The intelligence of energy

Energy radiates towards the outside of a black hole. How amazing is this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not half as amazing as the fact you still don't realise no one gives a hoot about your malformed 1 sentence jabberings on subjects you don't know about. Not to mention the fact you aren't even coherent.

Black holes emit thermal radiation via the Hawking process. This is a well known phenomenon even among lay-physicists because it's been brought up in the media in regards to the nuts like Walter Wagner saying the LHC will kill us all via black hole production. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence' so quite why you have that in your thread title I don't know.

I guess you're now going to continue giving us little nuggets of 'wisdom' about black holes and energy fresh from the depths of your thoughts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2 comments:

First, don't name your threads with a nonsensical string of words.

Second, try something like this:
I read that there is a type of radiation that appears to be emitted from a black hole, how is that possible?

Instead of insults you will get a plethora or information....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only 'nut' is the person who claims Hawking radiation is a well-known phenomenon. In fact, it has never been observed even ONCE. That is, there is not a single publication anywhere in which someone has claimed he/she created a black hole and then watched it evaporate.

"In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

Rather, it is theoretical speculation by numerous physicists which has not been observed or proven, and is disputed as being likely or probable by numerous other physicists. And, ad hominems are entirely inappropriate, as you are well aware. Had a bad day?

 

There isn't a single publication anywhere in which someone has claimed he/she mated crossed a chicken and a pig and then found the viable offspring tasty. That neither diminishes the historical fact that there was once a common ancestor and widely accepted biological theory with no viable alternatives predicts that said common ancestor was made of meat.

Stellar-size, Intermediate-size and Galactic black holes exist in sizes ranging from a few solar masses to billions of solar masses. They were predicted by theory, and we turn to theory to learn of their various properties.

Classical General Relativity is the most precise and most widely applicable theory of gravity which has been empirically tested. Quantum Field Theory is the most precise and most widely applicable theory of non-gravitational phenomena we have. Both the semi-classical application of Quantum Field Theory in statically curved space-time and the quantum gravity extensions to Quantum Field Theory consistently predict mass-momentum-energy to be radiated from all black holes at a rate which is much higher for small black holes than large ones. This rate is wholly negligible for black holes stellar-size and above.

No one has created a (necessarily smaller than stellar-sized) black hole in the lab. That neither diminishes the empirical fact that there are black holes and widely accepted physical theory with no viable alternatives predicts that if left to themselves over time, they tend to evaporate.

Scientific theories which are widely accepted are precise descriptions of all phenomena in their domain of applicability. Both Classical General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory apply in the space-time close to a black hole's event horizon. As Hawking radiation is a theorem obtained by modeling a particular physical situation with these theories, it is the default assertion for anyone of scientific mindset. A viable non-default assertion requires a theory of particles in curved space-time at least as good as GR and QFT. We have candidates but they also predict Hawking radiation diminishing the mass of black holes over time. So to demand examples of measurement of Hawking radiation is a misuse of skepticism, just as to demand examples of measurement of non-zero neutrino masses when we have evidence consistent with non-zero neutrino mass differences is a misuse of skepticism. Parsimony requires that we accept both Hawking radiation and non-zero neutrino masses as presumptively true and wholly consistent with all the evidence we do have.

An analogous misuse of skepticism is to doubt that Mr. Wagner is a hominid, just because you haven't seen him present evidence of his propensity toward bipedalism and manipulating objects with his hands. This is the default presumption of personhood awarded Wagner by his history in the forums alone, let alone the press and blogs. Parsimony requires that we accept Mr. Wagner's classification as hominid as presumptively true and wholly consistent with all the evidence we do have.

// Edit -- Oh I see what Wagner was doing.
Wikipedia page supports that block of text with only Jeremy Bernstein's A Theory for Everything where page 116 cites Rutherford and Einstein as including the as-yet-unobserved, parsimonious predictions of the best viable theory as phenomena:

Quoting (apparently Einstein) and referring to Rutherford & Soddy (1902)

 

We can 'observe' the black-hole phenomenon in our own galaxy. At the center of the galaxy is a black area, around which orbit stars at rapid speed. We infer that the black area is a 'black hole'. This is an observation, from which we infer the existence of actual black holes.

No such observations are made with respect to their evaporation. Anywhere.

Your post is nonsense, rp. Moreover, you have no business posting comments here after leaving your last post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108963

 

Indeed, this mass-loss rate is \(\frac{\hbar c^4}{15360 \pi G^2 M^2} \quad \approx \quad 3.96 \times 10^{15} \, \textrm{kg}^3 s^{-1} \frac{1}{M^2} \quad \approx \quad 34.7 \frac{m_e}{\textrm{10^9 years}} \left( \frac{M_{\odot}}{M} \right) ^2\) where M is the mass of the black hole, \(M_{\odot}\) is a solar mass and \(m_e\) is the mass of an electron.

"... wholly negligible for black holes stellar-size and above" at least for human civilization timescales.

On the contrary, current observations of black holes are entirely consistent with the Hawking evaporation rate. Amateurs look at numbers, professionals look at error bars.

I disagree. But if you would like to produce evidence that you are not a hominid, I am willing to revise my opinion. I don't place the odds at 50-50, because I base my estimates on something other than utter ignorance.

I pointed to evidence that Ludwik Kowalski's wikipedia entry lacks any indication that he is notable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Ludwik_Kowalski *
You took that as criticism of your life. Ludwik Kowalski is welcome to reply, but as I was correct that he was just doing a self-promotional fly-by he did not return to discuss substantially any of the threads he posted on. **

* Someone in the Los Angeles Area appearantly found it necessary to deface this page. Bad dog, no cookie!
** Turns out he did post on 2 threads on July 29 versus 22 on July 28.

But if you didn't lose all credibility in your 1970's mention in People magazine, you lost all your science credibility in your 2009 appearance on The Daily Show and you lost all your debate credibility when in 2010 you attempted to browbeat a Federal Appellate Judge and WWII Veteran with your "long history" ( 5 years! ) of Federal Service.* You say crazy, made-up stuff when you feel confused or angry, and you feel confused and angry all the time.

* From 14:03-14:45 in Windows audio or transcription.

 

I wonder if Russ Fletcher is related to Betty Binns Fletcher . So Strange I met Him today and he seems to be connected , or intelligent at the least. It is strange to me I have contact with the name twice today . I am going to see if I can find any genealogy on the family

 

Anyone want to argue with this point? (in Bold)
There should be a good amount of energy coming from the centre of our galaxy, shouldn't there?

Presumably, the amount escaping increases with the size of the black hole.

 

I was clearly referring to the process, in that it's not some new amazing insight no one has heard of that black holes emit radiation.

And creating and then watching the evaporation of a black hole isn't, in principle, the only way to observe it. Nice strawman.

No, I was stating a fact. You have proven many times you claim things you can't back up, that you're not familiar with any of the relevant science, that you misrepresent yourself, that you can't do basic probability and you have a rose tinted view of yourself.

You've been made a laughing stock in the entire theoretical physics community after The Daily Show. Your comments in court likewise in law circles. Rpenner has covered why. These aren't ad homs, they are statements of fact. If you think reality is an ad hom against you then that's just tough.

You word your comments as if to imply we expected to see evaporation effects from the black holes we can see and since we haven't evaporation is false. The predicted rate of evaporation is so small it is expected to be unobservable in all currently observable black holes. If we could see them evaporation it would prove Hawking wrong!

This is what I mean when I say you misrepresent yourself and you don't know the material. You either deliberately or via ignorance misrepresent the science. If you can't argue without lying then it shows your position is baseless. So the question now becomes whether you're deliberately misrepresenting it or whether you're just ignorant and you don't realise your mistakes. Neither one is very good. You've been whining about this stuff so long you could have done an entire physics degree and masters by now and covered all the necessary work to understand Hawking radiation on a quantitative level. Instead you're still so bad at it high schoolers would laugh at you.

That's one of the crazy things about black holes, the more energy and matter they absorb the colder they get! Larger black holes have a colder temperature than smaller ones. The temperature goes like 1/M, so doubling the mass halves the temperature, which makes the thermal output go down by a factor of 16 (black body emission law). The surface area quadruples so overall the energy output goes down by a factor of 4.

 

i am by no means a genius at this but it is my understanding that radiation does not escape a black hole.
this radiation is generated by the particles interaction with the event horizon.

correct?

 

That would be the average surface temperature, not the total energy emitted, I take it.
The total energy emitted per second by the black hole at the centre of our galaxy would be greater than that emitted by one the size of an atom, even though that one would be "hotter".

 

Actually, just the opposite according to Hawking theory.

At one time, Hawking continued his conjecture of black hole evaporation with the idea that primordial black holes should exist, left over from the BB, and that those that were the size of small mountains (when they were created during the earliest phases of the BB expansion) would have evaporated enough and become small enough over the course of some 14 Billion years that, during their final moments (when they were quite small and evaporating very rapidly) they would become visible to present-day astronomers in the Halo of our galaxy. Searches for such flares of rapid evaporation have proved fruitless - i.e. no observations to-date along the lines of Hawking's conjecture.

The post regarding the black hole in the center of our galaxy was to show the difference between conjecture (Hawking's theory of black hole evaporation for which there are no observations, and in particular no observations in the cosmological area in which he said to look; and no observations to-date at the LHC) and established theory (a black hole in the center of our galaxy for which there is ample observation).

All the arm-waving and saying you have everyone agreeing with you (even if you do) doesn't change the situation that there are NO observations to support Hawking's conjecture, even if it is well-entrenched as dogma in some areas of the physics community. Of course, no observations to-date doesn't prove it wrong, either -- just that it remains conjecture and is NOT a "phenomenon" which requires observable fact.

 

Yes. Hawking radiation (in my simple minded understanding) is essentially that a virtual particle pair prodcution occurrs near the event horizon and one of the virtual pair falls into the BH and the other escapes as a real particle.

 

It's not an "average" -- it's the temperature. There's no material at the "surface" to have varying properties. Ignoring angular momentum (which may be considerable) the mass controls many factors:

For three black holes with masses of 4 million solar masses, 10 solar masses, 1 trillion kg, we have
Radius = 12 million km, 30 km, 1.5 fm (smaller than the nuclei of most elements)
Temperature = 15 fK, 6 nK, 123 GK (About as hot as a neutron star immediately after forming in the heart of a supernova)
Hawking Radiation Power = 5.2 * 10^-42 Watts, 9 * 10^-31 Watts, 356 MW (a bit less than twice the average power of a Saturn V first stage launch or 6-7 times the peak electrical usage of Great Britain)

 

In the last case that is a pretty damn impressive amount of power output for such a small area. Is that purely theoretical or would there actually be enough virtual particles 'poping into existence' near that tiny event horizon to yield that amount of radiation?

 

It is the prediction of calculating quantum field theory in a curved space time, so it is a math result consistent with all empirical evidence as well as many speculative extensions to such well-tested mathematical models. While space-time near Earth has a curvature radius of about 1 light year, space-time near the event horizon of such a tiny black hole would be similarly extreme and naturally dominate particle dynamics.

I don't understand the conjunction "or" in this case. Currently accepted fundamental physics theories are not "theoretical" in the sense of being a math theory, self-consistent but unconnected with reality. Physics theories today are compatible with every repeatable observation made from 1600-2011, and serve a valuable synopses of thousands of lifetimes of physical observation.

Yup, lots of gamma rays, neutrinos, electrons, and positrons. It's "only" about 10 MeV in particle physics measures of temperature so heavier particles (pions, muons, etc) would not be common until it lost significant mass.

 

Not only does energy radiate towards the outside of black holes but from other objects as well.