Question for cosmologists and physicists about Hawkings
Posted on: February 2, 2007 - 12:08am
Offline
Question for cosmologists and physicists about Hawkings
I was recently watching the science channels special about Hawkings and it was saying that he proposed that all the matter that was being sucked into black holes was simply disappearing, which I believe now he is saying it is simply going to another dimension/universe. I am sure I don’t have a decent grasp on all the details but I thought that the way we see black holes is by the energy/matter that they shoot out from each side (see picture below) Is he talking about something different? Please help.
- Login to post comments
blackholes spew a tremendous amount of energy in the form of a stream when its fighting for survival when its near its relative end.
it took 20 years of the worlds top minds to find an error in hawkings work on disapearing matter energy. and once they did, not only did he admitted that he was wrong, (that takes a big man) but he proved that the hypothesis that proved him wrong was also wrong. he corrected himself and explained this phen. with an alternative, the multiverse (youll never find god admitting his mistakes. . . lol)
hawking says that the ballance comes form some universes like ours have blackholes and some do not. that is the balance. and that the matter doesnt become a 2nd dimentional plate of information spread and smeared along the outer-most rim as part of the disc of a blackhole.
Stephen Hawking came up with theoretical arguments showing that black holes are not really entirely black: due to quantum-mechanical effects, they emit radiation. The energy that produces the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole. Consequently, the black hole gradually shrinks. It turns out that the rate of radiation increases as the mass decreases, so the black hole continues to radiate more and more intensely and to shrink more and more rapidly until it presumably vanishes entirely.
rest easy theist, cause and effect are still linked. . . causality still governs all.
I am the radical and variable to counter act on your alpha and omega! The One True Juggernaut, and. . . I WILL BASH AND CUT DOWN THOSE THAT CANNOT BE TAUGHT!!!
im not so good with words but i know sombody that is. . . right mike
Nice work, that's what I came in here to try to say.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
lol b/c if there is a God, then that God would not make mistakes.
Was I worried about something other than my own lack of knowledge on a subject?
When it vanishes does the energy go to another universe? Is this similar or the same to string or M theory? I am still a bit confused on how the multiverse works, time for more searching! Thanks for the start.
You know, I was going to post to explain this a bit and while looking something up, the impression in my mind of why black holes evaporate seems completely wrong.
According to what I'm reading, when a virtual particle/anti-particle pair appear (from the background energy of space-time), sometimes the anti-particle gets sucked into the black hole, freeing the regular particle, resulting in a net loss for the black hole.
However, why is this inversely proportional to the size?
For some reason, I had the impression, that the evaporation is due to the uncertainty principle, as follows:
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, one can only know the velocity and the position of a particle with only so much certainty. As the certainty of one value increases, the other decrease.
So, when something gets sucked into a black hole, you have a fairly good idea of where that piece of matter is. It is within the event horizon of the black hole. Because of the level of certainty of its location, it's velocity gets some wiggle room. The wiggle room could allow the particle to go FTL and escape. So the smaller the black hole, the more wiggle room particles get and the more it evaporates.
---------
Please let me know if this is way off base. Tha main problem I see is with allowing particles to go FTL.
This article throws out alot of terminology that I have yet to look up and make sense of, but it does mention that the particle/anti-particle pairs statement is a pop-science simplification of how it actually works.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
The matter and energy are all compressed into a singularity through massive gravitational forces. Hawking's original theories posited that there were white holes somewhere else, spewing out all this matter and energy.
-Triften
No, pretty good sum up GAWN, I have little to add, except to say that the issue is not quite so neatly put to bed as you paint it. The debate still goes on.
There's been all sort of specials on the Discovery channel and what not about this lately, and it's actually pretty old news.
Hawking essentially proposed that black holes evaporate slowly, and he was quasi-correct, or so it seems. Black holes emit balck body radiation, they're hot. It has to do with virtual particles as triften was talking about. Essentially, vacuum fluctuations (a whole different lengthy topic) spontaneously appear on the event horizion, and sometimes one of the particle paris gets sucked in and the other other escapes. Well, that was a bit of a problem for our understanding of the universe, which states, and likely rightly so, that the total mass-energy of the universe is constant, unchanging.
What was in effect happening was to the observer outside of the black hole, the hole was emitting a particle, it was evaporating. Now personally, I never really saw this as a problem, honestly, then again, I'm not a cosmologist. I did not see this as a violation of the conservation of matter-energy, IMO - just a seperation. Something doesn't disappear when it enters a black hole, it becomes part of it. Anyway, I digress.
At any rate, theories abound about how to get around this Hawking paradox, and Hawking shoots them down again and again. He's the guy with the problem everyone wants to solve. There have been many new proposals as of late though, like Lee Smolin's theory, which I have to admit I find pretty intriguing.
Still, Hawking has his own ideas that he's in the process of putting to paper.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.