What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
85 Comments
- fugeelama, on 10/17/2007, -2/+25I'm really glad this didn't link to Goatse...
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -1/+19http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg
- Jacob3d, on 10/17/2007, -0/+13Nicely presented!
- banq59, on 10/16/2007, -4/+16So I am supposed to believe a digg reader over Einstein and Hawking. Riiiiight.
- Stobrawa, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12"Hawking has theorized that balck holes emit radiation. No doubt they do, and this proves that light can escape from black holes because light and "radiation" are essentially the same thing." You're close but not quite. Radiation or 'light' doesn't escape a black hole, instead quantum events that briefly violate the law of the conservation of energy happen, creating two particles - a particle and and anti-particle that would normally self annihilate the next instant, balancing out the universe. But when this event happens on the edge of a black hole one of the particles can fall in past the event horizon while the other stays safely outside of the event horizon and radiates out into space. This is called hawking radiation. Over unfathomable amounts of time black holes will eventually evaporate away through this process. But, in no way is light "escaping" from the black hole.
- markp93, on 10/17/2007, -4/+14What did Spock find at the bottom of Kirk's toilet?
The captain's log. - Pataflafla, on 10/16/2007, -1/+8Yes, but how can we harness it's power to allow us to re-write the Laws of Time and Space?
- Bleue, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6Yours is such a strange post, wrong but in weird ways, that I don't even know where to begin.
Light lensing has to do with so called space time distortions. The effect is complex and I won't try to explain it here but it has nothing, nothing, to do with constructive interference, which is a very small scale event. And it is not the size of the object that affects EM rays it is it's mass, which determines the amplitude of space time distortion. Interference is about rays of light moving very very close to an opaque solid, and is not significant enough to affect cosmological observation.
Second: tidal forces are not, not not not NOT, an optical phenomenon. I cannot stress this enough. Tidal forces, which are responsible for the stretching, are cause by the fact that gravity diminishes as you move away from it's source. For any non-point object, IE anything with a volume, this means that the closer parts to a gravity source get tugged more than further away parts. It is this phenomenon that causes tides, hence the name tidal forces (parts of the earth closest to the moon get more attraction, and therefore loose stuff such as water is greatly affected, solid stuff like the ground are also but not as much). In a 1g field the difference between, say, your head and your feet is very very small, almost imperceptible. In a tower a few hundred miles high the effect is just big enough to be perceptible by human senses. In a very very very strong field, such as you have as you aproach an event horizon, the strength differential between parts of an object increase to the point where the object breaks appart. The object is literally stretched. Two major mistakes in the presentation: this happens well before the event horizon and the ship does not magically turn elastic. It would be broken to pieces. It is generally thought that tidal forces are strong enough to break molecules even before reaching the event horizon. But the stretching effect is not a light interaction phenomenon. To an observer falling into the black hole the surrounding are thought to be distorted in such a way, but not to one outside the event horizon and stationary.
And relativity is a theory, not a force. There are no 'effects' of relativity. It makes some predictions about certain physical phenomenae, mass behavior in strong gravitational fields is among them, but the black hole has effects, not relativity.
And by very definition black holes are objects whose gravity is so strong that no known forces can sustain them, and therefore said object compresses to a singularity. This is what a black hole is supposed to be. The non-infinite density object you describe are quasars, pulsars, neutron stars and possibly dwarf stars. All extremely dense.
Finally be happy Hawkins cannot slap his forehead. He theorised that what we consider empty space was in fact full of mater anti-mater particle pairs, and that forces around the black hole would break these. This would give the appearance that the event horizon is radiating mater given infinite observation time, and gave rise to the cool, if somewhat misguides notion that space time breaks up around a black hole.
The final paragraph is just... strange. I'll assume you're drunk or stoned. That or rampaging physicists once broke into your home and stole your stuff, leaving nothing but formulae spray painted on the walls. Or they bullied you as a young junior (my fist has a mass of x and a velocity of y, how much would it deform your face by...) Those physicists can be a rambunctious bunch...
Anyway, using your mind is fine and all but yours may be due in for an oil change. - OswaldKenobi, on 10/16/2007, -1/+7You didn't know? This jackass has actually seen a blackhole up close and is the foremost experts on *****. Since blackholes are still "theoretical" in the sense that we know "something" is out there and there are different opinions on what the "something" is, it is incredibly pompous to call one of the greatest minds in history misguided.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Something cool to think about:
If you were to somehow get to the point where light orbits a blackhole unharmed and you looked in front of you you would most likely see your own backside because the light had to bounce off your back and orbit the blackhole before it could get to your eyes. Black holes are probably the most interesting and scientifically confusing thing in the universe. It's hard to imagine something so powerful it can hold light itself in it's grasp. - liquidjamm, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5So eeh, where do I sign up to be sent into one of them black hollie thingies? Is anyone from NASA here? I'd like volunteer, please.
