Black Holes???

"As this energy crosses the event horizon, it reverts back to the dominant force of dark energy."

Starwars?? rofl

33846 said:

I think our brains need to evolve much more for for us to completely understand, but until then we should try to understand as much as we can.

Devin.

Click to expand...

So no more watching american idol and football? Dammit. Im going to go invent the antimatter black laser now

can someone answer this...it's driving me crazy...

ok, first off the theory goes that nothing can travel faster than light because it's mass would become infinite correct?

and, black holes are black because the gravitational pull is so great that not even light can escape it.

The thing that boggles my mind is, when i was in grade school we would have these math word problems, and they would go something like "if your in a boat at 5mph travel upstream, and the current is traveling at 3mph, how fast are you traveling?" which is 2mph.
i thinking of the gravitational pull in this way, like the current of a river, working against light which is traveling at like 180,000 (don't remember exact)miles a second. so for it to pull light in, the opposite force must be stronger.

so imagine we were able to acheive 99.9% the speed of light, say 179,000 miles a second and we shot it at a black hole, wouldn't it acheive the speed of light or greater by the time it impacted the black hole???

Mohrenberg said:

can someone answer this...it's driving me crazy...

ok, first off the theory goes that nothing can travel faster than light because it's mass would become infinite correct?

and, black holes are black because the gravitational pull is so great that not even light can escape it.

The thing that boggles my mind is, when i was in grade school we would have these math word problems, and they would go something like "if your in a boat at 5mph travel upstream, and the current is traveling at 3mph, how fast are you traveling?" which is 2mph.
i thinking of the gravitational pull in this way, like the current of a river, working against light which is traveling at like 180,000 (don't remember exact)miles a second. so for it to pull light in, the opposite force must be stronger.

so imagine we were able to acheive 99.9% the speed of light, say 179,000 miles a second and we shot it at a black hole, wouldn't it acheive the speed of light or greater by the time it impacted the black hole???

Click to expand...

Hmm good question lol.
The thing is no object can reach the speed of light, because the energy required would be infinite.

So as you get closer and closer to the black hole, i assume the speed would be like

99%
99.9%
99.99%
99.999%
...............
(speed of light)

You would keep approaching it(speed of light) but never really get there because a black holes gravitational pull doesn't have infinite energy. (really it doesn't lol)

Edit: I dont remember exactly, but the exact equation is something like:

E = (mc^2) / square root(1 - v^2 / c^2)

so normally you use just e = mc^2 since v(velocity) is pretty much 0 compared to speed of light, so square root(1 - v^2 / c^2) is basically 1

However when v = c
square root(1 - v^2 / c^2) becomes 0

Then, E = mc^2 / 0
so e = infinite when speed is the speed of light


Umm dunno if that made any sense haha

Tabish said:

The thing is no object can reach the speed of light, because the energy required would be infinite.

So as you get closer and closer to the black hole, i assume the speed would be like

99%
99.9%
99.99%
99.999%
...............
(speed of light)

You would keep approaching it(speed of light) but never really get there because a black holes gravitational pull doesn't have infinite energy. (really it doesn't lol)

Click to expand...

Just a thought -- the problem I see with the speed of light being a "Constant" is that in order to ascertain a "speed" the speed must be measured against some other point. Whatever we are measuring must be going toward something or going away from something (simplified).

However, "things" don't just sit there to be measured against. If particle "A" is traveling "east" at .75 the speed of light and particle "B" is traveling "west" at .75 the speed of light, aren't they traveling at 1.5 the speed of light if measured against each other?

Of course observers on either "A" or "B" would never know anything about the other because the "information" would never reach the other. However, if a third observer was at a point in the "north", wouldn't that observer see objects traveling away from each other at more than the speed of light?

Peace,
dave

daguin said:

Just a thought -- the problem I see with the speed of light being a "Constant" is that in order to ascertain a "speed" the speed must be measured against some other point. Whatever we are measuring must be going toward something or going away from something (simplified).

However, "things" don't just sit there to be measured against. If particle "A" is traveling "east" at .75 the speed of light and particle "B" is traveling "west" at .75 the speed of light, aren't they traveling at 1.5 the speed of light if measured against each other?

Of course observers on either "A" or "B" would never know anything about the other because the "information" would never reach the other. However, if a third observer was at a point in the "north", wouldn't that observer see objects traveling away from each other at more than the speed of light?

Peace,
dave

Click to expand...

Einstein's theory of special relativity.....
You are right. It's all about the frame of reference.

But back to the black hole question.

The thing is, all sorts of weird things happen when approaching near light speed. Such as:Time dilation, Length contraction .......
I don't want to start a full blown physics thread haha. My head hurts thinking about it.

