question about "dumb holes"
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:09 am
question about "dumb holes"
I recently read of some experiments where a similar construct to a mini black hole was created, except in relation to sound rather than light. No sound waves escaped from this "dumb hole". If this puts the theory of Hawking radiation on shaky ground... does it pose ANY interest to the physicists at CERN?
If a mini black hole behaves as a mini dumb hole, and does not evaporate, what happens after it is created?
If a mini black hole behaves as a mini dumb hole, and does not evaporate, what happens after it is created?
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Th first thing comming to my mind regarding this is:
Hawkingradiation was proclaimed for virtuell matter particles and their respective antimatter counterparts and not for photons evenso the result of the decay of the one leftover partner would be a photon.
There are sure virtuel photons and probably also virtual phonons, but since there isnt anything like nan antiphoton and also virtual photons do not appear as pairs like virtuel matterparticles, I doulbt that virtuel photons and virtuel phonons would subject to the Hawking mechanism in the same way like pairs of virtuel matter antimatter-pairs.
Hawkingradiation was proclaimed for virtuell matter particles and their respective antimatter counterparts and not for photons evenso the result of the decay of the one leftover partner would be a photon.
There are sure virtuel photons and probably also virtual phonons, but since there isnt anything like nan antiphoton and also virtual photons do not appear as pairs like virtuel matterparticles, I doulbt that virtuel photons and virtuel phonons would subject to the Hawking mechanism in the same way like pairs of virtuel matter antimatter-pairs.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Well... dumb hole is in general a pipe in which a liquid or gas flows faster than is the speed of sound in that medium. Therefore logically the sound in that medium can only propagate one way (from the point of view of external stationary observer). It sure is nice and interesting physical experiment but I don't really see any direct relation to real black holes.
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Dumb-holes made from BEC could explode see the Bosenova topic.curiouser1 wrote:If a mini black hole behaves as a mini dumb hole, and does not evaporate, what happens after it is created?
btw here's an interesting article on these ho's, The quest for a 'Dumb Hole' - Will the first Hawking radiation be not seen but heard?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:09 am
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Thank y'all for the replies. I'm confused as to why they (physicists) originally stated that this method may be a way to study potential Hawking radiation if the two (phonons and photons) behave so fundamentally differently. It's difficult for an outsider such as myself to tell which brilliant person (or group) is correct and which is not.
As to the bosenova, I have read a little on that as well. Very interesting, appears to be supported by the experimental results at Haifa University...
As to the bosenova, I have read a little on that as well. Very interesting, appears to be supported by the experimental results at Haifa University...
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Its not photons and phonons which behave differently, but that Hawking radiatin is also not proclaimed for photons but for pairs of virtual matter- and antimatter-particles, only
thedecay of the leftover particle would generate a photon which finally becomes the Hawking radiation.
thedecay of the leftover particle would generate a photon which finally becomes the Hawking radiation.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Well, all that popular-science hawking radiation explanation sounds fishy to me. The particle that does not end up eaten by the black hole IMO does not escape or decay, it rather recombines with another virtual particle that got torn apart in an opposite way. So the only difference here is difference of the amount of space "above" and "below" the event horizon. Here I'm starting to understand why escaping photons have wavelength related to the event horizon size.
Re: question about "dumb holes"
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, fact is the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed. It might very well not exist, and if it does our planet could be build around a black hole ...curiouser1 wrote:It's difficult for an outsider such as myself to tell which brilliant person (or group) is correct and which is not.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich
Re: question about "dumb holes"
If we stick to standard model, no black hole can be created in particle collisions.
If we use extensions of standard model (which are all just hypotheses without any real proofs), it's either hawking radiation exists and black hole can be created, or hawking radiation does not exist and black hole cannot be created. Funny how these two simple things work together.
To get a black hole out of particle collisions without hawking radiation, we must assume that nature is driven by something that is not described by any existing and at least partially consistent hypothesis. Only at this point the reality check is used showing us no signs of the universe being eaten by myriads of black holes out of cosmic ray collisions.
