The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16065 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #200 on: 10/03/2016 15:58:13 »
Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?
Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.

Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2016 16:01:33 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #201 on: 10/03/2016 18:54:52 »
Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #202 on: 10/03/2016 19:11:58 »
Thebox consider that the blue-shift, imparting energy as it does, may well link to relativistic mass increase. Then this extra energy will be all kinetic energy which would help to break molecular bonds and so increase entropy. So that increasing tidal forces will inevitably increase entropy and mostly in that region of the black hole between the light-like orbital and the horizon surface. Now there's a thought!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #203 on: 10/03/2016 19:33:11 »
And here is a graph of the function x sin 1/x for anyone even remotely interested.

 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #204 on: 10/03/2016 19:43:30 »
Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html

This is what intelligent knowledgable people do when they discover that there ideas are wrong. Hawking is not disagreeing with himself he has simply corrected a flaw in his understanding.

Quote
I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.

I did show my work in a direct reply to one of your posts. For anyone interested here it is again:

Quote
That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d˛*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson
Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.

Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.

I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.

Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks

I apologize. I am trying me best to keep this discussion focused and polite.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #205 on: 11/03/2016 16:33:19 »
I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.
As your peer, I respectfully disagree. I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back. Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place. You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 16:49:31 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #206 on: 11/03/2016 17:24:13 »
As your peer, I respectfully disagree.
That doesn't make my statement any less true.

Quote
I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back.


Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share. The interaction of a particular wave with a particular medium or lack of a medium may disallow some or all modes of oscillation. However, this disallowing of oscillation modes is a property of the medium not the waves.

Quote
Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place.

I responded to a direct request from you. Although now it appears you somehow forgot the original statement to which I was referring despite the rather unambiguous nature of what you yourself quoted.

Quote
You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.

Funny then how you managed to find an entire blog post from a semi-prominent theoretical physicist that specifically spoke about how the term matter is ambiguous even in the realm of science precisely because it is used to mean different things by different people. If so many different people in different disciplines of science are using matter that there is the potential for ambiguity then how can it be that "nobody who is deep into this subject" uses the term? To take a particularly relevant quote from Prof. Matt Strassler:

Quote
Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
(Emphasis mine)

From: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Also, when talking about matter I attempt to make it clear what definition of matter I am using by stating that I consider any single entity with a rest frame (i.e. not traveling at c) is matter. Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #207 on: 11/03/2016 18:10:18 »
Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share.

Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.
Tell me something I don't know. Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.

You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 18:13:41 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #208 on: 11/03/2016 21:10:10 »
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #209 on: 11/03/2016 23:28:04 »
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.


Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity 







 
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #210 on: 12/03/2016 00:08:19 »
Tell me something I don't know.
You say you know and understand and then you go and say things like:

Quote
Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.

which makes it clear that you don't. For starters a photon traveling in a vacuum is one wave that is oscillating with two transverse modes. The only reason a photon cannot also have a longitudinal mode at the same time is that the vacuum does not support the longitudinal mode of electromagnetic oscillation. It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation. All waves have a speed of propagation in whatever medium they travel through and that speed is their maximum speed in that medium. For all intents and purposes a sound wave (or earthquake wave) traveling in a medium is traveling at the speed limit of that medium and if your argument was valid they would be subjected to the same effects as a photon. Thus the fact that there exists traveling waves that possess both transverse and longitudinal modes of oscillation at the same time your reasoning must be flawed. To reiterate what you are describing if it were true should be true of all waves. It clearly is not and therefore cannot be true.

Quote
You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.

Correcting the errors you make in factual knowledge and logical reasoning is not inherently condescending and no one else has commented that my word choice is suggestive of condescension. The only thing I am attempting to do is to help you learn actual real physics. True physics is so much more amazing than the ridiculous stuff that you think up. Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #211 on: 12/03/2016 00:44:30 »
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.


Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity

Ah but can singularities be observed?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #212 on: 12/03/2016 11:17:20 »



Ah but can singularities be observed?


They can if they are within the range limit of observation  be detected by sight or possibly  other means.   



 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #213 on: 12/03/2016 12:20:32 »



Ah but can singularities be observed?


They can if they are within the range limit of observation  be detected by sight or possibly  other means.

You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #214 on: 12/03/2016 12:37:00 »


You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?


I can shine a laser and observe the dust I could not otherwise ''see'' in the space between my eyes and object.  Because I am changing the ''colour'' of the constant the singularities stand out more, to see something that is  dark but not really dark, against a dark background that is not really dark, we simply have to change the colour of the foreground to submerge the singularity into something different from the constant same.


So something like if we could see in green dust would look like tiny little stars.





« Last Edit: 12/03/2016 12:42:15 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #215 on: 12/03/2016 12:51:43 »
Or you could start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature

"In general relativity, the scalar curvature is the Lagrangian density for the Einstein–Hilbert action. The Euler–Lagrange equations for this Lagrangian under variations in the metric constitute the vacuum Einstein field equations, and the stationary metrics are known as Einstein metrics. The scalar curvature is defined as the trace of the Ricci tensor, and it can be characterized as a multiple of the average of the sectional curvatures at a point. Unlike the Ricci tensor and sectional curvature, however, global results involving only the scalar curvature are extremely subtle and difficult. One of the few is the positive mass theorem of Richard Schoen, Shing-Tung Yau and Edward Witten. Another is the Yamabe problem, which seeks extremal metrics in a given conformal class for which the scalar curvature is constant."
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #216 on: 12/03/2016 12:54:25 »
Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #217 on: 12/03/2016 14:41:08 »
It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation.

Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.
I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.

What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."

"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #218 on: 13/03/2016 02:26:43 »
I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.

What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."

"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.

If you weren't talking about oscillations than you are even more wrong than I gave you credit for. You seem to be very confused about terminology and the nature of waves and wave motion in general. If we're simply talking about the propagation of waves then spherical waves are three dimensional in that they have forward motion in all three dimensions. Now spherical waves are generated by point sources but are by no means confined in any sense of the word. Here is a little bit about wave propagation:

https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf

Generally speaking there is no such thing as a perfect plane or cylindrical wave because they require an infinite plane or line to generate them. All waves propagating through space have some spherical nature to them because their sources are all finite in extent. The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains. Don't be confused by drawings of electromagnetic waves like the one in the link below:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/remote/images/emwave.gif

Only one of the axes (the plural of axis not axe) in that picture represents a direction in space (the one labeled direction). The other two axes represent the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields and are in units of electric and magnetic field strength not distance. At best that diagram represents an idealized plane wave not a true physical wave. Diagrams of wave propagation are simplified like this because there really is no way to draw what is really going on in three spatial dimensions while also representing the changes in field strength that wouldn't be an indecipherable mess. This point should always be made very clear when these diagrams are used (and in courses on electromagnetism that is usually the case) but often it is not when communicating to a lay audience. Higher sciences routinely make use of axes that represent things other than space and sometimes spatial and non-spatial axes are mixed together in the same graph which can be very confusing to the uninitiated.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #219 on: 13/03/2016 09:12:53 »
Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?


The invert of that . ONLY pos expands pos, it is polarity difference, we do not know there was not a ring formation and we ''drifted'' inwards.


Neg IS attracted to Neg ,

 I think orbiting bodies are some sort of Magnus affect and solar winds?









« Last Edit: 13/03/2016 09:18:57 by Thebox »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #220 on: 13/03/2016 16:35:02 »
"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation."
The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains.
Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."

In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2016 16:39:41 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #221 on: 13/03/2016 16:58:43 »
Ah but can singularities be observed?
"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.

I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."

This idea solves two problems.

First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.

Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.

I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2016 17:36:22 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #222 on: 13/03/2016 18:24:10 »
Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."

I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry. Also, I just linked to a pdf about the propagation of waves that made it clear in no uncertain terms that spherical waves propagate along all three spatial dimensions.

Quote
In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.

The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three. The wave function of a photon always spreads in the x and y directions as it moves in the z direction. This must happen in order for the intensity of light to fall of at a rate proportional to 1/r as observation has confirmed. Groups of photons may interfere constructively and destructively to make a wave front that appears one or two dimension over a selected area but that is close as it ever gets. A photon is never part of an atom. As I have said before a photon that is absorbed by an atom is said to be annihilated. It ceases to exist. Scientists would not use the word annihilated if the photon didn't cease to exist. Further, there are no electrostatic oscillations of an atom after the absorption of a photon and no electrostatic oscillations means no photon.

Now if you want to talk scattering over absorption that is a whole different story. In scattering a photon that is not the right energy to be absorbed sets up a forced oscillation in the electrons of the atom. That forced oscillation starts creating another photon while the atom is still interacting with the first photon and the two photons interfere with each other. The result is an otherwise identical outgoing photon usually traveling in a slightly different direction. Now in general the radius of a single atom is never larger than about 0.5 nm and the most energy it could ever take to strip an electron from a neutral atom is ~24.584 eV which corresponds to a wavelength of ~50 nm. Typical visible light photons are in the 100s to almost 1000s of nm range in terms of wavelengths. This means that in most interactions between atoms and photons that photon is going to be interacting with several atoms along its direction of travel at once. Additionally the photon spreads out perpendicularly to its direction of travel meaning it interacts with even more atoms simultaneously. The end result is that is makes almost no sense to talk about a single atom and a single photon interacting as a real occurrence when discussing the propagation of light through a medium. The collective action of many atoms undergoing forced oscillations and producing many electromagnetic waves that all interfere with each other result in the observed speed of light through any medium. It is never as simple as one photon and one atom in any real scenario.

Quote
I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?

That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #223 on: 13/03/2016 20:09:01 »
Ah but can singularities be observed?
"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.

I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."

This idea solves two problems.

First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.

Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.

I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.

While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #224 on: 14/03/2016 00:46:43 »
While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.
I'm not the type to assume things, unless they are something that generally falls under the category of "common sense." I merely feel that, in a physics forum, I should explain myself fully in a post. I'm certainly not trying be patronizing about your knowledge. If there's an assumption being made on my part, it's that someone might be reading my post who knows either more or less than either you or I do, or might even reply to my post, as this IS a public forum. To me, that's a "common sense" observation.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #224 on: 14/03/2016 00:46:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length