It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supermassive Black Hole 12 Billion Times Size of the Sun

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr
BH do radiate some energy away which causes them to eventually evaporate.
Actually they grow, not evaporate.

The reason they don't evaporate is, the temperature of the CMB is too hot relative to the black hole Hawking temperature, so the amount of energy and thus mass absorbed by the black hole from the CMB would exceed anything it might leak out.

The possible exceptions to this would be tiny black holes with mass smaller than that of the moon, but searches for such objects and their signature radiation patterns have turned up empty so they either don't exist or are too rare to detect. I don't think we know of any black holes with a mass less than 2 solar masses and that may be as small as they get at the present time, and for now, they don't evaporate as far as we know.

en.wikipedia.org...

A stellar black hole of 1 M☉ has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar-mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink. To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass than the Moon.


Now ten thousand trillion trillion trillion years from now, black holes will evaporate, but the CMB will have cooled down by then, so that's why:

en.wikipedia.org...

After 10^40 years, black holes will dominate the Universe. They will slowly evaporate via Hawking radiation. A black hole with a mass of around 1 solar mass will vanish in around 2×10^66 years.



edit on 3-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



tiny black holes with mass smaller than that of the moon,


why not a black hole with the mass of 2 protons ??

this is a joke, right ?

if you don't know watch this...
www.youtube.com...



rethink what you're theorizing !

... don't forget the Coulomb force btw

edit on 3-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur



tiny black holes with mass smaller than that of the moon,


why not a black hole with the mass of 2 protons ??

this is a joke, right ?

if you don't know watch this...
www.youtube.com...
If you have a time index to what you're talking about, I'll watch it at that time index, but that's an hour long video so I'm not going to watch the whole thing to see what you're talking about. As far as I know such small black holes have been hypothesized but never observed.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   


6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we considered a minimal extension of the SIDM parameter space, in which a self-interacting component comprises only a fraction of the dark matter. For f > 0:1, this evades all prior constraints on SIDM models. We highlighted the uSIDM regime, where the SIDM component is subdominant but ultra-strongly self-interacting, with f  1 and 1 cm2=g. In the setup considered here, the presence of uSIDM leads to the production of black holes with a mass of around 2% of the total uSIDM mass in the halo at very early times. In particular, such black holes can act as seeds for baryon accretion starting soon after halo formation, alleviating potential diculties with accommodating massive quasars at high redshifts within the standard CDM cosmology. If black holes are formedubiquitously in dwarf halos before they undergo mergers, they may also resolve the Too Big to Fail problem by ejecting matter from cores during black hole mergers.

More detailed cosmological simulations are needed to con rm the conclusions of this paper and suggest other potential observational consequences of uSIDM. Setting aside the detailed predictions, this paper has demonstrated that multi-componentdark matter can have strong e ects on small scales while still evading existing constraints.

In the toy model discussed here, the strong e ect was the result of the gravothermal catastrophe. Gravothermal collapse of a strongly-interacting dark matter component is a novel mechanism for production of seed black holes, potentially one with many implications. Given its appearance in the simple extension of CDM considered here, it is plausible that Gravothermal collapse and its observational consequences, such as seed black hole formation, aregeneric features of more detailed models. It is important to consider, and then observe or constrain, this and other observational consequences that are qualitatively di erent from the predictions of the standard cosmological model.

Our discussion has been purely phenomenological, so it is reassuring to note the existence of a class of hidden-sector models [93] which naturally produce a subdominant stronglyinteractingdark matter component, with self-interaction cross-sections ranging as high as1011 cm2=g.

Very interestingly, some models give both a dominant component with ' 0:1 􀀀 1 cm2=g, as needed to alleviate discrepancies between CDM and observations,and a uSIDM component with  ' 105 􀀀 107 cm2=g, which could produce seed black holes via the mechanism described in this paper.

We thank Shmulik Balberg, James Bullock, Renyue Chen, Phil Hopkins, Jun Koda, Sasha Muratov, Lisa Randall, Paul Shapiro, Stu Shapiro, Charles Steinhardt, and Naoki Yoshidafor helpful discussions. We thank especially Sasha Muratov for measuring concentration
28 parameters at high redshifts in the FIRE runs and providing us with the resulting halo catalogs. This research is funded in part by DOE Grant #DE-SC0011632, and by theGordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant #776 to the Caltech Moore Center for
Theoretical Cosmology and Physics.[1]



Source

Any thoughts?
edit on 4-3-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

well, maybe you should watch it all, right now from what you talking about I even recommend it for you !

You theorizing about 2 protons Black Hole ?? WTF !
Your whole theory leaves one important force out of your empty heads theories !
Coulomb force, IDIO.. !!!

edit on 5-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


I think I should explain to you, it may be behind your capability to see... but listen...

Black Hole is a product of distance and mass.
If you play with numbers, any two masses at certain distance will calculate a black whole.
A black hole of understanding your own equations !

In reality, you CAN'T make a distance between two protons small enough to make a BHole
NOT with 2 and NOT with infinity of it !!!
Coulomb Force forbids such thing


edit on 5-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

You do realize we can make two protons slam into each other right? Repulsive forces can be overcome with energy. Since energy equals mass as we all know the faster we can mive a particle the more mass it has. Thr LHC already did some experiments with lead creating a super dense mass. With the New upgrades they believe they can make a blackhole.Maybe in the future you might want to know what your talking about before you try to correct someone.



m.livescience.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
well, maybe you should watch it all, right now from what you talking about I even recommend it for you !

You theorizing about 2 protons Black Hole ?? WTF !
Your whole theory leaves one important force out of your empty heads theories !
Coulomb force, IDIO.. !!!
He never said anything about 2 protons black hole, in fact it wasn't until the last few seconds of the video that he even talked about small black holes and how they evaporate. He also explained that's probably why we never see any because even if there once were some micro black holes, maybe they already evaporated.

As usual you manage to take an educational video made by someone knowledgeable (that I think is done by a professor at the University of Nottingham), and make some comments about it that seem to have no correlation to what was explained in the video. I'd like to see you post an educational video you watched and then make some comments about it which demonstrate that you understand what the video explained, but for reasons I don't understand you don't seem to grasp the videos you watch. Do you have such an anti-science view that you're too busy laughing at the video to pay attention to what it's saying? He basically explains how gravitational forces overpower coulomb forces in a black hole yet you post the video and still say "Coulomb force, IDIO.. !!! " as if that demonstrates anything but your lack of comprehension of the video.

During its final stages of evaporation, a black hole might have an energy output many times that of our sun, so of course at that rate of energy output any phase where it would have a mass of 2 protons would be extraordinarily short-lived. Whether 2 protons can be collided with enough energy to overcome the coulomb forces and create a black hole remains to be seen, but even if this happens the black hole would similarly be very short-lived and the contents would probably be not very much like 2 protons. At that mass, you'd basically have something like a micro-explosion so coulomb repulsion would be the least of your worries.

Black hole

A black hole the weight of a car would have a diameter of about 10^−24 m and take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the Sun. Lower-mass black holes are expected to evaporate even faster; for example, a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10^−88 seconds to evaporate completely.



edit on 5-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Interesting, seem to fail to understand the bigger picture of the concepts you try to invoke. Yes the coulomb force has a divergence at zero, meaning that the closer you bring two charged particles, the more repulsive force there is.

But you also fail to really understand how particle physics theorizes the different interactions that occur. These are based upon observations of many trillions of events made by hundreds of experiments over about 1 century.... so you appear to be invoking knowledge of the coulomb divergence to negate whole theories you seem determined not to understand. It is a little puzzling as quite an open proponent of 'alternative or anti-science' that you appear not to comprehend what theories you are trying to rule out.

There are objects in space that have been observed, which require super dense materials in order to exist. These are degenerate materials that show you exactly that you can crush or press materials together such that the coulomb force is less than what is required to keep the star collapsing. Pressure within the material does not follow gas laws, but actually the high energy gas behaves more like a solid. You end up with a material theorized to be so compressed that all electron energy levels are filled, and that pressure being generated is by the movement of fermions them selves. A fermi gas.

Now this still is good right? Coulomb repulsion is holding up the material. Yes, but only because of inclusion of atomic physics and the pauli exclusion principle. it represents the very edge of that limit. We observe these as white dwarf stars.

