My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Thanks Tree12Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
November 12th, 2014, 06:03 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,166
Thanks: 738

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Fine, okay.

The paper you linked earlier is still trash though I would still advise anyone to read articles through arxiv or from MNRAS directly rather than through vixra. In fact, Nasa ADS is probably the best way of finding papers online.
Thanks from topsquark

Last edited by Benit13; November 12th, 2014 at 06:08 AM.
Benit13 is offline  
 
November 12th, 2014, 12:03 PM   #22
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics :: Science Publishing Group



1969MNRAS.142..129H Page 129
Title: On the rotation of the Universe
Authors: Hawking, S.

Journal: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 142, p.129
Bibliographic Code: 1969MNRAS.142..129H
What point are you trying to make? You link to a highly disreputable journal, then to a famous paper in a different journal.

If you're using the paper to support the basic idea of this thread (but then why mention the journal?), then you have it backward. Hawking is showing that the Universe, if it is rotating at all, must rotate very slowly -- less than once per 600 trillion years, at a linear speed less than 0.00015c. Unless, perhaps, you interpret "near lightspeed" very charitably?
CRGreathouse is offline  
November 12th, 2014, 03:36 PM   #23
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,346
Thanks: 988

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
A) Photons are massless particles because they move with Light Speed

a) All massive partikels in a Black Hole are crashed to Photons

ai) A spinning Black Hole is like a onion with orbits for every heavy partikel with mass.

Postulate: All Black Holes are spinning

If a massive object falls in it crashes threw its unique orbit and is destroyed untill it gets a photon. This process needs time.

The Event Horizon is a Photon Corona
Actually you have it the wrong way around, though the difference is somewhat trivial: Photons move at the speed of light because they are massless, not the other way around.

$\displaystyle p^+ + p^+ \longrightarrow \pi ^+ + (deuteron)$

$\displaystyle \Sigma + p^+ \longrightarrow \Lambda + n^0$

These are two examples where massive particle interactions do not produce photons. (There are, of course, many others.) There is no reason to suspect that these interactions are different inside the Schwarzchild radius.

I have no problem with your description of a rotating black hole. Look up the Kerr black hole for more information on that. Rotating black holes engage in "frame dragging" which more or less corresponds to your statement of the onion.

Why should all black holes spin? It is true that the only way we know how to make black holes is via supernovas, which gives the black hole part of the angular momentum of the star that formed it. But why do all black holes have to be rotating? GR predicts that a non-rotating black hole is perfectly happy to exist. (If you really want to blow your mind we can talk about spinning black holes that have a net charge on them.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
B) Light (corona orbit) spinning in rotation direction

NASA | Peer into a Simulated Stellar-mass Black Hole - YouTube

NASA | Peer into a Simulated Stellar-mass Black Hole
"Corona orbit." Do you mean an accretion disk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
C) You need massive matter particles to get Newtons Gravitation Force

Photons collide in a Big Bang and create massiv matter Hydrogen etc.

=>Stars => New Black Holes are possible

Mass is created in a Big Bang = exploding Black Hole = White Hole (only light) by photon collide.
Yes, Newtonian Physics states that we need a mass to have a gravitational field, but General Relativity says we don't. As GR is the more accurate theory I'm siding with GR on this one.

Here's a fact that many don't know: The event horizon is not a point of singularity. There is a metric (which is hideous) where no singularity exists until we get down to the center of the black hole. Since it is true in one metric it really has to be in all of them. The event horizon is just a location in space like any other. The problem comes in when we talk about what's inside. What we don't know is what states of matter exist inside...gravitation runs amok and nothing can stop the compression. On the other hand truly elementary particles cannot be "squeezed" so they must still exist as they are. But the scale of the gravitational force is immense and we don't yet have a theory of Quantum Gravity to say for sure what happens in there. As always we need experimental data and we can't get it in this case.

Look, you really need to learn some more Physics than you do. Your statements are almost completely speculation and based on "dodgy" sources. Remember: In Science a good theory is testable. I see no way to test many of your ideas.

Until you can talk about these matters with better base of information, I'm done with this.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 12th, 2014, 03:40 PM   #24
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,346
Thanks: 988

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
E=mc² is Incomplete => E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

E_u with m=0 means only photons := pc

the ultrarelativistic limit made possible in a Black Hole

E = p c

=> The Big Bang
Just one more thing. $\displaystyle E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4$ is where we get $\displaystyle E = mc^2$ in the first place. It isn't that $\displaystyle E = mc^2$ is incomplete, it's that the popular media doesn't go into the matter deep enough. The full formula is used in Particle Physics all the time.

