To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: quick question concerning black holes
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space
Pages: 1, 2

delta T
My question is, do black holes ever " run out of steam"? Do they ever just stop pulling in matter and becoming stronger and stronger?
kjw
Professor Hawking speculates that "Hawking Radiation" is emitted from black holes, and unless more matter falls in to replenish the stock, black holes fizzle out.

very speculative and controversial
delta T
oh yes, now I remember reading something concerning the matter. Perhaps, black holes do fizzle out over time if there is no matter for them to take in.

Another question ( im full of them). Are black holes set to stay put in there physical position? Or can they move about as other celestial objects so freely do?


Thanks,
Delta T
N O M
A black hole created by a collapsing star is not going to evaporate via Hawking radiation any time soon. It would take several times the life of the universe.

Other than the hawking radiation, there is nothing that would make a black hole "run out of steam". Gravity doesn't use energy
N O M
QUOTE (delta T+Mar 26 2007, 04:10 PM)
Another question ( im full of them). Are black holes set to stay put in there physical position? Or can they move about as other celestial objects so freely do?

How are you going to stop a black hole moving?

We know of huge black holes at the center of our and several other galaxies. We know these galaxies are moving in relarion to each other. There are also smaller black holes in orbit (along with the other stars) around galactic centres. So, yes they move.
OldWoman1904
blink.gif

Nobody freakin knows


alokmohan
Black hole moves on or not depends on frame of reference.It retaims mass except for straying partiles.
Harry Costas
Hello All

Black holes are compacted matter that prevents light from escaping.

That does not mean that it cannot eject material from its compacted core.

Until recently people thought that nothing could escaped a black hole. Thats correct, but for the internal forces that generate extreme powerful jets that are mths lights across.

There are many that will tell you that the jets are created by infalling matter. If this is correct, any falling matter would not be able to escape.

These jets are so strong that they even supply future gravity sinks for future star formation around galaxies.

There are different opinions simply because we are unable to see what is happening.

Some links on Jets: I know you can google for it. Some cannot


[20.06] Coronae and Jet Properties of the Black Hole Candidates Cyg X-1 and GX339-4 Over Many Years and Many Decades in Eddington Flux
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v36n3/head2004/354.htm

A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2...ight0308_e.html


3C175: Quasar Cannon
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010905.html
QUOTE
Shooting out from 3C175 is a thin jet of protons and electrons traveling near the speed of light that is over one million light-years long. The jet acts like a particle cannon and bores through gas cloud in its path. How this jet forms and why it is so narrow remain topics of current research.


BHR 71: Stars, Clouds, and Jets
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030127.html

Cosmic Tornado HH49/50
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060203.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Shooting out from 3C175 is a thin jet of protons and electrons traveling near the speed of light that is over one million light-years long. The jet acts like a particle cannon and bores through gas cloud in its path. How this jet forms and why it is so narrow remain topics of current research.


BHR 71: Stars, Clouds, and Jets
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030127.html

Cosmic Tornado HH49/50
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060203.html

Light-years in length, this cosmic tornado is actually a powerful jet cataloged as HH (Herbig-Haro) 49/50 blasting down from the top of a Spitzer Space Telescope view. Though such energetic outflows are well known to be associated with the formation of young stars, the exact cause of the spiraling structures apparent in this case is still mysterious



Micro-Quasar GRS1915 Puffs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971202.html

QUOTE
On the far side of our Galaxy, gas clouds explode away from a small black hole. This might seem peculiar, as black holes are supposed to attract matter. But material falling toward a black hole collides and heats up, creating an environment similar to a quasar that is far from stable


A Scheme to Unify Low-Power Accreting Black Holes - Jet-Dominated Accretion Flows and the Radio/X-Ray Correlation
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:ar...stro-ph/0305335

A leap forward in probing magnetic reconnection in space
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=40761

Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=39706

The central engine in action
The relativistic jet phenomenon in active galaxies
http://www.humboldt-foundation.de/kosmos/prisma/2005_006.htm

Neutron Star imitates Balck Holes.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/CircinusX-1/

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10...r&nsref=dn10020
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/CircinusX-1/


http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black-mat...holes_3277.html

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html

================================================
Google for M87
This galaxy has a massive compacted core (BH) billions of times the mass of our sun.
If you want links, I will provide them.

My right click has frozen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,another time.
kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Mar 26 2007, 08:57 AM)
Hello All

Black holes are compacted matter that prevents light from escaping.

That does not mean that it cannot eject material from its compacted core.

Harry Costas. Bit of a waste of time proving you wrong if you are not going to take any notice.
kaneda
delta T. Analysis of black hole jets tell us that they are made from infalling matter whipped up by the powerful magnetic fields of the BH. This would take energy from the BH but it is replaced by what falls beyond the event horizon.

We have detected black holes which are quiet at times as they have no more matter to absorb but as they move through space and other things move through space, eventually something comes within their reach*. A black hole of several solar masses can last (it is said) over a trillion years without new matter. However, we know of many super-massive black holes (upto billions of solar masses) so in general they just keep swallowing more material.


*Black holes can even swallow other black holes.
Nick
QUOTE (delta T+Mar 26 2007, 02:08 AM)
My question is, do black holes ever " run out of steam"? Do they ever just stop pulling in matter and becoming stronger and stronger?

At the core of a black hole the strength of gravity becomes infinite. tongue.gif
alokmohan
Can gravity be infinite?Can you elaborate?
alokmohan
Get Our Free Newsletters Via Email

Space - War - Earth - Energy - China
Search All Of Our Sites In One Search


SpaceDaily - SpaceWar - TerraDaily


STELLAR CHEMISTRY
Wealth Of New Results From AKARI Infrared Sky-Surveyor

This image shows star formation revealed by AKARI's wide-area survey in the reflection nebula IC4954/4955. The nebula is located in the constellation Vulpecula, around 6500 light years from us. The Near- and Mid-infrared Camera (IRC) and the Far-Infrared Surveyor (FIS) instruments onboard AKARI carried out observations of this region at seven different infrared wavelengths and revealed a continuing cycle of star formation over three generations, across enormous spatial scales (the actual scale of the picture is approximately 13x20 light years).
Astronomers believe that these high density molecular clouds located in IC4954/4955 often participate in star formation when supernova explosions and intense radiation from young high-mass stars sweeps the interstellar material together into these high-density regions. AKARI infrared observations over the wavelength range from 9 to 160 micrometres detected the evidence of such star formation (marked by green crosses). The image is a three-colour composite image from AKARI's 9 (blue), 11 (green), and 18 (red) micrometre data. The two arc-like structures visible in the panel are formed by a young-massive star (not seen in the image) at the centre of the nebula, sweeping material outward by their strong radiation pressure. Credits: JAXA

by Staff Writers
Tokyo, Japan (SPX) Mar 27, 2007
Fantastic new images and clues about stars at different stages of their evolution, and interstellar material hosting black holes, are just a few of the latest results obtained by AKARI, the newest infrared sky-surveyor mission on the scene.
Since its launch in February 2006 AKARI, a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) mission with ESA participation, has been working flawlessly and has already produced outstanding views of the infrared Universe. New results, to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the National Astronomical Society of Japan, provide unprecedented glimpses of regions of intense star formation, views of stars at the very end of their life, supernova remnants never detected before in the infrared, distant galaxies and active galactic nuclei harbouring black holes surrounded by clouds of molecular gas.

When it concerns studying the formation and evolution of stars, and in more general, the evolution of galaxies in the Universe, infrared satellites like AKARI have a clear advantage. The matter ejected into interstellar space from old stars is warmed up by the stellar radiation from younger stars and by collisions with the material already present in interstellar space, and re-emits this energy at infrared wavelengths.

Since young stars are formed in high-density regions, where the interstellar gas and dust is thickest, the surrounding material veils the light from the star making observations with normal visible light extremely difficult and sometimes impossible. The absorbed light from the central shrouded star is also re-emitted at infrared
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Wealth_O...rveyor_999.html
Harry Costas
Hello Kaneda

You said
QUOTE
QUOTE (Harry Costas @ Mar 26 2007, 08:57 AM)
Hello All

Black holes are compacted matter that prevents light from escaping.

That does not mean that it cannot eject material from its compacted core. 


Harry Costas. Bit of a waste of time proving you wrong if you are not going to take any notice.


What are you trying to say?
I always take notice. Its just you are in a mind set of a kid.


======================================

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE (Harry Costas @ Mar 26 2007, 08:57 AM)
Hello All

Black holes are compacted matter that prevents light from escaping.

That does not mean that it cannot eject material from its compacted core. 


Harry Costas. Bit of a waste of time proving you wrong if you are not going to take any notice.


What are you trying to say?
I always take notice. Its just you are in a mind set of a kid.


======================================

delta T. Analysis of black hole jets tell us that they are made from infalling matter whipped up by the powerful magnetic fields of the BH. This would take energy from the BH but it is replaced by what falls beyond the event horizon.


You need to explain it a bit further.

=======================================

QUOTE
We have detected black holes which are quiet at times as they have no more matter to absorb but as they move through space and other things move through space, eventually something comes within their reach*. A black hole of several solar masses can last (it is said) over a trillion years without new matter. However, we know of many super-massive black holes (upto billions of solar masses) so in general they just keep swallowing more material.


Which black holes are you talking about? The quite ones.



kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Mar 27 2007, 09:42 AM)
Hello Kaneda

You said


What are you trying to say?
I always take notice. Its just you are in a mind set of a kid.


======================================



You need to explain it a bit further.

=======================================



Which black holes are you talking about? The quite ones.

I asked you some questions MONTHS ago on your beliefs about black holes and I am still waiting for an answer.

Why does someone like yourself call me a child when you have yet to show you actually know anything? Even dud1 can quote links he does not understand.

I have given you NASA and other links in the past to show that jets are made up of conventional matter like protons and not degenerate matter, therefore they do not come from inside the black hole. Your answers on this so far are.........nothing.

All black holes run out of fuel at times till more drift into their reach. At some point all are quiet.
kaneda
QUOTE (alokmohan+Mar 27 2007, 06:24 AM)
Can gravity be infinite?Can you elaborate?

This is just Nick using his overactive imagination, as usual.

If gravity were infinite then it would pull the rest of the black hole material into it then pull in the rest of the universe.
delta T
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 27 2007, 12:29 PM)
T
If gravity were infinite then it would pull the rest of the black hole material into it then pull in the rest of the universe.

and why is this not possible? Can the universe not be totally consumed. Might it grow so HUGE that its gravity continues to increase?
alokmohan
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 27 2007, 12:29 PM)
This is just Nick using his overactive imagination, as usual.

If gravity were infinite then it would pull the rest of the black hole material into it then pull in the rest of the universe.

huh.gif huh.gif I fully endorse.Nick is wrong.
kaneda
delta T. The universe I think has a set amount of matter and energy as well as gravity. Over cosmic time, ever larger super-massive black holes form with billions of solar masses which is where everything will end up. That is why this is not an infinitely old universe.

There is something called "heat death" where the universe continues to expand forever and where all suns run out of energy and all matter spreads ever further from other matter. The universe settles at several degrees above absolute zero but is dark and has no life or energy sources left.
N O M
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Mar 26 2007, 07:57 PM)
Black holes are compacted matter that prevents light from escaping.

That does not mean that it cannot eject material from its compacted core.

Until recently people thought that nothing could escaped a black hole. Thats correct, but for the internal forces that generate extreme powerful jets that are mths lights across.

That is not what defines a black hole. It is not because the contents are dense, even though the contents happen to be dense.

A black hole is something so massive that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This means that nothing can escape, including light. Since the escape velocity decreases with distance from an object, there will be a sphere around the super massive object where the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light. This is what is known as the event horison. Nothing can come out of this sphere, ever. Hawking radiation happens just at the surface.

It has been predicted that once something has become this massive, it will continue to collapse in on itself, eventually becoming an infinitely dense singularity. This does not affect the event horison mentioned above.

The jets you mention are well outside the event horison.
Nick
QUOTE (kjw+Mar 26 2007, 02:32 AM)
Professor Hawking speculates that "Hawking Radiation" is emitted from black holes,

HAWKING RADIATION IS DEPENDENT ON NEGATIVE MASS FALLING INTO THE BLACK HOLE AND POSITIVE ESCAPING. SINCE THERE IS NO NEGATIVE MASS POSITIVE MASS WOULD FALL IN NEVERTHELESS; CREATING A MASS TO TIME EQUILIBRIUM. biggrin.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
axemaster
Wow. This is a very sad topic, dominated by people who have 0 idea of what they are talking about.

