Since I got you thinking about whether my previous writings about the existence of a temporal field responsible for what we call gravity make logical sense, changing the perspective regarding cause and effect, challenging Newton, let's now talk on the same basis about black holes.
Long story short, let's start with what a black hole is. It's a star. But stars shine, you'll say. Not all of them.
To escape from a gravitational field, for example, the Earth's, one must reach a specific velocity, what we call escape velocity. Beyond that, we overcome gravity, running faster than it pulls us back, and eventually break free. So, a black hole is a star so heavy that it has such a high escape velocity that not even the speed of light is enough for anything to escape from there. Hence, no light escapes outward, and it "appears" black.
Up to here, I think we're okay.
Here's where the "madness" begins. Uncle Hawking once talked about radiation that must exist from black holes, a kind of "evaporation" of them. Some particles manage to escape from it. Particles that are not necessarily light and do not move at the speed of light.
So how does this happen?
Let's explain in two words what these particles are. Around the black hole exists the event horizon, as it's called. In a subsequent article, we'll analyze more topics about black holes and expand on this. At this stage, we're just interested in it as an area and nothing else.
On the event horizon, under the tremendous gravitational forces and distortions of spacetime, pairs of particles-antiparticles are created. The particle is usually a boson, while the antiparticle is a fermion. We're not concerned about their category (their type). We're concerned that these two are in population equilibrium, resulting in the region around the black hole being considered empty, as it has an equilibrium between positive and negative energy (yes, negative energy exists..! In black holes), since these particles are created in pairs that immediately annihilate.
Or do they?
Of course, this is what a stationary observer sees, who is "falling" (or, as we would say, being dragged by spacetime itself) towards the center of the black hole.
In reality, we would see them moving towards the black hole. Being sucked in like spaghetti. However, they might be stationary, while spacetime itself moves towards the center. It's like the entire space is a treadmill that inevitably pulls you backward. You might remain still for yourself, but for the rest of the universe, you're receding in a form of free fall and sinking into the black hole.
We're not particularly concerned with the technical aspect at this stage. The point is, if we were stationary, we would see the space around us empty.
But let's say we're running on the cosmic treadmill against the flow of spacetime. There, as we mentioned in a previous article, we would experience the Doppler phenomenon. We would perceive different frequencies around us. Thus, some wavelengths of particles would never reach us to neutralize with other particles. In that case, for us, space wouldn't be empty but would contain some particles.
So, which one is correct? When do we have the right perspective? Is space empty or does it contain particles escaping from the black hole as we move?
It depends (you say, it depends... as the famous greek song goes) on the observer.
However, as we move further away from the event horizon, the spacetime continuum becomes more stationary. So, there, farther from the black hole, the relativistic particles (from the perspective that to perceive them or not, you need to move in relation to them), exist in both states (motion and stillness) of the observer. In that region, we can say that particles created at the event horizon managed to escape the black hole's pull! This is a form of "evaporation" of the black hole, as we see particles that "can't be" pulled in, and it's called Hawking radiation, predicted in 1974.
Of course, this means that from these pairs, particles with negative energy, which cannot exist in the rest of the universe, can survive inside the black hole, and their pair can escape into the universe. The other conclusion is that black holes contain negative energy, probably without being able to sustain the black hole itself.
So, somewhere here, I'd like you to be open-minded. Just the idea that something without the necessary escape velocity, without an observer to observe it, and without knowing that there are particles with negative energy, is considered to exist and to escape from a black hole in some relativistic way should already strike you as very strange. And so it is.
The mere idea that something, without the necessary escape velocity, without an observer to observe it, and without us knowing about the existence of particles with negative energy, is considered to exist and escape in some relativistic way from a black hole should already strike you as very strange. So, what I'm going to tell you might be quite surprising.
What would you say if I told you that the particle escaping never actually escapes from the black hole? We see it happening. That's how we perceive it. Why? Because our arrow of time goes from the past to the future, so we assume that this is always true, everywhere, and for everything. But is it true? Even within black holes? In a subsequent article, we will provide answers to this.
However, do we know what the timeline of this particle shows? What if it shows the opposite? What if this particle moves backward in time relative to us? If we see its life from the end to the beginning, in rewind. Thus, we would see it magically created at the event horizon, an area that, depending on the observer, is either empty or not, and far enough away from it, we would see the particle moving away from the black hole. Because simply put, it moves back in time relative to the rest of the universe. To be specific, relative to us humans.
It is possible, then, that under distortions, particles with reversed time vectors are created. Could it ultimately be a new particle characteristic, like spin or charge, how a particle perceives time?
Many say that antimatter "moves" backward in time. Is this what is being applied here, instead of a relativistic motion?
Think about these, and to all who read me, be well always!
留言