What Hawking REALLY meant and his theory

There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent
statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like:
T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole, c is
the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x 10^-34), K
is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal gravitational constant,
and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking said that since the black
hole has a temperature observable by the outside it is radiating
energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore, by E=Mc^2, it is also
radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been proven wrong. The
problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass radiates away, he
began to think what happens to all the information, or entropy, that
was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates to 0 ? If it
dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says entropy
cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the information is
lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new way, he saw
that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled information
of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information CAN escape
a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans, but this
also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes, because
the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but simply
radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has been wrong
for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed when his
theory developed, the question of how can entropy be destroyed, was
not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still important though
because if he had not been wrong about this question and entropy could
be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have been shaken.
sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen
Hawking

Hawking is competing with Einstein over who made the 'biggest blunder'.

Rocket Man wrote:

There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent
statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like:
T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole, c is
the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x 10^-34), K
is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal gravitational constant,
and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking said that since the black
hole has a temperature observable by the outside it is radiating
energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore, by E=Mc^2, it is also
radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been proven wrong. The
problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass radiates away, he
began to think what happens to all the information, or entropy, that
was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates to 0 ? If it
dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says entropy
cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the information is
lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new way, he saw
that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled information
of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information CAN escape
a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans, but this
also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes, because
the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but simply
radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has been wrong
for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed when his
theory developed, the question of how can entropy be destroyed, was
not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still important though
because if he had not been wrong about this question and entropy could
be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have been shaken.
sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen
Hawking

Mad Scientist wrote in message .cable.rogers.com...
Double-A wrote:

Dale Trynor wrote in message ...

Mad Scientist wrote:


nightbat wrote:


nightbat wrote

Mad Scientist wrote:


Hawking is competing with Einstein over who made the 'biggest blunder'.



nightbat

Not exactly,


I was just joking. When I called Hawking a dumbass that too was a joke.
Only the fools would take that seriously.

Dr. Einstein made the so called admitted blunder


and Mr.Hawking's should have gotten the clue before 30 years. All energy
and matter occupies space or volume, ( per nightbat theorem ), therefore
an mental overlapping theoretical applied classical mathematical deduced
singularity of zero volume and of infinite energy and or mass ( no
outlet ) is a non world real premise.



The mere evidence of blackholes existing proves that there was no big bang.

A mathematical point singularity


can indicate space location but never be zero since a point always has
value. It can therefore be location representative relative to two other
reference points in order to be able to transangulate relative frame
position.



Gravity waves produced by black holes extend right out to the edge of
the galaxy it occupies. That is why there is a correlation between the
mass of the black hole in the galactic center and the overall size or
radius of the galactic disk.

The subject point can be both indicative of particular space


body and location or of relative space plotted position only. The actual
sum or total energy/mass value make-up of point singularity is separate
but can be mathematically congruent to its positioned determination. In
overlapping values one must be careful to distinguish what value one is
mathematically, mentally deductive-inductively, or abstract physics
theoretically and logically, seeking or ascertaining from actual
value(s) that is representative.


the nightbat


We exist inside of a singularity, that is why the universe appears
'flat' as per CMBR data.


Dale Trynor wrote:
Mad Scientist, you might be someone unfamiliar with the theory I
frequently post. Try looking up my last few posts in sci.physics 7/26/04
9:59 PM Starting out without gravity creates Boundries,

to see my latest attempt at a simplified outline of the basis for the
theory.

Basically it looks at ways to show how the sort of gravitational time
dilation one gets around any massive body can be shown to contract
matter in such a way that you end up measuring more distances, volume,
i.e., literally more space.
And how this will not only show how black holes are not only universe
like but you would be surprised at just how well you end up getting the
same predictions as those given for inflation theory. This is of course
if you could be an observer inside of one when it formed.

