41

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 20/06/2022 22:48:31 »

I already have.

Please quote where you have (and more importantly than anything else, the source that supports your claim that all black holes make gamma rays).

we can reasonably infer that their gravitational fields are composed of electrons.

Gravitational fields are not made of electrons.

if anything like a QGP forms the outer layer of a black hole (i.e. something that's positively charged)

It doesn't. Black holes don't have an "outer layer". The event horizon is not a physical object.

42

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 20/06/2022 21:51:56 »

We are going round in circles. Please review this thread and reflect on how I've addressed these issues in the previous posts.

What you said was incorrect. You claimed that all black holes produce gamma rays, regardless of size, and that those gamma rays are red shifted by gravity to longer wavelengths like radio waves. That position is not supported by Hawking's paper.

Can you explain how an object with a temperature much less than 3 kelvins (which is the temperature of stellar mass black holes, as per Hawking's paper) can emit gamma rays as thermal radiation? And no, blue-shifting is not the answer.

43

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 20/06/2022 21:46:47 »

Don't you agree that here must be a connection between the dark matter and the winding problem?

Maybe, I'm not sure.

Therefore, again - do you confirm that based on this article we can understand that stars can hold themselves in the spiral arms by gravity?

Gravity can't hold things together as if they were solid objects, so I hope that's not what you meant by this question.

So, do you accept the idea that in this article they clearly discuss about the impact of real gravity between two key elements in the spiral galaxy (without even one word about the dark matter imagination)?

Even if dark matter isn't necessary to explain the structure of the spiral arms, it is still necessary to explain the anomalous galactic rotation curve (either that or some version of MOND or some other new theory).

44

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 20/06/2022 21:35:11 »

The size of the black hole is irrelevant. I think I've basically pointed this out already.

Not according to Hawking's equation, it isn't.

Prior to that point, they are giving off gamma radiation, all the time

Again, provide a source that this applies to all black holes, regardless of size.

will be subject to huge gravitational forces and, hence, blueshifting.

That's not how that works. Blue shift and red shift imply a shift in wavelength. A shift in wavelength means that the wavelength has changed from one value to another. However, the photons in Hawking radiation literally start off near the horizon. It's not like they were transported there from somewhere else. If you claim that the wavelength of those photons is blue shifted, then what are they blue shifted from? What was their previous wavelength? They can't have one, because they didn't exist before.

Here is Hawking's original paper about Hawking radiation: https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf

Hawking confirms here that a black hole of solar mass is actually very cold:

For a black hole of solar mass (10³³ g) this temperature is much lower than the 3 °K temperature of the cosmic microwave background.

An object that cold does not emit gamma rays as thermal radiation. He also confirms that tiny black holes on the verge of evaporating are very hot:

As they got smaller, they would get hotter and so would radiate faster. As the temperature rose, it would exceed the rest mass of particles such as the electron and the muon and the black hole would begin to emit them also. When the temperature got up to about 10¹² °K or when the mass got down to about 10¹⁴ g the number of different species of particles being emitted might be so great [11] that the black hole radiated away all its remaining rest mass on a strong interaction time scale of the order of 10^-23 s. This would produce an explosion with an energy of 10³⁵ ergs. Even if the number of species of particle emitted did not increase very much, the black hole would radiate away all its mass in the order of 10^-28M³ s. In the last tenth of a second the energy released would be of the order of 10³⁰ ergs.

Now 10¹² K is definitely hot enough to emit gamma rays.

So I have a source here, from Hawking himself, that says large black holes are cold and small black holes are hot. He does not say in his paper that all black holes are very hot gamma emitters. So I've provided a source against the gamma ray claim of yours. Can you provide a source that shows this is wrong?

45

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the inverse square law only approximately correct in general relativity?

« on: 20/06/2022 04:45:37 »

It also falls apart for great distance since spacetime isn't Minkowskian at the largest scales.

Any idea what distances such a thing would happen at?

46

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 20/06/2022 04:40:52 »

Density wave theory is not something I am well acquainted with, so I don't know if everything you've said is accurate or not. I know that dark matter is invoked to explain the galactic rotation curve anomaly. I don't know the relationship of that to the nature of the spiral arms.

47

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is the inverse square law only approximately correct in general relativity?

