Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: demadone on 22/01/2009 08:09:33
-
I believe it does in a black hole. Hawkins thought in those lines though not exactly. He later changed his opinion.
My opinion is that when an electron collapses into the nucleus, the larger gravitational force turns the mass (or Atom) into a singularity.
So by me it follows that a singularity is a mass (atom) that has lost energy so that the electron cannot rotate.
In my view of this, a singularity has no infinite density but is something like the volume of sub-atomic particles divided by their masses. I'll work it out and present it.
Larger black holes are not in a singularity state.
These are new ideas, so more thought is required to refine them. But it's better than saying a black hole is a window. There are no white holes. They don't exist.
-
I believe that a Neutron can decay into a Proton with the emission of an Electron and an anti Neutrino so presumably the reverse happens in Neutron stars.
-
My opinion is that when an electron collapses into the nucleus, the larger gravitational force turns the mass (or Atom) into a singularity.
Its just my own personal opinion but I have trouble with the idea of a singularity. Its like infinity; you can never really get there; and when you use either in arithmetic you get into problems.
-
As you may observe that I also don't believe a singularity has infinite density. It is very high density but not infinite. Matter can't have infinite mass nor zero volume. Not even a black hole's atom.
-
syhprum. That is a very good point. I also think that somehow an electron can collapse into the neutron. More like reverse radiation. Protons and electrons forming neutron.
Only question is, what kind of particles are radiated by a black hole?
-
As you may observe that I also don't believe a singularity has infinite density. It is very high density but not infinite. Matter can't have infinite mass nor zero volume. Not even a black hole's atom.
I just Googled around a little to see how other people think of a singularity. It seems that astronomers think of it as: A singularity means a point where some property is infinite. For example, at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity. Similarly, if you extrapolate the properties of the universe to the instant of the Big Bang, you will find that both the density and the temperature go to infinity, and so that also is a singularity. It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.
In my own personal speculation that mass is composed in its entirety of electromagnetic fields, mass could never be compressed except by increasing the frequency of its constituents and this should make it unstable.
-
One reason for the electron not 'collapsing' into the nucleus would be the Uncertainty principle. The electron energy is very well defined so its position would be very undefined. Its wave property would, essentially, dominate because it would, effectively, occupy the whole volume of the so-called lower shell - millions of times the size of how we regard an electron whilst it is flying between atoms, for instance. So you can't regard it as a particle when in such a bound state. Nothing new there - QM gives you the model.
-
Isn't a neutron star formed when the pressure from an exploding star causes the electrons to be physically pushed into the nucleus?
-
I know that black holes, though not admitted by most scientists are a result of a break down in the fine-tuning of the 4 atomic forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force).
I am doing some research into this and will present my theory as soon as I work it out.
-
Isn't a neutron star formed when the pressure from an exploding star causes the electrons to be physically pushed into the nucleus?
I think that electrons being pushed into the nucleus is not a requirement of the current speculation about neutron stars. Folks originally thought such stars might be composed entirely of neutrons. That notion probably needs to be updated.
-
I know that black holes, though not admitted by most scientists are a result of a break down in the fine-tuning of the 4 atomic forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force).
I am doing some research into this and will present my theory as soon as I work it out.
You probably shouldn't call your work a theory [:)] I can easily unite the four forces (http://photontheory.com/MyOwn.html) but it is only speculation.
-
In a neutron star, the Uncertainty principle would (must?) apply. But that's ok because the energy state is much much less well defined under conditions of such high density. My original statement rather assumed the gas state.
-
In a neutron star, the Uncertainty principle would (must?) apply. But that's ok because the energy state is much much less well defined under conditions of such high density. My original statement rather assumed the gas state.
You've probably got it as close as anybody else. I think this link (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/neutrons) represents the current thinking. From the link:
The neutron star resembles a single giant nucleus because the density everywhere except in the outer shell is as high as the density in the nuclei of ordinary matter. There is observational evidence of the existence of several classes of neutron stars: pulsars are periodic sources of radio frequency, X ray, or gamma ray radiation that fluctuate in intensity and are considered to be rotating neutron stars. A neutron star may also be the smaller of the two components in an X-ray binary star.
