It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Could Black Holes and Hawking Radiation be the answer?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:08 AM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

The only problem with this is size, and the fact that even gigantic balls of iron would emit infrared light, unless they were colder than maybe the CMB. Which, since we have seen the tremendous energy being released by matter in the accretion disks of active galactic cores, is almost impossible to imagine they could be. Let's use our own supermassive galactic singularity as an example. There are several stars locked in relatively close orbits around Sag. A*. With advancements in adaptive optics and other things, we have managed to peer through the vast clouds of dust and gas that obscure the Galactic center from our view in the visible spectrum, and observe these stars in infrared. In fact, there is one star approaching it's closest interaction with the (ball of iron?) within the next few weeks or.months. At which point, the gravitational force of Sag. A* will accelerate it to almost 2.5% of C.
We can directly observe the strength of the gravitational force of the object there. If it were normal baryonic matter, we would be able to see it. Even at the density of a neutron star, with the apparent mass of 4 million suns it would be a tremendously large object. Also, even if it were cold enough to be invisible via infrared emissions, it would still reflect emissions from the stars orbiting it. As we can see stars on both sides of it's estimated position as they orbit it, we should be able to see it as well, because at some wavelength it should reflect those star's energy.
If, as per your example, it were only backlit by stars behind it, it may not be reflecting any in our direction, but it would still absorb some of that energy and emit is as infrared. And it's mass would mean it would be nearly impossible to miss if it were any sort of conceivable baryonic matter, because it would be entirely too large of a target. And I suspect it would also visibly occult or lense many stars from our perspective in a far more observable fashion at that size.
edit on 3-7-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:14 AM

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: pfishy

Stars are not planets. Planets are not moons. Moons are not asteroids. Etc. If you want to say they're not comparable, that's fine with me. Stars aren't black holes. If they were, they wouldn't be stars.

And you went through a lot of effort to say a lot and still retain the event horizon, though you dispelled it by your admission of what happens (rather what doesn't happen, to even light, though you neglected that when it's considered false) to objects in proximity to the greater object.

In the same model, light is not a particle, but rather a wave whose carrier is the proton. Are you trying to say that non physical objects are drawn to the physical object via gravity?

Or do you consider that photons are not particles riding a wave, but rather they are birds in a flock, revealing the wave?

Either there is no event horizon or light is an object with mass.

Mass cannot attract no mass without contact with another mass with which no mass interacts.

ETA a better word here would be "conduct".

Light doesn't have to have mass though it might we just are unable to detect it. But the reason why gravity effects photons have nothing to do with mass and everything do to distortion of space time. Mass causes a distortion of space time causing it to curve in a black hole this curvature is so severe that light curves back in on itself.

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:36 AM
Well, so far, I have managed to get comments from at least 2 of the people I was hoping would chime in on this. I am certainly not married to the ideas I proposed. If I were, I'd never have posted them here to be picked apart, disproven, laughed at, etc. As far as how this idea fits into string theory, 'brane theory, and the like, I gave up on thinking I had any real understanding of them and their various implications. I haven't a clue how any of what I've said would fit into 12d physics or Gravity's Rainbow, or even Earl Scruggs' old left shoe. So I was hoping to find out more by presenting these ideas to better minds than myself. And, of course, what better place to do it than ATS?
One point I would like to address, though. Particles resulting from collisions in the LHC, Tevatron, etc. has been seen to dissociate or evaporate into the energy they are composed of. So therefore, a 'virtual' particle which has first been 'boosted' into reality by the gravitational force of a singularity then becomes the escaping particle of the pair should be able to do the same thing. Just because the particle was shoehorned into reality for a brief time does not mean it is automatically stable enough to remain a physical particle. Just as the Higgs cannot exist for any meaningful length of time by itself, and a quark cannot exist in an unbound state outside of the incredibly rare conditions of colliders or stellar engines, etc. Even in the LHC, the time a quark-gluon soup can last is measured in timescales so short that most people truly can't even conceptualize them.
The boosted, escaped particle would have to be moving at just under C to have escaped, so it may get some real, significant distance from the event horizon before evaporation. I don't know. Perhaps the effects of time dilation near the singularity play a part in allowing it to.exist long enough, from an outside perspective, to evaporate and return it's quanta of liberated energy to a volume of spacetime outside the immediate vicinity of the steepest curve of the gravity well.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in