Image: European Space Agency, NASA and Felix Mirabel French Atomic Energy Commission, Institute for Astronomy and Space Physics/Conicet of Argentina
In Brief
- Black holes are theoretical structures in spacetime predicted by the theory of general relativity. Nothing can escape a black hole’s gravity after passing inside its event horizon.
- Approximate quantum calculations predict that black holes slowly evaporate, albeit in a paradoxical way. Physicists are still seeking a full, consistent quantum theory of gravity to describe black holes.
- Contrary to physicists’ conventional wisdom, a quantum effect called vacuum polarization may grow large enough to stop a hole forming and create a “black star” instead.
Black holes have been a part of popular culture for decades now, most recently playing a central role in the plot of this year’s Star Trek movie. No wonder. These dark remnants of collapsed stars seem almost designed to play on some of our primal fears: a black hole harbors unfathomable mystery behind the curtain that is its “event horizon,” admits of no escape for anyone or anything that falls within, and irretrievably destroys all it ingests.
To theoretical physicists, black holes are a class of solutions of the Einstein field equations, which are at the heart of his theory of general relativity. The theory describes how all matter and energy distort spacetime as if it were made of elastic and how the resulting curvature of spacetime controls the motion of the matter and energy, producing the force we know as gravity. These equations unambiguously predict that there can be regions of spacetime from which no signal can reach distant observers. These regions—black holes—consist of a location where matter densities approach infinity (a “singularity”) surrounded by an empty zone of extreme gravitation from which nothing, not even light, can escape. A conceptual boundary, the event horizon, separates the zone of intense gravitation from the rest of spacetime. In the simplest case, the event horizon is a sphere—just six kilometers in diameter for a black hole of the sun’s mass.
This article was originally published with the title Black Stars, Not Holes.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentYes, we all know that the horizon defines the point of no return (+/- a plank length[pL]). But, just ouside that limit @ a few pL's wider radius, isn't there a boundary where even electrons with their inherent mass are unable to achieve escape velocity (c) and are forever stuck to the BH ? And further, outside that boundary are there not radii at which heavier quantum constructs are similarly trapped? I cal thse boundaries the Oppenheimer barrier, like the sound barrier, apparently inviolable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen they refer to the RSET and the continual interplay between changing spacetime and the energy change associated with a changing gravitational field wouldnt this occur ad infinitum. If this is so how do stable objects exist in the universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake an electron just outside the Schwarzschild radius moving at some "v". Too low a v and it is consumed by the BH. Too high a v and it escapes. What if the e is in a stable orbit and that orbit v approaches "c"? Its Mass approaches infinity. So, with a near infinite mass in orbit about a singularity, all the matter of the singularity is drawn to the orbit radius. As Susskind says the info is not in the volume it is on the surface. A black hole is an empty sphere if just one electron orbits at near light speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes, for all practical purposes, are non-physical mathematical constructs anyway. Time dilation effects would prevent any observer outside the event horizon from actually ever seeing the event horizon form. To an outside observer (no matter the distance from the star), he would simply see the star's collapse get slower and slower until it became infinitely slow just outside the point where an event horizon forms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the article it is stated the evaporation of black holes speeds up as the hole get smaller. To my mind it should be the other way: the larger the EH diameter, the more virtual particles can interact to reduce the mass and therefore the mass reduction rate must be higher. However, presumably an equal number of virtual particles and anti particles will be captured and the net mass loss should be near zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso a reference to the temperature of a singularity being near absolute zero I assume is due to extreme time dilation and only valid for an external observer. For an observer inside the EH the temperature must be near infinite
I think the interplay does not continue infinitely because at each step the effect weakens exponentially; so it reaches a constant valued total limit (not infinity); just like in a mathematical series.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many different ideas to explain the same phenomenon: Black Hole, Black Star, Gravastar,...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder which ones are compatible w/ each other, (so that they all may co-exist in the Universe) ?
