What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Point.i. TUnze
Next: Quartic equation
From: BURT on 2 Aug 2010 23:12 On Aug 2, 6:16 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 12:17 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 7:10 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/2/10 3:24 AM, Autymn D. C. wrote: > > > > > > > BURT is wriht here. BHs are fake:http://twitter.com/alysdexia. And > > > > > > they couldn't be born in finite time... > > > > > > > -Aut > > > > > > From who's perspective? > > > > > > Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > > > > > Time in different frames is slower or faster than in other frames. > > > > In GR terms the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is like the speed of > > > > light is to mass in SR terms. > > > > The closer a mass gets to being inside it's Schwatzchild radius the > > > > slower time operates relative to when the mass was smaller/or less > > > > dense. Around this mass approaching it's Schwatzschild radius time > > > > operates slower too, just not as slow. Yes, of course, the perception > > > > in the frame is that everything is chugging along at the 'usual' pace, > > > > but it isn't from any perspective far from the object . From outside > > > > the event, the event hasn't occured yet, because it hasn't. If you > > > > understood relativity you would understand that. > > > > Mathal > > > > There's an other part too, about the infinite there. The object is a > > > point singularity, not necessarily the center of time (i.e., separate > > > reference frames), as objects go into the black hole they go to share > > > the same reference frame as all the other content of the highly > > > compressed and stochastically irregular area local to the radius of > > > the event. Now the event horizon retains information, although of > > > course there is a theory that the singularity has extra-local > > > radiation, somehow emitting information. Other concerns and generally > > > have they don't, but sure they could in terms of generated spaces or > > > projection. Now, in terms of the organization of the information in > > > the singularity or black hole, one might consider that it is > > > fundamentally disorganized or fundamentally organized. Then about the > > > formation and dissipation of these entities which along with the state > > > of other massy bodies pinwheel the cosmos, where the center of the > > > galaxy has a black hole (or otherwise is the center of mass of the > > > galaxy), that it is thought that sometimes neutron stars implode into > > > black holes, or that the big bang was just the nearest (and totally > > > surrounding) event, that could have arbitrarily organized information > > > in its general reconstitution to help explain why today cosmologists > > > see galaxies going this way and that compared to as from some center, > > > i.e. basically that the big bang was everywhere. When the limits of > > > the instruments help us see that there are running constants instead > > > of Avogadro's number, or that as the farther radio goes the more space > > > and "dark" matter, the more information, there apparently is in the > > > universe that what those instruments each detect, those are effects > > > (detection multiplies information). > > > > Now, those are effects on the large scale and small scale, where when > > > experiments determine the size of atomic particles to be smaller the > > > more closely they are measured, reasonably they're infinitesimals, > > > mathematically beyond or beneath the finite in scale (say Planck > > > scale), of course continuum analysis is generally used with reasonable > > > adjustments from SR/GR using QM which as physicists sometimes like to > > > note is never wrong (quantum mechanics is never wrong). Yet, quantum > > > mechanics is just a method of adding together probabilities where it > > > is the Born interpretation, with Copenhagen. I.e., it is a statistical > > > model, not ever wrong just misinterpreted in correlation, the > > > physicist is always wrong in any disagreement between QM and reality. > > > (In the standard model the particle components go to quarks and > > > leptons from the subatomic, with electric fields and 14 kinds of > > > magnetism in organizations of matter, besides gravity.) > > > > So, back to why then black holes function as they do yes the > > > asymptotics of the theoretical classical behavior of matter compute > > > the Schwarzchild radius, which then interacts with matter, i.e. > > > everything within the radius can never escape because gravitation > > > holds it together, even "massless" light. Now, the smaller the > > > particles in the black hole could be made by essentially shining a > > > bright enough light, to measure them, correspondingly via the effect > > > the black hole could be reversed, i.e., at the extreme in observance > > > of the shrinking effect of measurement, the event horizon radius of > > > the point singularity would diminish. > > > > Don't forget that each few years the big bang was longer ago than > > > that, while science progresses in its refinement of physical > > > measurement. The age and size of the universe increases with better > > > measurements. > > > > Basically it seems you have that the information that goes into the > > > event horizon is projected onto the singularity, and