▲ 125 ▼ How would one exit a black hole? (lemmy.wtf) submitted 1 year ago by renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 102 comments fedilink hide all child comments Feeling like taking a vacation.
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do they do that? Is that what the Big Bang was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 33 points 1 year ago (1 child) They don't. They do evaporate though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a hypothesis though, right? They haven't detected any yet afaik (which the article could make clearer in its introduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, it mentions it at the end under the "Experimental observation" section. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I'd argue it should say "hypothesised" or "predicted" somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] timroerstroem@feddit.dk 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) More or less. In my layman's understanding: Black holes 'evaporate' slowly through Hawking radiation, losing mass as a function of their surface area (simplistically, particle/anti-particle pairs 'pop out of nothing' near the event horizon, one gets swallowed up the other escapes, this means a net loss of energy, which has to 'paid' by the black hole losing mass, think E=mc^2^). Since a black hole behaves (geometrically) like any other sphere, the proportion of its area to its volume will grow as the black hole loses mass (i.e. it will have more and more relative area the smaller it gets), this process speeds up over time thus ending in what I guess you could call an explosion (more a whimper than a bang, to borrow a phrase). Part 2 of your question: We don't know. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) Wouldn't the hawking radiation need to be a higher rate than the black hole is absorbing matter? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* Yes, the effect is extremely tiny and easily offset when a black hole is "feeding". permalink fedilink source parent [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which will eventually happen to all black holes because the last things remaining will be black holes, so there would be no matter to absorb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago Which is why it would work with a small black hole, but not with a large one permalink fedilink source parent
[–] remon@ani.social 33 points 1 year ago (1 child) They don't. They do evaporate though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a hypothesis though, right? They haven't detected any yet afaik (which the article could make clearer in its introduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, it mentions it at the end under the "Experimental observation" section. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I'd argue it should say "hypothesised" or "predicted" somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a hypothesis though, right? They haven't detected any yet afaik (which the article could make clearer in its introduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, it mentions it at the end under the "Experimental observation" section. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I'd argue it should say "hypothesised" or "predicted" somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] remon@ani.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, it mentions it at the end under the "Experimental observation" section. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I'd argue it should say "hypothesised" or "predicted" somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I'd argue it should say "hypothesised" or "predicted" somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] remon@ani.social 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) It does say that it is a "model" and "predicted" in the first paragraph. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Okay, might have worded that better. It says "The radiation was not predicted by previous models" and "is predicted to be extremely faint", not "it is predicted to exist" - and also "[it] is many orders of magnitude below [...]" which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don't know if people who don't know anything about the subject would interpret that as "we don't really know if it even exists yet". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don't know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn't always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 1 year ago I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away "ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so". A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise "oh wait, it isn't actually clear whether it does exist" but you can't expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be). This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn't affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn't been shown to exist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] timroerstroem@feddit.dk 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) More or less. In my layman's understanding: Black holes 'evaporate' slowly through Hawking radiation, losing mass as a function of their surface area (simplistically, particle/anti-particle pairs 'pop out of nothing' near the event horizon, one gets swallowed up the other escapes, this means a net loss of energy, which has to 'paid' by the black hole losing mass, think E=mc^2^). Since a black hole behaves (geometrically) like any other sphere, the proportion of its area to its volume will grow as the black hole loses mass (i.e. it will have more and more relative area the smaller it gets), this process speeds up over time thus ending in what I guess you could call an explosion (more a whimper than a bang, to borrow a phrase). Part 2 of your question: We don't know. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) Wouldn't the hawking radiation need to be a higher rate than the black hole is absorbing matter? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* Yes, the effect is extremely tiny and easily offset when a black hole is "feeding". permalink fedilink source parent [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which will eventually happen to all black holes because the last things remaining will be black holes, so there would be no matter to absorb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago Which is why it would work with a small black hole, but not with a large one permalink fedilink source parent
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) Wouldn't the hawking radiation need to be a higher rate than the black hole is absorbing matter? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] remon@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* Yes, the effect is extremely tiny and easily offset when a black hole is "feeding". permalink fedilink source parent [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which will eventually happen to all black holes because the last things remaining will be black holes, so there would be no matter to absorb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago Which is why it would work with a small black hole, but not with a large one permalink fedilink source parent
[–] remon@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* Yes, the effect is extremely tiny and easily offset when a black hole is "feeding". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which will eventually happen to all black holes because the last things remaining will be black holes, so there would be no matter to absorb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago They'll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won't ever come across a different particle. Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago Which is why it would work with a small black hole, but not with a large one permalink fedilink source parent