We made a black hole?
- Thread starter Pershing
- Start date
Renegade_Zero
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
maybe.
ZeroSupporT
CAGiversary!
So even though this exists so briefly they are still able to determine that it has the characteristics of a blackhole. It seems though that those proton accelerators always are having wierd shit happen.
weimerwanger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
seems most likely to be an error in measurement or method, especially since another scientist quoted was skeptical...
in a related note, im reading "a brief history of time," quite interesting
in a related note, im reading "a brief history of time," quite interesting
As they said, it isn't as if it is a real black hole.
What I do like is a couple of years back, one of the labs with a huge particle accelerator started doing experiments that had a very, very small percentage of creating weird unnatural quarks that could possible attach to the quarks around them, subvert them, and repeat. The process would have changed all of the matter in the universe to this new, odd form, essentially destroying the universe. I thought that was awesome.
What I do like is a couple of years back, one of the labs with a huge particle accelerator started doing experiments that had a very, very small percentage of creating weird unnatural quarks that could possible attach to the quarks around them, subvert them, and repeat. The process would have changed all of the matter in the universe to this new, odd form, essentially destroying the universe. I thought that was awesome.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Sweet, someone should stick in an arm or something in it and see what happens!
weimerwanger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='crystalklear64']Sweet, someone should stick in an arm or something in it and see what happens![/QUOTE]
it would probably turn into a sperm whale or a potted plant if i had to guess
it would probably turn into a sperm whale or a potted plant if i had to guess
[quote name='weimerwanger']it would probably turn into a sperm whale or a potted plant if i had to guess[/QUOTE]
Nah, more than likely, he would get crushed as his arm gets sucked in, his body would soon follow as the particules attempt to meet at a single point due to the overwhelming gravitational forces.
Nah, more than likely, he would get crushed as his arm gets sucked in, his body would soon follow as the particules attempt to meet at a single point due to the overwhelming gravitational forces.
[quote name='jaykrue']Nah, more than likely, he would get crushed as his arm gets sucked in, his body would soon follow as the particules attempt to meet at a single point due to the overwhelming gravitational forces.[/QUOTE]
would he end up in the middle of space or some alien planet somwhere?
would he end up in the middle of space or some alien planet somwhere?
[quote name='Pershing']would he end up in the middle of space or some alien planet somwhere?[/QUOTE]
Dunno. But black holes are a misleading name for such things since it's been theorized that they're not holes per se like what you would imagine as a whirlpool. Rather think of it as everything falling towards a single point. If you think about it, falling down is only relative to your point of view. If you were to fall through a hole that goes through the entire Earth, by the time you passed the center of the earth, you'd start slowing down and moving back where you came from and then back again until you will eventually stop in the middle of the earth. But since everything is trying to come together at a single point instead of a single area, there will be difficulties. Since 2 different masses cannot occupy the same space there's going to be problems so what happens? They get crushed (or pounded into its constituent atoms technically speaking) as they fight to occupy the same space.
Dunno. But black holes are a misleading name for such things since it's been theorized that they're not holes per se like what you would imagine as a whirlpool. Rather think of it as everything falling towards a single point. If you think about it, falling down is only relative to your point of view. If you were to fall through a hole that goes through the entire Earth, by the time you passed the center of the earth, you'd start slowing down and moving back where you came from and then back again until you will eventually stop in the middle of the earth. But since everything is trying to come together at a single point instead of a single area, there will be difficulties. Since 2 different masses cannot occupy the same space there's going to be problems so what happens? They get crushed (or pounded into its constituent atoms technically speaking) as they fight to occupy the same space.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='crystalklear64']Sweet, someone should stick in an arm or something in it and see what happens![/QUOTE]
D'oh!
D'oh!