The article is correct in that the evaporation rate increases exponentially as the black hole becomes smaller because as the size of the black hole decreases less stuff is going to fall through the EH to counteract the evaporation process and the virtual particle interactions will become more and more significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can anything, 1/2 a virtual pair or a temperarure, pass through and out of an infinitely dense sphere of matter? Everything should either be reflected back into the sphere or absorbed in the density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, the only thing that can "unlock" a black hole is the dynamic interaction involved when black holes collide. The point of contact experiences "0" g and releases all the spherical matter tangentially. See the Homunculus of eta Carinae as an example of this phenomena. Seeing is or should be believing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment describes exactly the fundamental problems I have in understanding BH's. If it takes an infinite span of time for matter to reach the EH - how can matter get inside a BH at all? The GTR should not be over-interpreted. It just describes the physics of huge masses collapsing towards a center but never reaching it. For the outside world the real existence of a mass singularity at the center is not necessary because a shell of mass behaves gravitationally the same way as a point mass does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say a"flat" universe has no gravity. If that math construct is tilted, everything falls in one direction. Though not "semiclassical" gravity, it is an attraction to a direction. In a flat plane you cannot have curvature as in 3-d, so you have attraction but it is different, it is uni-directional. The only dimension without an attractor is a linear one 1-d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSphere vs. Point is very important in Dynamics. Interaction of the points won't take place until centers touch at the same physical location. Contacting spheres however can cause the gravitational infinity to dissipate when their centers are parsecs apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSphere vs. Point is very important in Dynamics. Interaction of the points won't take place until centers touch at the same physical location. Contacting spheres however can cause the gravitational infinity to dissipate when their centers are parsecs apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sure hope this Black Star theory is looked at more decisively and closely than the Disney theory of black holes because a black star seems more plausible for the creation of galaxies. I am glad to see scientists looking outside the box looking at Black Holes. But, Black holes, Black stars, pff, look outside the box further.The centers of galaxies look to me like huge masses creating stars by flinging matter out like a vintage novelty spinner spins it's sparks out. Compare the two once and see how a common galaxy arms looks to be spinning outward and leaving a trail of "sparks". I read if the Earth spun super fast that we'd just fly off. Shouldn't that same principle be put in with the like of the center of the galaxy where it is spinning so fast it is releasing matter not absorbing it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes in theory are supposed to not let matter or light escape but yet all seem to emit plasma from their poles which is, in my opinion, somewhat contradictory to its own definition . And where did all the matter come from for the black hole to gather up and make a huge galaxy in the first place and then just to eat it up? and why hasn't it sucked everything in already? There is just too much empty space between galaxies in order for a black hole to exist because it would need matter to gather to create the outer lying material to create the galaxy itself in order to feed it. There just doesn't seem to be any matter out there for this idea. I suppose this is where dark matter theory evolved from. There is not dark matter because the center of galaxies hold all that extra matter to emit enough material to create the galaxy. But since scientists continue on the path inside the box they are not seeing this.
I cannot believe people get millions of dollars of research grants for looking the wrong way because they use a theoritical mathematical formula for something really they have no clue on other than what formula they made up just works out the way they make it work out. But yet who am I to have a clue since I am just Joe Blow putting 2 and 2 together?
I sure hope this Black Star theory is looked at more decisively and closely than the Disney theory of black holes because a black star seems more plausible for the creation of galaxies. I am glad to see scientists looking outside the box looking at Black Holes. But, Black holes, Black stars, pff, look outside the box further.The centers of galaxies look to me like huge masses creating stars by flinging matter out like a vintage novelty spinner spins it's sparks out. Compare the two once and see how a common galaxy arms looks to be spinning outward and leaving a trail of "sparks". I read if the Earth spun super fast that we'd just fly off. Shouldn't that same principle be put in with the like of the center of the galaxy where it is spinning so fast it is releasing matter not absorbing it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes in theory are supposed to not let matter or light escape but yet all seem to emit plasma from their poles which is, in my opinion, somewhat contradictory to its own definition . And where did all the matter come from for the black hole to gather up and make a huge galaxy in the first place and then just to eat it up? and why hasn't it sucked everything in already? There is just too much empty space between galaxies in order for a black hole to exist because it would need matter to gather to create the outer lying material to create the galaxy itself in order to feed it. There just doesn't seem to be any matter out there for this idea. I suppose this is where dark matter theory evolved from. There is not dark matter because the center of galaxies hold all that extra matter to emit enough material to create the galaxy. But since scientists continue on the path inside the box they are not seeing this.
