Black-hole

Large collection of W and Z bosons which create a polarized pull on particle and sub particle forms.

You're speaking of space time diversion through gravitons. A lofty but interesting theory. Gravitons, a massless particle, create a swell and concave of space time along the non-linear orbital plane of an object in relation to the center of the universe.

I am speaking of similar ideas. W and Z bosons are the supposed creator of gravitons according to the Higgs Boson theory

I guess the real question is, CAN there be a "hole" in the universe?

i think bacardi left sometime ago...i think he found a black hole in his garden...

I am new to the Philosophy of Science area (in this forum and in general). I find it deeply fascinating, yet confusing. There are a few things that I can't wrap my mind around (probably I just don't know enough about them).

Explain in simpler terms what a black "hole" is, exactly. I don't understand the concept of a hole in a three dimensional area (space). What's inside the hole? Is it simply a very dense object, that sucks everything into itself, and we see it as a hole because of the sucking affect it has on the space around it?

Thanks.

If nothing can escape from it, how come that the gravity itself can? :rolleyes:

It sounds to me like we need some information on black holes before we can philosophize about them.

First off Bacardi, it seems to me that black holes are a process in which pure energy is emitted as Hawking Radiation after matter and light. The Hawking Radiation is really just high frequency (I think anyways, it's probably that the wavelength is proportional to something, not temperature ofcourse, because that's proportional to intensity) electromagnetic radiation, more specifically, black body radiation (which is electromagnetic radiation emitted due to the temperature (thus thermal). And so with 'thermal' the concept of entropy automatically could become relevant to the process of a black hole.

And giving off this energy causes the black hole to loose it's mass therefore the black hole will evaporate. (The link gives good explanation)

Also this total heat given off before total dissipation of the black hole basically, is proportional to the mass of the black hole (I'm assuming). And in such a context, because I have no idea and I'm hoping someone can tell me, why is it that the second law of thermodynamics is threatened with the phenomenon of black holes?

They say well, the total energy of the universe must be the same. Well first of all, matter is just bound energy. Could we not assign a constant for which a particle has a max amount of total potential energy at zero sum universe? I mean, topologically speaking, we could assign a line for the curve of a black hole, and we'd find an asymptote right? What if at the zero point, the 'limit' when approaching the asymptote, there is zero sum topological state, or, a perpendicular from the zero sum state. Either one, this could represent the topological condition for antimatter collisions to be possible without at which the maximum amount of potential energy can be released? Ah ha!!! Got it! (maybe) Looking at space-time, lets say if the potential energy of an object is zero then the topological condition is zero state, or flat sort-to-speak. And if the potential energy is at it's maximum, then the topological state is at the perpendicular of the zero state (flatness). And there is enough momentum at this condition for the antimatter/matter collision to ease the perpendicular to a flat topological state. What I'm trying to say I suppose is that perhaps the ratio of potential energy to thermal energy in respect to the nuclear conditions (quantum conditions) could be proportional to the topological state. (And remember this is 3D with time included, to our knowledge an analogical reasoning Einstein conveyed so well)

Anyone got any better ideas; because I'm sure there are plenty of problems here. Firstly, I don't think under the Hawking 'idea' that the antimatter and matter collide (though I'd like to understand why, is it because annihilations can only release a certain form of energy?)

Oh and this constant could be equivalent to the amount of emitted energy from an annihilation between antimatter and matter? Is it true that antimatter/matter collisions are the most efficient conversions of bound energy to unbound energy?

Also, since I kinda went away from entropy let me get back to it. If in fact the second law of thermodynamics is threatened by the phenomenon of black holes (in theory) then can we not deduce that we are simply not measuring the whole universe? This seems to make more sense to me. The idea that matter and light seem to disapear makes me feel there is some sort of "other side".