The Black Hole Theory has a couple holes...

[SilverRevlis]

;)The Black Hole Theory as proposed has a couple holes in it, so to speak... It is practically impossible that a Black Hole is a portal to another dimension/plane/universe/world or wherever (Heaven/Hell??). Everything that has form gets destroyed and there in fact remains only extremely condensed matter/energy over on a relatively very small amount of space. The best idea so far is that different Universes exchange energy with each other through Black Holes to maintain a certain equilibrium in the Multiverse... however, you, I or anything which gets pulled towards it is effectively 'killed'. The only remaining possibility as a portal is if your spirit goes through it... which is useless, since no one can bring evidence back from the after-life. Otherwise, the only thing which can go through is pure energy.

Edited September 6, 2009 by swansont
typo swansont: remove allbold

[insane_alien]

wo siad blackholes were a portal? this isn't accepted scientific theory.

[ajb]

Even if Einstein-Rosen bridges exist (non-traversable wormholes), then just because an astronaut unfortunate enough to fall in will be killed is no physical argument against the existence of black holes. Both the tidal forces and the high level of radiation are expected not be healthy.

 

Open problems with black holes include;

 

1) the classical singularity. Do quantum effects regulate this?

 

2) when a black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation is there some kind of remnant or does it completely evaporate? What happens to the information of the material that fell in?

 

3) how valid is the no hair theorem? That is can black holes really only be classified by their mass, electric charge and angular momentum? Counter examples in higher dimensions are known.

 

4) Are all singularities out of sight behind event horizons? The cosmic censorship hypothesis says they are always hidden.

 

 

Then there are plenty of questions about supersymmetric black holes, black rings etc and how these are important in string theory.

 

 

Some of these really require some knowledge of quantum gravity. You should view black holes as a theoretical probe into quantum gravity.

[SilverRevlis]

First to answer about who... Even Hawking's played it safe by saying 'it is not impossible that something can go through a blackhole...' (paraphrase). The general idea is that something goes through and/or comes through black holes. Two dutch scientists even read radio waves coming from one... The question is: What can go through Black Holes? Is it even possible to find this out, since anything you send to one gets severely compressed, ripped apart and then blown into another Universe...

 

Secondly, to reply to the complex scientific statements:

1) Singularity being the infinite density and quantum effects regulating the smaller particles. Basically, my response would be two things: A. Anything possessing form and mass and matter would be stripped to pure energy B. Only the smallest particles would go through the Black Hole, therefore probably even smaller than quantas not yet measurable by Science.

2) Hawking's radiation allowing for the dissipation of a Black Hole. In a Universe continuously contracting and expanding with continual interchange of matter/energy it not impossible, of course, for a Black Hole under the right conditions to get smaller. It seems, however, that it only grows, for what force would reverse the process? Well, the release of particles. It is, however, definitely possible that the Black Holes will all grow, consume the entire Universe and at critical mass cause another Big Bang. See primordial black holes.

3) 'Hair' meaning all other qualities. As to higher dimensions, I prefer the words planes or worlds or realities or universes so as to prevent confusion between X,Y,Z directions... indeed, though, in a higher plane or different reality where different laws abide, and only if the Black Hole accesses such, would not be limited by only mass, electric charge and angular momentum which has the taste of classical empirical Science. The problem still remains you cannot just simply send a deep space probe...

4) It is leaning towards the idea, like trying to scan the core of Sun, that we can never return from such... unless, of course, a Black Hole is two ways... which is not impossible, also how does anything/anyone survive the event?

[ajb]

Secondly, to reply to the complex scientific statements:

 

I was not really expecting any real response to my questions which are current research themes.

 

None of your responses show that you understand the questions or the mathematical and physical arguments involved.

[Lightingbird]

I was not really expecting any real response to my questions which are current research themes.

 

None of your responses show that you understand the questions or the mathematical and physical arguments involved.

 

You seem to be talking about Pseudoscience at best. You can't be shocked asking for real answers when you are talking about Pseudoscience.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can you try to stress your thoughts if you are talking about real science or not.

