Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429354 > unrolled thread

Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 19:41 -0700
    Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG  @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
    Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
      Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 12:28 -0700
        Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 23:25 -0700
        Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Séverin Thibault <ruud@bwiu.ei> - 2017-08-23 09:34 +0000
      Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
        Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
          Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
            Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:24 -0700
          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:26 -0700
            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
              Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
                Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
              Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
                  Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
                    Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
                          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
                            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
                  Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-25 21:20 +0000
                    Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-25 21:26 +0000
            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-24 02:31 -0700
    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
      Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#429354 — Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

On 8/18/17 8/18/17   5:37 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?

That depends on what you mean.

> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;

Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie near 
the center of most galaxies. This evidence has convinced most astrophysicists 
that these are indeed black holes, so it is not at all "zero".

The supermassive object at the center of the Milky Way exhibits several key 
aspects that are explained by it being a black hole, and which are not explained 
by any other known object:
  * X-rays characteristic of infalling matter, without the resulting
    collision with a surface.
  * the cutoff and redshift of emissions from that infalling matter are
    consistent with it being a black hole.
  * stars orbiting it come closer than the radius of any other known type
    of object with comparable mass (~ 4.1E6 solar masses).

In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with 
any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions between 
black holes.

Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#429355 — Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts.

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:30:31 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied:
> > > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> > 
> > Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes
> > lie near the center of most galaxies.
> 
> A very dense objects, yes.
> TRUE black holes, no.
> 
> Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> > Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.
> 
> Hopefully, if you repeat this enough,
> you'll take your own advice one day.
> 
> To update your "knowledge" of "Black Holes" ( past the classical ),
> please read:  WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29

This is semiclassical gravity though. IOW, a tentative approximation.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429397 — Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

You ( Odd Bodkin ) replied:
> > Very dense objects, yes.
> > TRUE black holes, no.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true"
> black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole? 

Google "SemiClassical Black Star".

> Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave  just like
> black holes but want to believe they are something else instead?

"Somewhat like", not "just like".
Stephen Hawking has been saying it since 2004, 13 years ago,
long after you stopped learning about it ( due to dementia, I assume ).

> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> What? Try to explain that. 

Quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;
so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

If you have REAL DATA to the contrary, 
you get the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

Quantum Correlations are acausal, like a series of dice tosses.
The Correlations say nothing about the next roll of the dice,
but they _can_ tell you that, in 100 tosses,
2 ( snake eyes ) happens less often than 7 ( 3 + 4, 1 + 6, etc. ).

Intrinsically, each toss is fully causal, not random.
SemiRandomness is SemiIgnorance, nothing more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429430 — Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

NobelPrize.ORG  @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

Idiot

-- 
Reader, suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of
Congress.  But I repeat myself.
		-- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429587 — Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>NobelPrize.ORG  @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>
>
>Idiot

Don't you "love" people who, because of their own stupidity and
ignorance, think that they know better than everyone else?

-- 
"Only Linux shitware is so braindead as to use case-sensitivity."  -
DumFSck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429659

On 8/18/17 9:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:  >> Jeff-Relf wrote:
>>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie
>> near the center of most galaxies.
> 
> A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the
> Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational evidence that
black holes exist. For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Moreover, I believe that the violation of the HUP occurs deep inside the
horizon, not outside where the observational evidence is. Nobody expects the GR
model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, because we expect quantum effects
to become significant there, and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

And you completely ignored the other evidence:
> In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions
> between black holes.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429740 — Re: More data, from more observers, is needed.

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> > any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
> > collisions between black holes.
> 
> They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;
> more data, from more observers, is needed.
> 
> > > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
> > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> > 
> > That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
> > the observational evidence that black holes exist. 
> 
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

You keep saying NONE and keep ignoring the surface/no-surface issue.

This alone invalidates the "NONE" claim. There is SOME evidence
is what an honest person can say.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429790 — Re: More data, from more observers, is needed.

W dniu wtorek, 22 sierpnia 2017 21:28:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> > > any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
> > > collisions between black holes.
> > 
> > They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;
> > more data, from more observers, is needed.
> > 
> > > > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
> > > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> > > 
> > > That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
> > > the observational evidence that black holes exist. 
> > 
> > There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
> 
> You keep saying NONE and keep ignoring the surface/no-surface issue.
> 
> This alone invalidates the "NONE" claim. There is SOME evidence
> is what an honest person can say.

