THE SCIENCE TOPIC WE HAVE ONE TOO!!

Anything related to science that you wish to share..

Physics related > Nox's Bitch, (and partially mine)

Any science goes, so that means chemistry and biology and that kinda stuff as well.

NO RELIGION STUFF!!!

So to start.

Nox, last time I checked Photons are not molecules, aren't they quantum particles (like the, as of yet unproven, graviton) that are responsible for transfer of light, electric and magnetic energy??

I'm pretty sure about the light, but not so sure about the electro part of it.

Also, time travel, anything you wish to add on that subject?

Quote :

Nox, last time I checked Photons are not molecules, aren't they quantum particles (like the, as of yet unproven, graviton) that are responsible for transfer of light, electric and magnetic energy??

Yeah, photons are sub-atomic particles that make up light and are exchanged in the forces of electromagnetism. Wait when did I say photons were molecules? huh. Must have been a typo on my part.

You do understand though how slowing the speed of a photon (consisting of light beam A) would make an infinite mass in a small space, which equals a black hole (singularity)

Well, we can start this thread off with the concept of time travel. I believe time travel is completely possible, but it will be millions of years before we develop the tech. to do so. The theoy of relativity teaches us that time is relative to space and that the concept of time itself is relative. This means that if we had the tech and the science to control the flow of time, we would have to control the entire Universe (or perhaps just Earth) and set every atom in the previous place as the data tells you so. (i.e. You want to go watch the space race in the 1960's. You must control the flow on time, but even if you turn the flow of time to the 1960's, everything on Earth will remain the same because the time was changed independently of space. So, if we wish to travel in time, we have to put everything in place according to that time period. Which, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is going to be damned hard to do. We must do this because time is not absolute. It is relative.

Noxstant wrote:

You do understand though how slowing the speed of a photon (consisting of light beam A) would make an infinite mass in a small space, which equals a black hole (singularity)

Uhh not really, I know how infinite mass causes a singularity but I don't see how slowing a photon leads to infinite mass. Can you lay that out for me (a formula of some sorts would help)

Also, if the mass is infinite, wouldn't that mean that the black hole would be permanent? I'm refering to the Hawking radiation here. Because in this case it wouldn't matter how many mass 'evapourated' since there's an infinite amount of it. Or am I mistaken here. (Take into account I'm only 15 and yet this is still far beyond what normal 15 olds think of/ are interested in.)

Also, the little thing I picked up about time and speed. The closer you get to lightspeed the slower you go through time. Because you use your time-speed to move through the other 3 dimensions. Would it then be possible for your time to go backwards? I personally thought not as you cannot have a negative speed (I think). That's probably also the reason you can't physically cross the lightspeed barrier, since if you were to go faster than light, you would essentially go back in time or have a negative time speed. And since logically speaking (I can only interpet logic at the moment, skills will be acquired I promise) you cannot move at a negative speed you cannot go back in time and thus not faster than the speed of light.

I know this is weird 15 old stuff but do you see where I'm going to? Do you see what I think is logical?

Yes, I see where you are going, Maarten. And be a bit easier on yourself and your age, alright? (I am actually one year above you in terms of age).

Quote :

Uhh not really, I know how infinite mass causes a singularity but I don't see how slowing a photon leads to infinite mass. Can you lay that out for me (a formula of some sorts would help)

Well first I should show the main reason why the light barrier is physically impassable. Take a look at Einstein's famous equation,
E=MC(2). This equation implies that matter and energy are two different types of the same thing. To reach the speed of light, the ship's mass would have to be infinitely increased, which is impossible.
Take a small toy ball and a normal size soccer ball for example. Even though the small toy ball is less massive, the soccer ball will fly farther on a normal kick. This occurs because the mass of the soccer ball makes it so it can absorb much more force than that of the tiny toy ball, making the soccerball fly father. For a ship to produce so much energy in the first place, it's mass would have to be infinite. Even if somehow some scientist in the future conceived a way to make a ship travel near light speed with a small ship, as the ship got closer to the barrier, the mass would continue to increase until it reached 99.99% of light speed. It could not advance futher because it cannot grow to infinite size. And that's what happens when you travel near light speed.

Alright, now let's apply that logic to the photon speed question. The photon is pure energy, but at light speed the difference between energy and mass become incredibly warped. Take what I have said earlier and apply that to the photon speed question. The light, once it drops below the speed of light, the energy is at the same place the ship was in the last paragraph. The photons are no longer normal photons, all that remains is an inconceivable amount of energy. This energy, (you must take the result of the first reason why we cannot outrun light speed and turn it backwards) is accompanied by a large amount of mass and the this either creates a singularity or tears the fabric of space-time.

