Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Black Hole Question

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


I believe the simple/short answer to your question is the radiation being emitted by the black hole is coming from just outside the event horizon. As particles spiral around and are accelerated to near light-speed, they are ejected with massive amounts of energy (which is why we can detect them). However, anything that crosses the event horizon will NEVER return (even light). But, keep in mind their information cannot be lost, so it is (theoretically) stored on the event horizon as sort of a hologram-like surface.

ETA: Yes. Hawking Radiation is predicted to be how black holes die a slow death if not fed by incoming matter.
edit on 14-8-2013 by Krakatoa because: Added Hawking Radiation info


Is this your personal theory, or do you have sources explaining this is how they're found?

thx for the quick replies guys, this has been bugging me. Too used to instant knowledge, add water & stir, then something like this comes along...



One source: New York Times, Science Times, Tuesday, August 13, 2013 --- Einstein and the Black Hole --- Which is wrong, general relativity or Quantum theory? A paradox tests the limits of physics.

"And space time is smooth...

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, particles pass smoothly over the threshold of a black hole. If the particle were a person, he or she would experience 'no drama' at the border.

In order for space-time to be smooth, each particle that leaves a black hole must be linked to another particle inside the black hole.

There is a Paradox!

Particles can have only one link. When forced to chose between the two laws, physicists have generally sided with the idea that information is never lost.

If a exiting particle must be linked to a partner outside the black hole, it will have to break the link with its partner inside. The energy released in these breaks would create a 'firewall' --- a ring of fire around the black hole that violates the theory of 'no drama.' "
edit on 19-8-2013 by Erno86 because: spelling




posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Okay well here's an admission for you. I DON'T KNOW #! I'm speculating and entertaining different ideas so who has an ego here? I don't have a dogmatic view of anything, my eyes are open to the many possibilities out there, too bad you can't say the same! If there wasn't an already dogmatic view from the people in this thread you would know exactly what I was talking about as you wouldn't limit your view to one dogmatic view of what you believe! I can discuss science, I can discuss creation because I've looked into all possibilities not just one! So all you are really doing is projecting your self view of your own ego on me!



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86

Originally posted by schadenfreude

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


I believe the simple/short answer to your question is the radiation being emitted by the black hole is coming from just outside the event horizon. As particles spiral around and are accelerated to near light-speed, they are ejected with massive amounts of energy (which is why we can detect them). However, anything that crosses the event horizon will NEVER return (even light). But, keep in mind their information cannot be lost, so it is (theoretically) stored on the event horizon as sort of a hologram-like surface.

ETA: Yes. Hawking Radiation is predicted to be how black holes die a slow death if not fed by incoming matter.
edit on 14-8-2013 by Krakatoa because: Added Hawking Radiation info


Is this your personal theory, or do you have sources explaining this is how they're found?

thx for the quick replies guys, this has been bugging me. Too used to instant knowledge, add water & stir, then something like this comes along...



One source: New York Times, Science Times, Tuesday, August 13, 2013 --- Einstein and the Black Hole --- Which is wrong, general relativity or Quantum theory? A paradox tests the limits of physics.

"And space time is smooth...

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, particles pass smoothly over the threshold of a black hole. If the particle were a person, he or she would experience 'no drama' at the border.

In order for space-time to be smooth, each particle that leaves a black hole must be linked to another particle inside the black hole.

There is a Paradox!

Particles can have only one link. When forced to chose between the two laws, physicists have generally sided with the idea that information is never lost.

If a exiting particle must be linked to a partner outside the black hole, it will have to break the link with its partner inside. The energy released in these breaks would create a 'firewall' --- a ring of fire around the black hole that violates the theory of 'no drama.' "
edit on 19-8-2013 by Erno86 because: spelling


This is the problem Stephen Hawkings tackled and came up with the theory of Hawkings radiation. Ill do my best here to explain In black hole physics the even horizon is an absolute barrier. However, quantum mechanics brings with it quantum uncertainty, and quantum vacuum fluctuations where particle-antiparticle pairs are always being created, then destroying one another, virtually, in the vacuum.so as a particle is sucked in A particle-antiparticle pair is created for a brief instance just outside the black hole event horizon. Before the pair can destroy one another as usual, the antiparticle or particle is sucked behind the event horizon, while the particle or antiparticle is ejected in the opposite direction. So pairing doesnt need to occur its created.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Okay well here's an admission for you. I DON'T KNOW #! I'm speculating and entertaining different ideas so who has an ego here? I don't have a dogmatic view of anything, my eyes are open to the many possibilities out there, too bad you can't say the same! If there wasn't an already dogmatic view from the people in this thread you would know exactly what I was talking about as you wouldn't limit your view to one dogmatic view of what you believe! I can discuss science, I can discuss creation because I've looked into all possibilities not just one! So all you are really doing is projecting your self view of your own ego on me!



