The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Where does the remainder of the energy from a mass falling into a blackhole go?  (Read 44700 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Remember how I asked what would happen to that piece of matter in falling, accelerating? And how I then compared the 'speed' it got uniformly moving, 'accelerating' from the point of an observer on the EV, as being at rest with gravity?

Well, according to how I see it it has to be that way. Matter at light will be 'at rest' (with infinite 'gravity'.). As matter can't reach light speed that's an impossible one, but I still put the 'limit' at light speed.

What does that way of looking at it make 'motion'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Assume 'gravity' to be infinite everywhere inside 'SpaceTime'. Choose a point inside to observe from. Then drop a 'light-corn' inside this system. Will the light-corn blue shift. Do it need a direction?
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
What is light corn??
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
As every point is infinite gravity in this system it doesn't matter, as far as I can see, where it goes. It will be blue-shifted if we imagine that gravity is a 'force' 'expending energy'. If we define that 'gravity' doesn't expend any 'energy' then we still need to explain why we expect it to become 'blue-shifted'. And the only thing we have left is the relation between the observer and what he observes.

And then the next question becomes, as we now will have a 'line of sight ', namely the observer and what he observes. Will that matter?

Will that 'photon' red-shift if it, according to the observer, 'moves away' and 'blue-shift' if it comes towards him?
==

Need more coffee here :)
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 18:28:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
It's that magical 'photon' :)
A light-corn ::))
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
And yes, according to how I see it, the 'line of sight' will introduce the 'relation' making it possible for that photon to behave differently. Put two observers inside, the 'photon' in the middle 'moving' towards one observer. We will find two definitions of that photons 'energy. and then also a third, the 'invariant light-quanta' we expect a photon to represent in 'itself'.
==

So, does it make sense?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
That's as far as I am at the moment Jartza.
I think this is correct, but I do not connect all the stuff yet.

And I'm using some weird examples too explain it:)
==

On the other tentacle: I could just as easily be bicycling in the great younder :)
Still? What's wrong with that, fresh air and lot's of sights.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2011 07:08:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What this way of looking at SpaceTime does, as it seems to me now, is to make SpaceTime a example of something not being at rest. SpaceTime, if this would be right, have to be a system that even though it's 'in balance' still are out of bounds in some way. And maybe entropy is a description of how the universe tries to rectify this situation?
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
And yes, according to how I see it, the 'line of sight' will introduce the 'relation' making it possible for that photon to behave differently. Put two observers inside, the 'photon' in the middle 'moving' towards one observer. We will find two definitions of that photons 'energy. and then also a third, the 'invariant light-quanta' we expect a photon to represent in 'itself'.
==

So, does it make sense?

Not nearly enough.

A box is standing on a concrete pillar, in the box a photon is bouncing, the pillar is sinking into the soil. The photon is doing the work of a pile driver.


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
No, even if it was possible to use the momentum that way, you could only use it once. No matter how you define 'propagation' there is only one interaction per photon. You need another argument for that I think?

But what you are thinking of is the blue shift we expect when it getting deeper into a gravity well, right?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
In my definition a 'photons' interaction and its relative 'strength' is defined by its relations. Those are what will decide it. What decides the relations I expect to be constants. What decides constants I don't really know :) But my hope is that if we find enough some bright guy/gal will solve the puzzle and make some sense of it. I'm not that interested in making everything following each other in a linear logic as long as I can see enough reasons/experiments for why it seems to work anyway. And I trust in Einsteins deductions, he was right as far as I know, and then we have QM. We just need to turn it around to see where they fit together. Because they will be found to 'fit' somehow. Or we have to assume that one of them is wrong.
=

And I'm not thinking linearity only when I say I expect them to 'fit'.
I think we need both.
==

Let's go back to that uniformly constantly accelerating rocket. Exchange it for Earth, then you will have a frame in where we do not notice any blue shift. Exchange Earth for a neutron star, and I will expect us to notice it though. But in the rocket the gravity well is situated behind the exhaust, making the 'gravity potential' equivalent to the one you would get fastened to the wall inside a skyscraper, 10 light seconds long, looking straight up in the roof. And doing so, on a neutron-star, should deliver a blue shift from the photon coming from that roof, as I think?

So, I think the equivalence is there, and so, I become of several minds :)

Let us assume that this is right, what does it tell you about motion? Does the Earth move in some way, Undefinable for us, and without 'expending energy'? And would then that 'energy expended' I would like to trust in be wrong?

What we can say is that the two examples seems equivalent, but there is one difference. I need to expend energy to reach the equivalence with my rocket. But not in the other example. Which makes me wonder how to define the difference?

« Last Edit: 12/01/2011 00:24:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What did I think about matter? That it needed to reach light speed to be at rest relative gravity? Assume that there is one state of rest in this universe, and that is light. All other states either need to expend energy to reach it or they need a invariant, proper, restmass. And that the more mass they have the closer they come to it, up to the limit where they become a 'Black Hole'.

Why shouldn't 'relative mass' then create a black hole?
Because it doesn't exist, those definitions only exist in their interacting. And a rocket infinitely near the speed of light can only express that 'relative mass' when interacting. And if so the 'momentum' we talk about doesn't exist either, except in its interaction.
==

Why do I say that they don't exist?

Because they don't jingle any 'atoms', ahem. I can only use that description when it comes to how 'relative mass' is thought to work, as I reserve momentum for photons, but I can stop doing that, for a while :) And then neither 'momentum nor relative mass' will jingle any atoms in that rocket, well, as far as I know? If you assume that it does it should destroy that rocket pretty fast as the 'energy' builds up with 'relative motion'.

All motion has to be relative, as we have no frame of absolute rest in the universe. All of this would probably be wrong, including the idea of relativity, if we could prove one 'gold-standard' for what motion 'really' is. Because, if we had such a one, then I would question the definition of all uniformly moving 'frames of reference' being the same :) With all right too as I think.
=

So, can we translate motion into mass? Yep, that's what we do with 'relative mass', and if you like, with 'momentum' too, except when coming to radiation. But are they the same? If a moving rocket can't become a black hole, then they can't be the exact same. Which make sense to me as matter and 'energy' neither is the 'exact same', all as I understands it.

So motion seeks a state of rest?
Well, yes :) We have two types defining motion as I know.
Matter and light.

But in my 'redefining' light suddenly becomes 'at rest', as matter too could be if only reaching that 'limit' of 'c', but it can't. 'Compression' of matter, on the other hand, that seems to meet the qualifications, if we now believe in Black Holes? and they exist, don't they?
==

Let's look at what might be the limits for 'frames of reference'. I used 10 light seconds for that room to situate the lamp far enough from the observer to make us see but, will it matter if the distance is shrunk? How much can I contract a 'frame of reference'?

I expect Plank size to be the limit myself? Smaller than that and we 'fall out' of our SpaceTime.
==

Do you believe in the Doppler effect? Okay, do you believe in Lorenz contraction too? If you don't you better stop believing in a time dilation :) And thinking of it, you should really start to doubt that Doppler effect too. As they all are expected to 'concentrate' that scarlet pimpernel 'energy'. Depending on how you look at Rindler observers and Unruh radiation of course.

Let us assume that they all are real. Then, if I now are near light speed, and take out my yard&Plank-stick to start measuring a 'Plank-size' in my ship, will it be the same as before me 'velocitying'? That is, will that 'plank-size' still fit my Yard/Plank-stick the exact same?

If you think it will, will people 'being still' relative me agree? That is, do you assume space contracting somehow only involve the observer inside the 'moving frame' or do you assume 'everywhere'? And how can you have two different sizes for the same object/idea? Eh, SpaceTime, that is. Make Lorenz contraction into an 'illusion' and you will question time dilation too, again as I see it.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2011 00:56:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
No, even if it was possible to use the momentum that way, you could only use it once. No matter how you define 'propagation' there is only one interaction per photon. You need another argument for that I think?

But what you are thinking of is the blue shift we expect when it getting deeper into a gravity well, right?


No Yor_on, I am thinking of red shift, when photon is working hard hammering a pillar down.


But now I am told by the very physics savvy Yor_on that a photon can not hammer, oh dear.  :)  

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Well, To 'hammer' I thought you meant what you saw as the imbalance between red and blue-shift? And those perfect mirrors in the box, sort of, acting as the mechanism in where your photons would could bounce, getting its 'energy' from the gravitational potential differing? We both know the limitations of that one, but you're using the analogy as a vessel for your idea, just as I did.

Then again, maybe you meant something else? Are you thinking of lost momentum? In what way would the red shift do it?
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
What happens when a photon bounces on a mirror plated trampoline, when trampoline springs lose 10 % of energy to friction?

Answer: photon redshifts 10% by every bounce.

 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"when trampoline springs lose 10 % of energy to friction?"

From the photon? I don't think photons have any friction Jartza, you picked the wrong word maybe? But it won't bounce, to get to you mass/energy it will have to be absorbed, bringing the 'energy' into the trampoline 'system' where it will get stored momentarily as mass. That kind of mass will evaporate though, and will not add to any weight. The best way to think of it as I've found is to compare it to the way you can create a black hole in your back yard :)

Take a sufficiently big piece of matter. Compress it, and then compress it some more. Don't stop until it breaks down into that black Hole. There are two 'limits' to a Black hole. There is one known process that creates a black hole, and one possible? The Chandrasekhar limit makes the upper bound for gravitational non-rotating mass 'collapse' describing what happens to the electron-degenerate matter that is created just before the singularity, nuclei immersed in a gas of electrons, about 1.4 solar masses. The other is possibly high-energy collisions that might create the sufficient 'density'. And that's what they try to find out at CERN. That we haven't seen any such yet suggests that there is a lower limit for the mass of black holes. And then probably around Planck mass, as if you go under that general relativity stops to make sense. So compress it and look at how the atoms behave. That's also why the locked spring will keep its 'excess energy', as compared to the spring beside, that I also compressed, just to let spring back. A compressed state will keep its energy. Your trampoline won't. When it comes to the photonic pile-driver I liked it, but it will also absorb the energy.

Even when assuming perfect mirrors you can't get something for nothing, not as we think today at least. So if not mass/energy being absorbed then we will have to look at momentum. If you assume a photons momentum to have a kinetic energy following the direction of its movement then it will impart it on the box.

Assuming that the box is perfectly mirrored that momentum will 'bounce back' at the photon. If you assume it not to bounce back, after all, a photon is the 'fastest' thingie we know, that momentum should transfer to to whatever is inside that box, space or whatever you like, as 'energy'. If you assume its momentum to be faster than the photons 'bounce' you have created a new speed limit, but also created something interacting with itself. I've never really like the idea of something bouncing inside perfect mirrors :)

That idea have nagged on me for years but not made sense, although it's intriguing. What we can say is that if it will be shown to be correct that you can inject 'energy' in an entanglement then there might be some laws that need to be looked over. But that has nothing to do with this off course, more than it gets on the same level of improbability to me :) Not that I mind, I like improbable things, just like you :)
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
It's a massless trampoline. Standing on a massive ... planet.


Why is it that when you climb up a hill you become "tired"?


Answer: Energies in the body became imbalanced. Muscles do work on bones, which makes bones heavier and muscles lighter. Then muscles start complaining.
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Now we are in some enormous liquid planet, where a curved mirror is sinking down at constant speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hijWfvuuSk0

Observe the ball of light bouncing back and forth in the curved space-time. It gets smaller each time it hits the mirror. That illustrates the red shift of the light. (for some reason changing the color didn't quite work)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I liked that flash, don't really know what you was proving but the flash was cool. You need to define what it is thought to prove, but nicely done anyway.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums