/sci/ - Science & Math

Black holes don't exist, they're supermassive dark stars with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light hence they can't be directly detected. Sounds quite rational to me. Why assume they're some wololol voodoo-shit that break the laws of physics?

>>1484085

>>1484065
> somewhere in vacuum near event horizon two particles, electron and positron can create themselves from nowhere.
No. Virtual particles have positive and negative energy, not electrical charge. Don't use terms you don't understand.

>>1484085
Yet that scenario has been proved wrong by observational evidence.

>>1484085

This man is correct. They are not actually a whole like some people believe.

>>1484135 Don't use terms you don't understand.
Yeah, you're the right person to say that. Given strong enough fields, particles generated by vacuum fluctuations can very well be separated. Easiest way: positron+electron.

>>1484085 No Source
>>1484171 No source
>>1484065 No source
>>1484135 No. Fucking. Source.

>>1484085

Since when did anyone say they break the laws of physics? We just haven't found the theory to encompass certain parts (namely, radiation) yet.

>supermassive dark stars
>black holes

these mean the same thing

>>1484190 No Source.

>>1484186

No shit? No one believes they are actually a hole. That's just the "cool sounding name" given to explain them to the masses, much like the big bang.

>>1484190

Did you check every claim for a source, or did you just decide in your own head that these things must have no sources whatsoever, because you might/might not be familiar with them?

>>1484199
You answered your own question. It has events that can't be explained by our current knowledge of the physical world. We can't account for what goes on in a black hole with what we currently know. Therefore, people refer to the popular phrase that it "breaks" the laws of physics, for lack of a better term.

>>1484218
Slow bro.
Here: >>1484201

>>1484190

>>1484186
>Tries to sound smart.
>Spells hole as "whole."
>My face

>>1484085
> they're supermassive dark stars with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light
Thats just black hole named differently and event horizon has escape velocity greater than speed of light so you pretty much described a black hole in your own words

>>1484135
This person is wrong, do not listen to him, even though he's being super aggressive and sounds sure of himself.

>>1484171
Here is one source. I'd cite research papers but I would spend a while looking for them.
http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/news/releases/2005/0920.html
Also, kinks in jets from galaxies expected to harbor supermassive black holes are easily explained by SMBH mergers.

OP here answer my question or correct me if Im wrong, but stop that bullshit talk.

...and the original question has now been lost to the event horizon, the event horizon known as conjecture.

OPs here again
>>1484135
electron-positron pair is a great example of virtual particles.

>As physicists say event horizon can never shrink (because entropy would decrease)

Why? From what I've learned about entropy lately, this doesn't seem like a big deal.

>>1484222

Just because we haven't developed a law to describe the action of some object doesn't mean it's "breaking the laws of physics".

That's like the scientists saying relativity broke the laws of physics when it was introduced. We just couldn't explain it then.

I just hate the phrase. It screams of human self-importance, as if we already are certain how the laws work.

>>1484085
On the rage I interpreted that as a supermassive cluster of dark stars, and that's what has been disproved. That something seems weird to you doesn't mean it's breaking the laws of physics. If you are talking about singularities, clearly you don't understand what you're talking about.

>>1484274
I think he meant to explain in that
"It is breaking our understanding of the laws of physics."

>>1484263
Not necessarily. Electron-positron pairs are routinely produced by gamma rays, for instance, and they don't behave like virtual particles, since you can detect them directly.

>>1484065
Oh, I see. The problem is that the positron does not have negative mass. That's all. you are confusing opposite charge with opposite mass. It's the former.

>>1484222
we cant really tell whats wrong and whats right until someone will come up with theory of everything combining and able to describe all known physical phenomena. So wait for it but dont say things like that

OH! Op, I think I know. When the antimatter particle annihilates a matter particle in the black hole, their masses don't simply disappear, get gets converted into electromagnetic radiation, which preserves the energy. So, same amount of mass, just held in a different form. So the amount of warping of spacetime would be the same.

>>1484284

Yeah, I just despise the phrase, as I mentioned previously.

It should be something like "hey we discovered this new thing, it exists, therefore there are laws governing it, so we have to adjust our views accordingly" I know this is the way most scientists view things but there are always people who insist "something" is impossible and yet eventually it inevitably becomes possible.

>>1484302
OP didn't say anything about negative mass, what are you talking about?

>>1484302
> negative mass

>>1484333
How about "black holes break our equations"

>>1484352

our equations are wrong, then

>>1484344
Nah, disregard my comment. I'm sleepy now so I'm not reading clearly.

>>1484333
Believe me I'm with you. I never said the term was correct. Again, it's just something people say to sensationalize it. Just like the term black hole. It's not a hole, per se, but that's the term.

Like I said, I agree with everything you just said. I was just putting the phrase in perspective

>>1484366
Well no shit Sherlock, do you want the Nobel Prize in cash or check?

>>1484366
Our equations MIGHT be wrong.
OR, the broken stuff might actually be happening in there just like the equation says. We don't know.