weimerwanger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='jaykrue']Dunno. But black holes are a misleading name for such things since it's been theorized that they're not holes per se like what you would imagine as a whirlpool. Rather think of it as everything falling towards a single point. If you think about it, falling down is only relative to your point of view. If you were to fall through a hole that goes through the entire Earth, by the time you passed the center of the earth, you'd start slowing down and moving back where you came from and then back again until you will eventually stop in the middle of the earth. But since everything is trying to come together at a single point instead of a single area, there will be difficulties. Since 2 different masses cannot occupy the same space there's going to be problems so what happens? They get crushed (or pounded into its constituent atoms technically speaking) as they fight to occupy the same space.[/QUOTE]
i believe the ultimate property of a black hole (and the big bang for that matter) is that theyre a singularity, and are immune to all theories of relativity... the story here that this event produced effects that reflect some properties of a black hole, would no way be anything near enough to ignore the exclusion principle, so from what i gather, sticking an object (arm) in it would not cause a collapse in that sense... i think it also mentioned in the news article that gravity wouldnt be a significant factor in such a situation
i believe the ultimate property of a black hole (and the big bang for that matter) is that theyre a singularity, and are immune to all theories of relativity... the story here that this event produced effects that reflect some properties of a black hole, would no way be anything near enough to ignore the exclusion principle, so from what i gather, sticking an object (arm) in it would not cause a collapse in that sense... i think it also mentioned in the news article that gravity wouldnt be a significant factor in such a situation
Kayden
Banned
Ok... let me bend your brains with this.
Gravity, for some strange reason, is believed to have an effect on time. The greater the gravity, the slower things move from an outsider's perspective. Ergo... the closer you get to a black hole, the slower you move. Is there a point at which you're moving so slow you apear to come to a complete stop? However, to your perspective, things should apear to move faster. Not only are you accellerating closer to the black hole, but the universe is flying by you at days, maybe weeks per second... Head trip? I think so.
Gravity, for some strange reason, is believed to have an effect on time. The greater the gravity, the slower things move from an outsider's perspective. Ergo... the closer you get to a black hole, the slower you move. Is there a point at which you're moving so slow you apear to come to a complete stop? However, to your perspective, things should apear to move faster. Not only are you accellerating closer to the black hole, but the universe is flying by you at days, maybe weeks per second... Head trip? I think so.
[quote name='weimerwanger']i believe the ultimate property of a black hole (and the big bang for that matter) is that theyre a singularity, and are immune to all theories of relativity... the story here that this event produced effects that reflect some properties of a black hole, would no way be anything near enough to ignore the exclusion principle, so from what i gather, sticking an object (arm) in it would not cause a collapse in that sense... i think it also mentioned in the news article that gravity wouldnt be a significant factor in such a situation[/QUOTE]
I wasn't suggesting thrusting his arm in their would be the catalyst of the singularity event - just suggesting what would happen if the singularity event was already taking place. Plus, we don't know how immune a black hole is because no one's gotten close enough to observe first hand the effects. All we have to rely upon is the telemetry data from telescopes and making assumptions in experiments with particle smashers.
I wasn't suggesting thrusting his arm in their would be the catalyst of the singularity event - just suggesting what would happen if the singularity event was already taking place. Plus, we don't know how immune a black hole is because no one's gotten close enough to observe first hand the effects. All we have to rely upon is the telemetry data from telescopes and making assumptions in experiments with particle smashers.
[quote name='Kayden']Ok... let me bend your brains with this.
Gravity, for some strange reason, is believed to have an effect on time. The greater the gravity, the slower things move from an outsider's perspective. Ergo... the closer you get to a black hole, the slower you move. Is there a point at which you're moving so slow you apear to come to a complete stop? However, to your perspective, things should apear to move faster. Not only are you accellerating closer to the black hole, but the universe is flying by you at days, maybe weeks per second... Head trip? I think so.[/QUOTE]
The "strange reason" is called Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and it's not a "belief," but a proven fact. Actually, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most proven theories ever devised (meaning they have been verified to more accuracy than any other theories).
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.
Gravity, for some strange reason, is believed to have an effect on time. The greater the gravity, the slower things move from an outsider's perspective. Ergo... the closer you get to a black hole, the slower you move. Is there a point at which you're moving so slow you apear to come to a complete stop? However, to your perspective, things should apear to move faster. Not only are you accellerating closer to the black hole, but the universe is flying by you at days, maybe weeks per second... Head trip? I think so.[/QUOTE]
The "strange reason" is called Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and it's not a "belief," but a proven fact. Actually, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most proven theories ever devised (meaning they have been verified to more accuracy than any other theories).
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.
[quote name='spaceloaf']The "strange reason" is called Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and it's not a "belief," but a proven fact. Actually, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most proven theories ever devised (meaning they have been verified to more accuracy than any other theories).
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.[/QUOTE]
OOOOWWWWWW. ](*,)...
But I kind of understand what you guys are saying. Truthfully, I never realized how close we are to being like the old conception of the "future".
