Black Holes: Eternal Prisons No More, Stephen Hawking's Lecture

Mar 16, 2009 By Susan Andrews
Stephen Hawking, author of the best seller A Brief History of Time, explains to a full house in Bovard Auditorium that black holes aren't as black as they are painted. Photo credit Taylor Faust

Celebrated physicist, Stephen Hawking, delivered an inspiring speech to a full house in Bovard Auditorium on March 10. USC College Dean Howard Gillman kicked off the event by introducing Nick Warner, professor of physics, mathematics and astronomy. Hawking was Warner’s academic adviser while he studied at the University of Cambridge.

Warner said that Hawking has contributed greatly to popularizing science with his successful book A Brief History of Time, which sold 10 million copies and focuses on and the theory. With a lifetime spent studying cosmology and black holes, Hawking’s scientific prowess has also been captured by Hollywood in “Star Trek,” “Futurama” and “The Simpsons” television shows.

“Hawking has completely changed the way scientists think about black holes by first showing they are real natural phenomena and then giving us remarkable new insights into how implies that they must evaporate,” Warner said.

Hawking’s lecture focused on black holes, a term coined by American physicist John Wheeler. Hawking discussed the history of black holes beginning with British physicist John Michell in 1783, who suggested that there might be “Dark Stars” whose gravity is strong enough to trap light and prevent the stars from being seen from far away.

Two Americans, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, proved that the speed of light is invariant and does not depend upon where it comes from. Therefore, Michell’s picture of Dark Stars is not entirely correct. Next, Albert Einstein weighed in with his where space and time are no longer independent entities, but rather different directions in four-dimensional space-time.

Einstein’s theory demonstrates that space-time is curved by the presence of matter. Hawking said it is like putting a heavy ball on a rubber sheet, the sheet bends and if you increase the weight of the ball then eventually, at a critical mass and size, the ball will make a bottomless hole in the sheet that particles can get into, but not out of. Stars do the same to the curving of space and time, and at a critical mass and size a star will collapse into a black hole.

From outside a black hole, you cannot tell what is inside. Hawking noted that you can throw television sets, diamond rings or your worst enemy into a black hole — he is humorous as well as brilliant. All the black hole remembers is the total mass and the state of rotation.

The boundary of a black hole is the event horizon where gravity is strong enough to pull light back. Hawking likened it to going over Niagara Falls in a canoe. If you are above the falls, you can get away if you paddle fast enough. But once over the edge you are lost, there is no way back.

Hawking also described how he discovered that particles could slowly leak out of black holes and release energy. A miniature black hole of the mass of a mountain could generate enough power to supply the world’s energy needs. However, the energy would be difficult to harness as the power could not be maintained in a power station. It would drop through the floor and end up at the center of the Earth.

Scientists have searched for miniature black holes but to no avail. Hawking said this is a pity as he would have garnered a Nobel Prize. However, if a black hole is found through the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (the world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator), he interjected humorously, he will get a Nobel Prize after all.

Hawking also described how black holes seem to conflict with one of the fundamental ideas of science, namely determinism: That is, given enough detail about the state of the universe at present one can predict the future and reconstruct the past. The fact that black holes can absorb matter and then emit something completely different means that black holes appear to undermine determinism. However, Hawking believes he has found a resolution in the ideas of Richard Feynman, who believes that quantum theory involves looking at all possible alternative histories.

This perspective also supports the idea that if you fall into a black hole, you may come out in another universe. If there is a large hole and if it is rotating, you may pass through it and into another universe. So, you cannot come back to our universe. Though Hawking said that he is keen on space flight, he is not willing to transport himself to another universe.

Hawking said that the message from his talk is that black holes are not the eternal prisons once thought. If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up. There is a way out.

Provided by USC College

Explore further: Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Hitching a Ride Out of a Gluttonous Black Hole

Feb 25, 2006

“Ever since Stephen Hawking showed that black holes evaporate,” says Seth Lloyd, an MIT physicist, “people have wondered about the stuff that comes out of them. Is it just garbage, or is it something ...

Hawking files for divorce

Oct 20, 2006

Stephen Hawking, best-selling author of "A Brief History of Time," and his wife have filed for divorce in England.

Colorado Programmer Develops New Black Hole Model

Jul 31, 2006

Newmerix Corp. Web programmer and amateur physicist David Ring has developed a new model for evaporating black holes. He explains this model in his article “ A Linear Approximation to Black Hole Evaporation,” ...

How to find a black hole

Oct 20, 2005

Black holes. Just the name evokes mystery and intrigue. But do they really exist? Scientists have discovered at least 20 objects in 20 different galaxies that are potential black holes and may contain event hor ...

Recommended for you

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

4 hours ago

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

10 hours ago

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

joefarah
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2009
Those who say quantum leaks are the only way matter can escape from a black hole are mistaken. Although matter can't travel greater than c, it can accelerate greater than or - c/sec. In fact that's the premise of why nothing can escape a black hole. However, there may also be 've acceleration from a spinning black hole, such that the magnetic field will propel charged particles along the poles of the spin at rates greater than c/sec (300Km/sec/sec). When such acceleration sufficiently offsets the gravitational pull, matter can escape.

In Sir Hawking's analogy, put a big enough ve pole at the bottom of Niagra falls, and an electrically charged (-ve) boat will travel back up the falls.
joefarah
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2009
In the above post, some plus signs got stripped. plus or minus c/sec; positive acceleration;

Also, note that the magnetic pole acceleration does not necessarily have to be greater than c/sec, but only large enough to bring the net acceleration down to below c/sec.

Will someone please pick up on this comment - I've been putting this out for years now and nobody seems to want to take the ball and run with it.
Thecis
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2009
Well, lets start this discussion then ;-)

The following things are thoughts that I've written down. I will see where I end up :D

Im sure that a net acceleration can be > c/sec. But it can only maintain this acceleration for 1/(c/sec) seconds (because if it would be longer, velocity would be larger than c itself and that is, taking the present knowledge into account, not possible).

So, the max distance it can travel is not apparant because the formula dictates a velocity and not a distance...
But if your velocity cannot go over c, then you will get pulled back into the black hole!
So can you escape a black hole then?? And if it can how??

Lets say you want to escape earth. You need a speed of 11.6 km/s (correct me if I'm wrong, but for the theory it doesn't matter). Does that mean you need a velocity of 11.6 km/s??
No!!
One can escape earth with only 1 m/s (the moon does escape earth at only a few inches each year!)

But the earth has no obvious event horizon. A black hole does... This horizon is the tricky part. Gravity is so strong over there that you need a speed larger than c to escape IF YOU HAVE NO FORM OF PROPULSION.
Hmmm, is this statement usefull?? Your accelaration must be larger than than the black hole can pull you back, thus your accelaration must be larger than c/sec (Check the break-horse powers on that device!!). So it could be possible to escape it, especially for very light particles in my opinion. But it needs a form of propulsion!
Charged particles in a magnetic field act as if they have a engine; that keeps feeling a force that propels them somewhere.

As I have written this down, it seems logical that some things can espace a black hole, but keep in mind that is probably very hard to do so!
But nevertheless, black hole seems to eject massive amount of something (was it X-rays) in those jets.

If someone can help me out, please do so
Greetings
Thecis
joefarah
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2009
Thanks for the comment. I agree that you certainly can't accelerate at c/sec for greater than 1 sec. But you don't have to. Let A (negative) be the gravitational acceleration, and a (positive) be the acceleration due to magnetic fields. If a A > 0, you are moving away from the black hole centre. Even if you're net acceleration is only 1km/s/s, you'll rapidly move out of the event horizon. You don't need a speed greater than c. What you need is a net acceleration less than c, and a speed greater than that net acceleration. So you don't have to accelerate at c/sec, you only need an acceleration a that reduces the net, a A to under -c/sec.

The next point is the field equations for a and A. They must be such that the sum of these functions provide a net acceleration greater than -c/sec for the entire path out past the event horizon. I propose that this is the case for many black holes and that this is why we see matter coming out of the poles of many black holes.
joefarah
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2009
One last point, the rate and speed at which matter is ejected at the poles is likely very strongly correlated to the following: rotation rate of the black hole, radius of the event horizon, mass of the black hole. So if this theory holds, then we have additional means of measuring these properties.
joefarah
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2009
Again my plus sign rejected: next to last comment should read a plus A > 0, not a A > 0. And it shouldn't say, "you are moving away", it should say "you are accelerating away", you movement may initially be toward the centre of the black hole.

So, it's A that is -c/sec at the event horizon. It's the net acceleration a plus A that's important. And even if you're a plus A is negative, if you have sufficient speed, you can still escape as long as a plus A is greater than -c/sec.
Thecis
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2009
hmmm, this isnt much of a discusion since we agree ;-)
I think you can escape a black as easy as you can escape the earth or the solar system. But the energy required to compensate the gravitational effect will be slighty higher when doing that with a black hole.

You mentioned that the jets at the poles are very strongly correlated to the rotation (which can generate an electric or magnetic field).
The following is in my opinion the same. The mass of the black hole gives a hint about how "large" it is and thus what the radius should be. A very small black hole should have a very small mass and also a very small event horizon.
Mass is already "known" since we know how the other mass around a black hole behaves (take a look at Sagatorrius A* for example)
curious2
4 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2009
Well, so far we've covered the obvious. But what are the constraints on dark energy and dark matter? Current theory seem to support an anti gravity effect from dark energy. Perhaps matter in dark holes is influenced by dark energy and expelled as condensates.
joe7000
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2009
A few things need to be cleared up before we can escape a black hole: First we must find out why the speed of light is what it is and not otherwise. Next we must determine just what it is that escapes a black hole. Next we must differentiate between 'thoughts' and material or atomic energy; if there is a difference then we must realize that it matters not if something with mass can escape a black hole. Why? Because if thoughts and matter are different in composition (I think they are) then there is no need to ponder the possibility of mass/matter escaping a black hole: Ultimately, it is "I" which must "escape" and if matter and thoughts are different in composition (not mutually inclusive) then "I" have already escaped this huge "gravity well" called a black hole.