A black hole is a compressed matter object whose gravity is high enough to overcome any internal resistance to its collapse. This means that it collapses endlessly to an infinitely small point, and gravity is supposedly infinite at the center.

However, this is not strictly true because although it collapses endlessly, it never actually reaches a point of infinite density, since this would take an infinite amount of time. This prevents the universe from being "torn ausunder". Also the "infinite" gravity in the center does not alter the gravity outside its original radius, so it cannot "suck in the universe".

The jets emitted at the poles are caused by powerful magnetic fields that cause some of the infalling matter to be energised and propelled outward along the axis before entering the event horizon.

Hawking radiation involves virtual particles, which CAN have negative mass/energy. What happens is that a virtual particle/antiparticle pair form near the event horizon, one gets sucked in before they cancel, and the infalling particle becomes negative mass to compensate the other particle escaping. This decrease of entropy causes the black hole to shrink.

The Hawking radiation is emitted in a manner that makes it a prime example of black body radiation. If you don't know what this is, look it up.

QUOTE
The universe I think has a set amount of matter and energy as well as gravity.

Incorrect. There is an average amount, around which it tends to stay. This is why virtual particle cancel each other out quickly, they are borrowing from this balance.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The universe I think has a set amount of matter and energy as well as gravity.

Incorrect. There is an average amount, around which it tends to stay. This is why virtual particle cancel each other out quickly, they are borrowing from this balance.

If gravity were infinite then it would pull the rest of the black hole material into it then pull in the rest of the universe.

This is blatently incorrect.
alokmohan
Gravity is not infinite in a black hole.Black hole should not be given supernatural turn.
kaneda
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 28 2007, 10:48 PM)
That is not what defines a black hole. It is not because the contents are dense, even though the contents happen to be dense.

A black hole is something so massive that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This means that nothing can escape, including light. Since the escape velocity decreases with distance from an object, there will be a sphere around the super massive object where the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light. This is what is known as the event horison. Nothing can come out of this sphere, ever. Hawking radiation happens just at the surface.

It has been predicted that once something has become this massive, it will continue to collapse in on itself, eventually becoming an infinitely dense singularity. This does not affect the event horison mentioned above.

The jets you mention are well outside the event horison.

NOM. I have pointed these things out to Harry Costas a number of times in the past and he continues to repeat these fallacies of his beliefs. He also considers defeat a victory. Another dad1.
kaneda
axemaster. You start off as though you actually have a few brain cells then prove you don't.

QUOTE
Wow. This is a very sad topic, dominated by people who have 0 idea of what they are talking about.

A black hole is a compressed matter object whose gravity is high enough to overcome any internal resistance to its collapse. This means that it collapses endlessly to an infinitely small point, and gravity is supposedly infinite at the center.

However, this is not strictly true because although it collapses endlessly, it never actually reaches a point of infinite density, since this would take an infinite amount of time. This prevents the universe from being "torn ausunder". Also the "infinite" gravity in the center does not alter the gravity outside its original radius, so it cannot "suck in the universe".



Your evidence for the rubbish you have come out with is....? Evidence that a black hole's gravity can overcome quark or electron structure is....?


It is a fallacy nto believe that if our sunwas replaced by a black hole of the same mass then Earth would continue to orbit as it now does. A black hole's gravity operates over a smaller area. With an ever decreasing size of the central mass, the gravity field would grow ever smaller to a point where even the event horizon would get smaller too as the intense gravity acted over ever smaller areas.


Infinity only exists in mathsworld and not in the real world. Go to a maths site if you want to spout such nonsense.


I have pointed out before to Harry Costas a number of times about BH jets and he has proved very resistant to new information, as is Nick.


Evidence that virtual particles exist anywhere but between two plates atomically close is....? Why have no photos on an atomic scale never shown (or detected) any such particles?


Merely making a misspelt statement is not proof. If I am wrong, tell me where.
axemaster
QUOTE
Your evidence for the rubbish you have come out with is....? Evidence that a black hole's gravity can overcome quark or electron structure is....?

Degeneracy pressure is known to be insufficient to counteract a black hole's gravity field. And both electrons and quarks are elementary particles, they have no internal structure. (I'm assuming that you know what degeneracy pressure is, if you don't please say so)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your evidence for the rubbish you have come out with is....? Evidence that a black hole's gravity can overcome quark or electron structure is....?

Degeneracy pressure is known to be insufficient to counteract a black hole's gravity field. And both electrons and quarks are elementary particles, they have no internal structure. (I'm assuming that you know what degeneracy pressure is, if you don't please say so)

It is a fallacy nto believe that if our sunwas replaced by a black hole of the same mass then Earth would continue to orbit as it now does. A black hole's gravity operates over a smaller area.

Earth would indeed continue to orbit in the same way as before because the mass of the black hole remains the same. The gravity field is only stronger within the original radius of the collapsing object.

QUOTE
With an ever decreasing size of the central mass, the gravity field would grow ever smaller to a point where even the event horizon would get smaller too as the intense gravity acted over ever smaller areas.

No... The event horizon is a function of the black hole's total entropy. The intense gravity does not act over smaller areas because the mass does not change. This is very simple stuff. It's called:

The inverse square law!!! Yay!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
With an ever decreasing size of the central mass, the gravity field would grow ever smaller to a point where even the event horizon would get smaller too as the intense gravity acted over ever smaller areas.

No... The event horizon is a function of the black hole's total entropy. The intense gravity does not act over smaller areas because the mass does not change. This is very simple stuff. It's called:

The inverse square law!!! Yay!

Evidence that virtual particles exist anywhere but between two plates atomically close is....? Why have no photos on an atomic scale never shown (or detected) any such particles?

Virtual particles exist everywhere in the quantum vacuum, and this is best demonstrated by the Casmir effect, as you say. However, the Casmir effect is due to a higher number of virtual particles outside the metal plates, showing that they indeed exist everywhere. As well, they are the basis of most interactions between particles. If one could take a photo on the atomic scale one would not see them though because for the most part they make up the overall energy gradient of the universe, or more crudely, the "zero point energy".

QUOTE
Infinity only exists in mathsworld and not in the real world. Go to a maths site if you want to spout such nonsense.

I am perfectly well aware of that. I am using it as a concept. Note that I clearly stated that gravity is not infinite in a black hole, merely approaching an infinite limit (as in calculus).
kaneda
axemaster. Evidence that electrons and quarks can be crushed in a black hole is....?

It was once believed that protons and even atoms had no internal structure. Evidence that electrons and quarks have no internal structure is....?

Something from Physorg.com new for Jan 10th 2006, published 10:50 EST :

Homan's team -- which includes Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, Rudy Wijnands of Amsterdam University and Walter Lewin of MIT -- observed a region less than 100 miles from the event horizon of a black hole system called GRO J1655-40. Here, matter can orbit a black hole relatively stably, but occasionally it wobbles at certain precise frequencies. This is a direct result of how the black hole deforms space and time, a four-dimensional concept that Einstein called space-time.

If you want the whole article I'll post it.

Evidence that virtual particles exists everywhere is....?

"approaching an infinite limit" suggests that infinity is possible. If you mean that gravity is ever increasing then say so.


You make too many unwarranted assumptions in your posts as though they were proven true.

axemaster
QUOTE
Evidence that electrons and quarks can be crushed in a black hole is....?

They aren't actually crushed, they are put into superpositions of each other because the black hole's gravity overcomes their degeneracy pressure. They are still the same particles, if that's what you mean...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evidence that electrons and quarks can be crushed in a black hole is....?

They aren't actually crushed, they are put into superpositions of each other because the black hole's gravity overcomes their degeneracy pressure. They are still the same particles, if that's what you mean...

It was once believed that protons and even atoms had no internal structure. Evidence that electrons and quarks have no internal structure is....?

That's a valid point, but it really doesn't matter in this case. Even if they were composed of still smaller particles, the end result is the same.

QUOTE
Homan's team -- which includes Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, Rudy Wijnands of Amsterdam University and Walter Lewin of MIT -- observed a region less than 100 miles from the event horizon of a black hole system called GRO J1655-40. Here, matter can orbit a black hole relatively stably, but occasionally it wobbles at certain precise frequencies. This is a direct result of how the black hole deforms space and time, a four-dimensional concept that Einstein called space-time.

How is this relevent? Am I missing something here? Could you provide the link for that, I was unable to find it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Homan's team -- which includes Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, Rudy Wijnands of Amsterdam University and Walter Lewin of MIT -- observed a region less than 100 miles from the event horizon of a black hole system called GRO J1655-40. Here, matter can orbit a black hole relatively stably, but occasionally it wobbles at certain precise frequencies. This is a direct result of how the black hole deforms space and time, a four-dimensional concept that Einstein called space-time.

How is this relevent? Am I missing something here? Could you provide the link for that, I was unable to find it.

"approaching an infinite limit" suggests that infinity is possible. If you mean that gravity is ever increasing then say so.

Uh, I did say so:
QUOTE
However, this is not strictly true because although it collapses endlessly, it never actually reaches a point of infinite density, since this would take an infinite amount of time.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
However, this is not strictly true because although it collapses endlessly, it never actually reaches a point of infinite density, since this would take an infinite amount of time.

merely approaching an infinite limit (as in calculus).

I know very well that infinity is a concept, not a reality.

I'll find some evidence to back up my claims and post them in a few hours, right now I have to go to class. dry.gif

QUOTE
You make too many unwarranted assumptions in your posts as though they were proven true.

I have every intention of keeping this scientific. If you can prove me wrong, please do so.
axemaster
Sorry about using Wikipedia as a source, but this is the best I could do in a short time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casmir_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

There you go. I think that those will suffice to completely prove everything that I have been saying. If you have any other issues, please state them.
alokmohan
Spinning black holes are rather naughty .
kaneda
axemaster. I would think that under the gravity of a black hole, any particles inside would go into whatever position they were forced into.

But it can only be assumed that a black hole's gravity can do that. In a neutron star whose escape velocity is 2/3 light speed, neutrons can survive. Black holes are not that much more powerful where gravity need only be just over 50% more.

I cannot find the original article. It is from Physorg.com and is in copied into My Documents from a Space thread some time ago. There is a date so possibly you can trace it back through "Space News" here if you want the original :


Published: 10:50 EST, January 10, 2006
Spinning black hole leaves dent in space-time


MIT scientists and colleagues have found a black hole that has chiseled a remarkably stable indentation in the fabric of space and time, like a dimple in one's favorite spot on the sofa.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)

The finding may help scientists measure a black hole's mass and how it spins, two long-sought measurements, by virtue of the extent of this indentation. Using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, the team saw identical patterns in the X-ray light emitted near the black hole nine years apart, as captured in archived data from 1996 and in a new, unprecedented 550-hour observation from 2005.

Black hole regions are notoriously chaotic, generating light at a range of frequencies. Similarities seen nine years apart imply something very fundamental is producing a pair of observed frequencies, namely the warping of space and time predicted by Einstein but rarely seen in such detail.

Jeroen Homan of the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research at MIT and colleagues from the University of Michigan, Amsterdam University and MIT are presenting this result this week at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.

"The fact that we found the exact same frequency of X-ray oscillations nine years later is likely no coincidence," said Homan. "The black hole is still singing the same tune. The oscillations are created by a groove hammered into space-time by the black hole. This phenomenon has been suspected for a while, but now we have strong evidence to support it."

A black hole forms when a very massive star runs out of fuel. Without the power to support its mass, the star implodes and the core collapses to a point of infinite density. Black holes have a theoretical border called an event horizon. Gravity is so strong within the event horizon that nothing, not even light, can escape its pull. Outside the event horizon, light can still escape.

Homan's team -- which includes Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, Rudy Wijnands of Amsterdam University and Walter Lewin of MIT -- observed a region less than 100 miles from the event horizon of a black hole system called GRO J1655-40. Here, matter can orbit a black hole relatively stably, but occasionally it wobbles at certain precise frequencies. This is a direct result of how the black hole deforms space and time, a four-dimensional concept that Einstein called space-time.

The team observed GRO J1655-40 twice a day on average for eight months, for a total of more than 550 hours. Gas from a companion star was falling toward the black hole, heating to high temperatures and causing the entire region to glow in X-ray light.

During the long observation, the team uncovered fluctuations in the X-ray light, called quasi-periodic oscillations, or QPOs. These are thought to be from wobbling blobs of gas whipping around the black hole. The team observed QPOs at frequencies of 300 Hz and 450 Hz -- the same as those observed nine years ago. This was by far the longest observation of a black hole during an outburst. Previous observations have determined that GRO J1655-40 is about 6.5 times more massive than the sun.

