Thursday, May 12, 2011
Ah, they're coming for me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28548425/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/scientists-hear-mystery-boom-space/
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Sunny Scorp Fishy Moon
Merely minor disabilities will affect you in your intellectual endeavors.
The worst that could happen would be an:
overly inquisitive
indecisive nature
that never seems to be satisfied.
However, you have within you the ability to avoid these psychological obstacles
And, I will.
The combination of your Sun sign and your Moon sign produces a person with terrific intuition and sense that ordinary people simply don't have. You are overly dramatic and frequently exaggerate problems. You are, likewise, able to capture the drama of your surroundings as well as the imagination of the public. Yours is an emotional profundity that lends a great deal of inspiration to your personality. You attack any problem with unswerving enthusiasm and devotion, always giving more that just a part of yourself to your causes or ideals. Here there is a blend of the emotional force, determination and will power of Scorpio with the sensitivity, impressionability and intuitive insight of Pisces. This produces a strongly emotional and somewhat psychic or receptive and impressionable nature. A studious and intellectual bend permits you to succeed, especially in literary or artistic endeavors. You are very creative, but your success may be more from a willingness to apply yourself than from pure talent. On the down side, you are anxious and worry too much. Positive thinking is essential for you to attain personal balance and peace of mind. There are unexpected depths in your nature and you succeed by concentrating your energies on definite objectives, avoiding the tendency to dispense emotional energies and intellectual power in overemphasis on romance, daydreaming or negative apprehensions or worries.
The worst that could happen would be an:
overly inquisitive
indecisive nature
that never seems to be satisfied.
However, you have within you the ability to avoid these psychological obstacles
And, I will.
The combination of your Sun sign and your Moon sign produces a person with terrific intuition and sense that ordinary people simply don't have. You are overly dramatic and frequently exaggerate problems. You are, likewise, able to capture the drama of your surroundings as well as the imagination of the public. Yours is an emotional profundity that lends a great deal of inspiration to your personality. You attack any problem with unswerving enthusiasm and devotion, always giving more that just a part of yourself to your causes or ideals. Here there is a blend of the emotional force, determination and will power of Scorpio with the sensitivity, impressionability and intuitive insight of Pisces. This produces a strongly emotional and somewhat psychic or receptive and impressionable nature. A studious and intellectual bend permits you to succeed, especially in literary or artistic endeavors. You are very creative, but your success may be more from a willingness to apply yourself than from pure talent. On the down side, you are anxious and worry too much. Positive thinking is essential for you to attain personal balance and peace of mind. There are unexpected depths in your nature and you succeed by concentrating your energies on definite objectives, avoiding the tendency to dispense emotional energies and intellectual power in overemphasis on romance, daydreaming or negative apprehensions or worries.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Koinophilia is a term used by biologist Johan Koeslag, meaning that when sexual creatures seek a mate, they prefer that mate not to have any unusual, peculiar or deviant features.
Natural selection results, over the course of generations, in beneficial (or "fit") features replacing their disadvantageous counterparts. Thus, natural selection causes beneficial features to become increasingly more common with each generation, while the disadvantageous features become increasingly rare. A sexual creature, therefore, wishing to mate with a fit partner, would be expected to avoid individuals sporting unusual features, while being especially attracted to those individuals displaying a predominance of common or average features. This is termed "koinophilia". It has, as an important side effect, that mates displaying mutant features (the result of a genetic mutation) are also avoided. This, in itself, is also advantageous, because the vast majority of mutations are disadvantageous. Because it is impossible to judge whether a new mutation is beneficial or not, koinophilic creatures will avoid them all with equal determination, even if this means avoiding the very occasional beneficial mutation. Thus, koinophilia, although not perfect or infallible in its ability to distinguish fit from unfit mates, remains, on average, a very good strategy when choosing a mate. It will be right far more often than it will be wrong. Even when it is wrong, a koinophilic choice always ensures that the offspring will inherit a suite of thoroughly tried and tested features.
