http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum A forum for people who are bored counting photons en Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:49:12 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/vb3bluesaint/misc/rss.jpg http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15049&goto=newpost Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:46:22 GMT Ok im a nutter and an idiot.
Is there a singularity at the point of a star before it goes "bang" or "pff"...As some of you may know im really interested in gravity...As a point I think gravity may be a dimension. So you get all that gravity (black hole) and the dimension cant take anymore...so it springs leaks...those leaks come to our dimension and attracts matter...The matter is always there...but sometimes it lacks gravity..Anti-matter...sorry I didnt explain that right (edit)...the anti-matter is tied in with the matter of stars at the heart of a growing singularity. PS thnx for the 5 stars! ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics thedeester1 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15049 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15048&goto=newpost Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:58:36 GMT I am a bit confused about black holes disappearing due to virtual particle production on the event horizon.

1) Is there a theory that says somehow real particles are converted to virtual particles inside a black hole? If so, shouldn't the converse also occur; that should lead to black holes gaining mass with no help from the outside. If real particles are NOT converted to virtual particles, how does Hawking radiation reduce the mass of a black holes?

2) If a photon or particle pair are created on the event horizon and one falls into the hole while the other is ejected (at what velocity?), doesn't the infalling half have energy (mass) to add?

3) If the ejected partiicle has a speed much less than that of light, should it not fall back into the hole (obviously, photons should be able to escape).

4) As a virtual (now real?) photon escapes from the event horizon, it must climb out of an emormously deep (for some black holes) gravity well.
Will such radiation be detected as having an extermely low frequency?

5) When a pair is split on the event horizon, they should be correlated. Can the part outside the black hole carry information about the part inside the black hole (spooky action at a distance)?

-- Ken Bloom ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics fkbloom http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15048 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15046&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:58:22 GMT While I understand that the graviton is a hypothetical partical, I had the following thought. Gravity is known as a week force and is proportional to mass. As I understand it, If we were to remove our Sun the earth would still feel the effects of gravity for some minutes. This implies to me that... While I understand that the graviton is a hypothetical partical, I had the following thought. Gravity is known as a week force and is proportional to mass. As I understand it, If we were to remove our Sun the earth would still feel the effects of gravity for some minutes. This implies to me that space remains warped until the mechanism which warped it is no longer in effect?

Now if we move this scenario to a black hole, where gravity is so strong that light can not escape, why would we expect a graviton to escape, yet we know that a black hole has enormous gravity
that effects it's surrounding space. Both the photon and the graviton (if it exists) are massless particles, why would the photon be effected when the graviton isn't?

If gravitons exist surely we would expect to see that a black holes gravity would be confined to the black hole itself and not effect surrounding space, just as light is trapped within the black hole?
My thoughts are primarily along the lines that surely this proves that gravitons can not exist and that some other mechanism must be at play in order to warp space around a black hole?? ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics GRAViL http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15046 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15039&goto=newpost Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:31:39 GMT The world of anti-matter sounds like something only for fiction stories because scientific professionals seem to have not found any reason to believe it yet. I in fact is not a professional in physics (I am a philosopher) but I like to read physics. I see the world of anti-matter to be quite... The world of anti-matter sounds like something only for fiction stories because scientific professionals seem to have not
found any reason to believe it yet. I in fact is not a professional in physics (I am a philosopher) but I like to
read physics. I see the world of anti-matter to be quite possibly real, not by fictitious imagination, but by reason.

Some scientific professionals have been telling us that there were huge amount of anti-matter during the early
period of this universe, much more than the total amount of matter we are having today in the observable universe.
And then, according to the scientific professionals, most anti-matter collided with matter then turn back to energy
together, and the rest of a litter amount of anti-matter just disappeared, and left the matter to form the universe
today.

For the mysterious reason of the disapearance of the rest of anti-matter, scientific professionals have made some
assumption that they just decayed, which seem have not been universally accepted among scientific professionals.

