Register to reply

Cuestion of black holes

by Clausius2
Tags: black, cuestion, holes
Share this thread:
Clausius2
#1
Sep23-03, 11:55 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Clausius2's Avatar
P: 1,479
It is said that nothing even the light can escape out of black holes.
I have a little question: If the light cannot escape out of the black hole, how is it possible that there are planets and stars spining around them? The cause of this spinning is the force of gravity. Taking into account it is said that gravitational interaction is transported via gravitons (virtual particles). This particles go at light velocity. If this light cannot escape, the body spinning around black holes should not know this black hole is there, because black hole couldn't emit gravitons.

It seems to me an enigma!.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
NASA team lays plans to observe new worlds
IHEP in China has ambitions for Higgs factory
Spinach could lead to alternative energy more powerful than Popeye
wolram
#2
Sep23-03, 12:42 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...lackHoles.html

Predicted in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravitational waves are disturbances in the curvature of spacetime caused by the motions of matter. Propagating at (or near) the speed of light, gravitational waves do not travel "through" spacetime as such -- the fabric of spacetime itself is oscillating. Though gravitational waves pass straight t hrough matter, their strength weakens proportionally to the distance traveled from the source. A gravitational wave arriving on Earth will alternately stretch and shrink distances, though on an incredibly small scale -- by a factor of for very strong sources. That's roughly equivalent to measuring a change the size of an atom in the distance from the Sun to Earth!

this is a good site to learn more about BHs, as far as i know
gravitons are still only theoretical.
marcus
#3
Sep23-03, 01:11 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,084
Originally posted by wolram
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...lackHoles.html

...snip...

this is a good site to learn more about BHs, as far as i know
gravitons are still only theoretical.
good reply wolram. to corroborate what you say, "gravitons"
are useful for analyzing small perturbations or ripples in basically flat space

In situations like BH where space is highly curved, the approximations that are good with flat space dont work and
one would not normally anaylize disturbances in grav field in terms of "gravitons".

In a GR or quantized GR (LQG) analysis of BH, I have not seen any reference to graviton. Lots of analysis of dynamic disturbances of field but no hint that "graviton" even exists "theoretically" because it is not a basic object that would be useful for describing nature (except in the slightly perturbed flat space situation where it IS mathematically useful to assume it exists and talk a bout it).

My advice to Clausius would be not to worry about "graviton" around black holes since the people who analyze behavior about ordinary sorts of BH do not need or use the idea of "graviton"
at least in papers I have seen.

But in approximative case of almost flat space the idea IS extremely useful. so a lot depends on context

Clausius2
#4
Sep24-03, 11:38 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Clausius2's Avatar
P: 1,479
Cuestion of black holes

Well, i've read your answers, but i'm not very happy with it, because they are causing me a headache. My next question is:
I heard the gravitational interaction is explained in terms of gravitonts (like electromagnetic in terms of virtual photons). To be honest, i heard another explain but only in general relativity, that involves the curvature of the space-time, something like a constraint that obbeys the body to run along an orbital way.
Which of these two explanations is the correct?
Nobody are detected virtual photons, except for their effects (electromagnetic force), because are undetectables!
Perhaps are the two explanations in some way equivalents?
is this what the physics call the cuantical gravitation?
I've heard about the radiation emitted for the blackholes, but in fact, this radiation comes from out of the hole indeed. The hole acts like an unidirectional membrane in this case too.
I think gravitons would be undetectables, perhaps by the Heisenberg's principle, but we suppose it like a truth and it doesn't go contrary to none of the physics laws, so it doesn't matter to do that.
is it relationed with holografy? The boundary of the black hole would seem to contain the mass information that is inside it, so gravitational force between a star and the black hole could be possible.
One of this explanation is more "edible" than the other. The curvature of space time perhaps is less understable in terms of classical interaction. I see easier there is some strange particles that carry over the space the essential information of the body, like its mass.
Although perhaps they are the same!!
wolram
#5
Sep24-03, 04:28 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity in most quantum gravity systems. In order to do this gravitons have to be always-attractive (gravity never pushes), work over any distance (gravity is universal) and come in unlimited numbers (to provide high strengths near stars). In a quantum theory this defines an even-spin (spin 2 in this case) boson with a rest mass of zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify the subjects of Quantum mechanics and General relativity.

Much of the difficulty in merging these theories comes from the radically different assumptions that these theories have on how the universe works. Quantum mechanics depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of either Newtonian mechanics or special relativity. Einstein's theory of general relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as mass moves. The most obvious ways of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) run quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. Gravity particles would attract each other and if you add together all of the interactions you end up with many infinite results which can not easily be cancelled out. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where the interactions do result in some infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.
wolram
#6
Sep24-03, 05:10 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
i hope this helps clausius2,

gravity is a non intuitive subject, there are many theories
from crackpot to mainstream, i consider MARCUS and other
mebers of this forum very knowledgable in this field,
theoretical things such as gravitons are a useful tool
that aid in some theories, but like a lot of things
they are not yet prooven to exsist.
wolram
#7
Sep24-03, 05:21 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
Hawking radiation is radiation (particle-antiparticle radiation) emitted by black holes. It is named after British physicist Stephen Hawking who worked out the "theoretical argument" for its existence.


