A minute ago this thread
404'd. It was talking about describing black holes. I was the guy describing the Heisenberg Effect (actually called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, sorry) and I wanted to continue the thread. I also wanted to expand the thread to encompass theoretical physics in general.
A black hole is a point in space that is so dense that the escape velocity (how fast you must go to leave its gravitational pull) is greater than the speed of light. This means that light is unable to escape, and since light can not reflect off of it, it appears to be black.
Escape velocity is not an object, and therefore does not have a speed. It describes the REQUIRED speed to leave, meaning that nothing within our current laws of physics can escape a black hole.
Now I want to clarify a few things, due to Stephen Hawking's recent claims involving the effect of Quantum physics on the definition of a black hole.
Firstly: Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as we observe a particle, the more certain of its position we are, the more its momentum varies, and vice versa. In quantum tunneling a particle can gain a burst of momentum from energy that previously did not exist and move further than it should have been able to. That being said, energy has mass, and therefore more matter is being created when this happens. On a normal occasion an antiparticle is also created simultaneously, which collides with the original particle and causes mutual annihilation. However, due to the massive gravitational forces of a black hole, particles and anti particles that are created RIGHT at the edge of an event horizon, now called Apparent horizons, can escape, as one is created outside of the horizon. This causes the black hole to lose mass, which is the ejection of Hawking radiation in the form of the escaping particles.
Gravity gets weaker the farther you get away from an object, ad vise versa.
Gravity is soley affected by Mass and Distance
So the surface of a 100g object that has a radius of 2 meters has more gravitational force than a 100g object with a radius of 4 meters.
A black hole is an object that is so extremely dense that the force of gravity near it is strong enough to bend the very fabric of space itself and turns space around and pulls it back towards it.
Because space bends in this way photons (light) that would fly away move along the curvature of space and towards the center of the black hole.
Because there is no light leaving the black hole it cannot be seen by the human eye, and it appears black.
This is how I understand them
They are called Apparent horizons due to the newly described nature of black holes. The edge of the horizon causes such mass fluctuations in mass that it causes the horizon to rapidly shrink and expand by small amounts, meaning rather than being a particular line, it is a large flickering apparent horizon, apparent due to it moving more quickly than we can generally observe.
Except that due to that MASSIVE amount of mass inside a black hole, it actually happens incredibly often, which is seen in the large jets at the poles of black holes.
>So the surface of a 100g object that has a radius of 2 meters has more gravitational force than a 100g object with a radius of 4 meters
Talking Just about surfaces here, If you were the same distance away from both objects the force of gravity would be the same. The point is however that you can get closer to the smaller object.
Now I will describe what problems I can surmise from these theories.
Firstly, hawking radiation is seen at the poles of a black hole. If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is what causes the hawking radiation, why does it only happen at the poles as opposed to at the entirety of the black hole?
Secondly, if it is particles and anti particles being created, are only particles escaping? Because that's the only way I can see that the black hole would lose mass. Also, if so, why is that? If not, why are we not seeing anti particles jetting from the black hole as well?
So the black hole's gravity isn't directly pulling light in, it's pulling the space around it, through which light travels?
I'd discussed this with a friend years ago. I posited that in order for light to be pulled into a black whole, as described by all those science people, that would imply that light has mass.
Since it's an energy..wave, it shouldn't really have any mass at all.
If I understand your post correctly, you've just given me an "oooh ahhh" moment.