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.

 

Black Holes (if they exist), Hawking Radiation (Theory), and now THIS?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Good evening ATSers,

I know very little, mostly of theories that Physicists have postulated, about Black Holes. I've read about their theoretical properties, based off of observance and imaginative physics to fill in their gaps, to support Black Hole theories. Yet, I have not read or comprehended any Physicist's writings that lead me to believe they have any clue as to if they exist, and if they do, that Physicists understand what they are, or how they behave/interact with our "known" physics understandings.

Hawking Radiation/Blackbody Radiation is a good read, but not very many Physicists have jumped aboard the theory. Black Hole theory amazes me, possibly because it is purely imaginative, based on our imagined perception of physics, or the base set of physics principles we observe, and hope we understand. Now I read this,

www.space.com... spc_514630

Am I crazy to read this article and the many links within, thinking anyone understands Black Holes, yet they are fairly certain these hot blobs of gas, heavier than Jupiter are shot like pinballs between galaxies? What the hell?!

Obviously we have no clue what we are observing, and possibly the reveal may be more than we could comprehend? Can someone shed some light on this for me? To me, Black Holes are like how we fantasize about Lightsabers; They do not exist, but we like to imagine what they are, and how they could. I joke about the Lightsabers analogy, but seriously, what the hell are they observing that leads to their theories about Black Holes? Have you seen one? Have they seen one? So, they observed one? They've observed behaviors that suggest them? Are they just imagining them, then making us visualize them from their minds, like Lightsabers in a movie, or book?

I don't want to witness a Black Hole, or do I? They make them sound terrible, yet almost essential...like if they didn't exist, we would be stumped...hmmmm...so, I guess I'm saying, Physicists have a sort of faith, or no faith, in Black Holes, like belief or disbelief in GOD.

I don't mean to stray too far off my own post, lol, but what, if anything, does anyone reading this have to contribute to my maddening misunderstanding of Black Hole Theory?




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
From the start , the existence of black holes was taken as gospel. Einstein was one of the first to theorize they exist. However , of late there has been a growing scientific idea that they do not . And Can not exist. Research Laura Mersini-Houghton who "proved" black holes do not exist. Not saying either way it proven physics , but I keep an open mind about everything.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Maybe what we think is a black hole , is a bad MF brown dwarf in disguise...



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscov

My understanding is that there are somethings out there which exhibit crazy amounts of gravity, and which even light cannot escape from, though they do 'belch out' massive amounts of energy, particularly after snacking on stars.

As to what they are, exactly, they could be super-strong vacuum tubes connected to other universes, built by gleeptreebles from Zoltan VII - whatever they are, from what we can tell, they do exactly what we believe "black holes" do.

The problem is, only their effects can be observed, not the black holes themselves. Personally, I think of them as the opening in a drain, and the "suction" (gravity) originates on the other end. Hence why we're swirling around in space so fast, around a central point. (And our central point swirling around its own central point, ad infinatum)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscov


Yet, I have not read or comprehended any Physicist's writings that lead me to believe they have any clue as to if they exist...

Ummm, have you seen this? If you have, you wouldn't say that.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Perhaps science needs to first understand the very basics and AFTER they have solved the very basics, they can move on to more difficult subjects.

Science does not know what gravity is.

So anything after that is just speculation, but some of these speculations are worth big $$$$ in grant money.

Follow the money is as true in science as it is in politics.

P



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
From the start , the existence of black holes was taken as gospel. Einstein was one of the first to theorize they exist. However , of late there has been a growing scientific idea that they do not . And Can not exist.
False. nearly everything you've said is this more or less wrong or backwards.

Black Holes

Black holes were once theoretical, suggested by the mathematical equations of physics and Einstein's relativity, which predicted what would happen if too much mass collected in one spot. There was debate about whether black holes really existed; Einstein himself thought they were "too strange to be real."

"When I was a PhD student, people used to giggle when you hear[d] about black holes. They're like unicorns, mythical creatures. We call this the 'giggle factor.' People would say, 'Beam me up, Scotty.' Well, no one is laughing anymore."