However, in the mean time, scientific professionals have also been telling us that the space is expanding, and the
rapid expansion have created some physically isolated regions, which could not communicate with each other AT ALL
because their recession speed is greater than speed of light. Well, this IN FACT provides a much cleaner and better
explanation for the disappearance of the rest of anti-matter:

at the very beginning, there were matter and anti-
matter, but their distribution in space-time was not completely absolutely homogeneous, at the different remote
sides of the "cloud", some was occupied by excess of matter and some other was occupied by excess of anti-matter.
When most matter and anti-matter were colliding with each other and turned back to energy, those remote orphan
matter and anti-matter were left out because their counter-parties were in the region with recession speed relative
to them greater than light speed. And then these matter and anti-matter cooled down to form their own universes, which would not communicate with each other due to the greater than light speed recession speed.

If what I laid out above is the truth, then a world of anti-matter would exist somewhere and would not communicate with our universe in non-quantum manner. Maybe we don't need to worry about their coming back. But would that possible for us to meet with them in some quantum way and then together turn back to energy? ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics ronald_dai http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15039 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15038&goto=newpost Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:51:37 GMT Picture this condition:

YOU & YOUR WORST FRIEND ARE STANDING IN SPACE. (sounds exciting?)
ANYWAY, YOU HAVE A STICK WITH YOU & YOU WANT TO BEAT HIM/HER.
LET US CONSIDER THE STICK IS TIED TO YOUR HAND, & YOUR FRIEND STAYS NEAR YOU ALL THE TIME, i.e. LETS SAY THEY WONT FLOAT AWAY FROM YOU.

NOW TELL ME:

HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU BEAT YOUR FRIEND??

&

WHY??

&

please let me know if you all think this is a stupid question..

:lolbonk: ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics Riley http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15038 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15028&goto=newpost Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:48:53 GMT OK I have an issue understanding super massive black holes. Learning about the search for the Higgs bosom made me wonder. The search for that infinitely tiny piece of actual matter, could that be what black holes are made of? And as they grow, devour more matter they grow in size gobbling up... OK I have an issue understanding super massive black holes. Learning about the search for the Higgs bosom made me wonder.

The search for that infinitely tiny piece of actual matter, could that be what black holes are made of? And as they grow, devour more matter they grow in size gobbling up whatever may come bye?

I don't understand the Higgs that well, nor do I understand black holes all that well but what if the black hold crushed everything down to the tiny bits of matter and packed them tightly at their core I'd imagine the gravity, density and mass of such an object would be off the charts.

Just wondering, thinking of a black hole as one very tiny point never did it for me, it just didn't explain super massive black holes. Something like this does even if it's wrong... ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics Swampie http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15028 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15026&goto=newpost Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:18:11 GMT I propose that leptogenesis in the early universe (thought to be just a few seconds after the 'Big Bang') produced equal quantities of both electrons and positrons. However, as the universe was expanding so fast, some of them separated beyond c ..... and this really is key; Imagine two such electrons e1 & e2, undergoing superluminal divorce - However, this may not be the case for their corresponding positrons (p1 & p2).
eg;- e1 & p2, e2 & p1 may well be relatively local ...... now here's the big "IF"

If an electron - positron pair are just mere points within a timespace hoop of specific rotational direction (one in which the rotation goes from electron to positron) - could it be, that from the frame of the electrons - both local positrons appear to be electrons, brought about by means of a rotational inversion, created via superluminal departure of their electron twins? - This type of mechanism might hold true for all particles created within the inflationary period of the universe!

Wow - that feels better ..... getting that codswallop off me chest.

So there we have it - half the electrons in our 'section' of the universe may be simply 'backwards' positrons. ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics Fivedoughnut http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15026 http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15025&goto=newpost Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:58:59 GMT Are any of the predicted sources of gravitational waves continuous sources? ironman Are any of the predicted sources of gravitational waves continuous sources?

ironman ]]> Astronomy and Astrophysics ironman http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15025