It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by robomont
from what they show on the science programs on tv,the x-ray beam comes out of the hole.no physicist has yet to explain in lamans terms.i do agree they are formed at a right angle to collision,but collisions dont happen on the surface of a black hole as much as inside the core of the hole.but yet the x-rays escape.x-rays are particles with mass.gravity effects mass
Originally posted by Teknikal
While they claim Hawking Radiation escapes to me that really that doesn't make much sense and they haven't proved anything of the sort. I've major problems in accepting anything escapes a Black Hole considering we have never observed one getting smaller in any way.
Truth is I don't know, they don't know, and anyone who claims to know is just arrogant and likely wrong.
Originally posted by Teknikal
While they claim Hawking Radiation escapes to me that really that doesn't make much sense and they haven't proved anything of the sort.
I've major problems in accepting anything escapes a Black Hole considering we have never observed one getting smaller in any way.
Truth is I don't know, they don't know, and anyone who claims to know is just arrogant and likely wrong.
Originally posted by robomont
i believe i have seen shows on the history channel and the discovery channel proposing these theories.they were talking about if a blackhole was to be pointed at earth,the radiation would turn the whole planet into dust.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by robomont
i believe i have seen shows on the history channel and the discovery channel proposing these theories.they were talking about if a blackhole was to be pointed at earth,the radiation would turn the whole planet into dust.
I think you may be thinking of a directional gamma ray burst from a neutron star
Photons don't have a rest mass. They do have momentum, which is directly related to how energetic they are.
Originally posted by KnightRoseWhile I do agree with the OP that x-rays have mass, the amount of mass in a photon is a small.
If you hadn't claimed to be a physicist, I'd think your post was halfway decent, but I expect a lot better from someone claiming to be a physicist. I don't make that claim and perhaps it's best if you don't either, unless you're speaking within your area of expertise.
Originally posted by KnightRose
As a physicist, ...
That's a very convoluted explanation, it halfway sounds like hawking radiation, but that's a very poor explanation for gamma rays emanating from the region of a black hole. Other than hawking radiation, why do we care if the particles are bound or not?
...if two particles are bound to each other and one enters a black hole and crossing the event horizon, while the other particle remain on the other side of the event horizon, the particle on the other side (the safe side) may be able to escape, thus giving the effect that matter has left the black hole. This matter will be witnesses as energy, such as gamma or x-rays.
Now isn't that a better explanation?
It is true that once matter or energy passes within the so-called Event Horizon of a black hole, that it can never turn around and get backout. However, in the real world, a lot can happen to matter as it approachesthe Event Horizon. Commonly, matter falls into what is called anaccretion disk which orbits the black hole. Material orbits the black hole within this disk, but if it happens to be gas and dust, this matter experiences friction and the disk heats up as some of the orbital energy of the gas is converted into heat. The closer the disk material isto the black hole, the more rapidly it orbits so that the greater is the heating effect. Just before it reaches the Event Horizon, this disk matter can be heated by friction to thousands of degrees which is enough to produceX-rays. Even higher temperatures approaching a million degrees can occurwhich can produce gamma rays.
This disk radiation, being outside the black hole, is what we detect as welook at black holes.
This is just defining a process by which a black hole can lose mass but it doesn't necessarily have to involve gamma radiation. And in fact most black holes won't lose mass this way because they are typically more massive than 3 solar masses so the cosmic background radiation actually exceeds the hawking radiation of the black hole.
Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
Since a black hole would need to be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth to lose mass, and the smallest black hole we know of is roughly 3.8 solar masses and they probably don't get a whole lot smaller, the 3 solar mass and larger black holes are unlikely to lose any net mass in this way. If smaller black holes were created somehow, they would, but as far as we know they are therefore unstable and I'm unaware of any such black holes being detected.
since the universe contains the cosmic microwave background radiation, in order for the black hole to dissipate, it must have a temperature greater than that of the present-day black-body radiation of the universe of 2.7 K = 2.3 × 10−4 eV. This implies that M must be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth.
Good advice because apparently you're speaking well outside your area of expertise if you are in fact a physicist, though I would have thought most physicists would know information such as this. On the other hand astrophysics has become so specialized that even astrophysicists don't fully grasp the specialized research of other astrophysicists working in other areas of astrophysics. So if you're not even working in that field at all it's even harder to keep up.
but what I state is valid and should be considered with some weight. I however, encourage everyone who is interested in the subject to study it for themselves.