Why should E = pc imply a Big Bang? It's nothing more than a formula for the high energy regime.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 12th, 2014, 04:38 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Dan

Its the angluar momentum law who solves the problem with the singularity triggered by gravitation.

Because its the simple reason why there is now physical Singularity in a spinning Black Hole

Light corona : look the NASA video please.

E=pc status in a Black Hole means no Newtonian Mass m = Gravity so no force against the centrifugal power => White Hole





In physical terms, a spin-out Big Bang occurs when centrifugal force overpowers whatever is connecting a rotating object (Black Hole)to some central hub. The power acting to make the object independent is stronger than the power constraining it within the existing system.
Objects would fly off the earth, for instance, if the earth were spinning fast enough to cancel the power of gravity.

So in a Black Hole all Mass is transformed into massles particles (Light)=> Big Bang

Last edited by M_B_S; November 12th, 2014 at 04:54 PM.
M_B_S is offline  
November 12th, 2014, 05:54 PM   #26
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,346
Thanks: 988

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
Dan

Its the angluar momentum law who solves the problem with the singularity triggered by gravitation.

Because its the simple reason why there is now physical Singularity in a spinning Black Hole

Light corona : look the NASA video please.

E=pc status in a Black Hole means no Newtonian Mass m = Gravity so no force against the centrifugal power => White Hole

(sighs) I'm an idiot for responding to this and I'm done playing around.

The Schwarzchild metric for non-rotation black hole:
$\displaystyle d \tau ^2 = \left [ 1 - \frac{2MG}{r} \right ] dt^2 - \left [ 1 - \frac{2MG}{r} \right ]^{-1} dr^2 - r^2 d \theta ^2 - r^2~sin^2 ( \theta ) d \phi ^2$

Clearly there is a singularity here, when 2MG = r.

The Kerr metric for a rotating black hole:
$\displaystyle -d \tau ^2 = -dt^2 + d \textbf{x} ^2 + \frac{2MG \rho}{(\rho ^4 + ( \textbf{x} \cdot \textbf{a}^2 )) (\rho ^2 + \textbf{a} ^2 )^2} \cdot \left [ \rho ^2 \textbf{x} \cdot d \textbf{x} + \rho d \textbf{x} \cdot ( \textbf{a} \times \textbf{x} ) + ( \textbf{a} \cdot \textbf{x} )(\textbf{a} \cdot d \textbf{x} ) + ( \rho ^2 + \textbf{a} ^2 ) \rho dt \right ]^2$

where $\displaystyle \rho$ is defined by $\displaystyle \rho ^4 - (r^2 - \textbf{a}^2 ) \rho ^2 - ( \textbf{a} \cdot \textbf{x} )^2 = 0$
( $\displaystyle \textbf{a}$ is a constant and the dot and cross products are calculated using the standard Euclidean inner and cross products, and $\displaystyle r^2 = \textbf{x} ^2$.)

This does not appear to have a singularity but when we take the limit as $\displaystyle r \to \infty$ the $\displaystyle g_{00}$ component of the metric becomes $\displaystyle -1 + \frac{2MG}{r}$, so we have the same singularity as in the Schwarzchild solution.

I'm not going to sit down and work it all out for the Kerr black hole, but choosing the correct coordinates gives a metric for the non-rotating black hole:
$\displaystyle d \tau ^2 = \left ( \frac{32 G^3M^3}{r T^2} \right ) Exp \left [ \frac{-r}{2GM} \right ] (dt'^2 - dr'^2 ) - r^2 d \theta ^2 - r^2 sin^2 (\theta) d \phi ^2$

The coordinate system being used here is kind of wacky, but there is no longer a singularity at r = 2GM! So the event horizon really isn't a singularity at all.

That doesn't mean that we can simply ignore our usual coordinate system, which does have an apparent singularity. Even in a Kerr black hole the escape speed of an object is still equal or larger than the speed of light. And even when talking about Hawking radiation the black hole doesn't actually emit mass, or even light, from inside the event horizon. So no white hole.

