Inactive black holes?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by NonEuclidean</i>
<br />I've read about "inactive" black holes in an article over at space.com. I was wondering, how can inactive black holes exist? Isn't it the sole "purpose" of black holes to swallow nearby matter? I think it was Hawking himself who stipulated that if a black hole runs out of matter to devour, the event horizon will crush on the singularity and the whole thing will "vanish"...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Hawking radiation" would cause any black hole that is not consuming matter to eventually shrink and vanish. However, that is a very slow process. For practical purposes, a "black hole" can be inactive for millions of years without much change being noticed.

Remember, this is all mathematical "theory", and likely lacks any counterparts in physical reality. As far as physics is concerned, highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars". These were a 19th century idea -- ordinary stars so massive and compact that not even light can escape. The relativistic ideas of collapse to a singularity, interchange of space and time, an event horizon, etc. are modern inventions stemming from relativist J.A. Wheeler. Einstein himself argued extensively against the possibility of such things existing even in his theory, let alone in reality.

Here at Meta Research, where we are not obliged to accept current mainstream opinions as dogma just because that is the only way to get funded through normal channels, we have laid out the principles that forbid singularities in nature in "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

NASA is trapped into supporting "black hole" research because "proof of black holes" was one of the four justifications NASA gave Congress to get funding for the Hubble Space Telescope. But political expediency does not make such things any more real. It merely means you will read about them often in the mainstream media outlets that still feel a need to curry favor with NASA. -|Tom|-

Thank you for your response.

However, what I ment with my question was how can a black hole be inactive in terms of not swallowing nearby matter (even if surrounded by it, say as in galactic cores and globular clusters). I mean, theoretically we are dealing with very strong gravitational powers that can influence nearby stars up to many lightyears.

Regarding to the other part of your response, I'd just say that I support the ideas that there are many things modern physics can't explain. See, I strongly accept the quantum model, yet I am (paradoxically) amazed by the possibility of singularities (aren't those two impossible together?)

However, as we can't quite grasp beyond the Planck's time, I am sure there will be alot of discussion of whether the singularities are possible, mathematically or physically, or not.

Though we don't know what is "outside" our Universe, and I think we will never be able to find that out - does that mean we should reject the possibility of "external" manifestations that can well disrupt the very core of laws of thermodynamics? What if it is possible for an "external" object to "penetrate" into our universe, or say actually, "internal" object to penetrate "out" of it, as with singularities? Such event would clearly be undescribable with physics and math that applies to this universe, no? And yet, it will break the vey first law of thermodynamics, as energy will "leak" out. I am curious.

(I am aware we can't talk in terms of "inside" and "outside" as it may imply spatial dimensions or even some obscure state of "pre-quanta" or "sub-quanta", but again, I am sure we will never be able to describe the "outside" and can only speculate)

EDIT:
Still, I've read your article and I will say thank you, many things are much clearer for me. In fact, I can't imagine how come I've been such a dumbass not to think certain things thoroughly enough to come to same (or similar) conclusions regarding the logic of certain paradoxes. [)]

Please, allow me to outline some points.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font size="1">“No creation ex nihilo” is the principle that something cannot come into existence out of nothing. In a sense, it is another manifestation of the causality principle because such creation would represent an effect without a cause. However, this is a particular case worth considering on its own merits because our primary cosmology today, the Big Bang, begins with the ultimate creation-from-nothing scenario - the mass, space, and time of the entire universe from nothing - as its first step.</font id="size1"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This would apply to "in-system" creation. Within a system, nothing can be created ex nihilo, yes. But the very Big Bang idea is the concept of the creation of that system. Apparently from some "external" system our universe is "part" of (which does not have to be spatial). Again, all discussion must stop about this "supersystem", because we don't have a single bit of information or evidence of its nature.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font size="1">Many matters of considerable importance follow immediately from the principles of physics. For example, nature has no singularities. If it did, matter could disappear from the universe, violating the no demise ad nihil principle while also violating the finite cannot become infinite. The continued action of an external gravitational field after the cause of that field has permanently ceased to communicate with the outside universe is a cause without an effect.</font id="size1"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately, I must agree with this. You just shattered my illusion of how Black holes are mystical and powerful. [] And that those bodies can easily "trap" light, yet remain perfectly normal, but high density "stars".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font size="1">But it would be simpler, as in classical physics, to think of the ray path as curved and the space as straight. In fact, wherever we are in the universe, we can always construct three mutually perpendicular lines, extend them to infinity in both directions, and have all observers in the universe agree that these lines are straight, uniform, and parallel to the straight lines of all other observers, even if they pass near or through large masses.</font id="size1"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think the "curvature" applies in a system where nothing can travel faster than light. If light is, then, curved in such a system we can easily say that the "space" is curved, as nothing can travel beyond the lightspeed to prove otherwise.

