Black Holes

[FS3]

Can you recognize a spade frome a spade?

FromSpectrum:

Physicists Make Artificial Black Hole Using Optical Fiber
Scientists in Scotland say they have created a black hole's event horizon using laser pulses and microstructured optical fiber...

What they really did was creating a distortion in a fiber, superposing a second IR-beam, and measuring - aka calculating - the "distorsion" between the two moving fronts - though postulating this mechanism to be similar to a kinda "event horizon" per definition from the before postulated definition of an event horizon.

Circular reasoning, producing circular results.

FS3

[Eres]

Circular reasoning, producing circular results.FS3

Or; they produce useless garbage
By the way; the new graphics dress of the forum is very pleasant

[StefanR]

Of course finding event horizons and blackholes in a fiber optic cable is weird, but there are are interesting things in this research. It's not what they think they found, it's the data that spiked my interest a few days ago.

To make their event horizon, Leonhardt and colleagues used a titanium sapphire laser and a microstructured optical fiber—one containing a hexagonal arrangement of air-filled holes that ran its length. They first transmitted an ultrashort, intense laser pulse down the optical fiber. The optical fiber is susceptible to nonlinear effects, such that when an intense pulse of light hits the fiber, it changes the physical properties of the fiber. In this case, the first pulse created a distortion that amounted to a change in the fiber’s index of refraction, which moves along with the pulse. The pulse itself was slowed by the distortion. Leonhardt and colleagues then sent a “faster” stream of infrared laser light in pursuit of the first pulse. When the faster-moving second pulse encountered the distortion, it got trapped at its edge and couldn’t break past it. This edge became the fiber’s “event horizon.”

Compare that with the Plasma focus discharge in the latest blog of Thornhill and spot the differences in what is conducted in what.
Also it seems they build a reversed model of the nodes of Ranvier.

[Eres]

Certainly what they believe to have found in the heaven like black hole is connected to what they have reproduced in this experiment.
As a black hole can be explained more effectively by a galactic plasma focus, of course also the result of the experiment of Leonhardt can be explained better in the terms of plasma physics.

[Solar]

When it comes to a vacuum—empty space—this leads to a startling idea: a vacuum is not a vacuum at all but rather teeming with virtual particles and their antiparticles, which exist for a fraction of a second before coming together and annihilating one another. It seems nature doesn’t mind at all, as long as the particles exist for an amount of time less than the uncertainty level allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

In the highly unusual area around a black hole’s event horizon, however, things occasionally go wrong, and a virtual particle or antiparticle falls below the event horizon and cannot escape to recombine with its counterpart. The other virtual particle is forced to live longer than the uncertainty principle allows, in effect becoming a real particle. Enough of this happens near a black hole’s event horizon, Hawking postulated, that a black hole is not completely black but glows instead.

Were I an accountant I would call this a cosmological 'loop hole'.

First they call it a "black hole" because no light can supposedly escape. Then marry the gravity-run-wild inference to "uncertainty" which leads to the staggering realization that space isn't empty. It is instead filled with "virtual particles" which annihilate each other, unless of course, they manage to escape the initially inescapable "event horizon" and become "real" particles- which then allows a "black hole" to "glow".

Making gravity inferred assumptions and then allowing further nonsense to suddenly break the rules of those assumptions to account for observation produces this kind of absurd 'backpedaling'. It is not 'reasoning' by any stretch of the imagination but instead an assumptive aberration.

[MGmirkin]

Come to think of it... Wouldn't such a bizarre aberration as virtual particles becoming "real" particles, with one swallowed by the black hole and the other flying off be either A) science-fiction B) nigh impossible?

I'm just thinking here. The "event horizon" is the imaginary line (appx sphere, really) past which not even light can escape? Now, I can see how someone might say, "well, what if two particles were to appear and one goes in and the other 'wanders off'?"

But then one would have to realize that second particle that goes "wandering off" seems like it really should NOT go "a-wandering." Remember, it's teetering on the brink of the event horizon of a black hole! Shouldn't it be almost immediately sucked into the black hole too? I mean, when it comes into existence, even if it's traveling at the speed of light (or very close to it), it's still going to feel the effects of the gravity well where it materialized like a few microns from the point-of-no-return...

It just seems like it shouldn't just go skipping off on its merry way... Am I the only one who has wondered about this?

~Michael Gmirkin

[Solar]

Come to think of it... Wouldn't such a bizarre aberration as virtual particles becoming "real" particles, with one swallowed by the black hole and the other flying off be either A) science-fiction B) nigh impossible?

I'm just thinking here. The "event horizon" is the imaginary line (appx sphere, really) past which not even light can escape? Now, I can see how someone might say, "well, what if two particles were to appear and one goes in and the other 'wanders off'?"

But then one would have to realize that second particle that goes "wandering off" seems like it really should NOT go "a-wandering." Remember, it's teetering on the brink of the event horizon of a black hole! Shouldn't it be almost immediately sucked into the black hole too? I mean, when it comes into existence, even if it's traveling at the speed of light (or very close to it), it's still going to feel the effects of the gravity well where it materialized like a few microns from the point-of-no-return...

It just seems like it shouldn't just go skipping off on its merry way... Am I the only one who has wondered about this?

~Michael Gmirkin

No you're not. And that's exactly right. What on earth are you doing making a rational observation? LOL!! It's the "event horizon" of the gravity inferred "black hole" after all where...

"things occasionally go wrong"

Which apparently includes violating 'Their' own rules of assumption allowing supposed "black holes" to not only 'glow' but also contradicting the supposed notion that 'nothing can escape'. Now, light (the glow), "virtual particles", and "jets" of material regularly 'escape' with ease.

You know what else is interesting? The supposed "young stars" that populate the region around the theoretical "black hole":

...explaining the origin of the several young stars closest to the black hole (the S-stars) is more problematic

They shouldn't be there either. So instead of considering that the theory has 'gone wrong' it's instead interpreted as some occasional quirk that ...

nature doesn't mind

[StefanR]

It just seems like it shouldn't just go skipping off on its merry way... Am I the only one who has wondered about this?

Some years back I went to a symposium in Amsterdam which was about String-theory and the lot.
Susskind was there blathering about event-horizons, Van't Hooft dabbling about his theoretical work where he got a Nobel Prize for and the king of cr*p Hawking played his prerecorded Cylon speech.
It was quite fun to watch that as they were presenting the whole crowd of scientists was in religious awe (no kidding).
After a day of yadayada about M-theory (mystery,magic,(their words)), branes and probabilities and probabilities, there was the possibility to ask some questions to the honoured wizards. A lot of questions were concerning the string-theory, when some guy
had the audacity to ask in all honesty: I don't understand, when all this is based on chance and probabilities is this string theory not also just a possibility?
The whole auditorium went into deep silence, a sense of discomfort and shock went through the crowd and genuine confusion of the speakers was clearly visible. And one of the speakers said : Well in a way yes, but blablablabla.......
People looking to the questioner like he was a turd in a sauna and I could swear that if the clock was 400 years earlier they would have lynched and burned him for heresy.
Great day! Hahahah

By the way:

a titanium sapphire laser and a microstructured optical fiber—one containing a hexagonal arrangement of air-filled holes that ran its length.

[MGmirkin]

It just seems like it shouldn't just go skipping off on its merry way... Am I the only one who has wondered about this?

Hawking played his prerecorded Cylon speech.

*Can't stop laughing while thinking about Uncle Jimbo from South Park...*

Monotone, all the way:

"Mmm ... and sometimes two theoretical / virtual particles pop out of nothingness at the event horizon of a black hole ... (Mmm ... ignore the violation of conservation, for the time being) ... Mmm, imagine that one pops out on the inside and one pops up on the outside. The one inside screams 'Oooh, it hurts ... it hurts' and falls into the black hole. The other skips off on its merry way, ignoring the gravity well behind it ... (Please ignore the violation of prior theories stating nothing escapes a black hole and being that close to the event horizon means certain doom from tidal forces) ..."

Okay, enough silliness!

*John Cleese runs into the room waving his arms* And NO-OO SINGING!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StefanR]

MMkay,

if you think that is silly, Susskind was explaining the event-horizon by analogy of of fish swimming up stream. So he had a very cute drawing of fish swimming upstream and in the water was a sign saying point of no return.
No kidding, children.

[MGmirkin]

MMkay,

if you think that is silly, Susskind was explaining the event-horizon by analogy of of fish swimming up stream. So he had a very cute drawing of fish swimming upstream and in the water was a sign saying point of no return.
No kidding, children.

But did it show the fish circling the drain?

~Michael Gmirkin

[junglelord]

Lets take a look at the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Oh wait we can't....

Despite the size of the black hole in solar masses, they can not point to one single event horizion at the center of any galaxy. All you see is the brightest plasmoid in the galaxy, no blackness at all. If anything its a MECO Plasmoid which functions as a Tesla Impulse Magnifying Transmitter. Look at Sgr A* which is the bright spot in the center of the photo. Pictures do not lie, yet the classical mess of modern cosmology sees things that are not there, Especially if its a black hole the size of plutos orbit>






Notice how they always have to draw one in. Now why is that?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html

[MGmirkin]

Might as well resurrect ye olde comparisons:

(Artist's impression of "merging black holes.")

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... erger.html

(Idealized diagram of a Birkeland current. Long-range attraction, short range repulsion, helical / filamentary structure.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Filamentation

(Twin "black holes"? Or two "pinches" along twined Birkeland currents?)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... kholes.htm

One might also be inclined to point out that the structures talked about with reference to black holes and their axial jets (which seems a bit ironic, since they're supposed to be the great "eaters of all") seem to be becoming quite similar to descriptions / schematics of "plasma focus fusion."

(Diagram of accretion disk, plasma filaments, etc.)

http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/ ... enzind.pdf

(Purportedly "twisted magnetic fields" relating to the "accretion disk"; keeping in mind that field lines are NOT reified physical entities, and can not bend, stretch, twist, tie in knots, snap, or "reconnect" any more than lines of latitude or longitude can.)

http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/ ... enzind.pdf

(That brings us to the notion of an electromagnetic "pinch.")

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

(And focus fusion.)

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/si ... n_reactor/

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Sorry for the length. Just trying to quickly summarize some of the info from ye olde loste "Black Hole vs. the Birth of a Plasma Galaxy" thread. Unfortunately, Google's cache was lacking on that one, insofar as I could tell. Thankfully, I vaguely recall the thread...

[StefanR]

P.S. Sorry for the length.

Lenght of breath is no obstacle, when the content is full and provocative.

[Magnatude]

Wow what do you guys think of this?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html



I think its amazing that we could actually get a picture of one. but apparently there are 2 black holes in this image.

Edit: Changed to the smaller image they used on the front page, rather than the hi-res image. Should help the folks with low bandwidth connections (slightly). ~MGmirkin