It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Epitaph666: When you say "most galaxies"... well, what do the other galaxies have in their center?
Nothing. They are just clasters of stars that at some point were parts of bigger galaxies.
avatar
Epitaph666: And what exactly was the behaviour and properties that Hawking predicted? :)
Ok, I stand corrected. So far "Hawking radiation" hasn't been observed directly. Still, there are indirect evidence of it's existance.
deleted
Post edited March 15, 2018 by Fairfox
avatar
Breja: (...) I'm trying to improve my rather pathetic grasp on science. I've already read Astrophysics for People in a Hurry and Flatterland.
A very good book in my opinion is Christophe Galfard's The universe in your hand; i totally recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn about the universe but has no prior knowledge of its wonders (and it doesn't assume you have any knowledge of physics; there are absolutely no equations in it). As for your case Breja, i'm not sure if there will be any overlapping information between this and the two books you mentioned above (most possibly will be some), but given the way mr Galfard presents the whole thing (like a novel) i don't think you'll lose anything by reading this one as well. It is suitable for teens too and it is definitely a great gift to give (well, what book isn't?).

https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/christophe-galfard/the-universe-in-your-hand
avatar
Breja: (...) I'm trying to improve my rather pathetic grasp on science. I've already read Astrophysics for People in a Hurry and Flatterland.
avatar
Vythonaut: A very good book in my opinion is Christophe Galfard's The universe in your hand; i totally recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn about the universe but has no prior knowledge of its wonders (and it doesn't assume you have any knowledge of physics; there are absolutely no equations in it). As for your case Breja, i'm not sure if there will be any overlapping information between this and the two books you mentioned above (most possibly will be some), but given the way mr Galfard presents the whole thing (like a novel) i don't think you'll lose anything by reading this one as well.
Overlap is not a problem - unofrtunately I have very poor memory, and that's especially egregious when it comes to subjects of science. So if I go through the same thing multiple times maybe some of it will stick. Hence the need to re-read Hawking's seminal book.

I'll try to rememer about the book you speak of, though for now I think I have quite enough material to go through: other than A Short History of Time I've already got Hawking's Grand Design, Steven Weinberg's Dreams of Final Theory and Physics of Star Trek and Beyond Star Trek both by Lawrence Krauss waiting their turn. And this is all just a side thing, I'm not going to push through them like I'm studying for an exam, so it's gonna take me a while before I need even more stuff.
Post edited March 15, 2018 by Breja
avatar
Epitaph666: When you say "most galaxies"... well, what do the other galaxies have in their center?
avatar
LootHunter: Nothing. They are just clasters of stars that at some point were parts of bigger galaxies.
avatar
Epitaph666: And what exactly was the behaviour and properties that Hawking predicted? :)
avatar
LootHunter: Ok, I stand corrected. So far "Hawking radiation" hasn't been observed directly. Still, there are indirect evidence of it's existance.
avatar
LootHunter:
FIrst of all thanks for answering. I'll check the link after later cause i have to run for some errands now.

As for me the alternative theory that fits best is the Electric Universe theory. That basically says that plasma (that is common in the exosphere/outer space) is the mediator for the powers that be and that there are no black holes (with infinite densities) as they've been invented, but instead there's a plasmoid where the "black holes" are that has magnetic forces. And the magnetic force is extremely bigger than the gravitational force.
That's why i came to believe this theory instead of the one with the Black Holes.

Again i might be wrong. But until i realize that, let the fool be... Just voicing my opinion on the matter. You can take what you like.

Cheers
avatar
Epitaph666: As for me the alternative theory that fits best is the Electric Universe theory.
The problem is that EU theory doesn't really fit. At least with experiments. Here is the link about a few observations that contradict EU theory
avatar
Vythonaut: Just read the news; may he rest in peace, his contribution to science was a significant one.

avatar
Epitaph666: Also good jokes about "not even light can escape" but then "we see Black Holes spitting out matter/beams"... To my mind is just BS.
avatar
Vythonaut: The radiation that escapes a black hole isn't actually from inside the black hole but it is believed to happen just before the event horizon, but it is yet to be actually observed and verified by scientists. No need to explain the proposed mechanism here, but if you're interested in the subject you may want to search for "Hawking radiation". Also, this topic is explained in Hawking's excellent book "A brief history of time" if you prefer this way of learning.
Actually, I happen to like explaining this sort of thing, so I will explain my understanding of this phenomenon, known as Hawking radiation (guess who that was named after?):

The area by the event horizon is empty; it has zero energy. However, it turns out that "empty" space isn't empty; the Heisenburg uncertainty principle puts a minimum on the uncertainty of the product of energy and time. Hence, if you observe the vacuum at a short enough time scale, the energy will be fluctuating, and hence it's possible for a particle/antiparticle pair to appear out of nowhere, as long as the total energy is 0 (to not violate conservation of energy).

Normally, the particle/antiparticle pair will annihilate each other, so there's no energy coming out of nowhere. However, if the pair happens to cross the event horizon, things get interesting. One member of the pair gets sucked into the black hole, but the other one escapes. Since the escaping particle doesn't get annihilated immediately, it has positive energy; hence, energy appears to come from the black hole.

Of course, in order to not violate conservation of energy, the particle that does not escape must have *negative* energy; this causes the black hole to lose mass. (Remember, mass and energy are the same thing thanks to a famous Einstein equation.) Hence, a black hole can evaporate this way.

Isn't modern physics strange and counter-intuitive?
Something you might find interesting:
For the last few months of his life, his old speech synthesis device was replaced with a Raspberry Pi that emulated the old system.

Apparently, part of the code for that emulator was taken from the emulator Higan. You never know where a piece of code might end up!