Black holes.

[shiftLynx]

It's great when someone becomes an expert on a subject after reading 1 book.

[Agamemnus]

What book? :roll:

[marzecTM]

Yeah, well I guess this is why Hawking Radiation and black hole evaporation exists, which I realized after I posted the first post. It's just very very typical of how things work. When I actually read & watched (about) both these things and it seemed just hocus pocus to me because the reason for these effects was never actually mentioned.

On the same line of thinking I can accept that these things (Hawking Radiation and/or black hole decay) exist, but I now need to figure out the reasoning behind it existing the way people (esp. Hawking) describe it. In my example, one particle either goes straight through or back out, but it just seems that the basic assumptions of this accepted reality is almost never questioned.

It seems to me that all of physics is just a bunch of assumptions that people work off of and almost never properly explain. When they do explain, it becomes something like Einstein's theory of general relativity...

1) if you would have cared to read my last reply you should pretty much have an idea of how the hawking radiation comes to be.

2) no theory in physics explains anything,it's a model describing behaviours and giving you methods to extrapolate or interpolate future/past behaviour. this is all physics is about, if you want explanations i recommend to get into religions.

[Agamemnus]

Yes, I did read your post, marzecTM. Again, I see the difference as not one between "theory" and "religion", but one between "A to Z" and "A to B to C, ... to Z", or between pi ~= 3.14 and pi = (sqrt(2 - sqrt(2 + sqrt(2 + ... n times) * 2^(n+1), where n=infinity.

[marzecTM]

sorry i can not follow you. as i explained and as you already noticed: physics does not explain anything. modern day physics ( and i exclude einsteins theory of relativity here as it is still "classical" to some extend ) is abstract and hard to explain. however, the description and "explanation" of the hawking radiation is clear and can't be simplified any further. if you want to really understand physics on a level that satisfies you then i suggest to study physics. you can not seriously demand that physical models should be explained to you in clear words as this is most often impossible ( especially when treating quantum related issues where all verbal explanations are not even an approximation of what goes on mathematically. see the different interpretations of quantum mechanics ). however, if you don't care for not knowing about the inner workings i suggest to read some of the pop sciences books widely available and continue to pretend that you know what you talk about ( i don't, i only rephrase what i've been reading in pop and serious physics books ). check for author names like richard feynmann, stephan hawkings, zeilinger, brian greene etc.

[Z!re]

According to some random show/site/paper/whatever I read/saw the theory of relativity is NOT correct, it's only "correct" enough for everyday situations, such as space ship launches, or nuclear reactor calculations..

It was some article/show about space..

Cant remember any details though.. maybe someone can google/whatever it..

[Z!re]

[Agamemnus]

however, if you don't care for not knowing about the inner workings i suggest to read some of the pop sciences books widely available and continue to pretend that you know what you talk about

The point is that even most books like Hawkings's book (which I haven't read, but I read similar ones) is too dumbed down to be useful. It's dumbed down the wrong way.. there is information that is discarded which is critical to the understanding of the whole thing.

I haven't yet seen a good explanation for virtual particle pairs as I said, and I don't think they exist... even my own explanation is probably better for most people to understand than just throwing words around.

[Deleter]

Somehow I don't think a grouping of qbasic/fb coders debating on a forum is going to get any closer to the truth concerning black holes, so say whatever you want, but you'd be better off making a game with your idea than trying to deduce from pure thought how something experienced scientists are having trouble defining works.

just voicing my very rude $.02

[Agamemnus]

Just floating my ideas around. Besides, game programmers are $.02 a dozen. :lol: