- Status
Thanks dangineer,
Sorry to hear about the weather in El Centro. I hear it's a lot more comfortable in Minot, ND in January and February
As regards the conditions that might exist inside a black hole (i.e., within the event horizon), I know that there's no way we can definitively describe conditions there base on the physics we know at present. I was just speculating. One point I'm unclear on, though. In the Big Bang model I thought that there was an early period when theorists conjecture that quarks were created by the collision of energetic photons. Am I mistaken about this?
Chris
Sorry to hear about the weather in El Centro. I hear it's a lot more comfortable in Minot, ND in January and February
As regards the conditions that might exist inside a black hole (i.e., within the event horizon), I know that there's no way we can definitively describe conditions there base on the physics we know at present. I was just speculating. One point I'm unclear on, though. In the Big Bang model I thought that there was an early period when theorists conjecture that quarks were created by the collision of energetic photons. Am I mistaken about this?Chris
I don't think quarks were made by the collisions of photons. I believe that quark and antiquark pairs sort of "crystalized" out of the dense homogenous energy of the Big Bang, which was supposedly made of high energy photons. I'm not sure of the details here, though, maybe someone can fill me in.
Regardless, there is a big difference between the early universe and what's inside a black hole. In the early universe, before baryogenesis, the universe had an equal amount of matter and anitmatter. Thus, going backwards in time it is easy to see all the matter and antimatter annihilating and turning into photons. Black holes, on the other hand, are made almost entirely out of ordinary matter, and so the stuff at the center is not likely to be in the form of photons.
Regardless, there is a big difference between the early universe and what's inside a black hole. In the early universe, before baryogenesis, the universe had an equal amount of matter and anitmatter. Thus, going backwards in time it is easy to see all the matter and antimatter annihilating and turning into photons. Black holes, on the other hand, are made almost entirely out of ordinary matter, and so the stuff at the center is not likely to be in the form of photons.
Not true totally true, bosons, particle who's quantum spin is 1, (e.i )like photons can occupy the same space ( quantum state ) at once. The only real limit is energy density, pile up enought photons( energy or matter) at any one location you will eventual create a blackhole and singularity. Another example of This is Bose Einstein Condensate, in which the spin state of all the particles in an atom is add up to whole value. Such atoms can be brought together into the same space or quantum state forming a single giant particle or atom. Again the theorical limit is based on energy density needed to form a blackhole.dryson":kc9an7s6 said:
other forms of matter such as fermions trend to obey fermi dirac statistics meaning only one fermion can occupy a quantum state at a given time. This is the bases of Pauli exclusion principle which apply to the different energy levels electrons can occupy in an atom. This effect is cause by the interactions of Quantum Wave function that trend to spread to waveform apart if they possess a 1/2 or fractional value of spin.. This is called degenerate pressure which trend to stop the collasping possess of certain stars allow them to form neutron stars. If the mass of a star exceed 4 to 6 solar masses, then the force of Gravity can over come Degenerative Pressure forming singularity or blackhole..
Forms of Dark matter, such as SUSSY matter would allow the Sussy Partners of particle like Quarks (SQuarks) or electron (Slepton) to act in the same manner of Bose Einsten Condensate and form a state of matter called a Q or B Balls. Such matter would consume quarks releasing energy as it convert normal matter to SUSSY matter and add onto the mass of the QBall. Like neutronium, Speck of Qballs will be extremely dense and could be one of the sources of unseen dark matter.
dangineer":8obal5mr said:
dangineer,
The following link illustrates the source of my confusion about the "creation" of quarks in the very early universe: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education ... rimer.html
This web site contains - on the first page - the following (rather simplistic) statement:"Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons." As you can see, this assertion leads me to the belief I stated in my earlier post. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this subject to tell if this is a mainstream idea or just the opinion of the author. Perhaps, as you said, there is a reader who can clear this up for us.
Also, are there such things as quarks and anti-quarks? I don't recall reading anything about this. I understand that quarks are "up", "down", "strange", and "charmed" and that they combine in a variety of groupings to make baryonic matter. This is pretty much all I know about them.
