-Removed-The swirl effect we see in the disk is created by magnetic fields within the black hole - inside the event horizon?
No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiriling into the black hole.
Then there is also the case of Hawking radiation but to tell you the trth I don't fully understand the phenomenom but it is more complicated than the usual way it is presented.
But, isn't the event horizon a spherical event?
Here you should say spherical region not spherical event. It may seem as pedantry but the two concepts are only very loosely related.
Originally posted by adam warlockActually the jets are from the black hole and outwards.
No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiriling [b]into the black hole.
Then there is also the case of Hawking radiation but to tell you the trth I don't fully understand the phenomenom but it is more complicated than the usual way it is presented.
But, isn't the event horizon a spherical event?
Here you should sa ...[text shortened]... t spherical event. It may seem as pedantry but the two concepts are only very loosely related.[/b]
And material in the disc are spiraling into the black hole.
As I see it, Hawking radiation is exactly as 'simple' as it is described.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasAre you saying that the jets are coming from inside the event horizon of the black hole?
Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards.
And material in the disc are spiraling into the black hole.
As I see it, Hawking radiation is exactly as 'simple' as it is described.
Please explain to me Hawking radiation then. But not just with words. Give the equations and explain to me what every term means and why the pop science interpretation is valid.
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockNo, not from inside the event horizon, that isn't possible.
Are you saying that the jets are coming from inside the event horizon of the black hole?
Please explain to me Hawking radiation then. But not just with words. Give the equations and explain to me what every term means and why the pop science interpretation is valid.
There are numerous sources on the net giving you the explanation you want. You want me to copy and paste?
The explanation I have is as 'easy' to understand so a teenager can undestand it with no problem. You can find this on the net too.
What I'm actually saying is that there are 'simple' explanations that everyone can 'easily' understand. And you can get an explanation as complicated as you want. I usually don't use math if I want to keep it 'simple'.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnashttp://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/990923a.html
No, not from inside the event horizon, that isn't possible.
There are numerous sources on the net giving you the explanation you want. You want me to copy and paste?
The explanation I have is as 'easy' to understand so a teenager can undestand it with no problem. You can find this on the net too.
What I'm actually saying is that there are 'simple' n as complicated as you want. I usually don't use math if I want to keep it 'simple'.
Although accretion disks have sufficient energy to eject a small fraction of the infalling material as jets, it is not clear exactly how.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011125b.html
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, not from inside the event horizon, that isn't possible.I know it isn't possible, but in that case what does this means Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards.? It appears you used the word from in a weird way to say the least.
No, not from inside the event horizon, that isn't possible.
There are numerous sources on the net giving you the explanation you want. You want me to copy and paste?
The explanation I have is as 'easy' to understand so a teenager can undestand it with no problem. You can find this on the net too.
What I'm actually saying is that there are 'simple' n as complicated as you want. I usually don't use math if I want to keep it 'simple'.
The explanation I have is as 'easy' to understand so a teenager can undestand it with no problem. You can find this on the net too.
My point is that the explanation you see on the web that are made for teenagers aren't just oversimplistic. They are somewhat wrong. But I won't feign a deep understanding of Hawking radiation. But please don't keep it simple, just explain it as I asked you.
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockOh, you want me to be accurate to the letter? When I said "from a black hole", I meant "from the direction of the black hole". Not into, but out from.
No, not from inside the event horizon, that isn't possible.I know it isn't possible, but in that case what does this means Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards.? It appears you used the word from in a weird way to say the least.
The explanation I have is as 'easy' to understand so a teenager can undestand it ng of Hawking radiation. But please don't keep it simple, just explain it as I asked you.
Okay, do you want a complicated one explanation of Hawking radiation, or a simple one? If you want a complicated one, then it is of course complicated, by its very nature. But if you want to understand the basics of the phenomenon, then, in my view, it doesn't have to be complicated, with math and all. I have described Hawking-radiation to teenagers, and they were satisfied, and not overly confused.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOh, you want me to be accurate to the letter? When I said "from a black hole", I meant "from the direction of the black hole". Not into, but out from.
Oh, you want me to be accurate to the letter? When I said "from a black hole", I meant "from the direction of the black hole". Not into, but out from.
Okay, do you want a complicated one explanation of Hawking radiation, or a simple one? If you want a complicated one, then it is of course complicated, by its very nature. But if you want to understand t ...[text shortened]... described Hawking-radiation to teenagers, and they were satisfied, and not overly confused.
I just want to know why did you corrected me if, apparentely, we're saying the same thing.
Okay, do you want a complicated one explanation of Hawking radiation, or a simple one? If you want a complicated one, then it is of course complicated, by its very nature. But if you want to understand the basics of the phenomenon, then, in my view, it doesn't have to be complicated, with math and all. I have described Hawking-radiation to teenagers, and they were satisfied, and not overly confused.
I want the explanation with equations and you explaining what every term means.
Originally posted by adam warlockOh, I thought you wrote "No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiriling into the black hole." and I corrected this to "Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards." Do we agree about this?
Oh, you want me to be accurate to the letter? When I said "from a black hole", I meant "from the direction of the black hole". Not into, but out from.
I just want to know why did you corrected me if, apparentely, we're saying the same thing.
Okay, do you want a complicated one explanation of Hawking radiation, or a simple one? If you want ...[text shortened]... used.
I want the explanation with equations and you explaining what every term means.
