|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:54 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Well, technically, there is no loss of materials, since it's all captured within the confines of the black hole's gravity well. It just doesn't come out again. Whether it does if the black hole 'evaporates' or not is still an open question, since there's no solid evidence that black holes do shrink over time.
Black holes being doors to alternate dimensions is plausible, at the least. Entirely unverifiable at the moment, though, since we have no way of experimentally verifying it. Some theories say that every event that occurs in this universe spawns an alternate universe, or every possible event does, and if you were to find a sufficiently powerful astronomical event (something highly exotic, like the crossing of gravity strings, for example, but gravity strings are still only theoretical), there would be the possibility of a bridge being created between the two universes.
The problem with either scenario is that the gravity well produced would literally rip apart anything that fell into it, which renders experimental verification of anything that goes on within the gravity well pretty much impossible. We may at some point have the technology for it, but it won't be anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:39 am
|
|
|
|
It's not that they break down, per se, but that they fall completely into the realm of quantum physics (as far as I've read, anyhow), which is why black holes pose such a problem for Einsteinian physics. Nevermind that black holes are also an integral part of Einsteinian physics, as an extreme of what happens with gravity wells, which falls straight into quantum mechanics by virtue of everything within a blackhole being nothing more than particles.
This wouldn't be a problem, obviously, if blackholes were neatly one or the other, but because they are an extreme of both models, you need to have both in order to talk about them effectively, which is where the problem comes in, since relativity and quantum mechanics relate to ultra large scale and ultra small scale, respectively. They don't talk to each other, in other words.
Prime example of this is Hawking radiation. (If you're already familiar with this, go ahead and skip this.) Since quantum mechanics says that there is no such as a perfect vacuum, that means space, on an atomic scale, is always in flux and particles are constantly popping into existence alongside their anti-particles, summarily annihilating each other. But black holes being so powerful, some of these particles happen to appear right on the threshold of the event horizon, and one of them falls into the black hole while the other wanders free.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:38 am
|
|
|
|
Endrael It's not that they break down, per se, but that they fall completely into the realm of quantum physics (as far as I've read, anyhow), which is why black holes pose such a problem for Einsteinian physics. Nevermind that black holes are also an integral part of Einsteinian physics, as an extreme of what happens with gravity wells, which falls straight into quantum mechanics by virtue of everything within a blackhole being nothing more than particles. This wouldn't be a problem, obviously, if blackholes were neatly one or the other, but because they are an extreme of both models, you need to have both in order to talk about them effectively, which is where the problem comes in, since relativity and quantum mechanics relate to ultra large scale and ultra small scale, respectively. They don't talk to each other, in other words. Prime example of this is Hawking radiation. (If you're already familiar with this, go ahead and skip this.) Since quantum mechanics says that there is no such as a perfect vacuum, that means space, on an atomic scale, is always in flux and particles are constantly popping into existence alongside their anti-particles, summarily annihilating each other. But black holes being so powerful, some of these particles happen to appear right on the threshold of the event horizon, and one of them falls into the black hole while the other wanders free.
humm... interesting... I've known about the relativity/quantum mechanices thing, and I've known about Hawking radiation, but I've never put it all together when it comes to black holes. Thanks Endriel. That cleared a lot up for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:29 am
|
|
|
|
AstronomyGirl The_Bartner lol. I never imagined that QM would be discussed at gaia ! Very interessing stuff about the black holes, I wished my English was better so I could totally understand it. lol indeed we are talking about QM. 3nodding blaugh Isn't there something about QM written in the language you know best? @ Endrael - lol yes, it appears you do know more then you think. 3nodding
Not much I guess. All the 'real' stuff is off course in English |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
