Sonoluminescense: Sound-induced Stars form in Water

originally posted by: cooperton
With that being said, there is already a phenomenon in relativity theory called Hawking Radiation in which light is emitted from a black hole system. Hawking Radiation was also theorized by Dr. Eberlein in her paper: "Theory of quantum radiation observed as sonoluminescence". She insists that the vacuum effect created by the collapsing bubble in the sonoluminescence effect is similar to what we would expect with the scattering of light by black holes which is what is referred to as Hawking Radiation.

That's an atrocious misrepresentation of Eberlein's paper. I searched the entire paper for "Hawking" as in Hawking radiation, and also searched for black hole, and those terms don't appear at all. It makes no reference to Hawking radiation, or black holes, that I found, or anything to do with stars at all.

The paper is trying to explain the light that's seen in sonoluminescence experiments, emanating from the millionth of a meter sized bubbles, it has nothing to do with stars, black holes or Hawking radiation that I can see, but feel free to cite specific passages from the paper if you think I missed them.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's an atrocious misrepresentation of Eberlein's paper. I searched the entire paper for "Hawking" as in Hawking radiation, and also searched for black hole, and those terms don't appear at all. It makes no reference to Hawking radiation, or black holes, that I found, or anything to do with stars at all.

Hawking radiation is a type of blackbody radiation (also known as thermal radiation). This is from her paper:

"It is shown analytically that the spectral density (of sonoluminescence) has the same frequency dependence as blackbody radiation"

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's an atrocious misrepresentation of Eberlein's paper. I searched the entire paper for "Hawking" as in Hawking radiation, and also searched for black hole, and those terms don't appear at all. It makes no reference to Hawking radiation, or black holes, that I found, or anything to do with stars at all.

Hawking radiation is a type of blackbody radiation (also known as thermal radiation). This is from her paper:

"It is shown analytically that the spectral density (of sonoluminescence) has the same frequency dependence as blackbody radiation"

Blackbody radiation occurs from many things as I already explained, like incandescent light bulbs and hot steel from a steel mill, but in no way does the blackbody radiation from an incandescent light bulb imply it's a form of Hawking radiation.

One obvious problem with this idea is the temperature versus mass relationship for Hawking radiation is inverted from the temperature versus mass relationship for stars. Our sun doesn't have a binary partner, but many stars do, and we can calculate the masses of binary star systems from their orbital sizes and periods using simple physics (Newton's version of Kepler's law). Now look at the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram which shows the main sequence of stars, in the middle line-up of stars. To the lower right you can see low temperature stars with masses like 0.1 solar masses, and in the upper left you can see higher temperature stars with higher masses, say 30 or 60 times the mass of our sun:

www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100_old/Astro100Mar25.pdf


So with stars on the main sequence, generally speaking, higher temperature stars have higher masses.

Hawking radiation works the opposite way, where higher temperatures result from lower masses, so it's a really ignorant idea to suggest hawking radiation is related to starlight when it directly contradicts observation that more massive stars tend to have higher temperatures.

the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to the mass

So when your hypothesis directly contradicts observation, it's already been falsified, and we have plenty of observations of star masses and temperatures to show the relationship is not that of Hawking radiation, but more or less the opposite of that.

Eberlein's paper is not implying Hawking radiation when it mentions blackbody radiation. For one thing, we measure blackbody radiation all the time, but Hawking radiation has never been measured, so far.

Pretty amazing.

Makes me wonder if there is a similar thing happening with ball lightning.

I captured it once about 15 years ago on camera and posted the pics here way back. The forum has crashed a couple times since then and I don't have the pics anymore.

Looked very similar and was on a humid night.

Makes me wonder if the same thing could be reproduced in a humid atmosphere with the right lightning bolt.

Great thread!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So with stars on the main sequence, generally speaking, higher temperature stars have higher masses.

Hawking radiation works the opposite way, where higher temperatures result from lower masses, so it's a really ignorant idea to suggest hawking radiation is related to starlight when it directly contradicts observation that more massive stars tend to have higher temperatures.

the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to the mass

How do you think we know with certainty the mass of stars? I'm about to go out to dinner and I'll do more research on my own, but want to see your answer in the mean time. As food for thought, the stars themselves would not be harboring the mass, they would be radiative outlets from a black hole.

originally posted by: cooperton
How do you think we know with certainty the mass of stars?

As I already explained, it's simple physics for binary stars, Newton's version of Kepler's law

www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100_old/Astro100Mar25.pdf
M (starA) +M (starB) =a^3/P²

Where a is the size of the orbit, and P is the period.

I'm about to go out to dinner and I'll do more research on my own, but want to see your answer in the mean time. As food for thought, the stars themselves would not be harboring the mass, they would be radiative outlets from a black hole.

You would have to explain that with math and diagrams. Where would the black hole mass be then, if not inside the star? How far away from the star is the black hole? What connects them, where is the mathematical model for that? How does this work in binary star systems where if there was other mass not in the stars the orbits would be distorted by the external mass? There's nothing like that in Eberlein's paper.

We sometimes see radiation coming from the region around a black hole, but it's quite different than starlight, since it often has higher energies than starlight, such as X-rays, and most stars don't emit much in the way of X-rays because they aren't hot enough.

The supermassive black hole at the center of our own milky way galaxy usually doesn't have much falling into it, so we can't really see it unless something falls in and there's an outburst, but it has had outbursts in X-Rays. For blackbody radiation to peak in X-rays requires a temperature over a million degrees. But for Hawking radiation to reach a million degrees temperature, the black hole mass must be quite small, only about ten times the mass of the larger of the two small moons of Mars.

We've observed stars orbiting that black hole, and instead of having a mass a tiny fraction of the sun's mass as X-rays from Hawking radiation source would suggest, the stellar orbits around the black hole put the estimated mass at just over 4 million times the sun's mass. The X-ray flares are consistent with that mass also, but not consistent with a Hawking radiation mass, so nothing matches observations with that hypothesis about Hawking radiation.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As I already explained, it's simple physics for binary stars, Newton's version of Kepler's law

www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100_old/Astro100Mar25.pdf
M (starA) +M (starB) =a^3/P²

Where a is the size of the orbit, and P is the period.

The units for that equation don't even match up. mass does not equal meters^3 / seconds^2

Not to mention there's no empirical proof that this equation is relevant. Especially given the fact that dark matter has yet to be discovered and therefore a large fundamental change is required for our current understanding of physics.

We sometimes see radiation coming from the region around a black hole, but it's quite different than starlight, since it often has higher energies than starlight, such as X-rays, and most stars don't emit much in the way of X-rays because they aren't hot enough.

The supermassive black hole at the center of our own milky way galaxy usually doesn't have much falling into it, so we can't really see it unless something falls in and there's an outburst, but it has had outbursts in X-Rays. For blackbody radiation to peak in X-rays requires a temperature over a million degrees. But for Hawking radiation to reach a million degrees temperature, the black hole mass must be quite small, only about ten times the mass of the larger of the two small moons of Mars.

We've observed stars orbiting that black hole, and instead of having a mass a tiny fraction of the sun's mass as X-rays from Hawking radiation source would suggest, the stellar orbits around the black hole put the estimated mass at just over 4 million times the sun's mass. The X-ray flares are consistent with that mass also, but not consistent with a Hawking radiation mass, so nothing matches observations with that hypothesis about Hawking radiation.

I would theorize that the starlight is connected through wormholes to the black hole. This would solve the information loss paradox because black holes would have some sort of outlet to deliver their incoming matter and energy. Schwarzschild's solution to Einstein's Field equations showed that wormholes would consist of a black hole coupled to an outlet for the energy to be put. This could theoretically also replace the theorized "dark matter" as the candidate for what holds the universe together. Instead of dark matter, it is actually connections between the in and out spacetime holes throughout our universe. This could also explain the consistent relative distances and orbits of all astral bodies.

originally posted by: cooperton
The units for that equation don't even match up. mass does not equal meters^3 / seconds^2

It's a simplified version of the equation which requires specific units to be used:
-The masses must be measured in solar masses, where one solar mass is 1.99 X 10^33 grams, or 1.99 X 10^30 kilograms.
-The semi-major axis must be measured in Astronomical Units, where 1 AU is 149,600,000 kilometers, or 93,000,000 miles.
-The orbital period must be measured in years, where 1 year is 365.25 days.

Here is the full version of the equation, where you don't have to convert inputs to those units:
Newton's version of Kepler's Law

Not to mention there's no empirical proof that this equation is relevant. Especially given the fact that dark matter has yet to be discovered and therefore a large fundamental change is required for our current understanding of physics.

No need to invoke dark matter on solar system scales, where binary stars orbit each other, gravity works fine on solar system scales without dark matter. That's because the amount of dark matter in a solar system is not significant relative to the objects involved.

Dark matter is invoked on the scale of galaxies, doesn't really have a significant effect on solar system scales. You can assume zero dark matter in our solar system and calculations come out fine without it, for example. There is a tiny bit theoretically, but not enough to significantly affect mass measurements. Distances between stars are vast and most of the hypothesized dark matter of a galaxy is thought to be outside of the galaxy's disc as illustrated here:

I would theorize that the starlight is connected through wormholes to the black hole. This would solve the information loss paradox because black holes would have some sort of outlet to deliver their incoming matter and energy. Schwarzschild's solution to Einstein's Field equations showed that wormholes would consist of a black hole coupled to an outlet for the energy to be put. This could theoretically also balance out the theorized "dark matter" which is supposedly holding the universe together. Instead of dark matter, it is actually connections between the in and out spacetime holes throughout our universe. This could also explain the consistent relative distances and orbits of all astral bodies.

It doesn't sound like you have any kind of testable model.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Here is the full version of the equation, where you don't have to convert inputs to those units:
Newton's version of Kepler's Law

Dark matter is invoked on the scale of galaxies, doesn't really have a significant effect on solar system scales. You can assume zero dark matter in our solar system and calculations come out fine without it, for example. There is a tiny bit theoretically, but not enough to significantly affect mass measurements. Distances between stars are vast and most of the hypothesized dark matter of a galaxy is thought to be outside of the galaxy's disc as illustrated here:

Oh ok I see. The quom I have with using the gravitational equation to determine the mass of the sun is that it is circular logic. We observe 9.8 m/s2 on earth, have a good estimate of earth's mass due to densities and volume being known, and then we plug in that value for the sun's mass and assume it is correct. I wouldn't be so critical if it didn't work for the entirety of the cosmos (which is obviously a hard feat, but still we should continually be growing to more universal theories).

G was measured by Cavendish's experiment and then assumed to be applicable to solar bodies, but there must be different forces at play, otherwise all planets would be slowly collapsing towards the sun, which is apparently not the case. For this reason I think that there must be some sort of spacetime tether, and it would perhaps be the same tether that holds the electron from returning to its beloved positively charged nucleus.

It doesn't sound like you have any kind of testable model.

Sonoluminescence is a good start. It looks like a star, behaves like a star, as hot as a star, and is theorized to have the same physical reasoning for existence as a star. We should start fully applying relativity theory to our cosmos, rather than sticking with old Newtonian ideas (which mostly work, but need updated)

originally posted by: cooperton
Oh ok I see. The quom I have with using the gravitational equation to determine the mass of the sun is that it is circular logic. We observe 9.8 m/s2 on earth, have a good estimate of earth's mass due to densities and volume being known, and then we plug in that value for the sun's mass and assume it is correct.

You really need to take some astronomy courses to learn how astronomy is really done. We don't need to know the mass of the earth to calculate the mass of the sun, see the NASA link below.

I wouldn't be so critical if it didn't work for the entirety of the cosmos (which is obviously a hard feat, but still we should continually be growing to more universal theories).

We know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. We don't understand dark matter, but to imply that means local gravity calculations within solar systems don't work is just ignorance of well-validated models and measurements showing no dark matter is needed to explain solar system level observations.

G was measured by Cavendish's experiment and then assumed to be applicable to solar bodies, but there must be different forces at play, otherwise all planets would be slowly collapsing towards the sun, which is apparently not the case.

Again you need to take some courses because your basic understanding of scientific models is completely lacking. Two of the basic principles of physics are conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. So there's no reason a planet's orbit needs to decay, its momentum is conserved. If the inertia (resulting in fictitious "centrifugal force") approximately balances the centripetal force (gravitational attraction to the sun) which is the case with Earth's orbit, the orbit can be stable for a long time. This is one of the things that scientists understand well, even if you seem to be rather clueless. That basis for calculating the sun's mass is explained here:

Solving for the Mass of the Sun
In fact we also understand why the Earth is moving slightly away from the sun by an amount that's almost too small to measure each year, which has to do with tidal interactions transferring some energy from the sun to the angular momentum of the Earth's orbit, causing the Earth to speed up slightly, thus slowly spiraling away from the sun, not toward it. The moon is spiraling slowly away from the Earth for a similar reason, so orbits are expanding, not decaying, and we understand why.

Sonoluminescence is a good start. It looks like a star, behaves like a star, as hot as a star, and is theorized to have the same physical reasoning for existence as a star. We should start fully applying relativity theory to our cosmos, rather than sticking with old Newtonian ideas (which mostly work, but need updated)

As hot as a star is almost true, but there are some problems with even that part of your claims, namely that the high temperatures occur only briefly during the collapse of the bubble, so the sonoluminescence temperatures fluctuate a lot, and are not consistent as they are with relatively stable stars like our sun:

Sonoluminescence

In single-bubble sonoluminescence, a single bubble trapped in an acoustic standing wave emits a pulse of light with each compression of the bubble within the standing wave.

So the sonoluminescent temperatures are fleeting, and even with a cyclical bubble trapped in an acoustic standing wave, there are pulses of light, which is not what we see from stars like our sun.

Your other claims about similarities between sonoluminescence and stars are false, it doesn't behave like stars at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're still using classical physics. They make the assumption the F Gravity = F Centripetal, but that assumes it is going according to classical dynamics without any other forces acting on it.

Especially since this doesn't work for the rest of the universe, it's mostly an effort in futility to continue to view the universe in the classical manner. The more that relativity theory is integrated, the more comprehensive our perspective will become.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
it doesn't behave like stars at all.

It has the same detected temperature, appearance, and spectrum as starlight.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're still using classical physics. They make the assumption the F Gravity = F Centripetal, but that assumes it is going according to classical dynamics without any other forces acting on it.

If you use relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics for that problem, the answer is essentially the same, until you go out to many decimal places where it's difficult to measure the difference.

Einstein was well aware that his relativity calculations needed to become equivalent to classical mechanics calculations in the limited case of small velocities (relative to the speed of light) and large distances, and they do just that. So using classical mechanics is not an issue for calculating the sun's mass to a reasonably accurate figure, no matter how many times you falsely claim it is.

The Newtonian Limit

Steven Weinberg (1972, Ch.7) talks about the Newtonian limit of Einstein’s field equations too, and in (1989, pp. 14–15) he repeats that “Einstein’s theory of general relativity ... reduces to Newton’s theory at large distances and small velocities.”

The only significant discrepancy in our solar system according to classical mechanics is the precession of Mercury, partly because its distance from the sun is not that large, but the rest of the solar system obeys the laws of classical mechanics approximations rather well.

originally posted by: cooperton
It has the same detected temperature, appearance, and spectrum as starlight.

Show me where the sun's appearance is a pulsed light and varying temperature, like we see in sonoluminescence experiments.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Einstein was well aware that his relativity calculations needed to become equivalent to classical mechanics calculations in the limited case of small velocities (relative to the speed of light) and large distances, and they do just that. So using classical mechanics is not an issue for calculating the sun's mass to a reasonably accurate figure, no matter how many times you falsely claim it is.

You have to admit the limitation though. Using a derivation of the same equation to try to prove the same equation is circular logic. If the GMm/R2 equation is not the sole responsible force for the attraction of the earth to the sun, then the entire calculation would be off as we see for larger systems like galaxies which is why they have to compromise with the notion of dark matter. Dark matter has never been detected. This means there are other forces involved beyond sheer mass to hold orbits in place.

So if the old equations don't work for long distances, then we cannot accept extrapolations of GMm/R2 for anything outside our solar system because it doesn't fit the model. Stars are outside of our solar system, and therefore there more forces at play that need to be discovered, or maybe even an entire restructure of the incomplete model.

Show me where the sun's appearance is a pulsed light and varying temperature, like we see in sonoluminescence experiments.

Based off the ideas above, the starlight would be of a different nature than our sun. There's no concrete proof that they are distant suns, and the only equation we have to explain their motion doesn't work beyond our solar system. This means our idea of what stars are is due for some sort of correction.