/sci/ - Science & Math

They seek tits.

Gravitons like tits, just like everyone else, man. No tits to be found in a black hole. It's a scientific fact.

>implying gravitons are real

> implying we have a fully-developed theory of quantum gravity which operates on relativistic scales

>>1792183
for forces to operate they require bosons
>>1792185
so the answer is...dunno yet then?

I have a better question. If no information can escape a black hole, and since ideas are information, how can we even conceive of a black hole?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=476951&postcount=2

>>1792192
cause we're not in a black ho...
oh wait...troll

>>1792198
cheater, you used google, didn't you

>>1792198
>>1792198
virtual bosons?
what is this i don't even.
What is the difference between a virtual and a real graviton/photon?

>>1792199
No, not troll. You just didn't understand the question.

A black hole exists somewhere, right?
Information is a mathematical representation of stimuli, right?
A black hole isn't giving us any stimuli, because no information can escape it, right?
An idea is a type information, right?

Whence comes the information that black holes exist, then?

>>1792213
try reading a book some time

I recommend "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat"

heres another link

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980601a.html

>>1792216
> not a troll
> ideas come from black holes, but that's not allowed because gravity!

>>1792216
Hence why we call it a black hole- cause we can't recieve any information from it, only see the lack of information compared with the space around it.

>>1792216
from observing how other objects are affected by it? that they are pulled towards a single point etc.

>>1792223
I never said anything about gravity. Just information.

>>1792226
>>1792227
But that lack of information is information to us, isn't it?

>>1792216
the information that black holes exist comes when you see a star orbiting a fixed point in space, as if it was a binary star system, but only has one star. we know the "missing star" doesnt emit light but has enough mass to keep other stars in place.

gererally speaking though, if something is outside the event horizon of the black hole, it essentially doesnt recognize the black hole and acts as if its not there at all.

>>1792242
So you're saying black holes emit information about their existence?

>>1792241
That information isn't coming from the black hole, it's coming from the surroundings.

>>1792247
no, they dont "emit" information, but we can gain knowledge by observing them

Also, we still haven't observed black holes. We only have evidence suggesting the existence of them.

>>1792249
Gain knowledge how?
Observe how?

You see? Black holes are paradoxical creations of the mind. They are like a deity who is purposefully absent.

-But why won't he show himself?
-You need to have faith.

>>1792256
did you not read this post?
>>1792242

one piece of information we can gain about a black hole is its mass, we know a black holes mass because of the effect it has on the stars around it

>>1792256
when you say "emits information" you are assuming that an emited information is either like a particle or a wave. information is neither.

then, if you have a blue blanket and at one spot, you cant see any blue but your table, dont you assume that there is a hole in your blanket?

>>1792261
>one piece of information we can gain about a black hole is its mass
We're saying the same thing. Black holes emit information about their existence.

>>1792264
No, I am not assuming information is a particle nor a wave. I'm just trying to locate the source of the whole "it doesn't emit any information, yet we know about it" paradox.

>>1792269
but a black hole doesnt "emit" any information about its mass. it only acts on other objects that are near it, and we observe this.

>>1792269
Please find a quote where someone said black holes "don't emit information."

>>1792270
If it doesn't, then it's not observable.

>>1792275
>According to the general theory of relativity, a black hole is a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

Wikipedia. That "nothing" includes information.

>>1792289
> that "nothing" includes information
I am not aware of the properties of this "information." What's its spin? Does it have a rest mass?

>>1792216
Some Scientist that served in World War2 was doing calculations in between calculation the trajectory of artillery fire and theorised (by using Einstein's equations) that if an object had enough mass in a small enough space it would create a 'rip' in space time. These are now known as black holes

very vague description I know. However its all i can remember on the subject.

Black holes release huge amounts of energy when they swallow matter, and it had been thought that most of this emerged in the form of radiation. However, the new findings show that some black holes can release at least as much energy, and perhaps much more, in the form of collimated jets of fast moving particles.
>http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/50561-black-hole-emits-giant-jets

black holes are still a pretty new, touchy subject, so the details are still being debated as new evidence is always being found.
shits pretty amazing tho

>>1792295
That's a postulate, a belief at best.

>>1792292
Let me give it to you in simple, high-school level set theory:

Elements of the set named something:
Particles
Watermelons
4chan threads
Information
Boxed set of Buffy Season 2
etc.

Elements of the set named nothing:


You see? If nothing can escape a black hole, then this obviously includes information.

>>1792307
I'm quite sure I understand. However, even the most basic introductions to black holes do not say what you say. They say things like, "We can know nothing of the singularity except its mass, charge, and spin."

>>1792325
So, Wikipedia is wrong!

>>1792339
No. Wikipedia is correct.

>>1792511
No, it's wrong. You accept it's shitstorm of politically motivated editors all agree.

>>1792534
> it's

>>1792535
"It is" is a grammatical "contraction", which results in "it's", you gibbering animal.

>>1792546
> it is shitstorm

Whats the state of the arguement at?

>>1792552
Some dude has a vague definition of information and insists that black holes must swallow all information.

>>1792550

If the "shitstorm of politically motivated editors" was a verb, instead of a noun, you -might- have a point, ass.

Go back to elementary, kiddo.

>>1792589
Good well now that thats cleared up, lets talk about black holes and information

>>1792609
No. You have no command of the language you are trying to communicate in.

>>1792589
I have never in my life seen someone fail so hard at grammar.

/hawking radiation
noob.

>>1792589
> wats a article?!

>>1792177
Not trolling here but I thought gravitons, if they exist (I can't remember much about them), are supposed to be denser and more energized than a black hole or light and thus can escape the event horizon. Did I just pull that out of my ass or is that something like the theory on gravitons?

>>1792746
Gravitons are currently theorized to be massless bosons that travel at the speed of light.

>>1792750
Gotcha. But why would having no mass make them ignore the gravitational force?

>>1792754
...

Please reconsider your question.

>>1792754
I'd imagine their interaction with things is what we call gravity. Kind of like how photons don't have magnetic properties, but thats how magnets talk to eachother

>>1792759
Oh wait. I think I just had a brain fart. They ignore forces acted on them by gravity since F=ma and the mass would be zero. What would make them leave the black hole then if they have no forces able to act on them?

>>1792733
So Hawking radiation carries information about a black hole? How so?

>>1792185
>>1792183
>>1792185
>>1792183
>>1792185
>>1792183
>>1792185
>>1792183

>>1792216
>Information is a mathematical representation of stimuli, right?
um, no?

>>1792768
I think you should stop posting and review your understanding of the word "force" as it applies to particle physics. I understand you are eager to learn but you're just running around in circles because of this fundamental misunderstanding.

In relativity, gravitational "force" is just a distortion of spacetime. It requires a large amount of mass (or the equivalent amount of energy).

In quantum physics, no one has yet created a model of the particle which acts as the mediator of the phenomenon we call "force." Asking questions about it means you're not likely to get particularly intelligible answers. This is made worse by your understanding of the word "force" in this context.

>>1792768
I think you should stop posting and review your understanding of the word "force" as it applies to particle physics. I understand you are eager to learn but you're just running around in circles because of this fundamental misunderstanding.

In relativity, gravitational "force" is just a distortion of spacetime. It requires a large amount of mass (or the equivalent amount of energy).

In quantum physics, no one has yet created a model of the particle which acts as the mediator of the phenomenon we call "gravity" or "gravitational force." Asking questions about it means you're not likely to get particularly intelligible answers. This is made worse by your understanding of the word "force" in this context.

Information is not real. Its totally dependant on the cypher.

>>1792790
Thank you. I will try to read into it more before continuing on this query here. I admit I have never even learned past work and energy in physics, as of high school, and just now getting there in the calc. based physics course I'm taking in college. Hopefully we will touch on this later on.

>>1792770

Hawking Radiation, from what I understand tells about what falls in the black hole after it becomes a black hole but not the black hole itself. It is purely theoretical but nothing says it shouldn't exist.

It is stated that there are two opposing particles that come into existence everywhere in the universe (one being the anti of the other) but annihilate so soon after manifesting that they cannot be considered part of reality. However, the ones that occur near the event horizon may have one of the pair fall into the black hole without the other, allowing for one of the particles to basically appear as if it came from no where. This subtle but constant small form of radiation is what is known as Hawking Radiation, but none has been discovered as of yet. It is just predicted as a possible way of seeing black holes.

Also, gravitons haven't been discovered either but if they do exist they would not be radiating out of objects like photons do. Instead (correct me on this one if I'm wrong) it would seem like they would stretch out across the universe and pull among each other to create a vast three dimensional web or space-time fabric. At least, that's what I imagine a fundamental particle of the weak force of Gravity would be like.

>>1792810
Your main problem is thinking of the force as distinct from a particle. In particle physics forces basically *are* particle interactions. If something "feels" the electromagnetic force then that means it interacts with photons. In a sense, photons just are the electromagnetic force.

So it would be with gravitons. While some meaning can be given to the question "do gravitons feel gravity?" it is likely *not* the sense you're reaching for here.

Virtual particles are particles that exist for brief moments in time. If in that time they interact with something and gain energy they become real particles. An electron positron pair can spawn into existence randomly oriented, right on the edge of the event horizon. If both fall in the rate at which particles appear and disappear is equal so no real effect is noticed by the black hole. If the positron is pointed away from the black hole it may escape and the electron will be captured, thus causing the hole to have a negative charge, repulsing electrons more than positrons, encouraging more positrons to fall in. If the positron falls in rather than the electron then the total mass of the black hole will reduce due to electron positron annihilation. This is how black holes decay and put of radiation.

well i seem to have created a shitstorm