Here is my "thought" on the difference between matter and mind (thought): Mind is to dynamic time as matter is to atomic time. Dynamic time theory (my term) posits a faster than light speed medium which not only transcends atomic (sub-light speed) time but actually creats atomic time/space/matter and invisibly surrounds t/s/m causing pressure that we mistake as gravity.

I'll stop here because I have probably lost everyone by now... --jws
superhuman
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2009
Hawking is the most overhyped scientist of them all, it's really pathetic that he sells himself as a genius while not having come up with a single notable scientific discovery.

The radiation effect named after him (which was not even his idea) is nothing more then a wild speculation. The prediction is based on quantum theory which is completely inadequate to describe particles at a black hole event horizon. In fact it is hard to come up with a better example of a situation which cannot be described with today's physics and requires quantum gravity theory. Without such theory (which does not yet exist) it's like trying to calculate electron orbits with Newton laws.
joe7000
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2009
Dynamic Information Theory (my term) also posits that the "real" universe is composed of an invisible, faster than light speed, medium making the universe we see and try to measure nothing more than a gigantic toilet for my Dynamic Information Universe. (See above post by jws)
joe7000
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2009
BTW, my DIT (Dynamic Information Theory) has a chance to be tested when and if the LHC fires up in September. I think what they find will not be the Higgs boson but a 'trace' of the invisible 'medium' I call Dynamic Information.

BTW-2: My DIT assumes our atomic universe is actually an electric universe as opposed to a gravitationally based universe. --jws
barkster
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2009
Situation: A black hole is in deep space or is no longer able to feed from matter around it, and it is slowly evaporating.

Question: Must it necessarily retain its black hole density all the way to oblivion? Or, after the black hole has evaporated "enough" energy/mass back out into space, will that evaporation then reduce its density as well? I.e., could it ever STOP being a black hole and return to being a very dense (and perhaps supremely tiny) dead star, before it reaches the point of complete self-anihilation?
DeadCorpse
2 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2009
Or, after the black hole has evaporated "enough" energy/mass back out into space, will that evaporation then reduce its density as well? I.e., could it ever STOP being a black hole and return to being a very dense (and perhaps supremely tiny) dead star, before it reaches the point of complete self-anihilation?


Yes. Once it drops below the gravitational density where "g>=c", then it should become a visible body again. Possibly a lot like a magnetar, quasar, white dwarf, or any other super-dense radiative body.
nkalanaga
2 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2009
Actually, if a black hole evaporates enough, it will no longer have enough mass to be a black hole, and will explode in one massive explosion. That's why the smallest black hole that could have survived from the formation of the universe is about the mass of a small asteroid. The others have evaporated.

Note that if you make a small black hole, it will be very "hot", and will evaporate very quickly, unless you feed it mass/energy faster than it evaporates. Done right, it could be a great power source, but as the article noted, you wouldn't want it anywhere near your planet. If you quit feeding it, it would explode, and if it got loose, it could eventually swallow the planet - and you!
barkster
not rated yet Mar 17, 2009
Yes. Once it drops below the gravitational density where "g>=c", then it should become a visible body again.
Thanks. So, for an evaporating BH to become visible once again depends not on mass lost, but on density lost (as a consequence of mass lost)? Yes?
Actually, if a black hole evaporates enough, it will no longer have enough mass to be a black hole, and will explode in one massive explosion.
Also, thanks... although I'm not quite clear on your response.



The assumption in my question was that the BH stops feeding. Was trying to understand possible outcomes of BH evaporation with respect to rates of mass loss vs. density loss of the BH as it evaporates.
barkster
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2009
Yes. Once it drops below the gravitational density where "g>=c", then it should become a visible body again. Possibly a lot like a magnetar, quasar, white dwarf, or any other super-dense radiative body.
Wow... I wonder what it looks like when a dwindling BH breaks the g=c threshold to become something like a quasar. Does it just "blink" into visibilty? Or does all the light/energy that was "trapped" inside come exploding out in a flash?

I need another glass of Jameson.
lomed
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2009
Yes. Once it drops below the gravitational density where "g>=c", then it should become a visible body again. Possibly a lot like a magnetar, quasar, white dwarf, or any other super-dense radiative body.
Wow... I wonder what it looks like when a dwindling BH breaks the g=c threshold to become something like a quasar. Does it just "blink" into visibilty? Or does all the light/energy that was "trapped" inside come exploding out in a flash?



I need another glass of Jameson.


As a black hole loses mass it gets smaller; however, the relationship between the mass of a black hole and its radius is sqrt(2*g*M/c) (I think) which makes the volume within the event horizon (4*pi*(2*g*M/c)^(3/2))/3, since density is mass divided by volume, the density of the black hole is: 3/(4*pi*sqrt(M)*(2*g/c)^(3/2)). Thus, as the mass of the black hole decreases, its density increases.

It is an unresolved problem in physics as to whether black holes eventually explode when they reach an extremely small size. The explosion of a black hole has, as far as I know, never been observed. It is Professor Hawking's contention that black holes explode when they reach a radius of approximately the planck length (~10^-34 meters) thus liberating the remaining matter within them. I am unsure (since I have not read Hawking's paper) about the mechanism that causes this explosion.

One cannot escape a black hole once one has crossed the event horizon because, by definition, the velocity one would have to have in order to have enough kinetic energy to escape would be greater than the speed of light. It is the energy that matters and not the acceleration since for an arbitrarily small black hole the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon can be made arbitrarily large (similarly, in order to escape from the Earth's gravity one must have a certain amount of kinetic energy, the net force merely dictates the amount of time needed to achieve escape velocity.) In relativity, the energy of an object is Q*m*c^2 where Q=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), subtracting the rest energy, the kinetic energy of an object is (Q-1)*m*c^2. Since the escape velocity at the event horizon is c, the necessary kinetic energy is ((1/0)-1)*m*c^2 = infinity. Since the necessary kinetic energy is infinite, no amount of force (no matter how long it is applied) will ever allow an object to escape a black hole (at best one would orbit in an ellipse with the black hole at one focus.) In general relativity, I am fairly certain (I have not yet studied it) it is not even possible to orbit a black hole, any object passing within the event horizon is doomed to eventually reach the singularity (from the object's point of view.)
Thecis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
If we want to know what happens we need to make a few assumptions.
1. A black hole ejects jets of "something" at the poles (this was already proven, I think)
2. These jets come from WITHIN the black hole (so this means it is becoming less dense at the inside when there is nothing to feed the black hole).

Then we need to know what happens inside the black hole. Since light can be bend by large masses (lensing). So light has a mass (duh...) and is trapped by black holes.
But what happens then??
Does it keep swirling around somewhere inside the event horizon or is a photon being turned into mass and becoming a part of the black hole itself?
If yes, then when a black hole is evaporating (assuming it can) and g is becoming c nothing fancy will happen. A sun will explode because it has an equilibrium between the pressure and the gravity. In neutron stars or BH there is no such thing, only gravity and radiation (X-rays).
So the remark of Barkster, that it will blink into visibility would be very accurate in my opinion
Thecis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
Just seen the comment of Iomed.
I have to change my view in this matter. I think that you are correct assuming that the event horizon will shift and that the object will remain a BH.
About the increasing density. This is true for Stars and Gas Giants (the center is more dense than at the surface).
But how does one know if the max density isn't already reached throughout the entire object (this question also applies to neutron stars in which this might be measured one day)?
Maybe either theory prove incorrect and maybe Black Holes are objects that cannot be explained. My guess is that Black Holes can be explained, that nature will behave similar but more extreme then in the rest of the universe and that we (we as in mankind) will be able to understand these phenomena.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2009
2. These jets come from WITHIN the black hole (so this means it is becoming less dense at the inside when there is nothing to feed the black hole).


No. They are a byproduct of the accretion disk.

Then we need to know what happens inside the black hole.


Can't. However not all Black Holes are alike. If our universe was closed, as it used to be claimed, than it would be a Black Hole. Only with us on the inside.

But how does one know if the max density isn't already reached throughout the entire object (this question also applies to neutron stars in which this might be measured one day)?


The density can be low if it super massive. Try reading anything about the Omega Point before evidence was found that implies that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

Stuff from the previous post
Does it keep swirling around somewhere inside the event horizon or is a photon being turned into mass and becoming a part of the black hole itself?


It stops at the Event Horizon from our point of view. This is due to time dilation. From the photon's POV it continues on into the hole. This one I have trouble with. It makes sense from the observer's point of view but not from the photon's.

So the remark of Barkster, that it will blink into visibility would be very accurate in my opinion


Not from anything I have read. As the Black Hole evaporates the Event Horizon shrinks thereby remaining a Black Hole until all the mass is gone.

Ethelred
Thecis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
Hi Ethelred,

I know there are some flaws in my reasoning. The first one about the jets, I assumed they came from within to make a further point (which obvisously I didn't :p )
I didn't knew they came from the accretion disk. That make a lot more sense.