that it preserves > > > the properties of the continuum, accomodating that in conservation > > > with having the point move at zero time. Yet, then it would be a > > > fixed point, and if so relative to all the others, i.e. they would > > > share a reference frame and so would everything between them. Then > > > it's a space symmetry, but again that has about the organization of > > > the information as it is totally compressed and that it becomes > > > statistical or analyzes from initial and consequent organizations, how > > > in the infinitesimal together it is real or that in the infinite > > > universe there are multiple objects. Just the simple facts there give > > > a theory where real mathematics of the infinite and infinitesimal are > > > probably in nature explaining why the state of the art in experimental > > > physics observes both quantum statistics and cosmological measurements > > > sharing a convenient explanation. Here this reduces, but effect could > > > be interchanged with time. If it's a singularity then the information > > > is compressed, otherwise it might as well just be planar, where the > > > data is scattered on the other side of the point, basically about what > > > internal organization the singularity maintains from its initial > > > conditions, towards the effect that occurs from the classical to the > > > horizon to the singularity. > > > > It should well be presumed that the content of black holes is highly > > > organized yet as well most energetic. That is to say, imagining how > > > something could go in and come back out the same, it would have to be > > > preserved toward a point singularity and then brought right back out, > > > or go through the arbitrary transform which gets into how much > > > information and power would be necessary to put stuff in, and later > > > take it back out the same, bring stuff out, etcetera. > > > > Yeah you figure if it was a spatial point singularity it still has > > > mass and momentum so it's still just a particle. That is then about > > > what the radius is, and then here the particle's event radius is > > > bigger than its mass radius, so the effects that define this point and > > > sphere and hypersphere help sort the possible dimensions of input, > > > simply reducing the input definition to moments. > > > > So you're talking now time travel isn't inherently paradoxical but > > > still it's anisotropic which is simple. > > > > If it exists in nature those are probably natural laws. > > > > As to whether crossing the event horizon of a singularity which well > > > happens regularly (constant in anti-), most detectable singularity > > > event horizons with the stationarity would be quite most dissociative > > > to, general matter (disintegrative). > > > > Warm regards, > > > > Ross Finlayson- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > There can be no time if time ended at the event horizon. > > There would be infinite weight of energy at singulrity. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Yeah but it's infinitely attenuated anywhere but the center, then > there are still points with then there being generally the "immobile > celestial spheres" that often describe conservation in parallel > transport with simple conservation generally. > > There's some consideration about there being "no time" beyond the > event horizon, in particularly organized regimes. > > The thing to figure out is from the first principles of the > polydimensional real numbers the general polydimensional componentry > of for example the simple space x time read-out, which of course would > be approximative, with working towards more mathematics for path > integrals. (Recently I read an article abstract that there was a > formulaic represenations and new formulaic representations for path > integrals, here I am as well interested in some fundamental features > of these approximative and integrative forms). > > Here that is where I would see a direction for research in why in > according with general principles and other observed and deduced > phenomena, effects, that for example the electron and photon > diffraction on the plane about the sun is half or twice the expected > value, compared to their measurements multi-axially. > > Warm regards, > > Ross Finlayson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no more proper time if time ends. Mitch Raemsch
From: Mathal on 3 Aug 2010 10:03 On Aug 2, 7:50 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 9:10 AM, Mathal wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/2/10 3:24 AM, Autymn D. C. wrote: > > >>> BURT is wriht here. BHs are fake:http://twitter.com/alysdexia. And > >>> they couldn't be born in finite time... > > >>> -Aut > > >> From who's perspective? > > >> Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > > > Time in different frames is slower or faster than in other frames. > > In GR terms the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is like the speed of > > light is to mass in SR terms. > > The closer a mass gets to being inside it's Schwatzchild radius the > > slower time operates relative to when the mass was smaller/or less > > dense. Around this mass approaching it's Schwatzschild radius time > > operates slower too, just not as slow. Yes, of course, the perception > > in the frame is that everything is chugging along at the 'usual' pace, > > but it isn't from any perspective far from the object . From outside > > the event, the event hasn't occured yet, because it hasn't. If you > > understood relativity you would understand that. > > Mathal > > <smiling> > > I don't think I would notice anything unusual (other than some > tidal forces) as I fell past the Schwarzschild radius of a > supermassive black hole. > > My buddies might think it never happened, but their perspective > is different than mine. As you approach the Schwarzschild radius of a supermassive black hole you wouldn't notice anything different. I am certain that the event of you crossing the Schwarzschild radius never happens in any frame. I am also certain that you wouldn't be aware that it doesn't happen in your supermassively slowed down time frame. Mathal
From: Mathal on 3 Aug 2010 10:46 On Aug 2, 9:07 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 10:10 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/2/10 3:24 AM, Autymn D. C. wrote: > > > > > BURT is wriht here. BHs are fake:http://twitter.com/alysdexia. And > > > > they couldn't be born in finite time... > > > > > -Aut > > > > From who's perspective? > > > > Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > > > Time in different frames is slower or faster than in other frames. > > In GR terms the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is like the speed of > > light is to mass in SR terms. > > The closer a mass gets to being inside it's Schwatzchild radius the > > slower time operates relative to when the mass was smaller/or less > > dense. Around this mass approaching it's Schwatzschild radius time > > operates slower too, just not as slow. Yes, of course, the perception > > in the frame is that everything is chugging along at the 'usual' pace, > > but it isn't from any perspective far from the object . From outside > > the event, the event hasn't occured yet, because it hasn't. If you > > understood relativity you would understand that. > > Mathal > > Forgive my naiveness: I am no physicist. But, is this (what Mathal > wrote) not the same as saying that light would be traveling towards us > at the speed of light for ever and never reach us, implying there > would be infinite space between us and the black hole? If no, and > light cannot "escape" a certain gravitational force, then as the OP > says in other words, light having started away from the black hole > (BH), must slow down (for us observing in our "frame") upon reaching > it, come to zero speed, and then accelerate towards the "center" of > that gravitational force, which would imply (zero)X(infinity) > zero? > On the other hand, if we are talking about light having to start off > the BH, then what "pushes" it off initially, given that the BH has no > spacial dimensionns (infinitely dense)so that nothing else can be > residing on the "surface" or "interior" of it? > > 2)Also, and by the way (while I am at it): When physicists say the > speed of light is 300,000 km/sec, in what "frame of reference" is the > "sec" measured in? How would that "sec" have been different in another > "frame"? How would we know of that other "frame"? > > C.G. My initial response was not from the perspective that black holes are achievable. My argument is that the time frame of such objects slows down and continues to slow down to the degree that the black hole never comes into existence. What does exist is a region of space where time is operating at an incredibly slow pace- relative to our own. To give you something closer to home to see my point consider the earth. Time is operating at a slower pace at sea level than it is on the top of Mr Everest. The difference is slight, but measureable. Time is always measureably slower near a sufficiently large masses than it is further away from massive objects. Since I don't accept the reality of event horizons your fisrt question is off the mark and would be better posed to someone who believes they exist. To your second point the speed of light is taken to be 300,000 km per sec in the near perfect vacuum of space. Every point in the space/ time continuum of the universe is a different frame. Because the difference in perspective is neglible over small distances of space and time a "frame" is taken to be a small region of space and time where those differences can be taken to be unmeasureable. The second is different at sea level and Mt Everest. They are two different "frames". I hope that helps. Mathal
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 10:52 On 8/3/10 9:03 AM, Mathal wrote: > > As you approach the Schwarzschild radius of a supermassive black > hole you wouldn't notice anything different. I am certain that the > event of you crossing the Schwarzschild radius never happens in any > frame. Gosh, that would make it pretty difficult for black holes to increase there masses. The observation on black hole masses suggests otherwise.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 10:54
On 8/3/10 9:46 AM, Mathal wrote: > My initial response was not from the perspective that black holes are > achievable. My argument is that the time frame of such objects slows > down and continues to slow down to the degree that the black hole > never comes into existence. I wonder what you call that monster lurking at the center of our Milky Way galaxy--A would-be supermassive black hole? |