According to Koeslag, koinophilia provides very simple and obvious explanations for such evolutionary puzzles as the process of speciation,[1] evolutionary stasis and punctuated equilibria,[1][2] sex and the affordability of males,[3][4] and the evolution of cooperation[5][6]. This mating strategy, was first referred to as koinophilia by Johan H. Koeslag[2], from the Greek, koinos, meaning "the usual" or "common", and philos, meaning "fondness" or "love". It was independently identified in humans by Judith Langlois,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] who found that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became.
In keeping with these theoretical considerations, one study on an isolated human population, as opposed to Western subjects, has suggested that preferences for averageness appear to be universal.[14] The isolated people preferred average faces from their own race, but did not show any preference for average faces of other races. This makes sense since they are not exposed to outside races and thus have no knowledge of what an average face from another race looks like. This suggests that it is averageness alone, that is making a face attractive rather than some other artifact that results from averaging techniques [14]. Many studies have confirmed that subjects find young average faces the most attractive.[7][14][15][16][17][18] However, Perrett et al.[15] found that both men and women considered that a face averaged from a set of attractive faces was more attractive than one averaged from a wide range of women's faces. When the differences between the first face and the second face were slightly exaggerated the new face was judged, on average, to be more attractive still. Although the three faces look remarkably similar, close examination of the photos in Perrett, May and Yoshikawa's paper[15] shows, in fact, that the exaggerated face looks younger than the average face (composed of women's faces aged 22–46 years). Since the same results were obtained with Japanese subjects, these findings are probably culture independent, and would indicate that people generally find youthful average female faces sexually the most attractive,[7] as expected.
A major evolutionary problem has been how the continuous process of evolution produces groups of individuals, labeled species, whose adult members look extraordinarily similar, and distinctively different from the members of other species. Lions and leopards are, for instance, both large carnivores inhabiting the same general environment, and hunting much the same prey, in much the same way, but they look extraordinarily different, and would not be confused one for the other even by the most unsophisticated observer[19]. There would seem to be no obvious evolutionary reason which suggests that lion-leopard intermediates are likely to be less successful hunters than either of the two distinct species that inhabit the African savanna today. Why then do they not exist? What evolutionary force drives these intermediate forms to extinction, leaving only highly uniform and distinctive lions on the one hand and highly uniform and distinctive leopards on the other?
Speciation poses a "2-dimensional" problem. The discontinuities in appearance between existing species represent the "horizontal dimension" of the problem. The succession of fossil species represent the "vertical dimension".This is, however, only one aspect of what is almost certainly a two-dimensional problem[20][21]. The "horizontal" dimension refers to the almost complete absence of transitional, or intermediate forms between present-day species (e.g. between lions, leopards, cheetahs and lynxes)[19][22][23][24][25]. The "vertical" dimension concerns the fossil record. Fossil species are frequently remarkably stable over extremely long periods of geological time, despite continental drift, major climate changes, and mass extinctions[26][27]. When a change in appearance or form does occur, it tends to be abrupt in geological terms, again producing phenotypic gaps (i.e. an absence of intermediate forms), but now between successive species, which then often co-exist for considerable periods of time. Thus the fossil record, though open to different interpretations, suggests that evolution occurs in bursts, interspersed by long periods of evolutionary stagnation (i.e. by means of punctuated equilibria[26]). Why this is so, has been one of evolution's great mysteries[27].
Koinophilia could explain both the horizontal and vertical manifestations of speciation, and why it usually involves the entire external appearance of the creatures concerned.[1][2] If sexual creatures prefer mates sporting predominantly common features, and avoid mates with unusual, unfamiliar, fringe, or extreme attributes, then common features will tend to become more common still, and at a rate and to an extent that natural selection on its own is unlikely to achieve. Since koinophilia affects the entire external appearance, the members of an interbreeding group will soon all begin to look astoundingly alike, both with regard to important or essential features (e.g. the jaws, dentition, and claws of a lion) and trivial features (e.g. the black furry tuft at the tip of the lion’s tail, or the lion's “beard”) [28]. It is almost inevitable that each interbreeding group will, in this way, very quickly develop its own characteristic appearance. An individual from one group who wanders into another group will consequently be recognized as being different, and will, therefore, be discriminated against during the mating season. This koinophilia-induced reproductive isolation might thus be the first crucial step in the development of, ultimately, physiological, anatomical and behavioral barriers to hybridization, and thus, ultimately, full specieshood. Koinophilia will thereafter defend that species' appearance and behavior against invasion by unusual or unfamiliar forms (which might arise by immigration or mutation), and thus be a paradigm of punctuated equilibria (or the "vertical" aspect of the speciation problem.[1][2]), and stabilizing selection.