« on: 20/06/2022 03:06:27 »

The inverse square law (whether related to gravitational field strength or electromagnetic radiation flux) seems to be derived from the mathematical relations of Euclidean (flat) space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#/media/File:Inverse_square_law.svg

In accordance with general relativity, the space near a massive body isn't perfectly Euclidean. Does this mean that the inverse square law is only an idealized approximation and might fail to produce accurate calculations under certain circumstances, such as those close to black holes?

48

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 20/06/2022 00:54:58 »

That link is about primordial black holes. I am talking about stellar mass and supermassive black holes.

49

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 19/06/2022 22:55:43 »

I see you told Bored Chemist to post a source for his claims. I would now like to ask you to do the same. Please post a source that supports your claim that Hawking radiation starts off as gamma rays.

50

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 19/06/2022 20:44:15 »

That depends upon its direction of travel. Some will be traveling towards the hole before passing the event horizon. Those would be blue shifted. Some will be moving away from the black hole and thus red shifted.

51

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 19/06/2022 20:34:40 »

Again, no. Whether or not a photon is blue shifted or red shifted depends on whether or not it is moving into or out of a gravity well. Stating that a photon is blue shifted because it is near a strong source of gravity is incorrect because you have not defined the direction of movement.

If you acknowledge the accuracy of the calculator, then you accept that stellar mass black holes produce primarily radio waves, not gamma rays.

52

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 19/06/2022 20:10:51 »

No, merely being near a strong source of gravity does not blue shift anything. Moving further into the gravity well will blue shift the light, whereas light moving up and out of the gravity well will be redshifted.

No, Hawking radiation is not always gamma rays. Go look at that calculator I linked. Photons with a wavelength in the range of kilometers absolutely are not gamma rays.

53

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 19/06/2022 18:05:32 »

and what wavelength would these photons be given the gravitational potential energy they're subject to near a black hole event horizon?

That depends upon the mass of the black hole. The more massive the hole, the longer the wavelength of the photons. This calculator can be used to determine the wavelength of the peak photons emitted as Hawking radiation: https://www.vttoth.com/CMS/physics-notes/311-hawking-radiation-calculator

For a black hole of 3 solar masses (and radius of about 8.86 kilometers) , the peak photon wavelength is about 178.5 kilometers. That's well into radio wave territory. If you want to get a black hole with gamma rays as the peak wavelength (about a picometer or less), then the black hole would need to have a mass on the order of 3.34 x 10¹⁰ metric tons and have a radius of about 49.66 femtometers. So stellar mass black holes and above are primarily radio emitters, not gamma emitters. Primordial black holes, should they exist, could be much smaller and thus plausible gamma emitters.

In any case, any and all photonic radiation (either incoming or outgoing) near an event horizon will be de facto gamma radiation due to the blueshifting near the horizon.

That's not true. Photons are blueshifted when moving towards a source of gravity and redshifted when moving away. Your link about gravitational redshift even confirms this:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation will lengthen as it climbs out of a gravitational well. Photons must expend energy to escape, but at the same time must always travel at the speed of light, so this energy must be lost through a change of frequency rather than a change in speed. If the energy of the photon decreases, the frequency also decreases. This corresponds to an increase in the wavelength of the photon, or a shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum – hence the name: gravitational redshift. This effect was confirmed in laboratory experiments conducted in the 1960s.

The exact opposite happens in very strong gravitational fields.

Please provide a source for this, as it contradicts what your link says. According to your link, gravitational redshift should become stronger with increasing mass because a photon would have to expend more energy to climb up against a stronger gravitational field.

54

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 19/06/2022 17:34:15 »

Are there any peer-reviewed articles written about these experiments?

55

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 19/06/2022 04:57:14 »

How long do we need to wait?

I don't know, as I haven't looked up the numbers. Given that gravity is about 10⁴⁰ times weaker than electromagnetism, we'd have to wait much, much longer than we would for normal matter to condense.

The age of the Milky Way is estimated for more than 12 BY. So why the dark matter in our galaxy didn't clump yet?

Not enough time has passed yet. Gravitational waves carry away extremely small amounts of energy for all but the most massive objects.

Well, can we claim that as we don't know how the ordinary matter can explain the activity in the spiral galaxy, we have decided that we need some support for extra gravity?