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.[/QUOTE]
OOOOWWWWWW. ](*,)...
But I kind of understand what you guys are saying. Truthfully, I never realized how close we are to being like the old conception of the "future".
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='spaceloaf']The "strange reason" is called Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and it's not a "belief," but a proven fact. Actually, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most proven theories ever devised (meaning they have been verified to more accuracy than any other theories).
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.[/QUOTE]
Nothing is 'proven fact' when it comes to black holes. You said it yourself, no one is sure what's inside them. Most likely, no one ever will. It's said that nothing can escape a black hole, but as you said, Hawking radiation pours out of them in the form of x-rays and gasses. When you think of that, it's hard to see how infinite matter can both converge and escape from the same microscopic space. An actual hole like a drain would make more sense... but really... How can the human mind make sense of the universe?
Now for another odd thought... Seeing how black holes are often at the center of galaxies, and we have a good hand full in the center of ours, that should mean there is a massive amount of gravity in the center of our galaxy. This leads to two interesting thoughts. What would happen if these black holes where close enough to absorb eachother? Also, due to the insane ammounts of gravity that must be at the center of the galaxy... how old is the center versus the arms (where we are). We know the center of the galaxy spins faster than the outside because it has 'arms' streaming out of it.
Difference in speeds and gravity would lead you to believe a difference in the flow of time. IIRC the commonly held time frame for Earth is about 5 billion years and the sun is around 6 billion.
Oh shit... I just confused myself... The faster you move, the slower time goes from your perspective, but the more gravity you endure, the faster things appear.... soo... ow! xD
In this case, what we experience as gravity is actually the curvature of spacetime. That is, the combined dimensions of both time and space are warped, resulting in both time dialation, and what we experience as physical force.
And now the fun part, it turns out that we can't ever know what happens to time in the black hole because of the event horizon. The laws of Relativity state that no information can escape the event horizon, so if we sent a person, or a watch, or whatever, we'd have no way to know how slow time got for it.
Even better, if you were within the event horizon, you would experience what is known as "spaghettification." Basically, the curvature of spacetime is so severe within a black hole, that if you went in head first, your head would be experiencing significantly more force than your feet. The result is, you get stretched out like a spaghetti noodle. So you wouldn't survive nearly long enough to experience time standing still, if that is indeed what happens.
The real issue is that we just don't know what is at the center of a black hole. The idea of black holes containing singularities is just one theory. For example, String Theory has a proposal where black holes do not contain singularities, meaning that we should actually be able to analyze them.
The other interesting note is that black holes evaporate (due to Hawking Radiation). A normal black hole would take some insane amount of time to completely evaporate, but a microscopic one would evaporate very quickly. When the event horizon disappears, it may be possible to see what's at the center of the black hole. No one really knows exactly what will happen. But if they really could create mini black holes in labs, maybe we'd expose a singularity once it evaporated and destroy the entire universe! (or maybe not)
Whoops... guess I let me geek-ness overwhelm me.[/QUOTE]
Nothing is 'proven fact' when it comes to black holes. You said it yourself, no one is sure what's inside them. Most likely, no one ever will. It's said that nothing can escape a black hole, but as you said, Hawking radiation pours out of them in the form of x-rays and gasses. When you think of that, it's hard to see how infinite matter can both converge and escape from the same microscopic space. An actual hole like a drain would make more sense... but really... How can the human mind make sense of the universe?
Now for another odd thought... Seeing how black holes are often at the center of galaxies, and we have a good hand full in the center of ours, that should mean there is a massive amount of gravity in the center of our galaxy. This leads to two interesting thoughts. What would happen if these black holes where close enough to absorb eachother? Also, due to the insane ammounts of gravity that must be at the center of the galaxy... how old is the center versus the arms (where we are). We know the center of the galaxy spins faster than the outside because it has 'arms' streaming out of it.
Difference in speeds and gravity would lead you to believe a difference in the flow of time. IIRC the commonly held time frame for Earth is about 5 billion years and the sun is around 6 billion.
Oh shit... I just confused myself... The faster you move, the slower time goes from your perspective, but the more gravity you endure, the faster things appear.... soo... ow! xD
Black holes very existence is an unproven. They're predicted as the mathematical endpoint of theoretical physics. Thus far none has been observed in the wild, only suspected by effects on surrounding matter and light. There is still a lot ofwrangling over what is actually happening.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml
[quote name='neocisco']A little deep for this site
[/QUOTE]
Since infinite depth is involved it transcends all sites but does an end run around pereived reality to become appropriate for all sites. Soon 'Highlights for Kids' will have Goofus and Gallant pointing out proper black hole etiquette.
