If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   If nothing can escape from a black hole, how do Hawking radiation and relativistic jets get out?   ( forbes.com) divider line
    More: Cool, black hole, event horizon, General relativity, Hawking radiation, black hole decays, central black hole, relativistic jets, quantum field theory  
•       •       •

1999 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Jan 2018 at 1:59 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-01-20 12:15:26 PM  
My brain just melted.
 
2018-01-20 12:43:27 PM  
Arent they forced out by an incredible amount of energy?
 
2018-01-20 01:05:56 PM  

cman: Arent they forced out by an incredible amount of energy?


They are never "in".  Relativistic jets are from stuff orbiting the black hole.  If they are orbiting fast enough, they get slung out in the same way your head would fly off if you were swung around fast enough.  Black holes do not have infinite gravity; they produce exactly as much gravity as any other object of that mass.  You could replace the Sun with a really farking small black hole with mass equal to the Sun, and the Solar System objects would orbit exactly as they do now.  The loss of radiant energy would freeze us all, but everything would not just start falling inexorability inward.  And anything with enough energy to achieve escape velocity for the Sun would also leave this new black hole system.  For super-massive black holes, things get spinning really damn fast, and get flung off at such speeds that things get all Einsteiny.
 
2018-01-20 01:14:07 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-20 01:51:27 PM  
Because shut up Submitter.
 
2018-01-20 02:01:13 PM  
They bribe the guards at the border check point, doy-ee.
 
2018-01-20 02:05:37 PM  
farking black holes, how do they work?
 
2018-01-20 02:14:15 PM  
They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.
 
2018-01-20 02:16:17 PM  
A miracle?
 
2018-01-20 02:18:04 PM  

pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.


Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted
 
2018-01-20 02:29:42 PM  
I'm fine with Hawking Radiation occuring in such a way that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs get separated on the Event Horizon, with each of them being unable to recombine/annihilate and falling on to their different destinies -- either heading toward the singularity or out into normal space.

But I don't get the idea of Black Holes evaporating. If there's a 50/50 chance of the new particle inside the Event Horizon being either matter or antimatter, doesn't that leave the mass of the Black Hole intact? (Or even increasing, if an in-falling antimatter particle is only able to reach the singularity in infinite time?)

So, still puzzled on that one. If a farker could help a farker out that would be greatly thanky.
 
2018-01-20 02:30:56 PM  

qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted


Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?
 
2018-01-20 02:35:43 PM  

pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted

Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?


Show us on the doll where the physicists touched you.
 
2018-01-20 02:38:34 PM  

Epicedion: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted

Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?

Show us on the doll where the physicists touched you.


On the Christoffel symbol.
 
2018-01-20 02:39:32 PM  

pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted

Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?


https://www.sciencealert.com/stars-or​b​iting-a-supermassive-black-hole-may-ha​ve-finally-confirmed-general-relativit​y

http://earthsky.org/space/black-hole-​g​lobular-star-cluster-ngc-3201

https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar​t​icle/ligos-latest-black-hole-merger-co​nfirms-einstein-challenges-astrophysic​s1/
 
2018-01-20 02:48:04 PM  
How Do Black Holes Evaporate?
Youtube MJb6colKwzo
 
2018-01-20 02:48:38 PM  

Ivo Shandor: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted

Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?

https://www.sciencealert.com/stars-orb​iting-a-supermassive-black-hole-may-ha​ve-finally-confirmed-general-relativit​y

http://earthsky.org/space/black-hole-g​lobular-star-cluster-ngc-3201

https://www.scientificamerican.com/art​icle/ligos-latest-black-hole-merger-co​nfirms-einstein-challenges-astrophysic​s1/


Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.
 
2018-01-20 02:55:58 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: I'm fine with Hawking Radiation occuring in such a way that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs get separated on the Event Horizon, with each of them being unable to recombine/annihilate and falling on to their different destinies -- either heading toward the singularity or out into normal space.

But I don't get the idea of Black Holes evaporating. If there's a 50/50 chance of the new particle inside the Event Horizon being either matter or antimatter, doesn't that leave the mass of the Black Hole intact? (Or even increasing, if an in-falling antimatter particle is only able to reach the singularity in infinite time?)

So, still puzzled on that one. If a farker could help a farker out that would be greatly thanky.


Anti-matter doesn't have negative mass. It has opposite charge and (I think) possibly some of the other quantum numbers.
 
2018-01-20 02:57:26 PM  
Because the particles are literally skipping through space. Gravity, which is itself a curvature of spacetime, doesn't really matter if spacetime itself is merely a suggestion for you.

/I just realized that elementary particles might be experiencing wall glitches.
 
2018-01-20 02:57:53 PM  

dsmith42: PartTimeBuddha: I'm fine with Hawking Radiation occuring in such a way that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs get separated on the Event Horizon, with each of them being unable to recombine/annihilate and falling on to their different destinies -- either heading toward the singularity or out into normal space.

But I don't get the idea of Black Holes evaporating. If there's a 50/50 chance of the new particle inside the Event Horizon being either matter or antimatter, doesn't that leave the mass of the Black Hole intact? (Or even increasing, if an in-falling antimatter particle is only able to reach the singularity in infinite time?)

So, still puzzled on that one. If a farker could help a farker out that would be greatly thanky.

Anti-matter doesn't have negative mass. It has opposite charge and (I think) possibly some of the other quantum numbers.


We're trying to determine if antimatter has negative gravity.
 
2018-01-20 02:58:10 PM  
Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.
 
2018-01-20 03:01:00 PM  

pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.


Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at
 
2018-01-20 03:02:41 PM  

pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.


We got a flat-holer in here.
 
2018-01-20 03:03:11 PM  

LoneWolf343: Because the particles are literally skipping through space. Gravity, which is itself a curvature of spacetime, doesn't really matter if spacetime itself is merely a suggestion for you.

/I just realized that elementary particles might be experiencing wall glitches.


A clipping error glitch would sort of describe a false vacuum event.
 
2018-01-20 03:09:43 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: But I don't get the idea of Black Holes evaporating. If there's a 50/50 chance of the new particle inside the Event Horizon being either matter or antimatter, doesn't that leave the mass of the Black Hole intact? (Or even increasing, if an in-falling antimatter particle is only able to reach the singularity in infinite time?)

So, still puzzled on that one. If a farker could help a farker out that would be greatly thanky.


The basis of Hawking Radiation is that the "vacuum" is a bubbling place where particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence all the time, then as long as they annihilate themselves with each other inside of the Heisenberg Uncertainty limit (delta-time*delta-Energy < Planck's Constant/2*pi), all is consistent with the principle of Conservation of Energy.  If you have a delta-Energy that pops into existence, 2 * electron mass (.511MeV), then as long as it only exists for a time less than ((h/2*pi*delta-time)), this is undetectable within the laws of quantum mechanics.  The quirk of QM is that if you can't detect something, then it may or may not exist.

So when this virtual electron-positron pair pops out of the vacuum on the edge of an event horizon, the Coulomb attraction from the other member of the pair isn't stronger than the gravitational attraction of the singularity, and one of the pair is pulled in.  This means the other particle now exists for longer than delta-time, and is detectable. It is now a "real" particle.  Conservation of Energy means that the energy of this particle must be subtracted from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is the gravitational mass of the black hole.  Every time a Hawking Radiation particle is created on the edge of the event horizon, the black hole loses .511 MeV of gravitational mass.  "Evaporation".
 
2018-01-20 03:22:04 PM  
Spring break?
 
2018-01-20 03:28:14 PM  

qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at


Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.
 
2018-01-20 03:28:52 PM  
"Conservation of Energy demands" is much like "God said". There's still no how.
 
2018-01-20 03:45:13 PM  

pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.


Translation: No, I can't.
 
2018-01-20 03:48:01 PM  

pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.


I dunno. Have you seen "Black Holes 9: Fake Agent"?

I'd call the third scene pretty exhautive testing.
 
2018-01-20 03:51:21 PM  
I also like
Quazar for Payzar
Naughty Nebulas
Great Comet Impacts
Amateur Bianary Systems
Supercluster 500
Big Beautiful Moons with Pearly White Methane Ice
 
2018-01-20 03:54:59 PM  
Same way porcupines fark.
Very carefully.
 
2018-01-20 03:56:47 PM  

Epicedion: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: They don't get out of a black hole, because there are no black holes. It's just a bunch of models, all of them untested.

Definitely

No one's ever bothered to try to verify these models

They're just blindly accepted

Black holes have been verified? That's interesting. Do you have a link?

Show us on the doll where the physicists touched you.


On Urectum.
 
2018-01-20 03:57:07 PM  

pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.


That's called "I surrender". Just post a farking link or links with a description or be silent forever.
 
2018-01-20 04:02:24 PM  
Because
 
2018-01-20 04:05:02 PM  
We are looking at something that is so far away yet so massive it looks like what we would call a black hole.