That is what the observations say, yes.

Therefore, can we agree that as we have decided that there is a need something that we can't see, can't smell and can't feel, let's call it dark matter and claim that it can only contribute extra gravity?

That's what the observations suggest, yes.

Did we even found even one particle of dark matter?

Not unambiguously.

Do we really know how the gravity could spread the dark matter particles in the galaxy so it would fit to the requested formula?

What formula are you talking about?

As the dark matter is up to 100,000 LY it is very clear that the solar system and the Earth should constantly collide with dark matter particles as they orbit around the galaxy. So why we can't see a rain of dark matter particles falling on our heads?

Because, as has been stated before, dark matter only seems to interact gravitationally. In order to see something, it has to interact with light in some way. Dark matter is invisible because it doesn't interact with electromagnetism.

If you think that the solar system is not big enough, then what about the spiral arms or ring? The thickness of the ring is 3,000 LY.

That doesn't matter if it only interacts via gravity.

Don't you agree that it is quite massive object that should collide with the dark matter - if there was any dark matter?

No. Dark matter is not tangible. It passes through normal matter as if it wasn't there (similar to neutrinos). That is because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. Normal matter does, that is why normal matter can't pass through other matter in such a ghost-like manner.

If the dark matter can't shed its energy, then why do we ignore its impact?

You mean ignore it physically impacting us? I already answered that above.

As the total mass of the dark matter is at least 5 times bigger than the ordinary matter, why we can't assume that some of the cosmic energy is due to dark matter/energy?

What do you mean by "cosmic energy"?

If the galaxy with its ordinary matter/stars is changing much faster than the dark matter, then then how the dark matter can fit itself to changes in the galaxy?

Who said that it was? It's not like dark matter has to do such a thing.

Do you agree that if in the past the dark matter was OK for the Milky way, then as the galaxy had been surly changed in the last billions years - then the old dark matter density (that can't change fast enough) can't fit anymore to the current milky way?

Over a few billion years, the Milky Way probably hasn't changed a whole lot in terms of its overall shape, honestly.

In other words - why can't we just agree that our scientists have invented the idea of dark matter as they have no clue how spiral galaxy can work only based on ordinary matter?

That's pretty much exactly what dark matter is: a concept invoked to explain anomalies in the observations. That's how a lot of science works.

56

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How the atomic model works?

« on: 18/06/2022 20:15:33 »

What is the theory that a smaller mass " electron" is not as a bigger mass "satellite"? They are both matter with a centripetal force

I already answered that: quantum mechanics. Electrons absolutely do not behave like satellites. This is simply observed to be true. Electrons have been observed to not behave like satellites in orbit. To say otherwise is to deny observation.

57

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How the atomic model works?

« on: 18/06/2022 17:52:16 »

It's due to quantum mechanics. Unlike a rocket in orbit around the Earth (which can have any arbitrary altitude desired), electrons are quantum objects that can only have distinct energy levels and thus "orbits" in an atom.

58

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 17/06/2022 22:16:43 »

How could it be that the gravity can't clump the dark matter, while the dark matter can clump a regular matter by gravity?

In principle, if you waited long enough, it possibly could. The issue here is that it, so far as we know, only interacts via the gravitational force. That greatly limits the way that dark matter particles can shed energy. Normal matter interacts via both gravity and the electromagnetic force. If you have a cloud of atoms, they can shed energy by releasing electromagnetic radiation. This causes the cloud to cool off and contract over time, until it forms a star or planet or whatever. Gravity, which is far, far weaker than electromagnetism, would not allow a cloud of dark matter to cool off and contract nearly so quickly. So you still have a cloud of dark matter long after a cloud of normal matter has already contracted into stellar or planetary bodies.

59

Technology / Re: Where is the energy from global warming stored?

« on: 13/06/2022 03:03:26 »

My point with the car example was to counter one specific statement of yours: that all materials warm at a similar rate. They do not.

60

Technology / Re: Where is the energy from global warming stored?

« on: 12/06/2022 03:03:01 »

Yes they did Colin, they said cars warm differ tly in the sun, which is just like the thermodynamics of a large system in equilibrium.

Who said the Earth was in equilibrium?