Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT : What happens to photons when

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by johnk... View Post

    I think the thing you are missing is that it's not dividing by zero, it's the behavior of the equations or a function as some parameter in the denominator approaches zero. Take the function 1/x^2 it is a well defined function for all values of x except zero where it is undefined. But no matter how close to zero x is, the value of 1/x ^2 is a real number. So, while 1/x^2; x=0 is undefined the limit of 1/x^2 as x approaches zero is infinity.

    John, while that's a nice equation and all, it does not correspond to a real object when it is at zero, nor even when it's approaching zero. Just how close to zero can it get exactly?

    Singularities are by definition, POINTS in space. Physicists have repeatedly stated such, and you said it yourself. They are places where the math breaks down. Which is exactly why they are pure imagination, on paper, and in reality. There are no singularities or black holes. They are an invention of the mind.

    The fact of the matter is that the BH was invented to explain the behavior of objects that are strange, and they were invented because the physicists don't know anything other than gravity. When your only tool is a hammer, everything is a nail. After the BH couldn't explain the behavior of galactic movement, dark matter was invented to fill in the gaps. And when that wasn't panning out, rather than start over, it was glossed over.

    There are so many problems with black hole/big bang cosmology that even 100 years hasn't really made any progress. The telescopes keep finding "impossible" galaxies that shouldn't exist because they are supposedly too close to T-zero to have formed. They keep finding "impossible" planets orbiting too close to their host stars that aren't big enough to have formed planets not only that big, but that close.

    Gravity is not the only force out there. It's the weakest force and doesn't answer the observations.
    R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

    Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


    95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
    Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

    Comment


    • #62
      Pete, you are certainly entitled to you opinion. But I think you are still missing the point I was making and which that video makes. Physicists are not comfortable with the idea that theory predicts a singularity. Obviously something is missing. Perhaps the mystery will never be resolved. So what exactly is happening at the center of a black hole or of the event horizon is certainly not fully understood. However, observations do show that the theory yields the correct results as these singularities in time or space are approached. Agreed that beyond those points the theory breaks down, but form the point of view of making predictions further away the models say that this is how the universe behaves when we get to those points. Here is a simple audio example. Sound from a point source decays as 1/r. What is a point source? Mathematically it is a source of zero radius wit some strength. At r = zero the limit tells us that the sound pressure is infinite. Of course that is garbage. Never the less, for sources of finite dimension, radiating a long wave lengths, the 1/r relationship holds and agrees with observation, until we come with in a distance where observation show a different behavior. We refer to this as the near field and there is a transition region between the near and far field. So we know the limit of application where 1/r behavior predicts the correct result. Notice, we don't need to know anything about near field behavior or the transition to make accurate predictions in the far field. And we don't need any near field/transition model to know where 1/r behavior breaks down. W simply test the theory against observation and we find the limits of applicability. The same holds with relativity. The theory breaks down at the center of what we refer to as a black hole. But observations show that as we approach areas in space things behave the way the theory predicts they should behave in the vicinity of the predicted singularity. So, while we don't fully understand what physically happens at the center of a black hole, we do know from observation that there are areas in space where the behavior is such that things happen as if there were a singularity at the center of that area. I don't think anyone in physics would argue that there are real singularities there, but what ever happens there is real. That it is referred to as a black hole is just a label. Singularities in space most likely don't exist. Black holes, areas in space where things behave as if there were a singularity there, according to theory, do.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZ790rgN7g

      As for the other forces, the weak and strong nuclear forces only act over very short distances, on the atomic scales. They work in particle physics but not on the scales of the universe. That leaves the electromagnetic force. Surely you are a believer in the electromagnetic universe?
      John k.... Music and Design NaO dsp Dipole Loudspeakers.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by johnk... View Post

        Remember, math is a tool developed by man to model and understand the physical universe. The universe doesn't obey mathematical laws and theories. The universe does what it does.

        [/URL]


        +1 on this. Another example of mathematics as an approximation I remember from high school Calculusis approximating the area of a circle with polygons. If you inscribe a polygon of n sides inside a circle, it will always have less area than the circle. However, as n approaches infinity, it will approach the area of the circle. Similarly, you can scribe the polygon on the outside of the circle and conduct the same exercise and essentially "sandwich" the area of the circle using 2 methods of mathematical approximation. Now we know the finite area of a circle but it's a simple example of how mathematical approximations using concepts like "approaching infinity" can be used to very closely provide practical answers to real life observations without being exact. Sometimes close enough is good enough (or is at least all we have right now).
        Carbon13