Quote :

Also, if the mass is infinite, wouldn't that mean that the black hole would be permanent? I'm refering to the Hawking radiation here. Because in this case it wouldn't matter how many mass 'evapourated' since there's an infinite amount of it. Or am I mistaken here. (Take into account I'm only 15 and yet this is still far beyond what normal 15 olds think of/ are interested in.)

No. Hawking radiation does not come from the mass inside the singularity. The things inside of a singularity Hawking radiation is a gravitational effect where particle and anti-particle pairs. With spitting out not being actually placed in the singularity. All hawking radiation comes from debris (which is ripped apart first), already exising radiation, yada-yada, all that left over crap floating floating in space. Black holes will last as long as they can take in particles, so that means that they will last until the heat death of the Universe. A very long life-span, but not permanent.

Quote :

Also, the little thing I picked up about time and speed. The closer you get to lightspeed the slower you go through time. Because you use your time-speed to move through the other 3 dimensions. Would it then be possible for your time to go backwards? I personally thought not as you cannot have a negative speed (I think). That's probably also the reason you can't physically cross the lightspeed barrier, since if you were to go faster than light, you would essentially go back in time or have a negative time speed. And since logically speaking (I can only interpet logic at the moment, skills will be acquired I promise) you cannot move at a negative speed you cannot go back in time and thus not faster than the speed of light.

You must realize that for the person traveling near lightspeed time runs at the same rate. To the person traveling, he lives as long as he normally would. But the relativity of time is what makes the difference. Times runs the same rate in the eyes of the guy on the ship and the people on Earth. But when that guy comes back to Earth centuries will have passed. You should check out a book called Relativity by (duh!) Einstein. This book contains all his work on Relativity time and such. And it would greatly help you understand some of this better. You might find it on Ebay or somewhere. If you cannot, you could always send me about $200 dollars so I can afford the shipping to mail it to you almost half-way across the globe.

BTW, I believe this is the longest post ever on RMT.

yep, good idea wasn't it? Starting a science topic

Quote :

I know how infinite mass causes a singularity

Hold it a second. Were you assuming that a mass must be infinite BEFORE it turns into a singularity? If so, that is not true. A mass that exceeds the density limit of the space-time continuum(for the area it is in) collapses into a black hole. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Quote :

yep, good idea wasn't it? Starting a science topic

I thought it would be a while before you wanted to discuss some physics, but I was pleasantly proven wrong. Yes, it was a good idea.

Also, one sentence reply to a monumental post? Did I clarify myself so well that you have no questions to ask?

Nah I probably was so astonished by the new information I had a brain malfunction while I was replying.

Also, I wasn't assuming a mass must be infinite to cause a singularity. Cus that's what happens with supernovae right? The core collapses under it's own gravitational force, therefore leading to a density that exceeds the space-time continuum limit. And thus creating a black hole.

Me saying that I knew how infinite mass leads to a singularity was weird, *headdesk*. Infinite mass in infinite space does not cause a black hole right? Wait... that doesn't make any sense either... What density would mass even have in a infinite volume?? lol

Does a Supernova ALWAYS lead to a singularity??

Quote :

Infinite mass in infinite space does not cause a black hole right? Wait... that doesn't make any sense either... What density would mass even have in a infinite volume?? lol

I believe you are correct, that an infinite mass in an infinite space cannot become a black hole. But there's no expiremental data to be found on this, but mathematically it works out. You see, let's take the fat kid analogy into account. If a normal weight kid stands on a kid the same weight as him, not much happens. But if a over-obese child jumps on the normal weighted kid, something's going to break. Of course, that is with the assumption that gravity would exist in infinite space.

Also the formula for Density is D=m/v. D=m/(infinite symbol) Let's say the mass of the object is 12 kg. 12/Infinite = Infinite (because you cannot reduce infinity.

Quote :

Also, I wasn't assuming a mass must be infinite to cause a singularity. Cus that's what happens with supernovae right? The core collapses under it's own gravitational force, therefore leading to a density that exceeds the space-time continuum limit. And thus creating a black hole.

Quote :

Does a Supernova ALWAYS lead to a singularity??

