Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:13, 17 January 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black hole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about black holes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about black holes at the Reference desk. For science questions, you can ask an astrophysicist at NASA, post a question in Physics Forums, or post a question in sci.physics.research.

	Black hole is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Black hole has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted November 19, 2006 Featured article review Demoted January 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2010 Good article nominee Listed This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 7, 2007. Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Cosmology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Relativity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NIanni727, Jonathanp44 (article contribs).

To-do list for Black hole: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : The article has no discussion on the interior of a black hole, for which numerous sources exist. Added references to newly revised sections/ identify statements that need referencing. (i.e. add {{fact}} tags.) Find references for "citation needed" tags. Expand history section Create a non-technical introduction to black holes, either as a new section or separate article (Talk:Black hole/Archive 15#Introduction article)

Template:WP1.0 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbaig13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sbaig13.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Schwarzschild radius

Under the section Properties and structure > Physical properties, the Schwarzschild radius should be denoted r_s instead of r_sh. It can be written as r_sh but it would be best to stay consistent with the Schwarzschild radius page (and also with the section Properties and structure > Innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) which uses the proper notation)

thanover (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Gap9551 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110327153232/http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2008-6/ to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2008-6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228234005/http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-6/ to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We need clarity on who coined the term 'black hole'

Calling all historians of science. Please go to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Coining the term 'black hole'. -- Jack of Oz 22:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

106.203.72.173 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist 01:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Black Hole Burp

Could we get more information about black hole burping?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42655685

The Line: "not even particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it." May need editing because technically if it burps then particles and gasses do escape?

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.92.105 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The BBC article is vague. The BBC does states that "When cosmic gas comes near one of these sinkholes, it gets sucked in - but some of the energy is released back into space in the form of a burp"; however the energy is "released" from outside the black hole's event horizon while the gas is in the process of being "sucked in" (sic) towards the black hole event horizon; it is not released from inside the black hole event horizon. If the Astrophysical Journal had found a significant amount of energy to come from inside the black hole, that would have been bigger news than the power fluctuation and would have been explicitly called out up-front in both the journal and the news coverage of the journal article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lack of inline citations

Hello, I've just added a good amount of at end of paragraphs without any inline citation because they makes hard to control changes made inside them if the source is too far (where there are any). It may be worth to consider adding Template:No footnotes at the top of the article and reassess it's listing as a Good article. J. N. Squire (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I count ~22 obvious unsourced statements at the end of non-lede paragraphs, so it does seem like it's drifted away from good article status. Thanks for pointing it out. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: You're welcome. :) I'll consider launching the Good article reassessment if I have enough time.

Please, @Headbomb: is it possible to discuss of this issue here? It looks like you haven't read past the misleading name of the template; we're talking about lack of enough inline citations linked to the footnotes section, here. Deleting every single added by my previous contribution seems rather hasty and extreme when it's not followed by a productive discussion here, and I haven't noticed since then any addition of inline citation to link unsourced statements with references listed at the foot of the article.

Besides, "all those things are supported, there are plenty of " as a summary is vague, missing the point of the lack of enough inline citations (though I admit the name of the template is misleading), and not very helpful regarding the current quality issues of this article (Which addition of mine is superfluous? Why? Ideas to improve the quality? etc.). When I check recently promoted Good articles of other scientific fields like Coyote, I see inline citations in the way I would have wished to find them in Black hole as they seem to be the current best practices.J. N. Squire (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Very Hungry Black Hole"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/science/hungry-black-hole.html NY Times, 5-17-18.