[ajb]

You seem to be talking about Pseudoscience at best. You can't be shocked asking for real answers when you are talking about Pseudoscience.

 

Not pseudoscience, but active areas of research all over the world.

[Sisyphus]

It is mathematically valid in general relativity that two black holes could be linked, but there is no known process by which such a link might be formed, and no evidence for the existence of any.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As to higher dimensions, I prefer the words planes or worlds or realities or universes so as to prevent confusion between X,Y,Z directions...

 

No. "X,Y,Z directions" is exactly what is meant by "dimensions." (This isn't the only inaccuracy in your post, it's just a pet peeve.)

[axenome]

Silver, not meaning to nitpick, but I dispute the eixistance of Hawking radiation as a means of black hole deletion on the following grounds (Response to your statement #2):

 

Hawkings is making two very big mistakes when he describes the evaporation of black holes through particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously popping into existance.

1) Were these particles to appear in such a fashion at the event horizon, and one escapes while the other is drawn into the black hole, you have a 50/50 chance of the negative particle falling in. Ergo; over any given sequence of these occurances there is mathematically a net loss of ZERO mass, assuming that error 2 is bypassed...

2) When a particle and its antiparticle mutually annihilate, they release energy commensurate to their previous total mass. Which, if a negative particle falls into the black hole, annihilates with a positive particle, creating an equal amount of energy... said energy is STILL unable to escape the black hole. And since E=mc^2, mass = energy, therefore that black hole has actually GAINED mass equal to the mass of the antiparticle.

 

But wait, you say, that makes no sense, you can't have mass created from nothing! In which case, you yourself admit that the whole concept of spontaneous creation of particle/antiparticle pairs is illogical on its face, and therefore, the black hole STILL isn't evaporating.

 

No matter how many people try to disprove black holes on a conscious or subconscious level (Even Stephen Hawking's silly little 'If one is left alone for long enough, with nothing paying attention or mass to it, it will eventually go away' theory) they're not going to just disappear. Figuratively or literally.

Edited October 1, 2009 by axenome

[rrw4rusty]

Wow... you guys are seriously... serious! Take it easy on each other! All of you seem a tad ahead of me however… that has never stopped me before, lol, and there are a few points I’ll make…

 

Back to the original post, SilverRevlis seems to have read something on black holes being ‘portholes’ to other Branes, universes or whatever... evidently looked up porthole in a thesaurus and saw passage... perhaps then saw elsewhere that singularities were bad for your health and decided based on these reads that all of Black Hole Theory had a couple of holes. Kind of like saying "The Manhole Cover Theory has holes" because someone points out that a car could hit you opening one in the middle of the street. SilverRevlis, the porthole idea is just a small optional add-on to Black Holes. Your post sounds like you’ve flushed the ‘hole’ idea.

 

BTW, are Black Holes really still just a theory? Possibly, I guess. In any event, my point… manhole covers 'do' exist and actually do have holes in them.

 

Re evaporation: Axenome sees the same problem I have pondered but… far be it for me to say Hawking has made a mistake (let alone two… let alone big)! The man in the chair gets my benefit of a doubt especially since the rest of the cosmos industry also seems pretty sure that black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation though admittedly it’s a very slow process. It’s quite possible that at least some of them know something I don’t… I don’t do the math but I can add that up.

 

Re Hawking 1970 ‘permanent loss of information’ idea: No one ever liked that one and even Hawking, a case of beer in hand, denounced this idea in 2004 saying ‘okay, you would get it back but… it would be a little ‘scrambled’ (why am I reminded of Einstein's ‘biggest blunder’). Now, Ashtekar, director of Penn State’s Institute of Gravitation and the Cosmos, has cooked up yet another BH info retrieval idea that I have yet to make complete sense of (see http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/ashtekar5-2008.htm). Correction: I can make ‘no’ sense of it… space/time is ‘larger’ and we’ll get the info back somewhere else? …perhaps you ‘do’ need the math for this one.