[snip]


Following your line of reasoning, it would seem that as the matter of
a black hole contracts toward the "classical" singularity, the
gravitational field around it would get ever stronger, creating more
an more distance between itself and the outside universe. In fact, as
it approached a singularity, it should have created an almost infinite
distance between itself and anything nearby.

Therefore following the inverse square law of gravity, the black
hole's gravitational field should quickly fade away.

Have you considered this?

Double-A


Since the Pleiades star cluster is the nearest largest cluster to our
solar system (and quite a beauty to see I might add) can someone here
offer a time line of events what would be noticed were one of those
stars to suddenly go supernovae? How long before we would even notice
and how would the star appear and change over time, and would 'debris'
from such a nova effect the earth in any way?


Fall 1957, a family sits watching the antics of the Beaver and Eddie
Haskell on a cool November night. Unbeknownst to them, 50 light years
away in the constellation Pleiades, the core of a giant star collapses
into itself, releasing an immediate burst of neutrinos carrying
immense energy off into space. Hours later, the outer shell of the
star caves in, and then explodes, creating an outward bound shell of
intense light and high energy particle radiation!

Fifty years pass. In the fall of 2007, the neutrino detection
facilities around the world are swamped by a sudden flurry of neutrino
observations. As the wave of neutrinos passes through the Sun its
nuclear fires are stoked, and the Sun begins to heat up.

Astronomers, being forewarned by the neutrino detections, begin
searching the sky for a new supernova occurrence. Finally someone
notices a new bright star in the Pleiades, and the Earth's telescopes
are trained on it.

In a matter of days, the star becomes by far the brightest star in the
heavens. It actually becomes so bright that it hurts the eyes to look
at it, and yet it is still just a point of light.

In the coming decade, astrophysicists study the data, come to their
conclusions, and put their affairs in order.

The Sun grows increasingly hot, and people move to more northerly
climes. Winters are like summers, and summers are insufferable.

Fall 2017, the particle radiation from the supernova, travelling at
80% of the speed of light, hits the Earth! The sky lights up at night
like a fluorescent bulb! Eventually the Sun's protective envelope of
solar wind is blown away by this new supernova wind. The Earth's
magnetic field is overcome, and the Earth is exposed to the full blast
of the particle radiation!

The Earth grows silent.

Double-A

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in message .cable.rogers.com...
Double-A wrote:

Dale Trynor wrote in message ...

Mad Scientist wrote:


nightbat wrote:


nightbat wrote

Mad Scientist wrote:


Hawking is competing with Einstein over who made the 'biggest blunder'.



nightbat

Not exactly,


I was just joking. When I called Hawking a dumbass that too was a joke.
Only the fools would take that seriously.

Dr. Einstein made the so called admitted blunder


and Mr.Hawking's should have gotten the clue before 30 years. All energy
and matter occupies space or volume, ( per nightbat theorem ), therefore
an mental overlapping theoretical applied classical mathematical deduced
singularity of zero volume and of infinite energy and or mass ( no
outlet ) is a non world real premise.



The mere evidence of blackholes existing proves that there was no big bang.

A mathematical point singularity


can indicate space location but never be zero since a point always has
value. It can therefore be location representative relative to two other
reference points in order to be able to transangulate relative frame
position.



Gravity waves produced by black holes extend right out to the edge of
the galaxy it occupies. That is why there is a correlation between the
mass of the black hole in the galactic center and the overall size or
radius of the galactic disk.

The subject point can be both indicative of particular space


body and location or of relative space plotted position only. The actual
sum or total energy/mass value make-up of point singularity is separate
but can be mathematically congruent to its positioned determination. In
overlapping values one must be careful to distinguish what value one is
mathematically, mentally deductive-inductively, or abstract physics
theoretically and logically, seeking or ascertaining from actual
value(s) that is representative.


the nightbat


We exist inside of a singularity, that is why the universe appears
'flat' as per CMBR data.


