Scientific Forums


Pages: (2) [1] 2   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Black Hole Energy
Principia11
  Posted: Mar 6 2012, 05:47 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 6-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


First off black holes get smaller because the negative virtual particles falling into it have negative energy so they decrease the mass of the black hole. Black holes are supposed to dissipate after an approximate amount of years. This would assume that more negative virtual particles fall into the black hole than positive particles. Why is this? If black holes are absorbing lots of mass wouldn't a lot of virtual anti particles have to fall into the black hole to compensate for the incoming mass (and eventually make the black hole "burn out")? ph34r.gif


ARIGATO wink.gif



huh.gif




Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 06:36 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (Principia11 @ Mar 6 2012, 05:47 PM)
First off black holes get smaller because the negative virtual particles falling into it have negative energy so they decrease the mass of the black hole. Black holes are supposed to dissipate after an approximate amount of years. This would assume that more negative virtual particles fall into the black hole than positive particles. Why is this? If black holes are absorbing lots of mass wouldn't a lot of virtual anti particles have to fall into the black hole to compensate for the incoming mass (and eventually make the black hole "burn out")? ph34r.gif


ARIGATO wink.gif



huh.gif

You might be asking the wrong people. Find Stephen Hawking's phone number and ring him. He thought of how BH could evaporate.
Top
Guest
Posted: Mar 6 2012, 09:37 PM


Unregistered









Thanks, that was my plan B.
Top
flyingbuttressman
Posted: Mar 7 2012, 03:02 AM


noblesse oblige / nullius in verba
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5918
Joined: 8-June 09

Positive Feedback: 68.66%
Feedback Score: 166


QUOTE (Principia11 @ Mar 6 2012, 01:47 PM)
First off black holes get smaller because the negative virtual particles falling into it have negative energy so they decrease the mass of the black hole. Black holes are supposed to dissipate after an approximate amount of years. This would assume that more negative virtual particles fall into the black hole than positive particles. Why is this? If black holes are absorbing lots of mass wouldn't a lot of virtual anti particles have to fall into the black hole to compensate for the incoming mass (and eventually make the black hole "burn out")?

A black hole wouldn't evaporate while it's actively accreting matter. The only time when Hawking Radiation would actually be able to achieve a net loss in a black hole's mass would be when it is not accreting enough matter to counterbalance the mass loss.
Top
physical
Posted: Mar 11 2012, 10:00 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I visit it regularly and always has interesting information. Viewed and very well-organized.


--------------------
http://www.lapelpinscn.com for you with every item,design and time.More best service for you with your own pins.
Top
Curious_Jon77
  Posted: Mar 28 2012, 08:00 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 27-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE
A black hole wouldn't evaporate while it's actively accreting matter. The only time when Hawking Radiation would actually be able to achieve a net loss in a black hole's mass would be when it is not accreting enough matter to counterbalance the mass loss.


Yes, But, in my opinion, the force holding the black hole together is not strong enough to balance its self, like you said and Prof. Hawking said.

when the universe black hole looses its speed of sub-sub atomic mass holding it together is less than the subatomic particles around it? the black hole changes dimensions accepts light as a constant and greatly expands soooo fast creating a supernova? or brilliant blast of super expanding light?

i think that the black hole exists in another dimension of state somewhere where light doesn't exist or is irrelevant

Its really a working theory of everything

smile
Top
flyingbuttressman
Posted: Mar 28 2012, 08:06 PM


noblesse oblige / nullius in verba
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5918
Joined: 8-June 09

Positive Feedback: 68.66%
Feedback Score: 166


QUOTE (Curious_Jon77 @ Mar 28 2012, 04:00 PM)
Yes, But, in my opinion, the force holding the black hole together is not strong enough to balance its self, like you said and Prof. Hawking said.

when the universe black hole looses its speed of sub-sub atomic mass holding it together is less than the subatomic particles around it? the black hole changes dimensions accepts light as a constant and greatly expands soooo fast creating a supernova? or brilliant blast of super expanding light?

i think that the black hole exists in another dimension of state somewhere where light doesn't exist or is irrelevant

Sorry, black holes do not cause supernovae. There is no "balance" in a black hole. The whole point is that the previous balance (a start) destabilized and collapsed into a black hole.

Your post makes little-to-no sense.
Top
Curious_Jon77
Posted: Mar 28 2012, 08:20 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 27-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE
Sorry, black holes do not cause supernovae. There is no "balance" in a black hole. The whole point is that the previous balance (a start) destabilized and collapsed into a black hole.

Your post makes little-to-no sense.


so the stuff floating around in space that takes up a huge portion but is not that massive gets sucked up because of destabilized particles looses mass and turns into infinite mass inside a black hole. the rearranged particles or collapsed mass turns into super mass and does not emit light?

kinda made sense
Top
Curious_Jon77
  Posted: Mar 28 2012, 08:29 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 27-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE
so the stuff floating around in space that takes up a huge portion but is not that massive gets sucked up because of destabilized particles looses mass and turns into infinite mass inside a black hole. the rearranged particles or collapsed mass turns into super mass and does not emit light?

kinda made sense


sorry if i didn't add enough words to have this make sense.
Top
flyingbuttressman
Posted: Mar 28 2012, 09:31 PM


noblesse oblige / nullius in verba
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5918
Joined: 8-June 09

Positive Feedback: 68.66%
Feedback Score: 166


QUOTE (Curious_Jon77 @ Mar 28 2012, 04:20 PM)
so the stuff floating around in space that takes up a huge portion but is not that massive gets sucked up because of destabilized particles looses mass and turns into infinite mass inside a black hole. the rearranged particles or collapsed mass turns into super mass and does not emit light?

Still nonsense.
Top
Guest_Roger
Posted: Aug 16 2012, 03:00 AM


Unregistered









Couple of posers from a not so sharp knife in the drawer,

Wasn't SH trying to solve the observed increase in expansion rate with the concept of "dark" energy and therefore dark matter???

Has anyone applied Pressure X Velocity against Time to the Big Bang???

Would this be correct---T zero near infinite pressure and C outward velocity, T+, a decaying pressure and outward velocity in all directions???

Would this not follow: X billion years later, Nx spheres moving outward at different velocities with the outer ones moving faster than the inner ones. No matter where you are in that sphere of expanding materiel, looking out you would see objects moving faster, so away, looking further out you would see objects moving even faster away. Looking inward to the "start" point you would see objects moving slower so away, lateral observations adds angular separation velocity????

Isn't it true that SH did not know how many BH's there were and that now we are upping the number almost daily and current concept is that there are millions, if not tens of billions, and can't we also call them "dark matter", and they contain a whole lot of "dark energy"?????

Has anyone even come close to showing a BH getting smaller or less powerful????

Am I correct that part of the rationale is that large galaxies appear to be expanding and if so the power of the BH must be dropping?? Would the above relative distance velocity differences also apply across the span of a galaxy???

Isn't most of the conflict between mass gravity and Quantum gravity based on the concept that a "singularity" is at the center of a BH????

Suppose a BH is plasma with enough pressure to not collapse any more, and further suppose that the only "singularity" was the Big Bang and the 'zero mass' center caused the implosion of plasma into pure energy and subsequent conversion to sub atomics etc. etc.??????


Posted as a guest, trying to register, hope I am up to the task wink.gif
Top
AlexG
Posted: Aug 16 2012, 04:24 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: 8-September 06

Positive Feedback: 73.91%
Feedback Score: 108


QUOTE
Wasn't SH trying to solve the observed increase in expansion rate with the concept of "dark" energy and therefore dark matter???



No. Dark energy and dark matter are not related.

QUOTE
Would this be correct---T zero near infinite pressure and C outward velocity, T+, a decaying pressure and outward velocity in all directions???



Outward velocity in all directions implies a center. There is no center of the universe.

QUOTE
Would this not follow: X billion years later, Nx spheres moving outward at different velocities with the outer ones moving faster than the inner ones. No matter where you are in that sphere of expanding materiel, looking out you would see objects moving faster, so away, looking further out you would see objects moving even faster away. Looking inward to the "start" point you would see objects moving slower so away, lateral observations adds angular separation velocity????



No. In the case of a start point, the further objects would be moving slower, as gravity drags on them. There is NO direction you can look where you see objects moving slower. In every direction you look, the farther an object is, the faster it is receeding.

QUOTE
Has anyone even come close to showing a BH getting smaller or less powerful????



No. Why would they. A 3 solar mass black hole would take 64 TRILLION years to dissapate due to Hawking radiation, and that assumes no matter accreation.

QUOTE
Am I correct that part of the rationale is that large galaxies appear to be expanding and if so the power of the BH must be dropping??


No, you are not correct.

QUOTE
Suppose a BH is plasma with enough pressure to not collapse any more,


Then it wouldn't have the gravitational field to create an Event Horizon, and so wouldn't be a BH.

As a good primer on BHs, I'd recommend that you read Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outragous Legacy.


--------------------
Its the way nature is!
If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
To another universe, where the rules are simpler
Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr


Top
Guest
Posted: Aug 16 2012, 03:49 PM


Unregistered









Thanks, will find Thorn's book. I just picked plasma, if that isn't dense enough fine, whatever it really is it still must be space-time mass of some kind.

I believe that SH said that the big bang produced more energy than the observable matter could account for, and that the measurable energy level wasn't high enough to account for the observable increase in expansion rate.

I thought the two were related to the same basic problem.

If black holes are really out there in the postulated numbers we now think there are, then a huge amount of the "missing" matter can be accounted for, it's just in lumps.

We do know they can't form until stellar cores are heavy matter to start with, so many generations of stellar cycles had to go by.

We now know, or most believe, that every galaxy has a black hole, or several, at it's center. We also know that there is a very large number of black holes that are wandering around like rogue planets. SH did not have that as part of his knowledge base at the time.


"Outward velocity in all directions implies a center. There is no center of the universe."

