[QUOTE=Rct33;43659810]It has nothing to do with fire[/QUOTE]
alright, fine
it's an oversimplification
saying that it's a high energy maelstrom of particles isn't nearly as memorable, though
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43657950]Because quantum theory, black holes have no event horizons. Since an event horizon is a defining feature of black holes, black holes don't exist.
Now, those are still pretty much 'functionally equivalent' to the plain old fashioned (Not classical) black holes we know and love, it's a subtle difference.[/QUOTE]
So it's basically all kinda dumb sensationalist semantics because the black hole is practically same as it used to be, just the way shit escapes is a bit different, and people will just, you know, instead of burying the "wrong" term, change the definition of black hole.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657879][url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote=the fucking page you linked]
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;43658209]Pretty sure that's like the definition of increasing entropy, taking something complex and breaking it down.
Unless I'm missing something, you're confusing entropy with something else, like conservation of information[/QUOTE]
I was still kind of waking up when I wrote that, and I was working on recollections from reading that book (actually listening to the audiobook) like 5 years ago.
I should have been discussing the violation of conservation of information that Hawking's proposal implied, yes.
But now I need to go back and listen to the book again, because it's become clear to me that I've forgotten the relationship between entropy and information/info theory in the context of black holes as described in that book, leading to the brain fart known as my prior post. :v: Keep in mind that science also marches on, so I'm likely trying to use (and forgetting, no less) concepts that are somewhat outdated.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43658095]So Hawking radiation can't exist in the absence of a discrete horizon?[/QUOTE]
since the event horizon cannot be classically escaped from, a quantum foam that created an anti-particle and a particle together because of the uncertainty principle would have one particle fall in and one fall out of the black hole if it they were created on opposite sides where normally they would instantaneously touch and disintegrate. This couldn't allow this specific [highlight]mechanism[/highlight] if all my understandings are correct
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657879][url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url][/QUOTE]
[url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy]Hmmm.[/url]
[quote]You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.[/quote]
[QUOTE=iFail;43659863]alright, fine
it's an oversimplification
saying that it's a high energy maelstrom of particles isn't nearly as memorable, though[/QUOTE]
The wikipedia article has a very decent and understandable explanation:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)[/url]
Basically the particles of hawking radiation will be entangled, but this entanglement must be broken somehow, releasing a bunch of energy and creating the "firewall."
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43660035]So it's basically all kinda dumb sensationalist semantics because the black hole is practically same as it used to be, just the way shit escapes is a bit different, and people will just, you know, instead of burying the "wrong" term, change the definition of black hole.[/QUOTE]
It's not just semantics, though, it's going to alter our theories if this turns out to be the case. Just "changing the definition of black hole" is not as easy as it sounds. There's a going to be a lot of difficult accompanying mathematics.
i mean from a newtonian standpoint, a black hole is still an unescapabe gravity well for normal matter, this just is an attempt to delve deeper in our understanding, the blackhole hasn't changed it still gobbles down stuff.
[QUOTE=Sableye;43661626]i mean from a newtonian standpoint, a black hole is still an unescapabe gravity well for normal matter, this just is an attempt to delve deeper in our understanding, the blackhole hasn't changed it still gobbles down stuff.[/QUOTE]
No, in fact. Much the opposite. In Newtonian physics, the speed of light is not a speed limit for matter. If you use Newtonian physics but you accept that light still falls in gravity even though it's massless (in fact, some physicists in the Newtonian era postulated "dark stars," like Newtonian black holes. You can derive the Schwarzschild radius using these), then "black holes" will appear black, but there's since there's no speed limit for massive matter, it could still escape.
so i understood this is as a black hole actually exists but technically not really
Are you trying to tell me that Star Trek is fake?
So Enigma's ultimate is non-existant now?
So black holes are merely cosmic egg-scramblers, as opposed to complete annihilators of reality? Well, that's a relief.
[QUOTE=ironman17;43665679]So black holes are merely cosmic egg-scramblers, as opposed to complete annihilators of reality? Well, that's a relief.[/QUOTE]
what if they're actually sentient beings, so difficult for us to understand and explain because they are nearly divine by definition
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43665941]what if they're actually sentient beings, so difficult for us to understand and explain because they are nearly divine by definition[/QUOTE]
Oh.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43660623]I was still kind of waking up when I wrote that, and I was working on recollections from reading that book (actually listening to the audiobook) like 5 years ago.
I should have been discussing the violation of conservation of information that Hawking's proposal implied, yes.
But now I need to go back and listen to the book again, because it's become clear to me that I've forgotten the relationship between entropy and information/info theory in the context of black holes as described in that book, leading to the brain fart known as my prior post. :v: Keep in mind that science also marches on, so I'm likely trying to use (and forgetting, no less) concepts that are somewhat outdated.[/QUOTE]
Well entropy is hidden information, and if you didn't actually account that the black hole has entropy, then entropy is 'lost' (absorbed indefinitely). Also note in the classical limit the storage capacity of a black hole is also infinite. Essentially it wasn't really understood until QM was applied and such infinities were dealt with.
I thought we already knew that black holes eventually release energy and matter over time. Like a leaky faucet or something. Just that it takes in more energy and matter than it releases. And in some cases, a huge reaction occurs which results in those gamma ray jets.
Or is this something completely different?
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;43666147]I thought we already knew that black holes eventually release energy and matter over time. Like a leaky faucet or something. Just that it takes in more energy and matter than it releases. And in some cases, a huge reaction occurs which results in those gamma ray jets.
Or is this something completely different?[/QUOTE]
This is different, also the jets bit is not accurate. We don't know for sure what causes those jets.
I apologize for my ignorance and lack of fully grasping the subject matter, however would the analogy be that hawking radiation is analogous to an electron falling to a lower energy level.
i.e. Despite if it is an apparent or actual event horizon, any matter that 'falls' in goes to a 'lower energy level' thus releasing hawking radiation?
The only knowledge I extracted and understood from the OP's post was that spaghettification is a word.
Hawking is a crazy fucker.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;43666478]I apologize for my ignorance and lack of fully grasping the subject matter, however would the analogy be that hawking radiation is analogous to an electron falling to a lower energy level.
i.e. Despite if it is an apparent or actual event horizon, any matter that 'falls' in goes to a 'lower energy level' thus releasing hawking radiation?[/QUOTE]
No, not really. The most intuitive explanation is that the gravitational energy near the event horizon boosts virtual particle pairs into real particles. One falls into the black hole and one escapes, and the escaping particle takes some of the energy of the black hole. It doesn't really have anything to do with matter falling in it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43667134]No, not really. The most intuitive explanation is that the gravitational energy near the event horizon boosts virtual particle pairs into real particles. One falls into the black hole and one escapes, and the escaping particle takes some of the energy of the black hole. It doesn't really have anything to do with matter falling in it.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the explanation, So that's were the entanglement comes in?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657897]yo man no caps and no punctuation generally mean sarcasm[/QUOTE]
Poe's law etc
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43667134]No, not really. The most intuitive explanation is that the gravitational energy near the event horizon boosts virtual particle pairs into real particles. One falls into the black hole and one escapes, and [B]the escaping particle takes some of the energy of the black hole[/B]. It doesn't really have anything to do with matter falling in it.[/QUOTE]
How does that work?
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;43670673]How does that work?[/QUOTE]
It's the gravitational energy that makes the virtual particles real. If they don't annihilate and one escapes, it's taking the gravitational energy from the black hole. That wouldn't be allowed classically, but it is quantum mechanically.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.