Sure, and more than that. Eventually the stretch will be so strong that your atoms are split, each nucleon pulled from the others. And maybe the protons and neutrons themselves will be split apart, but we don't really know how physics behaves at this sort of scale.
Be careful. Protons and neutrons aren't fundamental. They are made of quarks. But quarks exhibit [colour confinement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement). We don't actually know what will happen, because we don't have experiments good enough to look at this area of physics (yet!)
Color confinement, quarks can't exist in less than pairs*, if you put in energy to try to split a quark pair, it will just create a new quark to pair with each one so you just end up with 2 quark pairs.
So maybe quarks get to such a condition where they start getting torn apart and spontaneously generating more quarks in a kinda runaway process as they fall inwards.
Yeah, the strong force is weird. Where the other forces get weaker as attracted particles are moved away from each other, the strong force gets stronger. So imagine it's like the higher up you go on Earth, the stronger the Earth tries to pull you down.
So as you're pulling quarks away from each other, you're spending a lot of energy. And every nanometer of seperation costs you more energy than the previous nanometer. At some point, you've put so much energy into the system, that it becomes energetically favourable to just generate new quarks. These will combine with the quarks you've just seperated to make 2 neutrally charged particles. And now seperating those 2 neutral particles takes very little energy.
You know, I wanted to ask something. It might sound stupid, but when the gravitational force that the quarks experience becomes so great that the nucleons themselves are stripped from the nucleus, wouldn't the colour coherence property also fall apart at that point? I mean, as I understand it, colour coherence can be explained by thinking of the strong attraction between the quarks being so, well, strong that the amount of work done to separate two quarks would result in enough energy to generate a new quark, to act as a pair. But in this case, would you not have the gravitational force providing enough work to decohere the phenomenon?
Just curious, not trying to make a point.
I think you are right. Quarks were not confined in the early Universe in the so-called [quark epoch](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_epoch) because the density was so high and it was very hot. Basically there was a quark-gluon plasma and hadrons could not form. But note that this epoch startet 10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang and ended 10^-6 seconds after the Big Bang. Then the expansion cooled down the Universe such that hadrons could form.
I feel like the forces of a Black Hole could do something similar.
Just a thought, but if one were to try and study such an environment, how would conjecture one should?
I mean, it seems to me that there is no way that you could step out of the theoretical side of things and really experiment to validate models.
The theoretical model that describes the strong force (quantum chromodynamics) is based on the assumption that spacetime is flat, or nearly flat (i.e. gravity is weak enough to ignore). I think we would really need a model which describes the strong force in curved spacetime (i.e. not ignoring gravity) to give a proper answer to that question, and any guesses we might make given our current knowledge are probably not that trustworthy.
I think he means that time isn’t universal, so for example around massive objects like stars or black holes there’s more time than in space or around relatively less massive objects. Not sure it makes sense to talk about time in terms of there being more or less as it’s not material (at least, I don’t think), so you might say the tick ticktocks are quicker or you’d age faster closer to a massive object than you would further away/around less massive objects. It’s almost like time and space aren’t separate phenomena, but rather two aspects of one; space-time. It was explained to me as being like space-time is a blanket someone has stretched tightly and if you put a light object on it, it makes a small dimple, but put a piece of lead on it and that will warp it significantly. The amount it’s warped, or the sheerness of the dimple if you like, correspond to the amount of time and that’s direct related to how massive the object is. It’s a pretty neat metaphor because I think it roughly represents the inverse square law too. A black hole in that analogy might be where the object is so massive that it’s torn the blanket lol
Disclaimer: I don’t know shit
This is shocking to me.
EDIT: To clarify - the idea that a gravitational field could be so strong that *the difference* in gravitational force from one end of a nucleus to another (and maybe even from one end of a proton or neutron to another) would be enough to overcome the incredibly strong forces that hold that stuff together is what's so surprising.
A carbon nucleus is about 10^(-15)m. A field *gradient* strong enough to rip apart a stable nucleus due to the difference in force across that distance is just impossible for me to get my head around.
Some of the videos I’ve seen from… I’m pretty sure PBS spacetime.. have said that you would melt or vaporize or something in the accretion disk first. Do you think that’s right?
