Talk: Black hole

Citations

This article is interesting, but doesn't cite its sources and is not written entirely from a Trek perspective. I will try to work on both. Aholland 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to refect that in the first movie we are told that Black hole is a term that has fallen out of favor. "What they use to call a Black hole" --TOSrules 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Aholland 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the term Black hole has been brought up in a TNG environment, but just because the term is no longer popular, does not mean that it is not used. Just that those of a scientific mind don't use that term. --TOSrules 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your point, but given that Q, Riker, Geordi, and even Data use the term "black hole", I presume that the 24th Century has reinstated the term.Aholland 02:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points, I just wanted to explore the possibilities of it still not being a scientific term. Currently the article offers no proof of it being in use again in the 24th century, it just dictates that idea. --TOSrules 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The proof is in the dialogue in the following TNG episodes: Deja Q, The Loss, and Timescape. It is consistently used in the latter two by scientifically trained Starfleet officers. In Timescape, Data (who has never been accused of using imprecise language) says to Picard "I believe his species mistook the artificial singularity, which the Romulans use in their engine, for a natural one . . . a black hole." I do not believe it credible that Data would misuse a term like that in that way, or that he would use anything other than the most scientifically relevant term in the context of the conversation. I don't know of any better proof for purposes of canon or inclusion in the article than consistent use in scientifically relevant conversations by trained scientists in multiple episodes.Aholland 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, I just said that the article does not offer proof yet. --TOSrules 04:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the episode/movie references next to the relevant statements. Aholland 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Although John Wheeler officially coined the term 'Black Hole' during a presentation... somewhere, I forget... in 1967, the term 'black hole' had already been used among others for decades (much to the shagrin of the French, who refused to use the term because of it's sexual nature). Keras 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What reference are you using for this? Aholland 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Among other places, The Susskind's The Black Hole War, [1].

Parallax

Some maintain that the event horizon in "Parallax" should not have acted on Voyager in the manner it did, seeing as Voyager is a faster-than-light starship. However, given the space-time irregularities that are believed to occur within a black hole, one could speculate that a dekyon beam was necessary even for a faster-than-light ship to escape.

Some maintain sounds like a nitpick to me. Sure it may not have been a proper action but it's a sci-fi show. I won't remove it unless others feel that way as well. :) – Morder 08:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kill the nitpick! --!!!! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by OuroborosCobra (talk • contribs).

Not sure why there's no signature...but it's been slaughtered! :) – Morder 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very odd typo, those "!!!!" should be the four "~" --OuroborosCobra ^talk 08:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There are four "!"'s! --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Black holes

There seems to be some confusion among the various articles referencing the "time traveling" anomalies in Star Trek. Some people seem to believe the anomalies actually were black holes and some believe the anomalies were products of black holes. I tend to believe the latter. If this is the consensus then we should try and clarify this. Also, it seems that Nero was able to create one of these anomalies for the purposes of traveling to Vulcan. We have evidence of this from Kirk and Chekov's reference to the lightning storm near Vulcan. This would imply that Nero (or perhaps a mind controlled Spock) has the ability to generate these black hole induced anomalies in a controlled fashion. Food for thought.--Hribar 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that was a reference to the black hole through which Prime Spock emerged. I think creating a black hole to get to Vulcan would be pointless with warp drive, not to mention dangerous, since the Narada could have ended up further back in time or even killed. I don't think Nero would have taken that chance. --From Andoria with Love 00:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nero was able calculate where and when Spock would arive. He may also have developed a way to control the process for the purposes of transportation. In my mind I am trying to reconcile the fact that Nero managed to enter Vulcan space undetected (I assume no cloak) and go about his business before the Vulcans could respond or relay the severity of the situation to Starfleet. Also, I don't believe it was ever stated exactly where and when Spock was picked up by Nero. --Hribar 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Did they enter and leave a black hole in star trek movie?

I seen the 2009 Star Trek movie and i understand many things as I'm a fan of sci-fi. But according to the movie, Nero and spock ship entered and leave a black hole and somehow emerge in different time. Can someone explain how this works (when clearly black hole destroys anything nearby)?– 75.34.226.168 07:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The black holes were created using red matter, a highly unstable substance. Apparently, when red matter is ignited, it creates a time vortex similar to a black hole... only with lightning! :) --From Andoria with Love 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From a purely canon standpoint, I would say that the time traveling "lightning storm" was a product of the black hole and not the black hole itself. The Countdown series elaborates more on the red matter issue but I don't know that it ever really walks the reader through the physics of the whole process and how it revelates into time travel. --Hribar 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, a black hole will only "destroy" matter that crosses its event horizon. This horizon is defined by the mass of the black hole. Star Trek has always been on the cutting edge of technology and science. I truly enjoyed the Star Trek (2009 release) movie but was troubled by this "flaw" in the science. Clearly two ships passed through a black hole unscathed! Clearly the scientists in the new Star Trek universe referred to the spatial object as a "black hole". Perhaps the scientists in this universe have not as yet refined their definition of a "black hole" or are using the reference in tandem with "wormhole"?--Pitzy65 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As we know from previous episodes, in the Star Trek universe there are several different types of quantum singularities, at least four, according to "Parallax" and we have seen some of them used as trans-dimensional portals to Fluidic space for example. And time travel effects associated to artificial quantum singularities have been seen in "Timescape" and "Visionary". --Pseudohuman 05:20, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Is there no literature on this?! Have the writers not answered to complaints about this plot-hole (and it is a plot-hole in the movie, regardless of how many fans try to explain away the mistake via speculation which is much more suited to fan fiction than this site)! If the writers have responded to criticism regarding this flaw in the film's plot, we could probably add that information to bg info on this page. --Defiant 23:49, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

