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.
unb3k44n7
Aleister
I have no idea what it means
Thank you for your important, personal contribution on a topic that you know nothing about.
C1assified
reply to post by boncho
Blowing up Universes, Not planets.. Then thinking Every thing is connected.. And I Mean AND I Have Had a few beers,
Aleister
reply to post by boncho
How it's worded it says it's a record for CERN, not a world record.
bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Aleister
The prediction was, if I remember right, that a black hole would have an evaporation period of 10^-22 seconds and the travel period to the outside of the magnetic bubble would be 10^-17 seconds providing in quantum terms, ample time for the black hole to "evaporate."
But here's the problem.... Blacks holes don't evaporate apparently according to Stephen Hawking's retraction/revision of his theory of black hole evaporation through split particle (positron/electron - antimatter/matter) annihilation within the black hole event horizon.
Apparently the original theory went sort of... due to particle acceleration at the event horizon, particles would split into their matter/anti-matter pairs. The anti-matter particle would fall into the black hole and the matter particle would radiate outside the event horizon. The anti-matter particle would annihilate a particle in the black hole, thereby reducing its mass, ergo "evaporation." But, what happens to the energy from the particle annihilation? Considering the tidal forces and unknown physics within a black hole it is very possible that the energy released will recombine into matter, thereby effectively increasing the mass of the black hole.
So... things that make you go hmmm, before someone says oops.
Cheers - Daveedit on 11/18.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
True. This video makes a direct comparison of the energy levels of cosmic rays versus the LHC and claims the cosmic ray energy level mystery has been solved, but I'm skeptical and then they even admit at the end it hasn't been completely solved yet:
ErosA433
3) Cosmic ray primaries hit the upper atmosphere at insanely high energies compared to the LHC, the earth is not showered with 511keV gammas nor is it getting destroyed by blackholes at a rate of about 1 per second.
True, but then where will we get our doom porn?
So logically this whole black hole thing should just be put to rest
The Hawking Radiation theory does not involve faster than light velocities of anything, not even apparently, because the radiation doesn't come from the black hole itself.
bobs_uruncle
I suppose anything has a probability ratio until it does not, but any actual ejecta from a black hole would have to exceed the speed of light by a substantial margin, at least from our vantage point within classical (virtual) reality.
Since the particle that escapes is outside the event horizon, there is no requirement for it to travel faster than light to escape, but what actually ends up escaping are photons with a frequency distribution something like blackbody radiation, and the photons of course travel at the speed of light and have no trouble escaping the black hole's gravity if they are emitted outside the event horizon traveling away from the black hole.
This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
unb3k44n7
Aleister
I have no idea what it means
Thank you for your important, personal contribution on a topic that you know nothing about.
Arbitrageur
The Hawking Radiation theory does not involve faster than light velocities of anything, not even apparently, because the radiation doesn't come from the black hole itself.
bobs_uruncle
I suppose anything has a probability ratio until it does not, but any actual ejecta from a black hole would have to exceed the speed of light by a substantial margin, at least from our vantage point within classical (virtual) reality.
Hawking radiation
This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.
Since the particle that escapes is outside the event horizon, there is no requirement for it to travel faster than light to escape, but what actually ends up escaping are photons with a frequency distribution something like blackbody radiation, and the photons of course travel at the speed of light and have no trouble escaping the black hole's gravity if they are emitted outside the event horizon traveling away from the black hole.
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.