Preliminary Black Hole FAQ

Saiph · Jul 24, 2004

It's still an intellectual crutch. By saying there are no rules, we cannot describe it, and so fail to try. QM can't handle gravity at the scale in question. If QM can, it may explain what goes on. It may provide a valid set of rules. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Jul 25, 2004

but by saying there are no rules you have no evidence. All you can point to is a set of theories that are known to fail under those conditions. GR because it can't address things that small, QM because it can't address gravity that strong. You have no proof other than the inadequacy of manmade theories (that are relatively young!) at absurd set of parameters. And there is something just completely unsatisfying in saying: I gues there are no rules! It goes against every fiber of physics, the concept that physical phenomena can be understood and put into a framework. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nikshliker · Jul 26, 2004

on a different key... Do black holes heat up as they suck in al this energy? You would think with all of these particles getting crammed together there would be extreme heat along with the obvious pressure. Does the heat really matter? On the molecular level how would these particles interact being so closely crammed up next to eachother. -------------------- can we really say that BH r infinitly small? Where would the matter go if it is infinitly small?!?!?! seems kinda wild. matter cant overlap can it? --------------------- Can you explain Hawkings findings? How would information escape a BH? I cant logically think of how it would happen. It just deteriorates? (I think I am having trouble spelling <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) ------------------- I have a book by hawking and penrose that talks about how matter cant escape and it seems that they base a lot of their theorys on that idea. Does this change everything? or was it just a big deal because hawking proved himself wrong? p.s. Did u guys notice the message boards going down again? Why does it do that? Sincerely and forever yours space.com, Nikshliker hahahaha sry for the random s*** Im just feeling kinda weird right now!

sheff37 · Jul 26, 2004

Black holes do not heat up. They are what they are. Objects of high density with gravity to match. The size of the matter constituting a BH is irrelevant. The density and speed of rotation are most important. Dont focus on size or displacement. Hawkins gives credit for who he is........ right or wrong. Above dispute Well...... not He had access to data not posted here. That can change! A black hole is just another object in rotation A gravitational unit is a a part of the density on an object combined with the speed of rotation of that same object generating the observed effect which can be measured and assigned a specific value.

Saiph · Jul 26, 2004

Heat is energy, usually described as the average kinetic energy of a molecule. The more heat, the faster things move. This energy does get trapped into a BH, though it doesn't cause the BH to "heat up". All the normal symptoms of a hot object don't pertain (i.e. exist in) a BH. Though the energy does add to the total energy/mass (thus gravity) of the BH. We say the singularity is infinitely small. Where does the matter go, we don't know. Maybe it gets crushed to infinitely small region, maybe it stops before then. Our current understanding of the laws of physics don't hold up so well there. I.e. we don't know the ultimate end. Matter normally can't overlap, but those restrictions can break down under severe enough conditions. I'm not sure how it comes out. My guess is it has to do with some form of particle entanglement (most promising IMO). But what has been released to the public is basically that he thinks he's found a way (and others are checking up on his work). This doesn't change everything. It merely completes the picture. All that we know, holds. The event horizon, time dilation, frame dragging, gravitational waves. Hawking has merely said that QM gives a way for matter, and now information, to ultimately get out (though in an unrecognizable form). So it isn't a complete dead end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alokmohan · Jul 26, 2004

Regarding Hawking radiation you may see researchnews.osu.edu/archive/fuzzball.htm

Saiph · Jul 26, 2004

look, whether it's valid or not (which I still don't think it is) isn't my point. It's an intellectual dead end. It can't be verified (how do you describe or prove something that has no rules?!). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Jul 26, 2004

simplicity is a side effect of elegant and concise arguements. Simplicity does not equate with validity. Simple things are quite often to general, and full of errors. What you want is a concise statement. That states the fundamentals, and from which everything else can be derived. That doesn't mean it's simple. Indeed, it's quite complex since it implies so many things. Saying the singularity has no rules means anything can happen. It could spout purble bunnies. And you also have the irreconcilable problem of transitioning between a region with no rules, and one that is strictly bound by them. How the heck can you do that eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nikshliker · Jul 26, 2004

As they cannot, the issue is outside the realm of astrophysics & must remain hypothetical and highly questionable at best. is not everything relating to BH hypothesis? How is it that we can prove anything we say about them? Especially what is said about singularities. How can we prove the mass inside a BH gets infinitly small.

nikshliker · Jul 26, 2004

there r slways underlaying rules. BHs still follow what we know about gravity. They still must stay within bounds. Saying that there r no rules is weak. Throughout history humans have been known to over simplify or say God causes things to happen. As far as our science can show us we have found rules for everything and therefore should continue to find more rules about more topics. The study of BHs is at its infancy. All i can hope for is that we get answers during my lifetime!!