Chris
That I know for certain: all quarks and leptons (except nutrinos) have an antiparticle pair. Antihydrogen is made up of one positron (antielectron) and three antiquarks making an antiproton. A photon turnes into quarks by splitting into a quark-antiquark pair, thus charge is conserved (a photon is neutral, quarks have charge).
actually neutrinos have an antiparticle also. it was through that it didn't because if it was massless then it would travel at the speed of light ( it actually travels slower and has mass) an anti particle would be a violation of CPT symmetries. So it would then need to be it own antiparticle, like the photon.dangineer":1walzmd3 said:
All types of neutrino are left handed (spins Antiparallel to their momenta) and anti neutrino are right handed.
Dangineer,
I came across the following passage on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
"...From quantum electrodynamics we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks..."
This quote is probably the closest I'll ever come to understanding the nature of particle/antiparticle pair production (matter) in the intense radiation immediately following the Big Bang (the math is totally beyond me). This at least gives me an admittedly vague concept of how the process might work. I understand that quarks make up things such as protons and neutrons (among others) and that leptons are (mainly) electrons and neutrinos.
Given this information, I think I understand what you're saying about why ordinary matter can't just break down into photons. Basically, there are no anti-particles to cancel out the charge, spin, or (in the case of quarks) "flavor".
It's entirely possible that I've got this wrong. If so, please don't hesitate to correct me. In any case you have my thanks for inspiring me to research and study this science in my own sort of "home schooled" way.
Chris
I came across the following passage on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
"...From quantum electrodynamics we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks..."
This quote is probably the closest I'll ever come to understanding the nature of particle/antiparticle pair production (matter) in the intense radiation immediately following the Big Bang (the math is totally beyond me). This at least gives me an admittedly vague concept of how the process might work. I understand that quarks make up things such as protons and neutrons (among others) and that leptons are (mainly) electrons and neutrinos.
Given this information, I think I understand what you're saying about why ordinary matter can't just break down into photons. Basically, there are no anti-particles to cancel out the charge, spin, or (in the case of quarks) "flavor".
It's entirely possible that I've got this wrong. If so, please don't hesitate to correct me. In any case you have my thanks for inspiring me to research and study this science in my own sort of "home schooled" way.
Chris
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.
simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France - Credit immobilier de France, simulation credit immobilier. Résultat mitigé pour le crédit immobilier de France.simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France
simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France - Credit immobilier de France, simulation credit immobilier. Résultat mitigé pour le crédit immobilier de France.simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France
There is a principle that everyone needs to keep in mind and that principle is the Anthropic Principle which is a perspective that is diametrically opposed to the dream of a fully predictive, unified theory in which the laws of nature are complete and the world is the way it is because it could not be otherwise.
Dryson, the anthropic principle may be necessary in some cases, but if we just go ahead and invoke it at any time, science is likely to stop far earlier than it should. What are you suggesting we use the anthropic principle for, in this case? There isn't much it can do except say "well, that's just the way it is, live with it." That's not how science works
What Leehyori said is absolutely true - there is a lot we already know about the universe, and it's just silly to ignore all of that knowledge.
What Leehyori said is absolutely true - there is a lot we already know about the universe, and it's just silly to ignore all of that knowledge.
That is not what Feynman's was saying, what he was saying was that if we except only one fully predictable unified theory or the dream of a predictable theory in which everything works based on that one unified theory and nothing else could work that didn't fall within the parameters of that theory then any and all other theories proposed and discussed would be smitten as irrelevant because they didn't fall under one theory.
This type of flat Earth thinking would actually cause scientist's to possibly miss something of importance that could be linked or coupled to the theories and physics of the current day thus adding more conduits to the framework of the knowledge of space.
Physics is not like a tree where you take one tree plant it care for it and when it reaches maturity you then maintain it.
Physics is like a tree that when it has grown to maturity you maintain it and then plant other saplings of different types of trees to get a better overall picture of knowledge.
A forest of mixed knowledge will yield better results then having a forest of only one type of trees.
Really? I don't speak for Leehyori, but he (or she) has only made one post, and it was this:
Nothing at all about unified theories.