~ Dr. Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physicist, on How the Universe Works.

The first known black hole was Cygnus X-1, discovered in 1964 as a powerful, mysterious source of x-rays. Since then, thousands of black holes have been discovered through the energy emissions of their dying prey or their tugs on nearby stars, dust, gas, and even galaxies.



Research Laura Mersini-Houghton who "proved" black holes do not exist.
False. You fell for the link-bait propaganda. She has done some interesting work but it doesn't prove black don't holes exist as the ignorant headlines claim.

briankoberlein.com...

This is interesting theoretical work, and it raises questions about the formation of stellar-mass black holes. But it doesn’t prove that stellar-mass black holes don’t exist, nor does it say anything about intermediate mass or supermassive black holes, which would form by processes other than stellar collapse. And of course the work depends upon Hawking’s take on firewalls to be correct, which hasn’t been proven. To say that this work proves black holes don’t exist is disingenuous at best.

So don’t buy into the hype. Black holes are real, this work is interesting, and the link-baiters should be ashamed of themselves.



originally posted by: intrptr
Ummm, have you seen this? If you have, you wouldn't say that.
Yes, that's compelling evidence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.

edit on 2017111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
No worries guys! It's only Galactus, the Avengers are here to save us!

Anyone got Silver Surfer on speed dial?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
From the start , the existence of black holes was taken as gospel. Einstein was one of the first to theorize they exist. However , of late there has been a growing scientific idea that they do not . And Can not exist. Research Laura Mersini-Houghton who "proved" black holes do not exist. Not saying either way it proven physics , but I keep an open mind about everything.



The recent black hole related discoveries seem to disagree with you:


  • July 12, 2016 Black Hole Makes Material Wobble Around It
  • June 27, 2016 Clandestine Black Hole May Represent New Population (VLA J2130+12)
  • June 22, 2016 X-ray Echoes of a Shredded Star Provide Close-up of 'Killer' Black Hole
  • May 24, 2016 Clues to the Birth of Supermassive Black Holes
  • April 28, 2016 Fermi Helps Link Cosmic Neutrino to Blazar Outburst
  • April 28, 2016 Powerful Winds Spotted from Mysterious X-ray Binaries
  • April 6, 2016 Behemoth Black Hole Found in an Unlikely Place
  • February 16, 2016 Glow from the Big Bang Allows Discovery of Distant Black Hole Jet (B3 0727+409)
  • February 11, 2016 The Sleeping Giant (in NGC 4889)
  • February 2, 2016 Blast from Black Hole in a Galaxy Far, Far Away (Pictor A)
  • January 6, 2016 Galactic Merger Reveals an Unusual Star-Deprived Black Hole (SDSS J1126+2944)
  • January 5, 2016 Chandra Finds Supermassive Black Hole Burping Nearby (NGC 5195)
  • December 17, 2015 NuSTAR Finds Cosmic Clumpy Doughnut Around Black Hole
  • December 15, 2015 Fermi Kicks Off a Blazar-detecting Bonanza
  • December 3, 2015 A New Technique to Gauge The Distant Universe
  • October 26, 2015 Black Hole has Major Flare (Mrk 335)
  • October 21, 2015 Destroyed Star Rains onto Black Hole, Winds Blow it Back (ASASSN-14li)
  • September 23, 2015 Milky Way's Black Hole Shows Signs of Increased Chatter (Sagittarius A*)
  • September 16, 2015 Funky Light Signal from Colliding Black Holes Explained (PG 1302-102)
  • August 27, 2015 Hubble Finds that the Nearest Quasar is Powered by a Double Black Hole
  • August 11, 2015 Oxymoronic Black Hole Provides Clues to Growth (RGG 118)
  • August 6, 2015 Hubble Finds Evidence of Galaxy Star Birth Regulated by Black Hole Fountain

Source




edit on 12-1-2017 by DupontDeux because: Edited to add source



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux
Evidently you didnt research the person I mentioned. And of course , there is Hawking himself stating black holes may not exist. Else , you would know why they stated this and why we "see" black holes



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
Perhaps science needs to first understand the very basics and AFTER they have solved the very basics, they can move on to more difficult subjects.

Science does not know what gravity is.

So anything after that is just speculation

Scientists know how gravity works, and that's enough basis for learning many other aspects of the universe.

Perhaps you need to first understand the bery basics of what science is and how it works, and then you can move on to criticising it.


~~~

Back on topic, to me at least black holes seem the most reasonable explanation for the specific phenomena we observe in space:

#1 Extremely strong and energetic outbursts from compact objects, in the ranges beyond what could be produced by stars.

#2 Very tight orbits of stars around something, indicating a very compact and very massive object (again, beyond what could be caused by a star).

#3 Rogue stars that are flung away from their galaxy at higher than galactic escape velocity - suggesting a gravitational sling caused by a black hole.

There are probably many other indirect bits of evidence pointing to existence of black holes that I haven't read up on.
edit on 12-1-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
Perhaps science needs to first understand the very basics and AFTER they have solved the very basics, they can move on to more difficult subjects.

Science does not know what gravity is.

True, that.

Mathematics is a tool, and when you start using a tool without actually understanding how it works, you run into some fundamental problems that you just can't get out. It's like hitting a brick wall that you just can't climb over however hard you try. And some 99.9% of the physicists will try to overcome that problem by smashing their heads against the wall... instead of taking a good, hard look at the tool they're using and asking themselves if the problem actually lies there.

So, here's a short primer on the limits of mathematics, and the freakish results that occur when you try to blindly, and quite foolishly, venture beyond those limits.

About continual (infinitely divisible) and discrete (finitely divisible) mathematical models of N-dimensional spaces

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible, and for that purpose, I will limit this explanation to a 2-dimensional space. Specifically, to a 2-dimensional sphere having the radius of R.

Here's the first question that we're going to focus on:
- How do we calculate the distance between two points on the surface of a 2-dimensional sphere?

Aaaaand... have you failed to notice the caveat that 99.9% of physicists also fail to notice? If your answer to the question above was that distance is some fraction of 2*Pi*R, then you definitely have, and you've just fallen into the same trap that those physicists fall in.

Your failure to notice the caveat lies in the fact that you haven't stopped and asked yourself if that sphere is defined in a continual or in a discrete space. You have simply assumed that it was defined in a continual space, and you've immediately jumped to conclusions and applied solutions that work in that space. And, quite expectedly, you've completely missed the real problem.

The real problem, therefore, lies in the second question that we're now going to focus on:
- How do we calculate the distance between two points on a 2-dimensional sphere in a discrete space?

That's a bit more challenging task, isn't it?

The first thing you will notice is that you can throw continual mathematical model (of infinitely divisible space) right out the window. The "fraction of 2*Pi*R" answer from above just won't work here (for reasons that should be perfectly obvious).

Instead, what you have to do is completely redefine the concept of distance:
- Distance in a discrete space is defined in elementary units of that space.

Are you seeing the difference here? Let me make it clearer for you.

- Distance in N-dimensional continual space is always 1-dimensional.
- Distance in N-dimensional discrete space is N-dimensional.

Is your head spinning yet? We haven't even begun the analysis, and that little piece of trivia above is not even the most interesting part about it.

The interesting stuff really takes off when you start applying your newly-found "knowledge" (the thing that you didn't know that you actually knew) to this world. The world that Quantum Mechanics has already shown to be discrete space of granularity of Planck lenght.

So the final question to be focused on is:
- Is the new model of gravity, the one that describes gravity as an effect of expansion of discrete space, starting to make more sense now?

You probably couldn't fit the new model into your (run-of-the-mill-physics) continual mathematics, and that's not the least surprising. You were trying to apply continual mathematics beyond its limits and, perfectly naturally, you got completely lost (or you hit a brick wall and decided to start bashing your head against it), instead of stopping to think and asking yourself if the very mathematics you were trying to use was wrong.

Well, it was wrong. It was a wrong tool used in the wrong way and for the wrong task. Discrete mathematics is the right tool here. You only have to figure out to use it properly.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: DupontDeux
Evidently you didnt research the person I mentioned. And of course , there is Hawking himself stating black holes may not exist. Else , you would know why they stated this and why we "see" black holes



Arbitrageur already dealt with that, but sure I did.

I do not think that you have read her paper though.

Mersini-Houghton's paper does not deal with the evidence for black holes, but with the theory on how they are formed - the paper only shows that black holes cannot be formed through the collapse of a single star. Assuming her math is good, it simply puts the question of formation back up in the air.

I do not think that you have taken the time to look at what Hawking was actually conveying either. It quickly becomes clear, that in the context it was said (a point about the event horizon, it seems) it had a somewhat different meaning.



To be clear, Hawking was not claiming that black holes don’t exist. Astronomers have been observing black holes for decades, said Joseph Polchinski, theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

What Hawking did was propose an explanation to one of the most puzzling problems in theoretical physics. How can black holes exist when they seem to break two fundamental laws of physics — Einstein’s laws of relativity and quantum mechanics?

Source


Arbitrageur said it best, when he said that you might have been a victim of clickbait articles. I agree.


edit on 12-1-2017 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
From the start , the existence of black holes was taken as gospel. Einstein was one of the first to theorize they exist. However , of late there has been a growing scientific idea that they do not . And Can not exist. Research Laura Mersini-Houghton who "proved" black holes do not exist. Not saying either way it proven physics , but I keep an open mind about everything.


So far, every single one of Einsteins predictions have turned out to be correct. The maths work with regards to black holes and they have been observed indirectly. I think it's a safe bet that they do exist.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Gothmog
From the start , the existence of black holes was taken as gospel. Einstein was one of the first to theorize they exist. However , of late there has been a growing scientific idea that they do not . And Can not exist. Research Laura Mersini-Houghton who "proved" black holes do not exist. Not saying either way it proven physics , but I keep an open mind about everything.


So far, every single one of Einsteins predictions have turned out to be correct. The maths work with regards to black holes and they have been observed indirectly. I think it's a safe bet that they do exist.


Einsteins theories are our best match for observations but that does not mean they are correct. Einstein theories tell us that spinning galaxies should be ripped apart. If they fail to find dark matter then a new theory of gravity needs be formulated, like MOND. Not to mention that the universe is expanding 10% faster than theory of relativity pedicts.

FYI ... E=Mc2, relativity and time dilutation were being pushed by Jules Henri Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz in different papers before Einsteins theory of relativity. Einstein was able to present these idea's in a framework that was more easily digestible by the establishment.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: glend
You're right, our knowledge of how the universe works gets refined with time, and just like classical and Newtonian physics turned out to be only an approximation of what really happens, Einsteinian physics may also prove to be just an approximation of some more advanced and detailed model. So far, Einstein's (and related) equations are the best and most accurate fit we have.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: glend




If they fail to find dark matter then a new theory of gravity needs be formulated, like MOND.

No.
It would really mean that they couldn't figure out how to find dark matter.



Not to mention that the universe is expanding 10% faster than theory of relativity pedicts.
I wasn't aware that the theories of relativity (special or general) predict the expansion of the Universe. Can you elucidate?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




It would really mean that they couldn't figure out how to find dark matter.


Yes.



I wasn't aware that the theories of relativity (special or general) predict the expansion of the Universe. Can you elucidate?


Einstein tensor equation (spacetime metric) predicts either a decelerating expanding universe or a accelerating contracting universe, not an accelerating expanding universe. Adam Reiss latest research suggests that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec or approximately 74 km/sec faster every 3 million light years distance. If the accelerating expansion is caused by dark energy then the speed of expansion dictates that the strength of dark energy has been increasing since the big bang.

Alternatively, if string theory is correct and the creation of our universe is the result of a collision of two branes, the big bang might be in effect, a slow bang, continually pushing new energy into our void at an increasing rate.




top topics



 
4

log in

join