Outpost Universe Forums
Projects & Development => GORF => File Forum => Topic started by: dm-horus on November 17, 2005, 04:41:54 PM
-
A model of a Black Hole including the Singularity, Accretion Disk and Jet I made a couple minutes ago. I included wireframes because it just made more sense that way. This was done more out of boredom than anything else. Enjoy!
black hole
n.
1. An area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light.
Something to keep in mind: A singularity does not destroy information or absorb it. Information never reaches the interior of a singularity.
If you want to know more about cosmology or other science-related facts, feel free to ask!
-
how can you make a model of something we have never seen?
all we have is a ray scan or something like that
and how can you say this A singularity does not destroy information or absorb it. Information never reaches the interior of a singularity.
when we know so little about black holes. For all we know, They could lead to another place, another time or any of the other idea's
spirit
-
Yeah, that part about the information begs some explaination. So, I'm asking. :)
-
we know because these things exist within our spacetime. our spacetime obeys certain rules, constants. for the most part, we have a firm grasp of the basics (i mean REEEEAAAAL BASIC) by which spacetime operates. this gives us basic knowledge about how black holes work. the problem with black holes is that at the PNR (Point of No Return, the boundary at which the singularity itself begins) all laws of physics break down to infinity. you can think of it like this: we can model and predict objects we havent seen by studying the laws that make up our universe. mathematics predicted these phenomenon before we had proof they existed. mathematics predicted elements on the periodic table before they were discovered. the part of the black hole that is in our universe is governed by its laws, therefore it can be known. the part that exists outside of the laws of our universe (the singularity itself) can never be known.
remarkably, we do have pictures of black holes. rather, pictures of the matter streaming into into the singularity (accretion disk) and even more pictures of the telltale jets spiraling out of the poles. pictures with enough detail show exactly what is seen in my model: an accretion disk of matter around the singularity which is moving at such high speed that friction causes it to produce massive amounts of radiation, jets at either pole of the phenomenon created by tidal eddys, and the singularity itself which appears in all known pictures as a black dot. since not even light can escape teh singularity, it would appear as a black sphere or globe in space. what cannot be shown in the model is distortion of light passing by the singularity due to gravitational eddys.
-
thats not a hard thing to understand. I have something that REALLY gets ur mind going :) :
Assuming that the speed of light is the ultimate speed, and nothing; NOTHING; can go faster than light - then how does "gravity" extend beyond the black hole, if it does not have enough 'speed' to escape from the singularity.
In other words, if the above statement (quoted from Einstein, i guess) were true, then how do black holes actually suck up stuff.
More to the point: what IS the propegation speed of gravity ?
It is theorised that it exceed even 100c! It is AT LEAST 8c - or so i read i heard (several documentaries & websites deal with this issue... it is one of the things cosmologists are working on atm)
-
Lol, that is some funny stuff Eddy. Are we even sure gravity has a speed? Does it need one? Seems like most people aren't really sure what it is, just sorta what it does.
dm-horus, that still doesn't really seem to explain the information thing. At least I don't think it does.
-
The Universe as Information:
Matter, Light, Energy can all be considered "information." Matter and energy are composed of the same myriad parts. Not atoms, not particles, even smaller. We are approaching String Theory (M-Theory, Strange Theory, whichever you prefer). To be brief, imagine that inside every subatomic particle that makes up matter and energy is a loop of string. The way the loop vibrates and spins determines what kind of particle it is. These strings have zero mass. They exist only partially within our universe (String theory requires at least 17 dimensions of space to work. Strings exist within all of them but we only see them interacting with at least 4). These strings are so small that all they are are bits of information. Therefore, matter and energy (when sifted down) are only points of information which determine what something is.
Also...
It is theorized that matter is annihilated (blown up, converted, not "removed" from existance) when approaching the PNR of a singularity because when moving so close to the speed of light, even tiny variations in velocity are exaggerated. The part of an atom facing the singularity will be moving slightly faster than the leeward side. When traveling at such high speeds, the difference in velocity tears the atom apart.
Knowing this, consider...
The speed of light. The PNR (Point of No Return) of a singularity reaches the speed of light. Beyond this point nothing can be known. Remember Contact? When a person travels at the speed of light, mere moments go by. To anyone not traveling at the speed of light, centuries or more can elapse. If you think about it, if something is moving 0.0000000000001% from the speed of light, millions of years could go by to an outside observer. Since the object is moving at an increasing speed, an increase of such a small incriment to outside observers would make no difference.
