TheFaithfulStone Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 Ahhhhaaaa! That's actually a much better explanation than I gave. TFS Quote
jungjedi Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 wasnt hawkings proven wrong and didnt he cry like a baby? Quote
johnhuey Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Posted July 6, 2007 Ahhhhaaaa! That's actually a much better explanation than I gave. TFS Thanks for the link. It has help clarify a lot of my thinking. I don't think I'm 100 % of the way there but I'm getting closer. Quote
TheFaithfulStone Posted July 7, 2007 Report Posted July 7, 2007 wasnt hawkings proven wrong and didnt he cry like a baby? No. He lost a bet on the black hole information paradox, if that's what you're thinking. TFS Quote
LaurieAG Posted July 8, 2007 Report Posted July 8, 2007 Since they can't annihilate each other (as they normally do), and you can't add a particle to the universe since you'd be violating conservation of energy - to keep the energy equation balanced, the particle that the black hole captures must have negative energy. To the outside observer, it appears that the black hole just emitted a positive energy particle. The particle that was just added to the universe is balanced by the particle that the black hole just lost. Effectively, the original particle is completely destroyed, but conservation is maintained.TFS Hello TFS, I don't recall anybody ever stating that the contents of black holes (or even the black holes themselves) aren't a part of the universe. Is this some new theory that turns everything on its head? i.e. the mass of the universe is the observable mass minus the mass contained in extremely dense objects requiring 'anti' mass to conserve the balance. Surely the Hawking radiation was originally intended to be the eventual release of the black holes 'lost' mass as energy? Quote
TheFaithfulStone Posted July 8, 2007 Report Posted July 8, 2007 :phones: I'm not sure what you're asking. The whole "black hole takes a negative mass particle" acrobatics is required because black holes are part of the universe. Anything beyond an event horizon however, is permanently causally disconnected from the universe. If you shine a flash light (a really bright one) at Andromeda, it'll get there in 2 million years or so. If you shine it from inside the black hole, however, it'll never get there. That said - I suppose I should say "the rest of the universe" and not "the universe" in order to be strictly correct. TFS Quote
LaurieAG Posted July 10, 2007 Report Posted July 10, 2007 I'm not sure what you're asking. The whole "black hole takes a negative mass particle" acrobatics is required because black holes are part of the universe. Anything beyond an event horizon however, is permanently causally disconnected from the universe. If you shine a flash light (a really bright one) at Andromeda, it'll get there in 2 million years or so. If you shine it from inside the black hole, however, it'll never get there. That said - I suppose I should say "the rest of the universe" and not "the universe" in order to be strictly correct.TFS A good explanation TFS although there are still a few loose points as the black hole itself, including all mass that has passed through its event horizon, can have a permanent causal effect (until it dissipates or explodes) on the parts of the universe in close proximity to its event horizon. Causal just means that the cause preceded the effects. i.e. the CDT model, causal dynamical triangulation, just removes all events where the causes occur after the effects. Quote
TheFaithfulStone Posted July 10, 2007 Report Posted July 10, 2007 You are officially out of my league now. :) TFS Quote
coldcreation Posted July 12, 2007 Report Posted July 12, 2007 This thread seems more about black holes than the subject of the title. On topic: It is thought that the cosmic repulsion from dark energy may become so strong that the universe and everything in it could eventually (in 50 or 60 billion years) be torn apart, right down to the atomic level: the universe would end in a last outwardly crazy, zany, fuming, frenetic, uncontrolled, ridiculous instant of self-obliteration, dubbed a Big Rip. "In some ways it sounds more like science fiction than fact," alleged Dr. Robert Caldwell, a Dartmouth physicist who described this apocalyptic prospect in a 2003 paper with Dr. Marc Kamionkowski and Dr. Nevin Weinberg, California Institute of Technology. It’s as if we have a rice pudding filled with raisins expanding faster and faster, but all we see are the raisins. We assume the rice is causing the acceleration but the rice remains invisible and undetectable with any instrument, experiment, or direct observation. (One more thing; rice pudding does not expand while cooking or cooling). The other analogy often used is of a balloon expanding as you blow uniformly into it. Only now, the balloon reached its limit and popped, leaving nothing but hot air and cold sweat behind. The partypooper is back! :omg::hihi::wave: CC . Quote
Pluto Posted July 13, 2007 Report Posted July 13, 2007 coldcreation As part of a recyclic process. All matter is changed to subatomic particals and ejected back into the universe by compacted matter found in compact cores such as Neutron and quark stars and the so called black holes. The process maytake place within the 14 billion years. Reason being we cannot find or date anything out their older than 14 Gyrs. As for dark matter, thats an unkown item. Quote
TheFaithfulStone Posted July 13, 2007 Report Posted July 13, 2007 What? Are you claiming that everything eventually winds up in a neutron star or black hole? And that they will all evaporate within 14 billion years? You're going to need to show some evidence for that one, and not just your assertion. TFS Quote
jedaisoul Posted July 13, 2007 Report Posted July 13, 2007 Please excuse my ignorance, I'm new to the forums, but I'm not sure whether the question was genuine or humorous. Assuming the former, I would point out that space would only stretch as the universe expands if it is a material entity. Neither of Einstein's theories propose this (as far as I understand them)... The original theory (now the special theory) explicitly stated that space does not exist as a material entity. In Einstein's words “The introduction of a ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ‘absolutely stationary space’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place”. This view was modified in the general theory where field effects were considered to be an "irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton." But it is very different to suggest that field effects exist as material entities, from the suggestion that they occupy (or constitute) a material space. Have I misunderstood something? Southtown 1 Quote
coldcreation Posted July 13, 2007 Report Posted July 13, 2007 coldcreation snip... The process may take place within the 14 billion years. Reason being we cannot find or date anything out their older than 14 Gyrs. As for dark matter, thats an unkown item. See for example Bolte and Hogan (1995). They get an age for stars (in M 92, a globular cluster) to be 15.8 ± 2.1 Gyr. I've seen 18 ± 2 Gyr (see Sandage) and even 30 ± 2 Gyr for the age of some of the olderst stars. It was post-1998, when it was thought the universe was only 13.76 Gyr old that changes in astrophysics (with regards to dating) had to be made. Cheers CC . Quote
Pluto Posted July 14, 2007 Report Posted July 14, 2007 Hello Coldcreation Smile, I thought you may bring those dates up. They say that some of the super mega blackholes are over 50 gyrs and that the super clusters of galaxies are over 100 Gyrs. As for proving this, thats another matter. TheFaithfulStone What? Are you claiming that everything eventually winds up in a neutron star or black hole? And that they will all evaporate within 14 billion years? You're going to need to show some evidence for that one, and not just your assertion. I'm saying that if the recyclic process exists than according to Murphys law, given time it will happen normal matter will be compacted to subatomic particals and later released and not by evaporation by very powerful jets driven by the compacted core itself. As for evidence, nobody can give you that. We are even gussing whats in a black hole or a compacted core. We have just started looking at these objects in the last few decades and more important in the last few years. When the last telescope is put together we hope that further information will reveal whether the universe has an origin or ongoing recyclic process. There are many papers that say that the compacted cores make up 95% of the universe and that it is made from plasma. More info is required on plasma and its application and workings to the universe. Hey! thats my opinion. Quote
coldcreation Posted July 14, 2007 Report Posted July 14, 2007 They say that some of the super mega blackholes are over 50 gyrs and that the super clusters of galaxies are over 100 Gyrs. ...snip... Hello Pluto, Who are "they"? I'd like to check out what they say. Link-me bro. CC Quote
Pluto Posted July 14, 2007 Report Posted July 14, 2007 Hello Coldcreation I will do that as soon as I get my info out of my comp. It has frozen on me. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.