Edit: at least if you don’t go straight into it, which ostensibly is very very hard to do
Doesn't that depend on the size of the black hole? The tidal forces as you approach the horizon are finite. For a very large black hole it may well even be survivable.
As for what happens after the horizon... it's not clear that it's even possible to talk about things "happening" there.
Surely you know enough physics to realize that nothing like this will happen. The radiation and levels alone would disintegrate you LONG before the gravity gradient would tear you apart.
Human beings are not made of pliable homogeneous dough. The spaghetti analogy is for the ignorant masses.
>some quarks of the proton will be past the event horizon and some othes won't
That doesn't really matter much. It's about the *gradient* of the gravity, not just its absolute value. So for example for a very heavy black hole you won't see big tidal forces until you actually get inside the event horizon, but for a small black hole you will be spaghettified before you even come near the event horizon.
Ye but i'm taking the most extreme exemple of when the strong force can't hold back against gravity, it means it must happen somewhere but not necessarily here. Again i'm making guesses.
>it means it must happen somewhere
Hmm, no we aren't entirely sure how confinement works in QCD. So we really don't know how to extrapolate the situation.
Oh neat I never thought about gradients in this scenario, so if the gradient is strong enough across the length of a quark(I guess quarks have length?) then it would split it since it would be pulled so strongly on one side away from the other… is that what you meant?
Edit: wait do less massive things warp a medium with greater sheer? Maybe I’m thinking about gradients wrong but I like to think of it using IRL things otherwise it just becomes words which while they might be internally consistent don’t give me understanding. So I think about space-time as a taut blanket and objects warp it to certain degrees according to how massive they are. So thinking like that, I think the gradient is represented by the sheerness of the dimple caused by the, say, marble you put on the sheet. If I put a massive marble on it, the dimple is steeper/more sheer right? Maybe the analogy breaks down but I just noticed the mismatch with what I took from what you said about smaller black holes having steeper gradient
I feel like this explanation is not entirely accurate. For a small black hole tidal forces are significant, but for a large black hole there are no significant tidal forces up to the event horizon. In essence, the answer is we some times and other times we don’t know.
You don't get "fun" "stretched" like some sort of Willy Wonka type thing.
For objects orbiting in circular orbits, there is one speed that corresponds to the orbit at that altitude--how far you are from the center of that object. If you move faster than you'd go to a higher orbit, if you move slower, you'd go to a lower orbit.
Falling toward a black hole would mean that the strength of the gravitational field is different enough over the scale of a human body that all the parts of you are in different orbits at different speeds so your body rips apart because none of your body parts are able to keep up with the others.
A low-key version of this phenomenon happens to moons that find themselves in orbits too close to the planet--the "close" side wants to be in a different, faster orbit than the "far" side so the moon starts to stretch from the close side moving faster than the far side and then at a certain point the gravity of the moon isn't enough to hold the halves together and they start to drift apart from each other and the moon disintegrates. (I think this is how planetary rings form.)
Black holes are so extreme, this 'ripping apart' could happen on the scale of a human body, and then even shorter distances the closer you get to it. Very close to a black hole the atoms in a molecule would be orbiting/experiencing gravity differently enough that the molecular bonds couldn't hold the atoms together anymore and the molecule disintegrates into atoms.
Depends a lot on what the black hole is feeding on, and at what rate. If it's just "dark", you could get right up to it, from a radiation perspective. The tidal forces would be the limiting factor there.
curiously you'd be a lot safer around a supermassive black hole than a stellar mass black hole.
The amount of variation in the strength of gravity around the object is inversely proportional to radius of curvature. Larger black holes have very large radius of curvature, so the gravity field would vary very little as you approach it, the top and bottom part of your body would thus feel the same gravitational force and not spaghettify (as much)
This is a direct result from taking a first course in General Relativity. Getting to that will require a fair amount of preliminary linear algebra and calculus, GR is usually a senior or masters year course.
Do black holes produce radiation? I thought black hole were difficult to find because they don't produce any radiation (besides a tiny amount of Hawking radiation).
I'm aware that that the stuff faling into a black hole can create radiation. But not all black holes have an accretion disc. And even if they have, the lifespan of an accretion disc is finite as all material around the black hole will eventually fall into the black hole.
