Starship Asterisk*

No more stars, All the light is fading, at the end of time, in the universe. A Google years has past.

1 How does A 36 billion solar mass black hole die?

2 How do smaller black holes die?

3 Why do black holes give of light, at the end of there lives?

4 At the end of a black holes life, Does all the space time collected over billions of years, start to expand?

Mark

mark swain wrote:No more stars, All the light is fading, at the end of time, in the universe. A Google years has past.

1 How does A 36 billion solar mass black hole die?

Going by current theory, it would 'die' by evaporating via Hawking radiation. But this would only begin once the universe had expanded enough to reduce the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background below the blackbody temperature of the black hole (large black holes are very 'cold'). Otherwise the black hole would be 'eating' the energy from the Microwave Background faster than it would be evaporating.

2 How do smaller black holes die?

Same way as the big ones, through Hawking radiation. The smaller the black hole gets, the higher its temperature, and the faster it evaporates.

3 Why do black holes give of light, at the end of there lives?

Hawking radiation effectively converts the mass of the black hole into radiant particles and energy.

4 At the end of a black holes life, Does all the space time collected over billions of years, start to expand?

I'm not sure that they actually gather up spacetime, in any sense, but someone more knowledgeable than I will have to answer this one.

Qev wrote:I'm not sure that they actually gather up spacetime, in any sense, but someone more knowledgeable than I will have to answer this one.

Hi Qev

I asked that question 4 for a reason. I saw a program. They said Space Time falls into a black hole like the Niagara falls.

I understood them, when they said, light can not flow upstream. because the Space Time river is flowing faster than light.

But that is Not why I posted. I asked if Space Time Gets stored up then gets out again? (No Answer)

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html

Quote: It is not well established what an evaporating mini black hole would actually look like in realistic detail. The Hawking radiation itself would consist of fiercely energetic particles, antiparticles, and gamma rays. Such radiation is invisible to the human eye, so optically the evaporating black hole might look like a dud. However, it is also possible that the Hawking radiation, rather than emerging directly, might power a hadronic fireball that would degrade the radiation into particles and gamma rays of less extreme energy, possibly making the evaporating black hole visible to the eye. Whatever the case, you would not want to go near an evaporating mini black hole, which would be a source of lethal gamma rays and energetic particles, even if it didn't look like much visually.

Black holes die. They are looking for them right now. 1 The creator. Looks like his children.

We are in Black hole city. there are billions of them, all merging. All around us.

Our creator was a huge Black Hole. And Hawkins has more or less said this.

And string theory has no problem with it.

I just want to know more.

Mark

mark swain wrote: I asked if Space Time Gets stored up then gets out again?

Great concept Mark. I believe Space and Time get released from Black Holes (if Black Holes exist) as jets .. the spin of the black hole creating the spiral of the jet.

Bawper wrote:I believe Space and Time get released from Black Holes (if Black Holes exist) as jets .. the spin of the black hole creating the spiral of the jet.

It is so rare in the world of science where we can say with 100% certainty that something is wrong, but this is one of those times.

Chris Peterson wrote:It is so rare in the world of science where we can say with 100% certainty that something is wrong, but this is one of those times.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/collapse.html


Answer to the quiz question 9: The star does in fact collapse inside the horizon, even though an outside observer sees the star freeze at the horizon. The freezing can be regarded as a light travel time effect. As described here, space can be regarded as falling into the black hole, reaching the speed of light at the horizon, and exceeding the speed of light inside the horizon. Thus photons that are exactly at the horizon and pointed vertically upwards hang there for ever, their outward motion through space at the speed of light being cancelled by the inward flow of space at the speed of light. It follows that it takes an infinite time for light to travel from the horizon to the outside world. The star does actually collapse: it just takes an infinite time for the information that it has collapsed to get to the outside world.


Somebody may not agree with you Chris. Unless there is another way to interpret the above statement.

Mark

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It is so rare in the world of science where we can say with 100% certainty that something is wrong, but this is one of those times.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/collapse.html
Answer to the quiz question 9: The star does in fact collapse inside the horizon, even though an outside observer sees the star freeze at the horizon. The freezing can be regarded as a light travel time effect. As described here, space can be regarded as falling into the black hole, reaching the speed of light at the horizon, and exceeding the speed of light inside the horizon. Thus photons that are exactly at the horizon and pointed vertically upwards hang there for ever, their outward motion through space at the speed of light being cancelled by the inward flow of space at the speed of light. It follows that it takes an infinite time for light to travel from the horizon to the outside world. The star does actually collapse: it just takes an infinite time for the information that it has collapsed to get to the outside world.

Somebody may not agree with you Chris. Unless there is another way to interpret the above statement.

I was referring to "Bawper's" assertion that space and time are released from black holes as jets. This is wrong, plain and simple. There is no possibility of it being correct at all. This is not an opinion of mine that can be agreed or disagreed with,

I wasn't referring to anything you posted, and what you followed up with here has no relevance to my comment. It is important to remember that "Bawper" is a nut who is infatuated with relativistic jets, but has not the slightest concept of how they actually work. He often states that they are made up of material coming out of the interior of a black hole, which is complete nonsense.

Chris Peterson wrote:It is important to remember that "Bawper" is a nut who is infatuated with relativistic jets, but has not the slightest concept of how they actually work. He often states that they are made up of material coming out of the interior of a black hole, which is complete nonsense.

Is that not Harry you are referring to? Even so, I would never use the word ''nut'' to describe a person, Who wants to understand the working of the cosmos.

