BLACK HOLE RADIATION: New paper for Open Review

Regular contributor, Robert Beatty has submitted his latest paper on BLACK HOLE RADIATION for open peer review by our loyal readers. Please feel free to provide feedback in the ‘comments’ section below to assist in our ongoing review of this new PROM paper ( read here for more information about our PROM review process).

ABSTRACT

This paper completes a review of the Gravispheres concept wherein black hole V616 is regarded as the centre of the gravisphere in which the Solar System resides. V616 also represents the location where the strongest local gravity field exists with electromagnetic gravity strings radiating (EGS) from that point. Detail of how EGS form includes a consideration of positronium, Feynman Diagrams, Hawking radiation, quantum entanglement, and quantum energy teleportation. The energy gains of a black hole show that 12.05{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the incoming energy is retained at the black hole.

The full PDF is free to view and download here: BLACK HOLE RADIATION:ENTANGLED GRAVITY

  1. BACKGROUND

The BIG BANG OR STEADY STATE[2] paper shows the illustration in Figure 1. It concludes that Black Hole (BH) AO620/V616Mon[3] (V616) is the centre of our gravitational zone of influence, and that the Solar System gravity forms at V616.

The gravity so formed follows the inverse-square law to become weaker with increasing distance from the BH. Included, is a distance calculation that compares the gravity attraction to the electromagnetic attraction of an electron towards a proton, which is 10^39 greater.

Figure 1.

This treatise implies that the “Gravitational Constant”[4] value G varies throughout the universe, and also suggests material digested into BHs results in positrons with electrons (positroniums) being formed at the BH.

Positrons and electrons remain entangled to form Electromagnetic Gravity Strings (EGS). Figure 2 illustrates a summarised BH digestion process, including “pair production”[5].

Figure 2.

This figure shows the BH structure with incoming mass moving along the first Event Horizon where electrons, protons and neutrons are progressively stripped off. These components form into EGS, cosmic rays and enhanced BH mass, respectively.

Neutrons become ‘free’ neutrons which normally would suffer a half life decay of 10 to 15 minutes. This is a particular conundrum facing research into neutron stars and BHs as further discussed.[6]

The Natural Gravity paper[7] describes how gravity in the solar system is centered on BH V616, where the most energetic rays at 3.10E+008 joules per photon attach preferably to the largest solar system mass, being the Sun.

Figure 3.

The GRAVIMASS[8] report highlights the difference between fixed and elastic links concluding that the nature of gravity is elastic and can transmit energy to objects operating within its gravitational field. It further concludes that transfer of energy to the Earth during its orbit around the Sun, results in energy being converted to mass at the calculated rate of 212,245 tonnes per annum – resulting in an expanding earth.

  1. MASS TRANSFER FROM BLACK HOLE V616

The average density of the Earth is quoted as 5.51 g/cm3 (5,500 kg/m3). This is close to the density of the mineral Chalcocite (Cu2S) which will be regarded as the average representation of the Earth’s components. Using this information, we can calculate the rate of energy transfer from V616 to Earth shown in Table 1.

  1. HAWKING RADIATION[13]

Hawking radiation, Radiation theoretically emitted from just outside the event horizon of a black hole. Stephen W. Hawking proposed in 1974 that subatomic particle pairs (photons, neutrinos, and some massive particles) arising naturally near the event horizon may result in one particle’s escaping the vicinity of the black hole while the other particle, of negative energy, disappears into it. The flow of particles of negative energy into the black hole reduces its mass until it disappears completely in a final burst of radiation.

As new mass enfolds into a BH, there must be an equivalent mass or energy retained, or emitted so that the overall state of ‘entropy’ does not change. This implies that entangled particles generated at a BH also transmit energy. Some of the energy is in the form of entangled particles delivering gravity, while another energy form emerges as cosmic radiation. The retained mass fraction stays in the BH which increases in size over time, provided material continues to enter the BH.

BH radiation appears to be a variable emission based on the quantity of material entering the region. This is similar to feeding a fire with fuel. Smoke and flames appear as new fuel is added, but disappears once the fuel is consumed.

  1. QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT[16]

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.”

This definition allows for “groups of particles” to be entangled which is assumed to be the case at V616. In this model there is one end set of entangled particles residing at V616, while the other ends radiate in a spherical pattern forming the V616 Gravisphere.

Importance for the black hole problem.[18]

We have seen that vacuum fluctuations produce particle pairs near the horizon. One member of the pair is inside, and one outside.

Suppose for concreteness that particles making up the pair are an electron and a positron. Is the electron inside the horizon, or is the positron inside the horizon?

From what we have seen about entangled states, we can guess that the state we will get is an entangled state of the form

Thus the electron is inside if the positron is outside, and the positron is inside if the electron is outside.

