I have this theory on how a singularity may form. When I find the link to the post I will link it here but in short it states that no two particles can occupy the same space at once. But what if this were not true. When a sun collapses there is an extreme amount of pressure placed upon the remaining atoms in the center of the sun. Perhaps this pressure in fact forces two or more particles together that create the super dense singularity. Just a thought.
- Status
Since physicsts are good at the hole smash atoms together thing and know the forces needed to compress atoms together to make a singularity, and say its requires stars much bigger than ours to colapse to do it. Then I would say the odds are our tiny star doing it is low. Then again they discover new things everyday.
A theory in physics is a pretty well-constructed mathematical model that purports to explain a set of observations. I trust your theory will be similarly rigorous?
I don't have the mathematical background to devise a formula for those that see in math terms, but in the part of the brain that allows for the process to be seen I can see it clearly and will try to write here the best way I can describe it.
The plasma is used up at the core, thus taking away a certain amount of pressure that is exerted outward that holds the rest of the layers above it from falling into the core. Since the core is exerting more pressure then the upper layers are this allows the weight of the top most layer to in effect cause the most pressure during the collapse. The distance of each layer above the core would create a certain amount of pressure that increases with distance. Now as the core collapses each layer above the initial layer around the core compresses on the lower layer increasing the amount of pressure multiplied by the number of layers above the lower layer. Lets say that the sun has 100 layers each layer would theoretically add 1000 times the pressure of each upper layer to the lower layer. With each of these layers collapsing at light speed or even faster then light speed the pressure would be tremendous. Since the remaining fuel at the core would most likely not be able to escape the pressure, the layers would compress any remaining atoms together until the pressure became so great as the particles at the core were forced to occupy the same space that the pressure created by the layers compressing the particles together would actually create an internal pressure inside of the particles that had been forced together at these extreme pressures of the layers of the sun collapsing. The pressure that is transferred from the collapse of the layers to the particles forced together would actually be all of the layers of the sun's forces of pressure combined at once in one space. When the pressure of the now forming singularity exceeds the ability of the collapsing layers of the sun to create a pressure greater then that which is being transferred into the singularity and is not able to hold the exerted pressure being exerted outwards from the singularity there is a violent release of energy. A majority of the fuel in a gaseous state would have been consumed by the collapse leaving behind the particles that survived the collapse. These particles would have so much gravitational force confined in one space that they might even form their own gravitational particle matrix where any actual particles
that may have been recognized before as being helium, hydrogen ect would be gone, effectively leaving behind just the gravity particles of wavelength's that would otherwise hold the particle together that would form the helium atom or hydrogen atom.
This would also prove that the graviton particle is real in so much as that in order for other particles to be combined to form a sun planet ect. that an even greater amount of gravitational pressure would have had been present to force these particles together in the first place. But then if so and the graviton was present before the Big Bang, then where did the graviton come from? Another form of gravitational pressure that is so immense that like the gravity on the Earth we don't even realize that gravity is pressing down on us.
The plasma is used up at the core, thus taking away a certain amount of pressure that is exerted outward that holds the rest of the layers above it from falling into the core. Since the core is exerting more pressure then the upper layers are this allows the weight of the top most layer to in effect cause the most pressure during the collapse. The distance of each layer above the core would create a certain amount of pressure that increases with distance. Now as the core collapses each layer above the initial layer around the core compresses on the lower layer increasing the amount of pressure multiplied by the number of layers above the lower layer. Lets say that the sun has 100 layers each layer would theoretically add 1000 times the pressure of each upper layer to the lower layer. With each of these layers collapsing at light speed or even faster then light speed the pressure would be tremendous. Since the remaining fuel at the core would most likely not be able to escape the pressure, the layers would compress any remaining atoms together until the pressure became so great as the particles at the core were forced to occupy the same space that the pressure created by the layers compressing the particles together would actually create an internal pressure inside of the particles that had been forced together at these extreme pressures of the layers of the sun collapsing. The pressure that is transferred from the collapse of the layers to the particles forced together would actually be all of the layers of the sun's forces of pressure combined at once in one space. When the pressure of the now forming singularity exceeds the ability of the collapsing layers of the sun to create a pressure greater then that which is being transferred into the singularity and is not able to hold the exerted pressure being exerted outwards from the singularity there is a violent release of energy. A majority of the fuel in a gaseous state would have been consumed by the collapse leaving behind the particles that survived the collapse. These particles would have so much gravitational force confined in one space that they might even form their own gravitational particle matrix where any actual particles
that may have been recognized before as being helium, hydrogen ect would be gone, effectively leaving behind just the gravity particles of wavelength's that would otherwise hold the particle together that would form the helium atom or hydrogen atom.