Nothing wrong with speculation just pose it as a question instead of a statement of fact. As humans we do not learn without first formulating questions thats the basis of science really.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Nothing wrong with speculation just pose it as a question instead of a statement of fact. As humans we do not learn without first formulating questions thats the basis of science really.
Richard Feynman discusses the topic of speculation in this excerpt from one of his lectures, and he points out what was often wrong with the speculation he got:

Feynman on Scientific Method.

He mentions that of course science doesn't have all the answers and he is trying to figure out the answer. He uses the analogy of a safe combination, and gets a suggestion along the lines of "have you tried 10-20-30 as the combination?"

He says this speculation is particularly useless if he already has evidence that only a 5 number combination can work, so speculating about a 3 number combination isn't even in the right ballpark.

So Feynman's point was that yes, there is something wrong with speculation if a person doesn't know the topic well enough to make a useful speculation which considers the experimental evidence already collected.

So to be more accurate, let's say that the basis of science is to make yourself aware of the experimental evidence collected to date first, THEN speculate in a manner which is consistent with that evidence. There is a lot of speculation by people who don't know their speculation is contradicted by experiments already performed (something I may be guilty of from time to time as well, but I always appreciate it if people deny my ignorance and point this out).



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


See nothing wrong with a question even if its speculation as long as someone is there to explain why its contradictory to science. Very similar to what i did when he mentioned white dwarfs as the opisit of black holes i explained why thats not the case. The problem is when people try to make a statement of fact then i agree with you there is no point in trying to prove a point we know contradicts available data. However as humans asking questions is how we learn just ask my old physics professor he probably dreaded me when i said professor i have a question for you. Because it usually entailed some long explanation which led to other questions but he helped me grasp the concepts.The best way to teach someone is to let them learn in there own way.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Nothing wrong with speculation just pose it as a question instead of a statement of fact. As humans we do not learn without first formulating questions thats the basis of science really.



Originally posted by 1nf1del
Nobody ever considers the duality side of this, good/bad light/dark +/-, think black hole white dwarf like an electrical circuit, positive out one negative in the other, look at a picture of a Yin and Yang, what does it look like?



Originally posted by 1nf1del
I know what main stream science says about them. Light and particles come out of a white dwarf no? And a black hole sucks all that stuff to it's surface no? Everything having an opposite is what I'm saying really that far off? If we did indeed live in an electric universe would it not make perfect sense looking at an electric circuit? Energy comes in one side and out the other!



Originally posted by 1nf1del

I understand the laws of physics and I understand the governing system in place, pouring out energy? Understanding electricity and how a PCB is put together you know that there is also a governing system in the form of resistors, so why wouldn't they be built into the laws? You don't have to talk down like I'm some kind of idiot, K thanks!


I'm pretty sure a question mark still denotes a question and and an exclamation mark denotes a statement!



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nf1del
 


Originally posted by dragonridr
Nothing wrong with speculation just pose it as a question instead of a statement of fact. As humans we do not learn without first formulating questions thats the basis of science really.

Quite right.


Originally posted by 1nf1del
Nobody ever considers the duality side of this, good/bad light/dark +/-, think black hole white dwarf like an electrical circuit, positive out one negative in the other, look at a picture of a Yin and Yang, what does it look like?

The question here appears to be 'what does a picture of a yin and yang look like?' Hardly pertinent.


Originally posted by 1nf1del
Light and particles come out of a white dwarf no? And a black hole sucks all that stuff to it's surface no? Everything having an opposite is what I'm saying really that far off? If we did indeed live in an electric universe would it not make perfect sense looking at an electric circuit?

Answers, in sequence: yes; yes; yes, it's really far off; no.


Originally posted by 1nf1del
I understand the laws of physics and I understand the governing system in place, pouring out energy?

This is not a question, whether you stick a question mark at the end of it or not.