It sounds like you're putting quite a lot of words in poor Leehyori's mouth
Leehyori":k4pt2nut said:
Nothing at all about unified theories.
It sounds like you're putting quite a lot of words in poor Leehyori's mouth
Sorry, I put the wrong name in the author's place, it should have been Feynman instead of Leehoryi.
Simply put, if only one theory is excepted as being the norm then eventually that theory will run out of growing room and will not be able to explain phenomina's that are discovered. Since they would go against the unified theory they would not be excepted as truth until a way could be found to spin the unified theory around it.
As an example my theory of how six virtual paramagnetic graviton particles would exhibit the reverse type of gravity that a blackhole produces and compresses the particles within it's space to a point of a singularity is the result of how a galaxy is formed, is scoffed at by most because of the lack of evidence. Evidence which is still in it's infancy and will take some time to develop.
There is a saying that I like to listen to over and over again as it relates to the Anthropic Principle is one that Spock mentioned in Star Trek: VI "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."
Simply put, if only one theory is excepted as being the norm then eventually that theory will run out of growing room and will not be able to explain phenomina's that are discovered. Since they would go against the unified theory they would not be excepted as truth until a way could be found to spin the unified theory around it.
As an example my theory of how six virtual paramagnetic graviton particles would exhibit the reverse type of gravity that a blackhole produces and compresses the particles within it's space to a point of a singularity is the result of how a galaxy is formed, is scoffed at by most because of the lack of evidence. Evidence which is still in it's infancy and will take some time to develop.
There is a saying that I like to listen to over and over again as it relates to the Anthropic Principle is one that Spock mentioned in Star Trek: VI "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."
You really have to get out more. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." is a well-known postulate by Sherlock Holmes, not Mister Spock.
They were unfortunately fond, in one of the Star Trek movies of having Spock quote famous sayings. In one case, he even referred to the following as "an old Vulcan proverb"
"Only Nixon could go to China"
Wayne
"Only Nixon could go to China"
Wayne
dryson":1y8sy9cv said:
That the long and short of it ,lack evident, and mathematical foundation.
General Relativity and even Newtonian Gravity at least had both. They made valid predictions and were testable...
How can your theory talk about what going on in a black hole when it cannot make valid prediction that we can test in the rest of the universe!
Heck just what happen at the Horizon of a Blackhole spark a 20 year war in physics that even with Stephen Hawking admitting defeat is still being wage..
First show a link between paramagnetism and Gravity ( Good luck Faraday tried several experiments attempting to link the two) then if paramagnetism is link to Gravity then it should be easy to produce Gravity in the lab. Especially in light that a MRI machine can produce a magnetic field a million times strong than the earth and the Z machine can produce a Magnetic field a million times greater than an MRI.
Looking at you assumption, most particle physicist would be seeing gravity like effects everytime a particle accelerator start up.
As for General Relativity running out of Growing room, not anytime soon, their are still a host of problems that have yet to be computed via it equations. The Failure of GR is due to lack of knowledge of space time on a Quantum Scale, any further progress would be in finding a Workable Quantum theory which would actually describe space on a quantum scale and that can be scale up to mimic General relativity on the scale of planetary and stellar distants.
dryson,
I still don't even know what the heck your theory is! Please give us details that we can actually use to evaluate your ideas and explain them in a way that people can understand!
For example: do you have any equations that describe the interactions between the gravitons? In the descriptions you gave, your gravitons must have spatial extent, so how big are they? You say that they are paramagnetic, so how is a magnetic field induced and what is the strength of that field? In one of your other posts, you claim that time is created by the construction of this collection of gravitons - how does this happen? In every other theory in physics, time is just another parameter, just like space, that is already assumed and so is never "created". Is there some sort of topological process whereby a timelike dimension is generated from the three (or 10) space dimensions? Although I highly doubt you have studied topology in any depth, as virtually no one here has, including myself.
Please help us understand your theory better by providing a descrption that we can understand. No one here is rejecting your ideas because they are holding on to current physics, they reject your ideas because you havn't applied any sound scientific principles to the development and presentation of your ideas.