Cooperation is any group behavior that benefits the individuals more than if they were to act as independent agents. There is, however, a second, very important, corollary to cooperation: it can always be exploited by selfish individuals who benefit even more by not taking part in the group activity, yet reaping its benefits. For instance, a selfish individual who does not join the hunting pack and its incumbent dangers but nevertheless shares in the spoils has a fitness advantage over the other members of the pack. Thus, although a group of cooperative individuals is fitter than an equivalent group of selfish individuals, selfish individuals interspersed amongst a community of cooperators are always fitter than their hosts. This means they raise, on average, more offspring and grandoffspring than their hosts, and will therefore ultimately replace them.
If, however, the selfish individuals are ostracized, and rejected as mates, because of their deviant and unusual behavior, then their evolutionary advantage becomes an evolutionary liability. Cooperation in all of its very many forms then becomes evolutionarily stable.[5][6] Sociability, social conventions, ritualistic behavior, the expressions of the emotions, and other forms of communication between individuals, all essential ingredients for full cooperativity, can all be similarly evolutionarily stabilized by koinophilia.
Co-operation or co-operative behaviours are terms used to describe behaviours by organisms which are beneficial to other organisms, and are selected for on that basis.[1] Under this definition, altruism is a form of co-operation in which there is no direct benefit to the actor (the organism carrying out the behaviour).[1] Co-operative behaviour in which there is a direct benefit to the actor as well as the recipient can be termed "mutually beneficial".[1] There are several theories which help to explain why natural selection favours some types of co-operative behaviour. They are not mutually exclusive, however, and more than one of the theories discussed below may contribute to explaining a particular case of co-operative behaviour. Note: This article uses British English. Standard U.S. English drops the hyphen resulting in cooperation or cooperative.
One well accepted explanation for altruistic behaviour (that is, co-operative behaviour which lacks a direct benefit for the actor) is the theory of kin selection. This theory suggests that individuals act co-operatively in order to help others which are genetically similar. Genes for such co-operative behaviour are preserved, because they help to perpetuate their own existence. The classic example is the social insects, such as bees and ants. Worker insects never reproduce, but instead, they work to allow the (genetically similar) queen to reproduce.
The theory of reciprocity suggests that individuals carry out co-operative behaviours because they get something in return. In order for such behaviours to be favoured, there needs to be some perception of external physical markers that the other individual will recognise (otherwise, there is no selective pressure to maintain the behaviour). Much research about reciprocity as leading to co-operation has concentrated on the 'prisoner's dilemma' known from game theory.
One theory suggesting a mechanism that could lead to the evolution of co-operation is the "market effect" as suggested by Noe and Hammerstein.[2] The mechanism relies on the fact that in many situations there exists a trade-off between efficiency obtaining a desired resource and the amount of resources one can actively obtain. In that case, each partner in a system could benefit from specializing in producing one specific resource and obtaining the other resource by trade. When only two partners exist, each can specialize in one resource, and trade for the other. Trading for the resource requires co-operation with the other partner and includes a process of bidding and bargaining.
This mechanism can be relied to both within a species or social group and within species systems. It can also be applied to a multi-partner system, in which the owner of a resource has the power to choose its co-operation partner. This model can be applied in natural systems (examples exist in the world of apes, cleaner fish, and more). Easy for exemplifying, though, are systems from international trading. Arabic countries control vast amounts of oil, but seek technologies from western countries. These in turn are in need of Arab oil. The solution is co-operation by trade.
