The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model  (Read 3050 times)

Offline MLuckham

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« on: 27/04/2011 13:09:47 »
I have some burning questions in my mind that are bothering me. 

1. Many science programs talk about what happens when an observer watches something fall into a singularity (e.g. a black hole).  However, my understanding is that as the object approaches the event horizon time is dilated.  At the event horizon time stops.  How can we ever observe anything falling into a black hole if the time for that object has stopped? Will it not stay frozen on the boundary for ever and so will never really fall in?  How does a black hole gobble up matter, if when observed, the matter will slow to a halt just as it reaches the event horizon?  Does this not mean that the black hole will grow incredibly slowly in size (or not at all) if observed?

2. My other questions is about magnetism.  I am not one of these mad people who keeps banging on about perpetual motion etc, however I wanted to get a view as to where the underlying electromagnetic force gets its energy?  What is it about the electron and photon that appears to create a force thats pretty strong?  I understand about the dipole alignment etc, but my question is where does the fundamental energy come from? I suppose the same question could be asked of gravity, but electromagnetism seems such a powerful force? 

3. My final question is regarding the standard model of the atom.  My understanding is that the standard model has a cloud of electrons rotating around a central nucleus.  So, how does a Hydrogen Atom work?  There is a single positively charged particle (the proton) with a single negatively charged particle (the electron).  It is "orbiting" the nucleus, but its orbit never degrades even though there must be a strong attraction between the two particles.  How does that work?

« Last Edit: 27/04/2011 14:31:36 by MLuckham »


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #1 on: 27/04/2011 16:40:38 »
1. from the perspective of an observer Bob who is in an accelerated reference frame ( ie the clever clogs is making sure he doesn't get sucked up by black hole as well) then Alice who falls freely into the black hole never crosses the event horizon.  From Alice's perspective the event horizon is a total non-event and she doesnt even notice crossing it.  There is NO independent frame of reference to give the REAL story.

2. thats a difficult one

3. its one electron in a cloud formed by one electron.  non classical models do not easily, if at all, make sense in classical everyday terms
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #2 on: 28/04/2011 07:25:02 »
1) I'm not too good with that one.

2) It might be best to think of electric fields as not having any energy in and of themselves at all. Currently, electric fields are modelled as being made up of virtual photons. Since virtual photons don't contain "real" energy to make their existence permanent, they only live as long as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says they can live. After that, they disappear back into the quantum vacuum from which they came. An electric field by itself cannot do work unless it has another electric field to interact with. Perhaps it is better to think that electric fields can only change one form of energy into another; electric potential energy changing into kinetic energy as two point charges cause one-another to move.

3) According to my knowledge, even a single electron is smeared out as a probability cloud all around the nucleus (if it is not being "observed"). It only "collapses" into a point particle at a particular location if we observe (interact with) it.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #3 on: 28/04/2011 08:40:54 »
Wait a minute! That's three questions. We should probably split them up.

In the meantime, here's a video that might help with the second question. (Sorry JP - beat you to it  :D)

feature=related
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #4 on: 30/04/2011 00:13:02 »
I If an object is falling into a black hole you can only see it as far as the event horizon and not to wherever it ends up.  OK in theory the image of the object persists because of the time dilation but this is fading out all the time and although it never in theory reaches zero it would soon be undetectable.

2 An object possesses a magnetic field because energy has been put into its structure and if this structure is reasonably fixed the field will persist and even resist disruptive forces like shock and the presence of other magnetic material and fields.  The attractive and repulsive nature of magnetic fields is a measure of the structures resistance to disruption but making magnets repel each other puts stress on the magnetic structure just like the gravitational attraction of the earth on your body puyts stress on a bridge as you walk over it.

3 The electron in its ground state in a hydrogen atom cannot be confined close to the nucleus because of its low mass which makes its inherent uncertainty volume much greater than the nucleus.  Higher level orbitals (orbits) are unstable and eventually decay to the ground state.  Larger atoms have these higher levels filled.  one way of visualising what is going on is that the electron is continually moving and emitting electromagnetic radiation but it is also absorbing the radiation it emits this is a bit like a resonant cavity the energy is bouncing around but can't get out.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #5 on: 30/04/2011 15:45:58 »
1. let's start with agreeing on Light here :) If you, as me, find light to have one invariant speed in a perfect vacuum, as observed from any frame of reference and in any frame of reference, be it a black hole or Earth, then we're on the level here :)

So assuming that light always have 'one speed' why would it describe that spacecraft as 'hanging' on the event horizon, as you look at it from outside the gravity well?

It can't be lights speed, right? We just agreed on it having one same speed, any and every-where. What do we have more? Well, we have the 'room' that light travels in. So does that room expands? From your perspective outside the gravity-well it shouldn't, because if it did it would be impossible to ever circumferent a Black holes 'event horizon' as the distance likely would become 'infinite' if so.

So your 'room' doesn't change. How about the 'room' our light signals 'see' then? Well, that's what we have left, isn't it? If light always have one same 'speed', and if your room doesn't change then there still is left to define the room light believes itself to 'propagate' in. In a way this is related, as I see it, to the gravitational redshift as that also is something that takes place due to 'space' getting 'warped' by gravity.

