0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

It seems a rather meaningless question as the normal definition of temperature does not seem to apply to the insides of black holes but my guess would be the planck temperature of 1.416833 × 10^32°K

As soon as it has, assuming that the inside of a black hole have a 'space' too, it should follow a geodesic. Now, when following a 'accelerating gravitational' geodesic, does the object give of heat in a empty space?

Hi Any ideas?

Quote from: @/antic on 09/04/2012 08:12:02Hi Any ideas?Depends on the size. Small black holes are very very hot. Large black holes are relatively cold.

clipTaking this concept a little further. As the succession of event horizons get smaller and the gravity gradient gets greater the Hawking radiation will get stronger until it is strong enough to soak up all the energy in the hole that is the Hawking radiation from the horizon together with the time it takes to fall back into the hole represents all the energy in the hole. This is a first bash at a serious proof of what is inside a simple scwartschild black hole. It is not a "new theory" it is just based on what we currently agree upon and I challenge someone to prove it wrong!

The original question was what is the temperature INSIDE a black hole. Now we do not know this but assuming that the hole is quiet i.e. There isn't lots of stuff falling into it. It will also be very cold just inside the event horizon because as the stuff inside contracts towards, whatever it is (certainly NOT a mathematical singularity), the gravitational field will increase and photons from the centre of the contraction will not be able make it even to just inside the first event horizon. So there will in effect be whole series of event horizons inside each smaller and warmer than the last.

Taking this concept a little further. As the succession of event horizons get smaller and the gravity gradient gets greater the Hawking radiation will get stronger until it is strong enough to soak up all the energy in the hole that is the Hawking radiation from the horizon together with the time it takes to fall back into the hole represents all the energy in the hole. This is a first bash at a serious proof of what is inside a simple scwartschild black hole. It is not a "new theory" it is just based on what we currently agree upon and I challenge someone to prove it wrong!

Quote from: Soul Surfer on 16/04/2012 19:02:50The original question was what is the temperature INSIDE a black hole. Now we do not know this but assuming that the hole is quiet i.e. There isn't lots of stuff falling into it. It will also be very cold just inside the event horizon because as the stuff inside contracts towards, whatever it is (certainly NOT a mathematical singularity), the gravitational field will increase and photons from the centre of the contraction will not be able make it even to just inside the first event horizon. So there will in effect be whole series of event horizons inside each smaller and warmer than the last. Why is it quantised SSurfer? Event horizons are cut-offs - I can see no reason for abrupt demarcations within the EH rather a gradual spectrum. As this is GR based - to get a quantisation you need a form of quantum gravity, or do you intend that this would lead to QG? QuoteTaking this concept a little further. As the succession of event horizons get smaller and the gravity gradient gets greater the Hawking radiation will get stronger until it is strong enough to soak up all the energy in the hole that is the Hawking radiation from the horizon together with the time it takes to fall back into the hole represents all the energy in the hole. This is a first bash at a serious proof of what is inside a simple scwartschild black hole. It is not a "new theory" it is just based on what we currently agree upon and I challenge someone to prove it wrong! So you end up with a shell (or a sphere) of radiation at an interior EH corresponding with the total mass/energy of the BH? The mass/energy of the BH is constantly and completely emitted via Hawking Radiation (the interior EHs acting as would a smaller BH - smaller=hotter) but this radiation would be entirely internal.My problem is that I cannot see why you can postulate the interior EHs! Once you have the interior EH then you can go onwards - but why are they there at all?

Isn't that one only for one kind of solution Wulf?For a Schwarzwild non rotating black hole if I remember right.Or can you use it for rotating ones too?

I can tell you why. The interior boundaries are created from space and time switching coordinates. I could show you math which explains how space and time switch roles... it doesn't really mean that space is really time and time is really space now, it's just a coordinate phenomena. The gravitational effects of a black hole become so strong at the horizon, that space and time switch roles: space becomes timelike and time becomes spacelike. Then somewhere inside the black holes, these artefacts change back to normal and it will be here you find the inner boundary. With that said, Sean Carrol is dedicting a lot of his time to weild the idea that we are living inside a black hole, and I can only presume it would be inside the interior where space and time are acting normally again.

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 17/04/2012 10:39:54I can tell you why. The interior boundaries are created from space and time switching coordinates. I could show you math which explains how space and time switch roles... it doesn't really mean that space is really time and time is really space now, it's just a coordinate phenomena. The gravitational effects of a black hole become so strong at the horizon, that space and time switch roles: space becomes timelike and time becomes spacelike. Then somewhere inside the black holes, these artefacts change back to normal and it will be here you find the inner boundary. With that said, Sean Carrol is dedicting a lot of his time to weild the idea that we are living inside a black hole, and I can only presume it would be inside the interior where space and time are acting normally again.Is it possible that space and time switching coordinates is the same as the arrow of time reversing?It would account for "space and time acting normally again".

