NationStates Jolt Archive

Deleted.

Two basic problems in the stages given.

1. Step 2 in a Black hole. Matter does not get converted into anti matter. It just does not happen. Objects in this universe are made up of matter, or they don't last very long. Certainly not long enough to 'eventually' fall into a black hole.

2. An assumption that there is a difference between matter and energy within the event horizon boundary of a black hole.

Black holes do eventually evaporate away, according to Hawkins, from the creation of virtual particle pairs on the event horizon with one of the pair being captured and the other being emitted by the black hole as radiation. (The hole isn't so black after all.) What I don't understand about his explanation of this is why it should always be the anti-particle that falls in. Statistically it should be the anti-particle half of the time, and the particle half of the time. Creating a net zero change to the black hole.

Black holes do eventually evaporate away, according to Hawkins, from the creation of virtual particle pairs on the event horizon with one of the pair being captured and the other being emitted by the black hole as radiation. (The hole isn't so black after all.) What I don't understand about his explanation of this is why it should always be the anti-particle that falls in. Statistically it should be the anti-particle half of the time, and the particle half of the time. Creating a net zero change to the black hole.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2001/1005994696.As.r.html

OK. A slight misunderstanding. It is the energy imbalance that reduces the black hole. However the energy has to be 'repaid' from somewhere. Yes I see that. By why is this somewhere automaticaly the black hole. The energy was not taken from there to start with, it is owed due to an event that occured outside of the singularity/event horizon. Why is it not the case that the energy is just taken from anywhere at random (due to uncertaintyu it could be) within the universe. Given this, there is still no reason that I can see why black holes should evaporate away.

OK. A slight misunderstanding. It is the energy imbalance that reduces the black hole. However the energy has to be 'repaid' from somewhere. Yes I see that. By why is this somewhere automaticaly the black hole. The energy was not taken from there to start with, it is owed due to an event that occured outside of the singularity/event horizon.

As I understand it it's the gravitational field of the black hole that has to do the work of tidally seperating the virtual particle/anti-partical pair so that one of the virtual particles can escape annihilation and become an actual particle... and that's where the energy loss occurs.

As I understand it it's the gravitational field of the black hole that has to do the work of tidally seperating the virtual particle/anti-partical pair so that one of the virtual particles can escape annihilation and become an actual particle... and that's where the energy loss occurs.

I was not aware that a total energy loss occured when a particle descended a gravity well. In fact I am pretty certain it does not, or otherwise the universe would be cold by now. This may be the explanation that is given, but it does not make much sense to me.

Antimatter is generated from the collision of protons, right? And it's a theory. It isn't necessarily... automatically coming from the black hole. Perhaps due to quantum mechanics, it is pheasable for it to come from the black hole. Why should it automatically come from below the event horizon? It just seems more practical that matter annihalates with antimatter to create the radiation, instead of it coming out of nowhere. And matter also doesn't get "converted" into energy, but the atoms are broken apart by the energy, and the result is radiation.

Firstly the anti matter generated in high energy proton collisions do not come directly from the protons. The protons colide releasing a huge amount of energy, and it is from this energy that the anti-matter arises.

An object falling into a black hole does not release any energy. Nothing there to create the anti matter from.

Unless something is beyond the event horizon, it is not in the black hole. The event horizon is sily the edge of the hole. If you are going to argue that the object enters the hole, then it is automaticaly beyond the event horizon. I simply expressed one of your points in different words.

Matter does get converted into energy (E=MC^2) in matter anti-matter interactions. Radiation can no more escape the black hole than matter can. That is the whole point. The escape velocity of a black hole is greater than c. Nothing gets out, once it has gone in.

Bush made the black holes dissapear. He tried to turn them into oil.

Says who?
Says my cat jumping of the table. No energy is created by an object descending a gravity well. This is an everyday ordinary event. Unlike two relativistically massive protons travelling at a large percentage of c crashing into each other head on. That simply almost never happens in nature.