This would also prove that the graviton particle is real in so much as that in order for other particles to be combined to form a sun planet ect. that an even greater amount of gravitational pressure would have had been present to force these particles together in the first place. But then if so and the graviton was present before the Big Bang, then where did the graviton come from? Another form of gravitational pressure that is so immense that like the gravity on the Earth we don't even realize that gravity is pressing down on us.
My comment about math was because a physical theory without mathematics is all but useless, primarily for the reason that without math, we have no way of accurately testing a theory experimentally. Not to mention, the success of abstract mathematical reasoning at describing the universe is always something to marvel and wonder at, and any theory lacking it is lacking a fundamental sort of beauty 
But this is only a reason to learn some more mathematical physics.
Anyway, let's speak qualitatively, then. Your basic idea of stellar collapse is more or less right. It isn't terribly helpful to see the Sun (or any star) as being split up into "layers" as you describe them, and for reasons of special relativity, the collapse of the star's gas would certainly not occur at (or above!) the speed of light. But these are less crucial to your point.
Hmm... you lose me around the point where particles are being forced to "occupy the same space" and so-forth. If you're talking about violations of the famed Pauli exclusion principle, most star collapses (which result in white dwarfs or neutron stars) are actually able to form states that don't violate it - these are called degenerate states.
Indeed, however, the exclusion principle is thought to be violated in the singularity of a black hole. General relativity, the theory of gravity, currently says nothing about this principle, which is a quantum mechanical idea, so it will take the development of a quantum gravity theory to tell us what happens to the exclusion principle in a black hole.
But this is only a reason to learn some more mathematical physics.Anyway, let's speak qualitatively, then. Your basic idea of stellar collapse is more or less right. It isn't terribly helpful to see the Sun (or any star) as being split up into "layers" as you describe them, and for reasons of special relativity, the collapse of the star's gas would certainly not occur at (or above!) the speed of light. But these are less crucial to your point.
Hmm... you lose me around the point where particles are being forced to "occupy the same space" and so-forth. If you're talking about violations of the famed Pauli exclusion principle, most star collapses (which result in white dwarfs or neutron stars) are actually able to form states that don't violate it - these are called degenerate states.
Indeed, however, the exclusion principle is thought to be violated in the singularity of a black hole. General relativity, the theory of gravity, currently says nothing about this principle, which is a quantum mechanical idea, so it will take the development of a quantum gravity theory to tell us what happens to the exclusion principle in a black hole.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...uayhEM&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image
The layers of the sun are important. Each layer has its own function of operation and would create a varying magnitude of gravitational strength. The velocity at which these layers collapse in on the core is crucial as each layer collapses would transferee the pressure of the layer in gravitational energy to the particles being forced together. The gases are then burnt off and the remaining energy that is left is gravity. We know that a black hole does not allow light to escape so the actual collapse of the sun's layers would occur at light speed. The gravity that does not allow light to escape would then be transferred into the particles occupying the space that would then create a graviton due to the extreme amount of pressure forcing the particles. If the gravity in the graviton did not exert it's force at a faster then light speed velocity against the collapsing layers of the sun that were collapsing at light speed velocity then the singularity would not be to force it's stored energy in the form of pure gravity back out. The graviton's release of energy may not be that much faster then the speed of light but it would have to be faster then the speed of light collapse of the suns layers.
I doubt there is such a thing as a singularity. For all intensive purposes the event horizon is the boundary of the densest plasma possible where photons are all packed as tightly as they can be packed. Whether there is any "space" between the event horizon and the "singularity" will obviously never been seen. We might possibly infer from gravitational interactions whether light is pulled towards a central "singularity" or if it is pulled towards a central "blob" of dense material but the resolution needed to determine this is still beyond our capabilities.