I cannot believe people get millions of dollars of research grants for looking the wrong way because they use a theoritical mathematical formula for something really they have no clue on other than what formula they made up just works out the way they make it work out. But yet who am I to have a clue since I am just Joe Blow putting 2 and 2 together?
If it is an acceptable posit that flat planes of ejecta can arise when two black holes collide, how would the result of a rare three black hole collision present itself to us? Well, since the operative dynamic is where the gravity is reduced to zero equidistantly in all points of only that one plane, the 3 body model needs to follow the same mechanics. Three bodies in space define a plane and the only point that experiences equi- forces to that plane and in relation to the three bodies is a straight line through and perpendicular to a "zero g" point. All resulting released matter would travel along that line uninfluenced by the pull of any of the three holes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave any such structures been observed to date? You batcha, and in a population which speaks to the probability ratio of that event to the overall population of visible objects in the sky: Galaxies which spew thousand light-year long plasma jets out from their centers.
In a four BH collision there is one allignment which would produce a recognizable result, that being that if all four were in the same plane, the ejecta would be two intersecting flat planes. This should happen once in a billion collisions. An even rarer result would be the interaction of five or more all in the same plane, which may occur once in a trillion-trillion collisions and may not be visible at this time anywhere. The ejecta from that dynamic would be a cylindrical tube of plasma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe many, when thinking of BH's, think of a solid structure. This is a false thought. BH's are plasma constructs and act like extremely dense amalgams of sand. Each grain of sand keeps its identity, just gets more and more crowded. The sphere is the same type of object. All grains of matter of various compositions, crammed together. When they are released, they either fly off on their own into the tangent plane , or smash into something else moving at it at near light speed. Tremndously large and complex molecules can be collider-built in this manner.. It seems to me a more plausible way of generating non-main-sequence atomic weight elements (Like 79 or 37 or 26). And a good source for generating complex carbon compounds. Just those spheres spewing out larger particles than went in, but and here's a good part, all the input data is retrievable. None is lost.
A simple experiment can be performed to show the difference between "pull the same direction gravity" and "pull the opposite direction gravity". It requires a nylon stocking material, a square frame to stretch it onto, two magnets, two steel bearings and two sets of hands. To demonstrate the relativity of same direction pull, place a bearing in each of two opposite corners on top of the nylon. They should minimally distort the material due to natural gravity. Now, introduce our "gravity Amplifiers" (magnets) below the fabric to accentuate the distortion in the fabric. Holding the "G amps" at a steady distance beneath the fabric and bearings move the magnets toward each other. By the time both magnets are near, the bearings should have fallen into the "well" and should now be distorting the fabric by an amount more that is attribytable to the gauss of the magnets. Clearly demonstrating what Hawking refers to in :A Brief Histiory of Time" chptr 7 para. 3 as the bodies "merging".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow to test the "pulls in opposite directions" version. This is where the second pair of hands are required. Start one of the bearings and "G amp" in one corner as above. Using the second magnet to hold it in place, put the second bearing on the underside of the fabric. Pull that magnet to a distance above the fabric so that a distortion is discernable. Distort the first magnet/bearing the same amount. Keeping those distances above and below the fabric constant, move the "G amps toward above and below a single spot in the fabric. As you get to that spot, the opposite pulls of the magnets (just like real gravity) will cancel each other out and the bearings willjump to the other magnets, leaving the fabric with no distortion. This experiment would be more controlled if it were performed in space's "~zero g" where the simulated gravity would only be attributable to the magnets and not have any background g influence it.