>>1484407

They may not be wrong, but it's possible that pieces are missing.

>>1484402
Sensationalism in science saddens me, because it detracts from ACTUAL mindfuck discoveries and accomplishments. For example we're already played the "synthetic life" card, so when we actually start designing new life, with WORKING PARTS that we designed, it won't seem as flashy as when Ventner sent out his press release.

>>1484426
If pieces are missing, then it's not accurate enough to be called correct.

:V

>>1484302
When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore of its mass - mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc^2

>>1484441
E = c^2

You forgot to cross out mass dude

>>1484455

>>1484427
Agreed. It's pathetic that people are more interested in what Lady Gaga wore today than the fact that MAN HAS CREATED LIFE. Seriously, what the fuck.

>>1484441
But I thought nothing can escape the event horizon. Hawking radiation comes from the outside of the horizon. So it's not losing it's mass. Or was OP right when he said the particle that crosses the horizon cancels out a particle in the black hole?

>>1484249
>>1484263
>>1484269
>>1484274
>>1484279
>>1484284
>>1484286
>>1484302
>>1484284
>>1484286
>>1484302
>>1484311
>>1484332
>>1484333
>>1484344
>>1484349
>>1484352
>>1484366
>>1484388
>>1484388
>>1484402
>>1484407
>>1484412
>>1484426
>>1484427
>>1484435
>>1484441
>>1484455
>>1484477
all faggots

>>1484349
Read up on Hawkins Radiation.
It assumes existence of a particle with negative momentum.

>>1484498
>I'm an engineer and need attention so I act out.
It's okay, you can discuss black holes too.

>>1484498
[citation needed]

>>1484426
If pieces are missing, then it's not accurate enough to be called [complete]

>>1484490
Hawking radiation assumes that those particles show up at the edge of event horizon

>>1484498 No. Fucking. Source.

>>1484490
> particle that crosses the horizon cancels out a particle in the black hole
thats black hole evaporation. (anti particle and particle colliding)

>>1484517
It's widely accepted that our laws of physics are incomplete. Incomplete, not incorrect, though many accept that even that's a real, distinct possibility. So my question to you is, what is the point you're trying to make?

>Or was OP right when he said the particle that crosses the horizon cancels out a particle in the black hole?

Im siding with OP, however that'd depend on whether the matter in the black hole was mater or antimatter, and which type of matter was sucked in.

Predictions:
No bias: faint glow around black holes, due to matter/antimatter orphans of previous reactions, coming together and converting back into energy

Bias (Hawking radiation tends to favor antimatter output): faint glow around event horizon as antimatter orphans meet incoming normal matter

Bias (HR favors matter emission): No glow as matter particle orphans meet other normal matter being sucked in.

>>1484495
Hawking and Hawking Radiation says nothing about negative mass nor negative momentum.
When one of a pair of virtual particles is accelerated away from the event horizon, the energy needed to 'realize' the virtual particle is taken from the black hole. This lowers the energy of the BH, and therefore lowers the mass. The infalling particle's energy returns to the BH, the escaping particle's energy does not.

>>1484538
But the particle, both the incoming and the particle that it combines with, don't actually leave the black hole, they just turn into energy, which still can't escape. So I don't see how its evaporation or loss.

>>1484557
>>1484538
Interesting, thanks for the answers.

>>1484569

They would turn into heat energy, which inside a black hole doesn't make any sense. This is one of the reaosns why the theory isn't fully understood.

>>1484569
BH evaporation is about that: antiparticle collides with particle inside event horizon and both annihilate - that leads to mass/energy loss and so called "evaporation"

>>1484556
Though I'm not the person you're responding to, the original point, which has probably changed since responding to >>1484412
Was that we shouldn't call our equations or the current interpretations of them wrong, or correct, but still assume that they are correct enough to change positively.

>>1484065 http://www.mydellmini.com/forum/dell-mini-9-guides/22296-dell-mini-tablet.html

>>1484567
>the energy needed to 'realize' the virtual particle is taken from the black hole
Could you elaborate on that?

Also, Hawkrad is about pair production, and don't spawned particles have opposite velocity? So if you use the point of origin as a reference point, isn't one going in the opposite direction of the other? Wouldn't that be negative momentum? Or am I just completely wrong, and the curls of generated particle tracks due solely to their opposite charges reacting to the applied magnetic field (pic related)

>>1484567
This doesn't make sense to me. How and why is the energy taken from the black hole? I don't think you're correct.

And Hawking radiation refers to anti-matter particles which ARE theorized to have negative momentum and all that theoretical crazy shit.

>>1484538
Hawkins radiation and black hole evaporation are synonyms.

>>1484602
>Wouldn't that be negative momentum?
No, that's still positive momentum. Negative momentum requires negative mass.
>>1484612
>And Hawking radiation refers to anti-matter particles
Actually, not really. Not anti-matter, but something more exotic. Anti-matter has positive mass and thus positive momentum.
People have problems with understanding negative mass, because anti-matter sounds negative enough, so they assume they are the same thing.
They are not.
Anti-matter isn't (-1) matter. It has positive energy, just negative charge.

>>1484602
>>1484612
After some thinking negative momentum might be a m*(-v), I was thinking about negative mass thats why I denied that from begining.

Energy loss was explained few post ago, I wont write about that again, "realize" is just a colloquialism, it means that this particle is non-realistic or virtual (its still just a name its not magic) but it gets "realized" while annihilating a particle inside event horizon

>>1484633
No black hole evaporation derives from Hawking radiation.

>>1484695
could you explain that a little more ?
Im saying a lot about antimatter here and it would be a shame to be wrong, but hell, we have to learn :)

>>1484715
This still sounds odd to me on the basis of causality. There's a sequence of events we're talking about. These 2 particles spring up, one gets sucked in while the other escapes, the one that gets sucked in cancels a particle o the black hole, etc. This leads me to believe that the energy to create the original particles can't come from the black hole, since the energy you're referring to is an effect of the particle creation. Even if this all happens in fractions of a micro second, one still happens before the other. Do you have a source by any chance? I realize this is complicated and may be too much to explain on a message board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhole#Entropy_and_Hawking_radiation

>>1484775
ahh I didnt realize what you were asking earlier.
Its quantum fluctuations - sometimes for a very tiny moment (planck time) a virtual particle/antiparticle pair appears from nowhere thanks to momentary break in conservation of energy from 1st rule of thermodynamics, however I gain all my knowledge from native language books and wikipedia so one wont benefit you but other will.

Oh I see whats wrong with this thread

Some people (myself included) believe Hawking radiation is referring to matter/antimatter spontaneous genesis from gamma rays that happens to occur on the edge of a black hole.

The other group is saying that Hawking radiation is more like a balance sheet, from what I understand.

>>1484695
I owe you an apology.

well as it happens in /sci/ my question wasnt answered, istead of this we plunged into details which I had to explain again and again. I thought I could learn something here but 1 guy who seemed to know something vanished.
I still dont know if my opening statement is right, I can only guess that BH will evaporate until it annihilates entirely and explode because temperature would increase with loss of mass and probably EHorizon wont decreace (still I dont know why). However it would take milions and milions of years maybe my son will come up with an explanation.

I feel bad that this is the first science related discussion thread on /sci/ I've seen in quite some time and I have not the knowledge to make an informed opinion on my interpretation of the meaning of the given facts...

Ah well

>>1484945
Im glad to be the one who makes beneficial changes to /sci/

>>1484065
>As physicists say event horizon can never shrink

No, and you cannot back this up because it is incorrect.
False premise, your whole post is invalid.

>>1485421

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEcVf93k0ZE
Lec 2 | MIT Lecture 8.224 on Exploring Black Holes also Wikipedia and A brief history of time by Hawking.

>>1484941
Hope you're still lurking and checking on this thread. Here are some of my thoughts on this:

Black holes contain massive amounts of matter. At the very, very least, it contains much of the matter that was present in the giant star that collapsed on itself to form the hole. This black hole decay must be a painfully slow process. Even in the grand scheme of the universe, where stars have lifetimes of billions of years, even this process must be terribly slow. Imagine trying to chip away at the mass of the black hole electron by electron. Meanwhile, I don't think Hawking radiation is very strong at all, so it's not like there are a whole lot of anti-matter particles being dragged in. All the while, the black hole is still going about its business sucking shit into it from all directions. Anything that strays too close (cosmic dust, gas, rogue stars, planets, light, etc) gets pulled past the event horizon and gets compressed into the center (singularity or not, I don't know). So it seems to me that there will always be a net gain of mass throughout time; that is, until the universe expands enough where the black hole has no more cosmic trash to pull in. At that point, the black hole decay will come into effect and it's mass will most likely dwindle, albeit slowly.

This is something, I'm sure, that physics has no answer for just yet. Our knowledge of these black holes is still fairly primitive and we could find out in the future that everything we thought we know now is wrong.

>>1486355 continued.

Getting back to your original post though, I wasn't aware that the event horizon can't decrease in size. I find that odd, since the horizon isn't necessarily a physical body. All it means, is its the exact point where gravity is strong enough that light can't escape the pull. This gravity is obviously caused by the mass contained within. If that mass decreases, the magnitude of gravity decreases, and I see no reason why the event horizon wouldn't be affected in the same manner.

If this is the case (that the event horizon can never shrink), then you're right, it does seem pretty wild. I'm not exactly sure what that could possibly mean.

>>1484941
And sorry your question didn't get answered right away. What your asking is purely theoretical at this point; Mr. Hawking himself probably doesn't have a definitive answer for you (though he would clearly explain it better than I). At least this was an intelligent discussion throughout, much better than any other topic /sci/ has done recently. Fucking miracles, how do they work?

>>1484945
No worries, hope you learned a little, though.

Bump

Goodnight, thread