No, I will not give you an explanation with math involved. Because this will not be a simple explanation. If you want the full explanation, then you have to google it yourself.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Oh, I thought you wrote "No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiraling into the black hole." and I corrected this to "Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards." Do we agree about this?"
Oh, I thought you wrote "No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiriling into the black hole." and I corrected this to "Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards." Do we agree about this?
No, I will not give you an explanation with math involved. Because this will not be a simple explanation. If you want the full explanation, then you have to google it yourself.
In that case what's the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote? 😕
The simple explanation that even a teenager can understand I know since my 14 years (more or less). And the explanation with the equation I also know from studying General Relativity. But the thing is that I could never translate the equation into the pop science lingo. And I can do that most of the time so it frustrated me.
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/hawkrad.htm
And don't take my word for it. Here you have John Baez saying it too:
...I've never seen how the standard computation can be transmuted into one involving virtual particles sneaking over the horizon, and in the last talk I was at on this it was emphasized that nobody has ever worked out a "local" description of Hawking radiation in terms of stuff like this happening at the horizon. I'd gladly be corrected by any experts out there... Note: I wouldn't be surprised if this heuristic picture turned out to be accurate, but I don't see how you get that picture from the usual computation. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
But hey!' what do we know when compared with your immense power and knowledge of pop science?! 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockadam warlock : "In that case what's the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?"
"Oh, I thought you wrote "No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiraling into the black hole." and I corrected this to "Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards." Do we agree about this?"
In that case what's the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote? 😕
The simple explanation that even a teenager ca we know when compared with your immense power and knowledge of pop science?! 🙄
I see clearly the difference between "spiralling into a black hole" and "from a black hole and outwards". Never mind...
I don't think I have an "immense power and knowledge of pop science" but people seems to understand what I'm saying when I try to explain things without math. But thanks anyway.
Originally posted by adam warlockWait, isn't Hawking radiation the main reason why people believe that CERN's black holes will not last more than a few nanoseconds? 😕
"Oh, I thought you wrote "No. The jets you see are cause by charged particles that are spiraling into the black hole." and I corrected this to "Actually the jets are from the black hole and outwards." Do we agree about this?"
In that case what's the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote? 😕
The simple explanation that even a teenager ca ...[text shortened]... we know when compared with your immense power and knowledge of pop science?! 🙄
You're scaring me.
PS: The difference in yours and FF's statement is that yours states that the particles in the jets are approaching the black hole and his states that they're moving away from it. I always thought it was the latter (like he said), can you clear this up?
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynka"Wait, isn't Hawking radiation the main reason why people believe that CERN's black holes will not last more than a few nanoseconds? 😕"
Wait, isn't Hawking radiation the main reason why people believe that CERN's black holes will not last more than a few nanoseconds? 😕
You're scaring me.
PS: The difference in yours and FF's statement is that yours states that the particles in the jets are approaching the black hole and his states that they're moving away from it. I always thought it was the latter (like he said), can you clear this up?
Well I never heard this explanation before now. I think that a very sensible thing to say is that nano black holes have really tiny even horizons so that the likelihood of something crossing it is zero for all practical purposes.
From what I know Hawking radiation isn't that clearcut to understand and hand waving arguments (if they even can be called that) are made all the time but if one wants to be intellectually honest they are just very poor arguments. And this view of particle pairs being Hawking radiation are everywhere. I think that most people never looked into the equations and just parrot what they heard as an explanation. It's more or less like the direction of the drain of water in a bathtub. The simple fact is that the Coriolis force doesn't have enough intensity to have any effect on the water's rotation but time and time again you see people saying that.
As for the second question: I think you already linked to this http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/990923a.html Now let's take a look at what they say:
"A fluid falling onto a small object usually cannot fall directly onto it --- most of the matter will miss the object initially, rotate around it, and only gradually be able to hit the central object. Think of draining your bathtub: Accretion disks are the celestial equivalent of this phenomenon, and can be found around black holes"
What I said (or intended to say) is that you have charged matter falling into the black hole and that causes the jets (which are just radiation). This is just one of the prediction of Maxwell equations: Accelerating charged matter emits radiation. And we have to be clear in the distinction of the falling matter and the emitted radiation (which is just another name for the jets)
I think that you are confusing this phenomenon with the pop science explanation of Hawking radiation but they are two different things.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThanks to Palynka I know understand this confusion. You're confusing jets with the matter that causes the jets.
adam warlock : "In that case what's the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?"
I see clearly the difference between "spiralling into a black hole" and "from a black hole and outwards". Never mind...
I don't think I have an "immense power and knowledge of pop science" but people seems to understand what I'm saying when I try to explain things without math. But thanks anyway.
Originally posted by adam warlockMy whole knowledge of physics is basically pop-science, but I'm willing to learn! 🙂
"Wait, isn't Hawking radiation the main reason why people believe that CERN's black holes will not last more than a few nanoseconds? 😕"
Well I never heard this explanation before now. I think that a very sensible thing to say is that nano black holes have really tiny even horizons so that the likelihood of something crossing it is zero for all practic ...[text shortened]... h the pop science explanation of Hawking radiation but they are two different things.
To clear my mind:
1. Why would CERN's black holes collapse if not because of Hawking radiation?
2. So you're saying that the disks are matter and the jets are radiation, correct? But wouldn't the radiation (which the jets are made off) still be going away from the black hole?