0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Considering my previous post it becomes obvious that both spacetime contraction and mass-energy density increase would apply to both situations. It would be interesting to investigate this at the Planck scale. Although how that could be done is beyond me.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 20/11/2013 10:38:04Considering my previous post it becomes obvious that both spacetime contraction and mass-energy density increase would apply to both situations. It would be interesting to investigate this at the Planck scale. Although how that could be done is beyond me.You make some very interesting comparisons and I agree that the circumstances suggest a possible connection. From my position, it's clear that black hole dynamics may very closely parallel conditions necessary for the production of infant universes. Not sure if you're familiar with this theory but as you stated in a former post, light years of space/time may exist within and or adjacent to the event horizon. Interesting Jeff, very interesting indeed.

If it is heat death then the system isn't balanced and I really don't like that concept.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 01/01/2014 18:54:46 If it is heat death then the system isn't balanced and I really don't like that concept.Neither do I Jeff, heat death seems an extreme answer and counter intuitive, if intuition has any value. While it may be the possible fate our universe is destined to face, one must still ask a few simple questions. In the first case scenario, where our universe is singular and alone in the so-called bulk, it seems quite unlikely that if we happened once, we will likely happen again. And speaking of course as WE being our present universe.In the second case scenario, where we are living on a brane, it appears quick likely that the only possible outcome is another big bang given the close proximity of each brane to their associate member branes and the probable collisions between them.IMHO, the heat death solution is a drastic remedy to the question and should be discarded.

Well with the brane solution you would have to answer the question of what happens to the mass that is not consumed by black holes? If only a percentage of mass leaves our universe then the rest effectively keeps on expanding. If gravitation is also lost as an integral part of matter that makes the situation worse. This cannot be a satisfactory answer either.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 01/01/2014 22:35:41Well with the brane solution you would have to answer the question of what happens to the mass that is not consumed by black holes? If only a percentage of mass leaves our universe then the rest effectively keeps on expanding. If gravitation is also lost as an integral part of matter that makes the situation worse. This cannot be a satisfactory answer either.I am a firm believer in the conservation of mass and energy. Just exactly where it becomes located under these circumstances is a little beside the point. We know that the gravitation remains even though the mass seems to have disappeared. But the mass has really not evaporated into nothingness, it has just passed from here to there, where ever and what ever "there" means. And whether one believes in M theory and branes, or whether they believe in the multiverse of budding infant universes, the passage from our universe to the one adjacent by matter and energy should not doom either one to heat death. If mass and energy can transverse from here to there, the opposite must also be true. And just because we haven't detected the exchange from there to here yet does not mean that it is not occurring. I still have my doubts about exactly what this observed expansion really means anyway. It may be too early to really understand the significance taking into account that these measurements are still a bit new to us, especially the acceleration we think is taking place. Quite beyond our predicted assumptions about how all this is supposed to work.

The equation rs=2Gm/c^2 has to be modified as well because the mass is not always compressed at this radius so what happens to rs at lower densities?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 02/01/2014 02:51:44The equation rs=2Gm/c^2 has to be modified as well because the mass is not always compressed at this radius so what happens to rs at lower densities? I'm not following you here Jeff, the Schwarzschild radius is necessarily defined by this equation. Escape velocity is determined by the ratio of the rs/mass critical = 2G/c^2 compression and will always be less than c until this compression ratio is reached. You can't have a black hole until escape velocity reaches c. You just can't have a black hole unless these densities are reached.

OK then let me restate the problem. What does rs = 2Gm/r^2 mean where r > rs and r < c?

You're loosing me my friend..........Here is an example of this equation at work:Let's find the mass that would be required for an object with the radius of the electron to collapse to a black hole.....radius of the electron = 2.81794092 E-15speed of light squared = 8.98755179 E 16gravitational constant = 6.673 E-11[rs = 2Gm/c^2] or [ M critical = re * c^2/(2 * G)]mass critical = (2.81794092 E-15 * 8.98755179 E 16)/(2 * 6.673 E-11)mass critical equals 1.89767645 E 12 Kilograms In conclusion, a mass equal to 1.89767645 Kilograms compressed to a radius of the electron will collapse to a black hole. Likewise, any mass compressed to a sufficiently small radius will also collapse. However, the smaller the collapsed object is, the faster it will evaporate due to Hawking radiation. Supermassive black hole will take billions of years to complete this process.

