Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into a Black Hole

What happens when you break atomic bonds with immense vacuum?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G. (No 'bonds' broken)

"Immense" vacuum no exist, No Sirreeh. Absolute vacuum only 101325 Pa lower than atmosphere on Earth, or bubble in moonshine mash.

Dispatches from Reality to Zombie's Consiousness*. Over and Out.

* Like a broken teevee, ZC sometimes needs a whack on the head to get the pixure back.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 13:14

Also, 'pressure' and 'vacuum' aren't things with an independent existence; pressure is caused by lots of atoms banging around in a space, and vacuum is caused by a lack of atoms therein. So asking what would happen to an atom under "immense pressure" means you are asking what would happen to an atom under lots of collisions with other atoms. "Immense vacuum" would be with no atoms around. Both have limits - maximum pressure would be defined by how many atoms you can squeeze into one spot (see degeneracy pressure that I mention below), and maximum vacuum would be the absence of any other atoms in the space of concern. Just wanted to clarify that.

MrHomeScientist]

Take these concepts beyond their "limits" I have said these two phrases before...
Infinite pressure, and perfect vacuum.

Where would the atoms go? When is there nothing? when is there everything so dense that not even light can escape?

These BOTH describe a potential black hole, don't they?
What IF one is the other?

What evidence leads you to conclude black holes are created by a/the vacuum?

The rest of your post!!!

Interestingly, the fate of an atom under 'immense pressure' and 'immense vacuum' (caused by cosmological expansion) might be the same, now that I think about it as I'm writing. Ripping nucleons apart via expansion would probably lead to free quarks, just like the quark-gluon plasma final state of crushing nucleons via gravity! But that's just my intuition, after just a few minutes of thought. Who knows what the reality is?

[Edited on 5-27-2015 by MrHomeScientist]

[Edited on 5-27-2015 by Zombie]

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 13:20

Well, nobody does.

It's a fun passtime to speculate though.

Personally i find the fascination with Black Holes a bit odd.

They're just 1 of the many inexplicable observed phenomena.

It may be of more relevance to know why a homeless person will give his food or his last dollar to someone worse off than himself vs a successful person walking past both, and saying "i don't have any change" but that one pisses me off.

Wouldn't you like to be the guy that changed the way black holes are theorized about?

Hawkins won't last forever, neither will his theories. No disrespect meant!

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 13:29

What happens when you break atomic bonds with immense vacuum?

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

"Immense" vacuum was the wrong word. Perfect vacuum is all we can measure. Not good for this purpose either...
Go further. Go to where the atom is torn apart. Absolute vacuum?
Play along with me on this. You're smart enough to imagine what I am saying, and what COULD potentially happen.

One is a vacuum, and one is pressure. In either event there is an event horizon. The same for what was that "minimum" term? That's there too.

Use your imagination to make the concepts work. That's what every one of these famous theorists have done, and are doing.

Make it work, and I will release control of your television. We are exploring the Outer Limits!

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 13:36

Take a sheet of paper (space time fabric). One side is the pressure, and the other is the vacuum! In the center... they are one or neither. In MY not so humble opinion it explains every know law in one event!

aga - 27-5-2015 at 13:41

Nah.

Way off.

The fabric of the universe isn't understood at all.

No matter how much Paper is applied, it remains a mystery.

Partly because we're the same stuff, looking at it from as many angles as we can, yet always from within.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 13:58

Ok but no more Faux Noise, ok?

You can tear atoms apart by high temperature which is kind of equavalent to HIGH pressure.

Vacuum is merely absence of matter, like cold is absence of heat.

Event horizon? That concept only applies to Black Holes, AFAIK. Do you understand it? Cos it ain't simple, you know? I'm not sure I fully undertstand it.

Re. black holes, we believe they are formed when immense, immense, immense areas of matter collapse in on themselves. The intense pressure builds near-infinite gravity and Einstein then says: 'all time stops' and Known Laws of Universe break down: SINGULARITY (Yay!!!!) :cool:

<== representation of one Scientist driven out of his mind by thinking about it.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 27-5-2015 at 14:07

I can't shake the feeling that Einstein used the term 'Singularity' to mean Himself.

My few trips into the closer black holes have shown them to be unremarkable.

Certainly no 'other side', 'other dimensions' or 'parallel universes' going on.

V4641 Sgr has a Fiat Panda in it (old model) trapped at t_Eh+1.03298 which is unusual, but not astounding.

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 14:11

My few trips into the closer black holes have shown them to be unremarkable.

Did you meet G-D there? Can you tell 'Im "Ello from an agnostic"? And what's the meaning of the expression "road to Hell"?

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 27-5-2015 at 14:18

Didn't meet anyone at any time or space point in any of the bh's explored.

Seems there's just us Apes in this universe.

Strange nobody took the Neodymium magnet thing further.

Extracting the Nd was just the starting point to building the Infinite Improbability Drive.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 14:20

V4641 Sgr has a Fiat Panda in it (old model) trapped at t_Eh+1.03298 which is unusual, but not astounding.

Besides, it was t_Eh+1.03297, not t_Eh+1.03298, so there.

aga - 27-5-2015 at 14:22

Strange way to dispose of a Fiat Panda.

Scrap Yard would be a bit mundane though, so i get the general gist of your thinking.

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 14:32

You can tear atoms apart by high temperature which is kind of equavalent to HIGH pressure.

Vacuum is merely absence of matter, like cold is absence of heat.

Event horizon? That concept only applies to Black Holes, AFAIK. Do you understand it? Cos it ain't simple, you know? I'm not sure I fully undertstand it.

Good... Pressure itself creates heat. Just like compressed air. All you have to do is compress it, and you in turn get heat.

One factor you left out is as pressure goes up so do boiling points. What happens if you take a block of say steel, and keep building the pressure? Infinitely!

Compare that to one atom of steel.

We all grasp that everything is mostly empty space. What happens when the pressure is so immense that the empty space is completely removed? What does that atom become? Certainly not God! I can only imagine that the atom in question would become a constant source of energy trying to escape. Similar to magnetic energy only infinite IF that state could be maintained.

In MY mind I see the black hole theory as backwards. Compressing matter so densely would create SOOOOO much heat that it would be completely different than we speculate. The concept that the heat can not escape can not be correct. It would take MORE than my speculated infinite pressure. It would take a removal of matter altogether.
That removal requires a place to go/be!

Absolute vacuum! A complete dispersion of compacted matter.

aga - 27-5-2015 at 14:38

We all grasp that everything is mostly empty space.

I Don't.

