Most Excellent Physics Community.

353 readers
1 users here now

Community Rules.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

I've read that a distant observer watching matter fall into a black hole will see the matter get closer and closer to the horizon but never reach it. At the same time, the black hole is producing Hawking radiation and will vanish in a finite amount of time. Therefore, the observer should see the black hole vanish before they see the infalling matter cross the horizon. If the observer, the infalling matter, the velocity of the infalling matter, and the center of the black hole are collinear, then the final flash of radiation that the observer sees will pass right through the infalling matter. This implies that, before (from the perspective of the infalling matter) the infalling matter reaches the horizon, the mass will disappear, the horizon will disappear, and the infalling matter will end up in flat spacetime rather than cross any horizon.

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaidya_metric gives an equation relating coordinates to distances (equation 6 on the current version of that page) when radiation with a non-negligible amount of energy is escaping the black hole:

ds² = -(1 - 2M(u)/r) du² - 2 du dr + r² (dθ² + sin² θ dφ²)

(I assume c = G = 1)

For a distant observer at rest with respect to the black hole, this becomes

ds² = -(1 - 2M(u)/r) du²

with the coefficient of du² approaching -1 as r goes to infinity. From this I infer that the time that an observer at infinity measures between observations of two events is the difference between the u-coordinates of those events.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation the time (as measured by an observer at infinity) for a black hole to evaporate is

tₑᵥ = 5120πG²M³/ℏc⁴

= 5120πM³/ℏ

therefore, M = ∛(ℏtₑᵥ/5120π)

Let u=0 be the u-coordinate at which the black hole vanishes. Therefore, to an observer at infinity, for a given value of u less than zero, the time until evaporation tₑᵥ = 0 - u = -u. Therefore,

M(u) = ∛((ℏ/5120π)(-u)) when u < 0, or 0 otherwise

To shorten the metric equation, let

r′ = 2r

dΩ² = dθ² + sin² θ dφ²

ℏ = 80π

Then, for u < 0,

2M(u) = 2∛((1/64)(-u)) = -(∛u)/2

Substituting into the metric equation,

ds² = -(1 - (-∛u/2)/(r′/2)) du² - 2 du d(r′/2) + (r′/2)² dΩ²

= -(1 + ∛u/r′) du² - du dr′ + r′² dΩ²/4

At the horizon, the equation r = 2M becomes

r′/2 = -∛u/2

r′ = -∛u

∛u/r′ = -1

Therefore, at the horizon,

ds² = -(1 - 1) du² - du dr′ + r′² dΩ²/4

ds² = -du dr′ + r′² dΩ²/4

For a timelike interval,

0 > ds² = -du dr′ + r′² dΩ²/4

du dr′ > (r′ dΩ/2)²

The right-hand side of this inequality is the square of a real number and therefore must be nonnegative, so the left-hand side must be positive. This implies that, at the horizon, if du is positive (that is, going forward in time), then dr′ must be positive (that is, away from the center of the black hole). So, not only can matter not enter the black hole through the horizon, but any matter passing through the horizon is doing so from the inside of the black hole to the outside. Therefore, all infalling matter must stay outside the horizon until the black hole vanishes.

Anyway, my country has just become a fascist dictatorship, so I'm just putting this out there so I, A. G. Marut, can be remembered for something (if only my proof because the conclusion was already known) after they come for me in the Niemöllerian sense.

2
4
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 

I think I need to rephrase this question. I'll post again in a few days.


... Hear me out, okay?

Back in 2000 I took my first solo, out of state trip, to meet an online friend. When I got off the bus, she greeted me, and let me know that we had to go stop by her friends house on the way back.

She was Wiccan and needed some Spiritual guidance because the night before she saw a black portal open up in the corner of her room that was giving her really bad vibes.

It wasn't my thing, but I never discounted it. Maybe it was real, and if nothing else it's just how her mind is rationalizing things.