Ahaa! Dave has just broken the fabric of space. It looks like some difficult stuff to figure out there. Or maybe an observer isn't able to look at both objects simultaneously(ala Schrödinger's cat problem).

"However, if a third observer was at a point in the "north", wouldn't that observer see objects traveling away from each other at more than the speed of light?"

Good question.

Hmmm. I'm no physicist but, I think this would involve the Relativistic doppler effect.

Basically if you are seeing ship A moving left and B moving right (say they have extremely bright green leds around them)
When the light comes back to you, it will be red-shifted. I mean, the colors wavelength would be lower. So you wouldnt see green, but might see red/yellow instead.

Tabish said:

"However, if a third observer was at a point in the "north", wouldn't that observer see objects traveling away from each other at more than the speed of light?"

Good question.

Hmmm. I'm no physicist but, I think this would involve the Relativistic doppler effect.

Basically if you are seeing ship A moving left and B moving right (say they have extremely bright green leds around them)
When the light comes back to you, it will be red-shifted. I mean, the colors wavelength would be lower. So you wouldnt see green, but might see red/yellow instead.

Click to expand...

Yeah i think it might display that red-shift effect, but im not too sure about whether the red-shift effect would apply to ship A and ship B, they would have to be travelling quite fast away from you wouldnt they?

I just read through this thread and I was left astounded by how much these guys know about physics, it's just truly amazing.

Uhm, according with relativity theory, anything is relative (lol), ok, seriously, if is true that in this continuum the mass increase at the increasing of the light speed, becoming infinite at reaching this speed, there cannot be anything that go faster than light, in the absolute coordinates environment, just cause you can't accelerate an infinite mass without use an infinite energy (and also cause, if the relative time shrink to zero, you,literally, don't have the time for perform any operation, but this is a different story )

Then, you can have two objects that travel, as example, one against the other, at RELATIVE speed greater than light, but, first, this don't mean that these objects traver at speeds greater than light in the ABSOLUTE environment where you are, and, second, that relatively to any of the two objects, the other appears just at the speed of the light, also if the combined speeds are greater .....and, please, don't ask me to explain this ..... when i was student, we had a bet with our physic prof, about that, and in a group, tried to demonstrate this exact problem NOT using Einstein's equations ..... we was 11 peoples, some of them was very VERY much better than me in math (and i mean A LOT better, one of them actually work as full-time math researcher, and as passtime, instead crosswords, he do stocastic correlations of transfinite sequences, anything they are ), and we give up after a month and half of trials, with only half of the work done, something like 7 notebooks of self-contradicting differential equations, and a big collective headache

laser83 said:

String theory is even stranger.

Click to expand...

No, strings are easy to understand ..... i use them all the days, in my shoes .... (sorry, just can't resist )

Using the maths and assumptions that were used to prove Einstein's theory, to disprove it, would be an excersice in futility.

We already have experiments in which we can change the speed of light (we slow it down). We have experiments where light is virtually stopped. We have experiments in which we can have other things surpass the speed of the slowed down light. In quantum theory, we have experiments in which time and space have no relevance.

The view that the "speed of light" is either constant and/or some sort of upper limit is beginning to fail. Not only are some of his basic assumptions failing, but they fail completely at the quantum level.

Einstein had a good run. His work will forever remain important. However, only by stepping outside his beliefs will we cause the next paradigm shift to occur.

Listen to your professors. They are the ones grading you. Learn Einstein. Most of our present day applications are based in his beliefs. Treat what you are told as Truth. You need the degree. However, keep your mind alert for the "chinks" in his wall of absolutes. It is through one of them that we will move into the next paradigm.

Peace,
dave

The view that the "speed of light" is either constant and/or some sort of upper limit is beginning to fail. Not only are some of his basic assumptions failing, but they fail completely at the quantum level.

Click to expand...

This is true, but you have to remember, that speed of light is relative is "all" situations! think of the thought experiment, where a lady is on a train moving at the speed of light, and she looks into a mirror, will she see her self in the mirror, or will the light never get back to her eyes? well answer is, speed of light is constant and she will see her self, which is not relitive to her velosity.

another way to picture this is, a boy skate boarding and throwing an egg at a wall. his inital velocity was 10m/h but when he threw the egg he gave the egg an extra 20m/h, resulting in a 30m/h impact with the egg and wall. But this doesnt happen with light. If the same boy was skating down a massive hill, and reached the speed of light, then took out his laser, the light of the laser would travel away from him at the speed of light, not 2 times the speed of light. So what does that all mean, it means the speed of light is not relative to anything, but rather moves at a constant speed, c, which we believe is the upper limits of some sort. If we go back to the energy vs velocity equations we see that mass is a contrubuting factor and thus we can conclude that to travel at the speed of light we must have 0 mass, not even photons travel at the speed of light, they have a mas around 1/2000th of an electron. So as we see the speed of light is now our boundry or set goal to accoomplish. The graviton (the particle they want to find using the particle accelerator) will help solve these problems, since it is one of a few particles that are directly responsible for matter having mass.

So in reality, light is still a constant, it leaves a body at the speed of light no matter the speed at which the body is moving. But in the quantum world the rules are tipped upside down! we see electrons, apperaring and disappearing instantly, we see energy transformed in a spilt second, resulting in unforseen events and finally we see how transmutation has changed the way we think about the quantum world, but ofcorse there is much much more!

PS: BTW I'm 17 so if my info is completely wrong I apploigise, I have just learnt all this info and really excited to share my knowledge. But I hope that clears some stuff up!

-Adrian

bobhaha said:

This is true, but you have to remember, that speed of light is relative is "all" situations! think of the thought experiment, where a lady is on a train moving at the speed of light, and see looks into a mirror, will she see her self in the mirror, or will the light never get back to her eyes? well answer is, speed of light is constant and she will see her self, which is not relitive to her velosity.

another way to picture this is, a boy skate boarding and throwing an egg at a wall. his inital velocity was 10m/h but when he threw the egg he gave the egg an extra 20m/h, resulting in a 30m/h impact with the egg and wall. But this doesnt happen with light. If the same boy was skating down a massive hill, and reached the speed of light, then took out his laser, the light of the laser would travel away from him at the speed of light, not 2 times the speed of light. So what does that all mean, it means the speed of light is not relative to anything.

so in reality, light is still a constant, it leaves a body at the speed of light no matter the speed at which the body is moving. But in the quantum world the rules are tipped upside down!

PS: If my info is completely wrong I apploigise, I have just learnt all this info and really excited to share my knowledge. But I hope that clears some stuff up!

-Adrian

Click to expand...

In your defense, you expose the weakness. What would the woman see in the mirror? We have no idea. No one has ever observed this. The "proof" is simply a restatement of the assumption.

If the speed is "constant" how can we slow it down?

If the theory cannot explain physics at the quantum level then it is flawed.

If the goal of any testing is to either prove or disprove a theory, then the results are suspect. Don't try to prove or disprove it. Strive to understand it. Seek to test it. (After you give the professor the answer that he/she is looking for so you get a good grade )

Peace,
dave

I heard that the speed of light as we know it, is more commonly observed in vacuums. Basic wave theory states, that when a wave enters a new medium that is more dense than the one it was previously traveling through, the wave will travel slower. I don't know how much electromagnetic waves are affected by medium transitions, but heres and interesting article about what some scientists have already done to slow the speed of light.

Researchers slow light to a "crawl," photonic computers imminent

Yes, but they slowed down the light passing it in a different medium ..... C is related to light speed in the void (and in any other medium different than void, light always slow down )

By the way, i was curious about to know how much energy they shooted in that crystal ..... probably, single photons ..... cause, after all, you can't cheat too much natural laws without a payback ..... like ..... take as example a 100mW laser (guess why ? LOL), and slow it down of the same amount (51.724 times, according with the data they say) ..... this mean that in the travel inside the crystal, when your laser beam have a speed of 5,8Km/S, have also an energy of 5.172 Watt, more or less ( enough to melt any non-100% transparent crystals, i guess )

..... pity only that, as usually light do, when it come out from the crystal, photons regain their usual speed :eg:

HIMNL9 said:

Yes, but they slowed down the light passing it in a different medium ..... C is related to light speed in the void (and in any other medium different than void, light always slow down )

..... pity only that, as usually light do, when it come out from the crystal, photons regain their usual speed :eg:

Click to expand...

The main point I was trying to make is still valid here. It used to be also believed that the speed of light was "constant" no matter what medium it was in. The belief was that you could "bounce" it around in a medium (so that its exit would be delayed), but all of the bouncing light in the medium would still travel at the speed of light. Now we know that we can, indeed, slow it down. It is not "constant."

The experiments slowing down light have proven that it is not a "constant." Yet in most schools of thought it is still being treated as one. If we could be wrong about the speed being "constant," could we not also be wrong about the upper limit of travel being "the speed of light"? Also, if it can be violated in the quantum state, why not in the micro and/or macro states?

It is also generally accepted in cosmologic science that the particles escaping the "big bang" traveled in excess of the speed of light in the beginning. It is the only way to explain the distances achieved today. Physicists often explain this by saying that the physical laws had not "appeared" yet. This is the same argument that says it is useless to contemplate reality BEFORE the big bang because the laws of physics were different then.

If the laws could be different before and at the beginning, I ask, "Why can't they be different now?" It is the slavish adherence to the belief that the speed of light is inviolate, that stops much work being done. In order to move beyond it the assumption must be that we can exceed this limit. We only need to figure out how to do it.

Peace,
dave