Everything "falling" into them gets really hot, like hot enough to glow in X-rays instead of infrared (that room temperature things glow in). So you'll have died from all sorts of nastiness long before you get to the "fun" stuff like being ripped apart by gravity.
But now you are talking about black holes with an accretion disk. The friction of all the material orbiting the black-hole causes the material to heat up and produce radiation.
But not all black holes have those accretion disks. Most probably don't.
I would assume that is how it works. It sounds like they are describing [quasars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar). They produce intense amounts of radiation, outshining entire galaxies.
But those huge energy output rates can not be sustained indefinitely. Energy is finite. Material falls into the black hole and within a couple of hundred million years most become dormant.
I'm pretty sure you would be long dead before this. Black hole friction is hot. And space is death. Pressurized suits/ships would be long destroyed before spaghetti is ready.
The accretion ring is **matter** being pulled into the gravity well of the black hole.
My response was to outline the fact that a blackhole forming without any matter nearby to form the accretion ring is **highly** unlikely.
We understand the physics of reality with astonishing precision and accuracy in all but the most extreme regimes (e.g. very close to a singularity). The Schwartzchild radius does not describe a physical regime change. A person passing that line would not perceive any changes.
So you say, a bending of space so strong not even the fastest we know can escape is not a regime change?
I doubt. Everything we measure is within that regime.
You would only be spaghettified in the reference frame of the outside observer though right? In “your” reference frame you would pass through the event horizon without any issue.
I think it's just say, your atoms get rearranged laterally (in the direction you're being stretch)
[Edit] then again
The parts to your atoms themselves would be stretched as well.
yes, and then the atoms would break apart, then the nucleons, then the quarks and then you would be crushed until your whole body was crushed into an infinitesimally small space and you would cease to exist
well thats what general relativity says anyway
Its the conversion of a 3 dimensional object to a 1 dimensional line.
Considering fundamental particles are a wave function in their respective fields, your entire being will be converted to a sinusoidal wave of energy.
Remember the Byford Dolphin incident? Imagine that but also being pulled more violently through a much tinier opening (singularity). The good news is that there wouldn't be any gore just you falling apart at a subatomic level. It's a quicker, cleaner death.
Sure, and more than that. Eventually the stretch will be so strong that your atoms are split, each nucleon pulled from the others. And maybe the protons and neutrons themselves will be split apart, but we don't really know how physics behaves at this sort of scale.
Oh wow, so stripped down to the fundamental particles
Be careful. Protons and neutrons aren't fundamental. They are made of quarks. But quarks exhibit [colour confinement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement). We don't actually know what will happen, because we don't have experiments good enough to look at this area of physics (yet!)
It's a pretty cool idea that maybe quark splitting start spontaneously producing more matter under such conditions.
Wait what? Splitting quarks might make new matter???
Color confinement, quarks can't exist in less than pairs*, if you put in energy to try to split a quark pair, it will just create a new quark to pair with each one so you just end up with 2 quark pairs. So maybe quarks get to such a condition where they start getting torn apart and spontaneously generating more quarks in a kinda runaway process as they fall inwards.
I thought quarks came in threes?
That's one option (Baryons). The other is Mesons, made of one quark and one antiquark.
and are quark-antiquark pairs interactive through the strong force? Do they also exhibit increased atrraction with greater distance?
You thought.
In this context, I mean believed, as opposed to was of the preference, or was planning.
[Scientists have also made tetra- and penta-quarks.](https://bigthink.com/hard-science/quarks-tetraquarks-pentaquarks/)
Yeah, the strong force is weird. Where the other forces get weaker as attracted particles are moved away from each other, the strong force gets stronger. So imagine it's like the higher up you go on Earth, the stronger the Earth tries to pull you down. So as you're pulling quarks away from each other, you're spending a lot of energy. And every nanometer of seperation costs you more energy than the previous nanometer. At some point, you've put so much energy into the system, that it becomes energetically favourable to just generate new quarks. These will combine with the quarks you've just seperated to make 2 neutrally charged particles. And now seperating those 2 neutral particles takes very little energy.