Supernovae are when stars die and explode and they spew gamma rays all over the place (yes, I know that's what she said, ok.) They usually recondense to become stars once again. I believe what you are thinking of is a brown dwarf. ANd unless that Brown Dwarf finds some way to extend its volume, then it is screwed to be a black hole.

I Think Supernovae shed their outer layers and then condense again.

They can either become a black hole or a neutron star. (according to my physics book of last year).

So basically, when it collapses under it's own force (AKA increasing the density too much) then it's Black Hole (dundundun). And I thought It's possible for neutron stars to collapse as well.

Cannot remember where I found this, but I remember reading it somewhere.

Not really. Supernovas occur when a star that is heavily entropic burns a massive amount of fuel to keep it going (nuclear fusion).
Eventually it will reach a peak point where the star itself can no longer handle it and the star will explode, sending matter and gamma rays all over the place. Eventually that matter can recondense and form a new infant star (of normal density).

Neutron stars are stars that are very close to becoming black holes. (just a bit more density, and POW! Black hole.) There is something called the Chandrasekhar limit. This sets the density limit that a star can have without it collapsing into a black hole.

To help impose the "NO RELIGION" rule, I have kindly placed this song here.



Oh, also I stickied the thread for lulz.

Well, before doompig's ineffective humor turns this into a thread about random crap, we should move on to a new topic.

Let's jump into some Quantum Mechanics. Any questions about Quantum Mechanics? Like what is spin and what are quarks or what is quantum computing or possibly what is quantum chromodynamics?

doompig444 wrote:

To help impose the "NO RELIGION" rule, I have kindly placed this song here.



Oh, also I stickied the thread for lulz.

nice song lol

Thank you, Hamada.

And Noxstant, this thread is in the perfect position to be turned into a bunch of random crap. It's already in the right forum section, for starters.

Maarten! Quick!, What do you think of using photons as a charged blast direct at anything?

Uhh, depending on the intensity of the blast.. I think pretty good idea (seeing as they also carry Infra-red).
Actually, lasers do the same thing right??

Lasers do fire beams that are composed of infra-red, which is one of the few visible wave types.

I've always wondered if you could bend a light beam so that you could open a hole in space and manipulate the gravitational constant of the area. (sounds like something off of Star Trek.)

Perhaps if you concentrated two curved, intersecting bursts of photons (in such a case the space-time continuum would warp around the beams, you might be able to a highly dense gravity wave towards an asteroid or something similar.

Noxstant wrote:

Lasers do fire beams that are composed of infra-red, which is one of the few visible wave types.

I've always wondered if you could bend a light beam so that you could open a hole in space and manipulate the gravitational constant of the area. (sounds like something off of Star Trek.)

Perhaps if you concentrated two curved, intersecting bursts of photons (in such a case the space-time continuum would warp around the beams, you might be able to a highly dense gravity wave towards an asteroid or something similar.

That seems a bit farfetched..

even if that would work, the intensity of the bursts would have to be enormous.

lol we posted within minute of each other...

Yeah like half an hour! keep on-topic or meet banhammer.

I meant with now before and ok srry

Quote :

That seems a bit farfetched..

even if that would work, the intensity of the bursts would have to be enormous

That's why you use antimatter. The 100% conversion rate to energy could be absorbed and the dense region of space would travel like a ripple in the water. Stuff like dual-light beam refraction is already being attempted by physicists.

Speaking of antimatter, I have always wanted to find a way to make a warp drive. Perhaps in twenty years when I have the technology to create one?

Uhhh I don't know, but unless we have a technological revolution I would probably expect that to take like another hundred years at least.

Well, perhaps you and I, the future quantum mechanics can change that .

The Noxtantial M theory

Sounds good. We will delay the warp drive thing until we both have at least become students in Universities. (which is actually next year for me.) Keep those grades up Maarten, and you should be able to get into a good college.

Alright. Now what should we discuss?

Black Holes: Check
Time Travel: Check.. Not really

The beginning of the laws of physics:

Many people argue that the universe and it's laws of physics to me are so perfect, there must be a creator. (Damn theists! lol) I like to think of this way. Just like chemistry, laws can be unstable towards each other.

In the beginning of the Universe (if that even exists, if we are talking about a space-time contiuum, the universe would be a recurring and infinite thing) there were all kinds of physics laws. Some of these were unstable and collapsed, forming a new law. Thus leading to a universe with only stable (and 'logical') laws.

Just like chemistry. If you place Sodium in water, those two react like mad and create a more stable substance.

Law of Stability?? (probably not..)