And...
Matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only converted.
Therefore...
As matter or energy "falls" into a singularity, the strings which make up the subject are stretched. The strings come to a halt just outside (or perhaps directly on) the PNR due to time dialation. Black Holes are already known to obey certain specific rules. Black Holes "evaporate" when their fuel supply runs out. When this happens, the radiation fades to background levels and any information "falling" into the singularity returns in the form of radiation. Information never has the chance to reach beyond the PNR before it is converted into energy (radiation) due to the speeds at which it is moving and interaction with the accretion disk. Therefore, information can never be lost.
It is theorized as an alternative that when a black hole runs out of fuel and evaporates, it "lets go" of any strings held just outside the PNR. Due to time dialation, a near infinite amount of time can pass and the strings will not pass the PNR. Because of this, it is more likely that a black hole will evaporate and release anything outside the PNR long before it has the chance to pass the boundary. But this is unproven and no math has been presented to back it up, but is merely a thought-experiment. String theory and how it interacts with singularities, however DO have large amounts of proofs to back them up.
But please consider that nothing about a black hole is known for sure and string theory is incomplete.
------
I tried to be as accurate as I could, but I recalled that from memory. I think I covered it as best I could while being as brief as I can. I left a LOT out. If I got something wrong, I apologise :P Cant expect me to recall everything perfectly, can ya?
-
Well, that seems to explain the information part to me. But now I have to ask what is "fuel" for a black hole?
-
thats not a hard thing to understand. I have something that REALLY gets ur mind going smile.gif :
Assuming that the speed of light is the ultimate speed, and nothing; NOTHING; can go faster than light - then how does "gravity" extend beyond the black hole, if it does not have enough 'speed' to escape from the singularity.
In other words, if the above statement (quoted from Einstein, i guess) were true, then how do black holes actually suck up stuff.
More to the point: what IS the propegation speed of gravity ?
It is theorised that it exceed even 100c! It is AT LEAST 8c - or so i read i heard (several documentaries & websites deal with this issue... it is one of the things cosmologists are working on atm)
Remember what I said about String theory? String Theory is also called M-Theory. Wanna know why? The M stands for Membrane. Imagine the strings in your mind. They are shaped like horseshoe magnets. Now imagine a piece of sheet metal and imagine it is the universe. Matter and energy attach to our plane of existance (dimension) because they are open-ended. M-Theory states that gravity is a particle just like any other, except it is a closed loop. It has no open ends that can attach to our dimension. Now imagine that these gravity particles, because they cannot attach to your universe simply pass through.
Mathematically, all foces have to be equal. If you take the way gravity appears in our universe it would seem to be the weakest but if it were the universe shouldnt exist. Therefore it is theorized that gravity isnt weaker, it simply doesent affect objects in our universe as much as the other forces because it is passing through the plane upon which our universe exists. In effect, it is diluted. This explains why we cannot "catch" a gravity particle. Essentially, gravity is a ghost.
It is theorized that we may be able to communicate with beings in neighboring dimensions using gravity like radio waves.
-
Well, that seems to explain the information part to me. But now I have to ask what is "fuel" for a black hole?
Fuel for a black hole is anything it sucks up into the accretion disk. Planets, stars, anything. If you were to "jump" into a black hole that wasnt feeding on something (it is in an evaporated state) you would be destroyed by local radiation and simply puff into a cloud of high-energy particles and pass the black hole. Black holes may require a certain amount of matter/energy falling into them to become "active" in the classic way we imagine them. This is also the only time we can see them. There may be far more in the universe but appear invisible due to their "evaporated" state.
Think about this:
Every galaxy that we have looked at, appears to have black holes at the center. The milky way appears to have at least a dozen. all we are sure of is that they are arranged in a large cluster. We are starting to believe that galaxies form around the gravity wells of black holes. This would mean there are far more out there than we previously thought and the structure of the universe as it is now is the direct result of the affect of singularities.
-
It is theorized that we may be able to communicate with beings in neighboring dimensions using gravity like radio waves.
Well, aside from the x-files music that needs to be playing right now.... :P
If all that were true, how would we make radio waves out of gravity? Doesn't really sound like something we could control.