From my perspective there is no 'Space' if there is no 'Matter' : they are observable parts of the same system.

With no matter to occupy it, there is no space, and vice versa.

Matter, Space and Time are one in the same thing (along with the others).

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 14:42

One big problem you have is that we don't really know what 'matter' is. We tend to go by matter as we observe it on Earth.

Look up: 'density of the core of the Sun'.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 27-5-2015 at 14:46

4

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 14:47

We all grasp that everything is mostly empty space.

Were actually pretty close on concepts. This may be where the deep end begins.

If you remove ALL matter ie: absolute vacuum does that space vanish? Where did it go?
Is that the same space as infinite pressure? What happens when you compress space so tightly? does that vanish as well? Where did it go?

Perhaps they are one in the same, and all laws apply in that "space yet none can exist because there is nothing...

Try to find one law that could not apply in such a perfect state.

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 14:47

From my perspective there is no 'Space' if there is no 'Matter' : they are observable parts of the same system.

With no matter to occupy it, there is no space, and vice versa.

Wrong. Even empty space EXISTS. Time runs through it and the Law of the Universe apply in it.

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 14:51

Well that is what we are going to figure out. Keep it on an atomic level, and keep the comparison to our galaxy.
Take a planet, and its moon(s) compared to one atom

Compress it infinitely or expand it to nothing.

See my above post to Mr. Aga...

[Edited on 5-27-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 14:59

Well that is what we are going to figure out. Keep it on an atomic level, and keep the comparison to our galaxy.
Take a planet, and its moon(s) compared to one atom

There at NO atoms in these extreme conditions. Atoms are fairly 'delicate' quantum systems, they can only exist in a fairly narrow window of conditions.

The core of the Sun, e.g., is 'hot particle soup', i.e. plasma. No atoms in sight.

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 15:07

Hmmmm. So the sun could NEVER become a black hole nor a vacuum yet everything revolves around the sun.

What if you took the sun as the nucleus of the galaxy, and compared all the planets as atoms.
That would make the center of a nucleus much like the sun. It goes into a new realm.

Now compress the entire galaxy (lump of steel, that is mostly empty space on an atomic level) into the sun at infinite pressure. Keep going until What happens?

To keep it simpler... What Could happen when you do this to just one atom?

Edit:

Beer run... What are you fellas drinking, I'm buyin' :cool:

[Edited on 5-27-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 15:44

Zomb:

Atoms aren't miniature solar systems, with the electrons moving neatly in nice little orbits. Instead, electrons are 'smeared out' over space, forming three-dimensional standing matter waves, largely due to the particle-wave duality that lies at the heart of Quantum Mechanics. When small particles travel fast enough, they start behaving like matter-waves.

These standing waves (in steady state atoms) we call orbitals.

Any analogy with a Stellar system and its planets was basically abandoned completely after Bohr and with the advent of Schrodinger.

A particle in a one-dimensional box is the simplest Quantum System, that illustrates the principle well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

[Edited on 27-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 16:06

I understand this. That's why I am using atoms for a comparative.

There is nothing else I can think of to keep it simple.
If you apply the idea of atomic bonding to a planetary system there is enough of a similarity to allow for concept.

Same for water, and electricity.

Didn't Schrodinger also have an invisible cat? You think MY concept doesn't fit...

My offer stands. I think my theory of duality/singularity where opposites become one at some point has merit.
Same for the concept of an infinitely compacted atom containing massive amounts of energy.
Also there is the space time fabric where infinite pressure is on the opposite side of infinite vacuum. The center of this would be the singularity, and either side the duality.

If someone can find a way to narrow down the odds, and start proving how any of these concepts COULD be possible vs stating they cant be possible due to whatever we don't YET know. There's a pay day in it. Albeit a 12 pack, and a bag of chips... It's on me.

I think the most interesting thing so far that no one touched on is my statement that ALL known laws of physics would apply in such a state of matter yet there would be nothing to apply them to.
Perhaps that alone is a huge clue as to what happens?

I know... I sound like the kid making Gold from peanut butter. I'd rather have the peanut butter.

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 16:28

I know... I sound like the kid making Gold from peanut butter. I'd rather have the peanut butter.

I needs me a peanut butter sammich!

Schrodinger's Cat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

I put my cat in the tumble drier once but I didn't have the heart to close the capsule...

That'll be two Bitcoins for the lessons so far. You go 'private', that's what you get.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

byko3y - 27-5-2015 at 16:29

There's a lot of other ways to jerk youself, you can collect some old things, you can create image of how genious and funny you are, but talking about black hole, which humanity knows almost nothing about, is kinda extravagant option.
Find youself a girl, you know. I'm talking metaphorically.

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 16:33

That butt shrapnel starting to hurt again?

neptunium - 27-5-2015 at 17:16

oh here we go....
there is nothing wrong about wondering at the universe is there byko3y?
i dont always understand Zombie's point and metaphore but he at least like to questions things and observe phenomenon arround himself ...
Isn't that the reason this forum even exist?

I sudjest you get a life bro, or get on the subject like everyone else and contribute. Your thought matters more than you think . venture an opinion or what are you even doing on here?

byko3y - 27-5-2015 at 17:56

neptunium, you can say anything about black holes, and anything will be valid. You can say that anything captured by a black hole will turn into a cow. Most likely nobody would ever have a change to disproof your theory, that's why talking about black holes is mostly unscientifical, just like talking about god. It's nice to have an invisible fellow flying around on the cloud and watching for everybody, but I don't think you can show any facts about him.
The main reason I talk about this is the first message in this thread. It was about falling into the black hole, while much more valid question is "do the black holes actually exist or maybe so-called black holes are some other objects?".

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 18:09

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

neptunium, you can say anything about black holes, and anything will be valid.

Complete bullshit. Far more is known about black holes than you make out. A bit like HIV/AIDS, when I come to think of it.

And in case you still don't get it, Zomb et al are just horsing around a bit. Context and subtext are wasted on imbeciles like you.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

neptunium - 27-5-2015 at 18:11

no you are missing the point.
much scientific achievemnt has been done speculating about what is out there and what if...
black holes are a prime example of that they are very real and we can measure their effect on surrounding matter and verify Einstin laws with the bending of light and electromagnetic waves arround them.
Much research has been accomplihsed with the little we know about them and much more can be speculated.
there is nothing wrong about a silly question.

One the power of science is to predict what would happen even if we are never witness of the actual event, the math is very clear about much of what happens to a falling body into one of these object .... up to a point.
beyond that you are correct , anybody can assume anything within the boundaries of what is possible .
lets not forget that not so long ago nobody would have dreamed of ever seeing an atom, yet there we are today.

blogfast25 - 27-5-2015 at 18:20

Nept:

I wish he'd read and understand that Einstein quote of yours: it's so applicable to buko3y.