If there was a 'Big Bang' then everything in the universe started out there right? After this much time where that happened would be obscured somewhat. I think there is a sort of consensus of where we are relative to that point. I should also think that there would have been a collapse as energy rebounded, further obscuring a "point" into a zone or region.

The reference to concentric spheres was the best I could come up with in text form to describe a pressure wave with higher velocity and temperature at the outer edge. Was attempting to describe a pressure plot that is easy to draw.

Should be a truism that the closer in time energy was to T zero the higher its temperature and pressure so the faster it traveled and the further it went before it cooled enough to form sub atomics and then atomics.

Also, while gravity would slow things down, energy has no mass so no gravity, sub-atomics have very little, atomics not much more and hydrogen gas still not alot. A long time passed before the very first stars lit up and large gravity wells existed. I think enough time went by for vast distances to exist between early stars. Once the hydrogen clouds cooled enough stars started popping up all over the place---then gravity brakes started to work. I just think it took longer and the universe was bigger than most folks think it was before the brakes started to come on.

If you want to contemplate a concept consider this: we can look in any direction and see back in time nearly to T zero, kind of an inverted ball with the center actually on the outside. Everywhere we look, at the far end is the same thing.

Of course it "looks" like the expansion is accelerating, everywhere you look, the further out you look the less evolved and younger it is. The younger it is the faster it was moving to begin with, BUT, in reality the gravity brakes have been working on it for a longer time and it's velocity relative to the beginning, or T zero is slowing.

If you measure the red shift outward the expansion rate is increasing, BUT, if you reverse the chart, so it shows the red shift from out there near T zero back toward us, the expansion rate is slowing.
Top
AlexG
Posted: Aug 16 2012, 04:25 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: 8-September 06

Positive Feedback: 73.91%
Feedback Score: 108


QUOTE
I believe that SH said that the big bang produced more energy than the observable matter could account for, and that the measurable energy level wasn't high enough to account for the observable increase in expansion rate.



Do you have any kind of reference for this, because I've never heard it.

QUOTE
We do know they can't form until stellar cores are heavy matter to start with, so many generations of stellar cycles had to go by.



No. Heavy matter is created in stellar cores. First generation stars were much larger and burned much faster than subsequent generations. More supernova in the early universe will yield more BHs.

QUOTE
We also know that there is a very large number of black holes that are wandering around like rogue planets


No we don't know that.

QUOTE
If there was a 'Big Bang' then everything in the universe started out there right?


No. Everything in the universe started right here. And right there. There's no central point of the BB. All of space, everywhere, is expanding away from every other point.

QUOTE
I think there is a sort of consensus of where we are relative to that point


The consensus is that there is no such point.

QUOTE
I should also think that there would have been a collapse as energy rebounded


Why would you think there is any kind of 'rebound'?

QUOTE
Also, while gravity would slow things down, energy has no mass so no gravity, sub-atomics have very little, atomics not much more and hydrogen gas still not alot.


Energy certainly contributes to the gravitational field. It doesn't matter what is producing gravity, it just matters how much of it there is, and how dense it is. And the early universe was much denser than today's.

QUOTE
A long time passed before the very first stars lit up and large gravity wells existed. I think enough time went by for vast distances to exist between early stars. Once the hydrogen clouds cooled enough stars started popping up all over the place---then gravity brakes started to work. I just think it took longer and the universe was bigger than most folks think it was before the brakes started to come on.



Actually, observations have shown that stars and galaxies formed far sooner than anyone had expected. A star has no more gravity than the original hydrogen which formed it. The star is denser, so the gravitational field is more concentrated, but it falls off with the square of distance. At any appreciable distance, the star produces no more gravity than the original hydrogen cloud.

QUOTE
If you measure the red shift outward the expansion rate is increasing, BUT, if you reverse the chart, so it shows the red shift from out there near T zero back toward us, the expansion rate is slowing.


That is NOT what actual observation shows.



--------------------
Its the way nature is!
If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
To another universe, where the rules are simpler
Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr


Top
Guest
Posted: Aug 16 2012, 06:21 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE
No. Everything in the universe started right here. And right there. There's no central point of the BB. All of space, everywhere, is expanding away from every other point.


There is a conceptual problem with this premise. A forming star will contract space-time with GR, while the expansion of the universe at every point would mean that the internal space-time of the star is partially also going in the opposite direction.

Does this mean that the net gravity or GR of that star is decreasing over time due to the space-time addition; contraction minus expansion? If this is true are larger stars outputting less and less energy over time since the gravitational pressure should be falling inside the diminishing space-time well of the star.

In other words, we need a certain amount of gravitation pressure to generate fusion. This minimal amount of star GR will have a characteristic space-time well profile. If space-time is expanding everywhere, this should make the well for any shallower with time. lowering the pressure at each point in the space-time well profile, until fusion one day will stop.

Or do stars ignore the expanding points of space and maintain fusion rates like it is not even occurring.


Top

Topic Options Pages: (2) [1] 2 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use