Fuel for a black hole is anything it sucks up into the accretion disk. Planets, stars, anything. If you were to "jump" into a black hole that wasnt feeding on something (it is in an evaporated state) you would be destroyed by local radiation and simply puff into a cloud of high-energy particles and pass the black hole. Black holes may require a certain amount of matter/energy falling into them to become "active" in the classic way we imagine them. This is also the only time we can see them. There may be far more in the universe but appear invisible due to their "evaporated" state.
Say what? :blink: This kinda sounds like it goes against your previous statement that things stop at the point of no return, and so how do things get inside to fuel it?
-
Well, aside from the x-files music that needs to be playing right now.... tongue.gif
If all that were true, how would we make radio waves out of gravity? Doesn't really sound like something we could control.
not at all. the radio wave thing was just an example of the manner in which it can be imagined. theres really no way to communicate using particles that dont even really exist in our universe :P
the thing about communicating is because there can be an infinie number of universes stacked on top of eachother, but side by side. gravity passes through them all with no problem. since gravity is the ONLY thing that can go between universes (membranes) if we had the technology and wisdom, hypothetically gravity would be the only means to communicate across dimensions. but thats going way out there. theres only one guy i know who has even suggested it and only then as a means to explain the principle that gravity particles are essentially "ghosts".
-
we don't know that much about black holes right now. All the idea's ever said about black holes are theories. we have no proof of anything. and then another thing. The light from stars are 60+ years old How do we know if any star or black hole is still there?
-
Say what? blink.gif This kinda sounds like it goes against your previous statement that things stop at the point of no return, and so how do things get inside to fuel it?
youre right, most scientists believe nothing gets inside the PNR. however, matter and energy being affected BY the singularity make it become visible, or active. think of it like this:
Lets say theres a pan sitting on a bare pedestal 25 feet away. you are asked to determine whether or not the pan is hot without touching it or coming close enough to feel any heat coming off it. from where you are now, the pan could either be sizzling or stone cold. you cannot tell. you only know the pan is hot if you throw water onto it and watch it sizzle and evaporate.
think of the black hole like a hot pan. the pan doesnt absorb the water, it burns it off. but you cant tell if the pan if hot until something that reacts to it comes close enough. the water represents matter/energy.
-
we don't know that much about black holes right now. All the idea's ever said about black holes are theories. we have no proof of anything. and then another thing. The light from stars are 60+ years old How do we know if any star or black hole is still there?
it depends on how far away the subject is. the farther away it is, the longer it takes light to get here. much of the light coming from stars we see in the sky come from stars that actually arent there anymore. as far as we know, black holes never "go away" they simply become dormant and we cannot see them. you can tell how far away something is based on the type of light it is casting (spectrum stuff). coincidentally, thats also how you can tell what something is made of and how fast it is going and in which direction.
-
black holes emit sound waves. because of the lack of mater around them, we only know about it because it interferes with the radiation around the black hole
-
I have my own hypothesis about the termal speed of matter, even if you dont agree with me, just bear with me
we all know about the famus equasion E=MC^2, its been proven, noone disputes it, well when I looked at it, I realized that it looked alot like another equasion widely known, the equasion for momentum MV=m (mass time velocity equals momentum), in this case M is the same in both equasions, and C^2 is the velocity
now because of the above equasion momentum can be infirred as the combanation of mass and velocity, and when you combine the two you realize that whenever any matter reaches the speed of light squared than the energy part of its momentum would completly overpower the mass and the mass would thus turn into pure energy
this means that the speed limit for mass isnt the speed of light, wich is widely beleaved, its the speed of light squared, once it reaches that speed, it would become pure energy, and I am not sure if pure energy is confined by the regular laws that confine mass (every form of energy we know of isnt pure, it has a combanation of mass in it, ie light has mass)
hopefully this thery is true, because it would allow travel to distant stars on order of months instead of centuries
-
Ok, so about that thing with matter not entering the black hole..., why not? Just because matter is being pulled into a black hole, and there is a certain point where not even light can supposedly escape from, what's to say matter is travelling even close to that speed when it's entering? If it's not travelling close to the speed of light, then time difference shouldn't be that much of an issue here.
You're whole previous explaination is falling apart on me here.
-
Ok, so about that thing with matter not entering the black hole..., why not? Just because matter is being pulled into a black hole, and there is a certain point where not even light can supposedly escape from, what's to say matter is travelling even close to that speed when it's entering? If it's not travelling close to the speed of light, then time difference shouldn't be that much of an issue here.