A black hole 20 billion times the mass of the sun eating the equivalent of a star every two days. If it were at the center of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, it would be 10 times brighter than the moon and bathe the Earth in so many X-rays that life would be impossible. Interesting discovery. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use this talk page to discuss the subject. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject—see wp:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an odd comment, as I routinely use this sort of comment to bring interesting new articles to the attention of the community. Surely a new NY Times science article reporting this discovery is notable? I'm not active here, and didn't see your comment until now. I respectfully disagree with it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tillman: it's a comment drawn from the talk page guidelines. I agree that your comment is about an interesting discovery, but it was not about the article Black hole. It reads like an invitation to discuss the discovery, not to add something to the article. I would't have made the comment about wp:TPG if your last sentence had been something like "Shouldn't we say something about this interesting discovery in the article?". In that case someone might have answered: "Yes, perhaps. Misplaced Pages is yours, so by all means go wp:FIXIT" . - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

NE surface

I don't know the proper terms for my thoughts. Using our solar system as the base of this idea and knowing over a century ago most planets, except Mercury, obeyed Newton's gravitation laws. This means to me there is a NE surface (NE surface for Newton-Einstein) in which Newton's gravitation laws break down and Einstein's relativity takes over between Venus and Mercury. I know this sphere is not well defined (like the line for Earth and outer space being 60 miles) What is the radius of this NE surface with black holes? Can an article section talk about this? John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As a gravitational field gradually becomes more intense, relativistic effects gradually become more important; there is no dividing line or surface where this occurs suddenly. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I said that too, but I also realize that there is a point when predictions of Newton are so off that one must use Einstein's predictions. That point is on a surface of other points predictions. I guess I am trying to understand when and where margin for normal Newtonian effects and relativistic effects become more important than the other for black holes. John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

“are so off”? Is that 5%? 1%? 1ppb? For this to be of interest to Misplaced Pages, someone else has published these calculations before. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Absence of central singularity according to new scientific articles

I would like to propose to add this new sub-section, because of valid primary and secondary sources :

Absence of central singularity according to other theories

On December 10, 2018, Abhay Ashtekar, Javier Olmedo, and Parampreet Singh published a scientific paper in the field of the theory of loop quantum gravity demonstrating the absence of central singularity within the black hole, without geometrically specifying the state of matter at this point.. The absence of central singularity within the black hole was debated between some astrophysicists since 1979 in the frame of general relativity, including in the media. . --80.215.224.16 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Ashtekar, Abhay; Olmedo, Javier; Singh, Parampreet (2018-12-10). "Quantum Transfiguration of Kruskal Black Holes". Physical Review Letters. 121 (24): 241301. arXiv:1806.00648. Bibcode:2018PhRvL.121x1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241301. PMID 30608746.
2. Rovelli, Carlo (2018-12-10). "Viewpoint: Black Hole Evolution Traced Out with Loop Quantum Gravity". Physics. 11.
3. "Loop Quantum Gravity Theory Could Answer Fundamental Questions about Black Holes". Sci News. 2018-12-26. Retrieved 2019-01-17.
4. Abrams, L. S. (1979-11-15). "Alternative space-time for the point mass". Physical Review D. 20 (10): 2474–2479. arXiv:gr-qc/0201044. Bibcode:1979PhRvD..20.2474A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2474.
5. Abrams, L. S. (1989). "Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error". Canadian Journal of Physics 67 (9): 919–926. doi:10.1139/p89-158. arXiv:gr-qc/0102055.
6. Antoci, S.; Liebscher, D.-E. (July 2001). "Reconsidering Schwarzschild's original solution". Astronomische Nachrichten, Issn2=1521-3994. 322 (3): 137–142. arXiv:gr-qc/0102084. Bibcode:2001AN....322..137A. doi:10.1002/1521-3994(200107)322:3<137::AID-ASNA137>3.0.CO;2-1. ISSN 0004-6337.
7. Antoci, Salvatore (2003-10-21). David Hilbert and the origin of the "Schwarzschild solution". p. 343. arXiv:physics/0310104. Bibcode:2004mgfd.book..343A. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
8. Corda, Christian (25 May 2011). "A Clarification on the Debate on "the Original Schwarzschild Solution"" (PDF). Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics. 8 (25): 295–300. ISSN 1729-5254.
9. Fromholz, Pierre; Poisson, Eric; Will, Clifford M. (April 2014). "The Schwarzschild metric: It's the coordinates, stupid!". American Journal of Physics, Issn2=1943-2909. 82 (4): 295–300. arXiv:1308.0394. Bibcode:2014AmJPh..82..295F. doi:10.1119/1.4850396. ISSN 0002-9505.
10. "Les trous noirs n'existent pas - Partie 1". La Voie de la Russie / Sputnik News (in French). 30 June 2014.
11. "Les trous noirs n'existent pas - Partie 2". La Voie de la Russie - SputnikNews (in French). 1 July 2014.
12. Petit, Jean-Pierre; D'Agostini, G. (27 February 2015). "Cancellation of the central singularity of the Schwarzschild solution with natural mass inversion process". Modern Physics Letters A. 30 (09): 1550051. doi:10.1142/S0217732315500510.
13. Grøn, Øyvind (2016). "Celebrating the centenary of the Schwarzschild solutions". American Journal of Physics. 2016 (84): 537. doi:10.1119/1.4944031.