But I guess my question is: Does the Scientific Method rule out the possibility that a "real" portal appeared in her room?

Taking wave function probability into account and the absense of data from the room, is it fair to say that the scientific method doesn't rule out the black portal being real?

Looking for black and white answers if possible, but I'd also love to hear your reasoning~

3
 
 

For those that have taken the blue pill, here is an introduction to the thinking that comes from taking the red pill. Which version makes most sense is up to you to decide. But don't automatically jump to the conclusion that your Einstein version is all that solid as a reasonable way to understand reality. Its clearly not, well that's the only possible conclusion that Dave and the AI Chatbot came to. See if you can find any errors in their logic if you believe that the Physics of Einstein is rock solid or even rational. The series of 5 ebooks is available for 99 cents on Amazon, and free on other book distributors until September 2024. The subjects covered are SR, GR, Spacetime, Speed of Light e=mc2, and some of the most famous experiments, all of which are found to be nonsense. Google "Dave vs Hal 9001"

4
2
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 

Is it possible to determine the percentage of the gravitational force at a specified distance using only the geometry of the planet?

Example: The ISS at ~420km altitude "weighs" about 90% of what it would on the Earth's surface.

Is there an equation using only geometrical values that would give you this info?

Edit: Answered!

5
6
 
 

There is no proof that black holes contain singularities when they are generated by real physical bodies. Roger Penrose claimed sixty years ago that trapped surfaces inevitably lead to light rays of finite affine length (FALL's). Penrose and Stephen Hawking then asserted that these must end in actual singularities. When they could not prove this they decreed it to be self evident. It is shown that there are counterexamples through every point in the Kerr metric. These are asymptotic to at least one event horizon and do not end in singularities.

7
 
 

Researchers at the University of Ottawa, in collaboration with Danilo Zia and Fabio Sciarrino from the Sapienza University of Rome, recently demonstrated a novel technique that allows the visualization of the wave function of two entangled photons, the elementary particles that constitute light, in real-time.

8
 
 

Dark Energy hasn't been in the news lately, but the heat is still on.

Check out the YouTube "Dark Energy - A String Theory Way" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epk-SMXbu1c and tell me what's wrong with it.

@arxiv_physics @[email protected] @LHCbPhysics @Dianna @[email protected] #physics #astronomy #astrophysics

9
 
 

Why can't this work:

NASA uses plutonium-238 to generate electricity for satellites in its deep space missions. Using this general approach, can a car battery be continuously charged and that battery used to power a car? Sure, new tech would have to be developed, but is this idea impossible?
@arxiv_physics @[email protected] @LHCbPhysics @dianna @[email protected] #physics

10
11
12
13
14
15
 
 

Derek did a retake of his controversial first video on the topic.

16
17
 
 

High-quality video by an underrated channel.

18
19
 
 

Brief introduction to Causal Set Theory.

20
21
 
 

~Bonus~ ~games,~ ~not~ ~educational,~ ~but~ ~one~ ~can~ ~build~ ~physics~ ~intuition~ ~with~ ~them:~ ~Portal~ ~games~ ~(including~ ~the~ ~Flash~ ~version),~ ~Red~ ~Remover,~ ~Tagpro~ ~and~ ~Transformice,~ ~and~ ~honestly~ ~any~ ~realistic~ ~vehicle~ ~sim,~ ~etc...~

If you haven't played the games above I recommend you do, half are free.

What are some other cool physics games you guys know of, whether simple or in-depth, big or small, educational or not?

22
23
 
 

Does it make sense to ask: How hard does a photon hit an object?

Does the waviness of photons make that a dumb question? If it does then what is a more correct way of conceptualizing the interaction of a photon with, for example, a light receptor? Or does the analogy in my head of a ball hitting a wall fairly represent the behavior of a photon at the moment of impact?

24
 
 

We are near to new physics.

25
 
 
view more: next ›