Now, you have a serious problem with E = pc. I don't blame you for this as only someone who has studied the issue of mass/massless objects in Relativistic QM would likely know. You can't derive an expression in Relativity or QM with a mass m and smoothly take it to the m = 0 case. The reason is this: Relativistic QM is based on a number of basic symmetries, in this case the Poincare symmetry. When you work out the symmetry equations for a particle with mass Wigner's little group symmetry is essentially the rotation group in three dimensions, which has three independent degrees of freedom. On the other hand Wigner's little group symmetry for a massless particle is ISO(2), which only has two independent degrees of freedom. We cannot smoothly make a transformation from three degrees of freedom to two. So even though the high energy limit of $\displaystyle E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 \approx p^2c^2$ the particle still has to have a mass that we can't just ignore. The approximation is good dynamically, but you have to be very careful of how you do Physics in this regime.

-Dan
Thanks from CRGreathouse
topsquark is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 01:15 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Yes Dan

Its the math stupid there is a ring singularity in a Kerr Black Hole

I think its the photon corona ?! Look Nasa Video simulation of a BH

E²=p²C²+m²C²C²

E = pc means here there is only light Photons => mC² = 0

Without mass no relativistic/newton gravitation => no force against pressure of light

=> Big Bang ( there will be light) Genesis Universe

=> Mass creation via Photon collide=> Newtonian/Relativistic Gravity => New Black Holes
Excurs:

Video: Pressure of Light

Physics - Electromagnetic Radiation (6 of 6) Intro: Pressure of Light - YouTube

Genesis of E=mc²


Last edited by M_B_S; November 13th, 2014 at 01:30 AM.
M_B_S is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 02:28 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Video

Mass and Momentum of Photon

Mass and Momentum of Photon - YouTube

*************

Here you learn what i mean:

In a Kerr Black Hole all mass is "transformed" to light in time.

so that E = pC => Big Bang

You could proof it in a computer simulation it will work.

M_B_S

Last edited by M_B_S; November 13th, 2014 at 02:30 AM.
M_B_S is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 03:15 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,166
Thanks: 738

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
Yes Dan
Its the math stupid there is a ring singularity in a Kerr Black Hole
No... you need to learn more about general relativity.

Quote:
I think its the photon corona ?! Look Nasa Video simulation of a BH
Don't search for truthfulness in anything but textbooks and published, peer-review papers. Online videos (regardless of the source) and other sources are unreliable and should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

Also, remember that learning science is about learning truth, not making what you already believe sound like truth. In this regard, don't settle for anything less than the most professional, high quality work and be sceptical about everything. There are even papers published in peer review journals that are crappy, so don't just accept anything you see or read; question it and decide for yourself whether you think it is the truth or not.

Please... get a textbook on cosmology and follow through everything in it. By educating yourself with the state of the art, you'll be able to learn where there is wiggle room for new knowledge.

Quote:
E²=p²C²+m²C²C²

E = pc means here there is only light Photons => mC² = 0

Without mass no relativistic/newton gravitation => no force against pressure of light

=> Big Bang ( there will be light) Genesis Universe

=> Mass creation via Photon collide=> Newtonian/Relativistic Gravity => New Black Holes
This is poetry, not mathematics. Your logical steps don't link together at all. The formula that gives the energy carried by a particle based on its mass and momentum can be applied to many situations and is just a law that relates one parameter to others. It tells you nothing about black holes or the Big Bang or any of the conclusions you drew from the above. You might as well say "hair exists, unicorns supposedly have hair, so that means unicorns exist".

You are correct that there is something called "light pressure" because even though photons have zero mass, they carry momentum and can exchange that momentum in interactions with atoms. Poynting vectors tell you how much "force" is created when light shines on a surface and is the mechanism through which solar sails are based on. The magnitude of this pressure is very small however and it would take a solar sail with several km$\displaystyle ^2$ of surface area to enable motion with any relevance to space travel. Light pressure is relevant only in a few phenomena, such as novae and supernovae. It can safely be ignored even in standard stars because gas pressure and gravitational pressure exceed light pressure considerably.

As for black holes? No one knows the equation of state for matter inside a black hole and the usual laws don't apply anyway, so anyone claiming they know what is inside a black hole for sure is a conman. However, using general relativity, it is possible to generate some mathematical models to make predictions. This is what theorists do.

What about experimenters? Active Galactic Nuclei have supermassive black holes in the centre of them and there is lots of observational evidence gathered by observing the light given off by accretion disks surrounding the black hole. Properties of the black hole can be determined this way by comparing with theory. All the theory involves general relativity because Newtonian laws break down and simply don't work. There is also Cygnus X, which is an object that provides evidence of a stellar mass black hole. Cygnus X is still under scrutiny however.

Seriously... there is loads of high quality, interesting literature on black holes. Don't settle for anything other than the best papers. In fact, why don't you read that famous Stephen Hawking paper that you linked and tell us about it? I would genuinely be interested to hear more about his work on black holes. We can all read it and use this this opportunity to have a group literature review session!
Thanks from topsquark

Last edited by Benit13; November 13th, 2014 at 03:20 AM.
Benit13 is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 04:08 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benit13 View Post
No... you need to learn more about general relativity.



Don't search for truthfulness in anything but textbooks and published, peer-review papers. Online videos (regardless of the source) and other sources are unreliable and should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

Also, remember that learning science is about learning truth, not making what you already believe sound like truth. In this regard, don't settle for anything less than the most professional, high quality work and be sceptical about everything. There are even papers published in peer review journals that are crappy, so don't just accept anything you see or read; question it and decide for yourself whether you think it is the truth or not.

Please... get a textbook on cosmology and follow through everything in it. By educating yourself with the state of the art, you'll be able to learn where there is wiggle room for new knowledge.



This is poetry, not mathematics. Your logical steps don't link together at all. The formula that gives the energy carried by a particle based on its mass and momentum can be applied to many situations and is just a law that relates one parameter to others. It tells you nothing about black holes or the Big Bang or any of the conclusions you drew from the above. You might as well say "hair exists, unicorns supposedly have hair, so that means unicorns exist".

You are correct that there is something called "light pressure" because even though photons have zero mass, they carry momentum and can exchange that momentum in interactions with atoms. Poynting vectors tell you how much "force" is created when light shines on a surface and is the mechanism through which solar sails are based on. The magnitude of this pressure is very small however and it would take a solar sail with several km$\displaystyle ^2$ of surface area to enable motion with any relevance to space travel. Light pressure is relevant only in a few phenomena, such as novae and supernovae. It can safely be ignored even in standard stars because gas pressure and gravitational pressure exceed light pressure considerably.

As for black holes? No one knows the equation of state for matter inside a black hole and the usual laws don't apply anyway, so anyone claiming they know what is inside a black hole for sure is a conman. However, using general relativity, it is possible to generate some mathematical models to make predictions. This is what theorists do.

What about experimenters? Active Galactic Nuclei have supermassive black holes in the centre of them and there is lots of observational evidence gathered by observing the light given off by accretion disks surrounding the black hole. Properties of the black hole can be determined this way by comparing with theory. All the theory involves general relativity because Newtonian laws break down and simply don't work. There is also Cygnus X, which is an object that provides evidence of a stellar mass black hole. Cygnus X is still under scrutiny however.

Seriously... there is loads of high quality, interesting literature on black holes. Don't settle for anything other than the best papers. In fact, why don't you read that famous Stephen Hawking paper that you linked and tell us about it? I would genuinely be interested to hear more about his work on black holes. We can all read it and use this this opportunity to have a group literature review session!
Thanks for your post!

This logic is not disproofable:

When a Black Hole spins with light speed.

What is "in" the Black Hole?

Answer only Energy = light with momentum! => E_u=pC the Big Bang

This is what E²=p²C²+m²C²C² is telling us.

You need good New papers on Black Hole Universe theory?

Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv

Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv


Your marks on light pressure are a bit to soft.


The Black Hole transformation into a Big Bang


black files := matter => red files := light

The onion of a Black Hole (Star) := parts different wavelenghts of light

inner blue => outer red

Last edited by M_B_S; November 13th, 2014 at 04:38 AM.
M_B_S is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Tags
black, hole, light, living, speed, spinning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fractal dimension of snowflake falling into black hole BenFRayfield Physics 1 February 17th, 2014 12:13 PM
Whats inside a black hole? BenFRayfield Physics 0 September 21st, 2013 06:25 PM
Doc Browns Dilemna- My Delorean won't reach light speed HenryMolaison Physics 6 June 24th, 2013 05:36 PM
Frames of reference and the speed of light proglote Physics 23 August 26th, 2011 07:01 AM
How does the inverse square law of light effect light intens moore778899 Elementary Math 0 January 16th, 2011 08:20 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.