There is no plot hole or fan fiction. It is very clearly established in "Visionary" that in the trek-universe singularities are known to emit temporal displacement waves. --Pseudohuman 23:33, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

What doesnt make sense to me is that the Jellyfish and the Narada both pass through the black hole created by red matter unscathed but at the conclusion of the film the Narada is torn to pieces by another black hole also created using red matter. 95.145.165.173 23:06, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

The black hole at the end of the film was initiated inside the Narada, so the result is naturally the same as creating a hole inside a planet, also Kirk states in the comm with Nero: "your ship is compromised, too close to the singularity to survive without assistance..." --Pseudohuman 00:11, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Removed

I removed a reference to VOY: "Parallax", since the term "black hole" was never actually mentioned in that episode, and if we're keeping this article separate from singularity (which I agree we should), then we should attempt to avoid the duplicate info. For the record, the text I removed was:

Black holes are surrounded by event horizons, the boundary at which light can no longer escape. In 2371 the USS Voyager became trapped within a black hole's event horizon and experienced unusual temporal and spatial distortions. Voyager was able to escaped by using a dekyon beam to open a hole in the event horizon. (VOY: "Parallax")

-Angry Future Romulan 21:44, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Black Holes are Black Holes are not other thing

A black hole can create a tunnel through space-time, but it's not even the tunnel. --Mark McWire 15:58, December 6, 2010 (UTC) Spock said in the film, yes, that can be produced with this technique those tunnel, but not that the black hole represents this tunnel. And I ask that you, the formulation that the black hole itself is the tunnel, let's away. There are many good reasons that speak against it, that someone from a black hole just come out again, and then also end up in the past. Instead, black holes assimilate any matter falling into it. This film breaks with this principle, but it offers by Spock's formulation, a possible solution. I do not think we should definitely remain on the variant, which breaks with the real physics and other canonical episodes. Sure, it's only science fiction, but so far have been black holes in most cases in the astronomical sense used. The only other exception was in Star Trek I, where Orci has probably also derived the black hole time travel story. Nevertheless, I am against the black holes to seal properties which in the classical sense can not have. This is nothing more than matter, which has been compacted over the Schwarzschild radius beyond and has therefore formed an event horizon. What happens to the matter behind the event horizon, we do not know and we will probably never know. But it is certain that a black hole is nothing more than the sum of the mass of assimilated matter. Once something falls into the hole, it will, by the amount of the mass of the incoming falling object, more massive. This description fits seamlessly into all canonical episodes in which a black hole has played a role. Since light has not even escape it is unlikely or unable to travel through the black hole itself. Any statement in this regard is without substance. Spock says, read between the lines that such technology can also create a tunnel through space and time. With his scientific education, he is not expected that the hole is the tunnel itself. Was for him at the moment probably just as absurd as for a real scientist. The part of "Senior Spock" should not be taken too literally, since it has been thought by merger and full of emotion from him. He has given everything in very simple words to Kirk on. The part of "Senior Spock" should not be taken too literally, since it has been thought by merger and full of emotion from him. He has given everything in very simple words to Kirk on. I will not deny that has "Spock senior" said literally, he flew through the black hole, you should only use this statement in a figurative sense. Presumably he does not know exactly what had happened because he was not expected to time travel. The "Memory Alpha" most neutral approach is well that we do not mention these facts as facts in the text, but rather as assertions of the characters. Then everyone will even form an opinion on whether he prefers the "Spock senior" or the "Spock junior" believes. I do personally prefer the hypothesis of the Junior, because it is compliant with real physics. --Mark McWire 17:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I only skimmed that post. But I would simply say that, just because something does not fit in with real-world physics, we should not attempt to make up our own explanations. As examples, I would point to the science (is that the right word?) used in "Threshold", or the description of an event horizon in "Parallax" as an "energy field." Sometimes the science sucks, we have to deal with it. -Angry Future Romulan 17:10, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

The young Spock is indeed a possible canonical answer by saying: "The engineering comprehension Necessary to artificially create a black hole may suggest an answer search technology could theoretically be manipulated to create a tunnel through space-time..." This quote opens the door to a view that does without "rape" of real black holes. So why reject a canonical explanation? It is one and only on a clever formulation. To say that a black hole for time travel, may be correct in a simplified view of the film. Going into details, however, the case is much clearer and less contradictory, because the hole is no longer the main reason, but something that has been thrown by the black hole. --Mark McWire 18:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

What are you actually still arguing about? The article currently states that black holes can have time-travelling phenomena as a side-effect, not that time-travelling is achieved by bumping full-speed into the black hole itself. -- Cid Highwind 18:21, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have added Spock's theory a few hours ago. The original info came from the space-time tunnel article, which appears even on the verge of being deleted. Blair2009 has removed the sentences about Spock's theorie, in the same operation to improve expression. I have subsequently added back, this time considering the other, I believe meaningful, changes from Blair. Now we discuss the proper interpretation of the canonical dialogue. Where I summarized my position first in a really long statement. --Mark McWire 18:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)