So push even further and... thats it, you produce a material that is so compressed that electron orbitals occur so close to, or even within the nucleus that direct interactions between electrons and protons readily occur and the collapse continues. This material represents the limit at which you can imagine atoms so tightly squeezed together that nucleus's are almost touching. Repulsion provided by the coulomb force drives the material to change state.

The resulting material is a neutron star...

The point i am really coming to is that you cannot just invoke coulomb to say "haha you know nothing!" because its not what we have come to understand.

There is also what is known as interaction range, we typically go for the 1/r^2 law for everything, but nuclear forces, these have different interaction probabilities or strengths, we also have quantum tunnelling. Nuclear strong force does not follow 1/r^2 like we typically just default to for everything. Nor does the weak interaction.

So you are saying we cannot make a black hole from two protons... well you are probably right, lets look at the numbers but I'm not sure exactly why they are related to the LHC since the physics involved are NOT the same, the alternative science people love to say "The bigger picture" and here you are missing the bigger picture to understanding why your statement is irrelevant.

So the Schwarzschild radius comes out for two protons, smushed together as around 5x10^54 meters. So then you realize that a proton is about a femto meter, or at least the quarks theorized to compose it, are in a probability distribution characterized by it being about that size. BUT we are not really talking about this, basically bringing two protons to within that range of about a fm, is enough for interactions to occur and besides the plank distance is 10^-35 m.... so yes? its safe to assume two rest mass energy protons cannot form a black hole... we already knew this, we are not at all ignorant of that, and it doesnt show or prove anything?

SOooo yeah, what we actually have in the LHC is a rest mass collision at about 7000 times that of a single proton..... so doing the same calculation we have... a radius that is still of the order 10^-50 meters. Other interactions will occur before reaching that limit. Basically you can create the whole particle zoo.... way before possibly getting anywhere near making a blackhole

Soooooo what? What does this disprove other than the production of micro-blackholes from proton collisions being impossible by only invoking 'standard' physics processes that we know and understand (abet roughly) micro-blackholes are a postulate of various string theories, which still seem not to be the case given that atmospheric cosmic rays are not producing microblackholes from what we can tell.

So what? Ha? Coulomb? maybe its some kind of joke i failed to understand.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma
You do realize we can make two protons slam into each other right? Repulsive forces can be overcome with energy. Since energy equals mass as we all know the faster we can mive a particle the more mass it has. Thr LHC already did some experiments with lead creating a super dense mass. With the New upgrades they believe they can make a blackhole.Maybe in the future you might want to know what your talking about before you try to correct someone.
m.livescience.com...


and what in the world has some random smashing to do with bend space time ???
so... you do agree, those masses recoil each other in those collisions, right ?
how do you hold those masses together than for a black hole to be created ?

Look, maybe you don't know, but a black hole to your theory is an point in space with a mass acceleration greater than the propagation speed in EM field
Non of your smashing can create it so please stop talking nonsense !
Your math can do such miracles, true, but it doesn't make it real



you guys always give an example that has nothing to do with anything related to what I say,
accelerated mass has more energy, true, but it doesn't bend space more while traveling faster.
you're mixing up two different things dude


go over your own theories again

mass acceleration in your theory is caused by space bending if you don't remember...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

black hole can evaporate thanks to another theory, QM
is this your explanation and the proof ?

so one theory predicts BHoles, another predicts Hawkins Radiation and we are good to go ?

spontaneous appearing and disappearing sounds more like religion and believe rather than reality.
but yeh, all those particles are so small, a theory is the only way to prove they exist, right ?

Like God..., people still kill for it rather than rethink and understand



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I've heard all what you're saying before, but thanks for the words, others may really benefit reading your text.

you forget to mention, the are not just 2 protons smashing but some billions? is it right ??, not that it matters, more than 2 is more than too much to see the true interaction.
I would love to see that apparatus to measure the collision distances, ...just joking, I know it's impossible to build such detector.
Well right, so all is basically just a theory and the math behind, right ?