Dale Trynor wrote:
Mad Scientist, you might be someone unfamiliar with the theory I
frequently post. Try looking up my last few posts in sci.physics 7/26/04
9:59 PM Starting out without gravity creates Boundries,

to see my latest attempt at a simplified outline of the basis for the
theory.

Basically it looks at ways to show how the sort of gravitational time
dilation one gets around any massive body can be shown to contract
matter in such a way that you end up measuring more distances, volume,
i.e., literally more space.
And how this will not only show how black holes are not only universe
like but you would be surprised at just how well you end up getting the
same predictions as those given for inflation theory. This is of course
if you could be an observer inside of one when it formed.

[snip]


Following your line of reasoning, it would seem that as the matter of
a black hole contracts toward the "classical" singularity, the
gravitational field around it would get ever stronger, creating more
an more distance between itself and the outside universe. In fact, as
it approached a singularity, it should have created an almost infinite
distance between itself and anything nearby.

Therefore following the inverse square law of gravity, the black
hole's gravitational field should quickly fade away.

Have you considered this?

Double-A


Since the Pleiades star cluster is the nearest largest cluster to our
solar system (and quite a beauty to see I might add) can someone here
offer a time line of events what would be noticed were one of those
stars to suddenly go supernovae? How long before we would even notice
and how would the star appear and change over time, and would 'debris'
from such a nova effect the earth in any way?

Fall 1957, a family sits watching the antics of the Beaver and Eddie
Haskell on a cool November night. Unbeknownst to them, 50 light years
away in the constellation Pleiades, the core of a giant star collapses
into itself, releasing an immediate burst of neutrinos carrying
immense energy off into space. Hours later, the outer shell of the
star caves in, and then explodes, creating an outward bound shell of
intense light and high energy particle radiation!

Fifty years pass. In the fall of 2007, the neutrino detection
facilities around the world are swamped by a sudden flurry of neutrino
observations. As the wave of neutrinos passes through the Sun its
nuclear fires are stoked, and the Sun begins to heat up.

Astronomers, being forewarned by the neutrino detections, begin
searching the sky for a new supernova occurrence. Finally someone
notices a new bright star in the Pleiades, and the Earth's telescopes
are trained on it.

In a matter of days, the star becomes by far the brightest star in the
heavens. It actually becomes so bright that it hurts the eyes to look
at it, and yet it is still just a point of light.

In the coming decade, astrophysicists study the data, come to their
conclusions, and put their affairs in order.

The Sun grows increasingly hot, and people move to more northerly
climes. Winters are like summers, and summers are insufferable.

Fall 2017, the particle radiation from the supernova, travelling at
80% of the speed of light, hits the Earth! The sky lights up at night
like a fluorescent bulb! Eventually the Sun's protective envelope of
solar wind is blown away by this new supernova wind. The Earth's
magnetic field is overcome, and the Earth is exposed to the full blast
of the particle radiation!

The Earth grows silent.

Double-A

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat


Starburst insurance in general would be good, except when faced with
designating a living beneficiary.

Actually it might be possible to survive a radiation onslaught by
staying in a cave or bunker. The guys at the NORAD bunker in Cheyenne
Mountain might well survive the starburst, to continue defending the
wasteland outside!

Double-A

Double-A wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in message .cable.rogers.com...

Double-A wrote:


Dale Trynor wrote in message ...


Mad Scientist wrote:


nightbat wrote:



nightbat wrote

Mad Scientist wrote:



Hawking is competing with Einstein over who made the 'biggest blunder'.



nightbat

Not exactly,


I was just joking. When I called Hawking a dumbass that too was a joke.
Only the fools would take that seriously.

Dr. Einstein made the so called admitted blunder



and Mr.Hawking's should have gotten the clue before 30 years. All energy
and matter occupies space or volume, ( per nightbat theorem ), therefore
an mental overlapping theoretical applied classical mathematical deduced
singularity of zero volume and of infinite energy and or mass ( no
outlet ) is a non world real premise.