The three BH experiment is similar using nylon athree sided frame t mount it, three magnets four sets of hands (three for mag/balls and one to hold the frame. It starts with the mags inside the three sided frame and pulled outward toward the magnets. Start one in the middle of the height of the frame. Start the other two sub-systems from opposite ends of the frame, being sur to equally distort the fabric at each "mass". When the three mag/balls are the closest they can be, the canceled pull of each balls's magnet by the opposite pulls from the other magnets should cause the balls to cease distorting the fabric. They ---comment field over....
I must thank the people at SciAm for allowing this forum to exist.My previous comment became un-editable once I'd filled the commentable area. So's a leetle 'splainin: The idea of gravity pulling and distorting in opposite directions is key to the formula which sums the forces acting on individual particles in the "zero g" area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe three ball experiment starts with the three balls , not the mags inside the frame. The magnets, of equal gauss strength should be used to distort the fabric equally from outside the frame. Once the balls are as close as they can get, they should drop out of the fields or be caught again by the mags. But by then the experiment is over. It ended when the distortion in the fabric flattened out , reproducing the "zero g"
frgough;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a good point. During collapse, the time distortion stops the collapse. I think that you ar right!! It makes perfect sense. I also like the idea of the light speed orbiting electron obtaining near infinite mass theirfore attracting all the core to the outside.
It is a good thing to publish a summary when new research adds to physics theory. So SciAm should give all essential information and to this belongs reference to Vasily Yanchilin, who published in 2003 his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (available in the Library of Congress). This Russian scientist denies the existence of black holes, which result from wrong theory, namely that of Einstein before quantum mechanics was understood. Quoting from the book in own words: In the general theory of relativity time and length are considered as independent, not connected to other things in the universe like its mass, and of similar kind while in reality distance increases when the unit of length becomes smaller, but the duration of physical processes decreases when the second becomes smaller. Page 189: "In the (new)quantumtheory of gravitation and in the general theory of relativity the expression for an interval may be written as:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisds(exp2)=1/k(exp2).c(exp2)dt(exp2) -k(exp2).dl(exp2).
In Einstein's theory k=1/(1-2GM/rc(exp2))exp-0,5
but when deriving with the "principle of minimum action", coupled to wave propagation, k =(1+2GM/rc(exp2))exp0,5".
So time goes faster near concentration of mass, (just like at the Big Bang).
Yanchilin argues that the general theory of relativity gives often acceptable approximation when factors vary little, like in our solar system. This however is not the case with red shift: In the old theory photons going from the foot of a tower to its top get red shift because time passes slower at the foot. They also get red shift because the photons loose energy due to travelling against gravity. Instead of the sum only one of both is measured. Read the book for the correct interpretation of what happens.
Do you mean that once you passed into a Black Hole,there's no way you can figure out what place are you next?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, it's just the same with a bermuda triangle, right?
To Bonsi::: If you accept the estimates of the amount of matter in the universe (and I believe that guess to be correct within an order of magnitude), there is not enough of it visible. It may not be dark matter as you conjecture but what I think of as un-collided black holes traveling in intergalactic space. If they haven't found a companion yet to bang into, they remain just as singularities were first imagined, black and unseen. The only way we would have to detect them would be if they "lensed" a galaxy behind them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, for a little brain teaser. Imagine a series of photons that were emitted when the moon was formed. Those photons travel out toward a star and their path is bent a little. Now they travel a little further and get bent a little more. Before you know it, they've been bent 360 degrees and head back at us. If we look in the right spot, we should see the collision which formed the moon millions of years ago!