Furthermore, at the edge of a Black Hole, all "normal" physics becomes obsolete. You can't use it and you need to use other things like relativity.
Point of view: The traveler:
When closing in on the event horizon nothing happens. Light will travel along with you, but the outer world will become smaller behind you and when eventually cross the event horizon you don't see anything else behind you (and no one knows what is in front of you)

Point of view: The one who stayed behind:
He see the traveler approaching the event horizon. He gets a bit stretched but that is all. When he crosses the event horizon he doesn't disappear but stays at the event horizon! Motionless. Time will behave exactly the same for each observer (because they both move in a falling frame of reference)! Only when you speak of time for the traveler from the point of view of the one who stayed behind, time will appear to slow down until it eventually stops (like you said, time dilation)!
(the same story applies to the twins, one on earth, other one in a ship).
So what happens to your photon? What does the photon experience? No know knows for sure but as it approaches the event horizon, everything will appear to move faster with respect to his own observations. Time will not go differently for the photon. One sec will remain one sec, but for in reference to an observer than is many parsecs away, the photon will appear to slow down (btw, could this be why all super massive black holes are surrounded with so much light? Look at quasars or galaxies where people expect to be a super massive black hole. Just a thought).
It is also believed that when you will fly right past the event horizon of a black hole, you can "travel" in time (always into the future). Because time for the traveler will run slower than the one who stayed behind (relativily speaking, this is very incorrect. Sue me ;-) )

If you are interested in this thing, might I suggest an audio course from Richard Wolfson (relativity for non-scientists). He explains these things without the formula's making it easy to listen to (I myself am a chemist and not afraid of equations but sitting in the car listening to someone that doesn't use them is preferable).
Stein
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2009
Hi There
It is true nothing as large or larger than a photon can escape from the black hole. However as suggested by Steven Hawking something if not all that goes in will escape. He calls this the Hawking radiation. It is predicted that a singularity must exist inside the black hole when gravity approaches infinity.
My theory of the Universe and Item has identified that the item is the candidate which fits the description of the singularity it has the velocity of approx 1.4 times the speed of light. It is a particle which is half the size of the photon. This particle is not affected by gravity or magnetic fields. Based on this particle the black hole has the following process.
Matter acretes onto other matter inside the black hole. Photons convert to particles with mass as they do with the photoelectric effect. This will slow the photons down as they gain mass. Matter is drawn closer and closer into the centre of he black hole. As its orbiting radius reduces its spin will increase, but at some ponint its velocity must reduce and when the particle reaches close to the centre of the blck hole its velocity is very low however the spin is extreemly high higher than Xray. This reduction in velocity increases its mass further and in accordance with E=mc2 and causes maximum gravity in the order of G =c2.
The item which is the singularity mentioned above is like a hollow tennis ball it is extreemly strong and creates the strong force in the nucleus of atoms In my theory the nucleus of matter and photons comprise of only these items in varying configurations. The photon and neutrino consisting of 2 items. When matter is compressed to the point where the strong force is broken not due to tension but rather due to compression the matter including Photon and Neutrino particles disintegrate into single Items (singularities)which are not connected. In this state they become singularities and are no longer restricted to the velocity if light. These Items escape from the centre of the blck hole in opposite directions perpendicular to the acretion disc of the black hole. Items are totally undetectable. However when they have similar spin and are close enough together they will connect into energy particles such as photons and neutrinos and other particles of matter such as electrons positrons protons and neutrons. In so doing the continuity and the information Paradox is preserved albeit in different configuration. However as Steven Hawking rightly said what comes out is exactly the same as what comes out but you cannot read the book that fell into the blck hole.
The first particles formed outside the blck hole are x ray photons because the item spin at that frequency when it escapes and as soon as 2 items join together to become a photon they will be restricted to the speed of light because as a pair they move in 1 direction only. rather than the spinning item which moves at the speed of light in 2 directions thus 1.4c

Cheers Zwei Stein
Ethelred
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2009
I don't even where to start on this. How about at that last sentence:

rather than the spinning item which moves at the speed of light in 2 directions thus 1.4c


That makes no sense at all. First of you can't reach 1.4 times C. Second photons don't join up into pairs. They can be formed as pairs but other than that they don't interact with photons.

Oh how about another sentence:

The first particles formed outside the blck hole are x ray photons because the item spin at that frequency when it escapes


Uhhh no. That's just silly. 'Spin at that frequency' and photons don't go together in the EVER much less in the same sentence. Yes photons have a property called Spin but they don't rotate. At any frequency.

The only real question raised by that post is whether Stein will ever post again. It has the earmarks of a Hit and Run poster.

Ethelred
Stein
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2009
Hello Ethelred
I apreciate your comments Firstly if you take a square which has dimensions of c in direction x and direction y if the particle in 1 second moves across the diagonal distance of this square it will move 1.4 times the distance c.

How can you atripute frequency to a particle when it does not spin or rotate? after all plank h is the angular momentum of one rotation of the photon!! so are you saying the angular momentum is not due to rotation? You may not believe it but photons must consist of at least 2 items which gives the photon angular momentum and spin helicity.
Secondly if you look at the centre of any galaxy such as our own SAG A you will find that x ray radiation is emitted like a jet and gases are present in the area of these jets which cannot be due to the acretion disc.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2009
Hello Ethelred

With regard to exray emissions it is true that some xray is emitted by the acretion disc due to the high energy state of matter but these xray emssions would be more evenly distrbuted in all directions and would most likely not be found at the poles. However jets which eminate from the poles perpendicular to the plane of the acretion disc is where most xray is emitted by the black hole. Such xray emissions cannot be emitted by the acretion disc and originat from the surface at the poles and since these emissions are very directonal and in opposite directions one could compare this reaction to that of electrom positron annihilation only at a more fundamental level.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2009
Hello Lomed
I would expect that when the black hole reache the diameter of Plank length 10 x ^-34 it will have the diameter of the Item (singularity) and all matter will be emitted in the form of items as I have described above such items will combine to commence the cycle of forming photons, neutrons and protons.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2009
Hello Thecis

With regard to explosion at the end and will a black hole become visible I would make the following points.
Stars are known to collaps into ever denser stars and no star is known to have changed from a white dwark into a red giant. Therfore,
Black hole will not ever become visible and will retain the critcal density.

Since photons and neutrinos also add to the BH mass it will take substantially longer for a BH to exhaust its mass. But I neither confirm or deny that a black hole will exhaust its mass. However if it does it will do so by imitting Items which you may classify as dark matter since it is undetectable and does not interact with other matter or energy in this universe until it joins together to become matter or photon or neutrino. In any event the explosion you talk about will be no more than the jets of xray emissons we observe today.
It will therfor not be as specatular as a supernova.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Thecis
not rated yet Mar 18, 2009
Hi Stein

Firstly:


Firstly if you take a square which has dimensions of c in direction x and direction y if the particle in 1 second moves across the diagonal distance of this square it will move 1.4 times the distance c.


This is tricky. In theory, you are right although a box with dimension c is hard to make. But in principle you are right. Also about the factor 1.4. But here is the trouble. The rule is that you can't go faster than c. A photon won't go slower than c for every frame of reference that is moving in a singular motion. We might come across insights that will show something different but at this time there is no real evidence that we could go faster than c in any frame of reference


How can you atripute frequency to a particle when it does not spin or rotate? after all plank h is the angular momentum of one rotation of the photon!! so are you saying the angular momentum is not due to rotation? You may not believe it but photons must consist of at least 2 items which gives the photon angular momentum and spin helicity.


Well, you are again right that spin is another word for angular momentum. The difficulty with these kind of objects is that they are not solid. In fact, if you look at electrons in atomic orbits, you will not find them, there is only a chance that you will find them in a certain place. So how to use the term angular momentum. You would probably be right concerning a particle when it is completely at rest. But Quantum Mechanics state that that will probably never happen


Secondly if you look at the centre of any galaxy such as our own SAG A you will find that x ray radiation is emitted like a jet and gases are present in the area of these jets which cannot be due to the acretion disc.


my knowledge about these jets isn't so that I can comment on these subjects with great certainty. I can only say that there are jets but where they come from? I don't know. If I look on the internet, it is widely accepted that the jets originate from the accretion disk.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2009
I think that WHEN a micro black hole explodes has less to do with the size of the singularity or its density and more to do with the remaining mass within the hole and it's escape velocity (which indirectly takes these considerations into account).

Once the escape velocity falls below the speed of light one would think it would then explode.
Thecis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
When a black hole become smaller, the real question is what happens inside. Is the density becoming less through the entire object or is the mass evaporating at the edges.
If it is evaporating at the edges (which seems likely) the core will remain at high density (and thus high gravity). The only thing that will change is the diameter of the event horizon. Compare it with a ice cube that is melting. The cube itself is 0 degrees Celsius. Will that change as it is evaporating? At the egdes, it will turn into water, but the core will remain at 0 degrees. The film around the cube, which is by definition water at 0 degrees will become smaller and smaller, but it is still there.

So I don't think the escape velocity will become less than c. I still think that the event horizon will "shrink" (in absence of a better description) and the whole object will become smaller, but not blink into visibility


A thought experiment (this has been done before so I am certain of the outcome):

Imagine that earth (and everything on it) is becoming denser and denser (no mass added) until it is so dense that a black hole has formed. What will happen to the moon?

The answer is pretty simple: Absolutely nothing! It will still experience the same mass to orbit. The fact that that mass has become very small has no influence. There is a event horizon now, but the moon will no go anywhere near it.
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Hello Thecis

Firstly You are correct the photon and matter is not able to exceed the speed of light only the item can. Let us assume that you and I are inside our own item and that the item is a rocket with 2 engines perpendicular to each other and each engine propels at exactly the speed of light no less and no more. We both would move on a diagonal at 1.4 c.
Now let us assume the our z axis has 0 velocity and we are aligned and our x axis is parallel but my y engine point towards y and your engine Y- and for some lucky coincidence we happen to meet at a particular point and time in space .

We wound collide but our rockets are a singularity which have escaped a black hole and cannot be destroyed by the impact of our encounter. However at the point when we meet the Y engines of both our rockets will push together and ensure that we cannot separate. And because they have exactly equal energy we will no longer move in the y direction and can only move in the x direction and for this reason we are now restricted to maximum velocity c. But because we are an inseparable pair we are no longer a Singularity (Item) we are a pair and as such we have the property of a photon.