Numerous event horizons at different gravitational potential? Differences in gravitational potential would normally imply different time dilation factors but at the event horizon time is already infinitely dilated (time stands still). Time can't go any slower inside the EH. Maybe time reverses direction. That would account for why something that is very hot from one reference point is actually very cold from another. Maybe from a time reversed reference frame within the EH, black body radiation of the black hole is seen from the outside as black-body absorbtion. Obviously, this is pure speculation as we have little idea of the physics of black holes.addedThe above would seem to be in keeping with my reply #6 in this thread."So is absolute hot, the same as absolute cold?"

Take what I said above as true...

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 28/04/2012 22:26:41Take what I said above as true... Mr Scientist AW,You do not hold a monopoly on science, so please do not tell other members to take anything as true without providing scientific proof.

I've been a physicist for over 20 years now and one term I never use is "true" or something similar to it.

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINI feel that confident with the famous George Ellis, this is all the references I need. Now, if time is not a river which extends from our past to future, then time cannot be linear. Besides, time is far from linear when you think about geometrical consequences of GR.

AW,You have been warned repeatedly that you may not patronize other members.Please do not do that again. I think you are very familiar with what will happen if you do.

Quote from: Geezer on 29/04/2012 05:30:03AW,You have been warned repeatedly that you may not patronize other members.Please do not do that again. I think you are very familiar with what will happen if you do.Where have I patronized anyone? Sorry Mike, I will answer you soon. I would like to be shown how I have been patronizing.

Do we think the curvature of spacetime is true?

If you are scared to use the word, you are not really agreeing with science.

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 29/04/2012 02:58:36Do we think the curvature of spacetime is true?As I said above, "true" is a word I never use. In this case it is not okay to think of curvature of spacetime is true. To be precise, this is not even a poorly phrased question. In the absense of matter the spacetime will expected not to be curved. If Einstein's equations are valid and region S of spacetime is calculated to have spacetime curvature then the value of spacetime is calculated to be non-zero then the appropriate to say that the spacetime region is curved.Now it's my turn to ask you a question. When I go out of the way to say that never is a word I use then why do you go out of your way to ask me the same question again?Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 29/04/2012 02:58:36If you are scared to use the word, you are not really agreeing with science.Please show me in this thread or any other thread where I said that I was scared to use? Also, please post a proof whose conclusion is that I'm not really agreeing with science.There are only a few instances wherein it is okay to say that it is okay to conclude that something is true/false.Correction: There actually are instances where it is okay to say something is true or false, or right or wrong. I made a mistake in saying otherwise. I've been off my game lately. This is not a result of being right or wrong. It is a result of having SSRI disorder syndrom. It's one of the reasons I haven't been posting as much as I used to.Let me give you an example: Correct example of when it's okay to say that something is true; Saying that the invariance of the speed of light is true is an example of when it is not okay to say that the speed of light is being invariance is true. We cannot say this as true because it is concievable that the speed of light might one day be measured to be different that c.There are, of course, othertimes where I use the term "true" in error which I say when I simply make a mistake in saying so (being human I will of course, make an error at times).It is also "true" to say that the number of golf balls in a bucket is three when the sum is two and I add one. It is true that the sum after adding one to make it three.I might have made an error above because it can be quite easy to make a mistake in terminology. Be careful in making assertions like the one you ended your post with, i.e. be cautious when you claim that I am not really agreeing with science.

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 29/04/2012 02:57:53...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINI feel that confident with the famous George Ellis, this is all the references I need. Now, if time is not a river which extends from our past to future, then time cannot be linear. Besides, time is far from linear when you think about geometrical consequences of GR.A river always flows downhill but not always at the same rate.If by linear you mean as in a straight line with equal divisions then from a local time frame, time is always linear. Observed from any other non-local frame then time is seldom linear unless that frame is co moving.

Quote from: Geezer on 29/04/2012 05:30:03AW,You have been warned repeatedly that you may not patronize other members.Please do not do that again. I think you are very familiar with what will happen if you do.Can I just say for the record in case Geezer does find a reason to banish me, is that the the partonization was supposed to be in this line:''If you are scared to use the word, you are not really agreeing with science.''I did not however imply he was. I said ''if''. I know plenty of people in science who would say the same thing about anyone. I wouldn't dodge a question by saying ''maybe'' to a simple question like what is the spin of a fermion, is it a 1/2 spin? I wouldn't go, ''maybe''... I would say ''true''. If I said ''maybe'' it would mean to be taken that I have reservations on my answer, that I perhaps don't entirely agree with what science has to say.