Thank you Ethos_ I have been bending my brain over this and you have just given me the answer. You are a genius!

Quote from: jeffreyH on 02/01/2014 22:10:30Thank you Ethos_ I have been bending my brain over this and you have just given me the answer. You are a genius!I'm pleased to be of help Jeff but, sorry to say, I must correct you once again. I'm a long way from being a genius. Truth is, I flunked my first year of algebra. No sir, not even close to being one of those rare breeds.

Now if gravitation slows in effect at the event horizon it too can't escape. This may well have rid me of the density issue except that all calculations of g have to be outside the mass being modeled. If c stops then there is effectively no g. If there is no g then what stops light. This is chicken and egg. So we are back to density.

BTW Have you ever read up on phonons?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 02/01/2014 22:33:26 Now if gravitation slows in effect at the event horizon it too can't escape. This may well have rid me of the density issue except that all calculations of g have to be outside the mass being modeled. If c stops then there is effectively no g. If there is no g then what stops light. This is chicken and egg. So we are back to density.Now I see what you're having trouble with Jeff. Consider what the term "relativity" really means. Relativity is about the relative differences between the local events and what someone at a distance observes. For anyone falling into a black hole, time marches along exactly the same way it passed before they started their fall. However, for an observer the light coming from the black hole seems to be frozen. You may be thinking a bit backwards about this issue and this is very common for people to confuse the understanding about the dilation of time. Local to the black hole, light still travels at c. Local to the black hole, gravity is the same as it was beyond the region. What has changed it what the distant observer sees. I'm sure you've heard about how speed and gravitational forces slow the advance of time. But this slowing of time is only observed by those outside the local frame. For those experiencing the speed or the gravitational forces of huge masses like a black hole, time advances as it always has. Remember the example of the astronaut leaving the earth and speeding around the galaxy and returning to find those he left much, much older than himself. People confuse who's time has slowed. If the people on earth are much older, it appears to the astronaut that their time has accelerated and his has slowed. When we talk about speed and huge gravity causing time to slow, this slowing is only apparent to the observer, not the ones under observation. And conversely, those who remained on earth seeing their astronaut returning many years later and looking only months older would cause them to think his time had slowed. But for the astronaut, his interpretation remembers his time as advancing quite normally.Quote from: jefferyHBTW Have you ever read up on phonons? No, can't say that I have.

All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.

Frames of reference are not useful in all situations.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 00:05:59All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.I didn't mean to marginalize your comments Jeff and I'm sorry if you may have taken it that way.Quote from: jefferyH Frames of reference are not useful in all situations. Could you expound on that for me Jeff? What I've learned about physics tells me that space/time is all about frames of reference. That's because time can not be separated from the equation. Space does not exist singularly, it is always accompanied by time.

No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 02:49:48No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.That would simplify things Jeff, but the problem is defining that point of reference. We have to ask the question; Is there a position in the universe that remains motionless? And then we have to ask; Motionless to what?According to present theory, the universe has no central point to gauge that point of origin from. There's a thought experiment about this problem and it goes something like this:Imagine there are only two objects in the universe, yourself and your best friend. You both notice that the distance between you is growing, your friend sees you moving further away and likewise, you see him receding also. Now, determine which one is moving. Is it you, or is it your friend? This thought experiment only involves two objects, the universe contains trillions upon trillions complicating the answer to the question. Truth is, it is more logical to assume that they are both moving than to decide which one is standing still. To determine which one is motionless is impossible.

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/01/2014 19:27:12Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 20:17:13Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/01/2014 19:27:12Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion. I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.

I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 21:53:17I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?