Hawking's "evaporation" (as far as I know) doesn't allow matter a way to
*avoid* being pulled into the BH. If I remmebr the argument correctly (I'm
not a physicist either ;), the extreme gravitational energy of the black
hole right above the horizon creates the vaporative "Hawking radiation"
from the vacuum fluctionations that quantum mechanics predict. QM predicts
that "virtual particles" are created and destroyed continuously at very
small sscales in space (10ee-23 cm I tthink) because of the uncertainty
principle (applied to erergy and time I think). The particles are created
in pairs of (memory of Brieg History of Time elides) normal,
positive-energy particles amd "exotic" or negaitve energy partilces. The
black holes gravitation can turn some of the negaitve-energy particles
into positive energy particles, which then fly out from the event horizon
into space. This allows the black hole to radiate a so called black-body
spectrum of radiation, and return the entropy to the rest of the universe
eventually, so the second law of themodynamics isn't violated. However,
I'm not sure if the rate of evaporation can ever be equal to the inflow of
radiation, or if that matters in the long-run (the VERY long run, the time
for a normal black hole formed by an imploding star to evaporate
completely is longer than the age of the universe.)
A good book about all of this stuff (that I'm reading now) is Kip Thorne's
_Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outragious Legacy_. Hawking's
_Brief History of Time_ introduces his evaporation theory well.
--- begin quoted text
"I'm not a theoretical physicist or any thing like that " but I love
Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Einstein suggests that a
relationship exists between energy and matter, Matter is not infinitely
compressable because in addition to mass it also occupies space. If the
cosmos as we know it did begin with the big bang ( a rapid expansion
from a singularity to all that we know and hold dear) , then it must be
possible for escape to occure from a super massive black hole. I also
seem to recall that Hawking speculated that matter may be able to escape
a black hole through a process something like evaporation. This would
imply that an energetic churning occures within a black hole, I have a
difficult time imagining a single point having internal agitation.
Woody
L vRooy wrote:
>Jochen wrote
>--But you're right, the black hole itself doesn't get
>--bigger, only heavier.
>
>This means matter is infinely compressible?
>How far from the event horizon does this singularity exists (variable of
course)? The pictures usually show this as a vortex shape, does the
formulas predict that?
>
>excuzatti if this is a bit 1st y college Q.s
>
>Les vRooy
><lvrooy_at_iafrica.com>
>
>
>
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net --- end quoted text-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 06:02:18 EDT