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by johnk... View Post
          Pete, you are certainly entitled to you opinion. But I think you are still missing the point I was making and which that video makes. Physicists are not comfortable with the idea that theory predicts a singularity. Obviously something is missing. Perhaps the mystery will never be resolved. So what exactly is happening at the center of a black hole or of the event horizon is certainly not fully understood. However, observations do show that the theory yields the correct results as these singularities in time or space are approached. Agreed that beyond those points the theory breaks down, but form the point of view of making predictions further away the models say that this is how the universe behaves when we get to those points. Here is a simple audio example. Sound from a point source decays as 1/r. What is a point source? Mathematically it is a source of zero radius wit some strength. At r = zero the limit tells us that the sound pressure is infinite. Of course that is garbage. Never the less, for sources of finite dimension, radiating a long wave lengths, the 1/r relationship holds and agrees with observation, until we come with in a distance where observation show a different behavior. We refer to this as the near field and there is a transition region between the near and far field. So we know the limit of application where 1/r behavior predicts the correct result. Notice, we don't need to know anything about near field behavior or the transition to make accurate predictions in the far field. And we don't need any near field/transition model to know where 1/r behavior breaks down. W simply test the theory against observation and we find the limits of applicability. The same holds with relativity. The theory breaks down at the center of what we refer to as a black hole. But observations show that as we approach areas in space things behave the way the theory predicts they should behave in the vicinity of the predicted singularity. So, while we don't fully understand what physically happens at the center of a black hole, we do know from observation that there are areas in space where the behavior is such that things happen as if there were a singularity at the center of that area. I don't think anyone in physics would argue that there are real singularities there, but what ever happens there is real. That it is referred to as a black hole is just a label. Singularities in space most likely don't exist. Black holes, areas in space where things behave as if there were a singularity there, according to theory, do.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZ790rgN7g

          As for the other forces, the weak and strong nuclear forces only act over very short distances, on the atomic scales. They work in particle physics but not on the scales of the universe. That leaves the electromagnetic force. Surely you are a believer in the electromagnetic universe?
          Our sun could be used as a point source in reference to the galaxy. A point source just needs to be a small point in reference to a much larger thing. A zero or nearly zero refernce is really meaningless your reference could be 100000 as easly as zero depending on the scale you use. I do understand what you are saying as using zero as a limit though.
          craigk

          " Voicing is often the term used for band aids to cover for initial design/planning errors " - Pallas

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by johnk... View Post
            Pete, you are certainly entitled to you opinion. But I think you are still missing the point I was making and which that video makes. Physicists are not comfortable with the idea that theory predicts a singularity. Obviously something is missing. Perhaps the mystery will never be resolved. So what exactly is happening at the center of a black hole or of the event horizon is certainly not fully understood. However, observations do show that the theory yields the correct results as these singularities in time or space are approached. Agreed that beyond those points the theory breaks down, but form the point of view of making predictions further away the models say that this is how the universe behaves when we get to those points. Here is a simple audio example. Sound from a point source decays as 1/r. What is a point source? Mathematically it is a source of zero radius wit some strength. At r = zero the limit tells us that the sound pressure is infinite. Of course that is garbage. Never the less, for sources of finite dimension, radiating a long wave lengths, the 1/r relationship holds and agrees with observation, until we come with in a distance where observation show a different behavior. We refer to this as the near field and there is a transition region between the near and far field. So we know the limit of application where 1/r behavior predicts the correct result. Notice, we don't need to know anything about near field behavior or the transition to make accurate predictions in the far field. And we don't need any near field/transition model to know where 1/r behavior breaks down. W simply test the theory against observation and we find the limits of applicability. The same holds with relativity. The theory breaks down at the center of what we refer to as a black hole. But observations show that as we approach areas in space things behave the way the theory predicts they should behave in the vicinity of the predicted singularity. So, while we don't fully understand what physically happens at the center of a black hole, we do know from observation that there are areas in space where the behavior is such that things happen as if there were a singularity at the center of that area. I don't think anyone in physics would argue that there are real singularities there, but what ever happens there is real. That it is referred to as a black hole is just a label. Singularities in space most likely don't exist. Black holes, areas in space where things behave as if there were a singularity there, according to theory, do.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZ790rgN7g

            As for the other forces, the weak and strong nuclear forces only act over very short distances, on the atomic scales. They work in particle physics but not on the scales of the universe. That leaves the electromagnetic force. Surely you are a believer in the electromagnetic universe?
            John, event horizons are no more real than singularities. Never has one been observed. They are theoretical objects based on equations that are undefined. The imagined properties of a point in space from which light can't escape is pure mathematics. How much matter can fit into this event horizon? If matter is collapsing beyond the most dense particle in the observed universe, the neutron, how dense is it actually getting? Physicists insist that it is collapsing to a point. They insist that they are real things.

            There has never been an event horizon observed. They are purely a prediction assuming the math is correct and that dividing by zero is actually describing something real. That's just bad science. Science involves measurement and observation to be considered science. Black Holes, event horizons, singularities, that stuff is all pure fantasy. It's the most fanciful conjecture.