Black Holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction into which surrounding matter is drawn by gravitational forces. It was originally thought that the gravitation was so powerful that nothing, not even radiation, could escape from the Black Hole, but Hawking theorized that (particle-antiparticle) radiation would be emitted as matter spiralled into the Black Hole and approached the event horizon (the boundary beyond which nothing would return).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
please note, hawking who worked out the "theoretical argument".
elas
#8
Sep25-03, 01:15 AM
P: n/a
As I understand it, Black Hole theory exist only in theory and the only measurement of a suspected black hole so far, produced a result 10 times greater than predicted by Hawking.
Surely this puts it on the the same quality level as the theoretical graviton.
On http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm I show a simple explanation of where the graviton fits into the fundamental particle structure (scroll down to figs 39.2-5). Note the my arguement works in both the Standard Model of particle physics as well as my (crackpot) idea of a Single Force model, but it only makes sense in the Single Force Model.
It might help to understand what I am trying to say by looking at it as a Reverse (or anti-) gravity Theory that can be reached by reversing the plus/minus signs of quantities and directions in current theory.
Nereid
#9
Sep25-03, 02:03 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
the only measurement of a suspected black hole so far, produced a result 10 times greater than predicted by Hawking
Would you be so kind as to provide a reference/link?

Black Hole theory exist only in theory
I'm sure others will jump in with lots and lots of links; IIRC the observational support includes, in approx order of certainty (roughly, 'can't be anything else but a BH'):
- CygX-1
- several other X-ray binaries
- centre of the Milky Way galaxy
- nucleus of several other nearby galaxies
- heart of quasars
wolram
#10
Sep25-03, 03:40 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/ngc1068/

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/press/2003/030410e.html

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/blackholes.html

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...e/smblack.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is to much evidence for the existence of what scientists call
black holes for them to be dismised, what they are is debatable.
i would like to see any evidence of there nonexistence.
wolram
#11
Sep25-03, 04:58 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
ELAS, you have done a lot of work on your theory, but maybe
this thread is not the place to advertise it, perhaps you
could get it published or get it reviewed by someone of
noted standing, if not then it will join the long list
of forgotten theories.
i wish you all the best .
Phobos
#12
Sep25-03, 01:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020
Originally posted by wolram
ELAS, you have done a lot of work on your theory, but maybe
this thread is not the place to advertise it,
Correct. Start a new topic in the "theory development" forum. You can post a link to that topic here.
elas
#13
Sep26-03, 01:09 AM
P: n/a
I did not intend to advertise but to answer a point raised by Clausius2, who started the forum -

"I heard the gravitational interaction is explained in terms of gravitonts"

I intended to show that in current Particle Physics Theory it is possible to find a place for the graviton. Clausius2 seems to be of the opinion that the graviton is limited to Relativity or Astrophysics. That is why I was careful to point out that the graph referred to is not restricted to my own proposals but applies equally to the Standard Model. The data used to construct the graph was taken fromThe Particle Explosion, a well known and often quoted Particle Physics book.

My point is that the Standard Model already uses the data necessary to unite Relativity and Quantum Physics, it is just a question of how you arrange the data for display. You do not need my ideas to do this; but I could not resist the tempation to say "you need my ideas to explain it".

I note the Forum Mentor's comment and will not subscribe further unless requested to do so by Clausius2. My thanks to wolram for his reply.
Clausius2
#14
Sep27-03, 12:16 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Clausius2's Avatar
P: 1,479
great job, elas!. But in Spain there is an expression that says: "the honey hasn't been done for ***". I mean, I cannot understand your article on the complete right way, because i'm not a physic. I belong to the mass public. After all, i've understood your answers more or less, so thank you for your efforts.
elas
#15
Sep28-03, 01:27 AM
P: n/a
the only measurement of a suspected black hole so far, produced a result 10 times greater than predicted by Hawking
Please provide link

Sorry cannot supply link. When the first report of a sucessful measurement appeared in New Scientist it stated that the diameter was ten miles and Hawking had predicted one mile for the same body.
The use of miles indicates that the work originated in the USA.
pmb
#16
Sep28-03, 08:34 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Clausius2
It is said that nothing even the light can escape out of black holes.
I have a little question: If the light cannot escape out of the black hole, how is it possible that there are planets and stars spining around them? The cause of this spinning is the force of gravity. Taking into account it is said that gravitational interaction is transported via gravitons (virtual particles). This particles go at light velocity. If this light cannot escape, the body spinning around black holes should not know this black hole is there, because black hole couldn't emit gravitons.

It seems to me an enigma!.
See -- http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...k_gravity.html

Pete
Clausius2
#17
Sep28-03, 10:34 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Clausius2's Avatar
P: 1,479
In your link you say:
"In addition, however, virtual particles aren't confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier."

Oh,no! It's horrible. Now, i don't undertand nothing. It was said that nothing could go faster than light!.
It is puzzling me!
pmb
#18
Sep29-03, 08:47 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Clausius2
In your link you say:
"In addition, however, virtual particles aren't confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier."

Oh,no! It's horrible. Now, i don't undertand nothing. It was said that nothing could go faster than light!.
It is puzzling me!
Nothing can be detected to travel faster than light. These are virtual particles and therefore they cannot be detected. Therefore they can't be used to send information faster than light.

Pete


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Black holes and white holes Cosmology 5
Re: White Holes are time-reversed black holes? General Physics 0
Are black holes black afterall? Astronomy & Astrophysics 22
White holes, black holes Astronomy & Astrophysics 6