The last option is we have been eaten by a miniature black hole long time ago and didn't notice. But even in that case I believe we don't have to worry about anything because if we didn't notice the first one, we probably won't notice the second one too.
If we use extensions of standard model (which are all just hypotheses without any real proofs), it's either hawking radiation exists and black hole can be created, or hawking radiation does not exist and black hole cannot be created. Funny how these two simple things work together.
To get a black hole out of particle collisions without hawking radiation, we must assume that nature is driven by something that is not described by any existing and at least partially consistent hypothesis. Only at this point the reality check is used showing us no signs of the universe being eaten by myriads of black holes out of cosmic ray collisions.
The last option is we have been eaten by a miniature black hole long time ago and didn't notice. But even in that case I believe we don't have to worry about anything because if we didn't notice the first one, we probably won't notice the second one too.
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: question about "dumb holes"
In my opinion its again not as simple as this since there is at least the possibility of fast moving blackholes behave different to planets than low momentom blackholes in the referenceframe of the gravityfield of a planet or solarsystem.
But if there were fast moving blackholes created bymany cosmicraycollissions wouldn't the space be full of them, wouldn't there be something like a cosmic-blackhole-background (micro-blackholes present everywhere). If there was shouldn't theeses myriards of microblackholes be seen in some kind of detector? Second shouldn't such traveling blackholes eat up our planet if not in one catastrophic event but rather little by little everyday?
Only possiblility to get around this was if microblackholes only grow when they are fed with sufficient matter but decay in some way when they travel in empty space for a long time.
Nevertheless, the point that the possibility to create blackholes at rather low energys and their decay by Hawking radiatin are 2 sides of the same theory and thereby always go together, is a very good one as long as it is true. That would mean as long as we find no Hawking radiatin of any kind because there is non we can also feel save that no blackholes will be created at energies available to the LHC.
But if there were fast moving blackholes created bymany cosmicraycollissions wouldn't the space be full of them, wouldn't there be something like a cosmic-blackhole-background (micro-blackholes present everywhere). If there was shouldn't theeses myriards of microblackholes be seen in some kind of detector? Second shouldn't such traveling blackholes eat up our planet if not in one catastrophic event but rather little by little everyday?
Only possiblility to get around this was if microblackholes only grow when they are fed with sufficient matter but decay in some way when they travel in empty space for a long time.
Nevertheless, the point that the possibility to create blackholes at rather low energys and their decay by Hawking radiatin are 2 sides of the same theory and thereby always go together, is a very good one as long as it is true. That would mean as long as we find no Hawking radiatin of any kind because there is non we can also feel save that no blackholes will be created at energies available to the LHC.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: question about "dumb holes"
To my understanding, these dumb holes never evaporated. If you are saying that they have the potential to explode, does it mean that we are all in danger? If we experienced a Bosenova, how much damage would there be?
Last edited by Stephen on Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Up to now there was not any damage done in any observed bosenova only the effect of some possibly missing matter, which cannot be explained by now.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Um... are you sure you know what words dumbhole and bosenova mean?Stephen wrote:To my understanding, these dumb holes never evaporated. If you are saying that they have the potential to explode, does it mean that we are all in danger? If we experienced a Bosonova, how much damage would there be?
Please tell me:
- what do you think evaporation of a dumbhole could look like?
- what do you think explosion of a dumbhole could look like?
- how do you think we could "experience a Bosenova"?
I'm afraid you don't really understand the nature of these (completely unrelated, btw) physical phenomenons... because if you did I'd really not expect such questions.
Re: question about "dumb holes"
Are you sure you know what "curiousity" and "being polite" mean? Because if you did, I would not expect such a condescending behavior from you.
Re: question about "dumb holes"
I know what "curiosity" or "being polite" means, the only one I needed to look up in the dictionary was "condescending".Stephen wrote:Are you sure you know what "curiousity" and "being polite" mean? Because if you did, I would not expect such a condescending behavior from you.
Now please replace "dumbhole" with "phone call" in your question and you might see the reason. I'm sorry if I offended you, I was not trying to. It was just a bit too ridiculous for me. There's still a chance I'm wrong though, that's why I asked my questions which you didn't answer.