Black Holes, Light and the LHC

[Banjax]

Has anybody got an insight on weather this is possible?:

 

If two black holes of a similar size were attracted to each others gravitational pull, would the effect on the light absorbed by each black hole be negated for any period of time?

 

If so, what would we gain from this knowledge? I read somewhere recently that if a human was able to reach a large black hole, one which is large enough to have its effects on passing its event horizon were slowed way down, then that human would be able to see everything that ever has or ever will be sucked into the black hole, including things from the beginning of the universe, because of the speed you are travelling and its effects on time.

 

Would there ever be a use for creating a particle with technology such as the LHC, that is that massive, that we could use it to affect a black hole?

 

Thought and opinions please.

[JohnStu]

Has anybody got an insight on weather this is possible?:

 

If two black holes of a similar size were attracted to each others gravitational pull, would the effect on the light absorbed by each black hole be negated for any period of time?

 

If so, what would we gain from this knowledge? I read somewhere recently that if a human was able to reach a large black hole, one which is large enough to have its effects on passing its event horizon were slowed way down, then that human would be able to see everything that ever has or ever will be sucked into the black hole, including things from the beginning of the universe, because of the speed you are travelling and its effects on time.

 

Would there ever be a use for creating a particle with technology such as the LHC, that is that massive, that we could use it to affect a black hole?

 

Thought and opinions please.

 

 

Mankind affecting blackholes? Not possible, since the mass of any blackhole along is at least I forgot how many times that of all things made by human right now.

[Banjax]

Mankind affecting blackholes? Not possible, since the mass of any blackhole along is at least I forgot how many times that of all things made by human right now.

 

Understood. But what about another black hole?

 

 

 

[JohnStu]

Understood. But what about another black hole?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes theortically another black hole will affect a nearby black hole.

[ACG52]

Neither BH would negate the gravity of the other, until the event horizons actually touched, at which time the two holes merge into one.

[EMField]

http://phys.org/news...black-hole.html

 

As one can see the theory of Black Holes does not match observation or theory. Nothing can escape but the ocassional atom or particle.

 

"Seen up close and personal, a black hole surely is capable of the occasional lapse, allowing a particle or even a whole atom to escape. But looking at the hugeness of a black hole across the vast distance of space, it definitely appears all consuming; always taking and never giving, to us appearing as if nothing, not even a photon could ever escape it's clutches. That's how you reconcile the two viewpoints."

 

Look at an image of every galaxy claimed to harbor a Black Hole. There are continuous streams of ejected matter visible across the vast distance of space, in opposition to all consuming. The very article shows a image of one that defies the very explanation used to explain the two explanations in opposition to each other. And somehow the proof that Hawking Radiation has never been discovered is proof that the atoms escape occasionally. Maybe there is a fourth definition that applies to all of them. Black holes do not exist.

 

And if photons can not escape a BH, then how does gravity get out and affect anything since it also travels at the speed of c?

Edited August 5, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

The 'continuous streams of ejected matter' do not originate from inside the event horizon.

 

No, Hawking radiation has never been observed, but it is on pretty firm grounding. Any particle can cross a potential barrier of higher energy than it possesses. In quantum mechanics it is called tunneling.

Edited August 5, 2012 by MigL

[EMField]

Pretty firm grounding, like the same firm grounding as LIGO's non-detection of gravitational waves, or other non-detection of WIMP's? That kind of firm scientific grounding? Please, show me an image of this evidence you have that proves the matter does not originate from inside this so called event horizon? Because what do we see when we gaze into the heart of a galaxy?

Edited August 5, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

If you look up active galaxies or active black holes you'll get an explanation for these axial jets of particles and radiation due to the spiralling accretion discs surrounding the black holes.

 

Tunneling accurately predicts radioactive decay and various other quantum mechanical effects. The only apprehension is the crude 'marriage' of QM and GR to explain Hawking radiation.

 

By the way, I can't show you an image of air either. Do you doubt its existenc ?? Or are the effects it produces enough to satisfy you ??

[EMField]

Where is the black hole in the above image? I can see entirely through the plasma torus, for that is what it is (PLASMA). There is no BH absorbing the x-rays emitted from the other side of the torus. I understand the general public understands little about plasma, as well as most cosmologists. Strange since 99.99% of the universe is plasma, so one would think plasma physics study might be a good idea, but hey, if those ideas you have about plasma work so well, more power to you!

 

Apparently even NASA realizes how little theory actual meets observation: "We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren't very good at that. RBSP will help solve that problem."

http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html

 

So now for the first time we will soon find out just how plasma behaves in space. I for one am looking forward to those results. Let's see how well that neutral theory pans out.

Edited August 6, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

"Where is the black hole in the above image" ???????????

I don't think you have any ide what a black hole is if you expect to see it.

[EMField]

I don't expect to ever see this sprinkling of fairy dust Black Holes, or it's accompanying Dark Matter or Dark Energy. I do expect that a few forces that already exist and are already explained will be mistaken for these entities, has been and will continue to be until NASA soon produces the data that tells you what this already existing force is that you mistake for these things. It already has in the above article, you just can't connect the dots because you include it in one theory (micro) and exclude it in the other (macro). And to this day you still wonder why you can not make a unified theory.