Secondly the photon has an intrinsic velocity of c this is the fundamental logical proof for the above rocket example because the term intrinsic means the energy comes from within and not from outside. This is a fundamental principle which must be understood before one can understand the item (singularity)

To prove the intrinsic nature of the photon we need to look at the photon from moving reference frames.
Assume you are stationary in universal space and star A is moving at 1/2 c directly towards you If the star shoots out a photon at the speed of light similar to a gun one would expect the photon-bullet to travel at c the speed of the star A = 1.5c and according to physics that cannot be.
Assume that star B moves away from you at ½ c in this situation the speed of the photon-bullet would be c %u2013 the speed of star B = ½ c and this cannot be either. However
If the photon is a rocket with intrinsic energy to propel to the maximum speed of c and no faster the situation changes. If a rocket leaves star A or star B in your or any direction it would travel at the speed of c and the speed and direction of the star is irrelevant only the intrinsic speed of the rocket engines determines its speed. This proves that the speed of light is fixed and does not change relative to space at rest.

How this affects the observer who is in a moving reference frame? This is explained by the theory of relativity and its resultant interaction with matter in the photoelectric effect. I have the explanation and proof. However, it is complex and outside this forum of discussion.

The above however proves that it is theoretically possible to explain simply how Items pair up and in so doing limit the velocity to c. and your comment regarding the speed in differing reference frames is absolutely correct and an essential component of my theory. This theory is a small extract from my unpublished theory Universe & Item which is capable at least in theory to explain how matter including photon is destroyed and reformed into atoms from a single particle the item.

In answer to your second remark I point out that angular momentum is a momentum which is perpendicular to the rotation and therefore requires rotational motion and this is a condition which is not at rest. Electrons are never at rest and have orbital and spin motion which results in angular momentum so that even the hydrogen atom with a single electron will not orbit at the equator of the nucleus it will be slightly to one side or the other due to spin up and spin down. This is a functional relationship between the spin and the orbit of the electron.
In answer to the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg one need to understand that from the point of view of the particle it is perfectly determinable where it is and its velocity. However
when one applies an external test to find its location the test itself will affect its velocity and therefore the velocity cannot be measured by the same test simultaneously.
Similarly if a test is applied to determine its speed the test will affect the particle and change its location so that we do not know from the test where the particle would be if a test was not applied. This is the reason for the uncertainty principal in a nutshell.

In answer to the 3rd point X ray images of a black hole in the centre of the globular cluster NGC4472 is ultraluminous ULX therefore there is a very high amount of x ray energy emitted in our direction. If one assumes that a globular cluster will have a disc shape similar to our galaxy one would deduct from this that a globular cluster would have axis of rotation pointing directly in our direction. This would mean that we are seeing the polar jet emitted from NGC4472 and the fact that this emission is ultra-luminous ULX confirms my theory that polar jet emission is greater than x ray emissions of the accretion disc. The jets do not originate from the accretion disc they are ejected from a surface which lays inside the event horizon. The jets are perpendicular to the accretion disc because they are the result of the angular momentum of the star which is located inside the event horizon. This star has the same axis of rotation as the accretion disc.
I suggest rather than looking at words on the internet including mine you look at the photographic x ray image of Sag A. you will notice that the 2 lobes of hot gas which are clearly outside the accretion disc and in an area perpendicular to the poles.
The way I interpret this phenomenon is that these gases must be the resultant creation of newly created matter caused by the emission of the items in this axial direction. Mind you I have not been there and this is only my interpretation based on what I expect from Items in outer space interaction with matter.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Hello Modernmystic and Thecis

I will answer both your last questions by the following.

I consider it is highly unlikely that a black hole explodes like a supernova. This is not based on a guess but rather on the observed evolution of Stars in conjunction with the structure of the atom.

Stars fuse elements lighter than iron and in so doing emit photons and energy. Once the lighter elements are consumed the star enters a cold phase during which it will absorb energy and protons which slowly increases its%u2019 mass. The increased mass will attract protons from a greater distance. When the star reaches a critical mass of a supernova it will suddenly collapse into white dwarf or an x-ray star or a star inside a black hole.

The reason for this collapse is simple when one considers the composition of the atom. The atom consist of mainly empty space and the element owe their size not to the size of the nucleus but rather the size of the electron%u2019s outermost orbital. After all it is these electrons whereby atoms interact in chemical reactions. It is also why there is always a distance of empty space between nuclei of atoms. This is due to the coulomb repulsion between electrons. In supernovas However, the coulomb force between electrons is overwhelmed by the gravitational forces of the mass and the atom collapses so that the nuclei touch each other at close range. This is the reason why white dwarfs are so small.
Once the nuclei touch each other they will be held together by a different force called the %u201Cstrong force%u201D this force insures that the nuclei can no longer separate from each other. It is therefore not possible for the white dwarf to become a red giant.

If we analyse the supernova explosion we can conclude the following. The collapse of the supernova will commence at the surface because the gravity is greatest at the surface and zero in the centre according to newtons Laws. Therefore,
The surface instantaneously explodes and sends matter and energy outwards in all directions this is countered by an equal and opposite reaction and puts pressure on the matter within the surface this pressure is enough to collapse all atoms into an extremely dense star or a black hole.

Once the star is a black hole or white star for that matter it is not possible for it to collapse any further except by disintegration into items (singularities). There are simply no other alternatives available. For this reason the black hole will exhaust itself by emitting items rather than explode.

With regards to the possibility of a black hole being able to exhaust itself. I would think that this scenario is not likely. The black hole will more likely remain a BH almost indefinitely. My thoughts are based on the following deduction. Black holes with insufficient mass will not eject items and once the black hole has emitted the excess mass it will simply stop emitting items. It%u2019s a bit like once the critical BH mass for item emission is reached the BH will emit items only if further mass is added. If 2 black holes merge it is most likely that a massive emission of items will result in the annihilation of 1 of the black holes and leave a single black hole. But even such a scenario will not result in an explosion but rather in the creation of massive amounts of photons and neutrinos which will lead to the creation of protons in outer space.

Therefore there will never be a situation where the escape velocity in a BH falls below the speed of light. Sorry no escape available that way and no mini black holes either.

To answer your comment and yes the escape from a BH does have more to do with critical mass than density. But the possibility of BH explosion has more to do with density than mass. A micro BH would exhaust itself so quickly it would not be detectable in the LHC.

Thecis I expect that the density does mot change and the mass does evapourate from the surface at the poles. Your moon teory looks to be correct.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Hello Thecis

The picture below clearly show the excited photons which are the result of items ejecting from the poles the fluctuations in the ratiation is due to the fact that once a bh has reached the point of mass at which the strong force collapses it will eject all additiona mass that falls inside. The concluson to that is that all bh which eject items will stabilise at the critical mass.
The photons in xray light in the jet are not what is emitted from the bh but is the resulatnt of item interaction once they have escaped.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009

Hello Joe7000
I am not sure if I have answered your questions about the bh.

As far as your thoughts verses mass. I comment as follows. Thought is a property of the brain the brain is composed of chemicals and thus atoms. The thought process is a process where minute chemical reactions interact between brain cells. Since the brain as well as the thought process depend on atoms and elemental chemistry for the interaction and both have mass it will not be possible for your thought to escape from the black hole if it ever fell inside. Even death will stop your thought unless you write it down and someone else reads it and uses it, but even in this case it is no longer your thoughts.

My theory also concludes from jet emission of black holes something must have velocity greater than the speed of light and this something is the item and there are lots zipping around the universe in the form of so called dark matter. This dark matter is concentrated along the axis of black holes.

The LHC is not going to annihilate protons into anything smaller than a photon or a neutrino. Not even cosmic rays with far greater energy are able to do that. It requires the gravitational force of a lage black hole to do that. (This comment is based on muon decay in earths atmosphere).

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009

Hello Joe7000
I am not sure if I have answered your questions about the bh.

As far as your thoughts verses mass. I comment as follows. Thought is a property of the brain the brain is composed of chemicals and thus atoms. The thought process is a process where minute chemical reactions interact between brain cells. Since the brain as well as the thought process depend on atoms and elemental chemistry for the interaction and both have mass it will not be possible for your thought to escape from the black hole if it ever fell inside. Even death will stop your thought unless you write it down and someone else reads it and uses it, but even in this case it is no longer your thoughts.

My theory also concludes from jet emission of black holes something must have velocity greater than the speed of light and this something is the item and there are lots zipping around the universe in the form of so called dark matter. This dark matter is concentrated along the axis of black holes.

The LHC is not going to annihilate protons into anything smaller than a photon or a neutrino. Not even cosmic rays with far greater energy are able to do that. It requires the gravitational force of a lage black hole to do that. (This comment is based on muon decay in earths atmosphere).

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Hello Ethelred

Now that I have posted more . I expect you will have fallen of your chair and be rolling on the floor with disbelieve and laughter. So when you return to your computer, I am expecting some of the most challenging and constructive discussion about the BH.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Dear Astrophysicist

The above information explains what happens inside the black hole and it is derived from my theory of the Universe & Item which combines in a single theory the largest (BH) and smallest component ( item) in our universe. I would not be surprised if you and many scientists will find this information unbelievable. However the findings given in his discussion and the prediction that black holes which emit jets all have similar mass may be disproved by current astronomy.

The theory Universe & tem is not derived from astrophysical observations alone it is primarily lased on the study into photons, electromagnetism and subatomic particles therefore the findings and conclusions revealed above are not at all the main thrust of my theory but rather a by-product.

Should you use some of this information for a thesis or manuscript you may do so. However it would be pleasing and polite if Zwei Stein gets a mention for coming up with this theory of the item in the first place and with a reference to this posting as proof of timing.

Yours truly

Zwei Stein 19 March 2009
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Dear Astrophyscist
The prediction that the collaps of stars in the supernove event are due to the collaps of the atom , and the prediction that the emission of black hole jets at the poles is due to the collaps of the nuclear stong force are made by the theory of the Universe & Item and have been posted for the first time in this discussion group. This information may be used freely but reference to the originator and to this discussion would be appreciated.

yours truely

Zwei Stein
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Firstly if you take a square which has dimensions of c in direction x and direction y if the particle in 1 second moves across the diagonal distance of this square it will move 1.4 times the distance c.