There is also some evidence for angels pushing
planets on crystal rings: the planets move, nobody
is denying.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429805 — Re: More data, from more observers, is needed.

JanPB wrote:

>> > That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational
>> > evidence that black holes exist.
>> 
>> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
> 
> You keep saying NONE and keep ignoring the surface/no-surface issue.
> This alone invalidates the "NONE" claim. There is SOME evidence is what
> an honest person can say.

"SOME evidence"?? You are just great, you cant have it this way, since if 
you would, then that is NOT an evidence. EVIDENCES are characterize by 
existent or not existent. Either you have an evidence or you dont have it 
at all. You are just great, lol.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429834 — Re: More data, from more observers, is needed.

On 8/21/17 6:46 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
>> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
>> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
>> collisions between black holes.
> 
> They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;

No. They merged in a ways consistent with black holes in GR, and inconsistent 
with any known type of material objects.

>> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
>> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>> 
>> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
>> the observational evidence that black holes exist. 
> 
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Yes, there is. Your "none" is WRONG. YOU may not be convinced by it, but a 
majority of the astrophysics community is.

>> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
>> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.
> 
> Like what ?  It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from the infalling matter 
hitting the surface of such an object.

>> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, 
>> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there, 
>> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.
> 
> Exactly, we don't know.

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. We DO know that there are 
objects in the universe which are MUCH better described as black holes than as 
any other type of object.

HERE'S MY KEY POINT:
Until some better model is developed, scientists will model them as black holes. 
You seem to be seeking some sort of "complete and absolutely true knowledge" -- 
that simply is not possible for humans in the world we inhabit.

> more data, from more observers, is needed.

Always true, and this is no different from essentially any other field.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429860 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need 
>INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.

Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
inside that prevents formation of a singularity.  We can never know what
happens inside an event horizon.

We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
that are orbiting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
amongst others

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429863 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

On 8/23/17 4:26 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
>> We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need
>> INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.
> 
> Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
> the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
> there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
> inside that prevents formation of a singularity.  We can never know what
> happens inside an event horizon.
> 
> We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
> that are orbiting it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
> amongst others
> 

And to emphasize this, the "true" black hole is NOT the singularity. The 
defining feature is the event horizon.

There's no point in demanding proof in terms of something unobservable.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429882 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

W dniu środa, 23 sierpnia 2017 23:46:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/23/17 4:26 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> > 
> >> We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need
> >> INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.
> > 
> > Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
> > the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
> > there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
> > inside that prevents formation of a singularity.  We can never know what
> > happens inside an event horizon.
> > 
> > We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
> > that are orbiting it.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
> > amongst others
> > 
> 
> And to emphasize this, the "true" black hole is NOT the singularity. The 
> defining feature is the event horizon.
> 
> There's no point in demanding proof in terms of something unobservable.


Surely, there is no point in demanding proof from a
bunch of brainwashed morons producing some mystical
mumble.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429869 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>  Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

>"Thought", not "known".

"Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty. 

Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
(otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429883 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

W dniu czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2017 01:01:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
> >  Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
> >    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
> 
> >"Thought", not "known".
> 
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty. 

High enough for some halfbrains, at least.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429890 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

On 24/08/2017 00:01, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
>>   Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
> 
>> "Thought", not "known".
> 
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.
> 
> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
> (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

Wiki claims Sgr A has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU
(in the section on Schwarzchild radii - which is suspect is out of date)

(although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)

Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

Is it possible to see and interpret gravitational and Doppler spectral 
shifts for it as well as positional measurements?

Presumably we have to wait patiently for something chunky to go down the 
gravitational plughole and then we will get to find out the period of 
the last stable orbit more precisely.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429917 — Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>Martin Brown wrote:
>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

The 45 AU is the maximum radius of the object, not the precision of
any singularity.  They know the center of mass of the object (the
singularity, if there is one) to better than that, just from S14's orbit.