It isn't. It's an illusion.
 
2018-01-20 04:15:23 PM  

Grahor: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.

That's called "I surrender". Just post a farking link or links with a description or be silent forever.


It's not our job to teach you science, especially when you're denying it outright from the start. Black holes will exist even if you don't 'believe' in them. Nobody cares about your ignorance. So instead of asking people on Fark go to a library or hell even Wikipedia and start reading. You might actually learn something along the way.
 
2018-01-20 04:16:54 PM  

fisker: We are looking at something that is so far away yet so massive it looks like what we would call a black hole.

It isn't. It's an illusion.


s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-01-20 04:18:07 PM  

Bondith: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.

Translation: No, I can't.


LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E​xotic_s​tar
 
2018-01-20 04:20:40 PM  
Magic. They get out by magic.
 
2018-01-20 04:21:27 PM  

Ivo Shandor: fisker: We are looking at something that is so far away yet so massive it looks like what we would call a black hole.

It isn't. It's an illusion.

[s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com image 480x360]


what does a concentration of light look like when it is bent by something larger than the thing you are looking at?
 
2018-01-20 04:26:33 PM  
 
2018-01-20 04:27:32 PM  
pup.socket:

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star

And, of course, if you want to dig into the real problems with the theory, you can go back to what I pointed out initially, understanding the interpretations of relativity, and the  problems each of them has with quantum mechanics.
 
2018-01-20 04:30:56 PM  

pup.socket: pup.socket:

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star

And, of course, if you want to dig into the real problems with the theory, you can go back to what I pointed out initially, understanding the interpretations of relativity, and the  problems each of them has with quantum mechanics.


Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what do you think is happening?
 
2018-01-20 04:39:58 PM  

Epicedion: pup.socket: pup.socket:

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star

And, of course, if you want to dig into the real problems with the theory, you can go back to what I pointed out initially, understanding the interpretations of relativity, and the  problems each of them has with quantum mechanics.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what do you think is happening?


Looks like people quoting stuff they read about in Forbes as the absolute truth. I suppose they had the same discussions about the ether and that relativistic bullshiat in the beginning of the last century.
 
2018-01-20 04:43:15 PM  

pup.socket: Epicedion: pup.socket: pup.socket:

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star

And, of course, if you want to dig into the real problems with the theory, you can go back to what I pointed out initially, understanding the interpretations of relativity, and the  problems each of them has with quantum mechanics.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what do you think is happening?

Looks like people quoting stuff they read about in Forbes as the absolute truth. I suppose they had the same discussions about the ether and that relativistic bullshiat in the beginning of the last century.


No no no, I mean what is happening re: black holes.
 
2018-01-20 04:45:26 PM  
In a motorized wheel chair, of course.
 
2018-01-20 04:46:52 PM  

pup.socket: Bondith: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.

Translation: No, I can't.

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star


This is no scientific article, sorry.  You don't get to shiat on popsci and then pull out a Wikipedia link to support your position.

Put up or shut up.
 
2018-01-20 04:54:39 PM  

Bondith: pup.socket: Bondith: pup.socket: qorkfiend: pup.socket: Dimensio:

Oh, look, more "scientific" articles filled with the language of speculation like "may have" or "could have". Meanwhile, those of us who rely upon the Bible for truth use language of absolute certainty, no matter how much reality might contradict us.

These are no scientific articles, sorry. And they don't contain enough to exclude models that will behave similarly while not being black holes.

Of course, without spending some time solving the actual models you can only use the language of absolute certainty.

Teach the controversy

Surely you can provide the scientific articles that suggest the alternative you keep hinting at

Of course, they are not a huge secret. You can start by considering what Bell's inequalities tell you about the assumptions of the models that predict existence of black holes.

Translation: No, I can't.

LOL. There's a whole bunch of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex​otic_star

This is no scientific article, sorry.  You don't get to shiat on popsci and then pull out a Wikipedia link to support your position.

Put up or shut up.


If you're too lazy to scroll down to the references for each of the objects listed in the wiki article, you'll excuse me for being too lazy to repost them.
 
2018-01-20 05:00:39 PM  
It's quite possible there is nothing actually in a black hole.

All the stuff that gets trapped inside the event horizon is simply in orbit around the singularity at relativistic speeds, but nothing actually goes in. It might be impossible to go straight in because the further you go, the faster you go, the more you slingshot past the singularity and then get pulled back because it's not enough escape velocity.

Or you get to the point where every direction goes "down", that is further into the black hole, even going up. I mean, presuming you could survive.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report