            You're forgetting magnetic/electric forces. I can rub a balloon on my head and have the electric force overwhelm the gravitational force and stick it to a wall. A current running through a wire in a magnetic field easily overwhelms gravity. Plasma accounts for 99% of all the matter in the universe, and if its moving, it's creating magnetic fields and it becomes an electric field. You can't ignore what happens to dust when it gets statically charged any more than you can ignore what happens to hydrogen when it is ionized. Fore every ion of hydrogen in the universe, and 99% of that hydrogen is an ion, there is also a free electron. The interaction of that material through electromagnetic activity dwarfs gravity by dozens of orders of magnitude.

            Look, everyone thought that it was black holes at the center of galaxies that was responsible for the observed structure. But the reality of observations negate the prediction of the theory. Usually in science, it's time to start over instead of inventing something new, never seen or measured, to account for the inconsistencies of other thing never seen or measured.
            R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

            Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


            95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
            Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post

              John, event horizons are no more real than singularities. Never has one been observed. They are theoretical objects based on equations that are undefined. The imagined properties of a point in space from which light can't escape is pure mathematics. How much matter can fit into this event horizon? If matter is collapsing beyond the most dense particle in the observed universe, the neutron, how dense is it actually getting? Physicists insist that it is collapsing to a point. They insist that they are real things.

              There has never been an event horizon observed. They are purely a prediction assuming the math is correct and that dividing by zero is actually describing something real. That's just bad science. Science involves measurement and observation to be considered science. Black Holes, event horizons, singularities, that stuff is all pure fantasy. It's the most fanciful conjecture.
              Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Sag A* is not a black hole, I'd love to know what it is. It's clearly a super-massive object--4.1 *million* times more massive than our own sun. Multiple stars whipping around it at orbital periods of 15-30 years. it isn't particularly luminous--only emits little bit of radio energy. Until someone comes up with another model or theory that better matches what we're seeing, it's a black hole.
              nothing can stop me now

              Comment


              • #67
                Dirk part of the problem is when a given circumstance can be perfectly described and predicted by two different theories. For example, if I'm predicting a cannon shot, Newtonian as well as Relativistic physics give me the correct solution.

                The other problem is to what extent is there a physical reality representing a mathematical solution?

                The other other problem is how much should we *speculate* (no matter how mathematically beautiful) on matters that are unobservable - ever - and therefore by definition, unscientific? Roger Penrose addressed this recently with his book "Fashion, Faith, And Fantasy in the New Physics. He caught some hell from his peers for it, but it was a much needed humble perspective. I often find the real geniuses are not nearly as certain of their theories as their subsequent followers are. Or at least had far more nuanced positions. Einstein and Darwin being perfect examples.
                ~Brandon

                Soma Sonus
                DriverVault

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by augerpro View Post
                  I often find the real geniuses are not nearly as certain of their theories as their subsequent followers are. Or at least had far more nuanced positions. Einstein and Darwin being perfect examples.
                  That's because real geniuses are open to new ideas, otherwise they wouldn't have any. If you approach anything with the attitude that it can't be done that doesn't mean it can't be done, only that you won't be the one to do it.

                  www.billfitzmaurice.com
                  www.billfitzmaurice.info/forum

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by augerpro View Post
                    Dirk part of the problem is when a given circumstance can be perfectly described and predicted by two different theories. For example, if I'm predicting a cannon shot, Newtonian as well as Relativistic physics give me the correct solution.

                    The other problem is to what extent is there a physical reality representing a mathematical solution?

                    The other other problem is how much should we *speculate* (no matter how mathematically beautiful) on matters that are unobservable - ever - and therefore by definition, unscientific? Roger Penrose addressed this recently with his book "Fashion, Faith, And Fantasy in the New Physics. He caught some hell from his peers for it, but it was a much needed humble perspective. I often find the real geniuses are not nearly as certain of their theories as their subsequent followers are. Or at least had far more nuanced positions. Einstein and Darwin being perfect examples.
                    But are they unobservable? Maybe they are not--directly, anyway. Maybe Hawking is right, and there's no such thing as a hard event horizon to even capture in an image. Maybe the guy who did the science consulting for Interstellar was right, and that an active black hole really would glow with a wrap-around halo. Maybe we just need better telescopes.

                    But even if we cannot directly observe them, we can still gather indirect data. If that data matches prediction, that's a pretty good sign we're onto something.

                    The interesting thing about black holes, is that they were theorized before we had *any* physical data that suggested they existed. Einstein theorized that given enough gravity, there would be a place in the universe where spacetime was so deformed that there was no longer any way "out". No possible vectors that lead away from that point. A model was created, and now we're finding celestial objects that fit fairly neatly into the inferred behavior of such an anomaly. Not the other way 'round. Is it possible that this is just a coincidence, and that what we observe is not a black hole, but something else? Sure. And I'll concede that black hole theory has been around long enough that maybe it's hard to turn the boat. But if what we are observing are NOT black holes as predicted by the Einsteinian model of space-time, then any new model or hypothesis needs to fit the existing data while also not violating too many first principles.
                    nothing can stop me now

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Dirk View Post

                      But are they unobservable? Maybe they are not--directly, anyway. Maybe Hawking is right, and there's no such thing as a hard event horizon to even capture in an image. Maybe the guy who did the science consulting for Interstellar was right, and that an active black hole really would glow with a wrap-around halo. Maybe we just need better telescopes.

                      But even if we cannot directly observe them, we can still gather indirect data. If that data matches prediction, that's a pretty good sign we're onto something.

                      The interesting thing about black holes, is that they were theorized before we had *any* physical data that suggested they existed. Einstein theorized that given enough gravity, there would be a place in the universe where spacetime was so deformed that there was no longer any way "out". No possible vectors that lead away from that point. A model was created, and now we're finding celestial objects that fit fairly neatly into the inferred behavior of such an anomaly. Not the other way 'round. Is it possible that this is just a coincidence, and that what we observe is not a black hole, but something else? Sure. And I'll concede that black hole theory has been around long enough that maybe it's hard to turn the boat. But if what we are observing are NOT black holes as predicted by the Einsteinian model of space-time, then any new model or hypothesis needs to fit the existing data while also not violating too many first principles.
                      We still need 3 models to describe an atom. I am not overly excited about blackhole theories. We do have several really good songs since they have become mainstream conversation though.
                      craigk

                      " Voicing is often the term used for band aids to cover for initial design/planning errors " - Pallas

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Black hole sun?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...C1ekygnUMWYD7n
                          craigk

                          " Voicing is often the term used for band aids to cover for initial design/planning errors " - Pallas

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            That guy ain't no Tom Lehrer.
                            nothing can stop me now

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Dirk View Post
                              That guy ain't no Tom Lehrer.
                              You got that right
                              craigk

                              " Voicing is often the term used for band aids to cover for initial design/planning errors " - Pallas

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Dirk View Post

                                But are they unobservable? Maybe they are not--directly, anyway. Maybe Hawking is right, and there's no such thing as a hard event horizon to even capture in an image. Maybe the guy who did the science consulting for Interstellar was right, and that an active black hole really would glow with a wrap-around halo. Maybe we just need better telescopes.

                                But even if we cannot directly observe them, we can still gather indirect data. If that data matches prediction, that's a pretty good sign we're onto something.

                                The interesting thing about black holes, is that they were theorized before we had *any* physical data that suggested they existed. Einstein theorized that given enough gravity, there would be a place in the universe where spacetime was so deformed that there was no longer any way "out". No possible vectors that lead away from that point. A model was created, and now we're finding celestial objects that fit fairly neatly into the inferred behavior of such an anomaly. Not the other way 'round. Is it possible that this is just a coincidence, and that what we observe is not a black hole, but something else? Sure. And I'll concede that black hole theory has been around long enough that maybe it's hard to turn the boat. But if what we are observing are NOT black holes as predicted by the Einsteinian model of space-time, then any new model or hypothesis needs to fit the existing data while also not violating too many first principles.
                                Consider what we use in this hobby to push air molecules around. Electromagnetism.

                                Consider that almost all observable matter in the universe is a highly charged body being in the plasma state. Moving plasma is by definition equal to a flowing current. If plasma accelerates, that moving current produces a magnetic field in response. And so on, and so forth according to Maxwell's equations. Now consider that highly charged particles are completely dominated by electromagnetic forces with gravity as mere afterthought. If that weren't the case, things like CRTs wouldn't work.

                                What is going to dominate the behavior of plasma in an object the size of a galaxy? Gravity or electromagnetism?

                                Because stars and interstellar gases are actually plasma, might there instead by a powerful magnetic pole caused by the flow of ions that makes it look like something massive.

                                We assume that it's gravity causing the motion. What if it isn't?

                                Look at Mercury. Bombarded by solar wind which is mostly positively charged ions. It's like a giant (+) battery terminal. Now, set the charge in motion. It's now a current making a helical path through space while following a highly charged plasma sphere through the galaxy. How much force is exerted on Mercury by it's induced magnetic field with the solar induced current? These objects are flying through space with massively different electrical charge and must be generating some very significant forces in response.according to Maxwell's equations. Neutral matter is dominated by gravity. But there's not much neutral matter in comparison.
                                R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                                Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                                95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
                                Gravity is an overrated force on the cosmic scale. Physicists are missing the bigger picture. They fell into a black hole and were never seen advancing the understanding of the cosmos again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X