You're whole previous explaination is falling apart on me here.
The fractions of the speed of light at which matter/energy is travelling when approaching the event horizon are so small that mathematics itself begins to break down. thats the problem. most of the problem with black holes is that for them even to exist, new types of math have to be created to explain them. once we do, and plug in the numbers that correspond to observations, it still doesnt make sense. yet there they are, all over the place.
the theory goes that at speeds approaching 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, cosmic strings will cease to move just before the event horizon. nobody knows what happens when matter/energy goes beyond the speed of light. the point at which anything falling toward a black hole would reach that speed is precisely the boundary at which teh singularity begins. and nobody knows what happens beyond that boundary. all math can tell us is that inside a singularity, the numbers say that there is infinite velocity, infinie thermal radiation, infinite mass. none of those things make sense on their own, let alone all within a single cosmological entity!
the main problem with explaining this thing is that the entire basis upon which my explainations are based changes the closer you get to the event horizon. it makes it tough keeping things consistent.
-
hell thereve even been hypothesis that say that the singularity of black holes give birth to new universes inside them
untill we find a way to send in a probe, we will never know
-
The fractions of the speed of light at which matter/energy is travelling when approaching the event horizon are so small that mathematics itself begins to break down.
Umm, if they're so small, don't we just have normal space time here? ;) Which I guess is sorta my point.
-
mabe he made a typo, because I know that if somthing was falling into somthing with that strong of a gravatational pull would accalerate to the point of its escape velocity if givin enough time, so I can say that at least the velocity part would be very large
now what im wondering is, what about time dialation? can anyone come up with an equasion or somthing for that?
-
we all know about the famus equasion E=MC^2, its been proven, noone disputes it
it actually isnt proven. it simply fits with what we can (used to) observe. particle detectors have already caught glimpses of particles that general relativity say shouldnt exist. this spring, a probe is being sent up to measure gravity particles... and as you can tell from what ive written previously, we dont even know what the hell those are to begin with. There is major evidence that general relativity is not a universal truth. in fact, there is more evidence that the laws of space vary throughout the universe. In a very literal sense, you could travel over a boundary into an unknown area of space where suddenly the laws of gravity and thermodynamics are completely different.
when I looked at it, I realized that it looked alot like another equasion widely known, the equasion for momentum MV=m (mass time velocity equals momentum), in this case M is the same in both equasions, and C^2 is the velocity
now because of the above equasion momentum can be infirred as the combanation of mass and velocity, and when you combine the two you realize that whenever any matter reaches the speed of light squared than the energy part of its momentum would completly overpower the mass and the mass would thus turn into pure energy
this means that the speed limit for mass isnt the speed of light, wich is widely beleaved, its the speed of light squared, once it reaches that speed, it would become pure energy, and I am not sure if pure energy is confined by the regular laws that confine mass (every form of energy we know of isnt pure, it has a combanation of mass in it, ie light has mass)
What youve written is actually very good and would stand up as sound theory in mathematical terms. the only problem is the mechanics of the issue. Your math would hold up quite nicely, but there is a problem. the laws that your math relies upon cease to exist when approaching the speed of light, no matter what the subject is (matter, energy, radiation, pure energy). your math and theory would work perfectly up until the speed of light is broken. at this point, rules which govern atomic particles breaks down. The limit of human mathematics has reached the subatomic. higgs bosons, gluons, etc; the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes up atoms. unfortunately what we require is a type of mathematics that explains the behavior of particles 217 (almost precisely) orders of magnitude smaller than a gluon and how that interacts with objects of near inifnite density (such as a singularity) which according to current mathematics should exist anyway.
what youre struggling with is pretty much the central problem with math. there is a defined point at which everything we can grasp ceases to make sense. that boundary is the speed of light. there are likely very reasonable theories to explain behavior at trans-light speeds but we simply cannot grasp them. partly due to the fact that the underlying math behind even the most basic and common quantum behavior escapes us. but like i said, your theory is very sound and works up until the point you would need it most.
