A black hole is not a literal physical singularity. There are "bigger" ones and "smaller" ones. It is instead a mathematical singularity: it can be treated as a point object in the sense that if you lay out a gravitational grid across the universe, each black hole is a point, a hole on that grid where nothing comes out.
So why do black holes emit X-rays and Hawking radiation or why do they emit stuff at all?
The black holes don't emit anything per se. However, as particles close to the event horizon are accelerated more and more by the gravitational pull of a black hole, THEY can emit radiation. An illustrative model is a star/black hole binary system in which gases from the star are being pulled in to the black hole, thus emitting X-rays as they are accelerated.
Hawking radiation is also not really emitted from the black hole itself. Theory goes quantum fluctuations occur so close to the event horizon that one particle gets sucked in while the other escapes: imagine a positron-electron pair appearing right on the cusp of an event horizon. Let's say the positron disappears into the black hole while the electron escapes out into the universe. From our perspective, the electron will have been "emitted" from the black hole. The energy required for this is also taken from the black hole as the positron (think of it as negative energy) will go into the black hole and take that much energy away from it.
Mostly agreed but remember that a "moon" is defined as a relative concept, as a signifcant satellite orbiting a planet. There could be a really damn big "moon" somewhere that is orbiting a humongous planet and that moon could be approaching mercury size or something but it would still be a moon. A "planet" is not defined by size alone but by relative function and hierarchy within an orbital system.
As a musicologist (technically music theorist but eh), I would view the new reconstructions as performances. To be really clear, I should say that I would view the process of reconstruction and the event as a whole as a performance. If one considers the "original" music (the first established instance of a score for example) the work, then one performance of the work is an interpretation and a recontextualization of the interpretation is a meta-performance. If we all disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is such a thing as "the work" as an absolute, however, then these computer reconstructions are direct performances on the material they have chosen, which just happens to be a performance itself. No, it won't be "authentic" and it won't be "the same" and even if it were, that wouldn't be the point. The performance is not in the end result but in the process of recontextualization.
*spoilers, sort of* Good points. But you should check out the entire Ring Trilogy (Japanese) if you haven't yet. They address some of the things that you say. The girl in the well is, in the Japanese version, also a demon of sorts. She's a creature of the sea, they imply. Also, she killed people by hatred, rather than rotting them in a well. Hence the frozen faces of horro. The reason for killing people by fright/hatred is both her hatred at the world/her dad for having killed her as well as general hatred for people who don't tolerate people who are different (her mom was psychic and people mocked her). Also at the end of the first part of the ring triology (and the beginning of the second), there's quite a bit of suspense that's related to freeing the girl. Gives you the same twist in your stomach.
To continue this ludicrously serious analysis: Orrrrrrrr, it could mean a *significant* fraction of the speed of light. If we're talking about radiation here, what good would a particle traveling at.5c do? Unless it's a DAMN massive particle (let's say a cow), it's not "radiation" in the traditional sense. If it were a cow we're running into, that's just a collision and no simple probe's going to stand a cow traveling at.5c. Radiation from small particles, then, travel at.95c or above...or maybe even.99c...that's the only way it'd have enough energy to classify as [harmful]radiation. Lower fractions of c probably wouldn't give the particle enough radiation to penetrate normal shields made out of salami butt, or cow, if you've got a bovine fascination.
Super hot gasses you refer to are plasma. Actually, that doesn't happen in a neturon star. The gravity is so strong in a neutron star that all you are left with, literally, are neutrons. If I remember correctly, the main force that prevents them squishing in further is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In other words, you can pack neutrons on so closely before what you try to achieve goes into the realm of "exact location/position/energy, etc." and we can't ever have that. To go beyond this would require a black hole and nobody knows what goes on in there...
The only subatomic particles that are in neutron stars should be neutrons...nothing else. So making water out of slices of a neutron star is definitely out of the question...
What if the strategy were as follows:
Each person goes into the room and decides to wait 30 seconds before saying anything. Then whoever sees that the other two people are wearing the same colored hats, they will say "pass". If two of them say pass, the third one will know the color of his own hat. This covers the case of three hats being the same color. If the hats are dispersed in a 1-2 relationship, then that one person will say pass...nobody else will and the next two people can guess by looking at each other. This seems like a pretty obvious solution to get a 100% chance of winning and is basically the first thing that popped into my head...I don't see why the article claims they can win only 75% of the time....am I missing something here?