However, positrons associated with a BH appear to form a vital function, because the positive charge inherent to the positron, stabilise the neutrons within the BH. Under these circumstances, the entangled electron-positron pair will always have the positron residing in the BH. The electron is free to radiate from the BH in a fashion predicted by Hawking Radiation.[19] Under these circumstances, the entangled particles can transport energy as described:[20]

Energy-Entanglement Relation for Quantum Energy Teleportation

Masahiro Hotta

Protocols of quantum energy teleportation (QET), while retaining causality and local energy conservation, enable the transportation of energy from a subsystem of a many-body quantum system to a distant subsystem by local operations and classical communication through ground-state entanglement. We prove two energy-entanglement inequalities for a minimal QET model. These relations help us to gain a profound understanding of entanglement itself as a physical resource by relating entanglement to energy as an evident physical resource.

A conduit field appears to operate as an elastic link between V616 and other masses in the V616 Gravisphere. As a conduit link it is possible to regard the entire conduit as a single entity. Activity anywhere along the EGS link provides simultaneous reaction throughout the entangled group, and is not dependant on the speed of light

  1. FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS [23]

Feynman Diagrams are pictorial representations of the interactions of subatomic particles. The big advantage of Feynman Diagrams is that it not only tells you what goes into the interaction and what comes out, but also what goes on during the interaction itself.

In this discussion the decay of a neutron is relevant as follows:[24]

This raises the question: “Can the down quark associate with a positron, stabilise a free neutron by preventing ‘one of the neutron’s down quarks becoming an up quark”?

  1. FREE NEUTRON QUARK DEPICTION

Free neutrons are defined as neutrons operating without a proton associate. Under those circumstances the neutron becomes unstable and is known to have a short half-life and rapidly deteriorates into a proton, electron and an antineutrino.[27] It appears that the positive charge associated with the proton acts to stabilise the neutron. There must be a form of stabilisation for a free neutron to explain how these particles can exist in a stable state at megnetars, neutron stars, BHs, and elsewhere in the universe.[28]

Of interest in the current BH discussion is; can the positive proton charge be replaced by the positive charge of a positron, if so how? The details of the Quark Diagram Figure 5 suggest how this might occur.

Figure 5

The Feynman Diagram at the bottom of the Neutrons column shows a free neutron with a hanging e- charge. The positronium diagram includes an e+ charge, and shows the situation presumed to occur as an electron enters a BH at a similar time that a free neutron forms. Before the neutron can decay, a positron attaches to the neutron, providing the required stabilising positive charge. However, the positron is still entangled with its electron which radiates from the BH, as an entangled particle. This entangled association at a BH is expected to cause the strong gravity field inherent to a BH. The current revision alters Figure 2, which now appears as Figure 6:

Figure 6.

Figure 6 shows the positronium combination entering the BH together with neutrons and protons. The protons become separated and eject as Cosmic Rays close to the speed of light, due to the high positive charge within the BH.[29] Free neutrons associate with positrons staying within the BH while also being entangled with their electron pair, as it radiates from the BH forming a strong gravity field.

  1. BLACK HOLE ENERGY BALANCE

If a planet like the Earth entered a BH, there would be a release of energy, estimated by adopting the following logic. The average Earth density is reported to be approximately 5.5 g/cc, close to the density of Chalcocite Cu2S. A molecule of Chalcocite includes 2 atoms of Cu, combined with one atom of S as shown in Figure 10.[30]

Figure 10.

A Chalcocite molecule consists of 74 protons, 74 electrons, and 86 neutrons. Now assume one molecule is consumed at a BH. The energy released going into the BH includes, the strong nuclear hadron force between Cu and S as well as the weak nuclear lepton force attaching to the electrons.

The rest energy of this combination amounts to a total of 2.41E-008 joules, shown in Table 2, under BH Reconciliation. The energy released from the BH includes both rest and kinetic energy as protons in cosmic rays, and electrons associated with the gravity field radiation. This amounts to 2.12E-008 joules.

The energy gain at the BH of 2.90E-008 joules includes both neutrons and positrons, and shows that 12.05{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the incoming energy is retained at the BH.

Table 2.

  1. CONCLUSIONS
  2. Energy transfer to Earth possibly comes via the Sun, and is consistent with a submarine hum recorded in the Indian Ocean.
  3. The retained mass fraction stays in the BH which increases in size over time, provided material continues to enter the BH.
  4. BH radiation appears as a variable emission based on the quantity of entering material. Positrons associated with a BH appear to form a vital function by stabilising neutrons within the BH.
  5. The entangled electron-positron pair at a BH will always have the positron residing inside the BH.
  6. The electron is free to radiate from the BH.
  7. Electrons stay entangled with their positrons inside a BH, to form EGS gravity fields.
  8. The positive proton charge of a neutron might be replaced by the positive charge from a positron.
  9. A positronium combination might lead to an entangled association with an electron which forms into a gravity field.
  10. The BH retains 12.05{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more energy than is released.
  11. A BH will grow in size as long as incoming material feeds into it.

REFERENCES.

[1] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/BlackHoleRadiation.pdf

[2] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/BigBangOrSteadyState.pdf

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A0620-00

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

[6] https://phys.org/news/2018-08-neutron-stars-puzzle-earth.html

[7] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/InterstellarGravity.pdf

[8] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/GRAVIMASS.pdf

[13] https://www.britannica.com/science/Hawking-radiation

[16] quantum entanglement

[18] https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mathur.16/infopublic/info2.4.html

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation


Read the full paper at: https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/blackholeradiationprom.pdf

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY

Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (25)

  • Avatar

    James Horak

    |

    Must therefore be a lifespan to such a system since there must be a limit to energy contained. JCH

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Robert,

    I am curious what is the explanation of the somewhat uniform ‘blue’ light seen in the image of Figure 1. I can simply explain black regions seen by this telescope by the possible fact there are no stars to be seen in a region of space. What I cannot explain is this blue light which is not a bright ‘point of light.

    Certainly would like to read your explanation of this blue light.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Jerry and James,
    The blue light is IT artistic interpretation of radio wave emission presumed to come from the region of a BH. See https://phys.org/news/2018-08-simpler-approach-black-hole-description.html
    BH are notoriously hard to image, because it appears to be where matter gets transformed into atomic particles.
    However, the blue light images matter on the way into the BH, which can continue to expand until there is no more matter in the local region to consume.
    At this point, we can assume the BH transmits more energy than it receives, and will eventually die out.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Robert,

    I used your image to get to the fact that I have viewed several to many Hubble images of what our solar system (dust clouds) may have looked like billions of years ago and there is central star (sun) in the dust cloud which seems to be swirling about an not yet visible center of mass. And my question has been: Where is this light source which allows us to see these dust clouds as we see the tails of comets from the light of our system’s central sun?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert,

      As usual I omitted a critical word–not– when I wrote “there is [not] a central star (sun)”.

      • Avatar

        Robert Beatty

        |

        Jerry,
        You are looking at the wrong references. Try Genesis I:
        And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

      • Avatar

        jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Robert,

        Yes, I am well aware of this verse which was written so long ago.

        Just as I am aware that “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.’ And it was so. God made two great lights–the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the fourth day.” NIV Genesis 1:14-19.

        My ask, because I have not studied what astronomers have observed with their telescopes as you have, do these images seen by astronomers validate what I read in Genesis? For what human being would be so illogical to write what I read?

        I am glad I didn’t write it and therefore have to defend it. For I know I am unable.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Robert Beatty

          |

          Jerry,
          Did you ever study under Richard Feynman. If so, do you recall his diagrams?
          Please remember this is intended as a PROM paper review.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Robert,

          Fortunately I had do other things today because I now find I misread previously what you had written. For now my answer is yes. I have read and reread many portions of the three volumes of ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics” and I cannot remember him teaching anything about his diagrams. Which I understand were a computational aid tor physicists whose mathematical abilities did not allow them to the math which other wise required
          skills they did not process. And I have read his popular best sellers several times because they contain nuggets of scientific wisdom which one might only detect if one has studied to become a chemist. Have you read the “The 7 Percent Solution’ in ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”? If you have read it, what did you learn?

          Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Robert, we usually associate “science” with things that can be observed, verified, tested, documented, repeated, etc. Science fiction, on the other hand, is based on creative imagination.

    So how do you respond to someone that says black holes are not science, just creative imagination?

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Geran,
      Science investigations usually require a degree of speculation as opposed to creative imagination.
      There is a fine line of distinction between these two, but constructive speculation forms in response to an observed conundrum. Explanations can require many iterations of trial and error until the observations fit accepted science or engineering explanations. Sometimes the most logical explanation will not appear until new investigation techniques become available, as such the telescope is arguably the most revealing scientific invention.
      Topical conundrums include; observed star orbit sequences that do not conform to solar system gravity forces, but appear to be centred on what is called a black hole, or empirically defining the mechanism which causes gravity, or explaining how red and blue shift star light arrives on Earth. If we choose to delve into quantum mechanics, therein lies many more issues looking for constructive speculation explanations.
      I think we can conclude that black holes are not the result of creative imagination, but represent ongoing constructive speculation.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        That all sounds good, but when “creative imagination” includes nonsense, it becomes “science fiction”.

        Early in your text, you stated: “Included, is a distance calculation that compares the gravity attraction to the electromagnetic attraction of an electron towards a proton, which is 10^39 greater.”

        That nonsense is common on the Internet, and is never refuted. It is nonsense because you cannot compare the two different forces like that. Charge and mass are not the same, so the forces are not the same.

        Nonsense starts and then builds on itself. Pretty soon there is an entire iindustry built on pseudoscience. Cosmology is a good example. “Climate science” is another good example.

        • Avatar

          Robert Beatty

          |

          Geran,
          The gravitational force between an electron and proton one meter (d1) apart is approximately 10-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still I metre apart is approximately 10-28newton. That is a difference between FORCES and is therefore comparable.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            The forces are different because of the masses/charges used. You’re using ONE example to establish a false concept.

            Compare the forces between two masses of 5 (10)^30 kg, each with 2 (10)^-19 Coulombs each, 1 meter apart.

            Which force is larger?

          • Avatar

            Robert Beatty

            |

            Geran,
            The masses you refer to got separated into their atomic components on the way into the BH. So the atomic force calculation is applicable in this treatise.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Robert,
            Quantum physics was developed because the conventional physics, like gravity, did not conform to the sub atomic level. There is no gravitational force between an electron and a proton. Electrons do not “move” they disappear and re-appear according to probabilities. Quantum physics was suppose to explain the behavior of particles on the subatomic level. It was never intended for larger scale physics but is now being used on galactic scale because it produces whatever results are wanted.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Robert Beatty

            |

            Herb,
            We are considering atomic particles, not sub atomics.
            The mass of a proton is reported to be 1.672623 x 10-27 kg and the mass of an electron is 9.109390 x 10-31 kg. Using Newtons Law of gravity, we posit that at 1 m separation the two particles experience a gravity attractive force of about 10-67 newtons.
            So there is a force of gravity operating between these two mass objects.
            Any other conclusion at this stage of our scientific understanding may be described as creative imagination.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Robert,
            Protons and electrons are subatomic particles. Neutrons are subatomic molecules made from an electron and a proton.
            The sub-sub atomic particles are nonsense. Anything based on the photon and constant speed of light is nonsense (including “black holes”).
            How can mass produce both inertia (the resistance to motion) and motion? Inertial mass and gravitational mass are different. Inertia is produced by the mass (matter) of an object while motion (gravity) comes from the energy associated with the mass. That’s how Venus, with little mass, can have such a power gravitational field and why asteroids can orbit other asteroids. Kepler’s law that was used by Newton to develop gravity has no mass units, only energy.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Robert Beatty

            |

            Thanks Herb,
            You are correct in defining electrons and protons as sub atomic particles. I figured you were referring to the more elusive massless decay components.
            When you say “The sub-sub atomic particles are nonsense”, you are taking on some very renowned science.
            I know you have been pushing the idea of an ‘energy thing’ (ET) and wonder how that is coming together, because there will need to be a great of convincing to be done before that concept is generally understood.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Robert,
            The proof will come when they discover that Jupiter and Saturn are big giant rocks not gases. The impact of the Shumen-Levy moment fragments should have convinced them.
            They discover that the moon and Mars are composed of the same material as the Earth, but still believe they have a much lower density. They can fudge by adjusting the core size but now scientists are disputing that the Earth has an iron core. Truth will out in time.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Robert Beatty

            |

            Herb,
            I agree with your sentiment; “Jupiter and Saturn are big giant rocks not gases”.
            In the interests of staying on topic, I am happy to explore these thoughts further if you care to email me.

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    There are nine models for black holes. Why so many? Because none of them agree with the observable Universe. Einstein, Oppenheimer, and even Nasa says that they do not exist. Hmmm.

    So, why read this paper? No one has shown that the Universe is not a Steady State Universe, jumping on an Expanding Universe with little evidence. However, they then assume the latter to be true ever since.

    It is interesting that the electromagnetic force is 10^34 times stronger than gravity but they tell us gravity runs the Universe. They make the childish assumption that all charge distribution is even throughout the Universe. Truly childish and simplistic and then they cobble up a Big Bang theory that has to be bandaged and patched with black matter, energy, and force, a Boogeyman science that no one can detect. Sadly, not worth reading.

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Charles,
      Thanks for reading this paper. NASA seems to have a pretty solid view regarding black holes. “Hubble Finds Best Evidence for Elusive Mid-Sized Black Hole” as per April 1, 2020.
      If “none of them agree with the observable Universe” we are probably dealing with creative imagination not constructive speculation.
      IMO “Steady State Universe” provides a better explanation of the observable facts than “Big Bang”, and “Expanding Earth” makes sense to me, but I have an open mind on the “Expanding Universe”. More constructive speculation required.

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Is this BH spinning? What is the spin rate?

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    All celestial bodies appear to be spinning to some extent, but BHs are invisible which makes direct measurement impossible. Their spin rate is more inferred by complicated mathematics which include rotating, non rotating, charged and uncharged considerations. My presentation is a non rotating estimate.

Comments are closed

Share via