[/QUOTE]Since infinite depth is involved it transcends all sites but does an end run around pereived reality to become appropriate for all sites. Soon 'Highlights for Kids' will have Goofus and Gallant pointing out proper black hole etiquette.
[quote name='Kayden']Nothing is 'proven fact' when it comes to black holes. You said it yourself, no one is sure what's inside them. Most likely, no one ever will. It's said that nothing can escape a black hole, but as you said, Hawking radiation pours out of them in the form of x-rays and gasses. When you think of that, it's hard to see how infinite matter can both converge and escape from the same microscopic space. An actual hole like a drain would make more sense... but really... How can the human mind make sense of the universe?
Now for another odd thought... Seeing how black holes are often at the center of galaxies, and we have a good hand full in the center of ours, that should mean there is a massive amount of gravity in the center of our galaxy. This leads to two interesting thoughts. What would happen if these black holes where close enough to absorb eachother? Also, due to the insane ammounts of gravity that must be at the center of the galaxy... how old is the center versus the arms (where we are). We know the center of the galaxy spins faster than the outside because it has 'arms' streaming out of it.
Difference in speeds and gravity would lead you to believe a difference in the flow of time. IIRC the commonly held time frame for Earth is about 5 billion years and the sun is around 6 billion.
Oh shit... I just confused myself... The faster you move, the slower time goes from your perspective, but the more gravity you endure, the faster things appear.... soo... ow! xD[/QUOTE]
You're not really understanding what I wrote. The Theory of General Relativity has been proven in much the same way that Newton's Theories were proven. It is a known FACT (not a "belief") that time dialates in the presence of gravity. Not only have we have done experiements to illustrate that fact, but some technologies like GPS actually require that knowledge to work properly.
The only unknown is what happens inside a black hole (or as epobirs pointed out, the idea of a black hole). What I was trying to show is that it doesn't matter. Everything inside the black hole is hidden by the event horizon, so for all intents and purposes, it's meaningless to the rest of the universe. In fact, the whole theory of singularities can exist because the event horizon "protects" us from any sort of paradox that might be inside the black hole.
Hawking Radiation is more of a theory (although it does fit the data we have so far). But the idea is that when virtual particles appear (due to quantum fluctuations) at the edge of the event horizon, one particle might get sucked into the black hole, while the other escapes. So from our point of view, we observe a particle coming out of the black hole, so we say that the black hole is radiating (and hence, evaporating). That does NOT mean that the radiation is coming from some "infinite mass," just that quantum fluctuations allow for black holes to slowly evaporate. (In fact, basically nothing is permanent thanks to Quantum Mechanics. Even protons have a half-life of around 10^70 years. So if we wait long enough, all matter in the universe will eventually decay.)
Finally, if two black holes met, they would most likely just combine into a larger black hole. Basic black hole theory is that "black holes have no hair." This means that the only distinguishable features of a black hole are it's mass (or the size of it's event horizon) and it's spin. So if two black holes collided, they'd just form a larger black hole with their mass and spin added together.
As for time effects, nothing interesting would be happening that doesn't already happen everyday in the universe. What people fail to realize is that relativity doesn't affect what YOU experience, only how your experience compare with someone elses. If you were traveling at near the speed of light, you wouldn't FEEL that time has slowed down compared to here on earth. All that would happen is that 5 minutes for you might mean an hour elapsed on earth. So living in a gravity sink wouldn't make you experience time as being slower, it's just that if you compared your watch to someone else's on earth, yours would show less time elapsed.
We are already hurtling through the universe at quite a speed. But since we have nothing to reference it too (we still haven't discovered other lifeforms), we don't really think about the relativistic effects that are already happening all the time.
Now for another odd thought... Seeing how black holes are often at the center of galaxies, and we have a good hand full in the center of ours, that should mean there is a massive amount of gravity in the center of our galaxy. This leads to two interesting thoughts. What would happen if these black holes where close enough to absorb eachother? Also, due to the insane ammounts of gravity that must be at the center of the galaxy... how old is the center versus the arms (where we are). We know the center of the galaxy spins faster than the outside because it has 'arms' streaming out of it.
