Why do black holes evaporate?

According to Stephen Hawking, all black holes evaporate due to this process.

Actually, it is thought that miniature black holes are impacting our atmosphere right now!

Not so. Whenever a star has critical mass (about 2 times the mass of our sun) near the end of it's normal life span it collapses into a black hole. There are lots of stars meeting the criteria.

We all have to go on a theory that works. Funny thing is, science works better than all the rest.

Not so either. Religion and mysticism are not based in observation and fact. They are based in faith and belief. Science is different. It is constantly under peer review, based in observation and experiment (repeatable, verifiable experiments). And theoretical science eventually becomes accepted as fact because the observations support the theories.

Crazy? If it's possible then why not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alpha,

Indeed... Hypothetically yes... but it can't be proved. A giant black hole can take about 30 billion years to evaporate... if it actually can...

Not what I read. I read that a mini black hole has lots of energy... enought to be dangerous for us. And that they are rare nowdays (if they even exist...).

I was talking specifically about mini black holes. And it's the core of the star that if has more than 1.4 masses (I'm almost sure...) of the sun would collapse into a black hole. But this after a supernova, where a star of 15 mases of the sun explode and remain with only the core...

Prove me Multiverse... and I'll believe that Science is made by facts and evidence... instead of beliefs...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ugh, Nelson, computer simulations of this work. I'd advise you to learn a bit more about this.

And learn some fucking math! 0 &#8800 &#8734!

*Groans*

Nelson, mini black holes should not exist naturally in our realm of the universe. They've evaporated. See here.

And no, the amount of energy they carry should not be dangerous. See here

People have explained this to you, Nelson. It is not our fault you ignore them.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you? Sheesh, use fucking www.google.com to find examples of this evidence. Here is a

link

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Truthseeker,

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

Science is a methodolgy, a means for systematically eliminating impossible facts from the stone pile of all possible testable facts. To eliminate them, Science entertains impossible facts (conditional belief, if you will) for the purpose of subjecting them to evidentiary testing (which can take quite some time)--testing they either pass or fail according to their own merits, not because of the personal preferences of the testers .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Scientists do believe in the efficacy of the methodolgy, even when sometimes it is hard to imagine that falsification-resistent facts thus revealed seem quite unbelievable. But then, it's a different class of unbelievable that they're talking about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Xev,

There's someone here (I think is Lykan...) that already tried a computer simulation of one of those scientific theories... and the computer finished by crashing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know that...:bugeye:

Not what I read... but I will read this and see what is more logical...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. Anyone ever shown an evidence for Multiverse...

So why suddenly a guy came up with the idea of Gravastars instead of Blck Holes...:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mr G,

Yeah... the problem is when we make a hypothesis to explain what we have and then make other hypothesis to explain the later ones. This creates a web of hypothesis (that are mere unproven beliefs...) which create a new whole different universe...:bugeye:

 

You mean Lykan stopped thinking about his juvinile conceptions of sex for long enough to model somthing?

Lykan is hardly a hacker, you're probably an Apple user, and that is irrelevent.

Just as you know Descartes without reading him, what triggers orgasm without having slept with a woman, and advanced physics without having ever taken calc?

A bit hypocritical coming from you. Aren't you afraid of using logic?

JamesR explained the scientific method to you very well.

What?

THAT'S IT! I'm off to alt.masochism now.

 

"Yeah... the problem is when we make a hypothesis to explain what we have and then make other hypothesis to explain the later ones. This creates a web of hypothesis (that are mere unproven beliefs...) which create a new whole different universe..."

Ummm, Nelson...... First of all, a new hypothesis based on a former unproven theory is generally not well accepted. And secondly, you do it all the time.

 

Xev,

Then, probably wasn't Lykan...:bugeye:

No... I just said that a some posts ago...:bugeye:

No...:bugeye:
It was using logic that I got some of those conclusions...:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm asking about evidence... not scientific method...:bugeye:

...Have you ever heard about Gravastars...?

...?


Tyler,

So what are Black Holes, Gravastars, Multiverse, Brane Theory, Superstring Theory...? :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gee Nelson, you'd better be carefull. You might turn into a slut like me, or a cold bastard who dosen't care about who he fucks like Ty...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Carefull....

And JamesR explained that, when a hypothesis is claimed as hypothesis, evidence is of secondary importance.

Yes. What is the relevence?

Never mind, innocent one.

Black holes have evidence supporting their existance. Gravastars are an attempt to explain certain problems. Multiverse, brane theory, and SST are theories that may or may not be correct and are not claimed as fact.

 

Congratulations. You are now asking the right questions!

Listen Alpha

I've been in the cosmology and physical reality field for over 40 years and I never saw a need to invoke ANY of the interpretations that lead you into the blind alleys and illogical minefields that most cosmologists find themselves in today. Black holes are just another more dense state of matter. If you take a normal gas, such as helium (He atoms) and compress it, eventually it turns into a liquid (you need to remove the thermal energy as you do this... i.e., cool it down). If you squeeze the liquid helium to even higher pressures, you eventually squeeze the interatomic space out and the atoms pack right against one another and you get solid helium ice. Squeeze it even more and eventually the electron orbitals collapse and the electrons and helium nuclei are packed even tighter together in a free electron and proton and neutron "soup". Squeeze it even more and the spaces between the quarks that make up those particles collapse into a much more densely packed "quark soup". At the highest pressures imaginable, the spaces between the quarks are collapsed into a solid "quarkian ice" ... and voila.... you get a Black Hole! It's really much simpler than those "pie in the sky" mathematicians and theoretical stringers/branes/WIMPS/MACHO types would like to believe. Yes... I think even Dr. Hawking COULD be wrong on this one...BIG TIME. Black holes don't have to "evaporate" as Hawking describes. They would always be rotating black holes (Kerr types) and at their poles, the particles that emerge in the jets would initially be various kinds of quarks. As those quarks shot away from the parent body, they would interact when they got close enough to one another and would reform into protons, neutrons and electrons. After they reformed into those particles, the first thing they would form upon reassociation is atomic hydrogen! And there you see we have closed the cycle of stellar element generation. When enough hydrogen is assembled gravitationally to ignite, it forms a protostar. At higher mass, it eventually becomes a regular sequence star. It evolves and the light elements are created. Eventually it runs out of fuel and loses its thermonuclear fires. It cools down until it meets more of the same and the mass increases even more. Eventually it reignites to begin creating even heavier elements by fusion. When that process begins to waver, the instability can result in nova or supernova. Bam... much higher and heavier elements result and are blasted all over creation. But what happens to these heavier elements? Big Bangers would have you believe that the universe will fill up with it and finally we may have a big crunch. Others say that the universe will eventually turn into 100% dark matter. I say that the heavier elements are recycled back into atomic hydrogen everytime they are captured and compressed inside a black hole. Each black hole that exists (and there may be an infinite number of them) is a small locus of what the Big Bangers would call the primordial singularity. Thus we don't need a Big Bang at all! Hubble's redshift data was right BUT the interpretations that followed that presumed the red shift was caused by recessional velocity is flat out wrong. There is much we know about the molecular and elemental chemistry in deep space. And one thing we know is that it is filled with lots of dark matter. And it is filled with lots of carbon in different forms. Carbon compounds such as soot are found in meteorites. Soot has some interesting spectroscopic properties. One of them is that of fluorescence. Fluorescence occurs when a chemical compound absorbs light of a shorter wavelength and then re emits it at a longer wavelength... in other words... A RED SHIFT! So Dr. Hubble's observations can be fully explained as being an optical illusion caused by the low density in intergalactic space of carbonaceous soot that contains molecules of the fullerene variety. It is those molecules that will interact to the greatest extent with a passing light wave and generate a red shift that is dependent only on the density of that matter and the pathlength of the light wave. QED

 

Xev,

I use it with moderation...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I never said that logic is bad. I said that in excess is very limiting and makes people cold-hearted...

Without logic I couldn't be speaking with you now...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most things in moderation are good...
Most things in excess are bad...
Balance is the secret of well-being...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then, don't make up a "Multiverse" to explain a "Big Bang" randomness...:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is the true one - Black Hole or Gravastar (or both...)?


jhguth,

Rotating Black Holes! I forgot them! Thanks for bringing that up...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I didn't know about quarks in Black Holes... What I learned is that between the singularity and the event horizon there's empty space... isn't it like that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What about Gravastars? Do you believe they exist? And other kinds of Black Holes, like the tiny ones?