But then, again, even in such a system we must ask "Curved in relation to what?". There must obviously be some observer who is "outside" of that system to be able to observe the curvature, just like we can observe the curvature of a sheet of paper, whereas the 2D creatures who live on that sheet will allways see one "straight" 2D space around him.


--
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle lecture is tomorrow in Memorial Hall OR at 9 o'clock.

Question for Tom,

Considering that Hawking Radiation is a consequence of GR and QM... do you actually buy it?

mhelland@techmocracy.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by NonEuclidean</i>
<br />how can a black hole be inactive in terms of not swallowing nearby matter (even if surrounded by it, say as in galactic cores and globular clusters). I mean, theoretically we are dealing with very strong gravitational powers that can influence nearby stars up to many lightyears.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A "black hole's" gravity is no stronger at any given distance than the gravity of the star it collapsed from. For distant matter to fall into it requires that the distant matter be headed right toward the black hole, or else almost perfectly stationary so that the hole's gravity can draw the matter toward itself. But with normal interstellar speeds, most matter moves too fast to be captured. And slower-moving matter would orbit, but not fall in, just as Earth orbits the Sun without falling in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">as we can't quite grasp beyond the Planck's time, I am sure there will be alot of discussion of whether the singularities are possible, mathematically or physically, or not. ... Though we don't know what is "outside" our Universe, and I think we will never be able to find that out - does that mean we should reject the possibility of "external" manifestations that can well disrupt the very core of laws of thermodynamics? What if it is possible for an "external" object to "penetrate" into our universe, or say actually, "internal" object to penetrate "out" of it, as with singularities? Such event would clearly be undescribable with physics and math that applies to this universe, no? And yet, it will break the vey first law of thermodynamics, as energy will "leak" out. I am curious. ... (I am aware we can't talk in terms of "inside" and "outside" as it may imply spatial dimensions or even some obscure state of "pre-quanta" or "sub-quanta", but again, I am sure we will never be able to describe the "outside" and can only speculate)...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "solution" to all these dilemmas lies in reading the first few chapters of my book, "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", which derives a new cosmology (the "Meta Model") from first principles only, absent any assumptions. This leads to interestong new interpretations of the nature of space, time, and matter, and for the origin and nature of the universe and of forces. In particular, you will find out why:

** Planck's time is not a limit
** singularities exist only in math, bit not in reality
** the "universe" is everything that exists <i>by definition</i>, so there cannot be something "ourside the universe"
** entropy is conserved over all scales
** much of quantum physics needs reinterpreting in physics, mostly because the existing interpretations wrongly assumed a speed-of-light velocity limit
** there was no "Big Bang"
** the universe is not even expanding
** and much more

If your library does not have the book, our web site store does:
metaresearch.org/store/advanced/default.asp -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />Considering that Hawking Radiation is a consequence of GR and QM... do you actually buy it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hawking radiation requires that "black holes" exist, but GR and QM do not require black holes. And I am in good company in maintaining that, because Einstein also held that black holes are impossible in physical reality. See his paper in "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 (October 1939). -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
The "solution" to all these dilemmas lies in reading the first few chapters of my book, "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", which derives a new cosmology (the "Meta Model") from first principles only, absent any assumptions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks!

I will surely get that book!

--
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle lecture is tomorrow in Memorial Hall OR at 9 o'clock.