Infinite Blueshift and Infinite Momentum

[kmarinas86]

Infinity is not a number.<br />Does it makes sense that something would have infinite momentum?<br /><br />No mutiple of an integer can equal infinity. Therefore infinity should be a physical barrier.<br /><br />One of two things would be necessary and sufficient for infinite momentum to occur: 1) an infinite force in a finite time, or 2) a finite force in infinite time.<br /><br />Infinite force implies infinite power and implies an infinite source of energy. An object is convertible to pure energy (gammy rays) at relativistic speeds. E=h<i>v</i>, where E is the energy of a photon, h is planck's constant, and <i>v</i> is the frequency. Infinite blueshift implies infinite frequency and infinite energy. This however, makes no sense, since no product of an finite integer and a finite frequency can equal infinity. So if you cannot justify the existence of photons with infinite momentum, then how can you justify light passing the schwarzschild radius - a barrier of infinite gravitational blueshift? You can't! Notice also, the curvature associated with gravitational time dilation causes a physical time delay. Light travels a less direct line in curved space. Curved space slows down everything inside of it, including photons and the observers of photons. This is to say a physical slowing of the speed of light does not say light does not travel at c in all cases. It always travels at c to an observer. However, affects the timing of light's return does depend on gravity:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_effect<br /><br />Realize that the energy of a photon is proportional to it's frequency. Inside one path, or "world line", the frequency of photon as time passes is proportional to the gravitational time dilation as time passes. This to say, as a photon moves through space, its energy is proportional gravitational time dilation (i.e. increased curvature of space). But massless photons

 

[vogon13]

Are you asking about the Planck temperature?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Are you asking about the Planck temperature?</font><br /><br />No, but what you ask is a very relevant question. What is the temperature of a black hole?<br /><br />LOL. Thanks alot! I needed that <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />This has been answered in other places. But indeed, the temperature of the black hole is very relevant here.

 

[kmarinas86]

The temperature of a black hole is said to be very low, not much different than the ambient temperature in space. That is strange, because one would think that it would get really hot in there if objects approach it with a lot of kinetic energy.

 

[vogon13]

Per Hawking, temp of black hole is inversely proportional to mass.<br /><br />{just thought of this: any black hole with temp lower than cosmic background radiation temp of 2.73 deg, will be accreting photons faster than it is evaporating them off, and therefore, in this epoch of the universe, is still growing regardless of proximity to other matter. Profound!} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-61.html<br /><font color="yellow">Q: <br />The temperature of a black hole is only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. How is this possible when the black hole ingests everything within its grasp ? What happens to the matter and energy captured by the black hole ? <br /><br />A: <br />The temperature of an object in thermal equilibrium is related to the rate at which object radiates energy divided by its area. As shown by Stephen Hawking and others, this relation can be applied to black holes if the area is taken to be the surface area described by the event horizon. The energy radiated by a black hole is for all practical purposes zero, so the temperature is very close to zero. An extremely small amount of energy is radiated by the Hawking process, but this is negligible for a stellar mass black hole or larger. The matter and energy captured by a black hole is trapped there forever, and the mass of the black hole increases.</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[vogon13]

I get one right once in a while.....<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"How can one really justify the existence of a singularity given that the assumptions above are true?"<br /><br />right. thank you. <br /><br />what's for dinner? <br /><br /> <br />

 

[bonzelite]

black hole: ambient temperature at event horizon is absolute zero. or near that, as nothing can escape, including heat. and what is inside of it cannot be seen or otherwise accounted for unless it is observed. <br /><br />when you approach a refrigerator, and prior to opening it, there is nothing inside or any observation of anything inside. <br /><br />you open the door. and there is food and drinks and shelves. you can remove, at will, mechanically and observationally, anything inside that you wish, except for the refrigerator itself, from itself. <br /><br />once you close the door, in effect creating the event horizon, you renounce all observation and influence over the material within the refrigerator from ever having existed, as it is not observed or attainable as long as the door remains closed, infinitely, as nothing escapes. the door opening is an impossible violation of quantum mechanics for illustration purposes only. <br /><br />therefore, the event horizon infinitely does not exist, as it cannot be observed, quantified or measured, or reconciled. nor do the contents within it, the trapped matter, all the way to the singularity, exist, as they do not exist unless observed or measured against infinite moments. the black hole does not exist, yet infinitely decays with an infinite half-life. forever. <br /><br />assuming the universe is finite, then at a point, all known matter is consumed by black holes, as the body eats it's own flesh to prevent starvatioin. <br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

A neutron star collapsing to the schwarzschild radius would evaporate in a finite tine. Given an observer of mass experiencing near-infinite gravitational time dilation inside this collapsing star, this observer would be converted into matter and antimatter after being accelerated to high enough relativistic speeds with immense heat and friction. Annihilation could result in the loss of mass and the release of gamma rays. The mass of a collapsing star cannot pass a barrier of infinite gravitational time dilation, because infinity is not a number, and there is no such thing as a wavelength of zero.

 

[yevaud]

<i>...this observer would be converted into matter and antimatter...</i><br /><br />Actually, the observer would be "spaghettified" by tidal forces long before anything else occurred.<br /><br /><i>...and there is no such thing as a wavelength of zero.</i><br /><br />No, but it would asymptotically get closer and closer to zero. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Actually, the observer would be "spaghettified" by tidal forces long before anything else occurred.</font><br /><br />You're right on that.

 

[kmarinas86]

Are you denying the reality of gravitational time dilation and the Shapiro effect? Both of them are experimentally confirmed, contrary to what you imply. In addition to this, E=h<i>v</i> is supported by fact.<br /><br />Correlation does not prove causation. <br /><br />Are implying the falsehood that this has to with Raelian Movement?<br /><br />Guess again.<br /><br />Conventional big bang theory, singularities, and black holes have no contradiction with Raelian philosophy, since none of the Raelian messages make any statements about the them.<br /><br />I personally, however, am contradicting the notion of the singularity with fact so simple, it escapes you that they are fact. I have said that a photon cannot have an infinite frequency. That is literally true. There cannot be a photon with infinite energy. To say that a photon must do so at the schwarzschild radius implies the non-existence of a schwarzschild radius. That's too simple for you to believe though. For a propellantless object approaching a celestial body without an atmosphere, the velocity at impact is equal to or greater than the escape velocity, therefore, a schwarzschild radius (having an escape velocity of the speed of light) can only exist if matter attains the speed of light or greater.

 

[yevaud]

You forget something: you are looking at this with respect to our own standard understanding of Physics. Yet a Singularity - by definition - means "a region of space where Physics as we understand it breaks down." So there's no telling what might actually occur. <br /><br />For example, recent experiments have stopped light cold in it's tracks. So what's it's frequency or wavelength? It's not in motion. Does it even have one, or is it just a quanta? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Well, there is much we do not know about light; however, I think that peak performance is opaque, and this is regardless of whether or not we are talking about a black hole or a white hole. And of course, the color is relevant to mass or non-mass, or density. I am not really sure how to do the math on this yet, but it involves +( E = mc ² ) and/or -( E = mc ² ).

 

[bonzelite]

good premise: "You forget something: you are looking at this with respect to our own standard understanding of Physics. Yet a Singularity - by definition - means "a region of space where Physics as we understand it breaks down." So there's no telling what might actually occur."<br /><br />---and yet an entire basis for moving forward with exploration and research hangs its hat on black holes and big bangs and all of the singularity-based pieces of alphabet soup --as if it were assumed all to be *fact*. facts are then based on understandings of physics that break down and are not understood. welcome to the boom town, baby. <br />

 

[bonzelite]

this is pretty cool sounding: <br /><br />"A neutron star collapsing to the schwarzschild radius would evaporate in a finite time. Given an observer of mass experiencing near-infinite gravitational time dilation inside this collapsing star, this observer would be converted into matter and antimatter after being accelerated to high enough relativistic speeds with immense heat and friction. Annihilation could result in the loss of mass and the release of gamma rays. The mass of a collapsing star cannot pass a barrier of infinite gravitational time dilation, because infinity is not a number, and there is no such thing as a wavelength of zero."<br /><br />the barrier of infinite time dilation here can be the symbolic "refrigerator door" that demarcates the finite from the infinite. and it creates paradoxes.<br /><br />this thread is cool.

 

[yevaud]

Yeah, *but* - they have effects in *this* region of space, and we know what they are, *and* have detected many of them. Cygnus X-1 as a good (and early on) example.<br /><br />It's just right at the event horizon, physics breaks down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the closest we've come to fact is identifying objects in the sky that might be black holes, neutron stars, etc.<br /><br />the whole idea of a singularity is a free lunch. this is what the big bang must have been. it was of an infinite density, then exploded spontaneously, for no reason, to create what we have today. <br /><br />if anything, a singularity must beget a big bang on the other side, that which is beyond our view. the event horizon is the curtain between universes, then. and, then, why is the big bang finished? it would follow to reason that the big bang, as it eminates from a singularity, is CONTINUOUSLY fed by collapsed matter falling beyond the event horizon of some other unseen black hole, into it's constituent singularity. <br /><br />further still, there could be multiple big bangs within this universe as there are mulitple black holes within this universe. the bangs are not really sudden events, but are perpetual feeding springs that pump matter into space time. like underground springs filing a lake. and this process is reciprocal, parallel, and simultaneous. <br /><br />since the singularity concept is carte blanche to do whatever you want, multiple fissures in spacetime can entirely be assumed.