The mere evidence of blackholes existing proves that there was no big bang.

A mathematical point singularity



can indicate space location but never be zero since a point always has
value. It can therefore be location representative relative to two other
reference points in order to be able to transangulate relative frame
position.



Gravity waves produced by black holes extend right out to the edge of
the galaxy it occupies. That is why there is a correlation between the
mass of the black hole in the galactic center and the overall size or
radius of the galactic disk.

The subject point can be both indicative of particular space



body and location or of relative space plotted position only. The actual
sum or total energy/mass value make-up of point singularity is separate
but can be mathematically congruent to its positioned determination. In
overlapping values one must be careful to distinguish what value one is
mathematically, mentally deductive-inductively, or abstract physics
theoretically and logically, seeking or ascertaining from actual
value(s) that is representative.


the nightbat


We exist inside of a singularity, that is why the universe appears
'flat' as per CMBR data.


Dale Trynor wrote:
Mad Scientist, you might be someone unfamiliar with the theory I
frequently post. Try looking up my last few posts in sci.physics 7/26/04
9:59 PM Starting out without gravity creates Boundries,

to see my latest attempt at a simplified outline of the basis for the
theory.

Basically it looks at ways to show how the sort of gravitational time
dilation one gets around any massive body can be shown to contract
matter in such a way that you end up measuring more distances, volume,
i.e., literally more space.
And how this will not only show how black holes are not only universe
like but you would be surprised at just how well you end up getting the
same predictions as those given for inflation theory. This is of course
if you could be an observer inside of one when it formed.

[snip]


Following your line of reasoning, it would seem that as the matter of
a black hole contracts toward the "classical" singularity, the
gravitational field around it would get ever stronger, creating more
an more distance between itself and the outside universe. In fact, as
it approached a singularity, it should have created an almost infinite
distance between itself and anything nearby.

Therefore following the inverse square law of gravity, the black
hole's gravitational field should quickly fade away.

Have you considered this?

Double-A


Since the Pleiades star cluster is the nearest largest cluster to our
solar system (and quite a beauty to see I might add) can someone here
offer a time line of events what would be noticed were one of those
stars to suddenly go supernovae? How long before we would even notice
and how would the star appear and change over time, and would 'debris'
from such a nova effect the earth in any way?



Fall 1957, a family sits watching the antics of the Beaver and Eddie
Haskell on a cool November night. Unbeknownst to them, 50 light years
away in the constellation Pleiades, the core of a giant star collapses
into itself, releasing an immediate burst of neutrinos carrying
immense energy off into space. Hours later, the outer shell of the
star caves in, and then explodes, creating an outward bound shell of
intense light and high energy particle radiation!

Fifty years pass. In the fall of 2007, the neutrino detection
facilities around the world are swamped by a sudden flurry of neutrino
observations. As the wave of neutrinos passes through the Sun its
nuclear fires are stoked, and the Sun begins to heat up.

Astronomers, being forewarned by the neutrino detections, begin
searching the sky for a new supernova occurrence. Finally someone
notices a new bright star in the Pleiades, and the Earth's telescopes
are trained on it.

In a matter of days, the star becomes by far the brightest star in the
heavens. It actually becomes so bright that it hurts the eyes to look
at it, and yet it is still just a point of light.

In the coming decade, astrophysicists study the data, come to their
conclusions, and put their affairs in order.

The Sun grows increasingly hot, and people move to more northerly
climes. Winters are like summers, and summers are insufferable.

Fall 2017, the particle radiation from the supernova, travelling at
80% of the speed of light, hits the Earth! The sky lights up at night
like a fluorescent bulb! Eventually the Sun's protective envelope of
solar wind is blown away by this new supernova wind. The Earth's
magnetic field is overcome, and the Earth is exposed to the full blast
of the particle radiation!

The Earth grows silent.

Double-A

So you think such a supernova event from the closest star cluster would
destroy life on earth? I am curious, what if such an event took place
thousands of years ago already. Would there still be a neutrino 'event'
seen by our scientists?