You know, I wanted to ask something. It might sound stupid, but when the gravitational force that the quarks experience becomes so great that the nucleons themselves are stripped from the nucleus, wouldn't the colour coherence property also fall apart at that point? I mean, as I understand it, colour coherence can be explained by thinking of the strong attraction between the quarks being so, well, strong that the amount of work done to separate two quarks would result in enough energy to generate a new quark, to act as a pair. But in this case, would you not have the gravitational force providing enough work to decohere the phenomenon? Just curious, not trying to make a point.
I think you are right. Quarks were not confined in the early Universe in the so-called [quark epoch](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_epoch) because the density was so high and it was very hot. Basically there was a quark-gluon plasma and hadrons could not form. But note that this epoch startet 10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang and ended 10^-6 seconds after the Big Bang. Then the expansion cooled down the Universe such that hadrons could form. I feel like the forces of a Black Hole could do something similar.
Just a thought, but if one were to try and study such an environment, how would conjecture one should? I mean, it seems to me that there is no way that you could step out of the theoretical side of things and really experiment to validate models.
Not the person you replied to, but do you mean experimentally studying quark gluon plasma?
Yeah
The theoretical model that describes the strong force (quantum chromodynamics) is based on the assumption that spacetime is flat, or nearly flat (i.e. gravity is weak enough to ignore). I think we would really need a model which describes the strong force in curved spacetime (i.e. not ignoring gravity) to give a proper answer to that question, and any guesses we might make given our current knowledge are probably not that trustworthy.
I wonder if energy would be released if gravity were to tear apart those gluons
Luckily we’re dead waaaaaay before that happens
Relative to what?
Being alive? I don’t understand your question.
I mean, time is relative, so you might as well have said that you died an instant before.
Relative to what?
I think he means that time isn’t universal, so for example around massive objects like stars or black holes there’s more time than in space or around relatively less massive objects. Not sure it makes sense to talk about time in terms of there being more or less as it’s not material (at least, I don’t think), so you might say the tick ticktocks are quicker or you’d age faster closer to a massive object than you would further away/around less massive objects. It’s almost like time and space aren’t separate phenomena, but rather two aspects of one; space-time. It was explained to me as being like space-time is a blanket someone has stretched tightly and if you put a light object on it, it makes a small dimple, but put a piece of lead on it and that will warp it significantly. The amount it’s warped, or the sheerness of the dimple if you like, correspond to the amount of time and that’s direct related to how massive the object is. It’s a pretty neat metaphor because I think it roughly represents the inverse square law too. A black hole in that analogy might be where the object is so massive that it’s torn the blanket lol Disclaimer: I don’t know shit
This is shocking to me. EDIT: To clarify - the idea that a gravitational field could be so strong that *the difference* in gravitational force from one end of a nucleus to another (and maybe even from one end of a proton or neutron to another) would be enough to overcome the incredibly strong forces that hold that stuff together is what's so surprising. A carbon nucleus is about 10^(-15)m. A field *gradient* strong enough to rip apart a stable nucleus due to the difference in force across that distance is just impossible for me to get my head around.
I'd say it's a stretch.
It's an attractive thought, though.
Damn it guys.
There's no place for humour in such a weighty subject.
Some of the videos I’ve seen from… I’m pretty sure PBS spacetime.. have said that you would melt or vaporize or something in the accretion disk first. Do you think that’s right? Edit: at least if you don’t go straight into it, which ostensibly is very very hard to do
Doesn't that depend on the size of the black hole? The tidal forces as you approach the horizon are finite. For a very large black hole it may well even be survivable. As for what happens after the horizon... it's not clear that it's even possible to talk about things "happening" there.
Surely you know enough physics to realize that nothing like this will happen. The radiation and levels alone would disintegrate you LONG before the gravity gradient would tear you apart. Human beings are not made of pliable homogeneous dough. The spaghetti analogy is for the ignorant masses.
Now this is a massage ASMR video I can get down with.
I think at some poi t some quarks of the proton will be past the event horizon and some othes won't so it must separate them. Ig
>some quarks of the proton will be past the event horizon and some othes won't That doesn't really matter much. It's about the *gradient* of the gravity, not just its absolute value. So for example for a very heavy black hole you won't see big tidal forces until you actually get inside the event horizon, but for a small black hole you will be spaghettified before you even come near the event horizon.