"The precise frequencies are determined by the mass of the black hole and also by how fast it spins," said Miller. "Those measurements -- mass and spin -- have been difficult to obtain. Fortunately, we already have an estimate of the mass of this black hole. By understanding the behavior of matter so close to the black hole's edge, we can now begin to determine the spin and thus, for the first time, completely describe the black hole."

Making this detection possible, the team said, was the long and intensive observing program with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, a unique and durable observatory launched on Dec. 30, 1995.

"Had we not observed in this way, we would probably not have detected the pair of QPOs again," said Wijnands. "We need time. X-ray light from black holes typically shows many types of fluctuations. Often we see black holes brighten and weaken a few times per second, but the rate at which this happens changes from day to day. What is so special about the fluctuations that we observed is not only that they are much faster than the ordinary fluctuations -- a few hundred times per second! -- but also that the rate of the fluctuations is exactly the same as when we last saw them, nine years ago."

Source: MIT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matter orbiting stabily the equivalent of just over 100 miles from the centre of a star several times as massive as our Sun? No!

Over on Creation/Evolution we have someone called dad1 who talks blatant nonsense. Everyone knows that but he just denies all proof. Prove him wrong. You use assumptions about things we cannot know (ie : a black hole, etc) so you maybe 100% right and you may be 100% wrong which is why I call them assumptions. They are not facts.

kaneda
QUOTE (alokmohan+Mar 31 2007, 11:19 AM)
Spinning black holes are rather naughty .

alokmohan. Moons spin, planets spin, stars spin, galaxies spin and so do black holes. In space, all large masses spin. Possibly even the universe spins.
kaneda
QUOTE (axemaster+Mar 30 2007, 10:45 PM)
Sorry about using Wikipedia as a source, but this is the best I could do in a short time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casmir_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

There you go. I think that those will suffice to completely prove everything that I have been saying. If you have any other issues, please state them.

axemaster. The wiki is hardly a peer reviewed journal as anyone can put anything into it. Then again, even "hard science" on a number of these matters is based on assumptions since we cannot know with any degree of certainty.
axemaster
QUOTE
axemaster. I would think that under the gravity of a black hole, any particles inside would go into whatever position they were forced into.

But it can only be assumed that a black hole's gravity can do that. In a neutron star whose escape velocity is 2/3 light speed, neutrons can survive. Black holes are not that much more powerful where gravity need only be just over 50% more.

You do realize what an incredible difference in gravitational force that is, right? And the mere fact that a neutron star is at only 2/3 should tell you something... With a neutron star, you are already at the point where only degeneracy pressure can hold it back from collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
axemaster. I would think that under the gravity of a black hole, any particles inside would go into whatever position they were forced into.

But it can only be assumed that a black hole's gravity can do that. In a neutron star whose escape velocity is 2/3 light speed, neutrons can survive. Black holes are not that much more powerful where gravity need only be just over 50% more.

You do realize what an incredible difference in gravitational force that is, right? And the mere fact that a neutron star is at only 2/3 should tell you something... With a neutron star, you are already at the point where only degeneracy pressure can hold it back from collapse.

axemaster. The wiki is hardly a peer reviewed journal as anyone can put anything into it. Then again, even "hard science" on a number of these matters is based on assumptions since we cannot know with any degree of certainty.

Yes, I know that, but come on! I don't have the time on my hands to spend time looking for perfect sources. Besides, I checked the sources and never saw anything obviously wrong. Who would screw with physics stuff anyway?

QUOTE
Matter orbiting stabily the equivalent of just over 100 miles from the centre of a star several times as massive as our Sun? No!

What exactly are you saying here? Sounds like a huge conceptual problem to me...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Matter orbiting stabily the equivalent of just over 100 miles from the centre of a star several times as massive as our Sun? No!

What exactly are you saying here? Sounds like a huge conceptual problem to me...

You use assumptions about things we cannot know (ie : a black hole, etc) so you maybe 100% right and you may be 100% wrong which is why I call them assumptions. They are not facts.

You sound like a friend of mine from China who says that no scientific theory can be considered useful until it has stood for at least 500 years. While I can understand this mode of thought, I have to disagree with it very strongly. We work with what we have, and what we have right now in terms of physics is darn good.

QUOTE
Then again, even "hard science" on a number of these matters is based on assumptions since we cannot know with any degree of certainty.

Science is based on data, not assumptions.
alokmohan
Based on experiment,observation and inference.That is what science is.
RH1001
Speaking of Black Holes, I feel the big bang is easy to explain. I am just an average person. Maybe I've just been watching too much sci. channel. I just don't understand why this hasn't been talked about before..at least not that I could find on the Internet. It almost seams too simple. Could some one let me know why this wouldn't work? Thank you...
1. Black Holes consume everything.
2. They consume each other.
3. The mass of the universe is condensed into one black hole.

With this much mass, wouldn't it have to generate heat to unbelievable temperatures? With the increase of heat you eventually get an explosion, and thus the Big Bang, and the process starts over again. dry.gif
alokmohan
But universe might have been born out ofwhite hole as well.
delta T
QUOTE (alokmohan+Apr 1 2007, 06:22 AM)
But universe might have been born out ofwhite hole as well.

wut the heck is a white hole???
kaneda
delta T. A white hole was originally thought to be connected by a worm hole to a black hole. Things are sucked into a black hole and come out the white hole as energy, but if this happened, then black holes would run down and we would have no super-massive black holes, which we do.

We have incredibly powerful events happening in the universe, often involving black holes, but they are short lived. White holes if they existed would be long lasting.
kaneda
axemaster. More pressure makes neutrons split into protons and electrons, then more would make the protons split into quarks. I think it is speculation how much pressure would be needed to take it past that point. It could need far more than a standard black hole could generate.

There are still assumptions in any such article since we cannot know at this point in time.

I would have thought that if you compact the sun down to BH size and the gravity was the same, put something 100 miles away from the new mass (which is far below BH mass) and it would instantly be sucked inside. Yet this is a stable orbit. Where is the overwhelming gravitational attraction?

The Big Bang, a "good" theory is actually full of holes. There was an article recently saying that many researchers had given up on superstrings because they consider them a scientific dead end.

Data unfortunately can often have more than one interpretation, yet science will often pick out one inerpretation and ignore all others with a creationist-like obstinacy. As I have pointed out, there are things we cannot yet know and claiming that they are infallibily true as scientists do is not real science.
kaneda
RH1001. It was said a few decades back that our universe could be inside a black hole as there is sufficient mass in the universe. As black holes get ever bigger, often by swallowing smaller black holes, there is beleieved to be ever more room inside them between the central mass and the event horizon. At some point it is claimed there could be sufficient room for normal matter to exist. There could also be enough room for more than one central mass and even many central masses (smaller black holes). That is the idea of the universe inside a black hole.

If the universe was inside a black hole, there would only be a set amount of matter in it with nothing outside. That would mean the universe would be stationary and not expanding.

Standard black holes are already said to have temperatures into the trillions inside them and they get ever bigger. I don't think a black hole could get too big to the point where it became unstable and "exploded". Even if it could, the outgoing material would be far too close and just form lots more smaller black holes which would them form back into a larger black hole again.


The internet is like an idiot genie. Everything is there but it's a matter of finding it amongst billions of pages. You have raised some good points here by thinking for yourself. Continue to do so and who knows what you might come up with?
Precursor562
QUOTE
My question is, do black holes ever " run out of steam"? Do they ever just stop pulling in matter and becoming stronger and stronger?


When a black hole draws in particles it releases particles. The particles released are low in energy level and are therefore low in relative mass. Since the force of gravity is the attraction between two object that have mass the smaller one mass gets while the other stays the same the less gravitational attraction between them.

If no more particles get drawn in the fountains will stop but will the remaining matter that generates the gravity of the black hole remain? I believe it would. Stars don't fizzle out they do one of two things. Go nova or go black hole. A black hole has already gone black hole and so there is no place else for it to go except nova but the gravity that caused it to collapse into a black hole in the first place kept it from going nova and so I really can't see it going nova.

It shall remain until particles of matter and matter (for that matter tongue.gif ) come with a close enough distance to start getting pulled in. The fountain then begins again. Of course we are only able to see black holes based upon the radiation (low energy particles) released so a black hole the is existing with no particles getting pulled in would be undetectable. However you will never come to an area of space void of any and all particles and so you will always be able to see black holes.
axemaster
QUOTE
When a black hole draws in particles it releases particles. The particles released are low in energy level and are therefore low in relative mass. Since the force of gravity is the attraction between two object that have mass the smaller one mass gets while the other stays the same the less gravitational attraction between them.

If no more particles get drawn in the fountains will stop but will the remaining matter that generates the gravity of the black hole remain? I believe it would. Stars don't fizzle out they do one of two things. Go nova or go black hole. A black hole has already gone black hole and so there is no place else for it to go except nova but the gravity that caused it to collapse into a black hole in the first place kept it from going nova and so I really can't see it going nova.

It shall remain until particles of matter and matter (for that matter  ) come with a close enough distance to start getting pulled in. The fountain then begins again. Of course we are only able to see black holes based upon the radiation (low energy particles) released so a black hole the is existing with no particles getting pulled in would be undetectable. However you will never come to an area of space void of any and all particles and so you will always be able to see black holes.

Ok, this is a trainwreck in progress.

Black holes release particles all the time, and this is in no way connected (that I know of) to particles being sucked in. Hawking radiation is due to virtual particle pairs being seperated at the event horizon and the escapee becoming "real" as a result, thus forcing the black hole to lose mass. The energy of the particles is such that they are blackbody radiation. And please don't use Newtonian gravity that way, it doesn't work.

I believe the "fountains" you speak of are either the infalling matter emitting radiation or the jet displayed by many black holes. Otherwise this makes little sense.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When a black hole draws in particles it releases particles. The particles released are low in energy level and are therefore low in relative mass. Since the force of gravity is the attraction between two object that have mass the smaller one mass gets while the other stays the same the less gravitational attraction between them.

If no more particles get drawn in the fountains will stop but will the remaining matter that generates the gravity of the black hole remain? I believe it would. Stars don't fizzle out they do one of two things. Go nova or go black hole. A black hole has already gone black hole and so there is no place else for it to go except nova but the gravity that caused it to collapse into a black hole in the first place kept it from going nova and so I really can't see it going nova.

It shall remain until particles of matter and matter (for that matter  ) come with a close enough distance to start getting pulled in. The fountain then begins again. Of course we are only able to see black holes based upon the radiation (low energy particles) released so a black hole the is existing with no particles getting pulled in would be undetectable. However you will never come to an area of space void of any and all particles and so you will always be able to see black holes.

Ok, this is a trainwreck in progress.

Black holes release particles all the time, and this is in no way connected (that I know of) to particles being sucked in. Hawking radiation is due to virtual particle pairs being seperated at the event horizon and the escapee becoming "real" as a result, thus forcing the black hole to lose mass. The energy of the particles is such that they are blackbody radiation. And please don't use Newtonian gravity that way, it doesn't work.

I believe the "fountains" you speak of are either the infalling matter emitting radiation or the jet displayed by many black holes. Otherwise this makes little sense.

It was said a few decades back that our universe could be inside a black hole as there is sufficient mass in the universe. As black holes get ever bigger, often by swallowing smaller black holes, there is beleieved to be ever more room inside them between the central mass and the event horizon.

My biggest problem with this theory is that inside a black hole two particles are unable to "see" each other because of their diverging world lines.

QUOTE
Standard black holes are already said to have temperatures into the trillions inside them and they get ever bigger. I don't think a black hole could get too big to the point where it became unstable and "exploded". Even if it could, the outgoing material would be far too close and just form lots more smaller black holes which would them form back into a larger black hole again.

Any explosion would have to exceed the speed of light, soooooo... Impossible.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Standard black holes are already said to have temperatures into the trillions inside them and they get ever bigger. I don't think a black hole could get too big to the point where it became unstable and "exploded". Even if it could, the outgoing material would be far too close and just form lots more smaller black holes which would them form back into a larger black hole again.

Any explosion would have to exceed the speed of light, soooooo... Impossible.

It could need far more than a standard black hole could generate.

It is the overcoming of this pressure that allows the black hole to form. Therefore, if black holes exist at all, then degeneracy pressure would have to be weaker than the gravity.

QUOTE
I would have thought that if you compact the sun down to BH size and the gravity was the same, put something 100 miles away from the new mass (which is far below BH mass) and it would instantly be sucked inside. Yet this is a stable orbit. Where is the overwhelming gravitational attraction?