- nicejai, on 10/16/2007, -1/+6News flash. Relativity *is* reality. The equations you seem to have so little faith in match what we can observe to an insane degree of precision. Time dilation, relativistic mass, length contraction, gravitational lensing, etc. These are all observable, measurable, and thanks to special and general relativity... predictable.
Gravity does influence light, just indirectly. The gravity curves the space the light travels through, thereby affecting its path. This is due to relativistic mass.
An object does not appear to stretch as it approaches the speed of light. It does the opposite, and the effect is called Lorentz Contraction.
For god's sake read a book.
And it's not the "so called scientists". It is *you* that lacks the mental capacity to work with the items upon which they are theorizing.
Enough of YOUR misinformation.
DO SOME MATH. - TypeEE, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Then why did you come to this commenting section? Do you post the same question in every digg article that you are not interested in?
- Godmil, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Yep, as far as I'm aware that's correct.
I like the idea of the spagettification stretching things as they move in, but you're right it's more likely objects will be ripped apart. - BaylorDawg, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5Cool, I liked the animations and such... they didn't really help me understand more, but still cool nonetheless.
- Xoherent, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4There was a lot of mis-information or questionable info in that presentation. And even an inconsistency: if nothing can return from the event horizon (to do so would require traveling faster than light), how can anything "spray out as energy"? hehe.
Here's the deal: the object spends an infinite amount of time dropping towards the center of the black hole. It never reaches the center. It orbits inside the black hole near the speed of light as a kind of particle foam. Sure, it's releasing energy like crazy at this point but the energy can't escape the event horizon. The energy has no way to get out of the black hole because that would require a transfer medium to travel faster than the speed of light to make it out, which it just can not do.
However, quantum physics has a magic way for stuff to get out of a black hole, although not in one piece - it happens particle by particle over millions (billions, or trillions) of years.
See, we live with virtual particles constantly coming into existence everywhere and then annihilating themselves. A virtual particle is always a pair, positive and negative, and they usually come back together and destroy each other almost instantly; so fast that it looks like nothing is happening. Empty space is chock-full of these virtual particles, so much so that it's been said that a light bulb full of empty space actually contains more potential energy than the sun. If you could harness this energy, it would be called "Zero Point Energy" which is a popular science fiction concept.
Well, a black hole _does_ kind of use this energy, although it doesn't take anything from it. It sometimes rips a companion particle off of a virtual particle pair and eats it. It has a lot of gravity, so it can pull off this near-impossible feat. When this happens, the remaining virtual partner has no way of destroying itself as usual, and drifts away with a surprised expression on its little particle face. The OTHER particle, the one the black hole ate, goes down into the black hole and annihilates something in there instead.
So over time, the black hole evaporates because of this quantum effect as it rips virtual particles apart and sheds the pieces. But this takes a LOOOOOooOOOoong time. Most massive and supermassive black holes won't evaporate completely until well into the dark age of the universe, trillions and trillions of years from now. - nilton, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Neither light nor radiation escapes from the black hole. That's was not what Hawking showed. Although black holes emit X-ray radiation it's due to another phenomenon. It happens when a pair of a particle and an antiparticle is created from nothing and one of them falls into the black hole, when this happens the other is free and is emitted as radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
- Slothy88, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Well if you wanted to know about black holes (assuming that's why you clicked here), then this guide has what you need to know about it..
- WPTsunami10, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3This is seriously a really nice presentation. Easy to understand and it was really interesting.
- gbarger, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Actually black holes do effect light, and it is because of gravity, but it has nothing to do with the gravity directly having an effect on light. Extreme mass bends space (Imagine a basketball sitting on a stretched out blanket). Light moves in a straight line along the space. When the space (or blanket in the example) is folded, and light moves along that line, it appears to bend due to gravity. Light is radiation. And what's with the light and "radiation" are essentially the same thing. Visible light is the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Light is radiation, radiation is not light.
- Mysticyx, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3I'm glad you explained. Was afraid that i'd to do it myself. Dugg.
- toxicshok, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2This is found in the detection of GRB: Gamma ray bursts. These bursts are so powerful that they can be detected from areas outside the milky way.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4What evidence is there that black holes emit anything? Please elaborate on this theory.
- dynky, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2This presentation on Black Holes won the prestigious Pirelli Award a couple of years ago: "Black Holes: Gravity's Relentless Pull"
Here's a direct link: http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_hole ... - svyerkgeniiy, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3"Lensing" of light around objects is not due to their size (although interference has some effect). Einstein predicted, and this has been born out by experimental observation, that gravity distorts space-time so that the light takes a path different from what would happen if the object were not there. This effect from gravity is separate from normal wave interference around the object.
Unfortunately I could not see the animation as the server has been digged out so I can't comment further. - thomashauk, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Old joke stupidly done. Your getting buried to a depth of 6 foot.
- staffa, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The disk of matter is just stuff orbiting the black hole. The reason it is a disk and not a sphere is because when two objects not traveling parallel to each other impact, they tend to lose their orbital velocity and thus quickly fall into the black hole.
Take the example where you have two disks of matter orbiting the black hole, where the two disks intersect there would be a lot of non parallel collisions that would result in the matter there losing speed and falling directly into the black hole. Eventually the less massive disk would cease to exist. Matter can fall into the black hole from any direction, but the matter that is traveling fast enough can orbit, and it will tend to orbit as a disk.
As the life span of black holes is very long, anything that 'tends' to happen will certainly be happening for the vast majority of its life. - GeekyGerge, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Whoops, did i need the /sarcasm tag?
- GeekyGerge, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Dugg for LOOOOOooOOOoong
- Acolyte357, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1::sigh:: Hawking Radiation is not the same as Quantum foam theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Hawking radiation is a thermal radiation. Quantum foam theory is just another euphemism for something we don't really understand all that well ie Dark Mater. Although should quantum foam exist there would be an issue when dealing with black holes. Now your first problem in proving Mr. Hawking is wrong is proving Quantum foam theory. GL with that and let us know when you come out of your basement. - UnstableMind, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1So your saying that the black holes are creating matter/energy (per se) by separating the particle or anti-particle? Could this be where our galaxies or universe came from (The leftover matter/energy)? And does that mean that the black holes are necessary to create matter?
- AdHaR, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Huh?
- thomashauk, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1We have no direct evidence, hence Hawing not having won the Nobel prize yet) but all the theory seems to point to it. And unlike this jackass thinks the radation does not come from the black hole itself but from the even horizon due to quantum wobbliness.
- Icyfenix, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2If he wasn't totally and completely correct, I'd say no.
- thomashauk, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1We have no direct evidence, hence Hawing not having won the Nobel prize yet) but all the theory seems to point to it. And unlike this jackass thinks the radation does not come from the black hole itself but from the even horizon due to quantum wobbliness.
- Kisama, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1And when you make one yourself, you get what's called a "gravity drive."
- FishHammer, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1that's a red hole
- Acolyte357, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1stupid edit button,
"Before this is allowed to happen one, either the particle or the antiparticle, falls into the event horizon, releasing the other into the universe as matter that DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST."
And either the virtual anti-particle collides with another particle outside of, or inside of the event horizon yielding a zero-sum.
2 particle at the start of this though experiment
A original particle outside the event horizon
B original particle inside the event horizon
C virtual particle
D virtual anti-particle
C goes in to the event horizon D collides with A. B and C are left
D goes in to the event horizon, D collides with B. A and C are left
....and so on - FishHammer, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1its mostly theoretical physics but there's obviously something occuring.
- mourne, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1For people like myself, who are not scientists, I found it educational. Albeit not a scientific publication, but includes enough info to make me interested. Next stop, wikipedia... heh.
- springo, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Not bad, though I would like it to move less or slower, it just distracts the attention from the text.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1You didn' t miss much. The animation for the lensing was all wrong. The initial direction of the rays was incorrect.
- UnstableMind, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1!? No, we've never seen the x or gamma radiation emitted from these non-existing black-holes!
- mourne, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1show some imagination. At certain points in time many things seemed impossible.
- thomashauk, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Same as all the planets forming a disk around the sun. Its because its spinning I think.
And yeah it shouldn't be offset. It seems another dimension get added accidentally there. - phoenixdig, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The end product is one particle so no this doesn't explain where the universe came from.
1. One particle exists that falls into the black hole (Total particles = 1)
2. A pair of virtual particles pop into existence (Total particles = 3)
3. Black hole rips one of the pair off into it's event horizon (Total particles = 3)
4. The ripped off particle falls into the black hole and annihilates the particle in there (Total particles = 1)
5. The remaining particle outside the black hole drifts off and the black hole is now 1 particle lighter. - CMuffa, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I thought this was about Robin Quivers. Hoo-hoo Robin!
- anyo, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"Did you know that the hole’s only natural enemy is the pile? "
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well yeah of course you would never ever be able to see such a thing because likely you would be far dead by then. I'm just saying in a very hypothetical situation that you were able to stay motionless and unharmed.
- sockpuppets, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I had no idea my ass was so huge!
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 