Steven Hawking himself said that, back in 1997. He made a bet with someone that nothing can escape, while the other said that things can escape. In 2004, Hawking conceded defeat, and gave the man a baseball encyclopedia (from which information escapes). Why? What did he find? That radiation CAN escape black holes. It was in the paper. That, and the matter as opposed to antimatter. And antimatter falling into the black hole wouldn't contradict this entire theory, since antimatter ends up in the black hole anyway.

The other did not claim that anything could escape from the black hole. He simply claimed that black holes were warm, in that there was radiation emitted from their surface. This Hawking admitted with the discussion of the virtual particle pair situation. (Read the link that Reformentia provided in post #3). The radiation does not escape from the black hole, it is emitted because one half of a virtual particle pair is captured by the black hole. Hence its origin is outside of the event horizon.
I don't understand what you are saying with the last bit about the theory (what theory) being contradicted by anti-matter falling into the black hole. Can you be clearer?

Hey, sorry if I may seem a bit harsh in my posts here. It's just that I am showing your arguments in this thread to the one who originally came up with that theory about why black holes dissapear, and he tends to not say things... nicely. I would make his statements seem nicer, but... I can't seem to find a way.

I don't mind direct insulting languge, I just have to be able to understand it to answer the point. If that is not possible, then I can not really do anything about it.

I guess there is a language barrier involved somewhere. I don't know what language is being used on your side of the net, but I can read Spanish or French if that helps. (Portuguese too, but that seems unlikely)

Well, we're basically using the same language. It's just that he isn't used to... not being sarcastic... among other things.

So let the sarcasm loose. I am a big boy now, it won't kill me.

Oh, I thought you noticed the sarcasm... That's why I posted that thing about how what I've been saying might've seemed harsh... I certainly noticed a few bits as being... somewhat sarcastic.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you have an awfully long way to go in learning to be sarcastic by the standards of this forum.

Can you explain the bit about anti-matter contradicting the theory, or are we done here?

two particles that appear out of nowhere (violating physics) and then quickly disappear?that doesn't violate any laws of physics. They have almost no chance to survive an amount of time greater than Planck's constant over the sum of their energies if no external force pulls them apart

"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die." - H. P. Lovecraft

The laws of physics govern that they shouldn't even appear in the first place, so it DOES violate physics, no matter how little time they actually spent in existence.The real laws of physics say that if a particle is localized within some time del_t at 99.994% confidence level, its energy can vary by
del_E = (4 * h) / (pi * del_t),
where del_E is the variation in energy, h is Planck's constant, and pi is that number you learned about in junior high math class.

So if two particles suddenly pop into existence and have a total energy of del_E, they won't violate energy conservation if they're gone before an amount of time del_t has passed.

Here's an example. Two photons pop into existence and have a total energy of 8 MeV. There's a 99.994% chance that they will pop out of existence less than 6.582 * 10^-22 seconds later. Because that amount of time is so small, you will probably miss being affected by the particles and think that energy was conserved. The law of physics I have been referring to all this time is a quantitative form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

See, the thing is, I understand that there are many different forms of sarcasm. Although you might say that there is only one true definition of sarcasm, many people in this forum may not agree. I've been in forums long enough to see that sarcasm, cynicism, and/or humor can be... misinterpreted as insulting behavior. In one case, I remember someone saying that, "'innocent German' is an oxymoron" in which case, someone responded, "I'm a German. What am I guilty of?" Though this may seem to be an on-going humorously sarcastic infinitum, I have seen other cases where simple jokes turn into flame wars. I certainly try as hard as I can to keep my topics as civil as possible... Though, most of the time, I have failed.
Fine. I was not implying that there is a single definition of sarcasm, simply that there had been nothing remotely flamelike about this thread as far as I could see.