Oh, there is a huge amount of gravity present, but outside the event horizon it is possible for something to orbit the black hole, it just takes a very high speed. The matter of it being a stable orbit is probably a matter of balancing it against infalling matter pushing at it and stuff like that. But anywhere outside the event horizon can be a stable orbit.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I would have thought that if you compact the sun down to BH size and the gravity was the same, put something 100 miles away from the new mass (which is far below BH mass) and it would instantly be sucked inside. Yet this is a stable orbit. Where is the overwhelming gravitational attraction?

Oh, there is a huge amount of gravity present, but outside the event horizon it is possible for something to orbit the black hole, it just takes a very high speed. The matter of it being a stable orbit is probably a matter of balancing it against infalling matter pushing at it and stuff like that. But anywhere outside the event horizon can be a stable orbit.

The Big Bang, a "good" theory is actually full of holes. There was an article recently saying that many researchers had given up on superstrings because they consider them a scientific dead end.

Data unfortunately can often have more than one interpretation, yet science will often pick out one inerpretation and ignore all others with a creationist-like obstinacy. As I have pointed out, there are things we cannot yet know and claiming that they are infallibily true as scientists do is not real science.

I agree that the Standard Model is not the final theory, but one must admit, it is a very good theory that explains and predicts a lot of thing that have been proven correct.

I also agree that scientists can be hard-headed, but again, the current theories are incredibly accurate for the most part, which is the reason that they are still in use.

QUOTE
axemaster. More pressure makes neutrons split into protons and electrons, then more would make the protons split into quarks. I think it is speculation how much pressure would be needed to take it past that point.

The current belief is that quarks and electrons are fundamental particles, meaning that they cannot be split into small pieces. You understand that it's energy, not pressure, that causes this.
Nick
QUOTE (alokmohan+Mar 28 2007, 04:40 AM)
huh.gif  huh.gif I fully endorse.Nick is wrong.

IF GRAVITY DOESN'T GO INFINITE AT THE SINGULARITY THEN IT WOULD BE FINITE SPACE-TIME CURVATURE. AND TIME WOULDN'T END.

YES. THE IDEA I STATED: THAT GRAVITY GOES INFINITE AT THE CORE OF A BLACK HOLE; MAKES MY POINT BECAUSE GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES PREDICT IT.

ONLY FINITE GRAVITY EXISTS. ONLY A LESS THAN INFINITELY DENSE SINGULARITY EXISTS. THIS IS THE KIND OF SINGULARITY I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IT IS NONZERO IN SIZE AND ITS SPACE-TIME CURVATURE ISN'T INFINITE.

TIME DOESN'T END IN THIS TYPE OF SINGULARITY AND THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
alokmohan
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 3 2007, 01:33 AM)
IF GRAVITY DOESN'T GO INFINITE AT THE SINGULARITY THEN IT WOULD BE FINITE SPACE-TIME CURVATURE. AND TIME WOULDN'T END.

YES. THE IDEA I STATED: THAT GRAVITY GOES INFINITE AT THE CORE OF A BLACK HOLE; MAKES MY POINT BECAUSE GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES PREDICT IT.

ONLY FINITE GRAVITY EXISTS. ONLY A LESS THAN INFINITELY DENSE SINGULARITY EXISTS. THIS IS THE KIND OF SINGULARITY I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IT IS NONZERO IN SIZE AND ITS SPACE-TIME CURVATURE ISN'T INFINITE.

TIME DOESN'T END IN THIS TYPE OF SINGULARITY AND THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

This type.What type?
kaneda
axemaster. I think the universe in a black hole theory was discarded not long after it was thought of.

The idea was that a black hole got so big that it literally fell apart under it's own mass. Without checking now I think there is believed to be a maximum size for black holes. Then again, what if all matter could be crushed down below matter so it contained no gravity? Goodbye black hole and another big bang.

All black holes need to form is a sufficient amount of matter in a small enough space. At different levels, gravity and temperatures can overcome atoms and neutrons and almost certainly protons but anything more than that is guess work.

We hear of accretion disks around black holes but not normally something in a stable orbit around them. I would have thought that close in it would have been a quickly decaying orbit which was not mentioned in the article as it should have been had that been the case.

I can't help thinking that with the big bang idea, things were made to fit it. Homogenisation? OK, we'll make it inflate for the first moment at 10^20 times light speed. Matter that close should have just formed a huge black hole. OK, we'll make something called vacuum energy. Etc.

How can gravity split fundamental particles? If it crushes them out of existence, no more gravity so no black hole. The fact that we can detect black holes rotating means there is a measurable mass inside them.
kaneda
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 3 2007, 02:33 AM)
YES. THE IDEA I STATED: THAT GRAVITY GOES INFINITE AT THE CORE OF A BLACK HOLE; MAKES MY POINT BECAUSE GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES PREDICT IT.

Nick. You have used this quote quite a number of times. Can you show us where GR predicts this?
Harry Costas
Hello All

Black Holes come in different sizes.

Range from 5 sun mass to billions sun masses. No maximum has ever been mentioned.

As for infinite gravity that does not exist.

For a black hole to develop forces that prevent light from escaping it requies a zone of degenerated matter. This is finite number.

Do supermassive black holes cause galaxy rotation?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=150


QUOTE
The nice thing about black holes is that although they distort space and time quite severely in their vicinity, their gravitational influence on distant objects is just as we would expect for "normal matter". How far away is "distant" for black holes? We characterize the size of a black hole in terms of its Schwarzchild Radius, or the radius within which gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. A good rule to remember is this: for a black hole of mass "M" times the mass of the Sun, its size is 3xM measured in kilometres (km). So, a solar mass black hole has a Schwarzchild Radius of about 3 km. As a rough estimate, let's say that the general relativistic effects of a black hole become insignificant at about 1000 times the Schwarzchild radius. For a solar mass black hole, then, its gravitational effects are identical to the Sun (a solar mass star) once you're about 3x1000 km = 3000 km away from it. This is a much smaller distance than that between the Earth and the Sun, for instance, and it means that if the Sun were a black hole, the Earth would not change its orbit.



Black Hole Boldly Goes Where No Black Hole Has Gone Before
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_releas...ess_010307.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The nice thing about black holes is that although they distort space and time quite severely in their vicinity, their gravitational influence on distant objects is just as we would expect for "normal matter". How far away is "distant" for black holes? We characterize the size of a black hole in terms of its Schwarzchild Radius, or the radius within which gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. A good rule to remember is this: for a black hole of mass "M" times the mass of the Sun, its size is 3xM measured in kilometres (km). So, a solar mass black hole has a Schwarzchild Radius of about 3 km. As a rough estimate, let's say that the general relativistic effects of a black hole become insignificant at about 1000 times the Schwarzchild radius. For a solar mass black hole, then, its gravitational effects are identical to the Sun (a solar mass star) once you're about 3x1000 km = 3000 km away from it. This is a much smaller distance than that between the Earth and the Sun, for instance, and it means that if the Sun were a black hole, the Earth would not change its orbit.



Black Hole Boldly Goes Where No Black Hole Has Gone Before
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_releas...ess_010307.html

Astronomers have found a black hole where few thought they could ever exist, inside a globular star cluster. The finding has broad implications for the dynamics of stars clusters and also for the existence of a still-speculative new class of black holes called 'intermediate-mass' black holes.

The discovery is reported in the current issue of Nature. Tom Maccarone of the University of Southampton in England leads an international team on the finding, made primarily with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton satellite.



Growing Supermassive Black Holes from Seeds
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black-hol...verse_9824.html


QUOTE
Greene presented these results with Dr. Luis C. Ho of Carnegie Observatories at the 207th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.

"Supermassive black holes (with masses of millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun) are found in the centers of most, if not all, massive galaxies, and the black hole masses scale with the galaxy masses, so that larger black holes reside in larger galaxies," said Greene. "We want to understand how this connection is established, and more specifically, what role black holes play in the evolution of galaxies."

Black holes probably evolve as material, such as gas, dust, stars and even other black holes, gets sucked in by the strong gravitational pull. "However, we cannot observe the starting conditions of the black holes directly," said Ho. "How massive were they? How and when were they made? These are crucial questions to answer if we want to understand how black holes impact the growth of galaxies."

The black hole "seeds" originally may have formed from the explosions of the first stars or from the collapse of clumps of gas in the early universe. Each of these different formation scenarios leads to very different numbers of intermediate-mass black holes left over in the universe today. Until now, few good candidates had been found.


How to find a black hole
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black-mass-holes_7420.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Greene presented these results with Dr. Luis C. Ho of Carnegie Observatories at the 207th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.

"Supermassive black holes (with masses of millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun) are found in the centers of most, if not all, massive galaxies, and the black hole masses scale with the galaxy masses, so that larger black holes reside in larger galaxies," said Greene. "We want to understand how this connection is established, and more specifically, what role black holes play in the evolution of galaxies."

Black holes probably evolve as material, such as gas, dust, stars and even other black holes, gets sucked in by the strong gravitational pull. "However, we cannot observe the starting conditions of the black holes directly," said Ho. "How massive were they? How and when were they made? These are crucial questions to answer if we want to understand how black holes impact the growth of galaxies."

The black hole "seeds" originally may have formed from the explosions of the first stars or from the collapse of clumps of gas in the early universe. Each of these different formation scenarios leads to very different numbers of intermediate-mass black holes left over in the universe today. Until now, few good candidates had been found.


How to find a black hole
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black-mass-holes_7420.html

Since the 1960’s, physicists have been analyzing the theory of black holes and astronomers have been looking for examples in the universe.

A black hole is a concentration of mass so enormous that it exhibits its own gravitational force. This force is so great, that nothing escapes from it.

Researchers have found a method to find black holes and analyze their characteristics, such as their mass and gravitational force, to determine if they are in fact black holes.

Astrophysicists first look for compact, massive, dark objects in the center of nearby galaxies. Then they use Newtonian physics and a series of equations to measure the mass and spin angle of the object.

If the object is at least three times the mass of the sun, it is classified as a black hole. However, the mass of most objects found are 10 million times the mass of the sun.



The Large and Small of M87
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990216.html

QUOTE
The small core of elliptical galaxy M87 appears to be energizing its whole galactic neighborhood. Recent images from the Very Large Array (VLA) of radio telescopes indicate that huge bubbles of hot gas not only exist but are still being created. These bubbles measure 200,000 light-years across and surround the entire galaxy. The source creating and feeding the bubbles has been traced to jets pointing back to M87's center, where a supermassive black hole is thought to live. The smallest scale on the above radio-map is 0.2 light-years and imaged by many radio telescopes working together (VLBI). The labeled numbers refer to the wavelength of the radio waves observed. The exact composition of these jets is not known, but thought to contain various subatomic particles.


The black hole of M87 is thought to be about 3 Billion times that of our sun.

M87: Chandra Reviews Black Hole Musical: Epic But Off-Key
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/

More Images of M87
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/more.html#m87_low

There are black hole in the centre of super clusters of galaxies estimated to be over 10 billion sun masses.

Do they get bigger, who knows, step by step man finds more and bigger.

axemaster
QUOTE
axemaster. I think the universe in a black hole theory was discarded not long after it was thought of.

Actually, I believe that the current black hole theory is that our universe is a black hole inside a higher dimensional universe. I read something about it recently, less than 2 months ago. So maybe not discarded quite yet...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
axemaster. I think the universe in a black hole theory was discarded not long after it was thought of.

Actually, I believe that the current black hole theory is that our universe is a black hole inside a higher dimensional universe. I read something about it recently, less than 2 months ago. So maybe not discarded quite yet...

The idea was that a black hole got so big that it literally fell apart under it's own mass. Without checking now I think there is believed to be a maximum size for black holes. Then again, what if all matter could be crushed down below matter so it contained no gravity? Goodbye black hole and another big bang.

Not to be offensive here, but my respect for you is rapidly waning. You clearly have no clue about some pretty basic stuff. There is zero evidence to think that this is the case, and almost certainly never will be. Pure speculation of the worst kind.

QUOTE
At different levels, gravity and temperatures can overcome atoms and neutrons and almost certainly protons but anything more than that is guess work.

What are you trying to say here?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
At different levels, gravity and temperatures can overcome atoms and neutrons and almost certainly protons but anything more than that is guess work.

What are you trying to say here?

We hear of accretion disks around black holes but not normally something in a stable orbit around them. I would have thought that close in it would have been a quickly decaying orbit which was not mentioned in the article as it should have been had that been the case.

Granted.