Let's put this evaporation and "Hawking Radiation" issue to rest. As I said before, 1/2 a virtual pair is drawn into the BH, leaving the other half to continue to exist. Okay. What happens to that second half?. It just wanders freely away from the BH? No it would take a tremendous amount of energy to be added to it to get it a velocity that would allow it to reach an "escape" velocity. Otherwise, it continues in a stable orbit around the BH, going faster and faster until its mass becomes such that the BH consumes it and it ends up being an even bigger meal for the surface of the sphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if virtual particles do exist and do interact with BH's, they just make they grow bigger, there is no evaporation and there is no discernable temperature release.
With the tools that this comment window allow me, I shall try to convey two equations which illustrate the idea of Gravity pulling in two different directions. I will use the arrow keys to represent the idea of a well. In Hawkings brief history book he says in chptr 7 BHs merge, that would be: <+<=<<. the result is twice the amount of "well". I contend that when BHs collide, the pull in opposite directions cancels the well thusly: <+>=__. Sometimes it helps if you tilt your head to the left to visualize this .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have held that idea of BHs 'collide and spew' vs 'merge' for 3 decades. None have proved it wrong. In the early nineties, when the images of galactic plasma jets were first released, I didn't take too much time to geometrically figure out that strange situation of three BHs in collision.Three objects in space define a plane. It's one of the basic tenets of geometry.The family of points which experience a sum null condition in resect to that plane is defined by a line perpendicular to the plane through the 'zero g' pointI. Ive said it here before but I'll say it once more. The material released through that collision whill travel at tremendous velocities along that line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, I ponderedthat the number of black holes involved in a collision has an import on the resulant configeuration of the matter in space. Was, I wondered, there any like import to ten BHs, Twenty? Did it matter if there were millions or billions or trillions of BHs in our universe? Then one day during my daily thought exercises about this issue, I asked myself what is it about the numbers that's important?Wham, wham, wham. All numbers are either even or odd! Did that fact have any bearing on the problem? Well, if there were an odd number of BHs, then when all had eventually collided, only one would remain. Was there any evidence of this being the case? No, our history of observetion hasn't gotten us to the point where we could put an exact number to the total. So, there exists nothing to back that avenue of thought.
What if the numver of BHs in the universe were an even number? Well, when you get down to the final few, they'd disperse themselves until only two were left. Position those two at opposite sides of the universe, lrt them gather matter as they pull toward each other, until when they cancel and spew their matter ... two '1/2 universe size"BHs... any evidence or accepted conjecture? YES!!! Big Bang ... Fits the model perfectly. "1/2 universe' sized Bhs collide spewing out smaller BHs which don't accelerate easily, and tons and tons (Hee He) of basic quantum particles which do move away quickly and outr universe begins and susequently, more smaller BHs collide, more smaller BHs are generated the universe expands until all the BHs have collided except for the last two, no matter their initial size. They get drawn together, eating matter all the time, approaching and BANG again. Now if you can't understand the warning not to generate BHs of any size and unbalance the beauty of nature ..............
Dang, got the comment field full again before I edited and ergo, no edit possible. Anyway, if we are to generate our own little BHs, try to make sure that they are generated in pairs. Single ones don't evaporate due to high temperature as thought. They just start giving creedence to their initial name, singularity, and will go on consuming matter and energy until they interact with another one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has always seemed to me that a simple relativistic argument could point toward a conclusion similar to that of the authors. When a star collapses, the relativistic time dilation at the surfacc increases, and approaches infinity at the Schwarzchild radius; thus the collapsing star, as "seen" from outside, will seem to "freeze" just outside the point where a true event horizon would form, and technically no true black hole can form in any finite time period. This argument makes no appeal to exotic quantum-mechanical theories and seems to be true for a collapsing mass of any size, unlike the authors' theory, which seems to break down for large masses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd now the question becomes:can a highly collapsed object which does not have an event horizon still emit Hawking radiation? If so, the question becomes even more moot--any incipient black hole will then evaporate before an event horizon can form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPositionally in our universe, a center point comes in handy in the performance of mathematical operations. As you say in your first post, words 23-30 the surface, not the point , the surface. Every 1/2 pair popping into existence has a possible three avenues of change of position when at a black hole surface: into the hole, around the hole or away from the hole. The only options which have been considered to date where the into and away. Why, WHY, oh, Why, is it so hard to convince you that option #2, around the hole, prevents option #3, away from the hole. Oh, and its okay for time to exist to carry away the 1/2 pair but not for mass collapse to occur?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I'll drop this tid-bitty here since no other current site iis addressing the issue, When I put it out there anyone pondering it will question my beliefs and it is really applicable to a universe that visits Black Hole collisions on nearby intelligently populated planets, without warning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the Iridium layer associated with the dinosaur extinction event so clearly defined in the rock strata? If you spread some uniquely identifiable substance over the world right now that didn't kill the life that encountered it, in a few centuries that material would have been transported to several feet of surface composites by small creatures, fungal and bacterialogical actions. Why didn't that happen with the Iridium?