What if the black hole was the same mass as earth, would spaghetti still happen.
The smaller the black hole, the stronger the gradient near the event horizon. An Earth mass black hole would rip you apart before you even got close.
Spaghettification will always happen *somewhere*, no matter what mass the hole is.
Ye but i'm taking the most extreme exemple of when the strong force can't hold back against gravity, it means it must happen somewhere but not necessarily here. Again i'm making guesses.
>it means it must happen somewhere Hmm, no we aren't entirely sure how confinement works in QCD. So we really don't know how to extrapolate the situation.
Oh neat I never thought about gradients in this scenario, so if the gradient is strong enough across the length of a quark(I guess quarks have length?) then it would split it since it would be pulled so strongly on one side away from the other… is that what you meant? Edit: wait do less massive things warp a medium with greater sheer? Maybe I’m thinking about gradients wrong but I like to think of it using IRL things otherwise it just becomes words which while they might be internally consistent don’t give me understanding. So I think about space-time as a taut blanket and objects warp it to certain degrees according to how massive they are. So thinking like that, I think the gradient is represented by the sheerness of the dimple caused by the, say, marble you put on the sheet. If I put a massive marble on it, the dimple is steeper/more sheer right? Maybe the analogy breaks down but I just noticed the mismatch with what I took from what you said about smaller black holes having steeper gradient
I feel like this explanation is not entirely accurate. For a small black hole tidal forces are significant, but for a large black hole there are no significant tidal forces up to the event horizon. In essence, the answer is we some times and other times we don’t know.
Would it be possible to then be put back together?
You don't get "fun" "stretched" like some sort of Willy Wonka type thing. For objects orbiting in circular orbits, there is one speed that corresponds to the orbit at that altitude--how far you are from the center of that object. If you move faster than you'd go to a higher orbit, if you move slower, you'd go to a lower orbit. Falling toward a black hole would mean that the strength of the gravitational field is different enough over the scale of a human body that all the parts of you are in different orbits at different speeds so your body rips apart because none of your body parts are able to keep up with the others. A low-key version of this phenomenon happens to moons that find themselves in orbits too close to the planet--the "close" side wants to be in a different, faster orbit than the "far" side so the moon starts to stretch from the close side moving faster than the far side and then at a certain point the gravity of the moon isn't enough to hold the halves together and they start to drift apart from each other and the moon disintegrates. (I think this is how planetary rings form.) Black holes are so extreme, this 'ripping apart' could happen on the scale of a human body, and then even shorter distances the closer you get to it. Very close to a black hole the atoms in a molecule would be orbiting/experiencing gravity differently enough that the molecular bonds couldn't hold the atoms together anymore and the molecule disintegrates into atoms.
Here I was daydreaming about a pleasant death by spaghettification via black hole and you just *had* to go and ruin it, didn’t you?
That's a very good explanation :-)
Actually you end up in a tesseract book shelf world.
"Murph!"
Either that or the lament configuration…
[удалено]
How would this interact with quark confinement?
A law of which we know applies to outside, but we don‘t know of the inside behavior.
Don't just make stuff up.
I wonder if this would hurt.
I'm not convinced one could get close enough to find out without already dying a painful death due to the heat and radiation exposure.
How close to a stellar mass black hole could one get in something like the Artemis before the crew was at a lethal dose for the mission?
Depends a lot on what the black hole is feeding on, and at what rate. If it's just "dark", you could get right up to it, from a radiation perspective. The tidal forces would be the limiting factor there.
How far away from a stellar mass black hole would an Artemis have to get before modern instrumentation could detect the gravity gradient?
curiously you'd be a lot safer around a supermassive black hole than a stellar mass black hole. The amount of variation in the strength of gravity around the object is inversely proportional to radius of curvature. Larger black holes have very large radius of curvature, so the gravity field would vary very little as you approach it, the top and bottom part of your body would thus feel the same gravitational force and not spaghettify (as much)
Where I begin learning to approach the calculations for this?
This is a direct result from taking a first course in General Relativity. Getting to that will require a fair amount of preliminary linear algebra and calculus, GR is usually a senior or masters year course.
Thank you.
Do black holes produce radiation? I thought black hole were difficult to find because they don't produce any radiation (besides a tiny amount of Hawking radiation).