hopefully this thery is true, because it would allow travel to distant stars on order of months instead of centuries
actually, there is one theory that allows faster-than-light travel without breaking any laws of time or space and fits with well-established quantum theories. create a pocket around a starship. utilizing a technology we do not have yet, contract the space in front of the ship and expand the space behind it. space itself (the fabric of space) is not held down by the speed of light speed limit. therefore, if you could come up with a device to accomplish this it would not be breaking any known laws of thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. the pocket of space around the ship would be like a fishbowl. now imagine throwing that fishbowl (carefully) across the room to a friend. assuming nothing was dropped or spilled, the fish wouldnt notice anything more than a (hopefully) gentle slosh. einstein proposed this theory late in his career and stephen hawking (my idol. i met him when i was 8) expanded upon it by seeing if any newer mathematics denied it. it still works. so im betting if theres one way to do it, thats how. something to remember: according to math, the only way for matter or energy to reach the speed of light would require a power source of infinite capacity. and that is impossible. the starship theory proposed above does not require infinite energy or infinite anything..... although i have no idea how the hell youd pull it off.
-
I'm not quite convinced here. It sorta reminds me of some physics I've taken, but something doesn't seem quite right. You make it sound like all things would reach the PNR at the same velocity, even if they had different initial velocities. And what about objects that circle inwards? If they need to reach the speed of light (directly away from the PNR) to escape from it, then shouldn't their speed be greater than the speed of light when they reach the PNR if you counted their spiral movement around the black hole as well as their speed moving directly towards it? Or is it just that there is no "the" point of no return?
-
Umm, if they're so small, don't we just have normal space time here? wink.gif Which I guess is sorta my point.
basically the area around a singularity (particularly the PNR) is the point at which normal spacetime shifts into something we dont understand. thats the issue. lots of dual causality conflicts going on at once.
basically it is normal until it becomes not normal, so yes i understand your confusion. the problem is in explaining it without writing an encyclopedia :P
according to what i know about the quantum mechanics, math and cosmology community, space/time/matter is the same approaching an event horizon. what is different is its behavior. for reasons we dont understnad, the way in which normal space and the matter/energy in it behaves begins to change the closer you get to the singularity until finally once the singularity is reached, any number of theories could be the correct one. i offered two, but focused on the one i most believe in.
remarkably, the scientific community requires more and more faith to be of any value.
i touched breifly that if stuff actually goes into a singularity - its anybodys guess. nothing we know of in fact or theory can penetrate the paradox of a singularity. we can theorize about what happens to matter as it approaches this point but even at areas outside of this boundary in normal space, it seems that space (and anything in it) itself begins to break down.
i focused on the idea that m-theory is generally correct and that a singularity simply distorts matter to the point that it cannot be interacted with on a level we are used to and is converted into radiation before ever reaching the event horizon. this is why information never falls in, it is "burned off" before it has the chance to.
so what im saying is, yeah its a contradiction. thats prolly why we dont know how they work exactly :P all we can give is a best guess. thats the basis for all scientific knowledge. what we know and what probability that it is right. the pysical structure and KNOWN facts about black holes are what i can explain easily (?), its that point where spacetime begins to come apart that i (and everyone else) has trouble.
-
untill we find a way to send in a probe, we will never know
lets see............ If we were to send a probe now, it would take over 2000 years to reach a black hole. We sent out a probe 19 years ago and its only now reaching half a light year away from us. And even if we waited until it got there. It would still be another 60+ years before we get the nano second of info from the probe
And that would be traveling at the speed of light which would never reach earth. because of space junk and light from other stars. Now if we sent it through another way, it would take well over 500+ years to reach us.
all of this would be before its ripped apart heading into the black hole.
I say the amount of work we would have to do just to get the probe to reach it, and have it send the data back would be next to impossible to do. even with computers.
-
you met steven hawking!! LUCKY!!
this is back to theritical physics, how do we know that it breaks down when matter approaches the speed of light? untill we can test it, all this will be speculation, you could be right, and theires an equal probability of me being right
now I have come up with another propusion system that would be capeable of near, (or if Im right, exceeding) the speed of light, but I beleave it would take a while to explain and its late so I dont feel like it lol
basicly though it nagates the liability of mass becomeing infonate and requireing infonate thrust to propell it by pulling the ship with gravitational fields instead of pulling it
again, the design is pretty complex and its late, I may explain it tomarrow, but right now family guy is on so I bid you adyu (I hate french)
-
I'm not quite convinced here. It sorta reminds me of some physics I've taken, but something doesn't seem quite right. You make it sound like all things would reach the PNR at the same velocity, even if they had different initial velocities. And what about objects that circle inwards? If they need to reach the speed of light (directly away from the PNR) to escape from it, then shouldn't their speed be greater than the speed of light when they reach the PNR if you counted their spiral movement around the black hole as well as their speed moving directly towards it? Or is it just that there is no "the" point of no return?