Difference in speeds and gravity would lead you to believe a difference in the flow of time. IIRC the commonly held time frame for Earth is about 5 billion years and the sun is around 6 billion.
Oh shit... I just confused myself... The faster you move, the slower time goes from your perspective, but the more gravity you endure, the faster things appear.... soo... ow! xD[/QUOTE]
You're not really understanding what I wrote. The Theory of General Relativity has been proven in much the same way that Newton's Theories were proven. It is a known FACT (not a "belief") that time dialates in the presence of gravity. Not only have we have done experiements to illustrate that fact, but some technologies like GPS actually require that knowledge to work properly.
The only unknown is what happens inside a black hole (or as epobirs pointed out, the idea of a black hole). What I was trying to show is that it doesn't matter. Everything inside the black hole is hidden by the event horizon, so for all intents and purposes, it's meaningless to the rest of the universe. In fact, the whole theory of singularities can exist because the event horizon "protects" us from any sort of paradox that might be inside the black hole.
Hawking Radiation is more of a theory (although it does fit the data we have so far). But the idea is that when virtual particles appear (due to quantum fluctuations) at the edge of the event horizon, one particle might get sucked into the black hole, while the other escapes. So from our point of view, we observe a particle coming out of the black hole, so we say that the black hole is radiating (and hence, evaporating). That does NOT mean that the radiation is coming from some "infinite mass," just that quantum fluctuations allow for black holes to slowly evaporate. (In fact, basically nothing is permanent thanks to Quantum Mechanics. Even protons have a half-life of around 10^70 years. So if we wait long enough, all matter in the universe will eventually decay.)
Finally, if two black holes met, they would most likely just combine into a larger black hole. Basic black hole theory is that "black holes have no hair." This means that the only distinguishable features of a black hole are it's mass (or the size of it's event horizon) and it's spin. So if two black holes collided, they'd just form a larger black hole with their mass and spin added together.
As for time effects, nothing interesting would be happening that doesn't already happen everyday in the universe. What people fail to realize is that relativity doesn't affect what YOU experience, only how your experience compare with someone elses. If you were traveling at near the speed of light, you wouldn't FEEL that time has slowed down compared to here on earth. All that would happen is that 5 minutes for you might mean an hour elapsed on earth. So living in a gravity sink wouldn't make you experience time as being slower, it's just that if you compared your watch to someone else's on earth, yours would show less time elapsed.
We are already hurtling through the universe at quite a speed. But since we have nothing to reference it too (we still haven't discovered other lifeforms), we don't really think about the relativistic effects that are already happening all the time.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='spaceloaf']
As for time effects, nothing interesting would be happening that doesn't already happen everyday in the universe. What people fail to realize is that relativity doesn't affect what YOU experience, only how your experience compare with someone elses. If you were traveling at near the speed of light, you wouldn't FEEL that time has slowed down compared to here on earth. All that would happen is that 5 minutes for you might mean an hour elapsed on earth. So living in a gravity sink wouldn't make you experience time as being slower, it's just that if you compared your watch to someone else's on earth, yours would show less time elapsed.
We are already hurtling through the universe at quite a speed. But since we have nothing to reference it too (we still haven't discovered other lifeforms), we don't really think about the relativistic effects that are already happening all the time.[/QUOTE]
s... Theres kinda a reason its called Relativity... its relative to your point of observation... My point was... To a third party observing the center of the galaxy and us, we'd appear to be going much faster/progressed farther. While for us, it appears to have been 6 billion years, the center only went about 4-5billion. Thats a shit load of time. I just thought it'd be cool to think of it kinda like a time machine if you could travel that many light years instantly... and.. well not die from all the radiation produced by the condensed stars.
As for time effects, nothing interesting would be happening that doesn't already happen everyday in the universe. What people fail to realize is that relativity doesn't affect what YOU experience, only how your experience compare with someone elses. If you were traveling at near the speed of light, you wouldn't FEEL that time has slowed down compared to here on earth. All that would happen is that 5 minutes for you might mean an hour elapsed on earth. So living in a gravity sink wouldn't make you experience time as being slower, it's just that if you compared your watch to someone else's on earth, yours would show less time elapsed.