Except that it won't. The particle is limited to C. Playing with vectors won't change that.

How can you atripute frequency to a particle when it does not spin or rotate?


Easy. Its a probability function.

!! so are you saying the angular momentum is not due to rotation?


I goofed. Sorta anyway. That is, the standard thinking has an angular momentum for photons and I did have polorization flitting through my mind when I posted that. I should have checked on it because of that. I try not to use my own ideas except where those ideas are the point.

What was going on in my head is the idea of the photon as a probability wave so I was thinking there can't be any angular momentum. I still don't see any actual effect of that except for polarization. To put it another way:

If a photon has angular momentum and it is absorbed buy a target then that angular momentum must be conserved. So if you blast a target with a LOT of polarized light then the target should gain angular momentum.

Does anyone know if that is crap? Or of evidence for momentum transfer if it isn't wrong? Or no momentum transfer?

So barring any change in theory I goofed on that.

You may not believe it but photons must consist of at least 2 items which gives the photon angular momentum and spin helicity.


Now this I have trouble with these days. Its that idea of separate electronic waves and magnetic waves from Maxwell. It doesn't seem to match with the idea of a single electro-magnetic force. I suppose it can be modeled as a complimentary pairing.

Hey I get to learn something from this. Maybe.

Secondly if you look at the centre of any galaxy such as our own SAG A you will find that x ray radiation is emitted like a jet and gases are present in the area of these jets which cannot be due to the acretion disc.


O.K. I'll bite. Why can't it be due to an accretion disc? In the recent past anyway, since I don't think there is evidence for an accretion disc at this moment. I think the jets are intermittent and an accretion disc that comes and goes due to a paucity of infalling material would explain that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
However jets which eminate from the poles perpendicular to the plane of the acretion disc is where most xray is emitted by the black hole.


Which is not a problem. If the jet is moving fast enough then x-rays are inevitable when the jet collides with any slow moving gas. The anti-polar direction isn't a serious problem since the accretion disc simply leaves no other way to go.

Neutron stars also have accretion discs. And jets.

http://www.spitze...0060522/

Its an X-ray binary.

http://www.nasa.g...077.html

And this one has x-rays from the jet. The jet is moving a near C velocities so that would explain the x-rays. The jet itself is not understood. Or as astro-physicists put it 'it is poorly understood' which strikes me as a euphemism for 'not understood but we are spittwadding a lot'.

My thinking is that with pressures involved in the accretion disc and the likely large magnetic fields there no other way for matter to go that doesn't fall down the rabbit hole then up the polar pipes.

I simply don't see how the poles of a black hole itself would produce jets. Hard to see it for a neutron star but at least it wouldn't be impossible, thought at three giga-gravities at the surface that would be some serious acceleration to get off the pole and into interstellar space at near light speed.

Some kinds of black holes would have magnetic fields. One even is claimed to have an anti-gravity effect.

http://burro.astr...ole.html

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Stars fuse elements lighter than iron and in so doing emit photons and energy. Once the lighter elements are consumed the star enters a cold phase during which it will absorb energy and protons which slowly increases its%u2019 mass. The increased mass will attract protons from a greater distance. When the star reaches a critical mass of a supernova it will suddenly collapse into white dwarf or an x-ray star or a star inside a black hole.


That sure isn't the standard model. At all.

I won't do it from memory, I will copy it from something. You seem to be winging it worse than me so I will try to behave myself to set an example.

From:
http://en.wikiped...upernova

n the later stages, increasingly heavier elements undergo nuclear fusion, and the binding energy of the relevant nuclei increases. Fusion produces progressively lower levels of energy, and also at higher core energies photodisintegration and electron capture occur which cause energy loss in the core and a general acceleration of the fusion processes to maintain equilibrium.[53] This escalation culminates with the production of nickel-56, which is unable to produce energy through fusion (but does produce iron-56 through radioactive decay).[56] As a result, a nickel-iron core[57] builds up that cannot produce any further outward pressure on a scale needed to support the rest of the structure. It can only support the overlaying mass of the star through the degeneracy pressure of electrons in the core. If the star is sufficiently large, then the iron-nickel core will eventually exceed the Chandrasekhar limit (1.38 solar masses), at which point this mechanism catastrophically fails. The forces holding atomic nuclei apart in the innermost layer of the core suddenly give way, the core implodes due to its own mass, and no further fusion process can ignite or prevent collapse this time.[36]

Core collapse
See also: Gravitational collapse

The core collapses in on itself with velocities reaching 70,000 km/s (0.23c),[58] resulting in a rapid increase in temperature and density. The energy loss processes operating in the core cease to be in equilibrium. Through photodisintegration, gamma rays decompose iron into helium nuclei and free neutrons, absorbing energy, whilst electrons and protons merge via electron capture, producing neutrons and electron neutrinos which escape.


So where the heck did you get

The increased mass will attract protons from a greater distance.


Which seems to come from someones posterior?

Its weird the way you get somethings dead on and then from out of left field comes ideas that are clearly in denial of reality like the 1.4 times C by using two rockets at 90 degree angles. Whats next the superluminal scissors? Which is cool to think about but doesn't work either.

Still it makes for an interesting discussion. An you are one of the few that runs on worse than me. Suggestion. Use more white space. It makes it easier to read. It seems to work for me anyway.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2009
Now that I have posted more . I expect you will have fallen of your chair and be rolling on the floor with disbelieve and laughter.


I am sitting on the corner of a bed. Back support is poor that way. But I haven't done the ROTHFLMAO bit. Horrors, that is the first time I have used that hideous acronym. Do not make me sin that away again. That way leads to , shudder, emoticons.

Yes I prefer to produce my own comedy. But I will take it wherever I find it.

I am expecting some of the most challenging and constructive discussion about the BH.


I am afraid that rather than that, I would like to ask where the ideas are coming from. They seem more than a tad umm unconventional. Free from actual quantification. Not that I can do math worth a damn either.

They are a bit more clearly written than the usual off the wall stuff. With practice it might become one of the best written crank theories I have seen. If you are just speculating then its not cranking its aaaa free expression of an exuberant imagination.

Therefor it could be another fine example of the longstanding internet tradition of free speech and freedom from the restraints of actual evidence. Something I am not above. See my thinking on why the Universe exists on several threads here already.

Ethelred
lomed
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2009
Just seen the comment of Iomed.

I have to change my view in this matter. I think that you are correct assuming that the event horizon will shift and that the object will remain a BH.

About the increasing density. This is true for Stars and Gas Giants (the center is more dense than at the surface).

But how does one know if the max density isn't already reached throughout the entire object (this question also applies to neutron stars in which this might be measured one day)?

Maybe either theory prove incorrect and maybe Black Holes are objects that cannot be explained. My guess is that Black Holes can be explained, that nature will behave similar but more extreme then in the rest of the universe and that we (we as in mankind) will be able to understand these phenomena.

Your reasoning is very sound; if there were a maximum density, then yes, black holes would have a minimum size. However, without knowing what causes this density to be the maximum density (since there must be a force to counteract the gravitational force, at least effectively) nothing can be said about what would happen to a black hole when it reaches this density.

As far as the equations I used, sqrt(2*g*m/c) is the equation for the radius of the event horizon, it gives/requires no information about the black hole other than its mass. Any object with mass and a maximum length/width/thickness smaller than sqrt(2*g*(mass)/c) has an event horizon at that radius and is a black hole. So, the density I was talking about is the average density within the event horizon.

What was going on in my head is the idea of the photon as a probability wave so I was thinking there can't be any angular momentum. I still don't see any actual effect of that except for polarization. To put it another way:



If a photon has angular momentum and it is absorbed buy a target then that angular momentum must be conserved. So if you blast a target with a LOT of polarized light then the target should gain angular momentum.



Does anyone know if that is crap? Or of evidence for momentum transfer if it isn't wrong? Or no momentum transfer?

Ethelred

I know that electromagnetic fields can have angular momentum. Since light is (classically) an electromagnetic wave I would think it could have angular momentum. Specifically, I would think that a circularly polarised light wave would have angular momentum (I am fairly certain this is implied by classical electromagnetism from the statement I made earlier that electromagnetic fields having momentum.)
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello Ethelred

Thank you for responding to my posting and for the more challenging questions. The questions stray a little from the BH but need explained so that one can appreciate how the photon particle works and also fits to what we know about it.

I am not playing with vectors. Just check what happens when you combine 2 orthogonal vectors what is the resultant vector. See Pythagoras theory and square of the hypo%u2026. The item has velocity greater than c because it is a singularity. The photon has a lower limit of maximum velocity because the differential energy is the bonding energy between the 2 items (eg the Y rocket energy) see also bonding energy of nuclei.

Rotation is not a probability function. When a particle is turning, it is physically turning. Probability may be a function of the test to see if it is turning or not. Do not confuse the test with what actually happens but consider what effect the test has on the rotation tested, and if an uncertainty exists, you may use statistical or probability equations to calculate the uncertain value which is better than a guess.

You should not apologise for your opinion regarding Polarisation and the orthogonally aligned electromagnetic wave because they do not rotate at all so you are actually onto something here. Because you didn%u2019t ask me the tricky question which has not been solved in 100 years and which is confusing your mind and vexing the mind of many scientists. I shall post the question here because the answer to this question is also the answer to the black hole and the probability of the existence if the Item.

%u201CHow can you explain the property of polarised light and orthogonally aligned electromagnetic waves which are not rotating with the property of simultaneously rotation? This is like saying that you can rotate the bottle of Jameson and simultaneously the label will always face in the same direction.%u201D

Let us take a bet.
A Stein say it is possible to explain this.
B Thecis say it is rotation and polarising is a probability
C Ethelred says it is not rotating and angular momentum is a probability.
D Barkster say it was not spinning but now the whole universe is spinning.

Heisenberg says B, C, and D may possibly have some probable probability and A has no probability at all. And that is what the science book says, therefore Stein is wrong.

