"Science That" FB Blackhole Article?

i a n n a
i a n n a
Joined: 9 Jan 14
Posts: 8
Credit: 8086
RAC: 0
Topic 197352

If you read the link below you will find an updated article on blackholes:

http://www.penny4nasa.org/2014/01/21/what-are-black-holes-and-how-do-they-die/

My question is, for anyone who can help clarify, it says "the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of lightâ€. But you’re saying blackholes ‘evaporate’ (Hawking radiation) which is turning “liquid into a gaseous phaseâ€, with smaller blackholes evaporating quicker than large blackholes... isn’t this possible then that a high frequency photo thermal deflection is occurring in a blackhole where the frequency heat source in high heat carbon nano modulation would give the effect that there is no light escaping it, versus there actually not being something on the other end inside it?

See a test from a military underwater 'invisibility cloak' that could be doing the same thing a blackhole does to mimic hiding everything that goes into it if it EVAPORATES when it dies, then it's like liquid isn't it? Then shouldn't there be gravitational waves around it THEN?

See YOUTUBE demonstration here: http://youtu.be/HNmYJJKAp7g

If you want to read it, you'll find the article posted below for your convenience, and I apologize if someone already started a thread on this. Related to blackholes it reads:

What are black holes, and how do they die? One of our very own, Sophia Nasr, has done a guest post for Penny4NASA on the topic:

Black holes are formed when stars of at least 20 solar masses die. Solar mass is an astronomical unit of mass, equal to the mass of the Sun, used for expressing the mass other celestial objects. Stars continuously fuse lighter elements into heavier ones during their lifetime. During the process of fusion, there is a constant inward pull due to gravity and outward push due to pressure, such that the two balance each other out. If a star is massive enough, it will fuse elements into iron. As more energy goes into fusing iron than is produced, this is the end of the line, and the star runs out of fuel. At this point, the star’s outer layers explode in an extremely violent supernova. Gravity wins the battle against pressure, causing the core to collapse under its own weight. When such a core is more than 2.5 times as massive as the Sun, the inward pull of gravity is so immense that the core continues collapsing upon itself, resulting in the formation of a black hole.

The mathematics describing black holes shows that the volume of the singularity—the center of a black hole—is zero, and thus the density of a black hole is infinite. With so much matter packed into an infinitesimally small space, black holes possess gravity so strong that not even light can escape its pull —if it crosses the event horizon, that is. The event horizon is the boundary beyond which nothing—not even light—can escape. This is because the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light. As a result, we know nothing beyond a black hole’s event horizon—it marks the boundary beyond which no information can be obtained. Because black holes do not emit any light, they are not visible.

What follows is a discussion on how black holes “die.†Perhaps “evaporate†is a more suitable word in this case. The process by which black holes evaporate is called Hawking radiation, or sometimes, Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. In 1972, physicist Jacob Bekenstein introduced an idea stating that black holes should have a finite temperature and entropy. Two years later, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking formulated a complete theory describing black body radiation in black holes.

In Hawking radiation, a continuous production of “virtual†particle-antiparticle pairs occurs near the event horizon of a black hole due to fluctuations in energy. Normally, such a pair will collide and annihilate, which is why these particles are referred to as “virtual†(they exist only for a limited time). However, the force of gravity exerted by the black hole can pull the negative antiparticle in, while the positive particle escapes. Because the positive particle essentially dodges annihilation and is left in space when the negative antiparticle is sucked into the black hole, it is no longer “virtualâ€â€”it is now real. By this process, the black hole appears to have emitted a positive particle. This is what is known as Hawking radiation.

Over time, the continuous addition of negative antiparticles to the black hole adds negative energy, resulting in a gradual decrease in the black hole’s mass. This will in turn cause a black hole’s size to gradually decrease. With the decrease in size, the black hole’s temperature increases to such an extent that the black hole vanishes in an extreme burst of gamma radiation, sometimes including all kinds of energetic particles. This marks the end of the black hole.

That being said, the time it takes for a black hole to evaporate can be extremely long, depending on its size. Smaller black holes evaporate faster than do larger black holes. For example, microscopic black holes would evaporate very quickly, but a black hole with the mass of our Sun would take 10^67 years to evaporate—that’s a 1 followed by SIXTY-SEVEN ZEROS. This clearly makes detection of Hawking radiation in space problematic. While a group of physicists in Italy conducted a laboratory experiment that may have produced Hawking radiation in 2010, it has not yet been detected in space.

Thanks for any clarification.

Master of a fraction of time on this dot in the virgo supercluster.
@Hometown in sunny Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

~I a n n a

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 5996
Credit: 73567441
RAC: 221079

"Science That" FB Blackhole Article?

The article is OK as far as the assumptions that underlie it go. The key is in the particular definitions beneath the words. A couple of points :

- black hole radiation in the Hawking sense is around the intersection of quantum mechanics ( QM ) and general relativity ( GR ). We don't have a consistent over-arching union of these two areas of physics, nor undeniable evidence of this 'evaporation' scenario. To be rigorous then : this is all speculation. "Well informed" speculation perhaps, but yet to be backed by measurement.

- the trick is that just barely outside the event horizon the gravity gradient ( change in potential energy with distance ) is humungous. Any spontaneously forming particle/antiparticle pairs may do so in such a fashion that one of the pair crosses the horizon going inwards and by rebound ( conservation of momentum ) the other gets to escape to some distance away. One is sacrificed to save the other, so to speak.

- the rate of this behaviour is predicted to be extra-ordinarily low for solar mass size black holes. Smaller holes have a lower gradient and roughly speaking the particle escape is easier. Hence the phrase evaporation, which is quicker the smaller the hole.

- this still dodges the question of the manner of union of QM with GR. However the particle pairs arise out of the vacuum, the severe spacetime gradient functions as a sorter.

- Hawking radiation has not been detected. But there is good reason for this to be so, even if it does exist. For us to perceive such particles at a distance well away from the event horizon ( where we are ), then such particles have to pay an enormous energy price to emerge out of the deep gravity well. They will be 'faint' and few and far between to boot. How could one confidently localise their origin to nearby the horizon in any case ?

- my personal view is that Hawking radiation just lies on the border of the 'bad' theory zone. A bad theorem is not one which is proved wrong by experiment and measurement. That is merely 'wrong'. A bad theory is one which cannot be tested to decide it's physical truth. I'm being kind about the border position I think, as I am allowing for the emergence of some future technique to appear which will observe it. I just can't quite rule it out as being subject to later test ....

- while there is considerable enthusiasm and belief in the existence of black holes, we've never seen one. That's partly because they're black, but also because ( cosmically speaking ) they are quite small and thus hard to find. Density after all is the key issue in their formation.

- there is no shortage of objects in the sky that are black hole candidates, but I think most would agree that to nail a firm identification requires evidence of an event horizon.

- there's a group trying to outline whatever is at the centre of our galaxy against the background of radiation beyond it ie. the putative black hole will occult/eclipse whatever is behind. More or less in a circular profile I'd expect.

- if there was a black hole so close to us as to be readily detected/obvious then we probably wouldn't be around to talk of it. The neighbourhoods that form such beasts are pretty rowdy.

- the other research quoted is demonstrating a light refraction/deflection technique. Old news in a new wrapper. Clever visual trick perhaps, but no biggie. Unrelated to black holes.

Addendum : An excellent contemporary example of bad theory would be string theory in any of it's forms. Investigations into this area are well into their fifth decade without producing a single number to be put toward experimental verification, in order to disambiguate from competing explanations. Massive investment in time, manpower and resources. Not a jot of prediction emitted. Proponents just keep clinging to the shipwreck. On the upside, none of my DownUnda taxes are subsiding that. My advice : if it is to continue, then at least* rename it. Get it out from underneath the 'shelter' of the Science umbrella. Try "Speculative Mathematics" or "Beauty & Symmetry Is Nice Studies" or "Gosh Aren't We Clever Theory". :-)

Cheers, Mike.

* It could helpfully enter dictionary service under :

groupthink - see String Theory

( edit ) There's an early 1970's sociologist, Jerry Harvey, who came up with the 'Abilene Paradox' :

Quote:

On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.


I quite like that. Meaning that people don't have to be 'bad' to do dumb things as a group. I also strongly recommended reading Richard Feynman's 1974 address to Caltech freshmen where he brilliantly predicts - such prescience - the coming wave of junk science that now floods us. Not to mention his brilliant carving up of NASA's utter stupidity regarding the O-rings in the post-Challenger disaster aftermath.

Especially : " ... he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats ... " ;-)

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

i a n n a
i a n n a
Joined: 9 Jan 14
Posts: 8
Credit: 8086
RAC: 0

Firstly, thank you for your

Firstly, thank you for your kind and very, very thorough reply.
In regards to your main point:

Quote:
To be rigorous then : this is all speculation. "Well informed" speculation perhaps, but yet to be backed by measurement.

Understood, but you're saying blackholes are a hypothesis not backed by any real math? But lets hypothetically assume if there are blackholes, wouldn’t gravitational waves be detectors for blackholes? Assuming they are not HUGE ones, but just kind of hanging around and about to die ones? So this entire project we’re basically confirming that “gravitational waves" should penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot. So itsn’t it 'hypothesized' that these gravitational waves will be able to provide us with information about black holes and other exotic objects in the distant Universe? So as I suspected, this Einstein@home project is really looking for curves of light that may detect a blackhole presence because this will prove the absorbing of light or emitting light of a frequency which is dependant on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situation. In essence, it could be a blackhole vacuum wave and not an untestable ‘bad theorum’ because it might become observed and therefore not just a pretty math equation but proving the death/work and presence of one? Or are you telling me this Einstein@home project isn't help Mr. Hawking, cause I signed up because of him ......??

Quote:
this still dodges the question of the manner of union of QM with GR. However the particle pairs arise out of the vacuum, the severe spacetime gradient functions as a sorter.

But a pulsar is a neutron star that emits a beam of electromagnetic radiation that can only be detected if the lighthouse wave is pointed towards the earth. And not understanding what you mean by ‘sorter’? But agreeing with general insights in quantum gravity and black-hole thermodynamics may not be a constant combination of QM and GR, but their speculative mathematics might be proven in this experiment we are lending out our computers for, to try and test it’s possibility with curved fields created by presence of mass.

Quote:
Addendum : An excellent contemporary example of bad theory would be string theory in any of it's forms. Investigations into this area are well into their fifth decade without producing a single number to be put toward experimental verification, in order to disambiguate from competing explanations. Massive investment in time, manpower and resources. Not a jot of prediction emitted. Proponents just keep clinging to the shipwreck. On the upside, none of my DownUnda taxes are subsiding that. My advice : if it is to continue, then at least*rename it. Get it out from underneath the 'shelter' of the Science umbrella. Try "Speculative Mathematics" or "Beauty & Symmetry Is Nice Studies" or "Gosh Aren't We Clever Theory". :-)

Hehehe…I understand but your debunking String Theorists is as speculative as the theorem itself. That’s like saying evolution is a beauty and symmetry speculative theory because we haven’t continuing evolving monkeys into humans and there are no complete body apes that show the process in a complete in-between cadaver. We just have bits and pieces of skulls and body parts that we take to be real as a math theorem but don’t quite cut it to making evolution science law just yet….

I watched a few Richard Feynman videos [url] http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu[/url] but will take your recommendation into reading more about his lectures. I like the bit about “Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.†Yet, here we are. Living in such exciting science times.
Europa could have tasty alien fish right a hop away from outside Jupiter and your computer could find a new blackhole tomorrow… I think we shouldn’t judge string theory until we find a better theory that makes sense to everyone :) . Would love to certainly hear your theory on everything...

Thanks again for the explanations.

Peace and love,
Ianna

Master of a fraction of time on this dot in the virgo supercluster.
@Hometown in sunny Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

~I a n n a

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 5996
Credit: 73567441
RAC: 221079

It's a question of,

It's a question of, ultimately, the definition of scientific proof. Which as mentioned has degraded substantially in recent decades and has come to mean virtually anything sufficiently intellectually complicated, regardless of any measurable physical basis. If you want to do science do measurement. If you want to do math, do math. If you want to shoot the breeze, shoot the breeze. For physics at least, the math is the mechanism/process/tool to emit predictions of sufficient precision to enable distinction of competing explanations when experiment occurs.

Confusion arises when premises are mixed. In this instance an undisclosed re-definition of 'science' had led to distress when subsequent events contradict expectations. So it's not actually a matter of debunking anything, especially if it was never 'bunked' in the first instance ( the relevant contrast is between what thoughts are inside one's head vs. the events outside ). But indeed in the hiatus of progress that has occurred with string theory, many proponents have openly expressed the wish to drop the 'reality test' within science in order to allay their discomfort. That desire had been kept hidden for quite a while, in any case it's good that some have admitted to the redefinition that they have clearly applied privately. They have certainly disowned the traditional responsibility of scientific authors which is to assist to some degree in physical testing, for which here the lack of any ( discriminating ) prediction has entirely prevented. If you're curious look up Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute, as a former string theorist himself he has much to say which is worth a glance.

Alas a 'theory of everything' has an underlying unstated assumption : that the Universe is explicable. It may not be. :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

i a n n a
i a n n a
Joined: 9 Jan 14
Posts: 8
Credit: 8086
RAC: 0

Deep thoughts, none of which

Deep thoughts, none of which I can devil's advocate, as you set up a very convincing argument. Thanks for letting me pick your brain and for the priceless recommendations. I truly appreciate it.

Kind regards,
Ianna

Master of a fraction of time on this dot in the virgo supercluster.
@Hometown in sunny Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

~I a n n a

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 5996
Credit: 73567441
RAC: 221079

Post note : beware the claim

Post note : beware the claim of string theory as being 'currently the most viable explanation' or likewise language. To be 'most viable' it has to be 'at least viable' ie. in the viable category at all. Whether one accepts that or not as valid construct/semantics is a personal value judgement I guess. My personal view is that allegedly clever people ought do way way better than have to hang upon such a thin premise.

[ASIDE : As a clinician I work everyday with substantial, including fatal, consequences if there is failure to address reality. So my comments ought be viewed with such a background coloring. One doesn't always get it right - imperfection abounds - but that doesn't mean you have to be crap at it. Especially by throwing away the very thing that can achieve so much : positive affirmation of clinical signs. But I digress ... ]

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Beyond
Beyond
Joined: 28 Feb 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 148719734
RAC: 0

RE: That’s like saying

Quote:
That’s like saying evolution is a beauty and symmetry speculative theory because we haven’t continuing evolving monkeys into humans and there are no complete body apes that show the process in a complete in-between cadaver. We just have bits and pieces of skulls and body parts that we take to be real as a math theorem but don’t quite cut it to making evolution science law just yet….


Evolution as a process is well established. We need look no further than the yearly flu viruses or the antibiotic resistant bacteria that infest our hospitals. The exact progression of human evolution isn't quite as well understood but we do have evidence now that Neanderthal DNA was incorporated into the genome of modern man (something one of my paleontology professors was insisting on back in the 1960s). Just wanted to clarify a bit as some throw out evolution in general because ideological dogma keeps them from accepting human evolution. Oops, I forgot: the world is flat and rests on a large tortoise. Wonder what the tortoise eats...

Beyond
Beyond
Joined: 28 Feb 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 148719734
RAC: 0

RE: Alas a 'theory of

Quote:
Alas a 'theory of everything' has an underlying unstated assumption : that the Universe is explicable. It may not be. :-)


Possible, but if we assume this we stop searching for the answer. Seems that the universe would most likely be explicable on some level. Isn't that the point of physics? The standard model is useful but has gaps. An elegant "theory of everything" would be convenient. Maybe it exists and maybe not. While mathematics goes so far, at some point we reach the limits of our currently available tools to find the evidence. Hopefully some clever person will devise an experiment that gives us more insight and either old theories will be confirmed (or not) and/or new theories will be postulated. Until then we continue to speculate with the clues we have. Who says physics isn't creative?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.