Slashdot Mirror
A black hole is not a literal physical singularity. There are "bigger" ones and "smaller" ones. It is instead a mathematical singularity: it can be treated as a point object in the sense that if you lay out a gravitational grid across the universe, each black hole is a point, a hole on that grid where nothing comes out.
So why do black holes emit X-rays and Hawking radiation or why do they emit stuff at all?
The black holes don't emit anything per se. However, as particles close to the event horizon are accelerated more and more by the gravitational pull of a black hole, THEY can emit radiation. An illustrative model is a star/black hole binary system in which gases from the star are being pulled in to the black hole, thus emitting X-rays as they are accelerated.
Hawking radiation is also not really emitted from the black hole itself. Theory goes quantum fluctuations occur so close to the event horizon that one particle gets sucked in while the other escapes: imagine a positron-electron pair appearing right on the cusp of an event horizon. Let's say the positron disappears into the black hole while the electron escapes out into the universe. From our perspective, the electron will have been "emitted" from the black hole. The energy required for this is also taken from the black hole as the positron (think of it as negative energy) will go into the black hole and take that much energy away from it.
Mostly agreed but remember that a "moon" is defined as a relative concept, as a signifcant satellite orbiting a planet. There could be a really damn big "moon" somewhere that is orbiting a humongous planet and that moon could be approaching mercury size or something but it would still be a moon. A "planet" is not defined by size alone but by relative function and hierarchy within an orbital system.
As a musicologist (technically music theorist but eh), I would view the new reconstructions as performances. To be really clear, I should say that I would view the process of reconstruction and the event as a whole as a performance. If one considers the "original" music (the first established instance of a score for example) the work, then one performance of the work is an interpretation and a recontextualization of the interpretation is a meta-performance. If we all disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is such a thing as "the work" as an absolute, however, then these computer reconstructions are direct performances on the material they have chosen, which just happens to be a performance itself. No, it won't be "authentic" and it won't be "the same" and even if it were, that wouldn't be the point. The performance is not in the end result but in the process of recontextualization.
Now don't make me whip out literary theory.
*spoilers, sort of*
Good points. But you should check out the entire Ring Trilogy (Japanese) if you haven't yet. They address some of the things that you say. The girl in the well is, in the Japanese version, also a demon of sorts. She's a creature of the sea, they imply. Also, she killed people by hatred, rather than rotting them in a well. Hence the frozen faces of horro. The reason for killing people by fright/hatred is both her hatred at the world/her dad for having killed her as well as general hatred for people who don't tolerate people who are different (her mom was psychic and people mocked her). Also at the end of the first part of the ring triology (and the beginning of the second), there's quite a bit of suspense that's related to freeing the girl. Gives you the same twist in your stomach.
To continue this ludicrously serious analysis: Orrrrrrrr, it could mean a *significant* fraction of the speed of light. If we're talking about radiation here, what good would a particle traveling at .5c do? Unless it's a DAMN massive particle (let's say a cow), it's not "radiation" in the traditional sense. If it were a cow we're running into, that's just a collision and no simple probe's going to stand a cow traveling at .5c. Radiation from small particles, then, travel at .95c or above...or maybe even .99c...that's the only way it'd have enough energy to classify as [harmful]radiation. Lower fractions of c probably wouldn't give the particle enough radiation to penetrate normal shields made out of salami butt, or cow, if you've got a bovine fascination.
1 is a prime? Last I checked one is not a prime...
Super hot gasses you refer to are plasma. Actually, that doesn't happen in a neturon star. The gravity is so strong in a neutron star that all you are left with, literally, are neutrons. If I remember correctly, the main force that prevents them squishing in further is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In other words, you can pack neutrons on so closely before what you try to achieve goes into the realm of "exact location/position/energy, etc." and we can't ever have that. To go beyond this would require a black hole and nobody knows what goes on in there...
The only subatomic particles that are in neutron stars should be neutrons...nothing else. So making water out of slices of a neutron star is definitely out of the question...
What if the strategy were as follows: Each person goes into the room and decides to wait 30 seconds before saying anything. Then whoever sees that the other two people are wearing the same colored hats, they will say "pass". If two of them say pass, the third one will know the color of his own hat. This covers the case of three hats being the same color. If the hats are dispersed in a 1-2 relationship, then that one person will say pass...nobody else will and the next two people can guess by looking at each other. This seems like a pretty obvious solution to get a 100% chance of winning and is basically the first thing that popped into my head...I don't see why the article claims they can win only 75% of the time....am I missing something here?