I still don't even know what the heck your theory is! Please give us details that we can actually use to evaluate your ideas and explain them in a way that people can understand!
For example: do you have any equations that describe the interactions between the gravitons? In the descriptions you gave, your gravitons must have spatial extent, so how big are they? You say that they are paramagnetic, so how is a magnetic field induced and what is the strength of that field? In one of your other posts, you claim that time is created by the construction of this collection of gravitons - how does this happen? In every other theory in physics, time is just another parameter, just like space, that is already assumed and so is never "created". Is there some sort of topological process whereby a timelike dimension is generated from the three (or 10) space dimensions? Although I highly doubt you have studied topology in any depth, as virtually no one here has, including myself.
Please help us understand your theory better by providing a descrption that we can understand. No one here is rejecting your ideas because they are holding on to current physics, they reject your ideas because you havn't applied any sound scientific principles to the development and presentation of your ideas.
Although this comment isn't strictly on the topic of singularities, I would like to see a plausible theory explaining where all the anti-matter went during the baryogenesis period that the Standard Model describes. The explanation that, for some reason, there was just a little bit more matter left over than anti-matter seems a bit lame for a scientific theory.
Chris
Chris
There was in fact a paper several years ago on how mirror symmetry for elementary particles turns out to not be quite so symmetrical. I'll post it here, if I re-locate it.
One of the interesting things that Ramparts (I believe) pointed out is that in the in the case of a charged black hole ( the Reissner–Nordström solution) and a rotating black hole (the Kerr solution) there are postulated to be upper limitations to the amount of charge and spin, respectively, that such objects can possess. As I understand it these limitations have to do with the fact that when a black hole exceeds these limits, the event horizon "disappears". I'm not sure how this happens or exactly what it means, but apparently if such a state should occur, it would leave a "naked" singularity.
I'm wondering if there are scientifically based reasons preventing these excessive charges and spins, or if it is considered impossible soley based on the belief that a "naked" singularity is just too strange to exist.
Chris
I'm wondering if there are scientifically based reasons preventing these excessive charges and spins, or if it is considered impossible soley based on the belief that a "naked" singularity is just too strange to exist.
Chris
Well, that's a tricky question. The naked singularity is not supposed to exist, so the cosmic censorship conjecture is in place to prevent those. But that's just a conjecture, and such limits haven't been universally proven. They have, however, been proven in certain restricted circumstances, and evidence does suggest they're probably true. The reasons don't directly have to do with the fact that naked singularities result, but it's quite possible Nature (somehow) conspires to prevent such objects from forming.
Which is unfortunate, because I think naked singularities are awesome!
PS I just saw the cover of Scientific American in my college's library had something about naked singularities on the cover. It's probably the most recent issue. I haven't gotten a chance to flip through it (I was busy trying to solve some other problem in relativity and didn't have time to get distracted :lol but I'd imagine it should be pretty interesting.
Which is unfortunate, because I think naked singularities are awesome!
PS I just saw the cover of Scientific American in my college's library had something about naked singularities on the cover. It's probably the most recent issue. I haven't gotten a chance to flip through it (I was busy trying to solve some other problem in relativity and didn't have time to get distracted :lol
but I'd imagine it should be pretty interesting.I found that there was at least one previous article in Scientific American on the subject of "Naked Singularities":
From the February 2009 Scientific American Magazine | 179 comments
Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?
The black hole has a troublesome sibling, the naked singularity. Physicists have long thought--hoped--it could never exist. But could it?
By Pankaj S. Joshi
The author describes theoretical research that's been done on the possible mechanisms by which a naked singularity might form. I have no way of telling how sound his conclusions are, but it appears, at least, that this subject is one that's still being researched and debated by the scientific community.
Chris
That's true. This is a somewhat active area of research and by no means a closed question.
Me, I find naked singularities really cool, and hope physics doesn't forbid them
Me, I find naked singularities really cool, and hope physics doesn't forbid them
I'm guessing that if a naked singularity is found, the state of matter/energy at that point would mimic the state of matter/energy in the moments before the big bang. I'm not sure what observations could be made (if any), but they most certainly would be of great interest to cosmologists.
Chris
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram