Posted on 02/01/2014 1:03:35 PM PST by BenLurkin
Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesn’t have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawking’s proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
We have one. Just ask Reggie Love...
Sem*it"ic (?), a. Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races. [Written also Shemitic.] Semitic language, a name used to designate a group of Asiatic and African languages, some living and some dead, namely: Hebrew and Ph&oe;nician, Aramaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Ethiopic (Geez and Ampharic). Encyc. Brit.
The theory requires a very minor modification of Hawking's original idea, which was slightly wrong. There is a good link to the explanation at the web site of this article.
GR and Hawking Radiation are still intact. No worries.
Either way, I don’t see how entangled particles on either side of an event horizon violates the entanglement.
The entanglement is violated because the particle that falls into the black hole in annihilated, leaving an orphaned partner. The resolution is that Hawking particles are spawned in entangled pairs of pairs. [Four particles.] In each case the entangled particles fall in, or escape together.
Like a double date, where you go into a bar and get so trashed you wake up in a strange bed, but it's the gal you went in with in the first place, so no "fire wall" to deal with later on...
Nor is anyone who disputes his claims.......
After all, it is "Theoretical Science"...........
Fascinating stuff.
It's simple. Really. A star collapses and dies. It becomes, after a time, a super massive sphere. So massive that its gravitational pull will not allow light to escape. So all this light has to go somewhere...or rather, its energy. So the light is converted to other forms of energy...because we know that energy can not be destroyed but must be converted to some other form.
So the energy from this light is pulled in and gets converted to X-rays and other forms of higher frequency radiation like gamma rays. These, the 'black hole', cannot pull in so they spew out at very high speed and for great distances.
The name 'black hole' (which I detest) is an abysmal moniker for there is no hole. Yes, physical laws would seem to break down but there is no hole. It is nothing more that a super dense singularity that converts energy from one for to another on a MASSIVE scale.
See?
OK but explain a singularity. Always thought that all objects had a “gravitational” pull that is proportional to its mass. If an object such as a star “collapses” unto itself, its mass would be a bit more dense but overall less as some of that contracting mass dissipates as energy. Then why is the gravity field so much stronger?
Hawking lost all credibility when he started to become an atheist philosopher, essentially himself buying into the hype that he’s the smartest man in history. He ventured into territory that he had no business venturing into and some of his comments end up sounding like a college student.
His understand of physics is certainly historic, but his understanding of the origins of physics is sophomoric at best. Hawking contradicts himself repeatedly when he talks about the creation of matter.
Yeah. Not sure if he saw money in Dawkins’ cottage industry or just wanted to get some publicity.
Oh yes, you’re correct. The particle within the event horizon acts like negative matter in order for conservation of energy to be preserved. I missed that little nuance.
Reminds me of a buddy of mine who went to a cosmetology seminar on career day in high school expecting to learn about astronomy...
“What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?”
I think Marion Barry nows more than one!
You want a Physics guru, look to Richard Feynman.
Shouldn't it look like a black orb? 3-D orb rather than a 2-D hole.
thank you, that makes it PERFECTLY clear! ?:[
will there be a test on this later?
I thought that the science was settled. Deniers!
The solution of Einstein Field equations is beyond the scope of this reply. However, you can get a very good estimate of the size (it actually turns out to be too large by a factor of 1/2) by using the Virial Theorem of classical physics, and Newtons Law:
Virial Therorem for central forces:
Average Kinetic energy = 1/2 Average Potential Energy.
1/2 mv2 = GMm/2r
r = GM/v2
At Schwarzchild Radius, r = rs, v = c;
rs = GM/c2
Couple examples:
for solar mass [the sun won't become a black hole because it doesn't have enough mass to become a neutron star, but just an example] ~2 x 1030 kg
rs = 1.989E30 kg x 6.67384E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 / (3.0E8 ms-1) ~ 1500 m. So a black hole with one solar mass would have rs of 1.5 kilometers.
A black Hole with a mass the same as earth: 5.972E24 kg would have rs of about 0.4 cm .
Both of these answers are off by 2, because Newton's gravity doesn't hold for strong gravitational fields.
Thanks Fred. There is much I do not and never will understand about the nuances of physics.
Well, the event horizon is spherical. But as to how it would “look” we get most of our three-D vision from cues (contrary to popular belief, almost all 3D vision occurs in the brain, binocular vision isn’t necessary.) The event horizon wouldn’t appear to “bulge” because from every angle light would not escape, so no shading, no highlights. When backlit, gravitational lensing would tend to make it look like a hole from every direction there was any significant light behind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.