what happens when you go through a black hole?

[Exarch]

assuming you dont get compressed to death?

[MaximiIian]

You would get compressed to death. There is no assumption into any other outcome. That is what happens.

[Exarch]

ok, then, i'll change my q to:
what's on the other side of a black hole?

[MaximiIian]

ok, then, i'll change my q to:
what's on the other side of a black hole?

There's no "other side" of a black hole. Contrary to popular thought, a black hole isn't like some weird interdimensional portal. It's a quantum singularity with horribly massive gravity. Everything gets compressed when pulled towards it, and beyond the event horizon, nothing can be seen. Even photons cannot escape.

[HannibalExMachina]

confusing it with some kind of a worm hole?

[ErikinWest]

There's no "other side" of a black hole. Contrary to popular thought, a black hole isn't like some weird interdimensional portal. It's a quantum singularity with horribly massive gravity. Everything gets compressed when pulled towards it, and beyond the event horizon, nothing can be seen. Even photons cannot escape.

But at some point, a black hole must lose it's gravitational force. It cannot produce energy forever. It may take trillions of years, but at some point, a black hole has to lose its ability to suck everything in past its event horizon. Correct? And then I wonder what we would find inside a black hole.

Cheers,
Erik

[D.B. Cooper]

wat is a event horizon

It's the point of no return, that is, once you cross this point in a black hole there is no way you can escape it's gravitational pull and you're dead.

As for what would happen if you passed through a black hole, you'd be spaghettified. And that's an actual word! Imagine being stretched into a ridiculously long strand a few atoms long. Maybe you would eventually be spat back out into space as a few random atoms, but you'd more likely be incinerated by the immense heat and pressure inside a hole. I've also heard that you'd be able to see the back of your head, beause of the light being bended.

But if there is a fabulous new universe on the "other side", I have no idea. I'd like to think so but we'll probably never find out, ever. So that's as good as a no. What Maximillian said makes sense though.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

ok, then, i'll change my q to:
what's on the other side of a black hole?

Everyone who got compressed saying "wtf?"

[Otsman]

ok, then, i'll change my q to:
what's on the other side of a black hole?

matter is simply spit out, where and when is not known, but scientists are pretty sure it comes out somewhere

[Juvenal]

matter is simply spit out, where and when is not known, but scientists are pretty sure it comes out somewhere

That is not the consensus. According to theory matter that enters a black hole (i.e. passes within the event horizon) becomes part of the singularity. At this point all information (i.e. distinguishing features) of the matter is lost apart from mass and angular momentum (not sure about electric charge - perhaps someone can enlighten me).

Black holes do emit Hawking radiation, but this is not quite the same as previously swallowed matter coming back out. The reason for this is that Hawking radiation is the effect of the normal spontaneous generation of virtual particle-anti-particle pairs (i.e. the Quantum Foam which is supposed to exist everywhere even in vacuum).

Under normal conditions these pairs exist for an infinitesimal period (less than the Planck Time) and then recombine to (re)create - nothing! But if it happens near an event horizon, then one of the pair could fall in while the other stays outside. This equates to a slight reduction of the mass of the black hole (because the inner particle combines with the singularity), while the remaining particle outside appears as if it were radiation that had been emitted by the black hole.

There is evidence for the existence of the Quantum Foam in the Casimir Effect.

The idea that black holes are somehow connected to white holes where the matter comes out is speculation. The mathematics of the theory allows it, but that doesn't mean it is real (mathematics and reality are not the same thing).

PS. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes in the above.

[dwringer]

Well that's not a good way to phrase it, because a black hole is 3 dimensional, you'd just get to the space on the other side of the black hole

As for what's INSIDE a black hole, or what happens once something gets beyond the event horizon, well, that's still debated. It's physically impossible to study, and any probe that even got close OUTSIDE the event horizon would be compressed to death

[Broken Pope]

... Meet Elvis?

More seriously, I've heard a theory that baby alternate universes are spawned.

Our own universe may have arisen in this way - from the singularity at the core of a black hole.

Of course, even if this were true it would remain a bit of a puzzler where the very first universe could have sprung up. :hmmm:

[H.r.E.]

wat is a event horizon

[chris_uk_83]

You would get compressed to death.

Compressed is the wrong word: spaghettified is preferred and it's quite the opposite of compression.

When you get close enough to the centre of a black hole the gravitational field gradient (this is how different the gravitational pull is at different distances from the centre) is very steep. If you were to go in feet first then your feet would be attracted to the centre with a much greater force than your head and you would be pulled into a long, thin, spaghetti like shape.

[chris_uk_83]

But at some point, a black hole must lose it's gravitational force. It cannot produce energy forever. It may take trillions of years, but at some point, a black hole has to lose its ability to suck everything in past its event horizon. Correct?

No, not so. Maintaining a gravitational field does not require energy. Gravitation is an intrinsic property of matter: if you have enough matter in one place you will have a large gravitational field. It does take energy to move across a gravitational field gradient (from a point of high field strength to low field strength), which is why we need to supply rockets with a lot of fuel in order to get them into orbit.

But no, a black hole does not 'run out of energy' by sustaining a large gravitational field any more than the Earth, Moon or Sun do. On the other hand, Hawking radiation may be responsible for black holes 'evaporating' (although this is yet to be proven observationally). This is something quite different though.

[ErikinWest]

No, not so. Maintaining a gravitational field does not require energy. Gravitation is an intrinsic property of matter: if you have enough matter in one place you will have a large gravitational field. It does take energy to move across a gravitational field gradient (from a point of high field strength to low field strength), which is why we need to supply rockets with a lot of fuel in order to get them into orbit.

But no, a black hole does not 'run out of energy' by sustaining a large gravitational field any more than the Earth, Moon or Sun do. On the other hand, Hawking radiation may be responsible for black holes 'evaporating' (although this is yet to be proven observationally). This is something quite different though.

Hmm interesting. I see your point. But what would happen if a black hole formed near another black hole. Do larger black holes suck in smaller ones? Ahah I should really go read some Stephen Hawkings.

Cheers,
Erik

[Mithril]

two blackholes will just waste each other out

[Juvenal]

... what would happen if a black hole formed near another black hole. Do larger black holes suck in smaller ones? ...

The two black holes would initially orbit each other, eventually friction would bring them close enough to merge.

You would end up with a single black hole with their combined mass and angular momentum.

As for the OP, nothing happens when you go through a black hole because there is no "through" to go to. The existence of wormholes is theoretical, merely representing a potential physical manifestation of mathematical theory.

[Thanatos]

But what of white holes, the opposite of a black hole, where matter is instead spewed out? I don't have any proof, but I do like to think that for each white, there is a black, and vice versa.

[Wodeson]

It depends on the size of black hole.

A stellar black hole has extreme tidal effects which will as mentioned by others stretch you out and kill you before you ever pass through the event horizon.

A super massive black hole has relatively weaker tidal effects, and you could free fall right through the event horizon with no ill effects. Though you would still get 'spagettized' as you approached the internal singularity.

Either way you would also experience massive time dilation as you approached the event horizon, and might be witness to the whole future history of the universe passing by before you got swallowed up.

Theoretical White Holes and Worm Holes appear mathematically to be inherently unstable, and no evident for their existence has been observed.