Your cat would need to do the following to jump off a table:
Tensen muscles, causing them to pull back and straighten its legs to land on the ground. This movement requires ENERGY. Energy created when nervous impulses (tiny electrical pulse) sends a tiny burst of electricity to the legs, which causes the oxygen in the muscles to cause them to contort inward from the outside, thereby pulling it out straighter. So there is energy.
The same thing happens with any kind of matter, including protons. Saying that it almost never happens is not only very bold, but there is no evidence to say that it doesn't. There is evidence to say that it DOES happen... (particle accelerators)
My cat uses energy in jumping, yes. I do not dispute that. It does not, however cause massive amounts of energy, kiloton TNT equivalents, to come into existence due to its mass descending a gravity well. No energy is created by mass descending a gravity gradient. Energy may be converted from one form to another, but none is created as your theory requires. What happens in the muscles and nerves of my cat is simply the conversion of chemical potential energy into electrical and then kinetic energy by mitochondrial and neural activation. No mysterious generation of energy.

As to protons colliding head on at large percentages of c, this only happens in very artificial conditions or at very long odds of chance indeed. Protons in the wild, so to speak, tend not to have multi MeV energies. Those that do have tend to be going away from each other as these energies are picked up from very rare explosive events (supernovae are the only non artificial causes that come directly to mind.) Even if they were not, what are the chances of them colliding without being within a deliberately constructed magnetic guide? The universe is 99.999% empty. The chance of any two particles colliding head on is remote. I worked, for a while as a student in the search for the neutrino in the late 70s early 80s (a boring button sorting job). This showed me that looking at recorded events, roughly one every 5 minutes, I only found two direct hit collisions in more than 200 hours of searching. (And these were low energy proton/neutron collisions.) Proton -proton collisions have to overcome the electrical repulsion between the two protons. This requires very high energies, of the type that simply do not normally occur in nature. I think I have every right to claim these events to be rare if not inexistent in nature.
Particle accelerators do not reproduce natural conditions. If they did, we would not need to spend millions, perhaps bilions by now, of dollars in building them, would we?


My theory is an ALTERNATIVE to the entire virtual pair thing. Not only that, but if radiation can't escape from inside a black hole, it doesn't make sense that ONE does at all. If they truly are outside the event horizon, then shouldn't they both just not get pulled in, and annihalate? Think about it: what makes more sense? Antimatter being created and annihalating the black hole, or two particles that appear out of nowhere (violating physics) and then quickly disappear?
Two points. Radiation can not escape a black hole. The ONE, was never in the black hole, it was just outside it, by maybe a Planck distance or two. Very close, close enough for its partner to be captured, but far enough away for it to not be captured. This might seem to be a very narrow zone, and it is, but virtual particle pairs, theoretically, exist everywhere at all times, so the size of the zone does not matter.

Anti-matter, still has mass, introducing this into a black hole does not anhialate it, as the only property left to anything that enters a black hole is its mass. Anti-matter and matter taste the same to a singularity. SO what makes more sense. The virtual particle pairs which are theoretically predicted and have been experimentally verified, (I have seen tracks left by them myself, not all anihilate so quickly as the energy uncertainty depends on the degree of accuracy of the momentum measurement, and when none is made, the energy is also infinitely uncertain), are far more likely than radiation escaping a black hole and matter anti-matter anhilation affecting the mass of a black hole. As I stated early on, within a black hole whether something is energy or matter is no longer meaningfull, nor would it make any difference.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0010055

FOR INFO ON ANTIMATTER:

this is where i went when i needed to research antimatter for a report last year... hope it helps.

CERN Antimatter 1 (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/WhyStudyPrtcles/UniverseBricks/Antimatter/Antimatter-en.html)

CERN Anitmatter 2 (http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/)

Black holes (http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkbh.html)

Neutron Stars and Pulsars (http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkns.html)

How black holes and neutron stars form (http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkform.html)

The fact that antimatter and matter annihalate when they come into contact means that whether or not it is in a black hole shouldn't matter. While we may not be able to measure it directly, it may still actually be what's happening.
This is of course assuming that antimatter and matter function the same while inside the event horrizon of the singularity. Given that even light cannot escape from here, that might be assuming a bit much.

Antimatter is generated from the collision of protons, right? And it's a theory. It isn't necessarily... automatically coming from the black hole. Perhaps due to quantum mechanics, it is pheasable for it to come from the black hole. Why should it automatically come from below the event horizon? It just seems more practical that matter annihalates with antimatter to create the radiation, instead of it coming out of nowhere. And matter also doesn't get "converted" into energy, but the atoms are broken apart by the energy, and the result is radiation.