That%u2019s enough probability let us get down to certainty and let us do a thought experiment.

Please stand the 2 empty bottles of Jameson side by side on the table with both labels pointing in the same direction. Label the left bottle exhibit item 1 and the right Exhibit Item 2. Take off your left shoe and remove the shoe lace and throw the shoe.
Sorry you missed.
Now let us do some string theory so tie the shoe lace into a loop and twist it 180 deg into a figure 8. Now put it over the neck.
Not mine! The bottles.
Now tighten it around the thick part, and tie it tightly, because this is the STRONG FORCE which reduces the photons velocity.
Now look at a binary star system like Spitzer and hold the bottles by the neck.
Slowly rotate the bottles like that and so that the labels always point in the same direction.
When the bottles return to the starting point they will have rotated 1 rotation meanwile labels are always pointing the same direction.

Now I have won the bet. And this should fetch a Nobel Prise.

Cheers Zwei Stein
NB please give the winnings to a charity of your choice.
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello Ethelred

The photo electric effect will only occur if the photon has high enough frequency and it is exactly as you suggest. The rotation is conserved and even orthogonally polarised light has a helical path. The rotation causes a helical kinetic force when the photon interacts with matter in the process called photo electric effect. The slowing of the photon on impact will also give it mass as per E=mc^2 and therefore the photon will have kinetic energy like a particle which can displace the electron from its atom.

To explain X-ray from accretion disc as in Hawking radiation. You may imagine you are at the top of Niagara falls with your friend each in a boat and have just reached the event horizon. And you desperately and gallantly push your friend away from the hole and sacrifice yourself. When you push your friends boat he may move away from the black hole and escape but outward like the ball in a sling shot possibly in all directions but not like a polar jet.

On the other hand X-ray jet at the pole is Item emission that was you and your boat. You are never to come out in the form you went in. You are crushed and in rotating motion end up at one of the poles. When you get there all including your photon energy particles are crushed into single items and the angular momentum emits the Items (singularity stuff you were made of). Your stuff is now flying through space as dark matter items ready to start all over.

Yes neutron stars are similar to stars in black holes only too small to attract all the light and cannot form an event horizon. The origin of the jet in neutron stars is similar to that of the black hole. Matter which is accreted to is surface is decomposed into photons and neutrinos near the poles. Note however these are pairs of items.

A white dwarf is like a neutron star but electrons orbiting in random sized little circles around its surface a bit like curly hair . That is why it emits light of all frequencies.

Black holes are not mysterious they are just a heavier version of a neutron star. They are not a hole at all they are a star which attracts photons so strongly that they cannot escape. So you cannot see it. The BH appears like deep hole in the space time membrane which is a mathematical grid which gets distorted by gravity.

For you to understand how the jets emit from the poles you must look up your physics book on Torque and Angular Momentum and study it so that you clearly understand the principles involved. When you understand it you can go out on the soccer pitch and strike the soccer ball and when you can bend it like Beckham you will understand how angular momentum works.

Hydrogen and helium give off enormous energy when they fuse. As the fusion process goes into fusing heavier element they give off less and less energy. These Stars still shine but when the star reaches the stage of fusing iron it has to absorb energy to do so. So only very dim light will come from such a star even if fusion of lighter incoming protons occurs. It is simply absorbed to increases the stars mass. When the star has absorbed enough matter to reach critical mass of supernova it will explode spectacularly.

Yes the core collapses and you end up with a gigantic nucleus.

Einstein%u2019s General relativity predicted that photon path bends around a mass towards it and photons will be attracted more by greater mass.

The Universe and Item theory started with the photon model because I questioned the wave particle duality of photons. That is like saying I am a man and at the same time just an old Fart creating waves. That may be true in some respect, but not in a strictly physical sense. When I solved the photon all the other matter such as electrons, protons, neutrons etc all fell into place. So be assured I am not talking without logical basis and at least some knowledge of physics. But I do agree that my theory is way out there somewhere between earth and a black hole. The theory is revolutionary because photons and electrons are considered fundamental particles but I guarantee that they are not. It will resolve many mysteries of science. So please never call the photon a wave. Call it a particle for that is what it is. Waves cannot propagate through empty space and if you are a astrophysicist you should be shaking the foundations of this myth, for photons from empty space is what you are looking at.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello lomed

I make the following comments on your posting:

As for all stars which are the result of a supernova which includes black holes the core will be the same density throughout like a giant solid spherical nucleus. This determines its density. Unlike gas giants the neutron stars and black hole stars have equal density throughout. The gravity is counteracted by the nuclear strong force of gluons between nucleon.

Yes the size of the event horizon depends on mass only and not density.

Light and electromagnetic waves are not circular polarized. Polarized light is always orthogonally polarized. This means an electromagnetic radio-wave transmitted with vertical electric and horizontal magnetic field will arrive at the receiver identical as horizontal and vertical. And the wave itself does not rotate unless influenced by an external force field.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello lomed
I make a correction to my previous statement. The black hole is denser in the centre than at the surface. but not as significant as one would expect judging from ordinary stars and more in line with that of nuetron stars.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello lomed
The sporadic emission of jets at the poles indicate that a critcal maximum density and maximum mass must exist in a BH and that this value is expected to be equal for all BH.
Cheers Zwei Stein
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2009
Specifically, I would think that a circularly polarised light wave would have angular momentum


All particles have a property called Spin but I have seen some physicists say it shouldn't be thought of as an actual rotation. This is also part of my thinking on this.

Now I want to see an experiment. I may have just thought of a way. No way for ME to do it though. My budget so tight I am trying to figure out just how to keep from losing too much weight through the rest of the quarter.

Thought experiment.

A disc suspended in a vacuum, no support. Grid is marked on the disc. Microgravity environment might be needed as I can't figure out a way to use bearings at the moment. Hit the disk with one or more lasers on each side A and B. Opposite polarizations for A and B so the hypothetical torque would add.

Then balance the beams energy to keep the disc in the same plane only allowing rotation. Then watch the grid.

The suspension would be the tricky part. Negative feedback loops could control the laser intensity. I think a mirrored surface would help with help but I am not sure as it might be that it would mess up the spin.

Enough spitwadding on that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2009
edit out a mess that the first attempt to edit made worse

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Just check what happens when you combine 2 orthogonal vectors what is the resultant vector.


You are still limited by Special Relativity to C. To give a real world example.

At least one jet from a supermassive Black Hole has a naive velocity that is greater than C based on its Red Shift or perhaps in this case it was Blue Shift{yes blue in the example below}. In this case however the jet was moving towards us so the light from the nearest parts was was younger than the light from the farthest parts of the jet. At ordinary speeds this effect wouldn't amount to much but with a jet moving at near C it has quite an effect.

http://www.stsci....ress.txt

The photon has a lower limit of maximum velocity because the differential energy is the bonding energy between the 2 items (eg the Y rocket energy) see also bonding energy of nuclei.


Photons in a vacuum have fixed speed of C. As it climbs out a gravity well, the frequency becomes red shifted but it does not slow down. The only slow light is to have it pass through something other than a vacuum. Nothing can speed it up except to leave a slower medium, like glass for instance, and enter a faster medium. Vacuum being the fastest. Bose-Einstein Condensate is as slow as it can get, a near dead stop in one experiment.

http://www.physic.../hau.cfm

When a particle is turning, it is physically turning. Probability may be a function of the test to see if it is turning or not. Do not confuse the test with what actually happens


Do not confuse macroscopic concepts with quantum effects. There a number of ways you can look at photons. Points of view. Many are misleading. In fact I am not certain which way ISN'T misleading. A lot of particle physicists just use the numbers and let the mental models drop. In which case a photon is just a probability function and that would be the reality.

You should not apologise for your opinion regarding Polarisation


I am not. I was apologizing for forgetting polarization an thereby coming of as dogmatic. Something that fuzzy in my mind is not something to sound dogmatic about.

Now tighten it around the thick part, and tie it tightly, because this is the STRONG FORCE which reduces the photons velocity.


I don't think photons are effected by the strong force. Just the electro-weak and gravity. Could be wrong on that.

This Wiki agrees, QCD is something I read about and then I promptly forget most of it. I couldn't even remember that Gluons HAVE been observed in collisions. I did remember Z and especially W but those deal with the Weak Force.

----------------------------------------------------------

To explain X-ray from accretion disc as in Hawking radiation.


Usually its explained by hypothesizing a strong magnetic field accelerating the heck out of some electron.

The origin of the jet in neutron stars is similar to that of the black hole.


That is my guess anyway.

Matter which is accreted to is surface is decomposed into photons and neutrinos near the poles.


Don't think so. Matter piling up on Neutron Stars is a believed to be a source for Gamma Ray bursts and maybe even Type 1 supernova.

Black holes are not mysterious they are just a heavier version of a neutron star.


Somewhat. Both have steep gravity fields, time distortion and if spinning they both twist space around them. Black Holes cannot collect piles of matter like a neutron star can so no supernova.

For you to understand how the jets emit from the poles you must look up your physics book on Torque and Angular Momentum and study it so that you clearly understand the principles involved.


Since even the experts don't understand it I don't think that will help much. There is an hypothesis that the gravitational drag from the rotating mass could be channeling matter towards the poles where the gravitational dragging would be lower.

So only very dim light will come from such a star even if fusion of lighter incoming protons occurs.


OK where are protons coming from. First until iron fusion begins the stars are actually producing MORE energy. The subsequent heat and light pressure blows them up into red giants and even red supergiants, like Betelgeuse.

When the star has absorbed enough matter to reach critical mass of supernova it will explode spectacularly.


A type II supernova would have occurred when the iron was produced. Type I supernova could occur on a neutron star after the initial type II supernova but not with a black hole.

The Universe and Item theory started with the photon model because I questioned the wave particle duality of photons.


Lots of people do. They don't have any evidence just an itch.

