On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 5:54:50 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Hi Lawrence, thanks for a very interesting post.
>
> >
>> The vacuum is filled with virtual pairs of fields. With a black hole the
>> gravity field causes one of these pairs to fall into the black hole and the
>> other to e
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 5:02:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/14/2018 8:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:25:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
I think that would be true
Hi Lawrence, thanks for a very interesting post.
>
> The vacuum is filled with virtual pairs of fields. With a black hole the
> gravity field causes one of these pairs to fall into the black hole and the
> other to escape. This means the quantum particle or photon that escapes as
> Hawking radi
On 1/14/2018 8:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:25:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker >wrote:
>>
I think that would be true if, as in your example, the
observer were freely fal
I put in a short Penrose diagram of the
> Kerr-Newman black hole. Matter on the right I region will cross the r_+
> horizon and fall into the III spacelike region. From there it must cross
> the interior horizon at r_-. Now there are two funny points here. The first
> is whether
e. Matter on the right I region will cross
the r_+ horizon and fall into the III spacelike region. From there it
must cross the interior horizon at r_-. Now there are two funny points
here. The first is whether the r_- horizon is a mass inflation
singularity and prevents any information from
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:25:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
>
> >>
>>> I think that would be true if, as in your example, the observer were
>>> freely falling into the Black Hole, but if I was hovering just outside the
>>> Eve
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> I think that would be true if, as in your example, the observer were
>> freely falling into the Black Hole, but if I was hovering just outside the
>> Event Horizon in a super powerful spaceship I could observe the Black Hole
>> evapor
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:30:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/13/2018 2:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the singularity
>> (what the QM does? dunn
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> >
>> Go to https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/ to look an numerical
>> simulations of what falling into a black hole would
On 1/13/2018 3:55 PM, John Clark wrote:
I think that would be true if, as in your example, the observer were
freely falling into the Black Hole, but
if I was hovering just outside the Event Horizon in a super powerful
spaceship I could observe the Black Hole evaporating in just a few minutes
On 1/13/2018 2:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the
singularity (what the QM does? dunno). The inflowing radiation is
just that starlight that falls on the
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Go to https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/ to look an numerical
> simulations of what falling into a black hole would appear as. In effect
> nothing spectacularly different appears upon crossin
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 at 9:44 am, wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the singularity
>> (what the QM does? dunno). The inflowing radiation is just that starlight
>> that falls on the event horizo
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the singularity
> (what the QM does? dunno). The inflowing radiation is just that starlight
> that falls on the event horizon...which is not particularly bright.
>
> Brent
Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the singularity
(what the QM does? dunno). The inflowing radiation is just that
starlight that falls on the event horizon...which is not particularly
bright.
Brent
On 1/13/2018 9:18 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
Extremely hot and br
Go to https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/ to look an numerical
simulations of what falling into a black hole would appear as. In effect
nothing spectacularly different appears upon crossing the horizon. In fact
the event horizon becomes an apparent horizon, which has an identical
appearan
Extremely hot and bright due to trapped radiation? AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
FYI only. Don't have an opinion. Edgar
New Type of Star Emerges From Inside Black Holes
Born inside black holes, “Planck stars” could explain one of astrophysics’
biggest mysteries and may already have been observed by orbiting gamma ray
telescopes, say cosmologists
• The Physics arXiv
19 matches
Mail list logo