Matter is energy... Don't differentiate the two. They are really the same thing, according to present understanding.. (Remember the whole E=mc^2 thing?)

Also, protons, anti-protons, neutrons, etc. Are not actual particles (by present understanind), they are actually composed of smaller particles (quarks, gluons, etc)... The differentiation in charge between protons and anti-protons, comes from the subsequent "spin" of their compositional quarks (anti- is not merely charge, but spin of the particle; which is why you can have "anti-neutrons", even though neutrons have no "charge"....). Leptons (like electrons, positrons) are different in our present understanding.. Classified as "point paricles"... That are particles with no appreciable "size", but in possession of "mass".

Collission of matter with matter, paricles of normal (matter) and reverse spin (antimatter) convert them into constiuent particulate (as energy)... During the collision, matter isn't "annhilated"... It is converted to energy (as radiation) due to the subsequent decomposition of the particulate in the collision... This results in Blackholes "dissipating" over time.... Collisions past and at the event horizon slowly reducing the intake, and radiating out exotic energy from the sigularity... Resulting in the eventual "evaporation" of the energy contained in the singularity back into normal surrounding space... Much like a pond in the sun, once it looses all of its feeding streams.

The "Event horizon" itself, is not a physical thing, it is representative of the barrier at which gravitational accelleration due to attraction around the mass, equals (c). Gravitational Acceleration around an object increasing as you approach the object... It's not constant, except at the surface of the object (or rather, constance in it only exists in an instantaneous position from the object) [delta g = ( G*m/(r^2) )].... And is thus an "observational boundry".

I didn't say the event horizon was a physical object. It's the point at which (more precisely/simply put) the escape velocity (the speed needed to break orbit of an object) is above c, and hence is the point at which no light can escape (using classical theories and laws).Your theory involves light being emitted from below the event horizon

Exactly, because quantum physics allow it.
Uncertainty principle: a particle's exact speed and position cannot be measured with absolute accuracy.
So, if something (including light/radiation) is inside a black hole, its position is absolutely defined as inside the black hole. So, its speed cannot be defined at all. Since we cannot measure it, it could very well be above lightspeed. So, it could pass the escape velocity and leave the black hole.

And what if it doesn't? Then once the black hole is annihalated, the energy doesn't have to go above lightspeed to escape, because there is nothing from which to break out of orbit.

Speed has an absolute limit in the universe. This limit is c. Nothing can accelerate to and beyond c as to do so would use more than an infinite amount of energy. It does no matter whether we know the conditions inside the event horizon, we know, independently of these conditions that c is the limit to speed. A nice crackpot theory, but it does not fit with the observed evidence of ther constants of that apply to the universe, so into the trash it goes.

Uncertainty principle: a particle's exact speed and position cannot be measured with absolute accuracy.That's momentum and position, not speed and position. A change in momentum does not mean a change in speed

Speed has an absolute limit in the universe. This limit is c. Nothing can accelerate to and beyond c as to do so would use more than an infinite amount of energy. It does no matter whether we know the conditions inside the event horizon, we know, independently of these conditions that c is the limit to speed. A nice crackpot theory, but it does not fit with the observed evidence of ther constants of that apply to the universe, so into the trash it goes.

Speed has an absolute limit based on relative frame of refference in this universe.. Which is always "c".... However, "c" is not the same between observers. The actual value of "c" relative to the outside world slows down as the curvature of space-time increases as you approach the even-horizon of the blackhole... Beyond the even-horizon, however, the normal laws of physics, as known in our universe, do not apply, as the "singularity" itself, does not exist in our frame of refference. Nor in our "universe" as we know of it, in classical physics. You can't apply "c" as an absolute beyond the event-horizon...

Your understanding applies to physics as they were known in the 1800's... But you're about 200 years out-of-date on that one.

