holes.

Another dimension? Other galaxies? Time travel? An exciting thing to try and find out.

[Global2010]

It is beautiful.

[bvw]

A quantum foam that dissipates via radiation - appears to be what the innermost of a black hole is, no singularity.

[poindexters brother]

Have scientists ever probed into a black hole, like to see what is inside/otherside?

What is beyond the event horizon is likely something that will never be known - good science fiction stories notwithstanding.

Even approaching a black hole is to court catastrophe. As you approach, the massive gravitation will rip you apart.

[SuperLuminal]

Well...clearly there are rotating black holes and, in the WH, incompetent black a_holes.

[AFPhys]

Larry Niven wrote a short book in 1966 named “Neutron Star” that is rather easy to find in his collections, and can give you a great deal of insight into why it is going to be very difficult to discover much about “inside a black hole”. A very fun book to read on a “rainy day”.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I thought about qualifiers, and settled on “basically”. I pitched to the audience and kept my reply as simple as possible. I didn’t want my qualifier to begin with “Ignoring quantum mechanical considerations...”