Further, in such a scary scenario, wouldn't the other nearby stars in
the cluster also be affected, maybe even causing others to go supernova
as well? In other words, because we are talking about a possible
supernova in a star cluster, if other stars would also go supernova,
wouldn't the combined debris of matter and energy accelerate the
particles beyond the 80% speed of light? Wouldn't the immense chaos of
gravity forces also play a role in accelerating the debris cloud?

Further, when the light from the supernova begins to be seen, how long
before the debris would reach earth? We already know that the star
would begin to outshine other stars, would that make it increasingly
visible even in daylight hours on earth?

The Crab Nebula is considered to be one such example of a supernova, but
I have no idea how close or far away it is in comparison to the Pleiades
star cluster. I know when the earth first saw the 'star', it was
visible in the daylight hours. Yet I have heard of no debris entering
our solar system, not yet anyways.

What if such a nearby star such as in the case of the Pleiades, has
already gone supernova, and lets say we will only notice the event in
the next 1000 years. I guess I am not being clear here. What I trying
to ask is, if some of the gamma ray and cosmic ray 'bursts' being seen
by our instruments are in fact supernovae, how long of a time interval
exists between the 'bursts' and the 'debris' cloud being seen? I know
it depends on the distance the star is from earth. But lets be
reasonable for brevity sake.

What if could apply to Cygnus star could it not? Isn't the Cygnus star
a white dwarf orbiting around a black hole? Wouldn't such a star be a
prime candidate for a potential supernova event (or is the white dwarf
considered too small for a supernova) or at the very least gamma ray
burster?

I guess I am trying to bring this subject up because my intuition tells
me we are going to experience such a nearby supernova event in the near
future.

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat

Starburst insurance in general would be good, except when faced with
designating a living beneficiary.

Actually it might be possible to survive a radiation onslaught by
staying in a cave or bunker. The guys at the NORAD bunker in Cheyenne
Mountain might well survive the starburst, to continue defending the
wasteland outside!

Double-A

nightbat

Ok Double-A, then start bidding on some US owned surplus now
abandoned for sale underground cold war silo missile compounds. I
understand they are cheap, very large, and fully protective. Still your
telescope would be exposed in order to get those special sky shots as
the bulk of the neutrinos hit Earth. Your telescope viewing computer
program could be run from deep underground but the scope itself would be
exposed. It would be a good thing therefore to close the protective bay
doors to protect all the equipment but then the outside viewing would
suffer. Nope, better take out your scope insurance, for heaven knows
they charge enough for any scope and all those must have multiple lenses
and accessories needed. And knowing those pesky insurance salesmen,
leave it to them to figure out how to survive the arriving star burst
only to try to sell you even more insurance because nothing seems to be
able to get rid of them, especially if they smell a good prospect. And
please don't forget to get actual cost of living replacement rider added
to the policy so at least you can hopefully get the scope replaced of
equal value and not have to settle, you know, for one of those so called
cheaper ones.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat

Starburst insurance in general would be good, except when faced with
designating a living beneficiary.

Actually it might be possible to survive a radiation onslaught by
staying in a cave or bunker. The guys at the NORAD bunker in Cheyenne
Mountain might well survive the starburst, to continue defending the
wasteland outside!

Double-A

nightbat

Ok Double-A, then start bidding on some US owned surplus now
abandoned for sale underground cold war silo missile compounds. I
understand they are cheap, very large, and fully protective. Still your
telescope would be exposed in order to get those special sky shots as
the bulk of the neutrinos hit Earth.


I don't think the neutrinos would have much effect on your telescope,
neither would the gamma rays. It's that particle radiation (cosmic
rays) that shows up years later that might frost your lens!


Your telescope viewing computer
program could be run from deep underground but the scope itself would be
exposed. It would be a good thing therefore to close the protective bay
doors to protect all the equipment but then the outside viewing would
suffer. Nope, better take out your scope insurance, for heaven knows
they charge enough for any scope and all those must have multiple lenses
and accessories needed.


