Right... one of the nicer toned posts i've had off you. Thanks.
Now let's keep this clean.
''Add material to a black hole, it's area grows. This is the Second Law of Black Hole Mechanics. Hawking radiation allows for the mass, spin and charge to be reduced. This reduces the event horizon.''
Yes, that is, when not being observed you see. Let me demonstrate some math to guide this along more...
Bare with me... i have a lot to say first,
Building a Universe
The question to whether we could ever simulate or recreate another universe was even pondered by the legendaries of past times - and even today. With modern technology, and its ever-expanding spectrum of quantum knowledge, scientists are now contemplating on how to build a universe from scratch - in a lab. This may not be a distant theory, as i shall translate for you.
Well renown professor of physics, at Birmingham University, John Nelson has been working with particle accelerators that accelerate gold atoms to a speed of 99.995% of 'c' - the speed of light, which is near enough 186,000 miles per second. Then these 'fast' Bradyons smash against each other in a burst of energy; but this collision will be nothing like the atom smasher of CERN, when it finally executes its first experiment in August 07 - - notice how long it's taken now???? I wonder if they realize now that things aren't so easy.
Prof. Nelson's project is run by a team of elite scientists, who perform these tasks in the (SLA) - the Stanford Linear Accelerator. It smashes Electrons and Positrons (antielectrons) together, at an equivalent temperature of about 600 million million degrees centigrade. Such projects transpire, so that scientists can replicate similar conditions within the first few 'instants' after the miracles, spontaneous appearance of spacetimematterenergy. The problematic equations are at play here; antimatter should have annihilated matter within the first few instants...
However, his scientists have found a possible solution to reasoning this matter-antimatter paradox. They found an effect, later called the 'CP Violation' However, this theory is fraught with controversy, as it doesn't attain the answers for correct observations in the present types of matter within the universe... it is an estimated 10 billion times in error for universal reality. But, you see... this is where violations take hold on us. They usually quantum leap, so-to-say, into even more inexplicable assumptions. CP Violation is an effect which leads to breakdown in symmetry in fundamental interactions. It shows discrepancies in the 'supposed' identical natures of particles, such as the law of antimatter and matter distribution.
Moving on, they have created a 'supercomputer,' that can simulate billions of 'test particles', hoping to find new theoretical assumptions on universal birth; because of the mysterious predictions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - two powerful forces that is thought to play a major role in the functioning of the universe. You see, the 'dark' corresponds to the painfully obvious fact we know nothing of its origins, nor do we know anything of its nature or role within our vast universe. It may have even had a role in universal expansion - and even some pseudo theorists believe that Einstein’s equations on these forces might have been responsible for the original expansion of our universe.
Particle accelerators and computer simulations aren't really enough - about, a quadrillion times less experimentals needed. Since we cannot generate power to this magnitude, we must therefore opt. for creating our universe - a universe, inside a universe... a weird, but potentially dangerous thing to do... we will get to these inconsistencies later.
Dirac postulated that the electron that is, assuming it is the smallest object known, with the most basic fundamental negative electrical charge, there must be an equally basic unit of magnetism.
This basic unit of magnetism is called a 'Magnetic Monopole.' Now, well-renown scientists in Japan, led by physicist and Professor Nobuyuki Sakai of Yamagata University believe that using 'Magnetic Monopoles' might make universe creation possible.
(Magnetic Monopoles are subatomic objects that may contain enough 'false-vacuum-energy', to create a micro black hole. They are like tiny little magnets, but only possessing one magnetic pole. Earth for instance has two - north and south - these tiny objects have one, curling into itself).
Magnetic Monopoles, being even smaller than the smallest particle, make them difficult to detect, and so far has proved fruitless. But Relativity and Quantum Mechanics predict such exotic phenomena. Prof. Sakai informs us, 'if one is ever detected, we might be able to release this false energy, and use it to create a universe in the lab.'
But this is where the physics go a bit strange for the observer - in which case, it would be ourselves - the new universe that 'splits' off our own space and time, is but connected through a topological opening, caused by the gravitational stresses - but not of a Singularity, since Stephen Hawkings has learned how to mathematically remove them (but we will see how this might even turn out to be his greatest blunder*, as i will explain soon - bare with me).
The Universe created, itself would look like a Black Hole, from our observational perspective... or more accurately, the baby universe will be entrapped inside a Black Hole Droplet. As we have already seen in this chapter, our universe too could be a Black Hole.
* When Einstein developed his theory of gravity, he was convinced that the universe was static - but his gravitational calculations seemed to prove him wrong. He thus 'fiddled' around with his mathematical conclusions until he 'manipulated' his calculations to fit a static universe. But later findings in the measurement of 'Time-Warps,' using Hubble’s gravitational 'Red Shift' proved Einstein to be flawed, as he called it his ''biggest blunder''. We should have learned from this, as the moral is to trust our instincts. Hawkings first instinct was that the universe could potentially contain an infinite amount of Singularities, but now dismisses them as nothing but a clever error in mathematical calculation. In singularities, infinity takes hold of space and time, and they are exceptionally difficult to work with, if it wasn't for something called, 'Renormalization,' which states that an infinity can only ever be cancelled out by another infinity. Perhaps Hawkings should have trusted his instincts on 'Singular Behavior', since it is predicted by both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, not to mention Cosmology itself. He hasn't had much success out of Singularities mind you, but he is now the founder of a new law called 'Quantum Cosmology,' the linking of Quantum Physics and Cosmology, to form the clever unification of a subatomic universe. Thus, in my opinion, he has the stronger argument, as Singularities don't need to be detained within the laws of Physics, however, i am torn between the fact Einstein too did a similar thing, and made a big mistake.
Prof. Sakai say's, 'if we create a universe, we would see it, as though it where but a black hole. The Black Hole would be so small, that it would quickly evaporate through quantum effects. But the new universe would expand eternally. That might sound strange, but it is possible in strongly curved spacetime.'
Now, follow through what you have just read... a universe from our observation made in the lab, CANNOT expand, but is expanding, like a Tardis inside or... better yet, the interior of the Universe expands. Dr Sakai speculated using relativity, that to our point of view, the new universe is seen to us as a black hole.
Here, we can make no distinction about a universe, because each universe, as you will well know Alphanumeric, has a self-contained mechanism, where no reference is a real reference.
Now, you may argue that he speculates it being like a black hole, but i actually take him serious on this, because here, where M is mass, R is radius, D is density and V is volume: The radius of a black hole, is found to be proportional to it's mass, $$({R-} M)$$, but the density of such a system, is found to be given as $$(D=M/V)$$. It is from here one concludes that since the volume of a black hole is proportional to the radius to the power of three $$({V-} R^3)$$, then the density is found to be quite small, as the density is found be itself proportional to its mass, raised to the power of minus two, $$({D-} M^{-2})$$...
... So, this is where we conclude that the universe itself mathematically is identical to that of a black hole itself, because the mathematical conclusions above state that for someone inside the black hole, the density doesn't seem very dense, and we already know, from careful cosmic measurements, that the universe isn't very dense at all. This of course, leads to singular behaviour in the past light cone, not disimilar to the kind we work with in hypothetical models of black holes themselves.
My point?
You said, ''Add material to a black hole, it's area grows. This is the Second Law of Black Hole Mechanics. Hawking radiation allows for the mass, spin and charge to be reduced. This reduces the event horizon.''
Well, yes, but you missed my point entirely. Perhaps it's the way it is put across? So when i said, ''You do realize, that the area is unchanging for an observer relative to the interior of frame work of the hole itself?'' I mean it certainly aint as straight-cut. An observer relative to another observer in the interior find an area measured that is unchanging. I just assumed you would know that.
In real thermodynamic bodies, they don’t just sit there when concerning their mass; they give off blackbody radiation with a spectrum that depends on their temperature. I pleasure this as very acceptable, but non-rotating black holes give different answers.
A stagnent black hole, does not produce an electromagnetic field, and therefore, in some logic behind the madness, can't have around it, even if it is just outside the horizon, an electromagnetic field (in some solutions...). The non-rotating gravitational body would simply create a repulsive force against such electradiative processes. So, if we create a black hole in the lab, can we be sure it's not a stagnent black hole... as in, non-rotating, because i think that's a real challenge to dispute.
