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. Last edited by Benit13; November 12th, 2014 at 06:08 AM. 
November 12th, 2014, 12:03 PM  #22  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Quote:
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?  
November 12th, 2014, 03:36 PM  #23  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,346 Thanks: 988 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
$\displaystyle p^+ + p^+ \longrightarrow \pi ^+ + (deuteron)$ $\displaystyle \Sigma + p^+ \longrightarrow \Lambda + n^0$ 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 nonrotating 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:
Quote:
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  
November 12th, 2014, 03:40 PM  #24  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,346 Thanks: 988 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
Why should E = pc imply a Big Bang? It's nothing more than a formula for the high energy regime. Dan  
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 spinout 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. 
November 12th, 2014, 05:54 PM  #26  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,346 Thanks: 988 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
The Schwarzchild metric for nonrotation 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 nonrotating 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  
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. 
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. 
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:
Quote:
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:
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! Last edited by Benit13; November 13th, 2014 at 03:20 AM.  
November 13th, 2014, 04:08 AM  #30  
Senior Member Joined: Nov 2013 From: Germany Posts: 179 Thanks: 1 Math Focus: Number Theory  Quote:
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.  

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 