the problem is that nobody knows. we havent had the chance to throw a probe into a black hole to see where the particles go. from what i remember, the theory is that upon reaching the event horizon, infinite velocity, energy and heat is reached. therefore it doesnt matter what the initial conditions were. trying to explain why or what happens after this point is impossible. but i stick to the theory that "god does not play dice" and that there arent loopholes in the universe that allow matter (information) to be sucked in and annihilated (destroyed, no longer in existance). i subscribe to the idea that (as explained earlier) matter is either burned off before it has the chance to "get stuck" or the strings that compose matter/energy are stretched and distorted and due to causality, never actually reach the event horizon. anything beyond that point is anybodys guess.
-
wich is exactly what my above post says lol
-
now I have come up with another propusion system that would be capeable of near, (or if Im right, exceeding) the speed of light, but I beleave it would take a while to explain and its late so I dont feel like it lol
the only system I know of would be a nuteron emiter which could reach 99.99% of lightspeed but I don't think it would never run out of fuel.
gravity drive? that seems to be the newest thing talked about in space games and other such
-
you met steven hawking!! LUCKY!!
yup, i met him when i was like 7 or 8. when i was little, i stayed up all night to wait for carl sagans cosmos to come on PBS at 2 in the morning. my dad saw an ad in the newspaper saying that stephen hawking would be at the seattle opera house. he took me. there was an intermission in the middle and ppl got to go upstage to visit him. i was the only person there under 25. i was in a few publications for it, actually. since it takes him up to an hour to type what he wants to saw on his paddle, i took his deep stare as a handshake. i was honored.
this is back to theritical physics, how do we know that it breaks down when matter approaches the speed of light? untill we can test it, all this will be speculation, you could be right, and theires an equal probability of me being right
pretty much everything ive said tonight is hypothetical :P none of it can be proven outright, but like i said about the periodic table: typically if math predicts it, we will find it. and black holes were predicted long before we ever found one, but once we gained the ability to look were math predicted they would be, there they are. so ill say that i have faith that eventually we will discover some "golden theory" and it will all fall into place. i might not live to see it, but someday maybe.
now I have come up with another propusion system that would be capeable of near, (or if Im right, exceeding) the speed of light, but I beleave it would take a while to explain and its late so I dont feel like it lol
im recalling this from memory, but i believe the book i read about it in, the theory for trans-light speed travel was proposed as a way to not just meet the speed of light, but break it. once again, im not positive.
-
the only system I know of would be a nuteron emiter which could reach 99.99% of lightspeed but I don't think it would never run out of fuel.
gravity drive? that seems to be the newest thing talked about in space games and other such
i used to have a link to a NASA site that had design schematics for a gravity-drive starship. it had two spherical gravity wells lined up sequentially. the forward well produces positive gravity while the rear produces negative gravity (both are supported by current theories) and the ship "rides" the curve produced in spacetime like a surfboard rides on the cusp of a wave. since gravity is not limited by the speed of light, one would only have to worry about crashing into something.
the added benefit of gravity drives is that infinite or even near-infinite levels of energy/radiation are not required. the article stated that a mass only 1/3 that of the moon would be required. the difficulty would be in regulating the variance so that the ship "rode" on the precise cusp of the space curve (otherwise it would "miss" the wave just like a surfer on a board) and in creating a technology that would allow you to modify gravity output. other than that, it is sound.
-
now what im wondering is, what about time dialation? can anyone come up with an equasion or somthing for that?
theres lots of material on it, but to be honest i never made an effort to remember much other than the grandfather clause and the train thought experiment einstein proposed.
to me, most time dialation theory is mostly for the benefit of the human mind because if the effect were even slightly off normal, someone wouldnt live long enough to see the outcome.
(example: if you and a buddy were in space fighters and you decided to go into the black hole, from your view, you would immediately fall into the black hole and die, not considering whatever else happens afterward. but to outside viewers, your trip into the black hole would slow to the point that a second to you would take billions of years to ellapse to outside viewers. so in this case, at any one time, at least one party that would be needed to compare time periods would be long dead. either you are dead or anyone who knew you would be dead. if you take theory literally in that upon reaching the event horizon time would stop, you would never actually make it into the singularity. you would hover just outside it for all eternity.)
so considering that it is mostly for the benefit of human psychology, i choose to ignore it. in cosmological terms, periods in the order of billions of years are measured almost like nanoseconds (except for the birth of the universe which is counted in billionths of a second between periods).