We are already hurtling through the universe at quite a speed. But since we have nothing to reference it too (we still haven't discovered other lifeforms), we don't really think about the relativistic effects that are already happening all the time.[/QUOTE]
s... Theres kinda a reason its called Relativity... its relative to your point of observation... My point was... To a third party observing the center of the galaxy and us, we'd appear to be going much faster/progressed farther. While for us, it appears to have been 6 billion years, the center only went about 4-5billion. Thats a shit load of time. I just thought it'd be cool to think of it kinda like a time machine if you could travel that many light years instantly... and.. well not die from all the radiation produced by the condensed stars.AnthonyRoundtree
CAGiversary!
nice to see they're messing with this crap in a remote desert location completely devoid of human life....
and nowhere near where i live in a city full of millions of people.
and nowhere near where i live in a city full of millions of people.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='joystickz']nice to see they're messing with this crap in a remote desert location completely devoid of human life....
and nowhere near where i live in a city full of millions of people.[/QUOTE]
I had that thought too... but honestly... if they even came close to making a stable black hole, it doesn't matter where, they solar system is
ed. However, being afraid of dying from this is like being afraid you'll drown from a rain drop.
and nowhere near where i live in a city full of millions of people.[/QUOTE]
I had that thought too... but honestly... if they even came close to making a stable black hole, it doesn't matter where, they solar system is
ed. However, being afraid of dying from this is like being afraid you'll drown from a rain drop.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
The solar system would be fine if we created a black hole here. Black holes, if they exist, have taken on way too mystical an aura thanks to sci-fi writers. They're not magical, all-consuming drains in the universe. They're just very dense chunks of matter. Say the worst case scenario occurred here and we created a black hole that munched us all up. Well, guess what: it would still only have the mass and gravitation of the Earth. The moon wouldn't flinch in it's orbit around what used to be the earth. If the sun suddenly collapsed into a black hole we'd die from lack of heat, but the earth would ice over and continue orbiting on it's merry way.
[quote name='Kayden']s... Theres kinda a reason its called Relativity... its relative to your point of observation... My point was... To a third party observing the center of the galaxy and us, we'd appear to be going much faster/progressed farther. While for us, it appears to have been 6 billion years, the center only went about 4-5billion. Thats a shit load of time. I just thought it'd be cool to think of it kinda like a time machine if you could travel that many light years instantly... and.. well not die from all the radiation produced by the condensed stars.[/QUOTE]
I understand how Relativity works. My point is that this is already happening. When astronomers point their telescope to a star 1000's of light years away, or look at an object near a large gravitational field, they are already observing it in it's time-dialated state.
So while what you propose is true conceptually, it doesn't have anything to do with black holes. We already routinely observe time-dialated signals from distant objects.
[EDIT]
One other thing I should point out is that an observer looking in on us from as far away as you are describing is no different from us looking at distant stars now. In a sense, we are looking back into the past from OUR frame of reference. But now imagine that we sent a light signal to someone on the star. Since it would take light years for our signal to arrive there, the people on the star would also be looking into our past from THEIR frame of reference. In essence, both frames of reference are looking into what they view as the past. There isn't really any viewpoint that is actually existing in the past.
For the case of long distances such as this, Special Relativity is far more significant than General Relativity. Any sort of time dialation effect due to gravity would be far overpowered by the sheer distance that a signal would have to travel.
[/EDIT]
As for time machines, Kip Thorne has actually proposed a time machine related to the idea you touched on at the end. If we could somehow create a wormhole that we can control, we could put one mouth at a gravity well [A] (like the edge of a black hole) and leave the other at earth . If you leave them there for a while, the two ends of the wormhole will develop a significant time difference. Now if you move the end [A] back to earth, and enter it from end , you might actually be able to travel back to end [A]'s frame of reference. This would mean you actually traveled into the past! Pretty cool idea, but we're a long way from controlling wormholes.
s... Theres kinda a reason its called Relativity... its relative to your point of observation... My point was... To a third party observing the center of the galaxy and us, we'd appear to be going much faster/progressed farther. While for us, it appears to have been 6 billion years, the center only went about 4-5billion. Thats a shit load of time. I just thought it'd be cool to think of it kinda like a time machine if you could travel that many light years instantly... and.. well not die from all the radiation produced by the condensed stars.[/QUOTE]I understand how Relativity works. My point is that this is already happening. When astronomers point their telescope to a star 1000's of light years away, or look at an object near a large gravitational field, they are already observing it in it's time-dialated state.
So while what you propose is true conceptually, it doesn't have anything to do with black holes. We already routinely observe time-dialated signals from distant objects.
