OK, I'll try to say this slowly.
The radius of the event horizon is linearly proportional to the mass. The radius of a spherical mass at constant density is proportional to the cube root of the mass. This means the average density required to create an event horizon is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass,
Therefore, as the mass gets bigger, the average density to create an event horizon goes down. At a mass of 270 million solar masses, the density required to form an event horizon is the same as ordinary water. It is possible for enough ordinary matter to form an event horizon. As I originally said, no singularity is required.
Of course, most black holes we imagine are much smaller, and require huge densities. A solar mass black hole requires an average density almost 400 times nuclear density. At these densities, we know of no force that can prevent complete collapse so we assume a singularity forms. Certainly there are alternate theories that apply in this case.
I'm know stepping off your lawn, old man.
You are arguing with nature, not me. A large enough mass in a small enough space will have an event horizon, but will never form a singularity because nuclear repulsion is enough to prevent complete collapse. No alternative theories required. Now whether such a large black hole actually exists is another question, but the laws of physics don't prevent it. BTW, you seem to not know, but a singularity has a zero radius by definition. You completely missed my argument.
The existence of an event horizon does NOT require the existence of a singularity. It only requires a certain amount of mass within a given volume (defined by the equation for the Schwartzchild radius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius. For the size of black holes we usually think about (up to the size of the black holes assumed to be at the center of most galaxies), the gravitational forces are so large that nothing we know of will stop complete collapse into a singularity. For extremely large black holes, however, the gravitational forces would be so small that ordinary matter exists inside the event horizon. In addition, there may be repulsive forces at very short distances that we don't yet know of that prevent singularities in smaller (e.g. stellar mass) black holes.
I don't see any reason to believe Hawking is wrong, at least in the case of stellar-mass black holes. In this regime, gravity is still relatively weak at the event horizon (compared to scales we don't understand), and quantum mechanics should work just fine. Since Hawking radiation just depends upon virtual particle-anti-particles being spontaneously created in vacuum (well established physics), and one partner of the pair (randomly chosen) crossing the event horizon toward the singularity, while the other goes in the opposite direction and stays out, this effect won't cancel the charge of the blackhole unless the charge becomes so large at the event horizon, that the electric field is strong enough to affect the trajectories of the virtual pair so that one charge is preferentially sucked into the event horizon.
Freedom of thought of absolute. Action can be regulated by government. Speech is closer to thought than action, and should be as lightly regulated as possible (e.g. forbidding threatening someone with physical harm). It is interesting that no society has explicitly recognized through law freedom of thought. I would guess this is because it seems obvious and what can government do about it anyway? With new technologies coming such as fMRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri, we should be carefully considering these assumptions. Should someone be imprisoned (or perhaps subject to mandatory treatment) for having sexual thoughts about children? Should airline passengers be subject to brain scans to see if they are terrorists? This technology could well come sooner than society and law can adapt.
What Wikipedia needs is a moderation system. This will ensure that only the best informed, most intelligent, and highest quality material makes it through. Just like Slashdot. Oh wait.
Police definitely DO NOT protect you from crime. AFTER a crime has been committed, they fill out some paperwork, and then go back to giving speeding tickets. It is your responsibility to protect yourself from crime.
I'm with you. I've been watching these prices for a while and my thought is when 8GB SSD is ~$100 the optimum Linux desktop will have an 8GB SSD for everything but/home, and two magnetic HDs at the optimum GB/$ for a RAID1/home. This gives 60GB/s read speeds for/usr and swap and whatever capacity you need for user data (pr0n). I'm betting 12-18 months as an 8GB SSD is currently ~$200.
Slashdot Mirror
The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
\begin{center} {\Large I \Heart LaTeX\footnote{$\mathrm{LaTeX}\gg\mathrm{MSWord}$}} \end{center}
OK, I'll try to say this slowly. The radius of the event horizon is linearly proportional to the mass. The radius of a spherical mass at constant density is proportional to the cube root of the mass. This means the average density required to create an event horizon is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass, Therefore, as the mass gets bigger, the average density to create an event horizon goes down. At a mass of 270 million solar masses, the density required to form an event horizon is the same as ordinary water. It is possible for enough ordinary matter to form an event horizon. As I originally said, no singularity is required. Of course, most black holes we imagine are much smaller, and require huge densities. A solar mass black hole requires an average density almost 400 times nuclear density. At these densities, we know of no force that can prevent complete collapse so we assume a singularity forms. Certainly there are alternate theories that apply in this case. I'm know stepping off your lawn, old man.
You are arguing with nature, not me. A large enough mass in a small enough space will have an event horizon, but will never form a singularity because nuclear repulsion is enough to prevent complete collapse. No alternative theories required. Now whether such a large black hole actually exists is another question, but the laws of physics don't prevent it. BTW, you seem to not know, but a singularity has a zero radius by definition. You completely missed my argument.
The existence of an event horizon does NOT require the existence of a singularity. It only requires a certain amount of mass within a given volume (defined by the equation for the Schwartzchild radius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius. For the size of black holes we usually think about (up to the size of the black holes assumed to be at the center of most galaxies), the gravitational forces are so large that nothing we know of will stop complete collapse into a singularity. For extremely large black holes, however, the gravitational forces would be so small that ordinary matter exists inside the event horizon. In addition, there may be repulsive forces at very short distances that we don't yet know of that prevent singularities in smaller (e.g. stellar mass) black holes.
I don't see any reason to believe Hawking is wrong, at least in the case of stellar-mass black holes. In this regime, gravity is still relatively weak at the event horizon (compared to scales we don't understand), and quantum mechanics should work just fine. Since Hawking radiation just depends upon virtual particle-anti-particles being spontaneously created in vacuum (well established physics), and one partner of the pair (randomly chosen) crossing the event horizon toward the singularity, while the other goes in the opposite direction and stays out, this effect won't cancel the charge of the blackhole unless the charge becomes so large at the event horizon, that the electric field is strong enough to affect the trajectories of the virtual pair so that one charge is preferentially sucked into the event horizon.
And this differs from Microsoft how? Oh yeah, you get to keep your soul.
Freedom of thought of absolute. Action can be regulated by government. Speech is closer to thought than action, and should be as lightly regulated as possible (e.g. forbidding threatening someone with physical harm). It is interesting that no society has explicitly recognized through law freedom of thought. I would guess this is because it seems obvious and what can government do about it anyway? With new technologies coming such as fMRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri, we should be carefully considering these assumptions. Should someone be imprisoned (or perhaps subject to mandatory treatment) for having sexual thoughts about children? Should airline passengers be subject to brain scans to see if they are terrorists? This technology could well come sooner than society and law can adapt.
Wow. That's a lot of churn for a porn collection. Get bored easily do we?
On the contrary, the evidence shows that video cameras have gotten a lot of cops into trouble.
Target shooting is great fun. I recommend you try it.
I add to this my own rule: - Don't ever be around idiots with guns. I am very careful who I shoot with.
I didn't know Windows admins had genitals.
Next: my Viagra prescription ran out, so I can't get laid.
Don't EMP me bro!
How was the sex?
It's also a great neutron absorber.
Wow. You are amazingly bad at choosing women.
That's OK. I can bring my own.
What Wikipedia needs is a moderation system. This will ensure that only the best informed, most intelligent, and highest quality material makes it through. Just like Slashdot. Oh wait.
All your base are belong to us!
I played D&D with my (future) wife in high school and we now have two kids.
Police definitely DO NOT protect you from crime. AFTER a crime has been committed, they fill out some paperwork, and then go back to giving speeding tickets. It is your responsibility to protect yourself from crime.
What good is a 'convenience machine' if you can't surf for pr0n?
I'm with you. I've been watching these prices for a while and my thought is when 8GB SSD is ~$100 the optimum Linux desktop will have an 8GB SSD for everything but /home, and two magnetic HDs at the optimum GB/$ for a RAID1 /home. This gives 60GB/s read speeds for /usr and swap and whatever capacity you need for user data (pr0n). I'm betting 12-18 months as an 8GB SSD is currently ~$200.