Could scientist actually create a blackhole on earth?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's all part of Hawking's paradox of evaporating black holes. If you violate the laws of conservation, the theory fails and as I said, to insist otherwise means that all events, no matter how apparently improbable have a 100% probability of succeeding. In which case my example of killing your grandfathers and grandmothers before your parents were born while you stay alive in your original timeline (ignoring the adjusted temporal bifurcations) is 100% probable, because I can use the multiverse as a crutch just like Hawking. So, if there is a 100% probability that I can appear in your living room physically in front of you materializing out of thin air right this minute, I should be there right now LOL.

Einstein made a similar boo boo with his expression of his GUT. Anyone can make a mistake.

ETA: One other tiny little supposed hypothesis about paired particle production; Firstly, it is imporbable that the paired particles created with mass could be travelling at the speed of light, they would by virtue of standard physics model have to be massless, eg. photons to achieve a probabalistic escape velocity. In which case, massless particles whether normal photons or anti-photons whould not contribute to a mass increase or decrease of a black hole. Since these particles would be created at the event horizon, would be travelling at some fraction of the speed of light and the normal mass particles would be attracted to the black hole, it is probable that in vacuum space the black hole would still continue to grow. Finally, to maintain conservation principles, the mass and/or energy consumed by a black hole must be translated into something else, which appears to be gravity.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/2.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: I forgot an apostrophe, anyone can make a mistake, see LOL
edit on 4/2.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: the ETA
edit on 4/2.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's all part of Hawking's paradox of evaporating black holes.
Yes, but you seem confused about Hawking's retraction. He didn't retract black hole evaporation. He retracted his idea that information was lost when that happened, and figured out a way for black holes to evaporate without losing information:

Black hole information paradox

In July 2004, Stephen Hawking published a paper presenting a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox.[6]
Originally he said information was lost when the black hole evaporates. Now he's saying that information is not lost when the black hole evaporates .

You seem to think he's now claiming that black holes don't evaporate, which is a misunderstanding on your part (net evaporation only happens if the black hole is below a critical mass determined by the current CMB temperature, by the way).


ETA: One other tiny little supposed hypothesis about paired particle production; Firstly, it is imporbable that the paired particles created with mass could be travelling at the speed of light, they would by virtue of standard physics model have to be massless, eg. photons to achieve a probabalistic escape velocity. In which case, massless particles whether normal photons or anti-photons would not contribute to a mass increase or decrease of a black hole. Since these particles would be created at the event horizon, would be travelling at some fraction of the speed of light and the normal mass particles would be attracted to the black hole, it is probable that in vacuum space the black hole would still continue to grow.
You are way too worried about the distinction between mass and energy in this case, remember E=mc^2. So the black hole could lose mass by losing one of a virtual pair of massless particles if one of the particles had energy, the amount of mass lost would be determined by the conservation formula.

Further, the particles don't need to be going the speed of light, only some fraction of it. so they can have mass. The idea is one does get trapped by the black hole's gravity and the other doesn't, and that prevents the annihilation.

Further I don't think the information paradox is necessarily such a paradox, as I haven't ruled out that Penrose may be right about how the paradox can be resolved:


According to Roger Penrose, loss of unitarity in quantum systems is not a problem: quantum measurements are by themselves already non-unitary. Penrose claims that quantum systems will in fact no longer evolve unitarily as soon as gravitation comes into play, precisely as in black holes. The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology advocated by Penrose critically depends on the condition that information is in fact lost in black holes. This new cosmological model might in future be tested experimentally by detailed analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB): if true the CMB should exhibit circular patterns with slightly lower or slightly higher temperatures. In November 2010, Penrose and V. G. Gurzadyan announced they had found evidence of such circular patterns, in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) corroborated by data from the BOOMERanG experiment. The significance of the findings was subsequently debated by others.
If Penrose is right it resolves the information paradox without the need for Hawking's retraction and idea that doesn't seem to be well received by the scientific community. Penrose will need more evidence to prove his idea, but I don't even know if Hawking's idea about the information ending up in other universes is even "provable".





new topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join