QUOTE
How can gravity split fundamental particles? If it crushes them out of existence, no more gravity so no black hole. The fact that we can detect black holes rotating means there is a measurable mass inside them.

Conservation of Momentum. And nobody ever said anything about fundamental particles being split, or "crushed out of existence", which you can't do. Lack of knowledge.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How can gravity split fundamental particles? If it crushes them out of existence, no more gravity so no black hole. The fact that we can detect black holes rotating means there is a measurable mass inside them.

Conservation of Momentum. And nobody ever said anything about fundamental particles being split, or "crushed out of existence", which you can't do. Lack of knowledge.

For a black hole to develop forces that prevent light from escaping it requies a zone of degenerated matter. This is finite number.

Not sure what you're saying here, but otherwise an excellent post. Thank you for some sanity.
axemaster
There might be one way for a black hole to break up. If it became so large (1 light day???) across, it might break up upon passing near another large mass, which would tear it in half due to the time delay between different parts of the black hole being pulled on.

However, this is pure speculation, and I don't know if there are any black holes that large. Plus it might not do anything because the mass is in the middle of the hole... huh.gif
alokmohan
A Frankensteinesque contraption of glass bulbs and crackling electrodes has produced yet another revelation about the origin of life.

The results suggest that Earth's early atmosphere could have produced chemicals necessary for life—contradicting the view that life's building blocks had to come from comets and meteors. "Maybe we're over-optimistic, but I think this is a paradigm shift," says chemist Jeffrey Bada, whose team performed the experiment at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)


Bada was revisiting the famous experiment first done by his mentor, chemist Stanley Miller, at the University of Chicago in 1953. Miller, along with his colleague Harold Urey, usedhttp://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479
Harry Costas
Hello All

Its funny that we have so many thoughts about Black Holes.

As for the size of black holes please look at M87 and the previous links posted.




alokmohan
Universe is a white hole.It spews matter.It is the only white hole we know.
alokmohan
Universe is a white hole.It spews matter.It is the only white hole we know.http://www.amazon.com/Lighter-Gravity-Jayant-Vishnu-Narlikar/dp/0521565650 Indian astronomer Narlikar says so.
kaneda
Axemaster. If the universe were in a black hole we would have infalling matter. Lots of radiation (lots more than background). The temperature of space would be a lot more than 2.7K. The universe is apparently expanding, even accelerating expansion which it would not in a black hole since mass would be concentrated away from the "walls" of the BH. A lot of DM proponents seem to think that DM would not be absorbed inside a black hole let alone outmass normal matter by several times. And so on.

A higher dimension must have all lower dimensions such a thing should be detectible. So far, no higher dimensions.


Your first post here said :

QUOTE
Wow. This is a very sad topic, dominated by people who have 0 idea of what they are talking about.



So any claim of respect for me or anyone else here is doubtful.

Black holes we have actually investigated up close so far = zero.

Black holes we have been inside so far = zero.

Are you infallible as far as black holes are concerned? Is anyone? Even Hawking admits to being wrong on them at times.

You have (say) fundamental particles inside a black hole. They are not going to be crushed (well, let's say not here). So they build up and up and you have one huge rotating mass of them. All large, dense objects rotate. At some point if it rotated fast enough (it seems to be that the denser and more massive the object, the faster it rotates), why should the central mass not start to fall apart? The event gravity/horizon goes where the mass is. It is not impossible that with enough disruptions, areas of the black hole could have their escape velocity fall below light speed so said matter could escape as smaller black holes.

If however a black hole can grow and grow, who is to say that even fundamental particles cannot be crushed? What is produced? Who knows? Maybe just energy or maybe something else which will not have any gravity/sufficient gravity so the black hole suddenly finds itself without the means to sustain itself.

The process where neutron stars are created, then black holes are created by further gravity and temperature. Obviously since black holes spin they are not point sources. In fact, I would stick my neck out and say the central mass could be maybe a hundred yards across (pure guesswork).

If you say that fundamental particles cannot be crushed out of existence, then you are denying them any smaller structure (superstrings, etc). You are saying these particles are actually solid and not any form of energy.
kaneda
axemaster. I did this as a second post as my rubbish internet sometimes loses posts if too long.

A number of people here have complained and derided other people here for their lack of knowledge. OK, some of them do lack knowledge. Not everyone is ahead in science. If someone asked AlphaNumeric a question on Quantum Theory I am sure he could produce a word perfect answer for them. But what is the point? If you want to know something about QT, a little search on the internet will probably tell you all you need to know. If someone like AN is merely quoting the accepted theories on a subject and no more, what is the point of being here?

There are sites where people talk seriously on such subjects but they are as dry as dust to most people. Imagination not wanted. That is the point. Those places are just like classrooms.

This is a debating board and not a lecture hall. We talk about what is, what maybe and so on. Sometimes people get it wrong which even Hawking admits, when you go into new territory, realising later that something you thought of earlier will not work, or someone else points it out to you. Zephir goes on about his AWT theory and someone who got fed up with it asked him for the maths, etc. If any of us were capable of such work, we would not be debating on a science forum but earning big bucks in some well paid research job. I think if you come to a forum like this, you have to take whatever comes.
kaneda
QUOTE (alokmohan+Apr 4 2007, 01:38 PM)
Universe is a white hole.It spews matter.It is the only white hole we know.http://www.amazon.com/Lighter-Gravity-Jayant-Vishnu-Narlikar/dp/0521565650 Indian astronomer Narlikar says so.

From the site you give :


The Lighter Side of Gravity (Print on Demand (Paperback))
by Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (Author) "From ancient Hindu mythology comes this story about the Pole Star: King Uttanapada had two wives..." (more)


Mythology.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (axemaster+)
Earth would indeed continue to orbit in the same way as before because the mass of the black hole remains the same. The gravity field is only stronger within the original radius of the collapsing object.


I am interested in what experiments suggest this? Also, what experiments suggest that the gravitational field of an object is derived from it's density rather than its mass?

This is my problem when I look at Swarzschild radius explanations. For instance, most ppl say that any object with its diameter smaller than its swarzschild radius will be a singularity. So the moon could potentially be a black hole.

My problem is why do they think that, and is the only reason because it solves Einstein's field equations?

Thanx
axemaster
QUOTE
Your first post here said :

QUOTE
Wow. This is a very sad topic, dominated by people who have 0 idea of what they are talking about.



So any claim of respect for me or anyone else here is doubtful.

Black holes we have actually investigated up close so far = zero.

Black holes we have been inside so far = zero.

Are you infallible as far as black holes are concerned? Is anyone? Even Hawking admits to being wrong on them at times.

Actually, I do have respect for you guys, it's just that I get frustrated when people make unsupportable claims without any evidence.

You dont's need to be close to something to know that it's there. When one makes a prediction using physics, then finds something almost identical to that prediction, and finds a whole bunch of things identical to it, one can assume that the prediction is correct. And nobody's been inside the Sun either, but we have a fairly good idea of what's in there.

Hawking was debating something a great deal more contentious. This is rock solid science, that is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It's like global warming.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your first post here said :

QUOTE
Wow. This is a very sad topic, dominated by people who have 0 idea of what they are talking about.



So any claim of respect for me or anyone else here is doubtful.

Black holes we have actually investigated up close so far = zero.

Black holes we have been inside so far = zero.

Are you infallible as far as black holes are concerned? Is anyone? Even Hawking admits to being wrong on them at times.

Actually, I do have respect for you guys, it's just that I get frustrated when people make unsupportable claims without any evidence.

You dont's need to be close to something to know that it's there. When one makes a prediction using physics, then finds something almost identical to that prediction, and finds a whole bunch of things identical to it, one can assume that the prediction is correct. And nobody's been inside the Sun either, but we have a fairly good idea of what's in there.

Hawking was debating something a great deal more contentious. This is rock solid science, that is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It's like global warming.

You have (say) fundamental particles inside a black hole. They are not going to be crushed (well, let's say not here). So they build up and up and you have one huge rotating mass of them. All large, dense objects rotate. At some point if it rotated fast enough (it seems to be that the denser and more massive the object, the faster it rotates), why should the central mass not start to fall apart? The event gravity/horizon goes where the mass is. It is not impossible that with enough disruptions, areas of the black hole could have their escape velocity fall below light speed so said matter could escape as smaller black holes.

You are ignoring basic motion physics here. The center of gravity is what's important, not the exact position of every single little particle. The particles can never escape because they are within the event horizon, which is designated by the center of gravity. Anything away from the center of gravity would in fact increase the size of the event horizon.

QUOTE
If however a black hole can grow and grow, who is to say that even fundamental particles cannot be crushed? What is produced? Who knows? Maybe just energy or maybe something else which will not have any gravity/sufficient gravity so the black hole suddenly finds itself without the means to sustain itself.

It wouldn't matter. Energy has gravity, as you should know from E = mc^2. And all existing "things" have gravity, it is a basic part of HOW they exist. To a certain extent, gravity IS their existence.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If however a black hole can grow and grow, who is to say that even fundamental particles cannot be crushed? What is produced? Who knows? Maybe just energy or maybe something else which will not have any gravity/sufficient gravity so the black hole suddenly finds itself without the means to sustain itself.

It wouldn't matter. Energy has gravity, as you should know from E = mc^2. And all existing "things" have gravity, it is a basic part of HOW they exist. To a certain extent, gravity IS their existence.

If you say that fundamental particles cannot be crushed out of existence, then you are denying them any smaller structure (superstrings, etc). You are saying these particles are actually solid and not any form of energy.

You are having a conceptual problem. Superstrings occupy multiple dimensions, and this would prevent that from being the case.

QUOTE
Axemaster. If the universe were in a black hole we would have infalling matter. Lots of radiation (lots more than background). The temperature of space would be a lot more than 2.7K. The universe is apparently expanding, even accelerating expansion which it would not in a black hole since mass would be concentrated away from the "walls" of the BH. A lot of DM proponents seem to think that DM would not be absorbed inside a black hole let alone outmass normal matter by several times. And so on.

I wouldn't claim to know much about those theories, I was just acknowledging that they exist and are still in the mainstream to some extent.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Axemaster. If the universe were in a black hole we would have infalling matter. Lots of radiation (lots more than background). The temperature of space would be a lot more than 2.7K. The universe is apparently expanding, even accelerating expansion which it would not in a black hole since mass would be concentrated away from the "walls" of the BH. A lot of DM proponents seem to think that DM would not be absorbed inside a black hole let alone outmass normal matter by several times. And so on.

I wouldn't claim to know much about those theories, I was just acknowledging that they exist and are still in the mainstream to some extent.

A number of people here have complained and derided other people here for their lack of knowledge. OK, some of them do lack knowledge. Not everyone is ahead in science. If someone asked AlphaNumeric a question on Quantum Theory I am sure he could produce a word perfect answer for them. But what is the point? If you want to know something about QT, a little search on the internet will probably tell you all you need to know. If someone like AN is merely quoting the accepted theories on a subject and no more, what is the point of being here?

There are sites where people talk seriously on such subjects but they are as dry as dust to most people. Imagination not wanted. That is the point. Those places are just like classrooms.

This is a debating board and not a lecture hall. We talk about what is, what maybe and so on. Sometimes people get it wrong which even Hawking admits, when you go into new territory, realising later that something you thought of earlier will not work, or someone else points it out to you. Zephir goes on about his AWT theory and someone who got fed up with it asked him for the maths, etc. If any of us were capable of such work, we would not be debating on a science forum but earning big bucks in some well paid research job. I think if you come to a forum like this, you have to take whatever comes.

My opinion is that debate is good, but it must be done in a manner that allows argument. If someone says something that is clearly wrong, and without evidence, it is impossible to debate.

An example would be these crazy Intelligent Design people. No matter what one says, they will respond with yet another unsupported claim. This is just like that. So excuse me for getting annoyed.

QUOTE
I am interested in what experiments suggest this? Also, what experiments suggest that the gravitational field of an object is derived from it's density rather than its mass?

This is my problem when I look at Swarzschild radius explanations. For instance, most ppl say that any object with its diameter smaller than its swarzschild radius will be a singularity. So the moon could potentially be a black hole.

My problem is why do they think that, and is the only reason because it solves Einstein's field equations?

Thanx

Look up gravity equations and you will quickly understand why density is important.
alokmohan
How the context of intelligent design come?It makes them a hero indirectly.
kaneda
axemaster. As I said, you are going to have to get used to people making unsupportable claims without any evidence here. If we just stuck to what's in text books, this place would be as boring as a class room.