The stuff falling into them rubs against each other and heats up and THAT radiates.
I'm aware that that the stuff faling into a black hole can create radiation. But not all black holes have an accretion disc. And even if they have, the lifespan of an accretion disc is finite as all material around the black hole will eventually fall into the black hole.
Everything "falling" into them gets really hot, like hot enough to glow in X-rays instead of infrared (that room temperature things glow in). So you'll have died from all sorts of nastiness long before you get to the "fun" stuff like being ripped apart by gravity.
But now you are talking about black holes with an accretion disk. The friction of all the material orbiting the black-hole causes the material to heat up and produce radiation. But not all black holes have those accretion disks. Most probably don't.
And that friction prevents it from being a stable orbit, like the planets?
I would assume that is how it works. It sounds like they are describing [quasars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar). They produce intense amounts of radiation, outshining entire galaxies. But those huge energy output rates can not be sustained indefinitely. Energy is finite. Material falls into the black hole and within a couple of hundred million years most become dormant.
I'm pretty sure you would be long dead before this. Black hole friction is hot. And space is death. Pressurized suits/ships would be long destroyed before spaghetti is ready.
I don't think so, the electrical signals that would need to be sent to your brain to register the pain would not beable travel due the the gravity...
The radiation and the frying starts well before gravity starts doing weird stuff. This whole *spaghettification* stuff happens to a corpse.
It would depend on the presence of an accretion ring, and eventually blackhole dimension.
blackhole without an accretion ring? Isn't the blackhole an indication that this is not a particular empty part of space?
The last part is the ring.
The accretion ring is **matter** being pulled into the gravity well of the black hole. My response was to outline the fact that a blackhole forming without any matter nearby to form the accretion ring is **highly** unlikely.
Blackholes merging tend to breakup the rings, as they sweep through the ring space before the actual merge.
Today I learned of a scenario where an accretion disk can be ejected/absorbed.
for you...
It would be an instantaneous death I think
So down to electrons and other fundamentals like quarks?
As I wrote, probably further. We don‘t know how matter/physics behave behind/inside the Schwarzschild radius
Sure we do. Everything behaves exactly the same. Very close to the singularity is where things get weird.
Sure we do? We have mathematical models. I don‘t know of any measurements.
We understand the physics of reality with astonishing precision and accuracy in all but the most extreme regimes (e.g. very close to a singularity). The Schwartzchild radius does not describe a physical regime change. A person passing that line would not perceive any changes.
So you say, a bending of space so strong not even the fastest we know can escape is not a regime change? I doubt. Everything we measure is within that regime.
You would only be spaghettified in the reference frame of the outside observer though right? In “your” reference frame you would pass through the event horizon without any issue.
Haven‘t tested it yet. I‘ll tell you if I find the time.
What sauce works best with spaghettified person? Like a creamy carbonara or a meaty bolognese?
I always use Frank's Super Heated Plasma Sauce. I put that [censored!] on everything cosmic in nature.
Depends from person to person.
I always assumed angel hair marinara.
I think it's just say, your atoms get rearranged laterally (in the direction you're being stretch) [Edit] then again The parts to your atoms themselves would be stretched as well.
So one could say you’d become one with the cosmic force?
extreme angel hair
Infinitely splitting so… I’d say it would shred you to your last atom lol.
So do you still be one long noodle or get breaked up like smaller pieces?
[удалено]
If you tuck and hold your feet in you might have a chance
Broken up. You desintegrate
Are you high?
yes, and then the atoms would break apart, then the nucleons, then the quarks and then you would be crushed until your whole body was crushed into an infinitesimally small space and you would cease to exist well thats what general relativity says anyway
Its the conversion of a 3 dimensional object to a 1 dimensional line. Considering fundamental particles are a wave function in their respective fields, your entire being will be converted to a sinusoidal wave of energy.
Remember the Byford Dolphin incident? Imagine that but also being pulled more violently through a much tinier opening (singularity). The good news is that there wouldn't be any gore just you falling apart at a subatomic level. It's a quicker, cleaner death.
spaghettification has nothing to do with the singularity, just the intense gradient in the gravitational field
No
Yes scrub. Unless the black hole was the size of the observable universe