When I solved the photon


I can't see where you did that. I see speculation but not even much of that. That is, I don't see a connected series of arguments intended to support a proposition nor do I see premises that are clearly part of that solution.

he theory is revolutionary because photons and electrons are considered fundamental particles but I guarantee that they are not.


String fans will agree that they are not fundamental. Sans evidence, I go with fundamental but I am open to strongly and clearly presented ideas.

So please never call the photon a wave


Got to, till I see a reason to ignore the paired slit experiments.

Waves cannot propagate through empty space


They do all the time. The waves are in the electro-magnetic fields.

Unlike gas giants the neutron stars and black hole stars have equal density throughout.


No. Close in the case of the Neutron star. The surface of neutron star is not likely to consist of neutrons. Most likely its degenerate matter. Black holes are quite different. One way of looking at is that there are two mass concentrations when dealing with stellar mass BH. The Event Horizon is one. That is where infalling matter must collect due to time dilation. The other would be the singularity. All mass that was inside the Schwarzchild Radius would collapse into a singularity because since there is no known force to stop it. The size of the Singularity might be limited by the Plank Length and/or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.

The gravity is counteracted by the nuclear strong force of gluons between nucleon.


That is a neutron star. Degenerate matter in White Dwarfs are supported by the Pauli Exclusion Principle or more specifically the Electro-magnetic force.

http://en.wikiped...ar_limit

Ethelred
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello Ethelred
Spin is a property that can easily be tested even the neutrino refer to (standard model) New ways of testing is unnecessary. Spin is not a fiction of emagination and is allways real. My above model proves that even the photon spin is real. Scientsts who are of the opinion that photon spin is fictitous or not real should seriously rethink their stance on the issue. If you look at the universe you will find that absolutely everything visible has spin and the invisible will most likely follow the same pattern.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Spin is a property that can easily be tested


So show a test.

My above model proves that even the photon spin is real.


Sorry but I didn't see a proof. I saw guessing.

Ethelred
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2009
Hello Ethelred
The photon andneutrino have no mass therfore are the fastes possible all other matter has more mass and therfore less velocity. All matter including the smallest the item can only move at the speed of light in any direction. The item is the only particle which has velocity in 2 directions all other particles have venocity in 1 direction and the energy of the other is used for spin and bonding and mass.

Correct photons velocity is fixed to c and even in glass or water etc ( this last statement is controversial ) but acordng to my theory this is the case but. The velocity in glass and other matter appears to be reduced because it goes through these substances in a zig zag path and the index of refraction detemins how much longer the zig zag path is. When the photon has red or blue shift it has lost or gained energy and since the velocity and mass are fixed, the freqency of its spin has to be reduced or increased to suite. The photon does not change speed but the singel free unbonded items change speed when they bond in pairing together to become a photon. and it is this bonding energy which reduces the velocity of the 2 items down th that of the photon.

The model which can explain and account for all the atributes of a system such as the photon is most likely to be the one that is least missleading. So when they say a photon is a wave which violates the fact that waves require a menium than this model is strictly incorrect,however, that is not to say that within parameters of limits it will behave exactly like a wave. so of the mathematics fit the empirical measure than the mathematical model works but it will fail outside its limits.

Yes acording to my theory the interlacing between items in photons is identical to the interlacing or bondng of items in quark inside the nucleus ( this subject is complex but a necessary conclusion when the universe is made of a single universal component the Item.

Ask Hawking where the enrgy comes from for his radiation but the energy must be converted to velocity to escape and in this situation there must not be electromagnetc of mass reminents holding it back.

In neutron stars it is angular momentum resulting from the torque of the rotation which propels the jets at the poles single free items are not involved in this reaction lower energy gamma rays may be more likely than x ray jets. and electromagnetsim will have no influence on velocity exept perhaps a minor component only. And Yes the junc landing on neutron stars is decomposed into gamma ray photons and neutrinos and ejected. no disagreement here.
Yes both neutron stars and BH have deep distortions in timespace obviously the bh is much deeper. and both are the remenants of a supernova explosion.
Scientists have a very clear and concise understanding of torque and angular momentum since Newton.
Matter does get attracted to the poles of black holes and neutron stars and this is exactly where the gravity is at maximum.

It is a fact that large amounts if hyrogen protium is found in outer space where (according to my theory) it is created by the strong bonding of items into larger particles. These newly created protons have mass and will be acreted by heavy stellar masses. This process is a requirement for the continuum of creation and destruction. The gasous clouds observed in space a predominantly hydrogen.
According to my theory the amon electron structure can only collaps once and when it does it is catastrophyc lick the collaps on the towers at 9/11
all will collaps in a single explosion. Therefore
If a secondary supernova explosion occurs at a neutron star this reaction wouls have to be attributed to a collision with a large interstellar objects which collapses on impact.

According to the HR diagram of stellar evolution giant red stars are hyrogen driven the hyrogen process intensifies and causes the increase in its size the burst into helium fusion signals the end of the red giant.
Supernova which are the result of stellar evolution does not occur in neutron stars.

Fuson of iron requires energy and does not contribute to explosions on the contrary it inhibits it.

I have written an unpublished article on the photon theory based on a particle which can explain all the characteristcs of the photons wave and particle nature. and this involves th Item mentioned above. And true I am giving you only small snippetes of ratehr incomplete information about the Item and photons which is just enough to unterstand the process inside the Black hole and how the escape as predicted by Hawkng is possible.

It is not my intention to go into more detail in this forum then I absolutely have to in oredr to answer questions about the BH. but for your information i can guarantee the photon particle can explain the concept which are wave like such as: double slit difraction, sharp edge difration, light in centerof circular shadow, refraction, replection, polarisation and the orthogonal sinusoidal electromagnetic wave. but to explain all these complex processes is clearly not intended here.

Sorry waves need a gas or liquid medium to propagate and that is not available in a vacuum of outer space therefor photons are a particle no less real the the earth or you are. ncluding the potential to have mass otherwse it would not have the knetic energy to displace a photon in the photoelectric effect.

If you eqate the photon with the electromagnetic field it creates the you must also eqate the sun with the heat it creates to pu it smple sun is not made of heat and light. Heat and light is the outward efect of the sun. I hope you understand the likeness in the 2 arguments. Please also note that the electromagnetic field is not emitted by the photon is only potential energy and occurs inly when interaction between the photon and matter occurs for this you should read Maxwells explanations to his equations.

I agree with you statement in regard to density and yes even neutron stars and BH ate likely to have higher density in the centre of the core but the density difference is far less because the interlacing of the strong force is rather large and far more rigid and therefore less elastic than the electron nucleus interaction. And yes again neutron stars may have a small amount of acreted degenerate matter on its surface and it is likely to be the fusion of this matter which makes these objects visble when they react with incoming hydrogen

The event horrizon is not some magical surface where stuff acumulates it is simply a point of no return in space. Like Hawking and the edge of the Niagra fall you are on water which is flowing wether you are before, at or after the point of no return. there is really no difference as far as phsical space is concerned except for increasing gravity. However at the bottom of the fall, when you hit the surface of the star inside the black hole it hurts and you disintegrate into tiny pieces of subatimic nuclei like a mini supernova which nobody can see. Your mass that you have added increases the mass of the star and thus the gravity. and if the star has already reached the critcal mass the equivelent amount of your mass will be ejected at the poles. The reason for this s that at the poles the gravity is the highest because it is on the surface of the star and at the poles the nuclear matter falls inside the Schwarzchild radius where the strong force between items collapses. Note here importantly there 2 items in a photon and there are 4 items per quark. I have the exact configuration of these subatomic particles however for he purpose of the BH it is only the spin and the quantity of items ejected which matters as S Hawking rightly suggested.

I am currently in the process of calculating the Neutron magnetic dipole moment which will give the size of the item. However i am missing the exact speed of earth relative to space at rest because the speed of 220km/ second may not be correct because the galaxy may also be in a moving reference frame. However the denser the black hole is the lower is its velocity relative to space.

Based on this we could look at black holes beeing simolar to surveying setout reference points in space which on a comolative basis could establish how fast our universes black hole moves relative to space. And when this is determined wi will be able to determin the excact DPM of a neutron at rest.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2009
Hello Ethelred
I do know that by theories go 2 generations below that of quark and I am certain that the item is the fundamental particle because all the way from the emission of the black hole Jets the photon and quark the theory and back to the BH is consistent with many of the empirically tested results howevers some things like photon duality and QCD are simply inconsistent and cannot be so. I would not blame you for treating this as a joke or some crank partcularly when considering hystory.

Galileo was treated as a heritic
Einstei failed school in Aargau simply because he disagreed with the teacher.
N Bose was ignored when he suggested condensate will levitate at 0 kelvin
Pauli wrote a letter to his fellow scientsts suggesting a neutrino may exist with a rather odd choice of words of humiliating politeness.
Einstein withdraw the cosmological constant Lambda but that may also be proven to be correct because my model does not feature a big bang.

You may find some things in the science book is different than what i say here and you should make you own decision after checking the facts and the logic and consistancy of the argument. And remember Einstein said that " I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. " (See CERN web site for this quote) Only with this in mind will you discover the secret of the black hole and the dark item for even the LHC will not shed light on them.

