Black Holes

[Greg]

geez this topic has grown

[Boerseun]

Something I don't quite get about Black Holes:

 

It's held that they slowly radiate away through Hawking radiation, and over hundreds of billions of years might actually evaporate completely.

 

Now - through Hawking radiation, two particles come into existence just outside the event horizon. The one is too close, and falls into the Black Hole, whilst the other continues along its path and is seen as being emitted as radiation from the Black Hole.

 

Now - the bit I don't get: If the above is the case, then the Black Hole should continuously increase in mass at the same rate as the observed "radiation", seeing as it receives the one half of the particle pair?

 

Where does the mass "evaporate" in this scenario?

 

I can understand the bit about some "information" escaping, due to the spin of the escaping particle being indicative of the spin of the one that fell in - but I fail to see how the Hole could lose any mass through this.

[infamous]

Something I don't quite get about Black Holes:

 

It's held that they slowly radiate away through Hawking radiation, and over hundreds of billions of years might actually evaporate completely.

 

Now - the bit I don't get: If the above is the case, then the Black Hole should continuously increase in mass at the same rate as the observed "radiation", seeing as it receives the one half of the particle pair?

 

Where does the mass "evaporate" in this scenario?

 

Here is a link that you may have some interest in Boerseun:

 

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BlackholeThermo/BlackHoleThermo.html

 

Linked fixed - pgrmdave :eek_big:

[HydrogenBond]

As I under stand it, black holes in the literal sense, can not form. Calculations indicate that a black hole should red shift energy to infinite wavelength. But in a finite universe there would not be enough distance for such an infinite wave to develop. A infinite wavelength's frequency would be zero, implying it would occur less frequently than the universe itself. What we see in the universe may look, smell and taste like a black hole but it is actually something else and not a black hole in a theoretical sense.

[alxian]

so it woule be nearly impossible for us to detect really powerful black holes.

 

great i wouldn't want to know about them anyway.

 

thus

 

black holes we've detected = rectangles

 

black holes [that]= sqaures... we can only hope these don't exist within a few billion light years.

[Erasmus00]

As I under stand it, black holes in the literal sense, can not form. Calculations indicate that a black hole should red shift energy to infinite wavelength. But in a finite universe there would not be enough distance for such an infinite wave to develop. A infinite wavelength's frequency would be zero, implying it would occur less frequently than the universe itself. What we see in the universe may look, smell and taste like a black hole but it is actually something else and not a black hole in a theoretical sense.

 

Your statement that light traveling outward near a black hole (to be exact, at the event horizon of a black hole, or inside) is redshifted to the point where the frequency is 0 just means that light cannot escape from a black hole. I fail to see why this should be apriori ground to say they can't form?

-Will

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that a black hole can form but only at the beginning or end of the universe, if all the matter of the universe is in one place, as a point. This would allow total relativistic distance contraction of the universe so infinite wavelength could develop within its point size self. Currently, black hole imposters exist within a finite universe and can not develop a full infinite wavelengh. The distinction might be semantics and hair splitting. Maybe the theoretitions extraoplated a visual phenomena into a singualrity and disproved its existance by making something real and finite, infinite.

[damocles]

Damocles to various;

 

This is basically correct. In standard cosmology the laws of nature are a result of the Big Bang, so they would not have been the same before.

 

However, in string theory things are slightly different (for example, they have no singularity at the beginning of time) so they even talk about t-x (ie, the time before the Big Bang).

 

By Tormod

 

 

That is what I understand. Sort of.

 

I love the concept of black hole, but like Einstein, I don't swallow it..

 

By Coldcreation

 

 

Agreed. In this Univererse the Pauli exclusion principle and the quantum mechanical treatment of quark bonding(triplets, pentuplets, etc... imply a compressibility limit short of a point mass.... so the term "hypermass" makes more sense to me.

 

Something I don't quite get about Black Holes:

 

It's held that they slowly radiate away through Hawking radiation, and over hundreds of billions of years might actually evaporate completely.

 

Now - the bit I don't get: If the above is the case, then the Black Hole should continuously increase in mass at the same rate as the observed "radiation", seeing as it receives the one half of the particle pair?

 

By Boerseun

 

No. That is not how it works. Mass is neither created or destroyed in the vicinity of the event horizon. It is redistributed. There are two primary sources of mass for the creation of particle pairs in a hypermass' Hawking evaporation. The first is the mass infalling at c at a tangent to the event horizon boundary. The other source is the mass of particles trapped in orbit at © around the hypermass at or just inside the fuzzy radius boundary of the hypermass' event hoizon. The creation of the particle pairs occurs in the "fuzzy" region of the boundary. If there is no mass infall then the second MASS source is the "only" possible source. The hypermass shrinks in mass content(while maintaining its same rough proportional size to hypermass content determined by the radian distance that is necessary for gravitational velocity c particle escape) to some predicted point when it explodes. Simple.

 

However certain string theory;

 

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/audio/05-06/strings/horowitz/index.html?1;large#slideloc

 

predicts weird shadow effects that suggest no explosion of a hypermass but rather a bubble of "nothing" that has physical size, detectablity and a sort of permanent presence that we observe and measure as "dark matter". At initial inflation of our universe out of flat space, a lot of micro-hypermasses supposedly formed and evaporated into these bubbles of nothing. I think that the time scales, the lack of localized heat residue, the uniformity of 2.7 degree background radiation negates this supposition.

 

Okay...but can somebody pleeeeeeeze tell me how the original universe avoided being a black hole?

 

Boerseun

 

Who says that it isn"t?

 

 

As I under stand it, black holes in the literal sense, can not form. Calculations indicate that a black hole should red shift energy to infinite wavelength. But in a finite universe there would not be enough distance for such an infinite wave to develop. A infinite wavelength's frequency would be zero, implying it would occur less frequently than the universe itself. What we see in the universe may look, smell and taste like a black hole but it is actually something else and not a black hole in a theoretical sense

 

By Hydrogen Bond

 

Only true if hypermasses are mathematical "point/infinity" masses, whereas measurably no mass in our universe can be,. If we had an infinite point mass in our space/time, we could not have spatial expansion and gravitation would not be diffused among multiple mass concentrations. In summary we would not exist at all.

 

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

 

Supposing, first, that the gravitational force, or curvature, of a given area managed to condense the protons, neutrons and electrons in that area so that the space between particles is reduced to zero, i.e., all particles are touching. We are still left with protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

The black hole idea states that gravitational collapse can continue until those protons, neutrons and electrons are all fused together into either one point or into nothing (a so-called worm hole). There is no force or natural law that permits the disappearance of matter and energy—even if 100% of the mass was converted into pure energy. Are there any known laws of nature that forbid such occurrences? Yes there are: they are called the conservation laws, notably the conservation of energy. But we also have the conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of charge, conservation of baryons and the conservation of leptons. Not to mention Pauli's exclusion plrinciple: the particles mentioned above cannot occupy the same quantum state (i.e., they cannot have the same position and the same velocity simultaneously).

 

Conclusion: black holes are pure fantasy...mathematical aberrations.

 

By Coldcreation

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,1266513,00.html

 

Objections to hypermasses on the basis of the violation of conservation principles may not be valid....

 

The fact that hypermasses have a "volume" based on your quite defendable observations above simply proves that your objections require the hypermass volume solution to explain the apparent mass of observed galaxies as opposed to the luminous observed mass.. It is quite sensible to postulate that missing galaxial mass is concentrated in a "galactic central clumping accretion." The "black hole" is quite possible and necessary to solve this particular missing mass problem and it fits observation.

 

Ask the black hole hunters. The search for BHs (decades worth) has come up with zero. Not even one gravitational lensing from a distant star, not one deflected incoming light beam from a distant galaxy or quasar (around a dark object). The suggestion that Einstein's Cross is one such example is absolute speculation.

 

Coldcreation

 

 

Negated.

 

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/03/text/

 

 

A singularity therefore violates Pauli's exclusion principle.

 

The uncertainty principle: If matter is packed into a point, a singularity, the location and velocity of all the particles present can be determined: in violation of that principle.

 

General relativity: Einstein’s own cold and calculated view on the inadmissibility of singularities, whether they are point particles, black holes, worm holes, or primordial bang events, was so profound that he published a paper declaring that the Shwarzschild singularity does not appear in nature ‘for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily…because otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.’

 

As for the big bang singularity (this was in a previous mail), Einstein’s last words on the subject were …'One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense’ (from Pais 1982).

 

GR at first appears non-violated and even responsible for BHs. But that argument too is untenable.

 

The problem of singularities infringes upon the very foundation of thermodynamic systems in the evolutionary description connected with the increase of entropy with time. That why Hawking had to re-write the laws of thermodynamic for BHs.

 

The question of BHs existence is a never-ending one, as it all boils down to whether you believe in them or not.

 

A.M. coldcreation

 

Interesting. All it proves to me is that there is a quantum limit to quark/volume compressibility in the singularity;l that hypermasses have a discrete "volume". Of course if the hypermass becomes a single functioning "quark bundle" or supermassive "particle" the uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle violation becomes moot. Those would apply to a "single" particle and would not violate causality or conservation principles inside ytour event horizon. You need multiple particles in your spartial volume to violate the two principles or causality. Those multiple particles exist only at the pseudo-boundary of the hypermass event horizon. And that is a region where there is no breakdown in quantum mechanical marthematical treatments.....

 

It is a strange thing perhaps that man is capable of imagining things that do not exist in the universe, but it is no surprise. BHs are nothing more than a modern-day Mobius strip, an impossible figure that in 3 or 4 dimensions simply does not work.

 

Coldcreation

 

 

Moebius Strip impossible in 4d space? Negated.

 

http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Mobius.html

 

One specific example exists.

 

I believe that a black hole can form but only at the beginning or end of the universe, if all the matter of the universe is in one place, as a point. This would allow total relativistic distance contraction of the universe so infinite wavelength could develop within its point size self. Currently, black hole imposters exist within a finite universe and can not develop a full infinite wavelengh. The distinction might be semantics and hair splitting. Maybe the theoretitions extraoplated a visual phenomena into a singualrity and disproved its existance by making something real and finite, infinite.

 

By HydrogenBond

 

 

I agree with this for the universe's beginning, but I believe that entropy holds for the current inflation event and that there will be a maximal distribution of mass across the inflated space until the bubble goes cold and then "pops".

[revolutionary_suicide652]

Thats right,Buffy. I remember watching the Discovery channel last month and they explained how it was discovered that many known galaxies (including Andromeda) have blackholes at the centre.These black holes have mysteriously stoped sucking in gases from space.

 

When you say sucking where do the gases go .Do you believe that the black hole leads to another universe and that a black hole is a bend if you would into somewhere else and what about the planes ao existence.Any connection?