I can make a dam good guess. There was no viable surface creatures alive at the time to do that trucking. They had all been extincted before by a gamma wave resulting from the collision of the Homunculus' Black Holes all those millions of years ago. With no soil or surface life functioning, the iridium stayed put. Making it that much more noticable to us now.
I say the Dinosaurs were tanned to death, then the force of that radiation edged a comet over the lip and into the sun's gravity well. Tanned to death, then rock. Not rock then death.
And those two bodies at eta Carina didn't meet head on, but only glanced each other that time. The windows of time going back that far are clouded by the nebulous material one can see that has been thrown out into space at a periodic interval all around that system. Hundred million years ago nearest to us. Then fifty million years ago, another cloudy area a little furtheer away from us. Then really getting in close to the system you can tell from the waves of nebulous matter that events occured 1milliom, four hudred thousand, hundred thousand... and on in a decreasing frequency which is what one would expect of slowly circling bodies in space. If they don't cancel this time but manage to swing apart for a time. The next collision could occur in a time measured in only millenia.
I have studied the subject for some time,and as mentioned before ,my math skills are lacking,so all my points are from thought experiment point of view.@#1 inside a black hole there is nothing going on,time has reached a state of o,no wave funtion at all,there is nothing ,but a finite object at the center ,and all the mass out to the event horizon, frozen in time for ever,what amount mass is needed to reach this point I am certain some one else can tell me,thus nothing infinite going below the EH.Now as Michael has pointed out,objects of varing mass have different escape speeds,but all this is happening at the fringe,once the EH is reached all mass at that point stops,all other effects happen on the outside.#2 What is happening outside of the EH is a reaction of space-time its self,that is what is spinning,producing gravitation effects,and magnetic fields,only here do we see the truth,space-time has mass,but only in an energy point of view.and that is all the extra mass everybodys been looking for.I imangine this whriling disc of space-time destroy's all other matter right down to the level of photons, including Hawking's radiation,as for BH's joining they do so at the EH's like bubbles,each grabbing what they can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjack.123 if you would, visit at wikipedia the page for "Homunculus nebula" and you can more easily visualize what happens when spheres of mass and energy collide together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Formula for the resultant foces on a particle at the point of collision of nth black holes is equal to the sum of the Forces acting on it which is equal to the vector Force of black hole sub 1 due to gravity plus the vector Force of black Hole sub 2 due to gravity plus the vector Force of Black Hole sub n due to gravity plus the vector Force inherent in the particle. Since in a two Black Hole collision the vectorForces due to gravity at the "event horizons" of Black Hole 1 and Black hole 2 are equal but opposite in direction, they cancel leaving only the vector Force inherent as the resultant Force on the particle. Since most particles will have mostly an angular momentum component to the force inherent,the resultant is a displacement vector and an acceleration vector in the tangent plane. Note: even if Black Hole 1 is twice as massive as Black Hole 2. the Force due to gravity is the same for both at the "event horizon". The depletion will continue in such a case until the smaller Mass is incapable of sustaining an infinitely dense spherical shell of matter, then leaving the remainder as a smaller but solitary Black Hole 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat collision reality means that the famous equation by Frank Drake regarding the probability of intelligent life in the galaxy needs to incorporate a probability factor for INTRA-galactic cataclismic events. When that is added to the equation and you integrate the equation with respect to time the resultant waveform indicating the possibility of intelligent life at any given moment turns out to be a sawtooth waveform. Meaning, yes life evolves and increases intelligence with increased time but events can suddenly happen which drastically reduce the intelligence level to a lower condition reminiscent of earlier probabilities. Integration and graphing the results of the equation without this factor gives an upward sloping line depicting an ever increasing probability in time of intelligence developing. Seti so far has provided evidence of the first situation and no evidence of the second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at the Nebula associated with the Homunculus, you can see that to the Southeast at a distance of approximately two solar system diameters, the gases of a previous emission are being excited where an extension of the material skirt would intersect it. That extension would be the invisible energy waves being emitted in the tangential plane. The same gases above and below that intersection are not aglow! Same gas! Different environment!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not either /or; it's both.