Some of the papers cited do not seem to have been published in peer-reviewed form. Also, the proposer should clarify what relationship he may have with any of these manuscripts. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct, some of the papers are pre-print articles on researchgate or arxiv. They add others technical details for the ones interested in these, and they demonstrate that the previously published works created interest in the scientific community. They should be considered as secondary sources.

The proposer is not one the authors whose papers are listed here, nor a co-worker nor a relative, nor involved in commercial activities with one of these authors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.75.88 (talk)

This work is, at best, too new and speculative to be included, per WP:UNDUE. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE reads "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." More, UNDUE refers to the weight in the article (note that I propose only 2 short sentences), not to a new idea. Because the sources are valid and verifiable, it is not a speculative opinion at all.--80.215.97.25 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are not all reliable, and the reliable ones among them are not all about the topic that your text claims they are. Your proposed addition violates WP:UNDUE by over-emphasizing the most recent iteration of a concept (that the central singularity might vanish in a fully quantum treatment). XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please list the sources which are not reliable for you in the context of these sentences. Let's start with this. --145.242.20.219 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

1 is not reliable (Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source for itself). 2 is a primary source on work that is still too new to have been fully evaluated. 3 is Carlo Rovelli's commentary on 2; it's fine. 4 is borderline (online publication with no obvious red flags but no indication of how much editorial control it exercises, either). None of 2, 3 or 4 refer to the Janus model, which you are clearly trying to promote. 5 through 8 are complaints by a niche of researchers on the fringes of GR that have largely been ignored, justifiably, and that have no real connection to the topic of sources 2–4. Reference 9, if anything, presents a happily mainstream position and argues in the opposite direction from references 5–8. Reference 10 is only on the arXiv, and so is not reliable. Reference 11 is on ResearchGate and thus counts for nothing. Items 11 and 12 are an interview with Jean-Pierre Petit, whom you are trying to promote, and for present purposes, these sources count for nothing. Reference 14 is another PDF on Petit's ResearchGate page, and so it is not a reliable source. In summary, the only reliable sources actually germane to the topic of "the absence of central singularity" are sources 2 and 3. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole proposal comes across as a ploy to generate views of some of the "secondary sources". WolfmanSF (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter : I have updated the proposed text and sources according to your last message. Please let me know of any details. Note there are 2 sentences, each with their sources. Accordingly, sources for sentence 2 do not deal with sentence 1.--145.242.20.220 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Surface of last influence

Why is there no mention of this? Seems pretty important. You can read about it in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, section 33.1 starting on p. 872. Betaneptune (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Astronomy articles
• Top-importance Astronomy articles
• GA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
• GA-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
• GA-Class Cosmology articles
• GA-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• GA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• GA-Class relativity articles
• Relativity articles
• Physics articles needing attention
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists