Some scientist think, that black holes (and even black energy and matter) don't exist. How Do you think does black holes exist? Or maybe you know, that black holes exist?
Watched a Video on a CBC Science News report that showed a HUGE Star, Circling a Black Hole, then disappearing...into it...who could miss that? 
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 24 2007, 05:57 PM)
Watched a Video on a CBC Science News report that showed a HUGE Star, Circling a Black Hole, then disappearing...into it...who could miss that?
Maybe there is some another explanation..?
Maybe there is some another explanation..?
QUOTE (DavidD+Oct 24 2007, 01:58 PM)
Maybe there is some another explanation..?
Go ahead....'Make my day'
For example I read, that things which falling in black hole radiate X-rays. Maybe those rays is from some another source? Scientists think, that in universe our galatics center is black hole, but maybe this all radiation is from old stars, which explode trilions years away or somthing. Nobody don't have very strong proofs about black holes.
QUOTE (DavidD+Oct 24 2007, 02:23 PM)
For example I read, that things which falling in black hole radiate X-rays. Maybe those rays is from some another source? Scientists think, that in universe our galatics center is black hole, but maybe this all radiation is from old stars, which explode trilions years away or somthing. Nobody don't have very strong proofs about black holes.
Strong proof? like video evidence (from telescopes) and observation of behavior - over time - respecting the obvious Lack of Known to be present Background luminosity-light from Farther Stellar bodies - stars - that is disappearing in a spherical region of space as it (the background star's light) transits across that background, followed by A singular large Star Circling that very region of space, it's light disappearing and re-appearing on a regular - well timed - basis, then - suddenly - that star itself Disappearing completely into the region of totally Non-Luminous space.
That, to you, is not strong evidence?
Strong proof? like video evidence (from telescopes) and observation of behavior - over time - respecting the obvious Lack of Known to be present Background luminosity-light from Farther Stellar bodies - stars - that is disappearing in a spherical region of space as it (the background star's light) transits across that background, followed by A singular large Star Circling that very region of space, it's light disappearing and re-appearing on a regular - well timed - basis, then - suddenly - that star itself Disappearing completely into the region of totally Non-Luminous space.
That, to you, is not strong evidence?
Read in wikipedia, all twis is only hypoteses. Maybe star explod and then stop luminate light. This can be any source, very big stars, many stars. This all is only hypotesis about black holes. It's like about quarks, nobody know does they realy exist... I think I read, that if somithing falling into black hole, then it will be faling with very big speed nearly to light speed and mass will be infinity and never such thing will be aborbed of black hole and never fall in black hole.
David in relation to a person falling into a black hole scenario they would "fall in" to the black hole but because of an occurrence known as infinite time warp, from the perspective of somebody outside the black hole the person would never fall in they would appear to stop at a point frozen in time. This is because our observations of the person depend on light, as the person gets closer to the black hole more and more light from them will be sucked in and thus never reach us however it is a common misinterpretation to say the person never falls in, as far as the person themselves are concerned they fall in accelerating immensely. It is also wrong to state that a person's mass would be infinite, if for the moment we ignore the fact that the body would be ripped into many pieces squashed in places and generally just obliterated then the body would indeed increase in weight but not to infinity, remember mass does not change.
QUOTE (SirShanson+Oct 25 2007, 11:07 AM)
infinite time warp
stop at a point frozen in time.
remember mass does not change.
Why mass don't change? Who say that? Where is proofs?
Maybe mass changing and then taking energy from black hole? And then spliting into two black holes? And from this perpspective, black hole can't occure. Becouse if is very big star and this star want became black hole, then particles bacam moving to this star very fast nearly speed of light and then those particles becam as massive as center of star and then star spliting into many parts or explode or nothing changing and star or live farther or slowly evaporate radiating particles and photons until complitly evaporate.
Infinity time is like infinity mass in my explanation, way can't be infinity mass instead infinity time?
Or maybe big star wants to became black hole but so never became it?
By the way, why need infinity time? If somingh falling into black hole then just need infinity energy to accelerate to speed of light, but it don't means, that it falling very slow?
If mass always the same, then it's means, that very easy to stop spaceship to person who is not in the spaceship, which flying say 2.9*10^8 m/s ? Then it means, that just need the same energy to stop such fast flying spaceship as without relevitivistic teory? If no, then after that then small particles crach into black hole then his energy will be very big, becouse he flying nearly speed of light and either black hole explode from such energy, either this smalle particle goes trough black hole and would fly to andromeda galactica...
I just remeber, that in experiment then particles (say electrons) accelerated to nearly speed of light, then they mass became 1000 times biger and if they stro to somthing then they producted very heavy particles. So if somthing going to black hole, then it mass became very big and similar to black hole mass and then if they crash to each over, then explode black hole and say electron which is absorbing by black hole. Becouse black hole gravitation is, that need energy biger than speed of light to escape from black hole, and that's becouse somebody saying, that light can't escape from black hole. Electron energy m*c^2 is the same as about gamma rays (10^15 Hz) h*f, where m electron mass kg, c speed of light meters/second, h - planck constant and f photon frenquency. So it means, that electron must moving faster than light to escape from black hole gravitation field. And this also means, that electron falling to black hole will fall faster than speed of light and his mass will be infinity or the same or bigger than black hole mass and then electron pass through black hole, but no black hole will take him back, so electron mass will be the same as black hole and electron will became pull all mater from black hole, but this matter also will be very heavy and so became matter string between black hole and electron or between already two black hole. And so actualy each particle will became *** black hole and just will be explosion or will be everything will split into very much black hole and black hole disapear.
Anyway electron or somthing, what falling inside black hole, must move with infinity speed.
stop at a point frozen in time.
remember mass does not change.
Why mass don't change? Who say that? Where is proofs?
Maybe mass changing and then taking energy from black hole? And then spliting into two black holes? And from this perpspective, black hole can't occure. Becouse if is very big star and this star want became black hole, then particles bacam moving to this star very fast nearly speed of light and then those particles becam as massive as center of star and then star spliting into many parts or explode or nothing changing and star or live farther or slowly evaporate radiating particles and photons until complitly evaporate.
Infinity time is like infinity mass in my explanation, way can't be infinity mass instead infinity time?
Or maybe big star wants to became black hole but so never became it?
By the way, why need infinity time? If somingh falling into black hole then just need infinity energy to accelerate to speed of light, but it don't means, that it falling very slow?
If mass always the same, then it's means, that very easy to stop spaceship to person who is not in the spaceship, which flying say 2.9*10^8 m/s ? Then it means, that just need the same energy to stop such fast flying spaceship as without relevitivistic teory? If no, then after that then small particles crach into black hole then his energy will be very big, becouse he flying nearly speed of light and either black hole explode from such energy, either this smalle particle goes trough black hole and would fly to andromeda galactica...
I just remeber, that in experiment then particles (say electrons) accelerated to nearly speed of light, then they mass became 1000 times biger and if they stro to somthing then they producted very heavy particles. So if somthing going to black hole, then it mass became very big and similar to black hole mass and then if they crash to each over, then explode black hole and say electron which is absorbing by black hole. Becouse black hole gravitation is, that need energy biger than speed of light to escape from black hole, and that's becouse somebody saying, that light can't escape from black hole. Electron energy m*c^2 is the same as about gamma rays (10^15 Hz) h*f, where m electron mass kg, c speed of light meters/second, h - planck constant and f photon frenquency. So it means, that electron must moving faster than light to escape from black hole gravitation field. And this also means, that electron falling to black hole will fall faster than speed of light and his mass will be infinity or the same or bigger than black hole mass and then electron pass through black hole, but no black hole will take him back, so electron mass will be the same as black hole and electron will became pull all mater from black hole, but this matter also will be very heavy and so became matter string between black hole and electron or between already two black hole. And so actualy each particle will became *** black hole and just will be explosion or will be everything will split into very much black hole and black hole disapear.
Anyway electron or somthing, what falling inside black hole, must move with infinity speed.
Or more corectly, must move faster than light and to have infinity mass.
Or I know answer. If particle want escape from black hole, then it must move with such near to light speed, what his mass would be bigger than black hole mass.
The most logical explanation that black hole can't exist. Uper layers of star is bigger than center and particles moving with hight speed struck each over and became hardrons, which after 10^{-20} seconds disapearing and all star with them...
Or I know answer. If particle want escape from black hole, then it must move with such near to light speed, what his mass would be bigger than black hole mass.
The most logical explanation that black hole can't exist. Uper layers of star is bigger than center and particles moving with hight speed struck each over and became hardrons, which after 10^{-20} seconds disapearing and all star with them...
DavidD SirShanson is doing what you think you find in Wikipedia - hypothesizing (hypoteses) about how a Black Hole would/should work - act - function - behave - but they are not as Hypothetical in the Reality of Proof of there being something in the Universe that Match's certain Criteria as to be able to make the conclusion that yes they do exist....Just as Exactly 'what' and 'how' is still somewhat of a Mystery as their very nature is one of Hidden from sight by occlusion of Luminosity.
There gravitational Activities are - though - still 'observable' as they too have been somewhat detected so the Predication of evidence is on the Side of them Being there.....
But exactly what they 'are' and how do they behave-work is a matter of much speculation and hypothesizing....as you said, just go read Wiki......
?
There gravitational Activities are - though - still 'observable' as they too have been somewhat detected so the Predication of evidence is on the Side of them Being there.....
But exactly what they 'are' and how do they behave-work is a matter of much speculation and hypothesizing....as you said, just go read Wiki......
?
Anyway, black holes, they exist or not, don't change nothing about our world understanding. Becouse we even can't travel to them. And scientist was traying made small black holes unfortunatly. 
Hi All,
.... Do Black Holes exist???...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name, would it smell as sweet?"
Nothing is more certain in Science than changing of ideas and paradigms to suit it's changing "audience". The study of science in schools is more about theater than it is about "truth" and "science". Sometimes Committees on School Boards and even University Boards will decide with a show of hands what is appropriate "science" to allow those young minds to be exposed to and it will be at odds with current understanding. Better they recite the long list of their former leaders or verses from the Bible than to involve themselves in such controversy.
Two hundred years ago the "entire Universe" was our Solar System and a vault of stars surrounding us. Each individual point of light was a "star" and it was supposed to be a fire composed of "coal" that was burning in space. You could come up with an estimate of the age of the Universe based on how much coal these stars were burning and how much time it would take to burn it all. A few thousand years was an upper bound and this tallied well with estimates based on statements made in the bible about the generations of man since creation. The question of the time was where did all the coal come from in the first place? As you can see this is a relatively minor point to agree upon and all science would need to do was "dot the i's and cross the t's".
Other "rebels" thought the Universe was older than a few thousand years and that the stars were simply frozen ice hanging in space reflecting the majesty of the one light of our sun around which everything rightfully revolved. A few individuals still clung to the idea that everything including the Sun revolved around the Earth and this seemed "appropriate" considering the true purpose of Creation and man's place in it.... but times were changing since the "Enlightenment".
Still there was an extremely small and "mad heretical" minority going way way back to the ancient Greeks, well before Shakespeare's time, that thought that the stars were other Suns like our own and that other solar systems probably revolved around them possibly with their own indigenous life on them. These individuals needed "protection" from the Devil and burning them at the stake was the appropriate course of action for centuries. There is still a very "authoritative" group of custodians of public morality that hold similar ideas to this very day... however public burnings is considered a little "off" in the current political climate.
When I was young it was still considered a heresy to insist that other stars could even have solar systems around them and that there were very good mathematical reasons why solar systems could almost never form and that Earth and the rest of our Sun's solar system was just about unique in the Universe. The Astronomer Royal insisted that space travel was impossible and that no projectile could ever escape Earths gravitational pull and it was easy to show mathematically this statement was correct. Checking his figures proved the Astronomer Royal must surely have been right. This was printed in Encyclopedia's and in School Books of the time. It really did not matter that only less than 4 or 5 years later the Russians orbited Sputnik.
Before we become embroiled about the nature of Black Holes we should stop for a moment and consider if it would be better to first calculate the amount of "coal" such a large black object contains to have the gravitational field necessary to swallow neighboring stars... Oh and where did all that coal come from?... He he he!
Cheers
.... Do Black Holes exist???...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name, would it smell as sweet?"
Nothing is more certain in Science than changing of ideas and paradigms to suit it's changing "audience". The study of science in schools is more about theater than it is about "truth" and "science". Sometimes Committees on School Boards and even University Boards will decide with a show of hands what is appropriate "science" to allow those young minds to be exposed to and it will be at odds with current understanding. Better they recite the long list of their former leaders or verses from the Bible than to involve themselves in such controversy.
Two hundred years ago the "entire Universe" was our Solar System and a vault of stars surrounding us. Each individual point of light was a "star" and it was supposed to be a fire composed of "coal" that was burning in space. You could come up with an estimate of the age of the Universe based on how much coal these stars were burning and how much time it would take to burn it all. A few thousand years was an upper bound and this tallied well with estimates based on statements made in the bible about the generations of man since creation. The question of the time was where did all the coal come from in the first place? As you can see this is a relatively minor point to agree upon and all science would need to do was "dot the i's and cross the t's".
Other "rebels" thought the Universe was older than a few thousand years and that the stars were simply frozen ice hanging in space reflecting the majesty of the one light of our sun around which everything rightfully revolved. A few individuals still clung to the idea that everything including the Sun revolved around the Earth and this seemed "appropriate" considering the true purpose of Creation and man's place in it.... but times were changing since the "Enlightenment".
Still there was an extremely small and "mad heretical" minority going way way back to the ancient Greeks, well before Shakespeare's time, that thought that the stars were other Suns like our own and that other solar systems probably revolved around them possibly with their own indigenous life on them. These individuals needed "protection" from the Devil and burning them at the stake was the appropriate course of action for centuries. There is still a very "authoritative" group of custodians of public morality that hold similar ideas to this very day... however public burnings is considered a little "off" in the current political climate.
When I was young it was still considered a heresy to insist that other stars could even have solar systems around them and that there were very good mathematical reasons why solar systems could almost never form and that Earth and the rest of our Sun's solar system was just about unique in the Universe. The Astronomer Royal insisted that space travel was impossible and that no projectile could ever escape Earths gravitational pull and it was easy to show mathematically this statement was correct. Checking his figures proved the Astronomer Royal must surely have been right. This was printed in Encyclopedia's and in School Books of the time. It really did not matter that only less than 4 or 5 years later the Russians orbited Sputnik.
Before we become embroiled about the nature of Black Holes we should stop for a moment and consider if it would be better to first calculate the amount of "coal" such a large black object contains to have the gravitational field necessary to swallow neighboring stars... Oh and where did all that coal come from?... He he he!
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 26 2007, 11:03 PM)
Before we become embroiled about the nature of Black Holes we should stop for a moment and consider if it would be better to first calculate the amount of "coal" such a large black object contains to have the gravitational field necessary to swallow neighboring stars... Oh and where did all that coal come from?... He he he!
I don't understood that you wanna to say, black hole exist or not exist?
I just read, that this all black holes radiation is very old, when universe has only bilions years...
Again DavidD mass does not change, can't stress this enough only the weight will change its an extremely basic law of physics I learnt before I was even doing GCSEs. Also in relation to what I said being a hypothesis no it isn't unless your calling a black hole something we don't usually think of as a black hole, black holes have a massive gravity and they will cause infinite time warp so long as the light falls in to them there isn't much arguement in that.
Hi DavidD,
QUOTE (DavidD+)
QUOTE (Good Elf @ Oct 26 2007+ 11:03 PM)
Before we become embroiled about the nature of Black Holes we should stop for a moment and consider if it would be better to first calculate the amount of "coal" such a large black object contains to have the gravitational field necessary to swallow neighboring stars... Oh and where did all that coal come from?... He he he!
I don't understood that you wanna to say, black hole exist or not exist?
I just read, that this all black holes radiation is very old, when universe has only bilions years...
I just read, that this all black holes radiation is very old, when universe has only bilions years...
Sorry... It was meant to be humorous. The real nature of Black Holes has not been actually determined because there are none close bye to study "up close"... Just as well too. These objects are far away. So we are observing "something" that resembles some aspects of a predicted class of object called "Black Holes"... I think J.A. Wheeler invented the term. Black Hole radiation is "old" because we measure distance in our Universe by virtue of the red shift caused by the velocity the galaxy, star or object is receding... This red shift is called Hubble Shift and is therefore a measure of both recession velocity and distance but measures neither directly. Most real objects have both Hubble Shift and gravitational red shift at the same time. It is technically a difficult task to separate one from the other. There are also exceptions that exist in a class of objects that are neither receding not suffering radical gravitational red shift. When we look at things in space and use the yardstick of red shift to determine distance exceptions will be objects under the influence of Black Holes and even Black Holes themselves.
That is "why" Black Holes look old since any light they exude has large gravitational red shifts and the wavelengths have been shifted to longer wavelengths and does not relate directly to velocity. The next point is there really is no such thing as Black Holes... they should be termed "Grey Holes" since we can actually detect them by way of the light they emit through Hawking Radiation which exhibit all that red shift. So black holes are not what they seem to be. There also have certain properties that Black Holes are supposed to have that break the laws of physics. Unless we have gone mad and need to be shot.. nothing breaks laws of physics since if they really are the laws of physics they will account for Black Holes... by definition.
Cheers
That is "why" Black Holes look old since any light they exude has large gravitational red shifts and the wavelengths have been shifted to longer wavelengths and does not relate directly to velocity. The next point is there really is no such thing as Black Holes... they should be termed "Grey Holes" since we can actually detect them by way of the light they emit through Hawking Radiation which exhibit all that red shift. So black holes are not what they seem to be. There also have certain properties that Black Holes are supposed to have that break the laws of physics. Unless we have gone mad and need to be shot.. nothing breaks laws of physics since if they really are the laws of physics they will account for Black Holes... by definition.
QUOTE
As I was going up the stairs
I saw a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish, he’d stay away.
--Antigonish, William H. Mearns
I saw a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish, he’d stay away.
--Antigonish, William H. Mearns
Cheers
QUOTE (SirShanson+Oct 28 2007, 04:24 AM)
Again DavidD mass does not change, can't stress this enough only the weight will change its an extremely basic law of physics I learnt before I was even doing GCSEs. Also in relation to what I said being a hypothesis no it isn't unless your calling a black hole something we don't usually think of as a black hole, black holes have a massive gravity and they will cause infinite time warp so long as the light falls in to them there isn't much arguement in that.
I don't understanding why need infinity time wrap? If black hole gravitation is such, that to escape from it need moving faster than light (if we don't accept reletivistic teory), then black hole gravitation not infinity but just such that if there not will be reletivistic teory, then everything will fall into black hole with speed faster than light. But since there is reletivistic teory then no need that things in black hole will fall into black hole faster than light and that mass will be infinity. Just things falling into black hole became bigger mass and falling more slowly than speed of light, becouse black hole gravitation field not infinity. So according my understanding black hole can be explained without infinity time wrap and without infinity mass. But does realy black hole exist it is not clear for me. Scientist found black hole at about bilions light years away. So maybe it's not black holes, but some strange very old stars about we nothing know...
I don't understanding why need infinity time wrap? If black hole gravitation is such, that to escape from it need moving faster than light (if we don't accept reletivistic teory), then black hole gravitation not infinity but just such that if there not will be reletivistic teory, then everything will fall into black hole with speed faster than light. But since there is reletivistic teory then no need that things in black hole will fall into black hole faster than light and that mass will be infinity. Just things falling into black hole became bigger mass and falling more slowly than speed of light, becouse black hole gravitation field not infinity. So according my understanding black hole can be explained without infinity time wrap and without infinity mass. But does realy black hole exist it is not clear for me. Scientist found black hole at about bilions light years away. So maybe it's not black holes, but some strange very old stars about we nothing know...
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 28 2007, 04:27 AM)
The real nature of Black Holes has not been actually determined because there are none close bye to study "up close"... Just as well too. These objects are far away. So we are observing "something" that resembles some aspects of a predicted class of object called "Black Holes"... I think J.A. Wheeler invented the term. Black Hole radiation is "old" because we measure distance in our Universe by virtue of the red shift caused by the velocity the galaxy, star or object is receding... This red shift is called Hubble Shift and is therefore a measure of both recession velocity and distance but measures neither directly. Most real objects have both Hubble Shift and gravitational red shift at the same time. It is technically a difficult task to separate one from the other. There are also exceptions that exist in a class of objects that are neither receding not suffering radical gravitational red shift. When we look at things in space and use the yardstick of red shift to determine distance exceptions will be objects under the influence of Black Holes and even Black Holes themselves.
That is "why" Black Holes look old since any light they exude has large gravitational red shifts and the wavelengths have been shifted to longer wavelengths and does not relate directly to velocity. The next point is there really is no such thing as Black Holes... they should be termed "Grey Holes" since we can actually detect them by way of the light they emit through Hawking Radiation which exhibit all that red shift. So black holes are not what they seem to be. There also have certain properties that Black Holes are supposed to have that break the laws of physics. Unless we have gone mad and need to be shot.. nothing breaks laws of physics since if they really are the laws of physics they will account for Black Holes... by definition.
"At 9 to 11 billion light-years away, they existed at a time when the universe was in its adolescence, between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years old."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/...r-20071025.html
I was meaning, that black holes are about 10 bilions light-years away. So if universe not traveling in time, then it means, that black holes are very old. And even if do traveling in time (when do need use hable calculations...) then black holes still are very old - about 3 bilions years old. So who know that was 3 bilions years away? And interesting does universe moving 1/3 speed of light? Or it only after big bang universe move very fast? But seems, that not, - universe even after one bilion year moving with 1/3 speed of light... Does 1/3 speed of light don't enough to explain red shift? With what speed galaxies moving?
That is "why" Black Holes look old since any light they exude has large gravitational red shifts and the wavelengths have been shifted to longer wavelengths and does not relate directly to velocity. The next point is there really is no such thing as Black Holes... they should be termed "Grey Holes" since we can actually detect them by way of the light they emit through Hawking Radiation which exhibit all that red shift. So black holes are not what they seem to be. There also have certain properties that Black Holes are supposed to have that break the laws of physics. Unless we have gone mad and need to be shot.. nothing breaks laws of physics since if they really are the laws of physics they will account for Black Holes... by definition.
"At 9 to 11 billion light-years away, they existed at a time when the universe was in its adolescence, between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years old."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/...r-20071025.html
I was meaning, that black holes are about 10 bilions light-years away. So if universe not traveling in time, then it means, that black holes are very old. And even if do traveling in time (when do need use hable calculations...) then black holes still are very old - about 3 bilions years old. So who know that was 3 bilions years away? And interesting does universe moving 1/3 speed of light? Or it only after big bang universe move very fast? But seems, that not, - universe even after one bilion year moving with 1/3 speed of light... Does 1/3 speed of light don't enough to explain red shift? With what speed galaxies moving?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 28 2007, 12:27 AM)
(SNIP) That is "why" Black Holes look old since any light they exude has large gravitational red shifts and the wavelengths have been shifted to longer wavelengths and does not relate directly to velocity. (SNoP)
Simple problem that reason why they are called black holes is because NO 'LIGHT' (EMR) comes out of them, NO RADIATION....other then that postulated 'Hawking radiation' which is-was-would be an Event horizon occurrence, not an emission from whatever is within the Visible "Empty of all light" (Including background transiting starlight) space that is believed to be a Black Holes residence.
Maybe black holes are much older than we think (more than 70 bilion years;) and photon traveling very long and his wavelength becoming longer and maybe this is that specific radiation...
What is diferent between normal radiation and havkins radiation? Scientists black holes existation claming not only havking radiation but many variuos sourches of waves...
What is diferent between normal radiation and havkins radiation? Scientists black holes existation claming not only havking radiation but many variuos sourches of waves...
QUOTE (DavidD+Oct 28 2007, 08:20 AM)
Maybe black holes are much older than we think (more than 70 bilion years;) and photon traveling very long and his wavelength becoming longer and maybe this is that specific radiation...What is diferent between normal radiation and havkins radiation? Scientists black holes existation claming not only havking radiation but many variuos sourches of waves...
No radiation from a Black Hole, No Light, no EMR....Hawking radiation is from perturbation theory and virtual particle pair creation and annihilation that results in a form of radiation that arises from the event horizons interactivity with the fabric of space-time, it does not posit itself (Claim to be) as originating from inside-below the event horizon.
No radiation from a Black Hole, No Light, no EMR....Hawking radiation is from perturbation theory and virtual particle pair creation and annihilation that results in a form of radiation that arises from the event horizons interactivity with the fabric of space-time, it does not posit itself (Claim to be) as originating from inside-below the event horizon.
Why this radiation is not abserbed by black hole? And what approximate wavelenght of this radiation? And at what speed moving object if he emising this hawking radiation? Moving obeject into black hole, I guess, must radiate enough wide range of waves from infrared to say xray gamma radiation, becouse it moving slowly and when are closer and closer to black hole then object moving faster and faster and emising shorter and shorter photons.
Please go read this.....Wikipedia Hawking radiation .....especially this part...
QUOTE (Wikipedia(dot)com+)
(SNIP) A more precise, but still much simplified view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle which fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process the black hole loses mass, and to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. (SNoP)
....as that might help you to grasp it better.
That's sounds mystery. Maybe it like in many universe, one virtual partical is absorbed by black hole and another one flying in another universe until escaping from black hole gravitation field and becoming photon in our universe.
But doesn't falling object, say electron, radiate microwaves or infrawaves, becouse if he is not very near black hole, he can't escape from black hole gravitation field, but wave, which he emising when moving can escape and this waves must be observed if logicaly thinking
But doesn't falling object, say electron, radiate microwaves or infrawaves, becouse if he is not very near black hole, he can't escape from black hole gravitation field, but wave, which he emising when moving can escape and this waves must be observed if logicaly thinking
Hi All,
I appreciate the Wikipedia ideas from Mr. Robin Parsons but they are not really entirely tallying with actual observations that can be made though it is a popular interpretation of the way things could be. Obviously the "surface of Black Holes" do not radiate light. No surface radiates light unless it has internal sources of energy or is reflecting. It is doubtful there is a surface there at all. This does not mean that the object does not emit light. It is indeed absorbing "stuff". It is true that if "Black Holes" were truly black then we could not see them at all with our telescopes. In fact we can see some of these objects with relative clarity in some HST pictures. The interpretation of these images can be pretty confusing when there is some commentary that emphasizes how "black" they are. Actually this blackness is usually just a cleared zone in the vicinity of the "Black Hole" where most of the matter has "gone down the drain". If nothing is currently "going down the drain" perhaps they do look black.
I still maintain that we really do not understand Black Holes yet. Hawking Radiation is not as easy to explain as all that and while the idea that a Black Hole can radiate completely away to nothing by only absorbing 1/2 the mass of matter falling into it sounds a little "strained". There is a real problem about the information contained in this influx... theory suggests that it cannot actually be destroyed, this has "implications" regarding its "blackness". The latest theories are a lot more complex than "simple Black Holes" of a few years ago. "Black holes" must radiate.... and eventually must completely radiate away returning all the "information" swallowed in the process. This foils many of the original theories including some of those of Stephen Hawking.
It really does not matter where the energy is escaping from though... Black Holes emit light and one example of it is M87 where the Jet of matter is very visible and pointed generally toward the Earth where it is moving in our direction at nearly the speed of light. The light from the central object is still red shifted since it must climb out of the gravity well while the light from the Jet is blue shifted and moving toward us. If you classify objects just on red shift then they "look" much older and further away than Hubble Shift alone would suggest if we could separate them accurately.
Many objects in our Universe are "older" than the theoretical age of the Universe itself by that reckoning... Naturally this is "impossible" and gravitational red shift accounts for some of these difficulties. Due to relativistic effects this Jet in M87 appears to us to be traveling at six times the speed of light in our general direction while the distance to the Black Hole is artificially exhibiting a larger than normal red shift..
Here is a picture of that Black Hole M87 (quite visible) and note the red shift in the core and the blue shift in the plume...
... Click to enlarge...
The light is still Doppler shifted and there are complex ways to look at this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzballs
These fuzzball objects are more probably what Black Holes are really like. I really do not like stories about rents in the spacetime continuum and their "infinities" without a description of "what lies beneath" the carpet of that spacetime and the subsequent stories about breaking the Laws of Physics. These "mystical" descriptions which are meant to impress may lead to awe and also to complex tricky answers that provide no real answers. The laws of physics are not "broken"... its our simplistic theories that are "broken" and are in need of repair. I don't know why some physicists prefer these "mystical" descriptions rather than calling a spade a spade.
Here are some very recent images of Black Holes in context showing an image seen by the HST (including M87).
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html
The event horizon is not normally seen and many pictures are showing a cleared space near to the Black Hole and identifying this with the event horizon. I doubt that that is true. The observation of an event horizon is dependent on a number of factors depending on how the Black Hole is rotating. Note that these Black Holes are certainly not "black" and are visible as bright areas at the core that are red shifted. Claims to having seen actual event horizons are a bit far fetched when you consider how small these objects are and how far away they are supposed to be despite the false Hubble Shift. Only very bright objects can be seen with the HST and I discount event horizon sightings reported in the popular lore.
Cheers
I appreciate the Wikipedia ideas from Mr. Robin Parsons but they are not really entirely tallying with actual observations that can be made though it is a popular interpretation of the way things could be. Obviously the "surface of Black Holes" do not radiate light. No surface radiates light unless it has internal sources of energy or is reflecting. It is doubtful there is a surface there at all. This does not mean that the object does not emit light. It is indeed absorbing "stuff". It is true that if "Black Holes" were truly black then we could not see them at all with our telescopes. In fact we can see some of these objects with relative clarity in some HST pictures. The interpretation of these images can be pretty confusing when there is some commentary that emphasizes how "black" they are. Actually this blackness is usually just a cleared zone in the vicinity of the "Black Hole" where most of the matter has "gone down the drain". If nothing is currently "going down the drain" perhaps they do look black.
I still maintain that we really do not understand Black Holes yet. Hawking Radiation is not as easy to explain as all that and while the idea that a Black Hole can radiate completely away to nothing by only absorbing 1/2 the mass of matter falling into it sounds a little "strained". There is a real problem about the information contained in this influx... theory suggests that it cannot actually be destroyed, this has "implications" regarding its "blackness". The latest theories are a lot more complex than "simple Black Holes" of a few years ago. "Black holes" must radiate.... and eventually must completely radiate away returning all the "information" swallowed in the process. This foils many of the original theories including some of those of Stephen Hawking.
It really does not matter where the energy is escaping from though... Black Holes emit light and one example of it is M87 where the Jet of matter is very visible and pointed generally toward the Earth where it is moving in our direction at nearly the speed of light. The light from the central object is still red shifted since it must climb out of the gravity well while the light from the Jet is blue shifted and moving toward us. If you classify objects just on red shift then they "look" much older and further away than Hubble Shift alone would suggest if we could separate them accurately.
Many objects in our Universe are "older" than the theoretical age of the Universe itself by that reckoning... Naturally this is "impossible" and gravitational red shift accounts for some of these difficulties. Due to relativistic effects this Jet in M87 appears to us to be traveling at six times the speed of light in our general direction while the distance to the Black Hole is artificially exhibiting a larger than normal red shift..
Here is a picture of that Black Hole M87 (quite visible) and note the red shift in the core and the blue shift in the plume...
... Click to enlarge...
The light is still Doppler shifted and there are complex ways to look at this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzballs
These fuzzball objects are more probably what Black Holes are really like. I really do not like stories about rents in the spacetime continuum and their "infinities" without a description of "what lies beneath" the carpet of that spacetime and the subsequent stories about breaking the Laws of Physics. These "mystical" descriptions which are meant to impress may lead to awe and also to complex tricky answers that provide no real answers. The laws of physics are not "broken"... its our simplistic theories that are "broken" and are in need of repair. I don't know why some physicists prefer these "mystical" descriptions rather than calling a spade a spade.
Here are some very recent images of Black Holes in context showing an image seen by the HST (including M87).
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html
The event horizon is not normally seen and many pictures are showing a cleared space near to the Black Hole and identifying this with the event horizon. I doubt that that is true. The observation of an event horizon is dependent on a number of factors depending on how the Black Hole is rotating. Note that these Black Holes are certainly not "black" and are visible as bright areas at the core that are red shifted. Claims to having seen actual event horizons are a bit far fetched when you consider how small these objects are and how far away they are supposed to be despite the false Hubble Shift. Only very bright objects can be seen with the HST and I discount event horizon sightings reported in the popular lore.
Cheers
Nice enlightened material Good Elf. Why do you decend to the plummeting depths of condescending humanitarianism to obvious loons such as Mr. Robin you-know-what???
Good Elf your pics are luminous because of the surrounding matter.....not because any Black Hole is known to be radiating anything.
As for informational loss, given the nature of gravity - over time - and it's perpetual summation, lost to what??
As for the laws of physics well, the second search results works well, as do the others.....
you also said:
As for informational loss, given the nature of gravity - over time - and it's perpetual summation, lost to what??
As for the laws of physics well, the second search results works well, as do the others.....
you also said:
QUOTE (Good Elf October 28 2007+ 12:24 PM )
Due to relativistic effects this Jet in M87 appears to us to be traveling at six times the speed of light in our general direction
HUH?? SIX TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT? - we would-could-can see nothing coming at us that fast.....
SIX TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT? - we would-could-can see nothing coming at us that fast.....
6 times speed of light is not realated with black holes it is estimation how distance depending on distance 
Universe becoming wider and wider with speed 6 * 3*10^8 m/s. It is another phenomena, I think this is bad understanding and our universe moving much slower. Interesting does sombody obtain redshift diferent after say few years or few decades?
Universe becoming wider and wider with speed 6 * 3*10^8 m/s. It is another phenomena, I think this is bad understanding and our universe moving much slower. Interesting does sombody obtain redshift diferent after say few years or few decades?
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons, DavidD et al,
QUOTE (r. Robin Parsons+)
QUOTE (Good Elf October 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM+)
Due to relativistic effects this Jet in M87 appears to us to be traveling at six times the speed of light in our general direction
HUH?? SIX TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT? - we would-could-can see nothing coming at us that fast.....
I beg to differ... I used the word "appears"...
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.html
It is one of the effects you can "see" when you view relativistic events from a single observational vantage point. In crude terms the light traveling toward us is pursued by the particles in the jet emitting it and therefore the wavefronts are all crushed together and when they reach us are "replayed" at six times the frequency... and therefore the particle "appears" to be traveling at six times the speed. Just like a motion picture film, DVD or other medium played at a X6 speed.
As to the surrounding gas being illuminated... quite right, that is what we see of any "star" anyway since starlight is simply luminous gas and that is all you can see of Black Holes. The light still must climb out of the rest of the gravity well up and away from the event horizon and will suffer Gravitational Doppler Shift. The Gravitational Doppler Red Shift can even be measured experimentally by the varying optical frequency due to the differential acceleration due to gravity between two successive floors in the same building... such is the accuracy of our atomic clocks to measure the frequency of light.. Naturally the Red Shift in the vicinity of Black Holes is significantly greater. It is not always obvious that what we are looking at is a "Black Hole" and obviously they look a lot like common stars but "much older" than surrounding stars..
Cheers
SIX TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT? - we would-could-can see nothing coming at us that fast.....I beg to differ... I used the word "appears"...
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/m87.html
It is one of the effects you can "see" when you view relativistic events from a single observational vantage point. In crude terms the light traveling toward us is pursued by the particles in the jet emitting it and therefore the wavefronts are all crushed together and when they reach us are "replayed" at six times the frequency... and therefore the particle "appears" to be traveling at six times the speed. Just like a motion picture film, DVD or other medium played at a X6 speed.
As to the surrounding gas being illuminated... quite right, that is what we see of any "star" anyway since starlight is simply luminous gas and that is all you can see of Black Holes. The light still must climb out of the rest of the gravity well up and away from the event horizon and will suffer Gravitational Doppler Shift. The Gravitational Doppler Red Shift can even be measured experimentally by the varying optical frequency due to the differential acceleration due to gravity between two successive floors in the same building... such is the accuracy of our atomic clocks to measure the frequency of light.. Naturally the Red Shift in the vicinity of Black Holes is significantly greater. It is not always obvious that what we are looking at is a "Black Hole" and obviously they look a lot like common stars but "much older" than surrounding stars..
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 29 2007, 10:31 AM)
(SNIP) As to the surrounding gas being illuminated... quite right, that is what we see of any "star" anyway since starlight is simply luminous gas and that is all you can see of Black Holes. The light still must climb out of the rest of the gravity well up and away from the event horizon and will suffer Gravitational Doppler Shift. The Gravitational Doppler Red Shift can even be measured experimentally by the varying optical frequency due to the differential acceleration due to gravity between two successive floors in the same building... such is the accuracy of our atomic clocks to measure the frequency of light.. Naturally the Red Shift in the vicinity of Black Holes is significantly greater. Cheers (SNoP)
Thanks for the answer, but....no light escapes a Black Hole - that is why they are called - 'Black Holes'.....ergo the light you are talking about must be incidental light, that light originating from some other luminous object in the vicinity.
Cheers! right back at ya...
Thanks for the answer, but....no light escapes a Black Hole - that is why they are called - 'Black Holes'.....ergo the light you are talking about must be incidental light, that light originating from some other luminous object in the vicinity.
Cheers! right back at ya...
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons,
Thanks for that update... the whole point is how black is a black hole that will eventually radiate all the information and energy away? It is difficult to justify anything emitting so much energy being "black". That is why I prefer the "fuzzball" concept.
If I called a red rose a black rose ... would it smell as sweet?
Cheers
Thanks for that update... the whole point is how black is a black hole that will eventually radiate all the information and energy away? It is difficult to justify anything emitting so much energy being "black". That is why I prefer the "fuzzball" concept.
If I called a red rose a black rose ... would it smell as sweet?
Cheers
That "eventually" part is, as of yet, still unproved soooo.......
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons,
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
That "eventually" part is, as of yet, still unproved soooo.......
Exactly my point... Nobody alive has ever seen a true "black" Black Hole.... soooo... I am convinced that we will have a different version of what a Black Hole is 50 years from now since every bit of information is indirect at this stage. I know... and you know... that 'something" out there exists. Calling a Black Hole "black" may be carrying too much baggage from the past to allow forward thinking. I can hear you saying that because it is called "black" by definition it must be actually "black". This is too much like biblical interpretation where we are tied up in the semantics and not dealing with the science and what experimentally observed Black holes are actually like (blackness not withstanding!). Some of the old axioms that say you die when you hit the event horizon or when you hit the singularity... are also fraught with problems since recent thinking suggests that this event may not happen to the luckless black hole traveler or at least not for many millions of years to his distant ancestor offspring.
They say scientific knowledge does not "evolve" through calm intelligent discussion within peer groups... it takes the older more authoritarian generation to actually die off before new ideas finally come forward. For example Newton and Hook had a bit of a 'thing" going on and they were really at each others throats. Tesla and Edison also had a fairly violent struggle even to the irrational extent that Edison apparently had Tesla's lab torched! Perhaps all technologically advanced Worlds "advance" through violent struggle. Maybe wars in the future will be fought over scientific ideas rather than religious ideas... He he he!
Can't get much "blacker" than that eh?
Cheers
I am convinced that we will have a different version of what a Black Hole is 50 years from now since every bit of information is indirect at this stage. I know... and you know... that 'something" out there exists. Calling a Black Hole "black" may be carrying too much baggage from the past to allow forward thinking. I can hear you saying that because it is called "black" by definition it must be actually "black". This is too much like biblical interpretation where we are tied up in the semantics and not dealing with the science and what experimentally observed Black holes are actually like (blackness not withstanding!). Some of the old axioms that say you die when you hit the event horizon or when you hit the singularity... are also fraught with problems since recent thinking suggests that this event may not happen to the luckless black hole traveler or at least not for many millions of years to his distant ancestor offspring.They say scientific knowledge does not "evolve" through calm intelligent discussion within peer groups... it takes the older more authoritarian generation to actually die off before new ideas finally come forward. For example Newton and Hook had a bit of a 'thing" going on and they were really at each others throats. Tesla and Edison also had a fairly violent struggle even to the irrational extent that Edison apparently had Tesla's lab torched! Perhaps all technologically advanced Worlds "advance" through violent struggle. Maybe wars in the future will be fought over scientific ideas rather than religious ideas... He he he!
Can't get much "blacker" than that eh?
Cheers
Try this Post #205629 and/or this one Post #213559
"Black" in this case is in reference to the absence of emitted 'light' (EMR) not colour.
"Black" in this case is in reference to the absence of emitted 'light' (EMR) not colour.
Good Elf, may I remind you that a white ceramic cup with a black design in a furnace glows most brightly where the black pigment has been deposited. This relationship between the darkness of the pigment and the emissitivity holds at each wavelength, and leads to the mathematical description of a perfect thermal spectrum which is the expectation from a perfect "black body."
In practice, a good "black body" approximation is a hole in a ceramic block which is black over a wide range of wavelengths in in the conventional sense at room temperature.
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/ast...body/bbody.html
http://www.temperatures.com/bbf.html
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/2..._radiation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Thus a perfect thermal spectrum which obeys these relations is called a "blackbody spectrum," and it was an important result of S. Hawking that the radiation spectrum predicted from quantum field theory in curved spacetime is also "blackbody." So if the black hole is small enough (very very small, indeed), Hawking predicts we could observe it by its own light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
As for proving black holes exist, we do know of very dark, very massive objects. These are called black hole candidates. Unlike neutron stars, they don't seem to have a surface and have no hot spots or conventional fusion flare-ups.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
In practice, a good "black body" approximation is a hole in a ceramic block which is black over a wide range of wavelengths in in the conventional sense at room temperature.
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/ast...body/bbody.html
http://www.temperatures.com/bbf.html
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/2..._radiation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Thus a perfect thermal spectrum which obeys these relations is called a "blackbody spectrum," and it was an important result of S. Hawking that the radiation spectrum predicted from quantum field theory in curved spacetime is also "blackbody." So if the black hole is small enough (very very small, indeed), Hawking predicts we could observe it by its own light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
As for proving black holes exist, we do know of very dark, very massive objects. These are called black hole candidates. Unlike neutron stars, they don't seem to have a surface and have no hot spots or conventional fusion flare-ups.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
If by Hawking Radiation your using the Virtual Particle pair creation-separation at the event horizon idea-postulation - that is NOT the black Hole losing mass - that is a function of the space around that - black hole - it's 'content' loses no mass.
So it should not be a 'perfect blackbody' radiator.
So it should not be a 'perfect blackbody' radiator.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 1 2007, 12:56 PM)
If by Hawking Radiation your using the Virtual Particle pair creation-separation at the event horizon idea-postulation - that is NOT the black Hole losing mass - that is a function of the space around that - black hole - it's 'content' loses no mass.
So it should not be a 'perfect blackbody' radiator.
The virtual pair explanation of Hawking radiation is a intuitive explanation of a hard to interpret mathematical calculation. You put a particle detector at a long distance from a black hole and you see particles. The calculation says nothing about from where they actually come from.
A better picture was provided by Wilczek and Parikh in the paper thats on arxiv number hep-th 9907001. Particles tunnel from within the event horizon and can escape. The calculation also gives the same answer as Hawkings, which is nice.
So it should not be a 'perfect blackbody' radiator.
The virtual pair explanation of Hawking radiation is a intuitive explanation of a hard to interpret mathematical calculation. You put a particle detector at a long distance from a black hole and you see particles. The calculation says nothing about from where they actually come from.
A better picture was provided by Wilczek and Parikh in the paper thats on arxiv number hep-th 9907001. Particles tunnel from within the event horizon and can escape. The calculation also gives the same answer as Hawkings, which is nice.
So a Virtual particle pair creation ends up with the contents of the Black hole only getting it at a 50% rate of energy In-flow rather then 100% - but only of the pairs that actually get separated as they (Those events) are more the noise (rare) then the signal (common) right?
Asides from the conditions of the surrounding space as being, potentially quite capable of erasing-modifying a great deal of any signal that would get emitted, right?
Asides from the conditions of the surrounding space as being, potentially quite capable of erasing-modifying a great deal of any signal that would get emitted, right?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 2 2007, 12:33 AM)
So a Virtual particle pair creation ends up with the contents of the Black hole only getting it at a 50% rate of energy In-flow rather then 100% - but only of the pairs that actually get separated as they (Those events) are more the noise (rare) then the signal (common) right?
Asides from the conditions of the surrounding space as being, potentially quite capable of erasing-modifying a great deal of any signal that would get emitted, right?
Sorry, but this is a garbled mess.
The information loss paradox is a different problem, but Hawking radiation is a concrete result.
Consider a particle infinitesimally within the black hole. Wilczek and Parikh showed it can tunnel through the event horizon and escape to large distance. They also showed the particles have a blackbody distribution at the Hawking temperature. Actually, there are some corrections so it's not exactly blackbody, but the corrections are very small. A black hole is a lot closer to an ideal black body than anything else that exists in the universe.
Hawking radiation has been derived in a lot of different ways, using a lot of different theories. As such, it's considered a good result. The fact there is the information loss paradox is a sign, not that the theory is wrong, but that it's incomplete. The original calculation basically bodged together quantum field theory and curved space, so it's not that much of a surprise that it's incomplete. It does tell us a lot about what a complete theory of quantum gravity should predict though.
Asides from the conditions of the surrounding space as being, potentially quite capable of erasing-modifying a great deal of any signal that would get emitted, right?
Sorry, but this is a garbled mess.
The information loss paradox is a different problem, but Hawking radiation is a concrete result.
Consider a particle infinitesimally within the black hole. Wilczek and Parikh showed it can tunnel through the event horizon and escape to large distance. They also showed the particles have a blackbody distribution at the Hawking temperature. Actually, there are some corrections so it's not exactly blackbody, but the corrections are very small. A black hole is a lot closer to an ideal black body than anything else that exists in the universe.
Hawking radiation has been derived in a lot of different ways, using a lot of different theories. As such, it's considered a good result. The fact there is the information loss paradox is a sign, not that the theory is wrong, but that it's incomplete. The original calculation basically bodged together quantum field theory and curved space, so it's not that much of a surprise that it's incomplete. It does tell us a lot about what a complete theory of quantum gravity should predict though.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:54 AM)
Sorry, but this is a garbled mess.
Perhaps to you...
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:54 AM)
The information loss paradox is a different problem, but Hawking radiation is a concrete result.
Mathematically but there is no observance of it, right??
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:54 AM)
Consider a particle infinitesimally within the black hole. Wilczek and Parikh showed it can tunnel through the event horizon and escape to large distance. They also showed the particles have a blackbody distribution at the Hawking temperature. Actually, there are some corrections so it's not exactly blackbody, but the corrections are very small. A black hole is a lot closer to an ideal black body than anything else that exists in the universe.
So one of the virtual particle pair escapes the event horizon right?
None of that would be surprising as the Black Hole content suffers more irregularity from attempting to input-absorb 'space' (Background energy or fabric of Space-time) itself - then it has with matter - as it can get a better purchase-hold on matter than energy.
None of that would be surprising as the Black Hole content suffers more irregularity from attempting to input-absorb 'space' (Background energy or fabric of Space-time) itself - then it has with matter - as it can get a better purchase-hold on matter than energy.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:54 AM)
Hawking radiation has been derived in a lot of different ways, using a lot of different theories. As such, it's considered a good result. The fact there is the information loss paradox is a sign, not that the theory is wrong, but that it's incomplete. The original calculation basically bodged together quantum field theory and curved space, so it's not that much of a surprise that it's incomplete. It does tell us a lot about what a complete theory of quantum gravity should predict though.
Information loss?? there is no 'information' loss....one of one form of electromagnetic energy was separated from it's annihilation 'twin' - that is not 'information' loss and the simple reality is that that particular 'energy packet' may not continue top escape that Black Hole's pull for very long.... never-mind hitting something else - matter - (as the sites in space where they are suspected of occupation are very matter crowded - Materially - spaces) that it eventually does plunge in....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 2 2007, 02:11 PM)
Mathematically but there is no observance of it, right??
Hawking radiation has not been observed no, but if what we know about quantum field theory is right (many very accurate predictions, anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the oft quoted one), and if what we know about quantum mechanical tunneling is right (the scanning tunneling microscope relies on it) then Hawking radiation must also exist.
Hawking radiation has not been observed no, but if what we know about quantum field theory is right (many very accurate predictions, anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the oft quoted one), and if what we know about quantum mechanical tunneling is right (the scanning tunneling microscope relies on it) then Hawking radiation must also exist.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
So one of the virtual particle pair escapes the event horizon right?
None of that would be surprising as the Black Hole content suffers more irregularity from attempting to input-absorb 'space' (Background energy or fabric of Space-time) itself - then it has with matter - as it can get a better purchase-hold on matter than energy.
Who said anything about virtual pairs? Any particle that finds itself inside the event horizon can tunnel back out. To my knowledge it has never been shown that the Hawking process causes virtual particles to become real. It's more like an accelerator - the energy of the input particles can 'create' other particles. Here, the energy, or mass, of the black hole is creating particles. Remember in GR space is a geometric object, not a dynamical one. Black holes do not absorb space.
Information loss?? there is no 'information' loss....one of one form of electromagnetic energy was separated from it's annihilation 'twin' - that is not 'information' loss and the simple reality is that that particular 'energy packet' may not continue top escape that Black Hole's pull for very long.... never-mind hitting something else - matter - (as the sites in space where they are suspected of occupation are very matter crowded - Materially - spaces) that it eventually does plunge in....
The information loss paradox goes like this - suppose you have a system that's described by a pure state in quantum mechanics (one that can be written as a single state vector). This system collapses to form a black hole and the Hawking process causes the black hole to evaporate. After the black hole has evaporated completely the system will be a bath of thermal particles which is described by a mixed state, or a statistical distribution of pure states. In QM there is no way to go from pure states to mixed states. The wikipedia article on the paradox is pretty good and worth a read. I can't link to it because I've only just joined, but search for black hole information paradox and you'll find it.
None of that would be surprising as the Black Hole content suffers more irregularity from attempting to input-absorb 'space' (Background energy or fabric of Space-time) itself - then it has with matter - as it can get a better purchase-hold on matter than energy.
Who said anything about virtual pairs? Any particle that finds itself inside the event horizon can tunnel back out. To my knowledge it has never been shown that the Hawking process causes virtual particles to become real. It's more like an accelerator - the energy of the input particles can 'create' other particles. Here, the energy, or mass, of the black hole is creating particles. Remember in GR space is a geometric object, not a dynamical one. Black holes do not absorb space.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Information loss?? there is no 'information' loss....one of one form of electromagnetic energy was separated from it's annihilation 'twin' - that is not 'information' loss and the simple reality is that that particular 'energy packet' may not continue top escape that Black Hole's pull for very long.... never-mind hitting something else - matter - (as the sites in space where they are suspected of occupation are very matter crowded - Materially - spaces) that it eventually does plunge in....
The information loss paradox goes like this - suppose you have a system that's described by a pure state in quantum mechanics (one that can be written as a single state vector). This system collapses to form a black hole and the Hawking process causes the black hole to evaporate. After the black hole has evaporated completely the system will be a bath of thermal particles which is described by a mixed state, or a statistical distribution of pure states. In QM there is no way to go from pure states to mixed states. The wikipedia article on the paradox is pretty good and worth a read. I can't link to it because I've only just joined, but search for black hole information paradox and you'll find it.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 03:09 PM)
Hawking radiation has not been observed no, but if what we know about quantum field theory is right (many very accurate predictions, anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the oft quoted one), and if what we know about quantum mechanical tunneling is right (the scanning tunneling microscope relies on it) then Hawking radiation must also exist.
(I) had no question of the potential, but as there are powerful magnetic fields associated with some Black Holes one would naturally wonder if such a form of radiant energy could escape beyond a very short distance before, either getting changed, or absorbed.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 03:09 PM)
Who said anything about virtual pairs? Any particle that finds itself inside the event horizon can tunnel back out. To my knowledge it has never been shown that the Hawking process causes virtual particles to become real. It's more like an accelerator - the energy of the input particles can 'create' other particles. Here, the energy, or mass, of the black hole is creating particles. Remember in GR space is a geometric object, not a dynamical one. Black holes do not absorb space.
Thanks - but in my opinion - they do - and space is something not nothing....
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 03:09 PM)
The information loss paradox goes like this - suppose you have a system that's described by a pure state in quantum mechanics (one that can be written as a single state vector). This system collapses to form a black hole and the Hawking process causes the black hole to evaporate. After the black hole has evaporated completely the system will be a bath of thermal particles which is described by a mixed state, or a statistical distribution of pure states. In QM there is no way to go from pure states to mixed states. The wikipedia article on the paradox is pretty good and worth a read. I can't link to it because I've only just joined, but search for black hole information paradox and you'll find it.
O.K. just the forewarning that Pure states tend to not exist.....and (I) suspect that they - black holes - do not evaporate...but (I) could be wrong....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 3 2007, 12:11 AM)
(I) had no question of the potential, but as there are powerful magnetic fields associated with some Black Holes one would naturally wonder if such a form of radiant energy could escape beyond a very short distance before, either getting changed, or absorbed.
The universe is a big place - we can't expect all black holes to have this property. Actually, in the calculation for the charged hole the particles produced carry the charge away.
Just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Can you provide some documentary evidence to back up your belief?
Just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Can you provide some documentary evidence to back up your belief?
O.K. just the forewarning that Pure states tend to not exist.....and (I) suspect that they - black holes - do not evaporate...but (I) could be wrong....
Of course pure states exist! And even if you were right, just the possibility of this happening is enough to get theorists worried.
The universe is a big place - we can't expect all black holes to have this property. Actually, in the calculation for the charged hole the particles produced carry the charge away.
QUOTE
Thanks - but in my opinion - they do - and space is something not nothing....
Just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Can you provide some documentary evidence to back up your belief?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thanks - but in my opinion - they do - and space is something not nothing.... |
Just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Can you provide some documentary evidence to back up your belief?
O.K. just the forewarning that Pure states tend to not exist.....and (I) suspect that they - black holes - do not evaporate...but (I) could be wrong....
Of course pure states exist! And even if you were right, just the possibility of this happening is enough to get theorists worried.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 08:33 PM)
The universe is a big place - we can't expect all black holes to have this property. Actually, in the calculation for the charged hole the particles produced carry the charge away.
O.K. but particulate carrying is more likely to get erased by activities in the local space - do you agree?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 08:33 PM)
Just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Can you provide some documentary evidence to back up your belief?
At this moment all (I) could offer is gravity itself, gravities activities - later on it will be more self evident....
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 08:33 PM)
Of course pure states exist! And even if you were right, just the possibility of this happening is enough to get theorists worried.
O.K. pure states may-might (do) exist but we cannot perceive-know (tangibility) them....
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 3 2007, 12:52 AM)
O.K. but particulate carrying is more likely to get erased by activities in the local space - do you agree?
No.
At this moment all (I) could offer is gravity itself, gravities activities - later on it will be more self evident....
I thought not...
I thought not...
O.K. pure states may-might (do) exist but we cannot perceive-know (tangibility) them....
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
What in blazes is this? It appears your dog jumped on your keyboard before you posted and you forgot to delete it.
No.
QUOTE
At this moment all (I) could offer is gravity itself, gravities activities - later on it will be more self evident....
I thought not...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
At this moment all (I) could offer is gravity itself, gravities activities - later on it will be more self evident.... |
I thought not...
O.K. pure states may-might (do) exist but we cannot perceive-know (tangibility) them....
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
What in blazes is this? It appears your dog jumped on your keyboard before you posted and you forgot to delete it.
PS why do you always put I in parentheses?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:18 PM)
No.
Why?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:18 PM)
I thought not...
Assumptive...
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 09:18 PM)
What in blazes is this? It appears your dog jumped on your keyboard before you posted and you forgot to delete it.
HUH?? is that your scientific Opinion?
Check you PM's
Check you PM's
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 3 2007, 10:54 AM)
Why?
Because the particles being emitted by the black hole will have the same charge as the hole and as such will be electrically repelled. This means they will be emitted faster than from an uncharged hole.
If the hole is rotating, I reckon the magnetic field generated by the rotation will give the emitted particles angular momentum, effectively taking some of the angular momentum of the hole and slowing it's rotation. The particles should still escape, because the electric field is always kicking the particles away from the hole.
As for this, you cannot deny it does not make sense:
Try reading it out loud.
Because the particles being emitted by the black hole will have the same charge as the hole and as such will be electrically repelled. This means they will be emitted faster than from an uncharged hole.
If the hole is rotating, I reckon the magnetic field generated by the rotation will give the emitted particles angular momentum, effectively taking some of the angular momentum of the hole and slowing it's rotation. The particles should still escape, because the electric field is always kicking the particles away from the hole.
As for this, you cannot deny it does not make sense:
QUOTE
O.K. pure states may-might (do) exist but we cannot perceive-know (tangibility) them....
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
BTW to me a Geiger Counter gets-reads as-is 'tangible' proof ......of radioactivity or simply it's emitted - non particulate - energy
Try reading it out loud.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 01:56 PM)
Because the particles being emitted by the black hole will have the same charge as the hole and as such will be electrically repelled. This means they will be emitted faster than from an uncharged hole.
The particles are emitted by the black hole, particulate creation due to spacial affectation by a gravitational field? is that what you mean?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 01:56 PM)
If the hole is rotating, I reckon the magnetic field generated by the rotation will give the emitted particles angular momentum, effectively taking some of the angular momentum of the hole and slowing it's rotation. The particles should still escape, because the electric field is always kicking the particles away from the hole.
Given that the particle and its affects act on space - rather than on per-say the contents of the Black Hole, nor does magnetic drag per-say - indicate that the contents of the Hole are slowing....it could be exactly the other way round, the contents speeding up to the point that they cause the collapse of the magnetic field....
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 01:56 PM)
As for this, you cannot deny it does not make sense: Try reading it out loud.
(I) have it basically says that (I) find even the ability to detect EMR (no matter) as Evidence, concrete evidence....You?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 4 2007, 12:04 AM)
The particles are emitted by the black hole, particulate creation due to spacial affectation by a gravitational field? is that what you mean?
No, thats not what I mean. I'm talking about the Electromagnetic field of a charged black hole.
If the black hole is emitting particles then it's rate of rotation must decrease. The magnetic field of a rotating black hole will impart some angular momentum of the same sign as the black hole to the particle (worked out empirically using Maxwell's equations). Since angular momentum is conserved the black hole must slow it's rate of rotation.
If the black hole is emitting particles then it's rate of rotation must decrease. The magnetic field of a rotating black hole will impart some angular momentum of the same sign as the black hole to the particle (worked out empirically using Maxwell's equations). Since angular momentum is conserved the black hole must slow it's rate of rotation.
(I) have it basically says that (I) find even the ability to detect EMR (no matter) as Evidence, concrete evidence....You?[/i]
I'm not suggesting there is experimental evidence for Hawking radiation. I am suggesting that if General relativity and quantum mechanics are right, Hawking radiation is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.
No, thats not what I mean. I'm talking about the Electromagnetic field of a charged black hole.
QUOTE
Given that the particle and its affects act on space - rather than on per-say the contents of the Black Hole, nor does magnetic drag per-say - indicate that the contents of the Hole are slowing....it could be exactly the other way round, the contents speeding up to the point that they cause the collapse of the magnetic field....
If the black hole is emitting particles then it's rate of rotation must decrease. The magnetic field of a rotating black hole will impart some angular momentum of the same sign as the black hole to the particle (worked out empirically using Maxwell's equations). Since angular momentum is conserved the black hole must slow it's rate of rotation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given that the particle and its affects act on space - rather than on per-say the contents of the Black Hole, nor does magnetic drag per-say - indicate that the contents of the Hole are slowing....it could be exactly the other way round, the contents speeding up to the point that they cause the collapse of the magnetic field.... |
If the black hole is emitting particles then it's rate of rotation must decrease. The magnetic field of a rotating black hole will impart some angular momentum of the same sign as the black hole to the particle (worked out empirically using Maxwell's equations). Since angular momentum is conserved the black hole must slow it's rate of rotation.
(I) have it basically says that (I) find even the ability to detect EMR (no matter) as Evidence, concrete evidence....You?[/i]
I'm not suggesting there is experimental evidence for Hawking radiation. I am suggesting that if General relativity and quantum mechanics are right, Hawking radiation is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 06:20 AM)
No, thats not what I mean. I'm talking about the Electromagnetic field of a charged black hole. If the black hole is emitting particles then it's rate of rotation must decrease. The magnetic field of a rotating black hole will impart some angular momentum of the same sign as the black hole to the particle (worked out empirically using Maxwell's equations). Since angular momentum is conserved the black hole must slow it's rate of rotation.
So essentially your saying that you think that a Black holes electromagnetic field (if it has one) is causing both particulate dis-assembly of the - Space around the black hole? or the contents of the Black hole? and rotational reduction - of the inner content? or space around that? - by drag...that is your belief?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 06:20 AM)
I'm not suggesting there is experimental evidence for Hawking radiation. I am suggesting that if General relativity and quantum mechanics are right, Hawking radiation is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.
(I) have not questioned that - at all - other then to point out some of the other difficulties involved in proving that.....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Nov 4 2007, 12:04 PM)
So essentially your saying that you think that a Black holes electromagnetic field (if it has one) is causing both particulate dis-assembly of the - Space around the black hole? or the contents of the Black hole? and rotational reduction - of the inner content? or space around that? - by drag...that is your belief?
If a black hole has a charge of the same sign all over it has a radial electric field. If the black hole is charged it emits particles of the same charge and they are accelerated away from the hole by the electric field.
If the hole is rotating it generates a magnetic field. With bit of thought involving the Biot Savart law you can show the magnetic field is parallel to the 'surface' of the black hole. The direction of the magnetic field depends on the sign of the charge, but it doesn't really matter because you can think of a flow of positive charge in one direction as being the same as a flow of negative charge in the opposite direction.
If the particle is ejected radially from the hole you can show using F = q( v x B ) that the particle must spiral away from the black hole in the same direction as the black holes rotation. To clarify. If you were above the black holes pole looking towards it and spinning in the same direction as the hole, at just the right speed you would see the particle flying radially away from the hole.
Thats not very easy to explain without a picture. If theres anything there isn't clear I'll try to explain it better.
If a black hole has a charge of the same sign all over it has a radial electric field. If the black hole is charged it emits particles of the same charge and they are accelerated away from the hole by the electric field.
If the hole is rotating it generates a magnetic field. With bit of thought involving the Biot Savart law you can show the magnetic field is parallel to the 'surface' of the black hole. The direction of the magnetic field depends on the sign of the charge, but it doesn't really matter because you can think of a flow of positive charge in one direction as being the same as a flow of negative charge in the opposite direction.
If the particle is ejected radially from the hole you can show using F = q( v x B ) that the particle must spiral away from the black hole in the same direction as the black holes rotation. To clarify. If you were above the black holes pole looking towards it and spinning in the same direction as the hole, at just the right speed you would see the particle flying radially away from the hole.
Thats not very easy to explain without a picture. If theres anything there isn't clear I'll try to explain it better.
You explained it quite well thank you...
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 08:41 AM)
If a black hole has a charge of the same sign all over it has a radial electric field. If the black hole is charged it emits particles of the same charge and they are accelerated away from the hole by the electric field.
Is the charge on-from the content of the hole? or simply as a result of the magnetic fields interaction with space? and is the Magnetic Field seen as arising from the Content or a Spacial Affectation?
Now the content charge or the spacial surrounding's charge? or charge as a result of interaction with the 'fabric of space-time' by the gravitational field?
Now the content charge or the spacial surrounding's charge? or charge as a result of interaction with the 'fabric of space-time' by the gravitational field?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 08:41 AM)
If the hole is rotating it generates a magnetic field.
Ah what (I) am looking for clarification on by the above questions
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 08:41 AM)
With bit of thought involving the Biot Savart law you can show the magnetic field is parallel to the 'surface' of the black hole. The direction of the magnetic field depends on the sign of the charge, but it doesn't really matter because you can think of a flow of positive charge in one direction as being the same as a flow of negative charge in the opposite direction.
The direction of the field is one of Polarity, but using charge is fine as well as either should give you a direction of spin...
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 08:41 AM)
If the particle is ejected radially from the hole you can show using F = q( v x B ) that the particle must spiral away from the black hole in the same direction as the black holes rotation. To clarify. If you were above the black holes pole looking towards it and spinning in the same direction as the hole, at just the right speed you would see the particle flying radially away from the hole.
No problem with that.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 08:41 AM)
Thats not very easy to explain without a picture. If theres anything there isn't clear I'll try to explain it better.
As (I) said you have done very well, thanks!
(You would be able to do it better with math ....wouldn't you.... sorry...)
(You would be able to do it better with math ....wouldn't you....
sorry...)
You can think of this in terms of conservation laws. An uncharged black hole emits particles with a certain energy and as such the energy of the hole goes down, and the black hole appears to lose mass.
The same is true for charge, except that there are 2 types of charge, positive and negative. Particles emitted must have the same sign charge as the black hole otherwise you'd be violating conservation of charge. Of course, you could have 2 particles of the same charge and one of the opposite charge instead of just one of the same charge, but that isn't energetically favourable. You'll find processes like that are suppressed quite strongly.
In the same way as mass is taken from the hole, charge is also taken from the hole.
The same is true for charge, except that there are 2 types of charge, positive and negative. Particles emitted must have the same sign charge as the black hole otherwise you'd be violating conservation of charge. Of course, you could have 2 particles of the same charge and one of the opposite charge instead of just one of the same charge, but that isn't energetically favourable. You'll find processes like that are suppressed quite strongly.
In the same way as mass is taken from the hole, charge is also taken from the hole.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 4 2007, 10:52 AM)
(SNIP) You can think of this in terms of conservation laws. An uncharged black hole emits particles with a certain energy and as such the energy of the hole goes down, and the black hole appears to lose mass. (SNoP)
Hence my question as to whether or not it is the Contents of the Black Hole that is seen (Believed) as 'losing mass' or the Affectations upon the space that it occupies that causing the appearance of it's 'losing mass' (energy)....
(I) realize that proving that is difficult at best as it is near impossible to place a detector near enough to it to pick it up....but...(I) was simply curious as to how theory treated it....
Is the radiation seen or believed to originate from the inner contents of the Black Hole or the space it is affecting?
(I) realize that proving that is difficult at best as it is near impossible to place a detector near enough to it to pick it up....but...(I) was simply curious as to how theory treated it....
Is the radiation seen or believed to originate from the inner contents of the Black Hole or the space it is affecting?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.