Understanding electricity and how a PCB is put together you know that there is also a governing system in the form of resistors, so why wouldn't they be built into the laws?

This is incomprehensible, but if it is a question, it appears to be a rhetorical one.

What does all this add up to? It adds up to the fact that you assumed, without giving either a logical argument or evidence for it,
  1. that the 'duality principle' is genuine and scientifically valid

  2. that white dwarves are the opposite of black holes

  3. that we live in an electric universe

  4. that an electric circuit is somehow an analogy for the process you assume occurs between black holes and white dwarves

When you begin with such nonsensical assumptions, how can you hope to ask sensible questions?

If you have any on-topic questions or speculations, perhaps you should post them now. If you don't, I suggest you go and look for an electric-universe thread. There are plenty for you to enjoy on ATS.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nf1del
 


You didnt ask questions you made statement then followed it up with a question to try to confirm your point.I suggest you re read what you posted. The universe doesnt all ways have an opposite and you misunderstand Yin and yang for example. The Chinese dont say there is an opposite for everything Yin and Yang is about maintaining a balance between dark and light or good and evil. It however doesnt aply to the universe if it did we wouldnt be here at all if the universe was perfectly balanced having an opposite for everything nothing would exist lucky for us doesnt work that way.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
In reply to the reply to me (if that makes sense)

Much of it has already been discussed, Speculation and ideas are all great! but as stated, useful speculation and theory has to fit into experimentally observed data. You might say "oh the scientists don't understand the data" but that isn't a get out of jail free card since in order for that statement to be correct or relevant you must mount a logical argument why they don't understand it, and it must be a sound proof.

Too many 'Free thinkers' and 'Open minded people' are of the opinion that it is fine to research less than a % of a subject and then make grand statements to why 'mainstream science is wrong and all you scientists are dogmatic blind believers' When the reality is that us scientists have looked at and poured over masses and masses of data and tried to assimilate it into a theory that works.

At university do you think they just say "OK copy the blackboard and this is the proof of why we need dark matter." ? If you do, you are incredibly wrong. In my own experience we did extractions of rotational velocities from spectra, formed that into second order representations of the galaxies rotation, figured out tonnes of calibration factors and after a 5 step process extracted rotation curves. At no point was any of us simply told this is how it is this is what you do and this is the correct answer. Everyone took the same data and did their own analysis and came out with approximately the same results.

Never in my university courses did the professors lecture in a style of "This is how you think, this is how you understand" It was always a case of the following

- Ask a question, or pose a problem that we observe.
- Run a number of popular theories against the problem
- Figure out which theory fits a solution the best
- identify any issues still outstanding with the theory.

Most people who make outlandish claims of how bad university is and its training of 'how to think' have little or no basis on which to make these statements.

On the question at hand regarding electric universe and the blackhole - white hole thing. I was attempting to give you an idea of how these objects are understood in terms of science that you can find in a textbook or find with minimal poking around online. A white dwarf and neutron star are physically understood in a very simplistic way, and my point really was that... hey, this is what the material is like, the models fit the observables and give highly compact objects of about the mass that we observe. Nothing more. However as for them being positive and negative charge, that is something that is highly speculative and most likely absolutely impossible to move between... because yes you can in extreme circumstances move from a white dwarf to a neutron star to a black hole.

For all the open mindedness you exhibit, it just appears to it is wasted on ignoring scientific evidence that is staring you right in the face, and wandering down a dark alleyway off to the side
edit on 20-8-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-8-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
everyone forgets the crusial factor here,, and that is "TIME",
remember,, your rusting car is actually, combusting too nothing ness,, as mr hawkings says,, but they ,him as well forget about,, time
,,
and for that ingredient,, i give u (well not me personally),, the HIGGS.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Text Some excerpts from the same NYT, Science Times article - "Being incinerated as you entered a black hole would certainly contradict Einstein's dictum of no drama. If this were true, you would in fact die long before the bungee jumping ride ever got anywhere close to the bottom. The existence of a firewall would mean that the horizon, which according to general relativity is just empty space, is a special place, pulling the rug out from Einstein's principle, his theory of gravity, and modern cosmology, which is based on general relativity.