-
I'm mostly focused on black holes and not neutron stars because the principle behind them may not be the same.
The main reason I believe the electron may be involved in the great reduction of volume in the formation of a black hole is that electrons are placed at a vast distance from the neutron. The volume all matter is actually mostly because of the distance of an electron from the neutron. If that were reduced, the you and I would be very small indeed. We are actually empty space.
Our mass however is only from the nucleus. So if we had no nucleus we would be as light as air.
Now if you see what I am getting at you'll realize that black holes are mostly composed of the nucleus, either with the absence of electrons or with these pushed into the nucleus. Less volume, more mass => High density.
Then comes the electromagnetic force/gravity relationship. I would explain more but it's like writing a book.
-
Now if you see what I am getting at you'll realize that black holes are mostly composed of the nucleus, either with the absence of electrons or with these pushed into the nucleus. Less volume, more mass => High density.
I think if you do the arithmetic you'll find that your black hole, so formed, would not be different than a neutron star.
-
You may just be right but I need to know about what can differentiate neutron stars from black holes in terms of this process.
-
You may just be right but I need to know about what can differentiate neutron stars from black holes in terms of this process.
I think the thing that makes a neutron star different from a Black Hole is that the neutron star does not contain a singularity. The neutron star is not so massively dense that we run out of numbers when trying to quantify it.
A Black Hole is thought to be that dense.
-
In addition, in a neutron star, gravity isn't strong enough to overcome all other physical forces. The neutrons still exist, and they aren't all squashed into the same point. In a black hole, the neutrons will be torn apart into their component particles, and all of this will be smushed together into one point. The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.
-
Last two comments are quite good. I am still researching. But I'm wondering about your comment about sub atomic components being torn into their building blocks. What are they? Did I miss something out in Physics?
-
Last two comments are quite good. I am still researching. But I'm wondering about your comment about sub atomic components being torn into their building blocks. What are they? Did I miss something out in Physics?
You missed his last sentence: The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.
Which means when we get to this point we're just guessing [:)]
-
In addition, in a neutron star, gravity isn't strong enough to overcome all other physical forces. The neutrons still exist, and they aren't all squashed into the same point. In a black hole, the neutrons will be torn apart into their component particles, and all of this will be smushed together into one point. The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.
Excuse me jpetruccelli, I don't know much about black holes, but how can you differentiate between a massive object, still made of matter (even if probably not neutrons anylonger) and still having a finite radius, which can't let light escape from its surface, from a singularity? How do we know what there is inside the event horizon?
-
Protons seem to really have sub-sub atomic particles called quacks. Guess I did miss something in physics.
-
Lightarrow, as I understand it (I'm not a black hole expert), a black hole occurs when something gets so dense that light can't escape it. Therefore anything that dense is a black hole. As part of the formation, everything collapses into a singularity. I don't know if there's any theoretical objects of finite density that act like that (I'm under the impression that there aren't any).
-
A black hole is something we can't know about as I see it.
The reason for that is that we can't observe it.
The only thing 'observable' should be its event horizon.
But if a 'super massive' black hole has a 'greater' event horizon.
Shouldn't there should be some relation between that and its mass?
But mass is energy, right?
So couldn't it be some sort of very dense BEC?
And as light can be superimposed.
Does it need to take any place?
But if it could be described as a dimensionless point, how does it express itself as mass?
-
Protons seem to really have sub-sub atomic particles called quacks. Guess I did miss something in physics.
I think maybe you mean quarks. Yes; that is the present model as I understand it.
-
And another thing.
I was up on a wiki just before writing this:)
Just to check my views, ah, sort of:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
And now I got myself a new headache:)
We used to speak of black holes as something that could happen at all times.
Then for some year ago there came that theory stating that nothing ever could fall past the event horizon, if you remember:)
Looking at the wiki now I see that it states.
"A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them.
In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line).
Attempting to make an object approaching the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude becomes unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets."
As well as...
"For the case of the horizon around a black hole, observers stationary with respect to a distant object will all agree on where the horizon is. While this seems to allow an observer lowered towards the hole on a rope to contact the horizon, in practice this cannot be done.
If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon. If the observer is quickly lowered by another observer, then indeed the first observer, and some of the rope can touch and even cross the (second observer's) event horizon.
If the rope is pulled taut to fish the first observer back out, then the forces along the rope increase without bound as they approach the event horizon, and at some point the rope must break. Furthermore, the break must occur not at the event horizon, but at a point where the second observer can observe it.
Attempting to stick a rigid rod through the hole's horizon cannot be done: if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed.
From the point of view of an observer at the end of the rod, the event horizon remains hopelessly out of reach. If the rod is lowered quickly, then the same problems as with the rope are encountered: the rod must break and the broken-off pieces inevitably fall in.
These peculiarities only occur because of the supposition that the observers be stationary with respect to some other distant observer.
Observers who fall into the hole are moving with respect to the distant observer, and so perceive the horizon as being in a different location, seeming to recede in front of them so that they never contact it. Increasing tidal forces (and eventual impact with the hole's gravitational singularity) are the only locally noticeable effects.
While this seems to allow an infalling observer to relay information from objects outside their perceived horizon but inside the distant observer's perceived horizon, in practice the horizon recedes by an amount small enough that by the time the infalling observer receives any signal from farther into the hole, they've already crossed what the distant observer perceived to be the horizon, and this reception event (and any retransmission) can't be seen by the distant observer."
This seems to me as an even 'newer' definition.
Let us take this idea from the perspective of that 'in falling' observer.
I would expect him to fall 'in his time/frame' 'normally.
Without problems passing that event horizon, even though he would be 'dismembered' by the gravitational forces that lurks there.
As otherwise nothing ever could come over that event horizon.
And I don't think this idea is the same as the one saw last year?
I will try to look that one up too, but
Where is this proved?
By what experiments?
----
If you think of it it also seems to state that we will have an enormous amount of 'matter' resting(?) around that 'for ever receding' event horizon from the 'matters' perspective.
But never reaching any end (event horizon) ?
-
I think you're right yor_on; Black Hole theory seems to be a work in progress. I can never get past the rule that total mass is conserved, even though there is a singularity that is like infinity. How does infinity + another chunk make more infinity ??
-
I think it's the same idea that I saw one year ago?
But now stated as a fact, in that wiki.
As I remember that idea said that there could be no 'new' black holes, as they all had to 'become' just after or in the Big Bang?
So how does it explain this?
"Using Chandra, scientists surveyed a sample of clusters and counted the fraction of galaxies with rapidly growing supermassive black holes, known as active galactic nuclei (or AGN).
The data show, for the first time, that younger, more distant galaxy clusters contained far more AGN than older, nearby ones. "
From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=23101
And here is a timetable, anyone want to pinpoint when the Black holes came?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
" How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came. "
So according to Hawkins there won't be any mass transformed into energy then?
So maybe we are talking 'condensed matter' inside those, growing, black holes?
As I have great trouble seeing light as containing all 'information' of its state as 'matter'.
If the information isn't seen as the precise amount of energy needed to replace all that 'matter' disappearing/transformed.
If this is right and light is defined by its waves?
How would that 'information' be encoded?
(if it was something more to it than only its energy content.)
And would black holes then be the last place still containing 'fresh' energy.
As it should be extremly condensed inside 'there'?
-
Also it seems that hawking radiation allows the negative part of the spontaneous 'pair particle creation' in space to reduce the mass of the black hole. That means that it actually have to pass the event horizon.
The positive particle will then be what creates the radiation?
---
Why I say that it has to pass the event horizon, is because otherwise that black hole would never disappear.
That as its creation was in the big bang and no amount of matter outside the event horizon (that this negative particle might destroy while 'never' coming to that 'receding' event horizon) would mean anything to that 'original' black hole.
Do I make sense here.
Or?
----------
Doesn't that mean that Black holes are tapping the universe of energy?
Or how does it keeps its 'balance'?
A black hole is defined as releasing no light/information.
And it doesn't, as the positive particle will be outside the EV and the negative goes away into the Black hole.
But it still ...must... communicate somehow.
To allow the 'balance' between this spontaneous 'nano timed' creation of particle pairs in empty space.
And the negation of mass that will answer inside that event horizon, to keep the universe balance of energy the same.
I find my views rather sane when reading this:)
Am I getting this wrong?
--
Is this an example of entanglement?
But it seems also as some sort of 'communication'?
Very strange:)
---------
-
I don't think anyone has it exactly right yet. That's why it keeps changing. It seems that the event horizon has different consequences depending upon where it is described. Wiki has trouble keeping up: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox)
The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could "disappear" in a black hole. It is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that information cannot be destroyed. [1]
-
Maybe entanglement is the explanation?
But then it also seems as if the universe will know when one 'side' of this entanglement is destroyed?
And that it will treat that outside 'times' jurisdiction.
-
The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
-
The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Can you visualize the conversion process; or is it that one instant it is mass; the next instant it is energy.
-
If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.
-
If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.
Yes; but one thing becoming another thing over a period of time involves a process. There are intermediate steps in processes. Can you imagine the process by which matter becomes energy. John Wheeler imagined a process where the core of matter gave up its energy and disappeared into a sort of space foam. I didn't like that scheme.
-
That doesn't sound too scientific. My assumption is that if you look into the sub sub sub atomic particles you'll find that they are made of energy. Now my other assumption is that there is only one type of energy from which atoms are made. It can be felt as warmth but differs from potential and kinetic energy. It may be kinetic energy but I wouldn't be too quick to make that conclusion.
What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.
-
What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.
When we allow electrons and positrons to collide we see them become photons of electromagnetic energy. Maybe the energy was photons all along; maybe it was just trapped in a pattern to form the electron and positron. [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
-
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space". [:)]
-
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space". [:)]
I like your description, lightarrow, especially that two photons moving relative to each other form a system that is itself mass.
-
So if light is the equivalence to mass?
Does space 'bend' inside a particle accelerator?
And photons near the Sun traveling away, shouldn't they create gravitational effects too?
Have we measured that?
-
Vern, that is quite possible. I've always believed that atoms are made of energy. In fact we might just be on our way to make matter out of energy if we understand this secret. Photon energy or not but it must be something in those lines.
-
So if light is the equivalence to mass?
Does space 'bend' inside a particle accelerator?
And photons near the Sun traveling away, shouldn't they create gravitational effects too?
Have we measured that?
I don't know how we could determine whether space bends inside a particle accelerator.
We know that there is more gravity than there should be in most galaxies. I don't know if the calculations account for the thousands of years worth of photons and ions thrown out by those galaxies. That is a good question, but we generally assume that the amount of gravity resulting from the thrown out debris would be small relative to the total mass of the galaxy.
-
Vern, that is quite possible. I've always believed that atoms are made of energy. In fact we might just be on our way to make matter out of energy if we understand this secret. Photon energy or not but it must be something in those lines.
I think recent experiments produced particles of mass from energy alone. I'll look for the research notes.
-
I think I would like to lay my hands on that information. It might just bring an end to all these lies about black holes.
-
I think I would like to lay my hands on that information. It might just bring an end to all these lies about black holes.
Ok; here it is. BTW they are not lying; they are true believers; but being true believers they have a stake in the outcome of debates about the existence of Black Holes.
OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER
September 16, 1997
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Scientists have long been able to convert matter to energy; the most spectacular example is a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy. Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter -- in this experiment, electrons and their anti-matter equivalent, positrons.
Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.
Physicists accomplished the feat by dumping an incredible amount of power -- nearly as much as it takes to run the entire nation but lasting only for a tiny fraction of a second -- into an area less than one billionth of a square centimeter, which is far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They used high-energy electrons traveling near the speed of light, produced by SLAC's two-mile-long accelerator, and photons from a powerful, "tabletop terawatt" glass laser developed at Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The laser unleashed a tiny but powerful sliver of light lasting about one trillionth of a second (one picosecond) -- just half a millimeter long. Packed into this sliver were more than two billion billion photons.
The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons.
The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams.
By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators.
Spokesmen for the experiment, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, are Kirk McDonald, professor of physics at Princeton, and Melissinos, professor of physics at Rochester. Also taking part in the experiment were William Bugg, Steve Berridge, Konstantin Shmakov and Achim Weidemann at Tennessee; David Burke, Clive Field, Glenn Horton-Smith, James Spencer and Dieter Walz at SLAC; Christian Bula and Eric Prebys at Princeton; and seven other physicists from Rochester, including Associate Professor David Meyerhofer; graduate students Thomas Koffas, David Reis, Stephen Boege, and Theofilos Kotseroglou; research associate Charles Bamber; and engineer Wolfram Ragg.
________________________________________
CONTACT: Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954.
-
Excuse me Vern, but if in that experiment they needed electrons (massive particles) to convert photons into other massive particles, then we already knew that gamma photons with energy exceeding 1022 KeV generate couples electrons/positrons when colliding with a nucleus.
Furthermore, if we can use mass to convert photons into more mass, then it would be much more simple just to take a piece of black paper and put it under the sun (as I already wrote in a recent thread).
-
That was back in 1997 when there was a big debate going on where one group insisted that a nucleon must be part of any mass producing process. I think this experiment was to rule out the need for the nucleon. That's why they could get away with using an electron to create the great amounts of energy.
Previous experiments had used electron positron collisions to create more electrons and positrons and the particle zoo of particles. Using photons as one of the collision partners was just icing on the cake, I guess.
Yep; they could have just absorbed light into paper, but paper had nucleons in it. [:)]
-
What's all this about black paper producing mass under the sun. Is that true?
-
What's all this about black paper producing mass under the sun. Is that true?
Actually, anything that absorbs energy must convert the energy into mass. In fact the only way we can observe photons of energy is to convert them to mass. So I like to think of photons as potential mass.
So; yes that is true.
-
Did you read it somewhere? I just want to know about this concept. Or it's just your hypo?
-
What's all this about black paper producing mass under the sun. Is that true?
Actually, anything that absorbs energy must convert the energy into mass. In fact the only way we can observe photons of energy is to convert them to mass. So I like to think of photons as potential mass.
So; yes that is true.
I agree with you about the photons perhaps being potential mass. My only worry about that is their potential of being a wave particle as well as an environment in which waves move? By that I mean they can move in a vacuum unlike sound. That tells me they may not be the very basic building blocks of mass.
-
Did you read it somewhere? I just want to know about this concept. Or it's just your hypo?
No; this is the mainstream scientific thought. I try to make sure that all my personal speculations are clearly marked as speculation.
-
Back at the turn of the 20th century most people thought that:
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
I suspect that is true. However, I'm not sure that is the current mainstream scientific thinking.
-
Vern, I'm not too sure about the electromagnetic spectrum being the irreducible part of matter. If I understand you correctly, you mean to say if we continue dividing into the atom the final result will be the electromagnetic spectrum (or part of it).
Let's look at an example. Let's say a light bulb is emitting visible light. The bulb is powered by a hydro power source. Now since light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, then if what you say is true then a certain mass is being lost as light. But under perfect conditions, the system can run on forever. As a result light is being converted from kinetic energy of the water powering the turbine.
So since no mass loss is involved, then your conclusion should have a stronger backing.
I'll let you know my assumption after your answer.
-
Let's look at an example. Let's say a light bulb is emitting visible light. The bulb is powered by a hydro power source. Now since light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, then if what you say is true then a certain mass is being lost as light. But under perfect conditions, the system can run on forever. As a result light is being converted from kinetic energy of the water powering the turbine.
That's all true except the speculation doesn't require that a certain mass is being lost as light. Energy is added to the system in the case of the light, and that energy is radiated out as light.
The speculation simply states that the light bulb, or anything else for that matter, is reducible to pure electromagnetic energy.
-
Let's look at an example. Let's say a light bulb is emitting visible light. The bulb is powered by a hydro power source. Now since light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, then if what you say is true then a certain mass is being lost as light. But under perfect conditions, the system can run on forever. As a result light is being converted from kinetic energy of the water powering the turbine.
That's all true except the speculation doesn't require that a certain mass is being lost as light. Energy is added to the system in the case of the light, and that energy is radiated out as light.
The speculation simply states that the light bulb, or anything else for that matter, is reducible to pure electromagnetic energy.
I think electromagnetic energy is different from the electromagnetic field. That got me confused a bit. I agree with you that energy is the building blocks of particles. What type of energy I am not sure.
What happened to your photon energy theory?
-
What happened to your photon energy theory?
It is completely intact and a condensed version resides in the New Theories forum.
I'll link it here via an edit[:)] (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0)
I think electromagnetic energy is different from the electromagnetic field. That got me confused a bit. I agree with you that energy is the building blocks of particles. What type of energy I am not sure.
What happened to your photon energy theory?
I agree with you. It is the changing amplitude of the electromagnetic field that is seen as energy and as mass. You only need to localize it to make it mass.
-
Energy is added to the system in the case of the light, and that energy is radiated out as light.
By the way I think the electromagnetic spectrum is as a result of the rotational behavior of the sub-atomic particles and depends also on the type of particles. Radio waves from electrons etc
-
The electromagnetic spectrum is simply a range of all the frequencies. I guess I agree but the fields are radiated when the particles accelerate or decelerate or cross electromagnetic field lines.
Edit: Our last posts crossed. I was editing as you were posting [:)]
-
You seem to know a bit about this. It seems quite conclusive then that energy is the building blocks of sub atomic particles. I'm trying to read more about the 4 fundamental atomic forces.
I wonder if there is a 5th. One which acts at larger distances than gravity but is so strong that it can pull galaxy clusters together.
I imagine that if we were protons being held by the strong interaction force then we would know nothing about gravitational force because it is negligible in comparison. But outside the realm of the nucleus, gravity is considered very strong. What if there is a force that acts at larger distances, not emitted by gravitons. It would be what people are calling today as dark matter. And I was not surprised to hear that it is found near visible matter.
-
I haven't read all the posts so i'm not sure if it has been brought up, but don't electrons get compacted with the nucleus of an atom under the gravity in a black hole?
I'm sure i read that somewhere.
-
Actually that was the original conclusion I had when I was making this thread. I never read about it but it seems that the black hole may pull electrons into the nucleus.
-
Actually that was the original conclusion I had when I was making this thread. I never read about it but it seems that the black hole may pull electrons into the nucleus.
Then there would be the assumption that the nucleus could survive the crunching of the Black Hole as an intact entity. But that rules out the singularity that is supposed to exist in Black Holes.
-
We all know that there is a singularity in black holes, it sucks you through to the other universe that is ruled by apes.
-
We all know that there is a singularity in black holes, it sucks you through to the other universe that is ruled by apes.
Yep; that's gotta be it [:)] I saw it on TV the other day.
-
The singularity as a mass of infinite density is rather hard to believe. You see if the matter was being compressed into an infinitely small volume then all black holes would be the same size. But that is not the case. Refer: Schwarzschild radius.
Some sub-atomic particles are still alive in the black hole [revarrow] Hawkins Radiation.
-
I think that no one can ever know what goes on inside a Black Hole. About the only thing anyone could do is come up with a self-consistent theory that doesn't violate observations. But then there is no way to determine which of any two such theories might be correct.
-
You sound like you are giving up. But I think we will know. I would be glad to help.
-
I gave up trying to understand the innards of Black Holes long ago [:)] But I like to see other peoples hypothesis about it.
-
You know, I think I've seen that one?
Planet of the apes?
Quite good to, realistic I thought.
But there are some calling our universe a 'White hole' isn't there.
As we live in it, sort of.
If one thinks so.
And if so there is a connection through our 'black holes'
Thinking of what you said Lsu, does it need to suck to be a black hole?
-----
Ah, sort of missed the whole last page here.
I should really try to remember to look before that 'leap'.
-
Ah, sort of missed the whole last page here.
I should really try to remember to look before that 'leap'.
That's okay; when contemplating Black Holes we're all wondering around in the dark I suspect.