-
beleave me, this type of propusion has not been thaught up as far as I can tell
ok the gist is, you know how a gauss rifle works right? with rings of magnets accelatering a projectile
well think about, instead of rings of magnets, its a ring of trillions of subatomic blackholes, smaller than protons, because of Hawking radiation, they would disapate within microseconds, but before they do, they would enact a gravatational field much stronger than a single black hole and simmiler in dimention to the magnetic field for the gauss rifle, the net effect would be the equivalent of a gravity assist around a full size black hole, and with more rings, the gravity assist would become expanential
Like I said, unlike other propulsion systems, this would nagate the increase in mass because gravity would pull it at the same rate no matter what mass it is (thats the reasion why a golf ball and a bowling ball accelarate at the same rate)
how the ship would generate those rings would require a pretty detailed explanation of my theary of the degradation of subatomic radiation particles
of corse, like before, this is all assumeing that the known laws of physics hold, if they dont, than it is impossible to develop a relavant propulsion system untill the relavent information is givin
-
Ugh, this is all starting to sound like nobody knows what they're talking about. Even the people who know what they're talking about probably don't know what they're talking about. :blink:
So, unless anyone has a way for me to slow down time right now, I think I'll go continue studying for my midterm. <_<
-
well of corse not, this is all theritical physics, untill we get a chance to exparment with these things, we will not know
my designs are baised on current known physics, so if they stay true, there is no doubt that they would work, but you are right we have no idea, and there is no way we can know this without testing
-
Ugh, this is all starting to sound like nobody knows what they're talking about. Even the people who know what they're talking about probably don't know what they're talking about. blink.gif
So, unless anyone has a way for me to slow down time right now, I think I'll go continue studying for my midterm.
i agree. ive got a headache from thins thread :P i could give you links to lots of online resources that come from those who would know, but they all more or less end with "but..." so we're all pretty much in the dark. we know how matter orbis around a black hole but once it gets close enough, all bets are off.
all in all i think this was a good way to kill an evening! :P :P
-
(String theory requires at least 17 dimensions of space to work. Strings exist within all of them but we only see them interacting with at least 4).
Now a black hole is one thing for we have seen them or at least the effects of them. Given that they havent clearly seen one (as far as i know). But how in the hell are they going to prove that there are 17 other dimensions lol. And from what I hear alot of people think the string theory is BS. If I remember correctly a theory means it is a proven hyposis. How in the hell can you prove other dementions
The speed of light really has nothing to do with the power of the black holes gravity. They just absorb enery and light is energy there for it cant escape.
-
okay -- too much to read
i'm outta this thread :lol:
-
I think its a good exercise for my brain, although I am more of an engineer rather than a physist
17 dimentions, I guess they would have to do some serious math to get that, I mean you know that they didnt just pick that number out of thin air
but all of this is speculation and we all know that, so lets just humer ourselves, this is a good time kill for me, and since Im on thanksgiving break, I need a good time kill
-
That 17 dimension stuff isn't necessarily the way you think of it. It's like how you consider a complex number to be two dimensional. I'm guessing they just developed a mathematical model that has at least 17 degrees of freedom for it to work. Maybe they just call it dimension either because it sounds cooler and has that whole sci fi double meaning crap, or because that's what it was traditionally referred to as (maybe?).
If you study quantum computation, qubits are essentially four dimensional. It's not so much that they're some four dimensional object living in some weird space we can't comprehend, it's more that the mathematical model people have found to describe them is best thought of with essentially a vector of 4 real numbers (or 2 complex numbers, each of which has two real numbers associated with it).
-
I thought the fourth dimention was time?
-
Dimensions don't need to relate to real world concepts that are so easily grasped. Call time a 4th dimension if you will, but it doesn't relate to every model very well. That quantum computation idea used 4 dimensions without considering time. That was 4 dimensions just to represent the state of the system at any one given time. If you wanted to consider the progress of time in these calculations, it'd probably be added as a 5th dimension.
Think of it more like independent variables.
-
like I said, im more of an engineer than a theritical physicist
ask me to design a single stage to orbit system, and Ill have a viable design in a week
but ask me about cosmic strings and such, and ill be stumped lol