Multi-level selection theory suggests that selection operates on more than one level: for example, it may operate at an atomic and molecular level in cells, at the level of cells in the body, and then again at the whole organism level, and the community level, and the species level. Any level which is not competitive with others of the same level will be eliminated, even if the level below is highly competitive. A classic example is that of genes which prevent cancer. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably, and at the cellular level, they are very successful, because they are (in the short term) reproducing very well and out competing other cells in the body. However, at the whole organism level, cancer is often fatal, and so may prevent reproduction. Therefore, changes to the genome which prevent cancer (for example, by causing damaged cells to act co-operatively by destroying themselves) are favoured. Multi-level selection theory contends that similar effects can occur, for example, to cause individuals to co-operate to avoid behaviours which favour themselves short-term, but destroy the community (and their descendants) long term.
Natural selection results, over the course of generations, in beneficial (or "fit") features replacing their disadvantageous counterparts. Thus, natural selection causes beneficial features to become increasingly more common with each generation, while the disadvantageous features become increasingly rare. A sexual creature, therefore, wishing to mate with a fit partner, would be expected to avoid individuals sporting unusual features, while being especially attracted to those individuals displaying a predominance of common or average features. This is termed "koinophilia". It has, as an important side effect, that mates displaying mutant features (the result of a genetic mutation) are also avoided. This, in itself, is also advantageous, because the vast majority of mutations are disadvantageous. Because it is impossible to judge whether a new mutation is beneficial or not, koinophilic creatures will avoid them all with equal determination, even if this means avoiding the very occasional beneficial mutation. Thus, koinophilia, although not perfect or infallible in its ability to distinguish fit from unfit mates, remains, on average, a very good strategy when choosing a mate. It will be right far more often than it will be wrong. Even when it is wrong, a koinophilic choice always ensures that the offspring will inherit a suite of thoroughly tried and tested features.
According to Koeslag, koinophilia provides very simple and obvious explanations for such evolutionary puzzles as the process of speciation,[1] evolutionary stasis and punctuated equilibria,[1][2] sex and the affordability of males,[3][4] and the evolution of cooperation[5][6]. This mating strategy, was first referred to as koinophilia by Johan H. Koeslag[2], from the Greek, koinos, meaning "the usual" or "common", and philos, meaning "fondness" or "love". It was independently identified in humans by Judith Langlois,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] who found that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became.
In keeping with these theoretical considerations, one study on an isolated human population, as opposed to Western subjects, has suggested that preferences for averageness appear to be universal.[14] The isolated people preferred average faces from their own race, but did not show any preference for average faces of other races. This makes sense since they are not exposed to outside races and thus have no knowledge of what an average face from another race looks like. This suggests that it is averageness alone, that is making a face attractive rather than some other artifact that results from averaging techniques [14]. Many studies have confirmed that subjects find young average faces the most attractive.[7][14][15][16][17][18] However, Perrett et al.[15] found that both men and women considered that a face averaged from a set of attractive faces was more attractive than one averaged from a wide range of women's faces. When the differences between the first face and the second face were slightly exaggerated the new face was judged, on average, to be more attractive still. Although the three faces look remarkably similar, close examination of the photos in Perrett, May and Yoshikawa's paper[15] shows, in fact, that the exaggerated face looks younger than the average face (composed of women's faces aged 22–46 years). Since the same results were obtained with Japanese subjects, these findings are probably culture independent, and would indicate that people generally find youthful average female faces sexually the most attractive,[7] as expected.
A major evolutionary problem has been how the continuous process of evolution produces groups of individuals, labeled species, whose adult members look extraordinarily similar, and distinctively different from the members of other species. Lions and leopards are, for instance, both large carnivores inhabiting the same general environment, and hunting much the same prey, in much the same way, but they look extraordinarily different, and would not be confused one for the other even by the most unsophisticated observer[19]. There would seem to be no obvious evolutionary reason which suggests that lion-leopard intermediates are likely to be less successful hunters than either of the two distinct species that inhabit the African savanna today. Why then do they not exist? What evolutionary force drives these intermediate forms to extinction, leaving only highly uniform and distinctive lions on the one hand and highly uniform and distinctive leopards on the other?