We can get direct evidence from the sun and have done so over a long period. Black holes are very distant and we rely on titbits of information from that area. Much of the big bang is easy to show it is wrong, and it is accepted by physics. Evidence for superstrings which is accepted by physics is....? Higg's bosons? Gravitons? Other dimensions? Branes? Vacuum energy? FTL Inflation? etc. Mostly accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Entanglement and the double slit experiment are just effects yet most treat them as though they were magic.

Increase the size of the event horizon till a significant amount moved deforming the event horizon. Gravity is where the mass is. If two masses causing the event horizon can seperate far enough in a black hole, then you will end up with two black holes, each with their own event horizon. They do not go beyond an event horizon.

Example. A small black hole. The inside moves fast enough so you have a doughnut of matter inside instead of a sphere. If this could happen sufficiently, then it is possible that with this oblong black hole (are they all spherical?), over the empty centre, you could get gravity to drop below that needed for a black hole long enough that some, possibly all the material without the constricting gravity suddenly turns into energy and we have a gamma ray burster or similar.

Before I believe that light has gravity, I would like to see some firm evidence first. Real world evidence and not mathsworld ideas. Photons are waves and not particles. The fact that they are waves and not "solid particles" as in matter means they can and do travel at light speed. The fact that gravity travels at the same speed as photons means that you could not detect any gravity in front of them and a gravitational force behind them would not be able to attract anything because they are "already gone". If photons were directly subject to gravity rather than gravity bending the path light travels around, I think we could say that the core of a black hole would also be made up of photons and that the inside of a black hole must be absolute zero since no photons can possibly escape from the central mass. Sounds crazy to me.

Superstrings like other dimensions have not been shown to exist. On a thread mott.carl started, I showed why I think superstrings would be at least (and maybe only) 3 dimensions though a fourth physical dimension would be better but I see no need for further dimensions. As I have pointed out elsewhere (for several years), I think superstrings would be just a few orders of magnitude below electrons, which many researchers are now beginning to think possible. Ridiculously small (Planck) is ridiculous and is far too small to affect the atomic world.

As I said, this forum is for debating. The fact that they are not expert in a field has never stopped most people here from talking about them. Unfortunately some people here do say things that are obviously wrong. You can point it out to them, even show them where they are wrong, but whether they take your advice or ignore you and continue posting the same wrong advice is upto them. There are a few specific posters here who do that but it's a free forum. Even IDiots are allowed to post here, and ignore all evidence. Unfortunately.

axemaster
QUOTE
axemaster. As I said, you are going to have to get used to people making unsupportable claims without any evidence here. If we just stuck to what's in text books, this place would be as boring as a class room.

Ok, I'll accept that.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
axemaster. As I said, you are going to have to get used to people making unsupportable claims without any evidence here. If we just stuck to what's in text books, this place would be as boring as a class room.

Ok, I'll accept that.

Before I believe that light has gravity, I would like to see some firm evidence first. Real world evidence and not mathsworld ideas. Photons are waves and not particles. The fact that they are waves and not "solid particles" as in matter means they can and do travel at light speed. The fact that gravity travels at the same speed as photons means that you could not detect any gravity in front of them and a gravitational force behind them would not be able to attract anything because they are "already gone". If photons were directly subject to gravity rather than gravity bending the path light travels around, I think we could say that the core of a black hole would also be made up of photons and that the inside of a black hole must be absolute zero since no photons can possibly escape from the central mass. Sounds crazy to me.

E=mc^2 essentially means that light and matter are equivalent, i.e. they are both the same thing in different states. As you should know, everything is composed of both particles and waves (although these are both just ways to describe them), so that arguement is invalid. Photons have no mass, but they have energy - since these are equivalent they MUST generate gravity.

Remember, when a photon reflects off a surface, it transfers momentum to that surface while losing some wavelength energy. That proves that the two are equal to each other; mass = energy. If it had no mass (energy equivalent), it would be unable to transfer momentum because it wouldn't have any.

The fact that photons move at light speed does not eliminate their ability to generate gravity. They simply leave a wake, or gravity wave, behind them. If you have a ton of photons orbiting inside a black hole, they will generate the same gravity as an equal amount of matter. The reason you don't notice this very much is that energy tends to stay spread out, given that it moves at light speed and thus the only thing it can coalesce in is a black hole.

QUOTE
Superstrings like other dimensions have not been shown to exist. On a thread mott.carl started, I showed why I think superstrings would be at least (and maybe only) 3 dimensions though a fourth physical dimension would be better but I see no need for further dimensions. As I have pointed out elsewhere (for several years), I think superstrings would be just a few orders of magnitude below electrons, which many researchers are now beginning to think possible. Ridiculously small (Planck) is ridiculous and is far too small to affect the atomic world.

True, they have not been shown to exist in any conclusive way. But I wouldn't be so sure about Planck being too small - after all, it is really the fields they generate that matter, not the "objects" themselves.

kaneda
axemaster. Energy excites matter. It makes it vibrate faster on an atomic scale. It's just a transfer of energy from the waves to the particles. The waves slow down, the particles speed up. Just like putting a vibrating tuning fork onto a small empty tin box. A transfer of vibrations.

Photons were said to be particles and waves but are obviously just waves. Some call them particles because they can behave like pockets of energy. Particles are particles on anything but the smallest possible scale.

A photon is like a wave travelling through water. It is a force. A force cannot have gravity. I know E=MC2 but that is the energy that can be gotten from matter at the most basic of scales. Unless you believe energy can coalesce into matter as in the big bang dogma?

Isn't the idea that if anything accelerates to light speed, it's mass becomes infinite? If photons have any mass at all, then they are infinitely heavy. So, no ton of photons.

As to Planck, the idea of something at 10^-43 doing anything at 10^-15 is something like the difference between a blood cell and the whole universe.
axemaster
QUOTE
axemaster. Energy excites matter. It makes it vibrate faster on an atomic scale. It's just a transfer of energy from the waves to the particles. The waves slow down, the particles speed up. Just like putting a vibrating tuning fork onto a small empty tin box. A transfer of vibrations.

Photons were said to be particles and waves but are obviously just waves. Some call them particles because they can behave like pockets of energy. Particles are particles on anything but the smallest possible scale.

Look, you need to understand that particles and waves are BOTH just ways of describing matter/energy. Neither are the reality (which we do not fully understand). One can think of matter and energy as both being deifferent phases of the same thing. They express their excitation in different ways, and this excitation is what is transferred from one to another. (Sorry, I'm having trouble describing it without using energy as a term).

The velocity (speed and direction) of the energy/matter multiplied with the expressed mass (which is really a measurement of inertia) can be called momentum. It is this that is transmitted when energy/matter interacts, among other things.

The reason that they behave as waves is due to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, which essentially states that the velocity and position of energy/matter cannot both be known at the same time. This means that they actually exist in all places and states at once. They only assume specific states upon interacting, and these states are determined by probability.

The more "stuff" there is in energy/matter, the shorter the wavelength. This means that the matter phase tends to exhibit the wave nature less, while the energy phase displays a long wavelength, making it far more apparent.

The reason that "waves" create interference patterns with only one "particle" is directly due to the Heisenburg Principle, the probability waves interfering.

Again, energy and matter are the same thing, just looking different.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
axemaster. Energy excites matter. It makes it vibrate faster on an atomic scale. It's just a transfer of energy from the waves to the particles. The waves slow down, the particles speed up. Just like putting a vibrating tuning fork onto a small empty tin box. A transfer of vibrations.

Photons were said to be particles and waves but are obviously just waves. Some call them particles because they can behave like pockets of energy. Particles are particles on anything but the smallest possible scale.

Look, you need to understand that particles and waves are BOTH just ways of describing matter/energy. Neither are the reality (which we do not fully understand). One can think of matter and energy as both being deifferent phases of the same thing. They express their excitation in different ways, and this excitation is what is transferred from one to another. (Sorry, I'm having trouble describing it without using energy as a term).

The velocity (speed and direction) of the energy/matter multiplied with the expressed mass (which is really a measurement of inertia) can be called momentum. It is this that is transmitted when energy/matter interacts, among other things.

The reason that they behave as waves is due to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, which essentially states that the velocity and position of energy/matter cannot both be known at the same time. This means that they actually exist in all places and states at once. They only assume specific states upon interacting, and these states are determined by probability.

The more "stuff" there is in energy/matter, the shorter the wavelength. This means that the matter phase tends to exhibit the wave nature less, while the energy phase displays a long wavelength, making it far more apparent.

The reason that "waves" create interference patterns with only one "particle" is directly due to the Heisenburg Principle, the probability waves interfering.

Again, energy and matter are the same thing, just looking different.

A photon is like a wave travelling through water. It is a force. A force cannot have gravity. I know E=MC2 but that is the energy that can be gotten from matter at the most basic of scales. Unless you believe energy can coalesce into matter as in the big bang dogma?

Isn't the idea that if anything accelerates to light speed, it's mass becomes infinite? If photons have any mass at all, then they are infinitely heavy. So, no ton of photons.

No... a photon is not a force, it exerts a force. The most basic of scales is what matters here, and yes it has been shown 1000+ times at particle accelerators that energy can turn into matter. It has nothing to do with "Big Bang dogma".

Mass is caused because energy/matter in the matter phase interacts with the Higgs field, which causes it to exhibit properties that we identify as inertia. They are always at light speed because they become excited in different way from the matter phase.

That is why they exert gravity.

QUOTE
As to Planck, the idea of something at 10^-43 doing anything at 10^-15 is something like the difference between a blood cell and the whole universe.

That analogy is false because the difference is in the rate of information transfer, which is determined by the speed of light. And because of the Heisenburg Principle, the tiny tiny energy/matter can be directly present at any point, thus allowing it to exert force directly.


I hope I made this intelligible, but I might have failed. If you can't decipher what I'm trying to say, tell me to restate it and I will try to say it better.
alokmohan
Interference is known much before Hesenberg.
kaneda
axemaster. The Heisenburg statement of the obvious that when we try to measure something (on an atomic scale) we use such force that we change what we are trying to measure.

The energy just increases the vibration rate so within a wave pocket (photon or even a superstring vibration if you wish), the faster it can complete a set movement, so it is done in a shorter time which we interpret as a wavelength.

Matter would be a low energy structure with much more density so is less likely to be affected by the odd vibrations.

When researchers used "just one photon" for the double slit experiment, they did not allow for the obvious fact that waves are divisible as in the fact that a tsunami is "just one wave". The photon split up into smaller photons so could cover all entrances at the same time.

You could say that air, water, and iron are allexactly the same because they are all made of atoms. That is what you are saying about matter and energy because they (probably) have the same most basic structures.

As to particle accelerators, what we get is faint trails on plates and then we interpret them in certain ways. Particles do not come with labels on them. We still do not know everything about the atom by a long way including why it gets more massive as we approach the light barrier.

If the dogma is that we can change energy into matter and the more energy, the larger the particles. So with the big bang, there should habe been a surplus of heavy elements formed rather than just hydrogen and helium, as in a super-nova.

Higg's field as in the non-existant Higg's boson?

Inertia I would think comes from the density of matter, that it must be many strings/fields overlapping with low energies so would be difficult to move.

You misuse the HUP. When not being measured, things have definite positions and velocities. As I said, such tiny things cannot possibly influence anything so big.

I know what you mean about the difficulty of stating what you believe. I have probably made a poor job of it myself.
axemaster
QUOTE
axemaster. The Heisenburg statement of the obvious that when we try to measure something (on an atomic scale) we use such force that we change what we are trying to measure.

True, but it means a lot more than that.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
axemaster. The Heisenburg statement of the obvious that when we try to measure something (on an atomic scale) we use such force that we change what we are trying to measure.

True, but it means a lot more than that.

Matter would be a low energy structure with much more density so is less likely to be affected by the odd vibrations.

Actually, it's the opposite. Matter is an extremely high energy object. Density does not really matter because it is made up of very few particles.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of vibrations. Vibration is heat, while wave functions are not. It is not vibrating, it is actually existing in many places at once, in different amounts (probabilities).

QUOTE
When researchers used "just one photon" for the double slit experiment, they did not allow for the obvious fact that waves are divisible as in the fact that a tsunami is "just one wave". The photon split up into smaller photons so could cover all entrances at the same time.

No, it doesn't split into many pieces. It is existing in many places, even places outside the light speed limit - this is the basis of quantum tunneling. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the fact that the particle does not split - that is a very big mistake.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When researchers used "just one photon" for the double slit experiment, they did not allow for the obvious fact that waves are divisible as in the fact that a tsunami is "just one wave". The photon split up into smaller photons so could cover all entrances at the same time.