 

Straight from the arm chair, IMHO,

Ron

[ajb]

1) Were these particles to appear in such a fashion at the event horizon, and one escapes while the other is drawn into the black hole, you have a 50/50 chance of the negative particle falling in. Ergo; over any given sequence of these occurances there is mathematically a net loss of ZERO mass, assuming that error 2 is bypassed...

2) When a particle and its antiparticle mutually annihilate, they release energy commensurate to their previous total mass. Which, if a negative particle falls into the black hole, annihilates with a positive particle, creating an equal amount of energy... said energy is STILL unable to escape the black hole. And since E=mc^2, mass = energy, therefore that black hole has actually GAINED mass equal to the mass of the antiparticle.

 

However, these arguments have very little to do with how Hawking radiation is calculated.

 

 

When one defines a vacuum you are deciding how to split the modes of a field into positive and negative frequencies. Roughly, that is particles and antiparticles. The problem is that this is not unique. Different local coordinates lead to different notions of the vacuum.

 

When you have Minkowski space-time (i.e. global Poincare invariance) the transformations are never so bad as to confuse this splitting into positive and negative frequencies. That is, we have a unique vacuum singled out.

 

This is the real origin of the radiation. Observers will not agree on what is a filled state or an empty state.

 

 

Also look up Unruh radiation

[Edtharan]

Silver, not meaning to nitpick, but I dispute the eixistance of Hawking radiation as a means of black hole deletion on the following grounds (Response to your statement #2):

 

Hawkings is making two very big mistakes when he describes the evaporation of black holes through particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously popping into existance.

1) Were these particles to appear in such a fashion at the event horizon, and one escapes while the other is drawn into the black hole, you have a 50/50 chance of the negative particle falling in. Ergo; over any given sequence of these occurances there is mathematically a net loss of ZERO mass, assuming that error 2 is bypassed...

From what I understand, it is not the fact that one is a Particle and the other an Antiparticle, as both have a positive mass. This means when either Particle or Antiparticle escapes, then the black hole has effectively lost mass. If an escaped antiparticle were to then collide with a normal particle, then this would release the energy as photons (gamma rays).

 

2) When a particle and its antiparticle mutually annihilate, they release energy commensurate to their previous total mass. Which, if a negative particle falls into the black hole, annihilates with a positive particle, creating an equal amount of energy... said energy is STILL unable to escape the black hole. And since E=mc^2, mass = energy, therefore that black hole has actually GAINED mass equal to the mass of the antiparticle.

 

But wait, you say, that makes no sense, you can't have mass created from nothing! In which case, you yourself admit that the whole concept of spontaneous creation of particle/antiparticle pairs is illogical on its face, and therefore, the black hole STILL isn't evaporating.

 

No matter how many people try to disprove black holes on a conscious or subconscious level (Even Stephen Hawking's silly little 'If one is left alone for long enough, with nothing paying attention or mass to it, it will eventually go away' theory) they're not going to just disappear. Figuratively or literally.

As I said above, an Antiparticle is not a negative mass, it has a positive mass. And as Energy and Mass are related through Relativity, a Positive Mass is a Positive amount of energy too.

 

If there is Mass and/or energy leaving a black hole, then it must loose that same mass energy. As the particle or antiparticle falls into the black hole it looses energy, and as energy can't simply vanish (it has to go somewhere), it is actually in the other particle. Eventually the amount of energy that is lost from the particle/antiparticle that fell into the black hole, the particle/antiparticle that escape from near it is then considered a real particle/antiparticle (rather than the virtual ones if the sum of energy were to be 0).

 

To put it simply: The object that falls into the black hole looses energy, but the object that escapes gets that energy.

 

What you are talking about is a particle with a negative energy (also called exotic matter - and it has a negative mass ) and is completely different to antimatter (it can come in an exotic antimatter form as well as exotic normal matter). This too is different to dark matter (so don't get any of these confused ).

 

This exotic matter is not the type of matter that is being described by Hawking Radiation. Hawking Radiation is made up of normal matter (Matter and Antimatter) and so has a positive energy (and therefore mass).