[EDIT]
One other thing I should point out is that an observer looking in on us from as far away as you are describing is no different from us looking at distant stars now. In a sense, we are looking back into the past from OUR frame of reference. But now imagine that we sent a light signal to someone on the star. Since it would take light years for our signal to arrive there, the people on the star would also be looking into our past from THEIR frame of reference. In essence, both frames of reference are looking into what they view as the past. There isn't really any viewpoint that is actually existing in the past.
For the case of long distances such as this, Special Relativity is far more significant than General Relativity. Any sort of time dialation effect due to gravity would be far overpowered by the sheer distance that a signal would have to travel.
[/EDIT]
As for time machines, Kip Thorne has actually proposed a time machine related to the idea you touched on at the end. If we could somehow create a wormhole that we can control, we could put one mouth at a gravity well [A] (like the edge of a black hole) and leave the other at earth . If you leave them there for a while, the two ends of the wormhole will develop a significant time difference. Now if you move the end [A] back to earth, and enter it from end , you might actually be able to travel back to end [A]'s frame of reference. This would mean you actually traveled into the past! Pretty cool idea, but we're a long way from controlling wormholes.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='spaceloaf']I understand how Relativity works. My point is that this is already happening. When astronomers point their telescope to a star 1000's of light years away, or look at an object near a large gravitational field, they are already observing it in it's time-dialated state.
So while what you propose is true conceptually, it doesn't have anything to do with black holes. We already routinely observe time-dialated signals from distant objects.
[EDIT]
One other thing I should point out is that an observer looking in on us from as far away as you are describing is no different from us looking at distant stars now. In a sense, we are looking back into the past from OUR frame of reference. But now imagine that we sent a light signal to someone on the star. Since it would take light years for our signal to arrive there, the people on the star would also be looking into our past from THEIR frame of reference. In essence, both frames of reference are looking into what they view as the past. There isn't really any viewpoint that is actually existing in the past.
For the case of long distances such as this, Special Relativity is far more significant than General Relativity. Any sort of time dialation effect due to gravity would be far overpowered by the sheer distance that a signal would have to travel.
[/EDIT]
As for time machines, Kip Thorne has actually proposed a time machine related to the idea you touched on at the end. If we could somehow create a wormhole that we can control, we could put one mouth at a gravity well [A] (like the edge of a black hole) and leave the other at earth . If you leave them there for a while, the two ends of the wormhole will develop a significant time difference. Now if you move the end [A] back to earth, and enter it from end , you might actually be able to travel back to end [A]'s frame of reference. This would mean you actually traveled into the past! Pretty cool idea, but we're a long way from controlling wormholes.[/QUOTE]
I'd posit that by the time we can manipulate space to the point of wormhole creation we'd also be able to do so with time.
edit: on an unrelated, related note, this month's National Geographic has a pretty cool write-up on multiverses.
So while what you propose is true conceptually, it doesn't have anything to do with black holes. We already routinely observe time-dialated signals from distant objects.
[EDIT]
One other thing I should point out is that an observer looking in on us from as far away as you are describing is no different from us looking at distant stars now. In a sense, we are looking back into the past from OUR frame of reference. But now imagine that we sent a light signal to someone on the star. Since it would take light years for our signal to arrive there, the people on the star would also be looking into our past from THEIR frame of reference. In essence, both frames of reference are looking into what they view as the past. There isn't really any viewpoint that is actually existing in the past.
For the case of long distances such as this, Special Relativity is far more significant than General Relativity. Any sort of time dialation effect due to gravity would be far overpowered by the sheer distance that a signal would have to travel.
[/EDIT]
As for time machines, Kip Thorne has actually proposed a time machine related to the idea you touched on at the end. If we could somehow create a wormhole that we can control, we could put one mouth at a gravity well [A] (like the edge of a black hole) and leave the other at earth . If you leave them there for a while, the two ends of the wormhole will develop a significant time difference. Now if you move the end [A] back to earth, and enter it from end , you might actually be able to travel back to end [A]'s frame of reference. This would mean you actually traveled into the past! Pretty cool idea, but we're a long way from controlling wormholes.[/QUOTE]
I'd posit that by the time we can manipulate space to the point of wormhole creation we'd also be able to do so with time.
edit: on an unrelated, related note, this month's National Geographic has a pretty cool write-up on multiverses.
bread's done