dryson":3r71qypd said:
Oh, that's true - but there's certainly not, as you said, hundreds of them
When you talk about hundreds or thousands of layers in a star, it reminds me of the way we model stars on computers or do rough calculations by splitting the star up into very thin layers, which is different. Anyway, moving on.To be completely honest, this is (probably) the last thread in which I'll try to correct your physics. If it doesn't stick, so be it, at least I tried
Gravitational energy is not gravity. Gravity is not a type of energy (whatever that means). When we talk about gravitational potential, it's the energy that can be transferred if something moves under gravity, but energy here is a useful mathematical concept - it's deeply misleading to think of it as something physical which hangs out in space and causes gravity.It's true that a black hole doesn't allow light (or anything less fast) to escape, but that doesn't mean that things inside the event horizon move at the speed of light or faster
As a matter of fact, I just ran a quick calculation, and if you start something from rest at the horizon and let it fall into the center, its average velocity is about 0.31 (1/pi) times the speed of light. Also, during stellar collapse - when gas is still falling into the star's core - there's most certainly not a black hole at that point! So black hole physics don't come into play during the collapse phase.Here's where I think you're getting confused (another mistake of basic physics) - as we've known since Newton, force doesn't impose a velocity but rather an acceleration. So gravity doesn't "exert it's [sic] force at a faster then [sic] light speed velocity". It exerts an acceleration. Incidentally, the reason something can't be accelerated to light speed is that as its speed increases (and in turn, it's kinetic energy), it's mass actually increases - think E = mc^2 - so the force does less and less. Since F=ma, as mass increases, the acceleration decreases. The grand finale is that nothing can get accelerated to light speed.
Again, hopefully you'll understand this (or, if I'm being insufficiently clear, which is very possible, at least you'll make an effort to learn some very fundamental physics). After this, I'm done
Yes gravity is an energy as gravity pushes and pulls on objects. If gravity wasn't an energy or magnetic in at least some of it's particulars then our circulatory system which has iron in the blood would not circulate So gravity is an energy because it exerts is force upon another force that creates a motion or movement.
dryson":2t3l7xmc said:
I'm only going to put effort into this because it'll be quick - there is more than one force. In our everyday experience, magnetism and gravity are not the same, so when something that happens because of the magnetic force, there's no need to attribute it to gravity.
For hopefully the last time, please go learn some physics. You'll thank yourself for it.
I think your (dryson) confusion is coming from the difference between gravity and gravitational energy. The term gravity usually refers to the force of gravity whereas gravitational energy refers to the energy associated with this force.
As far as singularities are concerned, true singularies seem to cause several problems with most physics models, such as infinite energy densities, etc. It is my belief that true singularities do not exist. However, exotic situations where matter is compressed to a highly dense state may very well exist. Unfortunately, most situations where this may occur are hidden behind an event horizon where the apparent singularity cannot be observed. There appears to be somewhat of a mathematical event horizon as well since most theories break down behind the event horizon and the ones that don't are incomplete. Although, certain theories do propose that it is possible for "naked" singularities to form, yet these would be rare and very difficult to detect.
This is a very interesting area of research and I would love to see a complete theory to emerge as to what happens behing the event horizon. I suppose we are a long way off from this, though.
As far as singularities are concerned, true singularies seem to cause several problems with most physics models, such as infinite energy densities, etc. It is my belief that true singularities do not exist. However, exotic situations where matter is compressed to a highly dense state may very well exist. Unfortunately, most situations where this may occur are hidden behind an event horizon where the apparent singularity cannot be observed. There appears to be somewhat of a mathematical event horizon as well since most theories break down behind the event horizon and the ones that don't are incomplete. Although, certain theories do propose that it is possible for "naked" singularities to form, yet these would be rare and very difficult to detect.
This is a very interesting area of research and I would love to see a complete theory to emerge as to what happens behing the event horizon. I suppose we are a long way off from this, though.
I think "dangineer" gets to the root of the question when he points out that the laws of physics as we know them tend to break down into mathematical mush once one falls behind the curtain of the event horizon. We simply don't know what goes on in there, or even what's possible.
There appears to be plenty of evidence now that there are objects in the universe which are so dense and compact, as deduced by their effect on nearby stars, that the principles governing normal matter - particularly the Pauli Exclusion Principle - don't seem to apply to them. What happens to the matter in these bodies can only be guessed at or imagined. Some say everything in them is smashed into a point-like object. Others speculate that this super dense object rips a hole in space-time and pops out in another place or time in our Universe or, perhaps, in someone else's Universe.
Despite our ignorance about the inner workings of these strange objects, we're pretty sure they exist.