So, okay, light finds the room to 'stretch', but, how can the same 'room' be expressed two ways simultaneously? Well, what you see is not the same as what light sees, and the room you describe is not the room lights path describe. You might think of it as if there was a invincible 'interface' between what you see and what the other side see. That 'interface is this weird constant, lights invariant speed in a vacuum. We all 'translate' it into our reality, and normally we never notice that ours is 'different' in any way from anyone else's.

==

You might also consider the opposite, that whatever you see is the only definition you ever will have about your own 'reality', including 'SpaceTime'. In that case the room observed from the lights 'propagation' from that event horizon is the correct description of the 'distance' taken by that light. Both ways are possible, but then you also will find that the distance you describe to that black hole from Earth will change as you get into its gravitational field, meaning that if that ship wanted to circumvent a black hole, close to the event horizon, it will give you a 'infinite room' to traverse, taking them much longer than you would expect. But here it becomes very murky as that should mean that from a further distance to the gravity well you would find yourself circumstancing that black hole faster than it will be possible for the spacecraft closer to it. And assuming this you will find that they never reach that Event horizon too.

Looking at it that way it's easy to see why it may be considered a 'time room pocket'. But it all builds on one thing, namely lights invariant speed in a vacuum. But this is all from the view point of you looking 'down' at that ship. Inside the ship time is as always and the circumvention of the event horizon will take a finite time fitting their calculations from outside the gravity-well, as I think of it now :) It's such a weird subject this one.

My explanation is weirder than that though. Because, to me, it's all about 'interfaces'. And the 'interface' is light.
==

And that's what Lorentz transformations are meant to do, to show how the 'other sides' room time relates to our personal. And that's what light does, binds all those 'room time geometries' together, giving us all a 'same' seamless 'reality'.

2. That one we need theories covering QM, and what under(?), for as I see it. From that perspective 'Time' cease to exist, and so does 'Space', and 'matter, and distance, and speeds. That place is where the Big Bang came form, the 'fault' containing the 'symmetry(s)' we observe, as expressing this place we live in.

There, as I see it, everything is 'one' and distance and our times arrow has no place. That's where it all exist without differentiating. And from the needs created here, in 'interactions' and 'equilibriums' existing we see 'forces' and 'fields'. I expect it to be most similar to a game, where 'rules' make a logical connection between different phenomena, presenting us with a sort of linearity inside our arrow, up to a point. Where that 'point' is constants take over. They define the 'rules' and 'causality chains' we see, including Electromagnetism and 'natural magnetism'. So before finding all constants there is we will have a hard time defining what the 'rules' are. And even after that the question is still open for what 'reality' really is :)


3. That one is about 'interactions', from inside a QM perspective. There we are close that other 'reality' as our linear 'arrow of time' lose its hold, becoming fuzzy. And if it is a game then what we call 'matter' can be anything on that particle plane. To me they might just be 'bubbles' in time, self consistent in our arrow as outcomes from interactions, as defined by the circumstances describing them. Well, as I sees it :)
« Last Edit: 30/04/2011 16:39:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #6 on: 30/04/2011 16:34:11 »
I don't see a satisfactory answer to Q1 here at all. The point is that given that we cannot ever see an object fall into a BH or, more to the point, from the perspective of a distant observer the object will actually not fall in for an infinity of our time, how can we ever say that an observable BH can ever exist? It should be for ever more, from our perspective, just a very heavy sphere right on the verge of being a BH but never actually getting there. I think this is the point of the question.

I think the answer is that the event horizon grows to encompass the object in its immediate vicinity and so removes the embarrassment. I don't think this complication gets spoken of too much because it is outside the simple and elegent equations derived by Schwartzschild that depend on spherical symmetry. Computer simulations of such events have been done (I do not have time to find a reference on the web right now) as well as the effects of two BHs colliding. I think a problem has been in using suitable models that don't fail because of the nasty infinities that appear. Even numerical analysis methods can fall down in this case. And the equations, without any convenient symmetry, are difficult to deal with.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #7 on: 30/04/2011 16:46:11 »
Yeah, it's a murky subject Graham. I've seen some defining it as impossible to ever reach that Event horizon. Myself I see it as 'different reality's' as described by light. If it's so then it's entirely possible for one observer to pass that Event horizon while the observer being outside will swear to it never to move. But as for why it is so? To me it has to do with light as a constant. If light is a constant then all this will be true. If we find it otherwise? I don't know, then the universe becomes 'time room densities' that nowhere is 'constant' as they will change with added mass, and motion.

I understand those that think of light as constant perfectly :) as that gives us one big 'invariant' to calculate the rest from. And as far as I know, no experiments have shown light to fare otherwise.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #8 on: 30/04/2011 17:07:36 »
Ah I see what you mean. That no black holes ever can be formed, as from our perspective outside the gravity well :) Yeah, it can be so I guess, meaning that all black holes existing have had to be formed at the Big Bang. Using such logic there shouldn't be any possibility of creating black holes at the LHC either, right? As we will be observers outside the 'gravity well' forming.

It's some time since I wondered about that. But I'm pretty sure that 'radiation' is what defines our reality. That and 'consciousness' observing it. I think of it as a 'relational universe', defining itself through that radiation.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Event Horizons, Magnetism and the Standard Model
« Reply #8 on: 30/04/2011 17:07:36 »

 

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