Zombie - 27-5-2015 at 18:27

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

neptunium, you can say anything about black holes, and anything will be valid. You can say that anything captured by a black hole will turn into a cow. Most likely nobody would ever have a change to disproof your theory, that's why talking about black holes is mostly unscientifical, just like talking about god. It's nice to have an invisible fellow flying around on the cloud and watching for everybody, but I don't think you can show any facts about him.
The main reason I talk about this is the first message in this thread. It was about falling into the black hole, while much more valid question is "do the black holes actually exist or maybe so-called black holes are some other objects?".

Email Hawking. I understand he replies to many.

No offense taken bro but Neptunium's point is valid. It hurts NOTHING to speculate, and attempt to congeal a thought. Even if it is only the faintest spark of a concept. That's how every great realization begins.

Who would have EVER thought to lick a frog, or eat an oyster?

Who is accepted as the leading authority on black hole theory? Why not all of us? I doubt god told the man what was up. I also doubt he flew there, and examined anything... Why is he so well respected? Because he thinks. He connects the dots in logical ways. Provable??? Hell no. Not yet. I think not ever because I think BH's are something different.

Am I wrong?

I could have been out at Harry's bar, seducing some local "dirty foot" or any number of other things.
Here I pot pen to paper, and thought.

It's all good bro. Just keep the faith, and forget the negative stuff. Hell is pretty full.

Edit: I spelled Hawking's name wrong a few times. I wonder if he noticed.

[Edited on 5-28-2015 by Zombie]

byko3y - 27-5-2015 at 20:45

You can say whatever you want, until you start telling you have actual facts. In the later case I will ask you to show the facts.
The black holes I usually see look like this http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2015-19-a-print...
and this http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2010-18-a-print...
and this http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2014-41-b-print...
and this https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9728b/
and this https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1340a/
Just to explain you how much nothing we know about black holes.

IrC - 27-5-2015 at 21:56

byko3y why are you bothering to join this discussion?

Did you know one second before the first nuclear device detonated no one in history had ever before seen a nuclear detonation? So tell us why was it the scientists had so many men and measuring devices assembled to watch the event when said event had never before been witnessed. Answer? The math. It is as simple as that. Do you think they risked all that money manpower and resources, even their very careers if they did not already know the bomb was going to go bang before the fact? From all your posts one thing is clear. You do not understand the math, meaning you cannot derive a theoretical picture in your thoughts about something which cannot be seen. The math paints a picture of physical reality and gives one insight into more than the mere picture alone. How was it that a scientist studying the Equations of Einstein came to the realization black holes were a very real possibility? The math. Measurements of the effect this unknown entity has upon matter and energy within its fields combined with a visual conception and understanding based upon the math tells one a great deal about said entity. Assuming of course one understands the math so well one can visualize events taking place with understanding as to why, cause and effect. You are approaching this discussion from a metaphysical, a philosophical view with no understanding of the math. Therefore no understanding of the subject. One cannot hope to derive meaningful conclusions based upon this. Hawkings understands the math, many here understand the math. To some degree even I understand the math. When you do, come back and tell us black holes do not exist.

aga - 27-5-2015 at 22:37

Science and scientific methods are all well and good, however are pretty much useless until somebody actually wants to know or do something, or has an idea they would like to test.

That's what random, wild speculation is for.

byko3y - 27-5-2015 at 22:39

The energy on nuclear fission was known long before the bomb was made, the energy was experimentally known, so it's all based on practical observations. And there was multiple theories of nuclear explosion, but all of them were just theories, until a successfull explosion has been performed.
I'm pretty sure in the begginning nobody even knew the critical mass of U235 until it was experimentally measured.
Today all we know about black holes is that they are large objects that have huge gravitation. It emmits X-rays intensively, and those facts, actual facts, can give us some insights, although not much.
I'd like to remind you, that none on the earth understands why quantum physics work the way it works and not another. Scientists can observe the phenomenas, find patterns, derrive formulas, but they still don't understand what makes the matter behave this way and not another. This is why nobody can predict what will happen if the conditions change drastically.
Certainly, you can create any theory and make any assumption, but remember that I can make assumption that your assumptions are wrong, and it's just my imagination versus your imagination, until you have actual facts.

IrC - 27-5-2015 at 23:04

You keep bringing up the concept of 'opinion'. Which is completely missing the point I was making that understanding the math yields great insight into the previously unknown. Including allowing one to make predictions and derive theories which flow from the equations. It is all in the numbers and numbers are not swayed by anyone's opinion.

byko3y - 27-5-2015 at 23:12

understanding the math yields great insight into the previously unknown. Including allowing one to make predictions and derive theories which flow from the equations. It is all in the numbers and numbers are not swayed by anyone's opinion

Sorry, you are wrong, and I've explained the reason. You can use math to predict only thing you already know. Otherwise it's just theory and you don't know whether it will work in practice.
Numbers are just ideas living in humans heads, and the humans decide how to interpret them. And what human does his whole life is adjusting imaginary ideas with real world things.
Math is not a magic - it's just one of many ways of thinking.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by byko3y]

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 01:59

You are pegging out my crapometer. Speaking without knowledge. When I was a child of 11 over a half century ago I had no training and no access to books of higher learning beyond simple school books for that grade level. In my poor rural area I had no public library to visit so no help there either. Yet I spent my time studying on my own whatever I could find advancing beyond anything one could learn in grade school. I had never seen an advanced physics book and had no knowledge of particle physics beyond the basic particles which comprised atoms. Working on my own on the subject of radioactive decay I worked out a particle in my mind which I had never before encountered. I worked out the properties and energy levels and gave it the name Velon. A few years later in 9th grade Jr high school I had a science teacher who saw my advanced abilities and loaned me many books to further my study beyond what was taught in school. Much to my surprise I encountered the neutrino and saw that it had exactly all the same properties, of course realizing the significance.

"Sorry, you are wrong, and I've explained the reason. You can use math to predict only thing you already know."

From mere energy differences and the math how is it I 'invented' the neutrino, something I had never before heard of, never read about. Clearly something I DID NOT KNOW. Obviously this violates your premise "You can use math to predict only thing you already know". If you had even a remote clue of that which you speak you would by now have some minute knowledge of the many advances in science which many have made which naturally flowed in their thoughts from the leading of equations. From the direction they pointed in their sheer elegance. I have encountered many fundamental truths in this way long before I learned by reading more advanced texts that others had gone there before. In the same way I made diamond dust from carbon in a microwave oven in the late 60's a couple decades before I later learned just a few years prior to my home experiments someone had actually filed patents on that exact process. I was studying the math of RF fields and crystal structures and the numbers told me this should work and it did. I did not know beforehand this knowledge as I did not know others had already gone there. It was the math pointing to a possibility with a surety that proved out in reality.

I know I am wasting my time explaining this to you but it makes me feel better to think others who read this will know from their own experience what I say is true.

hissingnoise - 28-5-2015 at 03:44

Quote:

SINGULARITY (Yay!!!!) :cool:

<== representation of one Scientist driven out of his mind by thinking about it.

Whoa, hold the front page.

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 04:24

Which front page?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-hole...

"To be clear, Hawking was not claiming that black holes don’t exist. Astronomers have been observing black holes for decades, said Joseph Polchinski, theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-th...

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://gizmodo.com/no-stephen-h...

All he was saying is an event horizon as commonly understood may not exist meaning at a quantum level energy can possibly escape (not the same as saying it must escape or it all escapes). Or in effect the point where Ve=C is not well defined. To say it does not exist at all leaves the question of where are all the stars that vanish going and why does the extreme gravity emanate from it. Clearly by studying the orbits of nearby stars the gravity does exist and can be readily calculated. In effect he has changed the model, not tossed out the concept of a black hole.

neptunium - 28-5-2015 at 04:57

when trying to find out whats a singularity and whats going on there, at some point in the calculations the math will yield an infinite number of solutions including 0... that does not mean stuff thrown in there turns into a sombrero wearing cow time traveling iphone or any of that non sense...it means that our model is not enough to go that far .
general relativity with the Ricci tensor or the probability in quantum physics simply break down at the singularity, and every atempt to unify those 2 marvel of modern physics had failled ............... so far

Give it time , science progresses and i am sure something else will come along to save the day much like Einsten did to explain Newton's short comings.

Science is filled with failled attempt and dead end theory. we just have to be right one time.

hissingnoise - 28-5-2015 at 05:12

Quote:

To say it does not exist at all leaves the question of where are all the stars that vanish going and why does the extreme gravity emanate from it.

Those are not serious questions, I assume . . .

A complete understanding of paradoxes littering the field is achievable on ingestion of copious quantities of trip-weed, however, such understanding happens to be all too fleeting, for me at least!

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 05:38

IrC:

Engaging with byko3y is like a fly landing on very dark shit. Empirically sustained statement, believe me...

Zombie - 28-5-2015 at 06:22

Quote from the Hawking link:
". A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature."

That sounds strangely familiar... "All the rule of physics will apply, yet nothing can exist"

I'm pretty sure that sombrero wearing cows are not involved but the concept that mater compresses into pure energy makes sense.
I'm NOT a math guy. I see the picture but have no clue on the why.

How involved would it be to create a model of energy?
Compare that to a theoretical model of infinitely compressed matter?

I'd LOVE to have the chance to work these thoughts out with a Hawking type guy. The trick is to approach it w/ an open mind, and forget all the pre-conceived theories.

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 07:25

I'm pretty sure that sombrero wearing cows are not involved but the concept that mater compresses into pure energy makes sense.

Except... the central gravitational field of a BH is caused by... matter!

A BH is one of the two time machines possible, allowing you to travel into the future, no less!

MrHomeScientist - 28-5-2015 at 07:28

Well, because of E = Mc^2, really you can think of matter as 'condensed energy'.

I'm NOT a math guy.

And that's the crux of all of these sorts of discussions. Without math, this thread will continue to go around in circles. Words aren't precise enough to get anywhere with the topics we're discussing. No amount of 'technobabble' will unify the fundamental forces.

Edit: damn 'sup' tags.

[Edited on 5-28-2015 by MrHomeScientist]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 07:40

No amount of 'technobabble' will unify the fundamental forces.

Damn! And I thought they got these GUTs just by technocackling about them!

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

gregxy - 28-5-2015 at 10:23

You cannot have a perfect vacuum. If you do a universe will be created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis

I think this theory was disproven, but its kind of cool, the sum of everything is nothing.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 11:02

The basic problem is a misunderstanding of how stuff exists.

No, i don't have the answer either, nor any highly complex maths to back up that rash claim.

As i (currently) see it, the fundamental error is in that we expect to observe things in a framework (i.e. the one in which we also exist).

e.g. a sombrero'd cow walks into a bar ... (bar = framework)

Personally i feel that the existence of matter, energy, space are all exhibitions of a single complex system, and are not separate independent entities.

It also makes sense to my befumed brain that 'stuff' exists in all dimensions at once, and swaps proportions of it's expression in each dimension given certain conditions.

This not only requires said dimensions, but creates them, including Time.

From our Time-fixed standpoint it is impossible to see how things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle could ever work.

The particle is maybe just switching it's expression in the X, Y and/or Z without altering it's Time expression much.

The principle of Preservation of Matter/Energy seems sensible, so perhaps it is swapping some of it's XYZ expression for a bit of Electrical and/or Gravitational even Magnetic.

From Our viewpoint, it is in two (or many) places at once, as we are not free to move about in the Time dimension.

Edit

Forgot the Black Hole thing.

In BH conditions, particles swap XYZ and Time to Gravitic expression, plus a shed load of Electrical and Magnetic.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 11:41

The basic problem is a misunderstanding of how stuff exists.

No, i don't have the answer either, nor any highly complex maths to back up that rash claim.

As i (currently) see it, the fundamental error is in that we expect to observe things in a framework (i.e. the one in which we also exist).

You should read (or watch) Slavoj Žižek. Seriously! (I always promote Žižek where I can, so here goes!)

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 11:44

I'll drink to that. Maybe not so far out there. I have long believed Bells Inequality as it pertains to the connection between an electron-positron pair created by the annihilation of a photon of energy hf >= 2*.511 Mev can be seen as a single entity in hyper-dimensions exhibiting two projections in local space-time which appear to time bound thinking entities to be two discrete particles which somehow seem to be 'talking' to each other. Or something like that. The most important question however is does Aga have a refrigerator in the shed. The thought of warm beer mixing with mad science is just too much to bear.

Zombie - 28-5-2015 at 12:07

Except... the central gravitational field of a BH is caused by... matter!

While I can not argue that is or is not so, it does not sound correct. It takes forces beyond what we can comprehend to create such an event. SOMETHING had to start this mechanism. I'm not much of a believer in "it just is".

Natural space for better lack of a word stands about as much of a chance of creating the mechanism as, well the the formation of a planet.

Perhaps that IS what a BH is. The seed of a new planet?

Well, because of E = Mc^2, really you can think of matter as 'condensed energy'.

And that's the crux of all of these sorts of discussions. Without math, this thread will continue to go around in circles.

[Edited on 5-28-2015 by MrHomeScientist]

I figured E=MC2 would come into play at some point. By modifying both the mass, and the constant can you extrapolate resulting energy?

Say the mass is (x) at any pressure. Increasing pressure can not change the mass, only the volume. Increasing pressure will increase density, and therefore should do what? It should slow down the (c) correct? (if (c) is assumed to be the speed of light)

The results would indicate a reduced (e). That alone makes no sense. It takes energy to create pressure so that "theory" can not be correct.

Now if (c) were compared to the speed of sound... increasing density would increase the speed of sound.

If I thought about this long enough, and looked it all up I suppose I could make the model myself.

Matter = condensed energy... Hmmm. That could be so. Now amplify this process continuously. What would be the result?

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy

You cannot have a perfect vacuum. If you do a universe will be created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis

I think this theory was disproven, but its kind of cool, the sum of everything is nothing.

I didn't read the article yet but that is sort of where my thinking leads.
If the BH is the intake side, pulling in matter, then there HAS to be an output.
I suppose with the thought of "infinite pressure you could continue to compress matter into nothing but the resultant energy stored in that nothing would have to be immense. AKA the big bang?
Imagine releasing all of the stored energy, and matter... It could create a galaxy, no!

Personally i feel that the existence of matter, energy, space are all exhibitions of a single complex system, and are not separate independent entities.

It also makes sense to my befumed brain that 'stuff' exists in all dimensions at once, and swaps proportions of it's expression in each dimension given certain conditions.

This not only requires said dimensions, but creates them, including Time.

The principle of Preservation of Matter/Energy seems sensible, so perhaps it is swapping some of it's XYZ expression for a bit of Electrical and/or Gravitational even Magnetic.

From Our viewpoint, it is in two (or many) places at once, as we are not free to move about in the Time dimension.

Edit

Forgot the Black Hole thing.

In BH conditions, particles swap XYZ and Time to Gravitic expression, plus a shed load of Electrical and Magnetic.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

The only thing I don't understand here is how time would effect anything in the maths.
Yes I get time changes the growing/shrinking parameters but that happens in a predictable fashion.

I don't understand how time could be a variable in a BH model. Same for the idea of other dimensions. Perhaps I have the wrong concept of the idea. I see other sides to an object but much like Schrödinger's cat I don't see all the available "realities" co-existing".
I see only only one reality being able to occupy the same space. The idea of different dimensions MUST include different space, and that seems far fetched to say the least.
Like saying I am somewhere infinite time over doing infinite different things. There is no logical conclusion to this thought.

My head hurts...

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 12:10

Except... the central gravitational field of a BH is caused by... matter!

I'm not talking about the 'creation event'. Only that the intense gravity of a BH is caused by enormous amounts of mass contained in it. See the BH at the centre of our own Galaxy and the star system that orbits around it, obeying Kepler's Law perfectly.

See also Chandrasekhar limit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:18

See also the Evaporation of Black Holes, Hawkings.

Matter -> EM.

For the record, there is no fridge in the Shed.

Beer of whatever temperature under 56 C is fine (i paid for ALL the alcohols in it, not just the Ethanol)

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 12:21

"I don't understand how time could be a variable in a BH model"

Consider the inverse Gamma equation, which implies time slows down proportionately due to a gravitational field. We know this is fact from very advanced and precise experiments comparing earthbound and orbiting clocks. The stronger the gravity the slower the rate of time. Or from Einsteins perspective the greater the curvature (warping) of the fabric of space-time the slower the rate of time. Since gravity is understood to be a property of the BH model and since the gradient increases the closer one gets one can conclude the rate of time varies with the mass of the BH and the radius of the observer.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:24

The only thing I don't understand here is how time would effect anything in the maths.

My model is at odds with the entirely of known science, so best to not pay it any attention.

Oh, apart from recognising that Time appears in most equations that relate to anything significant.

The Rate of blah etc. Event Horizon blah.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:27

implies time slows down proportionately due to a gravitational field

Or more simply, as Stuff expresses more in the Gravitational dimension, it correspondingly expresses Less in the Time dimension, conserving stuff-ness.

QED. Case Proven. Time for another warm beer.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 12:27

The only thing I don't understand here is how time would effect anything in the maths.

My model is at odds with the entirely of known science, so best to not pay it any attention.

Motion seconded.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:29

Many motions have been passed by the assembled illiminati, and most of those needed serious wiping to get clean.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:40

So, Black Holes and Time Travel.

No, still doesn't work in my model.

What *might* work is altering all of the Other dimensional expressions in a way that causes the Time dimension to shift.

E.g. bash a magnet on your head a lot while wrapped in cling film and sitting in a huge electrical field on a chair at a fairground ride.

Edit

Or just bash some weak magnets on 20 ton lumps of calcium carbonate and lift them with one finger, much as the Egyptians did.

This bloke re-discovered that trick :
http://coralcastle.com/

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 12:50

So, Black Holes and Time Travel.

No, still doesn't work in my model.

Two time machines:

1. orbit around a BH for a while. Acc. Einstein time slows down in a more intense gravitational field. Exp. verified.

2. drive on a train near the speed of light. Acc. Einstein time slows down near speed of light. Exp. verified too.

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 12:55

Aga you are messing up the core basis for one of my favorite Scifi series, Andromeda.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 12:56

Imaginary experiments with derived maths, not actual experimentation.

Lorentz-Fitzgerald.

There was a young man from Fisk.
In love-making incredibly brisk.
So fast was his action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Shortened his foil to a disc.

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 12:59

Imaginary experiments with derived maths, not actual experimentation.

NO, Sir, not so fast. Many, many, many, even very simple experiments have verified the Clevereststsetsets's Man's Theories.

Many, Many, Many.

Don't be a science denier. It's UGLY! :mad:

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 13:05

Special Relativity Experiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:06

Many a really Close fit, yet not quite 100% what was expected.

When Building Knowledge, sometimes it is wise to dive back down to the roots and see if the original assumptions really do bear up to scrutiny, armed with the newly found knowledge.

"What goes Up must come Down"

Well, in certain circumstances Yes, however in Space ...

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:18

Special Relativity Experiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

"Eventually, Albert Einstein (1905) drew the conclusion that established theories and facts known at that time only form a logical coherent system when the concepts of space and time are subjected to a fundamental revision."

I agree. Time to do so again in the light of Albert's seriously clever doodlings.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 13:32

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:32

The Universe is what it is.

It is neither a Herschelian universe nor an Einsteinian universe.

To manipulate it we need not understand it All, just the effects of whatever action we make.

This is also a stumbling block on the road to complete understanding, as we imagine we have Power over it, having done something amazing, like make Fire, and cease to quest for more knowledge.

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 13:40

This is also a stumbling block on the road to complete understanding, as we imagine we have Power over it, having done something amazing, like make Fire, and cease to quest for more knowledge.

Most scientists are far more humble than you might believe.

'2 + 2 = 3'

The Man Who Knew too Much.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:40

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Oh. You mean the Stuff We Cannot see.

A lot of stuff. Most of the stuff.

Maybe the Stuff simply is doing it's thing, yet not at the TIME we try to observe it.

Just not exactly Now (as our Ape Brains perceive it).

We know it is there, Maths proves it, and Maths is the most effective probe ever invented.

It, along with all matter (including that which makes us) isn't bound to to the Time axis, which our Ape brains are.

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:50

Simple test of Time-fixation.

How would you measure displacement in say Height relative to a table ?

A graph of Height versus Time ?
A graph of Height versus electrical charge ?

Temperature ?
An instantaneous measurement ?

Try to think of any measurement you could do that does not involve Time.

Edit

I would venture that forever we have always been guilty of simple 4 Dimensional thinking (XYZ & Time) and that most likely has some limitations.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 13:54

How would you measure displacement in say Height relative to a table ?

Define this a little better? The measurement problem, I mean?

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 28-5-2015 at 13:57

Simple : Measure something over a period that is not Time.

You may not refer to Time in any way.

The measurements must relate to one or more of the other dimensional properties of the thing you measure.

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 14:00

Hard one, I think.

Not referring to it would be easy but also cheating in most cases.

Another sleepless night. Why did I have to meet you on the fleeceBay?

Manifest Destiny!

aga - 28-5-2015 at 14:04

A simple case would be to measure the distance from the base of a right-angled triangle to the hypotenuse.

The difficulty there would be WHEN you did those measurements (time again).

To travel in a linear fashion from the right-angled corner, taking measurements all the way without passing any time at all would be unthinkable.

Not impossible, just unthinkable.

Zombie - 28-5-2015 at 15:57

Except... the central gravitational field of a BH is caused by... matter!

[/rquote]

While I can not argue that is or is not so, it does not sound correct. It takes forces beyond what we can comprehend to create such an event. SOMETHING had to start this mechanism. I'm not much of a believer in "it just is".

I'll check out that link. It might help me get this.

Now let me ask this. you say it is immense gravity. I get gravity. what I don't get is what is the idea that is IS gravity based on?

Couldn't you also just as easily say it is a hole in the galaxy, and everything is simply rushing out? Like stars going down the loo? The other factor I do not get is the fact that X-rays are emitting from our BH but nothing else.
I find it hard to swallow the the supposed most powerful force in our galaxy has a flaw. if even light can not escape then there should be no threshold where other forms of energy can. Now IF you assumed it was nothing more than a compactor... The energy created would have to be emitted.

"I don't understand how time could be a variable in a BH model"

Consider the inverse Gamma equation, which implies time slows down proportionately due to a gravitational field. We know this is fact from very advanced and precise experiments comparing earthbound and orbiting clocks. The stronger the gravity the slower the rate of time. Or from Einsteins perspective the greater the curvature (warping) of the fabric of space-time the slower the rate of time. Since gravity is understood to be a property of the BH model and since the gradient increases the closer one gets one can conclude the rate of time varies with the mass of the BH and the radius of the observer.

Ok. This makes sense. It may take more thinking for me to see how this really is a variable tho.
I truly see no correlation between time, and energy. (other than what you posted)
In the center of a BH time may be slower than it is a trillion miles away but the real time events still transpire none the less.
Is it in the fact that say an arrow shot thru water requires more energy to travel the same distance as an arrow shot thru air?

Say the gravity is there, and strong enough to entrap light...
How does time in any sense change that fact?

The only thing I don't understand here is how time would effect anything in the maths.

All ideas are probable. Even that stupid hat wearing cow.
Wouldn't we all be in for a treat if that caw was eating everything in site. it could be a God cow...

I'm having a hard time (no pun) with this time thing.
As stated, time is NOT a tru constant. Maybe we like to THINK it is, and maybe it is for US but we are talking about a different scale.

Trying to apply our knows to a universal equation is like saying a fish should be able to buy gasoline because we can.

That's my issue with a lot of things. I find it beyond arrogance to assume we can quantify something beyond our level of comprehension, using our worlds constants as a "known" variable.

I mean, yes the gravity deal sounds feasible BUT where does it all go? everything HAS to be somewhere.

Here's a good question (imho)
Looking at a BH... Is it a sphere or is it a cone? How large are we talking?
Will Triple A go, and get your Fiat back?

When Building Knowledge, sometimes it is wise to dive back down to the roots and see if the original assumptions really do bear up to scrutiny, armed with the newly found knowledge.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

The basis of my existence.

"Just because it is" means js83jndfha663u5hj, to me.
Saying something is assembled "this way" is a statement that needs verification.

Why is it Hawking that gets to modify his model yet everyone else is a quasi moron for doing so? 10 years ago he was convinced he was correct. I never was. Today he modifies his theory, and everyone says OOooooo! Now THIS make sense!

You HAVE to assume nothing, and find a way to prove out an idea. Whether it's a mathematical formula that is modified to fit the parameters or a duck w/ a GPS strapped to it's back.

If something is a new science it only makes sense that new rules should apply. No?

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Convenient. I think I just said that.

My flame may not be the brightest, but I guarantee I make more sparks than most.

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

I do believe they are integral to this subject. Opposites will always co-exist. It just seems like they Have to.

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We know it is there, Maths proves it, and Maths is the most effective probe ever invented.

It, along with all matter (including that which makes us) isn't bound to to the Time axis, which our Ape brains are.

This is my stumbling block. Time is used in many formulas including E=, but it is ONLY our perception of what we use as a constant.
Essentially we are apes. they can no more make a proper motorcycle than we can make a proper model of a black hole.

I say start over. I'll figure out how to model compressed energy, and see where that leads... I HATE having to get smarter. It make me forget all my valued stupid sh!t.

Simple test of Time-fixation.

How would you measure displacement in say Height relative to a table ?

A graph of Height versus Time ?
A graph of Height versus electrical charge ?

Temperature ?
An instantaneous measurement ?

Try to think of any measurement you could do that does not involve Time.

Edit

I would venture that forever we have always been guilty of simple 4 Dimensional thinking (XYZ & Time) and that most likely has some limitations.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

A simple case would be to measure the distance from the base of a right-angled triangle to the hypotenuse.

The difficulty there would be WHEN you did those measurements (time again).

To travel in a linear fashion from the right-angled corner, taking measurements all the way without passing any time at all would be unthinkable.

Not impossible, just unthinkable.

Now you're just teasing me.

There are LOTS of things in this long arse post to pick apart. I can't ever remember thinking this much.

blogfast25 - 28-5-2015 at 17:19

Now let me ask this. you say it is immense gravity. I get gravity. what I don't get is what is the idea that is IS gravity based on?

Look up 'black hole in the Milky Way'.

At the centre of our galaxy is a massive black hole. It was discovered (and weighed!) through a set of stars orbiting around it.

Edit: supermassive BH at the centre of our Galaxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#In_the_...

Kepler's Law, very simply, then allows you to determine the mass at the centre of these orbiting stars. It's A-level physics, even though the measurements of the orbital periods of these stars was a piece of cutting edge empiricism, i.e. Astronomy.

So we KNOW black holes are MASSIVE, made up of ginormous amounts of compacted matter. We don't know what's the nature of this matter, but it ain't atoms, that's for sure!

Mass of 'our' black hole: 4.1 MILLION Sun masses (8.2 x 1036 kg. A bit of a heavy weight, wouldn't you say?)

Quote:

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

You should read some decent Philosophy to understand more about the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. I'm serious about that.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC - 28-5-2015 at 17:23

"Couldn't you also just as easily say it is a hole in the galaxy, and everything is simply rushing out?"

Have not carefully looked at all of your post but lets think about this one thought. Suppose your correct even if we do not know where the mass is going, just that it is gone. Other dimensions outside our space-time for the sake of simplicity. Would not the gravitational field gradient be decreasing more rapidly than what can be accounted for by mere Hawking radiation if this were so? If one considers the orbital angular momentum of all the star systems in every galaxy and one considers galaxies we can see that are billions of light years away (and billions of years ago) comparing them to much closer ones should we not find evidence that all galaxies are flying apart? At least the spiral galaxies with super-massive black holes at their centers. Granted this may take very long compared to our existence but one would think based upon statistics alone we should have found spiral galaxies out there in various states of orbital decay. What I believe we in fact see is that galaxies tend to form into collections of star systems orbiting a central mass which often appears to be growing in size as it eats gas, dust, and stars. In other words it appears that galaxies form over time, not the reverse. There is no way fairly stable spiral arms full of stars would remain in their orbits if the central attractor was growing weaker over time, it must be stable at the least. What are we, say 30,000 light years from our BH? So in only that time frame our solar system should have learned the gravity was decreasing that holds us here. Why are we not a rogue system aimlessly wandering towards the great attractor as Andromeda flies apart while also on its mission to smash us to smithereens? Hopefully you can get the problems I am having with your thought in quotes above.

As to whether or not the mass did vanish and it is merely the gravitational field gradients frozen in time I cannot say. However I prefer a natural common sense view which tells me the gravity is still there because the mass is still there. Even if we cannot see it. If stars being eaten did not collapse into the BH why is it we do not see super bright stars at the centers considering every one of them was very bright at the moment they were eaten which should result in one giant star still undergoing fusion. The energy coming at us should have turned us into tostada's long before the Sabre toothed tiger went extinct. Here I am saying discount neutronium that never happens and discount event horizons as well. Problem is there is a lot of evidence for neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, you name it with bursts of energy with Timex like timing (or should I say Rolex?). Plenty of evidence neutronium is a real happening, and since we are not crisp from radiation bombarding us from our galactic center one can conclude stars really are being eaten, their gravity can escape since it is a scalar field it does not require three dimensions to travel yet the radiation of the electromagnetic variety does therefore it cannot escape outside of random quantum tunneling. Or something like that.

byko3y - 28-5-2015 at 18:31

IrC, you gave very few information about you actually knew and what you derrived. Most likely the author of the book knew about neutrino-like particle existence and gave some theoretical model that implied neutrino existance. I wont to remind you, that posibility of neutrino existance was derrived from loss of momentum and spin, that could nt be explained by particles observed. There could be two insivisible particles, and you could not have any idea before you actually observe the particle, which werea already observed indirectly like 60 years ago.
And you don't know whether neutron is a single particle and not some sombined particles in one place. Nobody actually knows why beta decay and other particles conversions work. We have already observed a lot of different particles that interconvert, this leads to a theory that all those particles have the same nature. This is where string theory comes into play. But to create this theory you needed practical observations.
Energy, momentum and spin of neutrine were indirectly, but practically measured, otherwise you would not have any chance to know them. This is what I talk about - all those equitions you used were based on experimental data. 150 years ago everybody was sure newton's physics completely describes the world, just like your math does right now. Why? Because there's was no experimental data.
So, basically what I want to say and the point of our possible agreement: math helps to systematize and interpret the experimental results. You observe crystal structure, you measure it properties, you find similarities with other phenomenas.
And today nobody even knows what is the nature of gravity. Gravity slows down the time, but how and why? Well, you might eventually at some day find it after another experiment, but today the predictive power of theory, not capable of explaining gravitation mechanism, is really questionable.
The problem of theories about black holes is that mostly there's no way to verify them.
Something like neptunium told "it means that our model is not enough to go that far". The reality might be completely different from what we know. Black holes might b there just to show us that we know nothing.
Waves on the sea surface are hard to describe mathematically, but even a child can create them and predict their movement.
You know, I jerk off sometimes, and I'm not ashamed of it, but I'm not sure whether it's a serious bussiness and whether I should spend a lot of my spare time doing this. Otherwise it's fun and pleasant hobby.
Actually, I like the theory aga talks about : humans are time-constrained beings, so they are not able to fully observe the world, because any human observation is always done using time.

Zombie - 28-5-2015 at 19:40

Have not carefully looked at all of your post but lets think about this one thought. Suppose your correct even if we do not know where the mass is going, just that it is gone. Other dimensions outside our space-time for the sake of simplicity. Would not the gravitational field gradient be decreasing more rapidly than what can be accounted for by mere Hawking radiation if this were so? If one considers the orbital angular momentum of all the star systems in every galaxy and one considers galaxies we can see that are billions of light years away (and billions of years ago) comparing them to much closer ones should we not find evidence that all galaxies are flying apart? At least the spiral galaxies with super-massive black holes at their centers.

For whatever reason everything seems to have an orbit of sorts. Right down to the drain in the floor. Eventually.

Assume the BH is that drain in the floor. In the beginning I can see a random intake but eventually forces would balance, and a spiraling drain begins.
Couldn't this be likened to a BH?

The amounts, and types of radiation is sort of a clue I believe. IF this were some sort of massive compactor the amount of stored energy would be beyond comprehension.

I believe it has to be dissipated somehow. Say it is a positive charge. Just like a passing cloud. It has to dissipate.

As you say there are countless BH's all over the universe, and times that to the number of galaxies.
Chances are that we would have seen, detected, or had some observation of one such "discharge". Yet we have not.

So taking space time fabric, ans a physical thing... What's on the other side? Perhaps the discharge site that we know nothing about?

Just sayin'

I'm only thinking of the simple things that make sense. Like the fella that put meat on bread... It's a head slap moment.

So we KNOW black holes are MASSIVE, made up of ginormous amounts of compacted matter. We don't know what's the nature of this matter, but it ain't atoms, that's for sure!

Mass of 'our' black hole: 4.1 MILLION Sun masses (8.2 x 1036 kg. A bit of a heavy weight, wouldn't you say?)

Well that is what I have said as well. I use the atom as the comparative. Like you stated the core of the sun does not contain atoms, only plasma.

Since a BH is so powerful, and the gravity so intense, what becomes of the atoms that are "eaten" by them?
That is really what I am getting at. How would you model that mathematically?

Quote:

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

You should read some decent Philosophy to understand more about the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. I'm serious about that.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Yeah maybe I should. That would be like teaching a kid that a fish, can't be a pet tho.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

The problem of theories about black holes is that mostly there's no way to verify them.
Something like neptunium told "it means that our model is not enough to go that far". The reality might be completely different from what we know.

Actually, I like the theory aga talks about : humans are time-constrained beings, so they are not able to fully observe the world, because any human observation is always done using time.

You all know that game where everyone writes something down, and you combine it all into a story.
If you cherry picked this thread I believe there is the basis of either a qualify-able theory on black holes OR a qualify-able reason why we could never understand the whats, and whys.

I just seems to me(like so many other things) that this should be simple.

Pull the plug, and it all washes down the drain (black hole?)
or put it in the compactor until it is full.

Maybe it's just the scale of this that prevents us from understanding. A compactor that takes 100 trillion centuries to flash the full light or a galaxy that takes that long to drain.

Just thought of something... When people say the universe is expanding... How is that so? Our own planet is getting closer to the sun. Is it solar systems are getting further apart?

How does this relate to where our BH is?

Edit:
Where the heck did Hissingnoise wander off to?

[Edited on 5-29-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 29-5-2015 at 06:51

Zomb:

Quote:

Assume the BH is that drain in the floor. In the beginning I can see a random intake but eventually forces would balance, and a spiraling drain begins.
Couldn't this be likened to a BH?

Kindof. Compare the formation of galaxies (and their centres) to the formation of the Solar system.

Quote:

The amounts, and types of radiation is sort of a clue I believe. IF this were some sort of massive compactor the amount of stored energy would be beyond comprehension.

It is. Our BH hold a whole Galaxy together. Well, that and Dark Matter [cough!]…

Quote:

As you say there are countless BH's all over the universe, and times that to the number of galaxies.
Chances are that we would have seen, detected, or had some observation of one such "discharge". Yet we have not.

We have. See Hawking’s ‘Black Holes ain’t so black!’

Quote:

Since a BH is so powerful, and the gravity so intense, what becomes of the atoms that are "eaten" by them?
That is really what I am getting at. How would you model that mathematically?

We don’t know for sure. But the early stages of ‘compaction’ are understood, see neutron stars…

Quote:

Just thought of something... When people say the universe is expanding... How is that so? Our own planet is getting closer to the sun. Is it solar systems are getting further apart?

People don’t just ‘say’ that. It’s been proven, see Hubble’s incredible work on Doppler Shifts.

The Universe, as a whole is expanding but local areas can be contracting. There's no contradiction there.

Hissing Noise's gone looking for Russel's teapot!

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 29-5-2015 at 08:46

All of that makes sense, and is something I can work from. I like it when there are no contradictions between abstract ideas, and what is already known.

For the Teapot fella... That's why I'm asking so many rudimentary questions. You can't build a tea table in space if you don't have any building materials.

When I was a kid (8-9th grade) I loved math. Always straight A's. 11th grade I got a real jerk of a math teacher, and solely because we did not get along I lost interest in math.
I never gave that a second thought until today 40 years later I need math. Go figure. :mad:

[Edited on 5-29-2015 by Zombie]

IrC - 29-5-2015 at 09:38

So far I have learned blogs VDS theory is valid, while others provide personal information not needed nor desired on a science forum, and aga missed my point of higher dimensional thinking implied in my photon annihilation pair production comment. The point there is while our instrumentality may be confined to a maximum of four dimensions, nothing requires our thoughts to be so constrained.

blogfast25 - 29-5-2015 at 11:32

When I was a kid (8-9th grade) I loved math. Always straight A's. 11th grade I got a real jerk of a math teacher, and solely because we did not get along I lost interest in math.

Such are the vagaries of life! Omnia est vanitas.

The point there is while our instrumentality may be confined to a maximum of four dimensions, nothing requires our thoughts to be so constrained.

String Theory got my hanky in knots!

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 29-5-2015 at 12:30

Hmm.

Black hole is Massive, as in gravitationally massive.

It's also small, as in occupancy of XYZ space.

Also emits EM like there's no tomorrow (sic).

The Super Probe (maths) also says there's a seriously strong time distortion going on, starting at about the Event Horizon.

Maybe time for a rethink of the fundamentals, all of which were discovered on-planet by apes.

As an aside, i attempted to imagine the right angle-triangle thing, progressing through zero time, and measuring the distance to the hypotenuse.

This is a really cheap Thought Experiment by the way : no triangles were harmed.

To begin with it is quite painful to disregard Time.

In the end the Imaginary measurements were marred by bits of the triangle simply not being there at the point in X where i wished to measure the distance to Y.

At that particular X, the Y bits were off somewhere else in Time, as was i.

Now i see where psychodelic drugs can come in handy.

aga - 29-5-2015 at 12:33

Time machine :

It isn't a machine that moves us through Time that we need at this point, it is a Machine that we can build that is not doing everything relative to Time.

What we need for the next step is to build a Timeless Machine.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 29-5-2015 at 12:52