Regardless, the defining characteristic of a black hole is having an
event horizon, not a singularity.  Who knows, perhaps there is physics,
unknown to us, that prevents formation of a singularity in a black hole.
Doesn't matter, as long as there is an event horizon, it's a black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429999 — Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Jeff-Relf.Me, @. wrote:
> 
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
> 
> Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜
> 
>   [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.
> 
>   The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]
> 
>   the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
>          [...]
>   [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding.  ＞＞
> 
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
> 
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> 
> It could be anything, something unknown, maybe a black star.


Densil Washington is not an unknown black star...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429961 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Martin Brown wrote:

> On 24/08/2017 00:01, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
>>>   Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black
>>>   hole
>>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
>> 
>>> "Thought", not "known".
>> 
>> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.
>> 
>> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
>> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than
>> 45 AU (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).
>> 
>> 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg
> 
> Wiki

The name is of the source is _Wikipedia_.  Instead, “wiki” is now an 
umbrella term for a live-editable community-maintained online source
(from “wiki”, the Hawaiian word for “quick”).

> claims Sgr A

The name of the astronomical object is obviously S(a)g(itta)r(ius) A_*_ 
(emphasis mine).

> has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU

What are you talking about?

The symbol for radius is usually a lowercase “r”.

The symbol for the SI unit of metre (or meter) is “m”, not “M”.  [“M” is 
reserved as the unit prefix for “mega”, from greek «μέγας» /megas/ „great“, 
meaning one million times the unit.]

The SI unit prefix “k” (for “kilo”, from Greek «χίλιοι» /khílioi/ „a 
thousand“) means 1000 times the unit:

  1 km = 1000 m.

So

  1.3 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.3 × 10⁷ km

which is *much less* than

  1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁸ km = 1.5 × 10¹⁰ km.

(1 AU is the average distance Terra–Sol.)

> (in the section on Schwarzchild radii

(Karl) _Schwarzschild_

> - which is suspect is out of date)

It is not.  The Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating, uncharged 
(Schwarzschild) black hole (BH) is

  rₛ = 2 G M∕c²,

where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black 
hole.  A mass of

  M = 4.1 × 10⁶ M☉ ≈ 8.153 × 10³⁶ kg,

where the mass of Sol (or solar masses) is

  M☉ ≈ 1.988435 × 10³⁰ kg,

corresponds to a Schwarzschild radius of

  rₛ ≈ 1.211 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.211 × 10⁷ km ≈ 0.08094 AU

The is very close to the aforementioned 1.3 × 10¹⁰ m.

See also: 
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Schwarzschild+radius&dataset=>
 
> (although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)

You are confusing the radius of the region surrounding the assumed black 
hole with the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, whereas the former is 
much larger.  Note that for such a BH, the Schwarzschild radius is the 
radius beyond which we can have *no* information instead (as it *is* the 
radius of the *event horizon*).

> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

For a Schwarzschild BH, the outer event horizon is the surface of a sphere 
that has the Schwarzschild radius as its radius.  45 AU, the radius of the 
space in which S14 is described to be orbiting, is not anywhere near 
0.08 AU.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429975 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>Martin Brown wrote:

>> (although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)

>You are confusing the radius of the region surrounding the assumed black 
>hole with the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, whereas the former is 
>much larger.  Note that for such a BH, the Schwarzschild radius is the 
>radius beyond which we can have *no* information instead (as it *is* the 
>radius of the *event horizon*).

The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was any
larger, Star S14 would collide with it. So "it" must be smaller than 45
AU radius.

Since we know of no physics that allows for an object of 45 AU radius and a
mass of 4.1M sun, other than a black hole or something rapidly collapsing
into a black hole, this is excellent evidence of a black hole there.

>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

>For a Schwarzschild BH, the outer event horizon is the surface of a sphere 
>that has the Schwarzschild radius as its radius.  45 AU, the radius of the 
>space in which S14 is described to be orbiting, is not anywhere near 
>0.08 AU.

About 560 times the event horizon radius.  However it is close enough to
likely have interesting relativistic effects.  Another star (S0-102) gets
within 260 AU and reaches over 1% of the speed of light. S14 must be
really booking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web