Saiph · Jul 26, 2004

the singularity is the vague notion (i'll agree on that), what goes on closer to the event horizon is dictated by the theory of GR, which is quite successful (and is also nearly demanded by some very basic circumstances). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Jul 26, 2004

yeah, and one that doesn't require all laws of physics to be thrown out the window by an object created by those same laws. Virtual particles randomly come in and out of existence all the time according to QM. The BB is merely one hell of an event, that's quite unlikely to occur (then again, there'd be plenty of "time" to go on before hand, so it was just a matter of when, not if). That's better than invoking a set of non-rules that could just as well have spawned a universe full of purple bunnies than one of hydrogen and helium. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alokmohan · Jul 28, 2004

IWant to know definition of black hole.

Saiph · Jul 28, 2004

what you've said up to now is based on broad generalizations of popular physics (how it's presented to the layman). It's based on colloqialisms (physics "breaks down" isn't very accurate). Transfering from a region that obeys one set of physical laws, to another, is against the basic fundamental tenets of physics, let alone transitioning to a region with NO rules. The burden of proof lies upon you, and all you've done is say, over and over again, that "I'm right, this is the way it is". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Jul 28, 2004

I'm not using common sense. I'm using logic, and physical laws. It is an invalid line of investigation, because it makes a transition that violates the fundamental tenets of physics, that the laws here apply everywhere. Without that tenet, physics falls apart. What questions? all I've seen are rhetorics, or I've already answered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nikshliker · Jul 29, 2004

IWant to know definition of black hole. It's kinda difficult to give a set definition of a BH since we know not enough about it to answer all questions. the best I cansay is...: A BH (Black Hole) is a point in space that has a mass so dense and so compacted that there is a point at which liight cannot escape its gravitational pull. the name black hole probably comes from the simplistic relization that they would appear black and seem to be a hole in space at which things fall into. If anyone can add to this it would be much appreciated but that is the simple answer and i hope it helps alokmohan

nikshliker · Aug 1, 2004

is anyone else getting anoyed by the repeated amount of time that the forums go down? i forget what i was going to post very easily and it sucks when i have an idea that i never remember <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

Saiph · Aug 2, 2004

How is it valid? Explain to me how violating one of the fundamental assumptions of physics, makes this a valid conclusion? Explain to me how this "no rules zone" can be derived from a system that states there is cause and effect (i.e. rules) for everything. And, once again, all you've done is assert it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jjkeighe · Aug 2, 2004

black hole n. An area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light. A great void; an abyss: The government created a bureaucratic black hole that swallows up individual initiative. n : a region of space resulting from the collapse of a star; extremely high gravitational field Where an electronic mail message or news aritcle has gone if it disappears mysteriously between its origin and destination sites without returning a bounce message. I've also been told it is in my stomach to which the event horizon is the back of my throat since food seems to be going down there constantly. just a couple of definitions I've found.

ironsun · Aug 3, 2004

SIMPLISITY is always the good thing in science,not elegance,not common sence.No matter how elegant or how common sence is used in your theory if mine is simpler and there are no EVIDENCE agianst mine then I have the advantage. Going into the singularity is like going to any place in space.You just move to it through space and then suddenly you are there.But in this case you are in place with no rules at all.Really everything is possible in the singularity but not in the space out side it.There is the realm of the rules of our universe-the laws of physics.Moving to the singularity is really like moving from point A to point B everywhere in space. By the way do you have any simpler theory to explain the beginning of the universe,ah????! WE ARE LIVING IN A WIERD UNIVERSE AFTER ALL.GET USED TO THAT. If a theory can not be proven experimentally, through prediction of new phenomenum which are shown to occur or even mathematically it is merely a guess and no scientist will take it seriously. If you want a simpler theory, here's one: "LET THERE BE LIGHT" Now, prove me wrong.

qzzq · Aug 3, 2004

Saiph, A black hole has a charge because it spins, right? So would it be possible to contain a black hole in a electromagnetic field and...ahem...move it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> *** </div>

Saiph · Aug 4, 2004

it does not have charge because it spins. It has charge (or may have charge) because charged particles have fallen in, to give it a net charge. But yeah, if you found a charged one, and were silly enough to try, you could theoretically (though not really practically) move a BH by applying an EM field. If it was charged anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nikshliker · Aug 5, 2004

How do charged particles interact? If they are able to bypass this gravitational pull how do they work? strange question I knoe but as far as I've learned in physics they have just told us to accept the fact. Is there more to this story?

alokmohan · Aug 6, 2004

Does a black hole have charge really?

nikshliker · Aug 17, 2004

the probabilities of having no charge is minimal but the prbability of having near no charge is very great. If you were to graph the mtter coming in on a line with negative charge on left and positive charge on right it should begin to form a bell curve. it is very unlikely that you could get a charge that is trong enough to manipulate the BH at all. (unless we could make an artificial BH with only positive matter thrown in it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> )

Preliminary Black Hole FAQ

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

sheff37

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jjkeighe

Guest

ironsun

Guest

qzzq

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

nikshliker

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page