Not that cheap COSTCO Special scope that I have.


And knowing those pesky insurance salesmen,
leave it to them to figure out how to survive the arriving star burst
only to try to sell you even more insurance because nothing seems to be
able to get rid of them, especially if they smell a good prospect.


And they're counting on the fact that you probably won't be around to
collect that insurance after paying the premiums.


And
please don't forget to get actual cost of living replacement rider added
to the policy so at least you can hopefully get the scope replaced of
equal value and not have to settle, you know, for one of those so called
cheaper ones.


the nightbat


Again, the insurance company will get the better of you. Cost of
living won't be much when most of what you need will be free to
plunder from all those abandoned superstores.

Double-A

Mad Scientist wrote in message et.cable.rogers.com...
Double-A wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in message .cable.rogers.com...

Double-A wrote:


Dale Trynor wrote in message ...


Mad Scientist wrote:


nightbat wrote:



nightbat wrote

Mad Scientist wrote:



Hawking is competing with Einstein over who made the 'biggest blunder'.



nightbat

Not exactly,


I was just joking. When I called Hawking a dumbass that too was a joke.
Only the fools would take that seriously.

Dr. Einstein made the so called admitted blunder



and Mr.Hawking's should have gotten the clue before 30 years. All energy
and matter occupies space or volume, ( per nightbat theorem ), therefore
an mental overlapping theoretical applied classical mathematical deduced
singularity of zero volume and of infinite energy and or mass ( no
outlet ) is a non world real premise.



The mere evidence of blackholes existing proves that there was no big bang.

A mathematical point singularity



can indicate space location but never be zero since a point always has
value. It can therefore be location representative relative to two other
reference points in order to be able to transangulate relative frame
position.



Gravity waves produced by black holes extend right out to the edge of
the galaxy it occupies. That is why there is a correlation between the
mass of the black hole in the galactic center and the overall size or
radius of the galactic disk.

The subject point can be both indicative of particular space



body and location or of relative space plotted position only. The actual
sum or total energy/mass value make-up of point singularity is separate
but can be mathematically congruent to its positioned determination. In
overlapping values one must be careful to distinguish what value one is
mathematically, mentally deductive-inductively, or abstract physics
theoretically and logically, seeking or ascertaining from actual
value(s) that is representative.


the nightbat


We exist inside of a singularity, that is why the universe appears
'flat' as per CMBR data.


Dale Trynor wrote:
Mad Scientist, you might be someone unfamiliar with the theory I
frequently post. Try looking up my last few posts in sci.physics 7/26/04
9:59 PM Starting out without gravity creates Boundries,

to see my latest attempt at a simplified outline of the basis for the
theory.

Basically it looks at ways to show how the sort of gravitational time
dilation one gets around any massive body can be shown to contract
matter in such a way that you end up measuring more distances, volume,
i.e., literally more space.
And how this will not only show how black holes are not only universe
like but you would be surprised at just how well you end up getting the
same predictions as those given for inflation theory. This is of course
if you could be an observer inside of one when it formed.

[snip]


Following your line of reasoning, it would seem that as the matter of
a black hole contracts toward the "classical" singularity, the
gravitational field around it would get ever stronger, creating more
an more distance between itself and the outside universe. In fact, as
it approached a singularity, it should have created an almost infinite
distance between itself and anything nearby.

Therefore following the inverse square law of gravity, the black
hole's gravitational field should quickly fade away.

Have you considered this?

Double-A


Since the Pleiades star cluster is the nearest largest cluster to our
solar system (and quite a beauty to see I might add) can someone here
offer a time line of events what would be noticed were one of those
stars to suddenly go supernovae? How long before we would even notice
and how would the star appear and change over time, and would 'debris'
from such a nova effect the earth in any way?



Fall 1957, a family sits watching the antics of the Beaver and Eddie
Haskell on a cool November night. Unbeknownst to them, 50 light years
away in the constellation Pleiades, the core of a giant star collapses
into itself, releasing an immediate burst of neutrinos carrying
immense energy off into space. Hours later, the outer shell of the
star caves in, and then explodes, creating an outward bound shell of
intense light and high energy particle radiation!

Fifty years pass. In the fall of 2007, the neutrino detection
facilities around the world are swamped by a sudden flurry of neutrino
observations. As the wave of neutrinos passes through the Sun its
nuclear fires are stoked, and the Sun begins to heat up.

Astronomers, being forewarned by the neutrino detections, begin
searching the sky for a new supernova occurrence. Finally someone
notices a new bright star in the Pleiades, and the Earth's telescopes
are trained on it.

In a matter of days, the star becomes by far the brightest star in the
heavens. It actually becomes so bright that it hurts the eyes to look
at it, and yet it is still just a point of light.

In the coming decade, astrophysicists study the data, come to their
conclusions, and put their affairs in order.

The Sun grows increasingly hot, and people move to more northerly
climes. Winters are like summers, and summers are insufferable.

Fall 2017, the particle radiation from the supernova, travelling at
80% of the speed of light, hits the Earth! The sky lights up at night
like a fluorescent bulb! Eventually the Sun's protective envelope of
solar wind is blown away by this new supernova wind. The Earth's
magnetic field is overcome, and the Earth is exposed to the full blast
of the particle radiation!

The Earth grows silent.

Double-A

So you think such a supernova event from the closest star cluster would
destroy life on earth? I am curious, what if such an event took place
thousands of years ago already. Would there still be a neutrino 'event'
seen by our scientists?


Sure. That's what happened with SN1987A. A neutrino burst was
detected by a couple of detectors in different parts of the world, and
the next night the supernova was discovered visually. That supernova
actually occurred 170 thousand years ago.


Further, in such a scary scenario, wouldn't the other nearby stars in
the cluster also be affected, maybe even causing others to go supernova
as well? In other words, because we are talking about a possible
supernova in a star cluster, if other stars would also go supernova,
wouldn't the combined debris of matter and energy accelerate the
particles beyond the 80% speed of light? Wouldn't the immense chaos of
gravity forces also play a role in accelerating the debris cloud?


Some think there could be such a chain reaction. But I can't see why
that would make the particles go any faster. There would just be more
of them. Greater intensity.


Further, when the light from the supernova begins to be seen, how long
before the debris would reach earth? We already know that the star
would begin to outshine other stars, would that make it increasingly
visible even in daylight hours on earth?


If by debris you mean gas and dust, it would take a long time. The
SN1987A debris ring expanded to 1.3 light-years in the first 7 years.
I believe that some supernovae of the past were reported to be visible
in daylight.


The Crab Nebula is considered to be one such example of a supernova, but
I have no idea how close or far away it is in comparison to the Pleiades
star cluster. I know when the earth first saw the 'star', it was
visible in the daylight hours. Yet I have heard of no debris entering
our solar system, not yet anyways.


The Crab Nebula is 6,300 light-years away from Earth. The nebula is
the debris field of the supernova of 1054. I don't think it will be
getting here anytime soon. The Pleiades are about 400 light-years
away from us, not 50 like I thought before, so I guess you can stop
worrying about them.


What if such a nearby star such as in the case of the Pleiades, has
already gone supernova, and lets say we will only notice the event in
the next 1000 years. I guess I am not being clear here. What I trying
to ask is, if some of the gamma ray and cosmic ray 'bursts' being seen
by our instruments are in fact supernovae, how long of a time interval
exists between the 'bursts' and the 'debris' cloud being seen? I know
it depends on the distance the star is from earth. But lets be
reasonable for brevity sake.