This presented the scientists with what Dr. Bousso calls the 'menu from hell.' If the firewall argument was right, one of the three ideas that lie at the heart and soul of modern physics, had to be wrong. Either information can be lost after all; Einstein's principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory, which describes how elementary particles and forces interact, is wrong and needs fixing. Abandoning any one of these would be revolutionary or appalling or both.
On the other hand, as Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study, who has so far watched the firewall debate from a distance, said, 'Quantum field theory is how the world works.' It had a major triumph just a year ago, when the Higgs boson, a subatomic particle responsible for the mass of other subatomic particle was discovered after a 40 year search, at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Please link the article im kinda lost on what you inserted first the Higgs Boson was predicted by the standard model thats why we went looking for it. Secondly Einstein was referring to space time particle physics was still unknown at the time. Einstein was referencing the curvature of space time and hes right it wouldnt be some sudden point you could put your finger on its a gravity well. As far as what happens at the event horizon no major discrepancies i think were close to the answer.And as far as this wall of fire you would pass through it before you realized it Where talking only a couple of particles distance from the event horizon.Now if were talking about the accretion disk you would die long before reaching the even horizon do to the temperatures involved.Now the point where science breaks down is at the singularity the math becomes implausible.So back to what i was saying please post the link id be interested in bringing this up in my class.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Erno86
 


Please link the article
It's a NY Times article, so what does a NY Times writer know about science?

A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox


calculations showed that having information flowing out of a black hole was incompatible with having an otherwise smooth Einsteinian space-time at its boundary, the event horizon. In its place would be a discontinuity in the vacuum that would manifest itself as energetic particles — a “firewall” — lurking just inside the black hole. ...If the firewall argument was right, one of three ideas that lie at the heart and soul of modern physics, had to be wrong. Either information can be lost after all;
I can't say it would bother me at all if information can be lost after all, in which case there wouldn't have to be a firewall...or else our black hole physics is just incomplete and the singularity suggests it might be incomplete.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


can't say about tachyons
but there are other energies being emitted from black holes

see an old link i have archived:

Naselsky said:

'We have observed a very unique emission of radio radiation from the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.



'By using different methods to separate the signal for very broad range of wavelengths, we have been able to determine the spectrum of the radiation.

'The radiation originates from synchrotron emission - electrons and positrons circulating at high energies around the lines of the Magnetic Field in the centre of the galaxy, and there are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ientists-believe-proof-cosmic-enigma-solved-70-year-hunt.html




 


the radiation or particles do not come from the black hole interior--
---as the BH is the Biblical or Proverbial "ABYSS" ---
the radiation or energiesor any particles are generated around the outer 'shell' or event-horizon of the BH
and thrown outward... at least thats my laymans explaination to your Question
edit on 22-8-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Erno86
 


Please link the article
It's a NY Times article, so what does a NY Times writer know about science?

A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox


calculations showed that having information flowing out of a black hole was incompatible with having an otherwise smooth Einsteinian space-time at its boundary, the event horizon. In its place would be a discontinuity in the vacuum that would manifest itself as energetic particles — a “firewall” — lurking just inside the black hole. ...If the firewall argument was right, one of three ideas that lie at the heart and soul of modern physics, had to be wrong. Either information can be lost after all;
I can't say it would bother me at all if information can be lost after all, in which case there wouldn't have to be a firewall...or else our black hole physics is just incomplete and the singularity suggests it might be incomplete.



Ok the reason i wanted to see the article is this the science writer is wrong and i wanted to check his credentials let me explain. One fact has not changed once something crosses the event horizon there is no return. People think hawkings radiation is somehow escaping the black hole it isnt. Its created through something called the casimir effect.i wont go into full details as its pretty tedious stuff for me to explain but ill simplify. In a vacuum particles appear in pairs and then annihilate one another. Just at the edge of a black hole one can be sucked in making it so they cant. Now the particle that was sucked in must have negative energy i know tough concept to grasp. So to an outside observer it would look like the black hole released a particle however it didnt what it did was replace the negative energy with mass. Falls back to E=mc2 as most things in physics does.But mind you we are talking in minuscule amounts and would be almost impossible to detect unless you found a black hole with no matter being sucked in making it hard to find in the first place. Because we dont see the black hole we see the dust and gasses falling in to it.

Now no information is lost in a black hole information is stored in the singularity and given enough time would indeed be released back in to the universe. So all around this story was just way off. On reading the article it became clear slow news day he logged into some science blogs people were arguing ideas he wrote the story. And thereare ways information can escape a black hole without a firewall quantum tunneling for example. So thats why i wanted to see who was blowing things out of proportion.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join