 

Of course, you've never shown ONE BIT of evidence for this.

Oh, you'll point to me, the cold "athiestic slut"

Guess what Nelson? I'm fucking irrational. Logical? Bah fucking humbug, I wish I were.

Good boy. Reading Epicurus?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nobody did. What are you talking about?

I personally think that black holes have more evidence for their existance....

Was that a legitamate or rhetorical question?

 

It would be one of the strangest things you could ever see, if it were possible. Think about it. Light can not escape once inside the event horizon. So do you find light photons laying on the surface? Is it so bright that you could not see, if vision were taking for granted? Would there be blackness over head, like a dome? Or would the infalling particles of light make that brilliant? A very strange world indeed.

 

Xev,

You... irrational...? I don't think so...
Besides that, I'm talking more about others...

Who is this guy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll tell you a little story...
Scientists for centuries were trying to discover the universe... and they found constants. The value of those constants are essential to the formation and balance of our universe. Then, a theory called "Antrophic Principle" came into being with a list of constants that if were changed life couldn't exist. It seemed that the Universe isn't random and that a creator, a conscience, is necessary to make things so perfectly to our existence. To make our existecne random again, scientists invented a Multiverse where billions of Big Bangs are always happening. One universe in billions would eventually create us. Randomness comes back. Some others tried to say that given infinite time, nature would eventually create us. Then, we get the idea of the monkey typing the works of Shakespeare...http://www.megalink.net/~ccs/monkey.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html

Anyways... in either way, Scientific Mysticisms are created...

Legitimate.
Why Black Holes?

Edit:
Here is a book about the Anthropic Principle (scentific!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...3256768/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-8579068-3632627

This link about the Anthropic Principle ends with: "All in all, I think this mathematical analysis of the situation presents highly compelling evidence for a God acting as an intelligent designer of life. "
Read it! See what I'm talking about! I told you that I used logic (not the same path tough...):
http://www.nutters.org/more-monkeys.html

 

*Xev turns a light pink*

Why thank you Nelson.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Epicurus believed that life was supposed to be enjoyed, no other meaning, no Gods. He stressed moderation and self-restraint.

Here: http://www.grtbooks.com/exitfram.as...us&URL=http://www.epicurus.net/menoeceus.html

No, that's not how things happened at all. A creator has never been implied by the existance of constants.

More evidence - see my link. And it fits in nicely with what we know of stellar evolution

 

How come every time I go to this thread I get logged out?

Have you ever read any books about physics?

It doesn't work like that. Hypotheses are constantly put to the test against evidence. From repeatable tests and observations! Yes we make hypotheses based on beliefs from before, but they won't hold up if they're not true!

 

Xev,

That's good...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then our ideas are similar...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So the Universe is random? I mean... it's all by chance? The exact configuration of aminoacids are a coincidence? Is the strengh of the nuclear force exactly like that (a little less, no stars; a little more would prevent the formation of protons, giving us an universe without atoms...?) by luck? The nuclear force? Gravity? Why the constants are so exact? Why they are essential for the universe? Actually... why constants?


Alpha,

Some...

The same again... all those things I cited...

 

Jhguth, you don't need infinite density to make a black hole. Once you've compressed a lump of matter small enough that it's radius is less than the radius of a black hole of that mass, it IS a black hole, even if by some mechanism unknown to current physics it didn't compress any further.

And the more mass you have, the less the density you have to compress it to to achieve that status. Pile enough on, and if it never compressed past the density of water, you'd still eventually wind up with a body whose escape velocity was higher than light speed, hence a black hole. The existance of black holes was first predicted by classical physics, long before anybody had a clue about quantum physics, or started muttering about singularities.

Really, about the only difference between a Newtonian black hole, and an Einsteinian black hole, is that it's not mathematically impossible for information to escape the former, the way it is for the latter.

 

I don't believe infinity exist in reality, only as an abstract concept.
Infinity is a paradox, therefore it cannot exist. I think it's a fundamental flaw in math & physics.