If the supernova is 1000 light-years away and it blew up today, you
would see the neutrino burst first in 1000 years from now, followed
within hours by the gamma burst and the intense light. The particle
wave pulse (cosmic rays) would get here about 250 years after that.
The debris of dust and gas might never get here, unless the supernova
were just a few light-years away.


What if could apply to Cygnus star could it not? Isn't the Cygnus star
a white dwarf orbiting around a black hole? Wouldn't such a star be a
prime candidate for a potential supernova event (or is the white dwarf
considered too small for a supernova) or at the very least gamma ray
burster?


Normally a white dwarf would not go supernova, but it might go nova if
something is feeding it fusible matter. In the case where the
companion is a black hole, I think you know who will be feeding whom!


I guess I am trying to bring this subject up because my intuition tells
me we are going to experience such a nearby supernova event in the near
future.


Maybe you sensed a neutrino burst.

Double-A

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat

Starburst insurance in general would be good, except when faced with
designating a living beneficiary.

Actually it might be possible to survive a radiation onslaught by
staying in a cave or bunker. The guys at the NORAD bunker in Cheyenne
Mountain might well survive the starburst, to continue defending the
wasteland outside!

Double-A

nightbat

Ok Double-A, then start bidding on some US owned surplus now
abandoned for sale underground cold war silo missile compounds. I
understand they are cheap, very large, and fully protective. Still your
telescope would be exposed in order to get those special sky shots as
the bulk of the neutrinos hit Earth.


Double-A
I don't think the neutrinos would have much effect on your telescope,
neither would the gamma rays. It's that particle radiation (cosmic
rays) that shows up years later that might frost your lens!

nightbat

Neutrinos are known to go right through matter, and yes, it's
that dirty, nasty, sub star burst radiation that will get the clueless
above ground wanderers that will receive the bulk of the damage not us.
You and I will be underground in our US surplus abandoned missile silos.
We will be the first to get the super nova shots and sell them to all
the magazines and newspapers and make millions. Years later, as the
nasty radiation arrives we will be in our deluxe fitted and protective
underground bunkers.




Your telescope viewing computer
program could be run from deep underground but the scope itself would be
exposed. It would be a good thing therefore to close the protective bay
doors to protect all the equipment but then the outside viewing would
suffer. Nope, better take out your scope insurance, for heaven knows
they charge enough for any scope and all those must have multiple lenses
and accessories needed.


Double-A
Not that cheap COSTCO Special scope that I have.


nightbat

You don't mean the recalled WalMart 80 Costco Special scope for
$99 normally $149 that the telescope factory put the experimental super
high polished professional quality multi lenses in by mistake?



And knowing those pesky insurance salesmen,
leave it to them to figure out how to survive the arriving star burst
only to try to sell you even more insurance because nothing seems to be
able to get rid of them, especially if they smell a good prospect.


Double-A
And they're counting on the fact that you probably won't be around to
collect that insurance after paying the premiums.

nightbat

Nay, we will have beaten them by being in our underground deluxe
silo bunkers.


And
please don't forget to get actual cost of living replacement rider added
to the policy so at least you can hopefully get the scope replaced of
equal value and not have to settle, you know, for one of those so called
cheaper ones.




Double-A
Again, the insurance company will get the better of you. Cost of
living won't be much when most of what you need will be free to
plunder from all those abandoned superstores.

Double-A

nightbat

Those sneaky insurance salesmen devils, they forget that we are
corresponding alt.astronomy net posters that will be protected by the
reconditioned underground deluxe refitted observatory silo bunkers and
all those millions we made selling the one of a kind space sky shots
before the dirty radiation hits Earth. Then after the main radiation
blows over we can both go to WalMart and get all those great star burst
abandoned Costco cheap scopes but with the experimental titanium
silicate ultra low expansion made flame reactively with the additional
3M alumina flame spray experimental lenses they meant to only put in the
much more expansive priced Costco 9000 scopes. If they only knew you got
your hands on those experimental lenses already.

See: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/8/9


the nightbat