I think with a different theory but the same LHC the results would be also different, or not ?


observing the Universe and using some theory to describe it is the only way we can do it, right?
nobody actually ever have been there and measured stuff, maybe someday...
this theory of how stars are crated, how they can grow, become neutron stars and other monsters is based on gravity, but what is gravity ?

my theory and how I translate the observed is based on fled density, it needs lees and lees ingredients the way I'm finishing it what I see as positive, well, like I've said in another thread, charges -1 and +1 close together is not equal 0

edit on 5-3-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
here some monsters we observe in Universe
www.youtube.com...
interesting ...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
and what in the world has some random smashing to do with bend space time ???
so... you do agree, those masses recoil each other in those collisions, right ?
how do you hold those masses together than for a black hole to be created ?
If a black hole with the mass of a car will evaporate in a nanosecond while briefly emitting radiation at a rate 200 times greater than the sun, and smaller mass black holes will evaporate even faster, so why are you even asking about "holding masses together"? Most predictions are more along these lines:

Black Holes at LHC?

Particle collisions at energies above the Planck scale must create black holes, because they put large amounts of energy within a small enough region (the so-called Schwarzschild radius). Giddings and Thomas [6] and Dimopoulos and Landsberg [7] realized that this logic, applied to the ADD model, implies that high-energy collisions at TeV energies should produce black holes. They did not consider this a danger but rather an exciting possibility. They imagined that the black holes would glow with a temperature of about 1TeV/kB, emit large numbers of quarks, leptons, and bosons through Hawking radiation [8], and evaporate in 10^-26s. This process would produce unique and unmistakable events detectable by the LHC experiments.
I don't see how the question "how do you hold those masses together? " applies to an event lasting .00000000000000000000000001 seconds.


originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

black hole can evaporate thanks to another theory, QM
is this your explanation and the proof ?
We didn't have proof of the Higgs boson until recently, so just because we temporarily lack proof of an idea doesn't mean the idea isn't true. So is the idea of black holes evaporating just a wild guess, or is it a sound idea likely to be verified by observation at some point, possibly even with the upgraded LHC? I think this supports the latter rather than the former:


But what if Hawking’s prediction that black holes emit radiation is incorrect? There is no direct evidence for Hawking radiation. The only black holes we have seen in nature are the size of stars or galaxies, and their Hawking radiation is invisible.... However, the theoretical evidence for Hawking radiation is very strong. Numerous calculations from different points of view agree on the detailed formulae for the Hawking temperature and spectrum. A related effect, the Unruh effect of radiation from an accelerated body, is demonstrable from quantum electrodynamics. Models have been proposed, including one by Unruh himself, in which black holes do not radiate. That model, however, requires violation of Lorentz invariance, which is plausible at 1019GeV but is completely excluded at TeV energies.
So it's not proven until it's proven, but the theoretical evidence for it is pretty strong.


Like God..., people still kill for it rather than rethink and understand
What? Who is killing for theoretical physics or LHC research?

By the way I see little attempt to understand on your part so you should take your own advice to try to understand. If you don't think scientists are re-thinking things all the time you aren't reading very many scientific papers. If you really have better ideas, learn why others think what they think, then publish your own research proving them wrong...this is the way science advances. However Eros is right, you don't even seem to understand the science you are dismissing, so you have a long way to go in following your own advice to understand.


originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433
you forget to mention, the are not just 2 protons smashing but some billions? is it right ??, not that it matters, more than 2 is more than too much to see the true interaction.
If you tried to collide only 2 protons, would you be surprised to learn that they may not collide?

home.web.cern.ch...

The particles are so tiny that the task of making them collide is akin to firing two needles 10 kilometres apart with such precision that they meet halfway.
So yes of course they have way more than one proton in each beam so that something happens. I read somewhere it's about 281 trillion protons per beam but I'm not sure if that's correct, but it's definitely way more than one proton per beam.


like I've said in another thread, charges -1 and +1 close together is not equal 0
That depends on the distance of the charges from each other, and the distance of the observer from the charges. If the observer is close enough to the charges, yes of course you don't observe zero charge. But if you calculate the electric field at various distances from those two charges, you find that even if the theoretical value may be slightly above zero, for all practical purposes, zero becomes a pretty good approximation at some distance from the charges, though I don't understand how this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

edit on 6-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join