Beyond and at the event horizon, classical gravity as well as all other classical physics cease to exist as you have known them in your universe. Uncertainty, and the realm of quantum theory reigns supreme. It's a place where countless particulates form spontaneously, seeping energy (and therefore rest-mass) from the core of the singularity, when the opposite particle of pairs are lost, taking small bits of the singularities overall energy-density with them. Overtime, this slow dissipation of random particulate radiation (Hawkings Radiation)... The resultant loss of mass decreases the amount of energy/mass the singularity itself posseses, Altering its overal energy density, as the compression continues inside the point-singularity at its core. This results in a increase the the improbable and spontaneous appearance of virtual pairs, resulting the the loss of even more energy.. This continues as the ratio of net-loss and net-gain of energy/mass decreases to nothing.... The end is the blackhole vanishing in a final burst of radiation.

But if the escape velocity is beyond lightspeed, then mathematically, an object would have to be travelling at this speed while it's falling into the black hole. And you also don't seem to have a clear understanding of quantum mechanics. They state that it is impossible to measure an object's speed and position. As long as it isn't being observed by anything, it can break the laws of physics, basically because it isn't being caught. The same principle lies behind virtual pairs, as you were saying earlier. It's impossible to observe, so it can break the laws of physics. Combine this with quantum mechanics and it is possible to escape black holes.

Digressing, you must consider the fact that a black hole's gravity INCREASES as it consumes matter. If it is being lost, why does the gravity continue to increase? I think it must be gaining energy (like that gained from matter-antimatter reactions) and this keeps its gravity high (by its contortion of spacetime) while its mass is decreasing (by the annihalation).


OK. Demysitifying needs to be done.

Escape velocity does not define the velocity at which an object falls. It defines the velocity at which something, with no further expenditure of energy will escape the gravitational field of an object with mass.

Uncertainty principle in QM. This simply states that there is a limit to the accuracy that something can be known (Plancks constant). This does not grant a miraculous escape clause from relativistic effects. It does not require us to know or be able to establish the velocity of anything to know that it can not exceed c. This simply places a limit on the possible range of values. Likewise we know that the position of any given particle has to be within the limits of the universe, even if we were to know its velocity precisely. A defined position, and inside a black hole is nowhere near specific enough to be defined, results in an undefined velocity. An undefined velocity simply means that it has an equal chance of having a scalar factor in its velocity of anywhere between 0 and c. It does not mean that the velocity can have a scalar component of greater than c.

Not being observed, and thereby having its waveform in a superimposed state does not exempt a quantum from the basic limits of our universe.

Matter Anti-matter reactions do not produce energy from nowhere. It is not gained, it simply is the energy equivalent of the matter and anti-matter anihilated. It makes no difference what form it is in. If this is heat energy say, that simply means that something has to be moving faster, converting that energy back to mass by relativistic mass increases, etc. etc.

Anything that enters a black hole counts as mass, whatever form it is in within the black hole. E=Mc^2 remember. It's just all mass, all of the time. As far as spacetime continuum distortion is concerned it does not matter. Oh and the gravity, in the black hole is already infinite anyway, it is just that the volume of this infinite gravity region increases as more matter enters. The gravity itself does not. Remember the visualization of space-time as a rubber sheet with weights on representing the distortions caused by mass with the slope being the gravitational fields. A black hole deforms this sheet so much that the sides of the deformation are parallel, and the sheet effectively has a hole in it (hence the hole part of its name, people forget this bit) As the black hole absorbs energy/matter the hole gets bigger, the diameter of the parallel tube grows. Gravity does not increrase (It is already infinite being the integral of the slope). It's mass does not decrease.

momentum, people. It's position and momentum. Not position and speed. Not position and velocity

Well, what if "light" IS constantly pouring out of a black hole, but just on a light wavelength that we can't detect yet. How sure can we really be that the spectrum goes from infrared to ultraviolet or gamma and nothing more. What if there is more to the spectrum on both ends which we can't detect with our current technology. Maybe dark matter is just something we haven't been able to classify yet.

momentum, people. It's position and momentum. Not position and speed. Not position and velocity

I know that, but as this guy is only concerned about the v part of mv, I am quite happy to use just v. It makes no difference to my arguments so far. If it were to become critical I would shift.