Never the less, The question is still open. Where does 13.7 billion years of space time go, At the end of a black holes life?

mark swain wrote:Is that not Harry you are referring to?

Him too <g>.

Never the less, The question is still open. Where does 13.7 billion years of space time go, At the end of a black holes life?

I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Energy goes into a black hole. Energy is released as it evaporates. Energy is conserved.

Chris Peterson wrote:I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Energy goes into a black hole. Energy is released as it evaporates. Energy is conserved.

Look up Quantum space time. Look up Quantum Gravity. ''Unification''

mark swain wrote:Look up Quantum space time. Look up Quantum Gravity. ''Unification''

These are areas of research that have produced few results. People have interesting ideas, but so far they remain substantially undeveloped and unsupported by any observational evidence. I'd say it's premature to speculate about their ramifications for black holes as if these theories (and I use the word "theory" very loosely here) actually describe the Universe.

The universe is there to be found, it has a never ending list of amazement. And for the new comer, do not be afraid to ask questions. We all did not know once.

Mark

http://quantumspacetime.net/

Merry quantum chris.

mark swain wrote:http://quantumspacetime.net/
Merry quantum chris.

Way too much trouble to read through. Send me a link to something peer reviewed. That's the only way it would be worth my time and effort to try and understand.

There are peer reviewed papers on various sorts of GUTs, including quantum spacetime, but in all cases they are playing mathematical games, not developing rich theories that connect with observations. That may happen someday; for now, these areas are very speculative, and not worth too much consideration unless you are a specialist in them.

Note that I am not saying that this kind of speculative work is a waste of time, nor that the people engaged in it are crazy. Only that it is far from mainstream, and has little bearing on most discussions about the nature of the Universe.

Chris Peterson wrote:Way too much trouble to read through. Send me a link to something peer reviewed. That's the only way it would be worth my time and effort to try and understand.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5784.html

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Way too much trouble to read through. Send me a link to something peer reviewed. That's the only way it would be worth my time and effort to try and understand.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5784.html

That's not peer reviewed, although given the authors it's probably a good read. At least, the authors are well respected and have produced a good deal of original research (unlike the author of the material on the website you previously linked, who seems to have no recognized body of work at all).

When referencing papers, the value of peer review can't be overstated. Unless you are a specialist (and I don't think anybody on this list is a specialist in cosmology) there is simply no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is too much nonsense self-published on the Internet, and not many people have the time to wade through everything and figure out what has merit (especially given the density of much of this material). Peer review provides an exceptionally effective filter.

you do not need me to point out the obvious.

But its in your head. and know like any person who wants to know. you will search just like i did.

Chris, I have a great deal of respect for you.

you do a great job teaching folk the cosmos. And if i can help you in your work in any way, i am only to pleased to help.

My job is only to ask the questions, to create the interest.

Mark

makc wrote:Chris

The thing is, while you can never defeat a windmill, others who are watching from the trees might learn a little about jousting from the exercise.

Chris Peterson wrote:When referencing papers, the value of peer review can't be overstated. Unless you are a specialist (and I don't think anybody on this list is a specialist in cosmology) there is simply no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is too much nonsense self-published on the Internet, and not many people have the time to wade through everything and figure out what has merit (especially given the density of much of this material). Peer review provides an exceptionally effective filter.

Yeah you must be right Chris. Its just Professor Stephen Hawking , I Mean, What does he know about cosmology Huh?

mark swain wrote:Yeah you must be right Chris. Its just Professor Stephen Hawking , I Mean, What does he know about cosmology Huh?

You left out part of what Chirs said

Chris Peterson wrote:That's not peer reviewed, although given the authors it's probably a good read. At least, the authors are well respected and have produced a good deal of original research (unlike the author of the material on the website you previously linked, who seems to have no recognized body of work at all).

When referencing papers, the value of peer review can't be overstated. Unless you are a specialist (and I don't think anybody on this list is a specialist in cosmology) there is simply no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is too much nonsense self-published on the Internet, and not many people have the time to wade through everything and figure out what has merit (especially given the density of much of this material). Peer review provides an exceptionally effective filter.

The first part was about the book by Hawking and Penrose. The second part was more about your earlier post, as well as the indiscriminate postings by others not to be named here.

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:When referencing papers, the value of peer review can't be overstated. Unless you are a specialist (and I don't think anybody on this list is a specialist in cosmology) there is simply no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is too much nonsense self-published on the Internet, and not many people have the time to wade through everything and figure out what has merit (especially given the density of much of this material). Peer review provides an exceptionally effective filter.

Yeah you must be right Chris. Its just Professor Stephen Hawking , I Mean, What does he know about cosmology Huh?

I haven't noticed Stephen Hawking posting on this list <g>.

You're confusing a respected researcher with a peer-reviewed paper. They aren't the same. And no matter how much we might respect that researcher, one should never place the same weight on a general-audience book he wrote as on a peer-reviewed paper he wrote. They are in different categories. Indeed, you'll find some researchers choose to write books about highly speculative ideas in part because the ideas wouldn't hold up to review in a more formal journal. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the reader needs to consider it.

BTW, I did note that the book was probably worth reading, because of the authors involved. That's quite different than wasting time trying to read the many Internet pages posted by people with no formal publishing history, no peer review, no academic record.

Chris Peterson wrote:BTW, I did note that the book was probably worth reading, because of the authors involved. That's quite different than wasting time trying to read the many Internet pages posted by people with no formal publishing history, no peer review, no academic record.

I agree.

And i must point out, that i made this thread after seeing two programs about Stephen Hawking And his work.

Two singularities, One is a black hole. The other The Big Bang