No, it doesn't split into many pieces. It is existing in many places, even places outside the light speed limit - this is the basis of quantum tunneling. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the fact that the particle does not split - that is a very big mistake.

We still do not know everything about the atom by a long way including why it gets more massive as we approach the light barrier.

OMG. E=mc^2. Mass = Energy. The faster you go, the higher your energy, the higher your mass.

QUOTE
If the dogma is that we can change energy into matter and the more energy, the larger the particles. So with the big bang, there should habe been a surplus of heavy elements formed rather than just hydrogen and helium, as in a super-nova.

Mass = Energy is not dogma, it's fact. If it were not true, then most of todays technology would be flat out impossible. As for the Big Bang, that is a matter that I have thought of before. My guess is that when quarks are first coalesing into atoms, the lowest state is hydrogen and helium. Plus remember, when many atom decay they produce alpha, and those with electrons are hydrogen also. Remember, supernovae involve fusion, which was not present in this case because of the lack of sufficient pressure.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If the dogma is that we can change energy into matter and the more energy, the larger the particles. So with the big bang, there should habe been a surplus of heavy elements formed rather than just hydrogen and helium, as in a super-nova.

Mass = Energy is not dogma, it's fact. If it were not true, then most of todays technology would be flat out impossible. As for the Big Bang, that is a matter that I have thought of before. My guess is that when quarks are first coalesing into atoms, the lowest state is hydrogen and helium. Plus remember, when many atom decay they produce alpha, and those with electrons are hydrogen also. Remember, supernovae involve fusion, which was not present in this case because of the lack of sufficient pressure.

Higg's field as in the non-existant Higg's boson?

True, but remember that most (if not all) quantum properties are involved with fields and virtual particles (which have been conclusivly shown to exist, look it up). It is thus logical to assume that mass is yet another of these fields. However, you are correct, it is not yet proven.

QUOTE
Inertia I would think comes from the density of matter, that it must be many strings/fields overlapping with low energies so would be difficult to move.

OK, I think I understand your problem now. You are thinking of particles as solid objects, photons as waves. They are not - they only exist relative to each other in the sense of their interaction. This is why virtual particles are "virtual", they have no existance beyond their interactions. When they only interact to create and destroy, they effectively don't exist beyond our math - until they interact with something else and become "real". However, they are real all the time, we just can't see them.

This is the biggest thing in quantum mechanics - things do not exist without observers (interactions). If people were particles, you would not exist until you talked to someone.

By the way, they may overlap, but that has no effect on their individual quanta in terms of mass/inertia until they combine into single units.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Inertia I would think comes from the density of matter, that it must be many strings/fields overlapping with low energies so would be difficult to move.

OK, I think I understand your problem now. You are thinking of particles as solid objects, photons as waves. They are not - they only exist relative to each other in the sense of their interaction. This is why virtual particles are "virtual", they have no existance beyond their interactions. When they only interact to create and destroy, they effectively don't exist beyond our math - until they interact with something else and become "real". However, they are real all the time, we just can't see them.

This is the biggest thing in quantum mechanics - things do not exist without observers (interactions). If people were particles, you would not exist until you talked to someone.

By the way, they may overlap, but that has no effect on their individual quanta in terms of mass/inertia until they combine into single units.

You misuse the HUP. When not being measured, things have definite positions and velocities. As I said, such tiny things cannot possibly influence anything so big.

Look, size has no meaning. An antimatter bomb made out of a cinderblock would destroy the entire planet. A string with a +1 electromagnetic charge can influence something very far away, because its actual size means nothing. You are again thinking in concrete terms, and you cannot do that if you want to understand this stuff.
Harry Costas
Hello All

Matter has different phases.

It covers all.

There are two views on how to explain matter.

Partical

or Wave.

Both can be used.

The wave theory centres on wave centers.

axemaster
QUOTE
Hello All

Matter has different phases.

It covers all.

There are two views on how to explain matter.

Partical

or Wave.

Both can be used.

The wave theory centres on wave centers.

Wow, thanks not being useful in this conversation. Next time you should at least try to read some before posting. Thanks.
kaneda
axemaster. Matter mostly has potential energy, seen if you try and force it to change as in fission. Density matters because it takes more than a few vibrations to affect it.

Vibrations at a molecular and atomic level are heat. On a smaller level (said to be planck) they are all that is, allegedly.

Quantum tunnelling is proof of quantum theory. You computer would not work without quantum tunnelling. Prove it. Your computer works doesn't it? Doh! It is an idea.

I am not saying photons split into many pieces. I am saying they are a wave and can behave in unison so be much larger but we don't know their smallest size. Not a particle.

Mass does not change. Energy level does. You are adding to the energy which affects magnetic fields in a cyclotron and which is transferred on impact. As you try and crush something against the light barrier, it is alternately forced to slow down. This is mistaken as if it's suddenly become very massive/heavy. No.

Allegedly 380,000 years after the BB, energy became matter. This would have been in the midst of an ongoing explosion which would make a super-nova look like a candle and been the biggest particle accelerator of all time, thus creating even elements above uranium (which would of course not have lasted long).

No, I said matter is many overlapping superstrings. Not that particles are solid.

Very rough example : Virtual particles are 1, real particiles are 2. Put two virtual particles together and you have a real particle. The 1's always exist whether you know they are there or not.

What you are saying is that I have to take onboard unproven and even some unlikely concepts before I can understand it, or is it, think the way that people believe in it think?
kaneda
QUOTE (axemaster+Apr 8 2007, 04:38 AM)
Wow, thanks not being useful in this conversation. Next time you should at least try to read some before posting. Thanks.

The biter bit. Good work axemaster!
Harry Costas
Hello Axemaster

If you read more into the topics, you will stop going around in circles.

I'm not here to eductae you on the partical and wave theory. Thats general info.


Beyond the Point Particle -
A Wave Structure for the Electron
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html


The Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains how our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within an Infinite Eternal Space
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

The Electric "Field" Modeled By Standing Matter Waves
http://www.signaldisplay.com/electric.html

The Derivation of A Unified Field Theory From A Model of
Spherical Quantum Waves
http://www.signaldisplay.com/Unified_Field_Theory.pdf

http://forums.hypography.com/science-paper...m-expanded.html


and so on. Just google for the info

axemaster
I would have been willing to believe those articles, but when I saw them using Mach's Principle... Well, all I can say is that they are probably losing their jobs due to radioactive accidents. Mach's Principle is very old, and very useless in modern physics - as well as baseless. It's a lot like the old aether theory in that respect (except the aether theory was a reasonable idea at the time).

In any case, I have discovered that my work is about to pile up. I'm doing an experiment with plasma containment fields, and it is going to take up most of my time for a few weeks.

No, I'm not running away. tongue.gif
Harry Costas
Hello Axemaster

Plasma is the way to go.

Latrosicarius
QUOTE (axemaster+Apr 4 2007, 08:20 PM)
Look up gravity equations and you will quickly understand why density is important.

What to look up specifically? The topic is very broad.
alokmohan
I also agree the topic is too broad.
DiamondJim
alokmohan, you will learn nothing if all you do is copy articles onto this forum. Read other posts and ask questions about what you don't understand.
Harry Costas
Hello Diamond

Well said.
alokmohan
Prove it is not degenerate matter.
kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Apr 9 2007, 03:58 AM)
Hello Axemaster

Plasma is the way to go.

Harry Costas. Plasma is powerful in stars when it is present in huge quantities and densities but it is close to non-existant in the vacuum of space which is better than any vacuum we can make on Earth.
kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Apr 9 2007, 12:20 AM)
Hello Axemaster

If you read more into the topics, you will stop going around in circles.

I'm not here to eductae you on the partical and wave theory.

Because that would be answering a question which you don't do.
alokmohan
Is plasma degenerated matter?
kaneda
The surface of the sun is 5-6,000.C. At that temperature electrons are stripped from atoms of elements leaving nucleii. A plasma is the free movement of electrons as well as other atomic particles causing matter to behave somewhere between a gas and a liquid.

Fluorescent lights send electricity through Neon and other gases to make these electrons flow so forming a plasma. For the plasma universe to work in space as some here claim, it needs atoms in the first place and the vacuum of space does not have them in the necessary quantities by a factor of billions.

Degenerated matter is when gravity crushes matter down to neutrons or further. Because this happens, the atomic particles have little or no room to move about, being crushed down into the smallest space possible. It is the opposite of a plasma.
Harry Costas
Hello All

I do advise to research Plasma and not take info from Kaneda, who knows very little of the matter.

Plasma makes up more than 95 % of the universe. For this reason the answer to the universe is in the study of plasma.

Plasma as we know it.

Plasma in the form of Neutron matrix.

Plasma in the form of quark composites.

Plasma in the form preon partical composites.

Plasma in the form positron/electron.

Yes degenerated matter is in the form of plasma.

But! don't take my word, research it.

As for Kaneda, you work him out.


I will post later further info.

kaneda
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Apr 14 2007, 05:09 AM)
Hello All

I do advise to research Plasma and not take info from Kaneda, who knows very little of the matter.

Plasma makes up more than 95 % of the universe. For this reason the answer to the universe is in the study of plasma.

Plasma as we know it.

Plasma in the form of Neutron matrix.

Plasma in the form of quark composites.

Plasma in the form preon partical composites.

Plasma in the form positron/electron.

Yes degenerated matter is in the form of plasma.

But! don't take my word, research it.

As for Kaneda, you work him out.


I will post later further info.

Harry Costas. A post which said absolutely nothing other than empty statements. As to my knowing very little on the matter, why have you not been able to answer any of the many questions I have asked you? (still there for all to see) You really are a master of BS even dud1 cannot equal.


"I will post later further info" laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Don't hold your breath waiting for this miracle.


Another miracle. Producing a plasma discharge in the vacuum of space with a few atoms per cubic centimeter. Even Jesus would have a hard time doing that one.
Nick
STACK QUARKS IN A SINGULARITY
alokmohan
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/19/g...70419130030&dci

April 19, 2007 — Mysterious invisible "ghost spirals" observed in a nearby galaxy appear to be gigantic super-hot shockwaves, say astrophysicists.

The ghostly spiral arms of galaxy M106 were first detected in radio waves, contain no stars, and do not match up with the curved starry arms of the galaxy as seen by telescopes in visible light.

But new observations of M106's "anomalous arms" confirm they are the result of two gigantic jets blasting at a strange angle from the galaxy's central supermassive black hole.
advertisement
line

"All you see is gas that is heated by shock waves," said astrophysicist Andrew Wilson of University of Maryland, referring to what the ghost arms are made of.

Because M106 is a relatively nearby galaxy — just 23.5 million light years away — new technology has allowed astronomers to continually improve their measurements of what's happening around M106's black hole and in its arms.

A few years ago, astronomers using the super-high resolution array of radio telescopes called the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) were finally able to measure the angle of those black hole jets roaring out of the core of M106, said Lincoln Greenhill of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. His team made the VLBA observations.

"The innovation now is recognizing the orientation of jets in three dimensional space," Greenhill told Discovery News. "This ends up blasting away the assumption that galaxies are flat."

More
[ 1 . 2 ]
next »


Get More News:
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
Parasites Snoop on Stinkbug Sex
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
'Ghost' Spirals Born From Black Hole
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
Robot Surgeon Tested Underwater
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
Online Songfinder Fills Memory Holes
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
Doomsday Seed Vault Gets Boost
Thu, 19 Apr 2007
World's Oldest Tree Found in NY
Wed, 18 Apr 2007
Space Shield Could Protect Astronauts
Wed, 18 Apr 2007
Hurricane-Warming Link Debated
Wed, 18 Apr 2007
Hobbit Hominids Followed Island Rule
Wed, 18 Apr 2007
Ethanol Could Worsen Smog, Sickness

send to a friend printer friendly version
rss subscribe podcast subscribe
expand
Galaxy M106
Galaxy M106

broadband news

Get Video:
videoWater is found on Mars.

Related News:
French Satellite Hunts for New Worlds
Scientists Find a World of Neptunes
Waterless Planets Defy Expectations

News from the Web:



Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<center><a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/spacedaily_media_kit.pdf"><font size="3" face="Arial" color="#008000">To advertise in this newsletter or website please view our advertising kit - PDF file</font></a></center>
To advertise in this newsletter or website please view our advertising kit - PDF file

Pacific Nuclear Victims Awarded One Billion Dollars
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<img src="http://spacedaily.com/images/rongelap-atoll-marshall-islands-nuclear-test-sm.jpg" align=right>Majuro (AFP) Apr 19, 2007 - Residents from a Marshall Islands atoll exposed to fallout from US nuclear tests have been awarded more than one billion dollars of compensation, but may never receive a cent of it.
Majuro (AFP) Apr 19, 2007 - Residents from a Marshall Islands atoll exposed to fallout from US nuclear tests have been awarded more than one billion dollars of compensation, but may never receive a cent of it.

Russia Rejects US Offer On Missile Shield
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<img src="http://spacedaily.com/images/russian-air-force-chief-vladimir-mikhailov-sm.jpg" align=right>Moscow (AFP) April 19, 2007 - Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected on Thursday an overture from the United States to cooperate on building a missile shield in Europe, Russian news agencies reported. "I honestly see no basis for speaking of possible cooperation on a strategic missile shield," Ivanov was quoted by Interfax as saying.
Moscow (AFP) April 19, 2007 - Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected on Thursday an overture from the United States to cooperate on building a missile shield in Europe, Russian news agencies reported. "I honestly see no basis for speaking of possible cooperation on a strategic missile shield," Ivanov was quoted by Interfax as saying.

Military Industry Makes Up 70 Percent Of Russian Science Production
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<img src="http://spacedaily.com/images/putin-ivanov-sm.jpg" align=right>Yekaterinburg (RIA Novosti) Apr 20, 2007 - Russia's military industrial complex makes up 70% of the country's total science intensive production, a Russian first deputy prime minister said Thursday. Sergei Ivanov, who in mid-February was promoted from defense minister and charged with the task of supervising the country's nuclear power and defense industries, said half of Russian scientists work in the military industrial sector.
Yekaterinburg (RIA Novosti) Apr 20, 2007 - Russia's military industrial complex makes up 70% of the country's total science intensive production, a Russian first deputy prime minister said Thursday. Sergei Ivanov, who in mid-February was promoted from defense minister and charged with the task of supervising the country's nuclear power and defense industries, said half of Russian scientists work in the military industrial sector.

US Takes Firm Line In Nuclear Negotiations With India
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<img src="http://spacedaily.com/images/india-civil-nuclear-sites-sm.jpg" align=right>Washington (AFP) Apr 19, 2007 - The United States on Thursday ruled out bending its laws to allow India to retain the right to resume nuclear weapons testing under a civilian nuclear energy deal being negotiated by the two governments. "It's an issue that's covered by our law and ... in as much as it is affected by, it bumps up against US law, we're not going to change our laws," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said when asked about India's stance on nuclear testing.
Washington (AFP) Apr 19, 2007 - The United States on Thursday ruled out bending its laws to allow India to retain the right to resume nuclear weapons testing under a civilian nuclear energy deal being negotiated by the two governments. "It's an issue that's covered by our law and ... in as much as it is affected by, it bumps up against US law, we're not going to change our laws," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said when asked about India's stance on nuclear testing.

Celestial Fender-Bender Left Asteroid To Cool Without Insulation
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]

*
*
*
*
*
*

To: From: Subject: Comment:
Join the conversation
Name (Optional): Title: Comment:
Yahoo
This article has been saved
null
<img src="http://spacedaily.com/images/carlton-meteorite-sm.jpg" align=right>Amherst MA (SPX) Apr 20, 2007 - A fender-bender between two celestial bodies that left a 200 mile-wide metallic chunk to cool in space was the likely source of a group of meteorites known as the IVA iron meteorites, suggests new research by University of Massachusetts Amherst scientists. Their findings, published in the April 19 issue of the journal Nature, help explain conflicting meteorite data that has long puzzled scientists, and sheds new light on how and when asteroids form.
Amherst MA (SPX) Apr 20, 2007 - A fender-bender between two celestial bodies that left a 200 mile-wide metallic chunk to cool in space was the likely source of a group of meteorites known as the IVA iron meteorites, suggests new research by University of Massachusetts Amherst scientists. Their findings, published in the April 19 issue of the journal Nature, help explain conflicting meteorite data that has long puzzled scientists, and sheds new light on how and when asteroids form.

Boeing Pico-Satellite Mission To Advance Miniature Satellite Technology
Space News From SpaceDaily.Com
[Email this article] [Comment on this article] [Message this article] [Save this article] [Delete this article]


kaneda
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 20 2007, 12:45 AM)
STACK QUARKS IN A SINGULARITY

Nick. A singularity is far smaller than a quark.
kaneda
alokmohan. This article was printed April 10th and featured in the Space and Earth Sciences News section in a thread called Galactic shock waves.

There is no need to print everything including adverts. The link and a few lines of explanation is sufficient.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Harry Costas+)
QUOTE (DiamondJim+)
alokmohan, you will learn nothing if all you do is copy articles onto this forum. Read other posts and ask questions about what you don't understand.

Hello Diamond

Well said.

I think this is the biggest irony I have ever seen.

alokmohan always posts news articles instead of replying. Well, YOU, Harry, always post 10 billion links to random articles instead of replying. biggrin.gif
alokmohan
Enjoyed the similarity.Witty.
kaneda
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 20 2007, 05:40 PM)
I think this is the biggest irony I have ever seen.

alokmohan always posts news articles instead of replying. Well, YOU, Harry, always post 10 billion links to random articles instead of replying. biggrin.gif

Latrosicarius. Well noticed. I think Harry Costas is presently looking up a link with which to answer you. dry.gif
Nick
QUOTE (kjw+Mar 26 2007, 02:32 AM)
Professor Hawking speculates that "Hawking Radiation" is emitted from black holes, and unless more matter falls in to replenish the stock, black holes fizzle out.

very speculative and controversial

PROFESSOR HAWKING HAS NEGATIVE ENERGY PARTICLES FALLING INWARD AND POSTIVE ENERGY PARTICLES ESCAPING. BUT WHAT IF THE POSITIVE ENERGY PARTICLE FALLS IN INSTEAD? THIS IS AN EQUAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE HAWKING PROCCESS THAT WOULD MAKE BLACK HOLES STABLE. IN OTHER WORDS JUST AS MUCH ENERGY FALLS IN AS ESCAPES. THUS CREATING BLACK HOLE EQUILIBRIUM.

IF THE REVERSE PHENOMENON IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT "BLACK HOLES" BECOME STABLE.

BUT OF COURSE ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THAT MATTER COULD POSSESS NEGATIVE ENERGY IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

BLACK HOLES DO NOT EXIST EITHER. BUT WHO CARES?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
kaneda
Nick. Negative energy particles are theoretical. It is also theory that they cannot exist in the universe since every particle we know has (positive) energy.

There is ample evidence black holes do exist. Making empty statements will make people think you have an empty head. I read AlphaNumeric's latest negative feedback to you and I can't fault him on it. By all means say something is wrong but give a reason for it. Just saying ; "black holes do not exist either" makes you sound like a spoiled brat having a tantrum.
Shemi
QUOTE
PROFESSOR HAWKING HAS NEGATIVE ENERGY PARTICLES FALLING INWARD AND POSTIVE ENERGY PARTICLES ESCAPING. BUT WHAT IF THE POSITIVE ENERGY PARTICLE FALLS IN INSTEAD? THIS IS AN EQUAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE HAWKING PROCCESS THAT WOULD MAKE BLACK HOLES STABLE. IN OTHER WORDS JUST AS MUCH ENERGY FALLS IN AS ESCAPES. THUS CREATING BLACK HOLE EQUILIBRIUM.

The particles that fall into the black hole do not originally have negative energy. The apparent negative energy comes from conservation of energy. A pair of virtual particles (both with positive energies) "pops" into "existance" near the event horizon of a black hole, one of them crosses the event horizon and the other does not (just by chance). The virtual particles exist because of the heisenburg uncertainty principle, because the energy at any particular point in space cannot be known exactly (by any observer including other atoms/quarks/etc.). This uncertainty in energy, however, is equal to planck's constant (maybe multiplied by 2pi I, don't remember exactly) divided by the time over which nothing interacts with the area. Thus, virtual particles of a certain energy can only exist for a certain length of time before annihilating each other. In the event that they cannot annihilate each other in that amount of time (which would only happen if there were an external force acting on them asymmetrically), an amount of energy equal to their masses (by E=mC^2) must be supplied by some external source. In particle colliders it is the kinetic energy of the original particles, in hawking radiation it is gravitational energy (i.e. mass/momentum = energy).

Both virtual particles cannot escape unless there is another external force on them besides gravity. Virtual particle pairs (they are always in pairs) have equal and opposite initial momentums, which means they are initially headed in opposite directions. If both particles escape a force must have acted on them and it is the source from which the energy comes that allows them to be real (or course they will likely annihilate each other emmiting gamma rays of an energy equal the sum of their momenta). If both particles fall in then they will annihilate each other before they arrive at the "singularity," and since time does not progress in the normal fashio n inside the event horizon the time constraint on their lifetimes becomes irrelevent. Thus, the only significant situation in the one in which one particle falls into the black hole and the other escapes, because in this circumstance the energy of the escaping particle comes from the black hole and thus reduces the mass of the black hole (by E=mC^2).

We all know how gravity works (inverse-square law more or less), because gravity is dependant on mass and distance, and the speed of light is finite, black holes must form whenever a sufficient density (of matter or energy) is achieved.
kaneda
Shemi. The problem with this is that the particles have to be in a very, very fine position where even on an atomic scale, one manages to escape and one is pulled into the hole. The idea relies on this miraculous incident happening endless times.
Shemi
I think it is only necessary that the force (that is, the difference between the forces on each of the particles since they would be different distances from the center of mass) of gravity be stronger than the force between the particles. While it is true that this is most probable near the event horizon it should be possible for low energy particles farther away.
alokmohan
Event horizon may allow inside traffick.BUT the poor particle can never come back.We wont know what happens to it.Bu todays google giv us interesting.The objects scientists think are black holes could instead be wormholes leading to other universes, a new study says. If so, it would help resolve a quantum conundrum known as the black hole information paradox, but critics say it would also raise new problems, such as how the wormholes would form in the first place.

A black hole is an object with such a powerful gravitational field that nothing, not even light, can escape it if it strays within a boundary known as the event horizon. Einstein's theory of general relativity says black holes should form whenever matter is squeezed into a small enough space.

Though black holes are not seen directly, astronomers have identified many objects that appear to be black holes based on observations of how matter swirls around them.

But physicists Thibault Damour of the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques in Bures-sur-Yvette, France, and Sergey Solodukhin of International University Bremen in Germany now say that these objects could be structures called wormholes instead.

Wormholes are warps in the fabric of space-time that connect one place to another. If you imagine the universe as a two-dimensional sheet, you can picture a wormhole as a "throat" connecting our sheet to another one. In this scenario, the other sheet could be a universe of its own, with its own stars, galaxies and planets.

Damour and Solodukhin studied what such a wormhole might look like, and were surprised to discover that it would mimic a black hole so well that it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference.

Hawking radiation
Matter would swirl around a wormhole in the same way as for a black hole, since both objects distort the space around them in the same way.

One might hope to distinguish the two by something called Hawking radiation, an emission of particles and light which should only come from black holes and would have a characteristic energy spectrum. But this radiation is so weak that it would be completely swamped by other sources, such as the background glow of microwaves left over from the big bang, making it unobservable in practice.

Another difference one might hope to exploit is that unlike black holes, wormholes have no event horizon. This means that things could go in a wormhole and come back out again. In fact, theorists say one variety of wormhole wraps back onto itself, so that it leads not to another universe, but back to its own entrance.

Daring plunge
alokmohan
"Astronomers have identified many objects out there that they think are black holes. But could they be portals to other universes called wormholes, instead? According to a new study by a pair of physicists, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They have discovered that wormholes with the right shape would look identical to black holes from the outside. But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe with its own stars and planets. Exotic effects from quantum physics might produce wormholes naturally from collapsing stars, one of the physicist says, and they might even be produced in future particlehttp://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/27/2141230
kaneda
QUOTE (Shemi+Apr 24 2007, 06:53 PM)
I think it is only necessary that the force (that is, the difference between the forces on each of the particles since they would be different distances from the center of mass) of gravity be stronger than the force between the particles. While it is true that this is most probable near the event horizon it should be possible for low energy particles farther away.

Hawking's idea relies on the existence of virtual particles. While we can produce under definite conditions but there is no evidence that they casually exist in the vacuum of space or anywhere else.

If such particles exist near a black hole, logic would say that they were sucked in and that over time the black hole would noticeably gain in mass without sucking anymore matter in. Another question is; could virtual particles appear INSIDE a black hole and instantly become part of it's mass?
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.