Remember one thing: Speed and time are all relative, hence the theory of relativity. If spacetime is curved into a black hole, it pulls everything down with the spacetime at a velocity greater than c, compared to things outside the black hole.

No. nothing gets to go faster than c. As it approaches c it gets more massive, so any additional energy is simply convertedf to mass. Infinite gravity accelerating an object with a non 0 rest mass results in infinite mass, mot infinite velocitry.


It was said here earlier that everything counts as mass, so if black holes disappear, where does the matter go? It was just recently finished being explained how energy is leaked out and the black hole vanishes, then it suddenly changed into "a black hole's mass increases, but its gravity doesn't"? If it increases, and everything counts as mass, it can't decrease and vanish, which it does! The black hole does not decrease and vanish. Where are you getting this idea from?

Not necessarily, it was also said that escape velocity isn't the speed at which an object falls (which, by the way, when it comes to light, it does because light moves at c all the time, so when spacetime pulls it down, it's accelerated relative to obervers around it and it goes above c, hence c^2).
Light has 0 rewst mass, gravity does not accelerate it, in the sense of increase its speed. It can and does, due to relativistic effects, bend light. Hence we have gravitational lenses.

So, if escape velocity was greater, so would the area around which the object would fall into. The stronger a gravitational field is, the larger it becomes. So, a state of infinite density would mean everything in the universe would fall into it instantly, because its size and strength are infinite. This is what is believed to have existed at the beginning of the universe, as all matter was at one point, thereby creating a singularity of infinite density from which all matter (and antimatter, before it was annihalated) expanded. So, a black hole's gravity does increase, but we cannot observe this because nothing can go faster than light, and since light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Therefore, black holes aren't of infinite density, but nothing can escape (using classical methods). However, as I said above in this post, spacetime is bend downward and contracts into the black hole, so light is accelerated relative to anything outside the event horizon, as well as anything else. And to adress the uncertainty principle issue, since spacetime is bent down into a single point in a black hole, one can assume that the particle is directly at this position, and since nothing can be measured from outside the event horizon, as far as spacetime is concerned, the black hole is just one point in space (light is a wave unless it is measured),. So, it is possible to pinpoint a particle's position once it enters a black hole.

Forget it. Go learn some basic physics. It is pointless to try and teach the whole of QM and General and Special relativity on an internet forum. Have a good life now.

Well, what if "light" IS constantly pouring out of a black hole, but just on a light wavelength that we can't detect yet. How sure can we really be that the spectrum goes from infrared to ultraviolet or gamma and nothing more. What if there is more to the spectrum on both ends which we can't detect with our current technology. Maybe dark matter is just something we haven't been able to classify yet.
The reason light doesn't pour out of a black hole once it's crossed the event horizion, is a consequence of the math and physical laws, not of the state of measuring devices. Star sized black holes will tend to create a VERY soft glow of Hawking Radiation, which would almost be impossible to detect from the cosmic backgroud radiation.

That said, the divisions in the spectrum (Radio, Microwave, T-ray, Infra-red, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-ray, Gamma Ray et al) are more for our convience. We could just as easily, and more precisely provide ranges of wavelength or frequency in discussing some particular feature of the spectrum. And this is frequently done when such precision is demanded. Physics with calculus and Plank will reveal much to you.

I know that, but as this guy is only concerned about the v part of mv, I am quite happy to use just v.Since you're all dealing with extremes,
p = m * v / sqrt(1 - v * v)

And if radiation is counted as mass, why doesn't it have gravity?Who says it doesn't? My initial guess would be that light has the same gravity as an object with mass equal to the light's energy over c^2.

" An Explanation to the Dissapearance of Black Holes "

Easy. They ate their fill and went off home, :p

After the black hole is reduced to nothing but radiation, there is no gravity. Hence, radiation cannot have a gravity.so that's your theory, then? That particles without rest energy don't produce gravity? You should have said that at the beginning without all the stuff about black holes

Radiation doesn't have gravity? I'm not so sure about that. I mean, heck, even gravity has its own gravity. Try googling for 'self-gravity'. :D