Chris
There appears to be plenty of evidence now that there are objects in the universe which are so dense and compact, as deduced by their effect on nearby stars, that the principles governing normal matter - particularly the Pauli Exclusion Principle - don't seem to apply to them. What happens to the matter in these bodies can only be guessed at or imagined. Some say everything in them is smashed into a point-like object. Others speculate that this super dense object rips a hole in space-time and pops out in another place or time in our Universe or, perhaps, in someone else's Universe.
Despite our ignorance about the inner workings of these strange objects, we're pretty sure they exist.
Chris
Not really, I have been working on a non-mathematical geometrically related model dealing with gravitons that might be able to explain what goes on inside of black hole. I can say for certain though that it takes at least six gravitons of equal size tangent to one another to create one unit of time. This can be easily seen by drawing four tangent circles and then shading in the area where the circles are not tangent.
dryson":340pn5al said:
Feel free to keep trying your theories out, it's good to get intellectual practice, but if you're interested in understanding the universe - and possibly constructing theories that might help better explain it - there are two things you need to do. The first, as I've told you several times before, is to learn physics, from the basics and work up slowly. The second is to learn the relevant math. Neither is an easy task, and to any satisfactory level (if such a thing exists) will take years, but without that, any theory you construct is bound to be pretty flawed speculation and moreover, I assure you, it's completely worth it.
This is just friendly advice
But by all means, continue your line of thought and post any thoughts you have here, and what we're able to comment on, we certainly will.Feel free to keep trying your theories out, it's good to get intellectual practice, but if you're interested in understanding the universe - and possibly constructing theories that might help better explain it - there are two things you need to do. The first, as I've told you several times before, is to learn physics, from the basics and work up slowly. The second is to learn the relevant math. Neither is an easy task, and to any satisfactory level (if such a thing exists) will take years, but without that, any theory you construct is bound to be pretty flawed speculation and moreover, I assure you, it's completely worth it.
This is just friendly advice
Actually physics is not what needs to be studied first, basic geometry is what needs to be learnt first as there is only one geometric shape known to humanity that is responsible for creating a galaxy.
And therin lies your problem. If you think you can propose realistic theories while ignoring all of our current physics understanding, you're starting with an 0-2 count.
I feel sorry for you Meteor Wayne, you continue to delete my post's because of your inability to understand or capitilize on what I am saying. Everything that I have posted does relate to physics,geometry and trigonometry and just because you can't understand it does not mean you have the right to delete it. I suggest YOU go back and study engineering, math geometry and the other related maths, physics is NOT what governs the Universe and all you are trying to do is too cover up your inability to understand.
dryson":1vkz3x6l said:
ROFL
:lol:
First of all, I have not deleted your posts, and you should retract that accusation immediately. I have moved them to the proper forum, that is all. There is one exception, where you discussed moderator actions in an open forum. If you read the rules and guidelines, you would know that is not permitted. You have been warned about that.
I'm not covering up anything, just trying to enforce the rules of Space.com. If you don't care about that, it is your choice.
As a moderator, I have to care about that.
This thread too seems to have an Unexplained target on it. I hope that's not the case, but we shall see.
Wayne
dryson":1jc9p6ki said:
Dryson, can't you at least be consistent? We all just saw you say "physics is NOT what governs the Universe". A silly statement, admittedly, but if you're going to make it, then stick to it.
Dryson,
You said:
"This thread is under physics which relates to the formation of a singularity."
In what sense do you you feel that physics is related to the formation of a singularity?
In the context of my question I refer to the Wikipedia definition of "physics": "Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.[3][4]".
There is the "...study of matter and its motion through spacetime..." with which most of us participating in this forum are familiar and which is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This body of work is supported by a long history of verified (and verifiable) observations, theories consistent with those observations and mathematical relationships consistent with both the theories and the observations. A healthy debate about observations of physical phenomena, the theories proposed to explain those observations and the mathematical relationships those theories imply has always been an integral part of the scientific process.
That said, there is a quote popularized by the astronomer and author Carl Sagan which goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you claim that a commonly accepted theory in physics is wrong and that you've developed a more satisfactory and self-consistent theory to explain a phenomenon (the formation of a singularity) then you must, at least, provide sufficient detail and completeness for your theory to be examined, tested and questioned. This is the so-called "peer review" process that forms a part of the "healthy debate" I mentioned above.
I look forward to your next post which, I hope, will provide us with the means to examine your claims.
Chris
You said:
"This thread is under physics which relates to the formation of a singularity."
In what sense do you you feel that physics is related to the formation of a singularity?
In the context of my question I refer to the Wikipedia definition of "physics": "Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.[3][4]".
There is the "...study of matter and its motion through spacetime..." with which most of us participating in this forum are familiar and which is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This body of work is supported by a long history of verified (and verifiable) observations, theories consistent with those observations and mathematical relationships consistent with both the theories and the observations. A healthy debate about observations of physical phenomena, the theories proposed to explain those observations and the mathematical relationships those theories imply has always been an integral part of the scientific process.
That said, there is a quote popularized by the astronomer and author Carl Sagan which goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you claim that a commonly accepted theory in physics is wrong and that you've developed a more satisfactory and self-consistent theory to explain a phenomenon (the formation of a singularity) then you must, at least, provide sufficient detail and completeness for your theory to be examined, tested and questioned. This is the so-called "peer review" process that forms a part of the "healthy debate" I mentioned above.
I look forward to your next post which, I hope, will provide us with the means to examine your claims.
Chris
Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether singularities exist or, if they do, how it is that they might form - let's suppose that they do exist. I've always had a problem with the concept that a humongus pile of matter could somehow shrink to an "infinitesimal point" and cease to exist - leaving a gravitational field behind.
A thought just recently occurred to me which I'm sure others have thought about, too. Consider the theorized conditions immediately after the Big Bang (whether this theory is correct or not is the subject of another thread). Things were so hot and dense that no matter could exist for any significant time since it would immediately be smashed to pieces by extremely energetic photons. Even the pieces would be smashed to pieces.
Suppose the matter that falls into a black hole gets compressed to some breaking point where it decomposes into photons (E=mc^2). Then all the energetic photons would be trapped in one place (the black hole) because the gravity generated by their own enormously intense and concentrated energy is too much for them to overcome. Putting it another way, the escape velocity inside the black hole would be greater than the speed of light.
If this were the case, then the inside of a black hole would be a sort of "sun" of photons and the average temperature inside the event horizon could be calculated using E=mc^2 (for the mass that's been converted into energy), the number of photons created (from the number of nucleons converted into photons) and the Swarzschild radius (although I'm not sure the volume matters in this case). I wonder if someone has already made this calculation?
Does anyone see any flaws in this line of reasoning?
Chris
A thought just recently occurred to me which I'm sure others have thought about, too. Consider the theorized conditions immediately after the Big Bang (whether this theory is correct or not is the subject of another thread). Things were so hot and dense that no matter could exist for any significant time since it would immediately be smashed to pieces by extremely energetic photons. Even the pieces would be smashed to pieces.
Suppose the matter that falls into a black hole gets compressed to some breaking point where it decomposes into photons (E=mc^2). Then all the energetic photons would be trapped in one place (the black hole) because the gravity generated by their own enormously intense and concentrated energy is too much for them to overcome. Putting it another way, the escape velocity inside the black hole would be greater than the speed of light.
If this were the case, then the inside of a black hole would be a sort of "sun" of photons and the average temperature inside the event horizon could be calculated using E=mc^2 (for the mass that's been converted into energy), the number of photons created (from the number of nucleons converted into photons) and the Swarzschild radius (although I'm not sure the volume matters in this case). I wonder if someone has already made this calculation?
Does anyone see any flaws in this line of reasoning?
Chris
csmyth3025":1wqp247e said:
Yes, if I may
Well, it doesn't really "cease to exist." We don't currently have the physics to describe the singularity (or whether one even forms), since that requires a reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, but the matter definitely doesn't "go away". If there's no matter, there's no gravitational field
Bear in mind there are smallest-possible pieces, called elementary particles. These guys were the ones flying around in the earliest moments of the universe.
Well, that's the big problem. Matter doesn't decompose into photons. It can "decompose" into other elementary particles (quarks and so on) but they wouldn't be photons.
Except for the photons thing, sure
Not worth thinking about until we know what happens to matter at the center of a black hole
In other words, what form it's in, etc. You calculate a temperature from kinetic energy, whereas E (the one equal to mc^2) is a total rest energy of mass. Calculating temperature from that alone would give you a funny result! Think about it like this: let's say you're a rather skinny person, with a mass of 50 kg (about 110 lb). By E=mc^2, your rest energy is a whopping 4.5 * 10^18 joules. If we use the ideal gas conversion from energy to temperature, this corresponds to 3.9 * 10^41 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 3,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. You are not that hot - Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
-
Hubble telescope celebrates 34th anniversary with an iridescent Dumbbell Nebula (image)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram