Atomic Theory of Subatomic Particles in Black Holes.

Ever since the discovery of Black holes scientists have wondered what happens to the matter that is absorbed by the Black Hole. One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste". Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy. Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump. Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter. Below is my equation.


(md+gf) - (m^2+c^2)
{ ----------------------------- }
(pi)r^2




md=mass of Black hole
gf= gravitational force of black hole
m^2=mass of object absorbed
c^2=speed of light
pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7
r^2=radious of black hole




I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.


Stephan S. Dalal

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Too tired to think about it now, and it might be beyond me even if I could. But welcome to sciforums.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you sure you don't want (md*gf)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't like the "-" in the middle of the top either. *scratches head*

 

S Dalal

Ever since the discovery of Black holes

When did this happen? Who discovered them? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste".

What is the "waste?"

Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy.

Yes, very puzzling indeed. What is "invisible energy?"

Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump.

Really. Can you provide some evidence to support this claim?

Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter.

I see the emergence of a crackpot forthcoming.

(md+gf) - md=mass of Black hole - gf= gravitational force of black hole

You're adding together apples and oranges. This makes no sense.

(m^2+c^2) - m^2=mass of object absorbed - c^2=speed of light

Again, apples and oranges. This makes no sense.

(pi)r^2 - pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7 - r^2=radious of black hole

Isn't this the equation to calculate the circumference of a circle?

I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.

Complete gibberish. Back to the drawing board.

 

Well, if we knew anything about black holes, I can see how radius might come into it as a general indicator of the black hole's power.

I suspect by "invisible power" he may have been referring to that zero point energy stuff.

As for waste, well, I suspect he may be referring to the things seen in space which are suspected black holes which shoot out huge amounts of matter and energy to the poles.

As for apples and oranges, well, it's not a problem to do that if you do it right. We multiply mass (an apple) by velocity (an orange) all the time. It just depends on what you do with your fruits. You just have to work it out and make sure there is actually some correlation. Which has not been done in this case.

 

Response to Q's Response

I thank you very much for your response to my Equation, but I am sad to inform you that your knowledge base of Astro Physics is quite at low level, although my theory is quite intricate there are some basic principles that are involved, "(pi)r^2 thats the formula for circumfrence of a circle" well I am sorry to inform you but that is the formula for area of a circle, 2(pi)r is the formula for circumfrence. In other response to your remarks on apples and oranges I am sorry I did indeed made a mistake the formula should read:

(md)(gf) - (m^2)(c^2)
---------------------------------
(pi)r^2



In end one would need to use the formula for area of a circle to find a black holes advreage size. So once again you are wrong. I do want to thank you for reading my Equation and for your comments.

 

S. Dalal

I thank you very much for your response to my Equation, but I am sad to inform you that your knowledge base of Astro Physics is quite at low level,

If you say so. Your knowledge however is non-existent.

my theory is quite intricate there are some basic principles that are involved,

Your theory is gibberish as is your formula.

In end one would need to use the formula for area of a circle to find a black holes advreage size.

The size of a black hole is the size of the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius is where even the kinetic energy of a photon is not sufficient to escape from the black hole.

R = 2*G*M / c^2

G is the Gravitational Constant
M is the mass of the black hole
c is the speed of light

So once again you are wrong.

Actually you are implying Schwarzschild was wrong. Of course, only a crackpot would say that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

btw - Black holes have not been discovered.

 

Which type of Black Hole are we considering here, Schwarzschild, Nordström or Kerr metric varieties? You are aware there are several types, aren't you?

Either way, once mass enters the event horizon it does not escape. General thought is that it vanishes, permanently, into a singularity.

BTW, they have not been discovered, they are a theoretical construct with many objects observed that conform to the predictions of the theory. The semantical difference is important.

It does grow in mass, the radius of the event horizon increases and the tidal forces decreases. I also refer you to the No Hair Conjecture for further details.

Invisible Energy? Enlighten this sophont please.

I've heard of Dark Energy, a possible candidate for the cosmological constant, λ and Zero Point Energy. But not Invisible Energy.

This is the logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. What scientists, where? Your evidence that your statement is true and the past 400 years of expermintal Physics is wrong is?

Nope. No force is needed for quantum tunneling.

There is no invisible force (sic) a black hole produces when it absorbs matter. Only it's gravitational field increases.

There are many things wrong with this analysis.

1. What gravitational force g_f? g is a function of the mass of a body as in g=F/m. (edited to add, or GM/r^2). But this is Newtonian and does not apply to Black Holes. You have to use General Relativity in any analysis. You also have to stipulate which metric for which type of hole you are analysing.

Actualy if you substitute g=Gm_d/r^2 in you get,

{ (m_d) ( Gm_d / r^2) -m^2c^2) / πr^2)

=> π ( Gm_d^2 - m^2c^2/r^2)

Which is very, very wrong as the mass increase depends on the radius of the hole. If we apply the Schwarzschild Radius it gets worse.

2. Why πr^2 . These objects are 3 dimensional and non-euclidean. You have to apply Reimannian geometry to the analyis and in 4-d spacetime.

In fact, that is the main problem with the original, the equation depends on the area of the hole. Where are you taking the area? This means the formula depends on angle of incidence. A major problem when some holes are not even spherical, more toroidal.

3. (m^2+c^2)? Again, a classical result ignoring relativistic affects. If the hole absorbs mass it will follow the equation E( γ )=m( γ )c^2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add, I just realised the equation above is wrong anyway. S. Dolal meant m_dg_f-m^2C-^2 which is better, a little. But this ignores the fact that g changes as m increases. This equation should be iterative.

What happens when two Black Holes collide? The resulting body will be vastly different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, apart from the hypothesis being based on made up physics and the analysis being totally wrong it was not a bad first attempt for some one doing GCSE Physics.

A grudging 1/10.

 

James R: Not sure he will understand your comment about dimensional incorrect.

BTW: Hawking claims that Black Holes evaporate, with small ones disappearing very fast. So mass lost beyond the event horizon is not lost forever, as posted above somewhere.

 

Welcome to Sciforums, Delal, nice formula, dont know enough to judge it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is the difference between different black holes? I for one, thought there was only 1 kind... something big, heavy, black, and hole-like...

 

More on Black Holes

Can be read on treasure-troves.com

If S. Dalal is perchance still reading he would do well to read that site. He might see just how complex the solutions of Black Holes really are.

Long and short of the above is the 'Black Holes have no hair' conjecture. This says you can only know 3 things about black holes, their mass M, angular momentum J and charge Q. This leads to 4 cases (not 3 as I said originally)

M>0, J=0, Q=0 you get the Schwarzschild solution

M>0, J=0, Q !=0, You get the Nordstrom-Reissner solution

M>0, J>0, Q = 0, you get the Kerr solution

M>0, J>0, Q !=0 you get the Kerr-Newman solution

It's a sure sign some one is clue challenged when they say 'Hey, I've discovered a new property of Black Holes' and do not present a new solution of the Einstein Field equations and a new metric or property but rather a classical equation to a relativistic problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meant to add. The thread is entitled Atomic Theory of subatomic particles in black holes. If you are doing sub-atomic physics you would do well to learn Lie Group theory and understand what SU(3)U(1) is. A background in Gauge theories and String Theories wouldn't go amiss either. I'll freely admit Gauge theories are over my head.

Applying them to relativity is the Holy Grail of modern physics.

 

Dinosaur,and any interested

Heres a link to Hawking Radiation

Notice that the life time of the smallest and most luminous black holes is about the lifetime of the Universe. The lifetime of the biggest holes is massively above the lifetime of the Universe. For all practible purposes mass loss in to a hole is permanent.

 

This paper might be of some interest.


It is proposed that the event horizon of a black hole is a quantum phase transition of the vacuum of space-time analogous to the liquid-vapor critical point of a bose fluid. The equations of classical general relativity remain valid arbitrarily close to the horizon yet fail there through the divergence of a characteristic coherence length. The integrity of global time, required for conventional quantum mechanics to be defined, is maintained. The metric inside the event horizon is different from that predicted by classical general relativity and may be de Sitter space. The deviations from classical behavior lead to distinct spectroscopic and bolometric signatures that can, in principle, be observed at large distances from the black hole.

More here

<A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012094" target=new><FONT COLOR=ff009 size=+1> Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity
</FONT></A>

 

Abstracts.

Throughout the universe mass exists.
Around 80~90% of mass is at near unity. "Cold/Dark matter" Mass that is not compressed to a solid state.
Around 10~20% of mass is compressed via the above 80~90% of mass."Particles and or solids".

Protons by science has been defined as the compressed areas.

If Areas of the universe were allowed they would gain a velocity towards Unity and in doing so its area will increase while its potentail towards unity will decrease.

The Containing force that contains every other Proton has been defined by science as the Electron/s. example being a protons "positive" force is towards unity while neighboring Proton/s would oppose the outward force and thus is defined as the inward and or containing "negative" *Note* Elecrtrons are only theoretical particles.

Where the respective forces "expressed as Positive and negative charge" meet science has defined as the areas of neutral charge. *Note* Neutrons are only theoretical particles.

The combined force of Cold/Dark Matter exerts gravity, because attraction simply is impossible!

Black Holes exist in the core of every galaxy.

Black Holes do not pull, rather they are stuffed to the point where mass is exerted and released at great velocities via the poles. "Hawkings radiation?"

Quantum jump/s are based on the premise of a given potential towards unity equals the fields mass by its maximum area with no potential towards unity, I.e. E=MC^2 or the more mass that is compressed the more potential towards unity "outward Nm".

If we consider function where if a proton is exerted with a negative charge for example a Proton that is more compressed by another force to a higher potential and therefore it is exerting force to other protons with a lower potential to unity, so therefore those protons are squeezed to a higher positive potential passing it on to other nieghboring protons ,so that its force exerts this force via its surfaces changing the forces trajectory noting science treats such force as transference of this negative force and or charge or if this force is exerted via a circuit "electron flow", or if these forces were being applied within areas that are near vacuum where each mass is treated as huge fields spanning mc^2 and hence we would be describing the functions of Light and or electromagnetic waves transmitted in a sphericle fashion through space.

Now Within a Black Hole we have areas of mass that is highly compressed and in fact we can prove that our local area of the universe is already partly compressed if we measure velocities and mass that is as far away from our local area, and the further we should look and or measure Redshift the more of an impression we should get that out universe must be expanding and whats more this expansion is accelerating!

So getting back to the Black Hole and comparing the speed of light in a solid "electron flow" we should expect the opposite of redshift and that would be frequencies dealing beyond the gamma spectrum !?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hello! we are now infringing what String theorists are messing around with "The Gamma Function"

My dawg! Please dont ask me to go there again!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(pi)r^2 I beleive is the area of a circle Which is a 2 dimentional equation. 1/3(pi)r^3 is the 3 dimentional equation for the volume of a sphere or cubic value. Take the dirivative of this equation gives the original equation going from 3 dimentions to 2 dimention value or area of a circle and taking the derivative of this equation will give a 1 dimentional value of a circle or linear value or the circumference of a circle. I havent been to school in a while but I do a lot of math. Can anyone explain the relavence Of the 2 part numerator and if they are standard equations to give the value of something? (md+gf)= what? and (m^2+c^2) = what? answers to these questions
might help me see a conection. like right now I see the numerator divided by the area of a circle, r being relavent as the distance of some matter being assumed to be an ammount of mass. I don't know maybe it makes no sense at all, but i would like to under things completely.

 

M X C^2 = E or commonly known as E=MC^2

E/C^2 = M or M=E/C^2

E/M = C^2 or C^2=E/M

The aforementioned suggests we are messing around with a given area equal to "c^2" with a given theoretical potential, of course if an area should be equal to zero potential it would truly be nothing, so near vacuum and or near unity is just being realistic, "c" is the the constant with respects to the maximum speed of light, which suggests a maximum distance {and or area if it is squared for any given field with zero potential} so therefore we should concede we are limited by it, in the real world Space or near vacuum is the closest to near unity for a given mass and or field of which is near a zero potential towards Unity "Unity" is just an equilibrium outward force for a given area.

Lets say we begin with a field with an area of C^2 and over time the Universe stuffed this mass into a black hole and on examining it we find it is compressed to a smaller area so that its outward force is exerting 1 Nm of force or via electromotive force we could define it as 1 joule of energy, now because C^2 is compressed it would take on a smaller area and E would increase and should we exerted more force to it the area would recede even more inward and in doing so we would increase its potential "E" further, Now lets say this exertion was an increasing exertion that rose to a peak of one volt after we converted joules to Ev and lets say we could watch this force being exerted outward from itself just as we would observe an electromagnetic wave being propagated in a spherical manner so that we would see the area compressed but at the same time the force experienced is transferred to where ever there is the least resistance and or lower potential is so it therefore is exerted outwardly..

In a solid where the fields are compressed the transfer of force and or charge from A to B is no where near as fast when we are dealing with fields that are as vast as C^2 with near zero potential towards unity, the massive fields in question still rise and fall with potential as they are compressed only to extert this force outwardly where it is further passed on.. but for each exchange the area covered per exchange is massive compared to solid mass with a high potential to unity., which is why the speed of light is percieved as slower in a solid than space and or near vacuum.

 

It is easy to demonstrate that your equation is non-sense:

Your revised numerator is:
(md)(gf) - (m^2)(c^2)
and both terms have mass factor. I will define a dimension pure number K = m/ (md) and then re write your numerator as:
(md){gf - K m(c^2)}
but as you know mc^2 is energy and you defined "gf " as force.

You can not meaningfully take the difference between force and energy and more than you can take the difference A - F, where A is Apples and F is Fish. (Usually O for Oranges, instead of F for Fish is used when stating this, but I like to be a little different.)

As I said, your formula is nonsense (unless you know how to subtract Fish from Apples.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS - I did not bother to vote, probably I did not need to prove your formula is nonsense, because most who have voted already recognized this, but as it was so easy and obvious, I did so anyway.