|
|
| Are they real? |
| yeah they exist |
|
96% |
[ 55 ] |
| they're a bunch of milarky |
|
3% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:28 pm
I'm just here to discuss blackholes. Wonder if anyone can discuss them with me.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:48 am
Sure. Wha'd'ya wanna know? mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:27 pm
Endrael Sure. Wha'd'ya wanna know? mrgreen I know quite a bit about black holes. I like reading about them since I find them so interesting. ^_^ Feel free to start talking/asking questions. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:57 am
The whole thing about Black Holes, it makes me speculate my head off.
I've always seen them as some sort of portals into places/worlds/alternatives we can't even imagine.
That off course, is part of a popular theory I picked up somewhere and thought over quite a few times.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine them as portals into nothingness, with absolute gravity (what's the term for it in English), causin' some sort of implosions, well that's defying all we know in known Physics, loss of materials and such...
sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 1:57 pm
And since this is related to black holes, in that they're required for this particular experiment: Scientists Predict How to Detect a Fourth Dimension of Space"Scientists at Duke and Rutgers universities have developed a mathematical framework they say will enable astronomers to test a new five-dimensional theory of gravity that competes with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:12 pm
They key to remember with black holes is that the laws of physics break down at the event horizon (where you can say the black hold starts). So you say you don't really believe it or can't imagine it because it defies the laws of physics, that's because it _does_.
Endrael said everything else I wanted to, so that's all I'll add to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
eek I thought all that was common knowledge to physics geeks. lol. Glad I could be educational biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:19 am
Endrael eek I thought all that was common knowledge to physics geeks. lol. Glad I could be educational biggrin Well the whole thing with QM and relativity, that's common knowledge, and Hawking radiation is well known to those who are more into astrophysics stuff. *shrugs* Guess I never really thought that a black hole also needs to follow the laws of QM since it is literatly a point. I thought black holes were more of a relativity thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:20 pm
AstronomyGirl Endrael eek I thought all that was common knowledge to physics geeks. lol. Glad I could be educational biggrin Well the whole thing with QM and relativity, that's common knowledge, and Hawking radiation is well known to those who are more into astrophysics stuff. *shrugs* Guess I never really thought that a black hole also needs to follow the laws of QM since it is literatly a point. I thought black holes were more of a relativity thing. I guess I know more than I thought I did sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:29 pm
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:06 pm
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