Koinophilia could explain both the horizontal and vertical manifestations of speciation, and why it usually involves the entire external appearance of the creatures concerned.[1][2] If sexual creatures prefer mates sporting predominantly common features, and avoid mates with unusual, unfamiliar, fringe, or extreme attributes, then common features will tend to become more common still, and at a rate and to an extent that natural selection on its own is unlikely to achieve. Since koinophilia affects the entire external appearance, the members of an interbreeding group will soon all begin to look astoundingly alike, both with regard to important or essential features (e.g. the jaws, dentition, and claws of a lion) and trivial features (e.g. the black furry tuft at the tip of the lion’s tail, or the lion's “beard”) [28]. It is almost inevitable that each interbreeding group will, in this way, very quickly develop its own characteristic appearance. An individual from one group who wanders into another group will consequently be recognized as being different, and will, therefore, be discriminated against during the mating season. This koinophilia-induced reproductive isolation might thus be the first crucial step in the development of, ultimately, physiological, anatomical and behavioral barriers to hybridization, and thus, ultimately, full specieshood. Koinophilia will thereafter defend that species' appearance and behavior against invasion by unusual or unfamiliar forms (which might arise by immigration or mutation), and thus be a paradigm of punctuated equilibria (or the "vertical" aspect of the speciation problem.[1][2]), and stabilizing selection.
Cooperation is any group behavior that benefits the individuals more than if they were to act as independent agents. There is, however, a second, very important, corollary to cooperation: it can always be exploited by selfish individuals who benefit even more by not taking part in the group activity, yet reaping its benefits. For instance, a selfish individual who does not join the hunting pack and its incumbent dangers but nevertheless shares in the spoils has a fitness advantage over the other members of the pack. Thus, although a group of cooperative individuals is fitter than an equivalent group of selfish individuals, selfish individuals interspersed amongst a community of cooperators are always fitter than their hosts. This means they raise, on average, more offspring and grandoffspring than their hosts, and will therefore ultimately replace them.
If, however, the selfish individuals are ostracized, and rejected as mates, because of their deviant and unusual behavior, then their evolutionary advantage becomes an evolutionary liability. Cooperation in all of its very many forms then becomes evolutionarily stable.[5][6] Sociability, social conventions, ritualistic behavior, the expressions of the emotions, and other forms of communication between individuals, all essential ingredients for full cooperativity, can all be similarly evolutionarily stabilized by koinophilia.
Co-operation or co-operative behaviours are terms used to describe behaviours by organisms which are beneficial to other organisms, and are selected for on that basis.[1] Under this definition, altruism is a form of co-operation in which there is no direct benefit to the actor (the organism carrying out the behaviour).[1] Co-operative behaviour in which there is a direct benefit to the actor as well as the recipient can be termed "mutually beneficial".[1] There are several theories which help to explain why natural selection favours some types of co-operative behaviour. They are not mutually exclusive, however, and more than one of the theories discussed below may contribute to explaining a particular case of co-operative behaviour. Note: This article uses British English. Standard U.S. English drops the hyphen resulting in cooperation or cooperative.
One well accepted explanation for altruistic behaviour (that is, co-operative behaviour which lacks a direct benefit for the actor) is the theory of kin selection. This theory suggests that individuals act co-operatively in order to help others which are genetically similar. Genes for such co-operative behaviour are preserved, because they help to perpetuate their own existence. The classic example is the social insects, such as bees and ants. Worker insects never reproduce, but instead, they work to allow the (genetically similar) queen to reproduce.
The theory of reciprocity suggests that individuals carry out co-operative behaviours because they get something in return. In order for such behaviours to be favoured, there needs to be some perception of external physical markers that the other individual will recognise (otherwise, there is no selective pressure to maintain the behaviour). Much research about reciprocity as leading to co-operation has concentrated on the 'prisoner's dilemma' known from game theory.
One theory suggesting a mechanism that could lead to the evolution of co-operation is the "market effect" as suggested by Noe and Hammerstein.[2] The mechanism relies on the fact that in many situations there exists a trade-off between efficiency obtaining a desired resource and the amount of resources one can actively obtain. In that case, each partner in a system could benefit from specializing in producing one specific resource and obtaining the other resource by trade. When only two partners exist, each can specialize in one resource, and trade for the other. Trading for the resource requires co-operation with the other partner and includes a process of bidding and bargaining.
This mechanism can be relied to both within a species or social group and within species systems. It can also be applied to a multi-partner system, in which the owner of a resource has the power to choose its co-operation partner. This model can be applied in natural systems (examples exist in the world of apes, cleaner fish, and more). Easy for exemplifying, though, are systems from international trading. Arabic countries control vast amounts of oil, but seek technologies from western countries. These in turn are in need of Arab oil. The solution is co-operation by trade.
Multi-level selection theory suggests that selection operates on more than one level: for example, it may operate at an atomic and molecular level in cells, at the level of cells in the body, and then again at the whole organism level, and the community level, and the species level. Any level which is not competitive with others of the same level will be eliminated, even if the level below is highly competitive. A classic example is that of genes which prevent cancer. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably, and at the cellular level, they are very successful, because they are (in the short term) reproducing very well and out competing other cells in the body. However, at the whole organism level, cancer is often fatal, and so may prevent reproduction. Therefore, changes to the genome which prevent cancer (for example, by causing damaged cells to act co-operatively by destroying themselves) are favoured. Multi-level selection theory contends that similar effects can occur, for example, to cause individuals to co-operate to avoid behaviours which favour themselves short-term, but destroy the community (and their descendants) long term.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Vole Love
Hmm... This is interesting.
http://loveatbrown.com/2010/04/02/vasopressin-a-vole-story/
Friggen cute bastards.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/adh.html
http://loveatbrown.com/2010/04/02/vasopressin-a-vole-story/
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/adh.html
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Neutrinos make me hawt.
The neutrino and its friends
Neutrinos are one of the fundamental particles which make up the universe. They are also one of the least understood.Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge. Because neutrinos are electrically neutral, they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces which act on electrons. Neutrinos are affected only by a "weak" sub-atomic force of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and are therefore able to pass through great distances in matter without being affected by it. If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.
Three types of neutrinos are known; there is strong evidence that no additional neutrinos exist, unless their properties are unexpectedly very different from the known types. Each type or "flavor" of neutrino is related to a charged particle (which gives the corresponding neutrino its name). Hence, the "electron neutrino" is associated with the electron, and two other neutrinos are associated with heavier versions of the electron called the muon and the tau (elementary particles are frequently labelled with Greek letters, to confuse the layman). The table below lists the known types of neutrinos (and their electrically charged partners).
Hawking Radiation
Why does Hawking radiation contains other particles?
'Thermal' does not mean only photons... What it means that you have a probability distribution for the energy of the particles, of the form of
Black holes radiate every kind of particle because all quantum fields behave in a similar way near the event horizon -- and why wouldn't they.
'Thermal' does not mean only photons... What it means that you have a probability distribution for the energy of the particles, of the form of
Black holes radiate every kind of particle because all quantum fields behave in a similar way near the event horizon -- and why wouldn't they.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant can be expressed purely in terms of kB, h and c, so that makes me think that there is nothing special about photons or electromagnetism here. If you look at the Feynman diagram for vacuum fluctuations to produce a pair of photons, there is no electron involved, and no vertex at which an electron's world-line enters, so I think it makes sense that the rate of radiation is independent of e. Many of the other possibilities wouldn't seem to lead to any observable effects. For instance, electron-positron pairs could contribute, but there's no way you could observe them at a distance, because the positrons would annihilate with electrons before they could cross interstellar distances. I think E would have to be the mass-energy of the particle here, not just its kinetic energy. So unless the black hole is extremely small and hot, exp(E/T) should be extremely large for a particle of any significant mass. So the probability of emitting a neutron, etc., would be negligible except maybe for a black hole that was in its final burst of radiation. If I'm thinking straight this morning, I think the link between the basic thermodynamic expression 1/(exp(E/T)-1) for bosons and the standard blackbody curve requires counting the states of the photon field. For other types of bosons, e.g., bosons with mass or different spin, you'd have different statistics. In particular, you're not going to get emission that goes down to E=0 if the particle has nonzero rest mass, since E>=m. For fermions, you're going to get Fermi-Dirac statistics, with 1/(exp(E/T)+1). Neutrinos seems like the most reasonable candidate for something interesting. But the temperature of a solar-mass black hole is so low that I would expect the rate of emission of neutrinos to be essentially zero, since they do have nonzero rest mass. | |
 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)