Young Black Holes?

[zarnic]

I've tried to stay away from this thread because this seems to be a neverending topic but I have to ask... don't black holes ever die and if they do, where does everthing go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles.</em> A. Van Buren, 1978<br />* <em>An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.</em>  -- according to Van Roy</p> </div>

 

[themage]

They don't die, but Hawkings theorized that a black hole will shrink and evaporate due to hawking radiation (which is linked at the top of page 2 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />).

 

[zarnic]

Ok, so Hawking Radiation predicts that black holes will eventually vanish then I guess what's collected becomes a part of the holes total mass, however that being the case that mass must also vanish which means that black holes radiate, gosh do they? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles.</em> A. Van Buren, 1978<br />* <em>An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.</em>  -- according to Van Roy</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, so the answer is yes.<br /><br />The theory (I don't claim to fully grok it) is that particles are created in pairs, and sometimes one is inside the event horizon and the other outside.<br /><br />The one inside the event horizon is absorbed, the other, outside, is radiated away.<br /><br />So the black hole loses half the mass of the created particle..<br /><br />Repeat and Rinse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Both virtual particles arise just outside the event horizon. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal allows for fluctuations of energy between the beginning and end states which must be conserved. When these particles appear, they have borrowed energy which must be returned as the laws of conservation dictate. <br /><br />Should one of the virtual particles be boosted away from the event horizon long enough that it can be observed, it then becomes a real particle. <br /><br />Normally, these particles would annihilate or recombine (semantics) and return the energy they borrowed and return the system to its original state. With one of them becoming real, the energy in the real particle has to be accounted for. <br /><br />The black hole captures the virtual particle that didn't escape and is left with no choice but to compensate for the energy given to the now real particle that has been observed. Thus the black hole loses energy/mass (e=mc2) and ultimately shrinks. <br /><br />To an outside observer, it only appears as if the black hole allowed a particle to escape, but this isn't really the case. The black hole just covers up the thievery that happened in its neighborhood <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[zarnic]

MW, I'm not being sarcastic... whether or not black holes radiate depends on your point of view and until now I didn't know they even vanished, sort of like being back in school... always learning something new. This forum is one of the best! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles.</em> A. Van Buren, 1978<br />* <em>An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.</em>  -- according to Van Roy</p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Spinning black hole radiates.Its not point of view.It is well established now.

 

[siarad]

The speed of light at the centre of our sun is about half a millimetre per second, not quite your BH.<br />Maybe some-one could calculate the time dilation but your question seems to shout, does the centre of our sun age very little compared to it's surface & is the chemical action similarly slowed. If so as the gravity reduces by burning the chemistry will speed up making Earth hotter & hotter.<br />Time dilation is a mystery to me as must be obvious <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[dryson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Theoretically, time stops at the point of the singularity inside a black hole. I'm not sure what you’re asking exactly, can you be more specific? "Age" is relative, so that’s something to think about. [quote/]<br /><br />Time would not stop, time is the measure of lengths. Time is the measurable distance traveled by a singular atom or groups of atoms, based on how much energetic force the atom or group generates proporational to how much energetic force is being exerted back on the singular atom or group of atoms.<br /><br />So does time stop? No. What happens theoretically is that once an atom crosses the event horizon, the atom or group of atoms are excelerated at faster then light speed velocities. At a velocity faster then light speed, the atom would be able to escape the immense gravitational pull of the black hole. My theory suggests that once matter has crossed the event horizon, it is ejected at a faster then gravity (FTG) velocity and is hurtled thousands of light years away in all directions. <br /><br /></p></blockquote>

 

[alokmohan]

Space time ceases at singularity.

 

[themage]

<font color="yellow">So does time stop? No. What happens theoretically is that once an atom crosses the event horizon, the atom or group of atoms are excelerated at faster then light speed velocities. At a velocity faster then light speed, the atom would be able to escape the immense gravitational pull of the black hole. My theory suggests that once matter has crossed the event horizon, it is ejected at a faster then gravity (FTG) velocity and is hurtled thousands of light years away in all directions. <br /></font><br /><br /><br />I'm curious, where are you getting the information that in falling particles going into the event horizon are traveling FTL? I am confused about your statement here. Is this a theory that you are working on or something that you have read someplace? As far as I know this statement is incorrect.

 

[alokmohan]

I did noy say like that.You are talking of some one elses post.

 

[themage]

Yes Alokmohan, I was talking about Dryson's post.

 

[alokmohan]

I was cofused.Singularity is outside our known physics.It is governed seperately.John Wheler says there are different set of physiscs.Quantum gravity,Singularity is under quantum gravity.

 

[themage]

Yes and no Alokmohan. Because the singularity is so small (whatever the size may be, either Planck length or infinitely small. That’s aside the point for this post here) then yes you would need the theories and formula of QM to see how it acts. However because it is so dense and gravity is so extreme, you now have a case of something with equal mass of a large celestial object. Which would then follow relativity’s theories and formula. The problem is we can not match the 2 theories and now we have the question that is the ark of the covenant of physics. The question being what is the GUT or grand unified theory.<br /><br /><br />Not to side track the conversation but im curious. What is your native language Alokmohan. Please do not take any disrespect from the question, I’m just a curious person <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br />

 

[alokmohan]

My native language is Bengali.I am Indian.There are three bengali posters Ashish2,cherry2 and me.Any way Wheeler is boss .