Talk about information, how far/long past?
The evaporation rate does not depend on stuff falling in. Evaporation would not occur if more matter/energy was added than was evaporated. If a black hole is isolated it would still be receiving CMB radiation for example. This is why black hole also have a temperature. As long as the universe is warmer than the temperature of a isolated BH it will not evaporate. But the Universe is always cooling so eventually...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut back to the point... The reason larger BH evaporate slow is tied to the fact their gravity is stronger, i.e. few of the virtural particals created just outside the event horizon have the velocity to escape. As it shrinks, more and more virtual particles can escape because the escape velocity decreases and the rate of mass loss increases.
Sorry to burst a bubble but the strength of gravity at an event horizon is the same no matter the diameter of the black hole. Nature of the beast. EH is EH and that gravity force is the same whether 10KM away from the Singularity or two light years away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut there is still nothing going on below the EH,all wave function has stopped,because the Time factor of Space-TIme has reached 0 thus stopping everything,and this is why nothing can escape.The Planck length has been reached,thus there is no room for Time-Space or any thing else to move.The mass below the EH has to be a finite a amount.Could someone please figure out what this is and remark back what it is?Of course I could be wrong it is just a theory.I would like to see somebody prove it wrong.At the least, proving it wrong may provide some answers to some other questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason why large black holes emit less than smaller black holes is due to tidal forces. The difference in gravity is what pulls apart the virtual pair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdding mass to a black hole increases it's size. The event horizon is defined where the escape speed is the speed of light ("c"): r_s = sqrt(2*G*M / (c^2))
Here, r_s is the radius of the event horizon
Tidal forces are proportional to (G*M)/(r^3), where
G is the gravitational constant
M is the mass of the black hole
r is the distance from the center of the black hole
At the radius of the event horizon ( r = r_s), the tidal forces are proportional to:
(G*M) / ((2*G*M)/(c^2))^3 = (1/sqrt(8)) * (c^3)/((G*M)^(1/2))
Therefore, the tidal forces get weaker as mass is added to the black hole. A weaker tidal force means there is less force acting on the virtual pair, meaning there is less chance that the pair will separate.
Once the virtual particles separate, the closest one is pulled into the black hole. The other particle has a chance to tunnel outside the gravitational potential barrier of the black hole. For more information about this, read up on quantum tunneling.
What causes the ring of blue light around the black star.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth EINSTEIN and NEWTON are not exactly correct in their approach to gravity. As such the BLACK HOLE theory is wrong instead we may think of black holes as focused GRAVITOETHERTONS OR FIVE GOD PARTICLES as discussed by DURGADAS DATTA in his BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER UNIVERSES ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH PRODUCING GRAVITOETHERTONS AT COMMON BOUNDARY BY ANNIHILATION OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER AND INJECTED INTO OUR UNIVERSE AS DARK ENERGY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this