Cheers Zwei Stein
jgelt
not rated yet Mar 21, 2009
I just registered, Mr. Stein, to thank you for giving me superluminal superfluid ether. I needed that.
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello jgelt
Thank you for your comment. and I apreciate that you recognise the difference between the Item and the Dirac Sea.
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello jgelt
I am not sure what you are referring to with the word that.
Do you seek information about the weak force and why there is no antimatter or is it beta decay and Quantum chromo dynamics?
Cheers Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello QCD and standard model scientsts
My problem with the theory is this. Quark have charge 2/3 or -1/3 which works well with baryons but completely fail with mesons such as the pion which have integer charge. How can you explain that? Now that i have asked you a difficut question you may set up a discusson forum to find the simple explanation of beta decay without colours. QCD.
Zwei Stein
Loverman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
I believe, essentially, we are in, or very quickly, exiting a black hole called our universe. The ratio to exit a black hole includes the eternal aspect of what happens to matter sped up to c, which is what happens when you are caught by such density, for how can there be an unequal parallel between matter that falls in and the rate of gravitational forces inside a bh event, which is purported to keep c trapped forever with the possible exception of Hawking radiation? If no matter can escape, then we are doomed. If we come out the other side, we will be in a different universe, where we are one with light. No longer in the dark, seeing stars faint light reaching our feeble eyes. This may sound whacked out; yet this is not so whacky as say, the possibility that an entire universe can be gobbled up into an invisible singularity, or have we already?
Loverman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Sorry, I submitted twice with correction on word, purported. I think the second one was composed of Hawking Radiation, which somehow escaped the insane asylum of BH mysteries. Seriously though, black holes are our universes greatest generators, they also show the unfactored in scope of our universal dark energies and matter. Somehow all that extra gravitational influence is hiding out somewhere??? Cheers!
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello Loverman
The black hole is a bit like a human matter goes in one end gets destroid and something completely different comes out the other end. The structure of what went in is destroid but the atoms are not destroid at all they are conserved so to speak. The items are what light and matter is made of and there is only one type of item (a singularity at that) if items escape from black holes than so does matter because they naturally combine into photons and electrons and protons which are building blocks of matter. This activity has been detected by the background microwave radiation of outer space where protons are continually formed by the bonding of items into subatomic particles and new hydrogen atoms begin their life cycle.

A black hole reaches critican mass and will never gobble up the the universe it may recycle a lot of space junk over time but it will never gobble up the universe. Consider that you may have a item in your toe which was a photon gobbled up by the black hole at andromeda.

My thory indicates that another 5 Universes are likely to exist and that such universes exist within the same space as our universe. Only items which are not paired into photons or matter can move between universes. Therfore the black hole may be imagined as a portal beteen universes. However items do not move into another universe at the portal they move across when they pair up. Items can pair up in 6 different ways and thus 6 different universes probably will exist. The discussion on alternative universes is based on probabilities and not on facts. Our univers is a universe where time is fixed and it is this fixed time which gives it the 4the dimension.
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello Loverman
I would like to clarify that the item theory with respect to other universes is only speculative, and not based on certainty but the theory was conducted only to establish a possible interrelationship in case such a situation were to exist.
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2009
Hello Ethelred
The spin is an intrinsic property of all particles electrons for example have 1/2 spin that means it rotates one revolution for every 2 orbits of the particle the axis of spin is allways perpendicular to the axis of the orbit. The helium atom has 2 electrons which orbit in the same direction and are located at oposite ends of the nucleus so looking side on they both go clockwise. The spin of the 2 electrons however are in opposite direction so that the angular momentum of the spin moves the orbitals to the left or the right side of the equator like northern and southern helisphere of the nucleus. This opposite spin of the electron works with or against the orbital freqiency. This means one electron will have slightly faste spin than the other electron. Because photons interact with the electrons (as has been proven by the photoelectric effect) when the photons are releasing from the electron they retain the spin of the electron. This spin determins the photons frequency and the difference in spin up and spin down can be observed in the spectral lines of light emitted by the various elements. The spin up and spin down of the electron will only produce a small difference in the light frequency emitted however this has been observed and is calld the fine structure.

So the spin can be determined by the angular momentum and the magnetic moment it creates when an external magnetic field is aplied and by the fine structure in chemical spectoscopy. These tests are well established and need not be explained here.

All particles and nuclei including their isotopes have been measured and the spin determined from such tests and are part of the standard model which is conistant with my theory of the item. This information can be obtained from the university or the internet.

When I refer to the above model being the proof I refer to the 2 Jameson bottles tied with a shoe lace of strong force. The fact that a particle such as a photon consisting of 2 items represented by the bottles can both have rotation while the items ( bottles ) themselves do not rotate. Now consider this that when the photon interacts with matter it will emit a electromagnetic field this field is orthogonally ridgid and the electric field and magnetic field are perpendicular to each other and the the axis of propagation and these fields have a sinosoidal pattern if the item has the ability to emit the electric and magnetic field perpendicular to each other than such a field would be polarised exactly as you have suggested but at the same time the photon can rotate and in fact the rotation provides the sinosoidal wave pattern as well as the angular momentum and the helicity. What further proof do you require to establish that the photons can rotate and be polarised simultaneously. This model is also the proof that only a photon made from a pair of items can have polarity and rotate simultaneously. There is physically no other possible options and therin lies the proof when one compares it to the empirically measured angular momentum and polaroty and characteristics of the elevtromagnetic wave. remembre that a sinosoidal wave is allways the result of a rotation as describes by trigonometry. which by itself suggests that rotaton is involved.

Note that electron orbitals are currently not described as orbitals like the moon around the sun but rather a 3 dimensional shape within which they have some probability to be. This is what it looks like from the outside and that is why the uncertainty principles are applied. However in reality they are real orbitals like the moon around the earth however the nucleus has more control over the electron than the earth has over the moon. So when the nucleus changes the direction of its axis the electrons have to change with it. To picture this you could emagin that the moon has to orbit so that it is directly above capricorn now if the earth constantly changed the axis of rotation the moon orbit would be all over the place and its orbit would also be all over the place and would not be easly determned. and complex calculations would be required to pin point its position at a particular future moment.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2009
Hello ethelred
You have mentioned probability many times and i have just described the s orbital of the electron as it is fron the particles point of view. And as you see there is no probability here it is an exact location.

That is a bit like a cat with you in a box. and when the cats nose goes blue you can knock on the lid and call "Hay open the lid the cat is about to die.
Cheers Zwei Stein

jgelt
not rated yet Mar 22, 2009
Mr. Stein,
I have a problem with some concepts that seem self contradictory such as 'attractive forces'.
I enjoyed your collapsing the wave function on 'uncertainty'.
Can you explain gravity in terms of the ratio of items separating 2 masses versus the items impinging from all other vectors driving them together?
Nerys
not rated yet Mar 22, 2009
I am no expert on this subject of black holes and event horizons. Hell I am hardly an amateur but I THINK I have a grasp on it. I think the idea is you can not escape a black hole even under thrust IF your using newtonian propulsion. Let me explain.

I first thought it was hogwash because for example I need 25,000mph to escape earths gravity well. As you have noted this is not completely accurate. I need 25k mph UNPROPELLED. ie ballistically.

If I have sufficient fuel I can get from earth to the moon at 2mph if I so desired. Just keep the engine going.

BUT with our form of propulsion science the MAX speed we can attain is the speed at which our EXHAUST travels out the rear (assuming unlimited fuel) SO if the exhaust particles are coming out the rear at .25c the MAX speed that ship could ever attain is .25c

Light is basically ALWAYS accelerated by its very nature. so its "under" thrust of some sort for the purpose of this discussion.

The max speed a ship can attain is 1c not because of einstein but because of newton. If nothing can go faster than C then the MAX I can "exhaust" a thrust medium is 1c so the max I can do is 1c and if 1c is insufficient thrust to escape a black hole then your screwed :-)

Now the 1c limit seems more a MASS limit than a SPEED limit. There is no logical reason you can not go 2c or 3c. I mean 1c is 669 million miles per hour. So whats the big deal about 670million miles per hour? Well mass would be infinite now wouldn't it. :-) SO MASS is the problem NOT speed.

Control the mass and the "speed" limit goes away. Well not quite you still have the problem of you can not EXPEL anything faster than 1c so you still can not GO faster than 1c. Equal Opposite and all that.

SO until we have an engine that is either NON Newtonian OR that can EXPEL thrust particles out the rear FASTER than 1c you can not escape a black hole or go faster than 1c.

YOU do not need to go faster than 1c to escape a black hole. YOU only need to go 1mph faster than the black hole is pulling you back.

but to do that you need a THRUST exhaust that can go 1mph faster than 1c which as far as we know is impossible.

My head can not wrap around the math but I am curious. Could someone OUTSIDE the even horizon PULL SOMEONE from INSIDE The event horizon out ?
lomed
not rated yet Mar 22, 2009


BUT with our form of propulsion science the MAX speed we can attain is the speed at which our EXHAUST travels out the rear (assuming unlimited fuel) SO if the exhaust particles are coming out the rear at .25c the MAX speed that ship could ever attain is .25c


Actually, if you are only considering newtonian mechanics, then, in the absence external forces (i.e. considering only a rocket and fuel) one can attain a final/max velocity that is higher than the exhaust velocity. So, in a purely newtonian universe, it is possible to move faster than c even if the exhaust velocity of your rocket is less than c (provided you have enough fuel.)

Hello QCD and standard model scientsts

My problem with the theory is this. Quark have charge 2/3 or -1/3 which works well with baryons but completely fail with mesons such as the pion which have integer charge. How can you explain that? Now that i have asked you a difficut question you may set up a discusson forum to find the simple explanation of beta decay without colours. QCD.

Zwei Stein

2/3 2/3 (-1/3) = 1 2/3 2/3 2/3 = 2 2/3 (-1/3) (-1/3) = 0 There are lots of ways to get integer charges.

YOU do not need to go faster than 1c to escape a black hole. YOU only need to go 1mph faster than the black hole is pulling you back.

but to do that you need a THRUST exhaust that can go 1mph faster than 1c which as far as we know is impossible.

In a newtonian universe, it is possible to escape black holes as long as you can exert enough force (similarly, arbitrarily high velocities can be reached with enough fuel.) That nothing can travel faster than c that ever travels slower than c (i.e anything except (hypothetical) objects with imaginary rest masses) is a conclusion based on special relativity. Special relativity implies nothing can escape once it is within a certain distance of the singularity (radius = sqrt(2*g*m/c)) because, to do so would require an infinite amount of energy (kinetic energy in special relativity is (Q-1)*m*c^2 with Q=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).)
This is different than in newtonian physics where the amount of energy necessary to escape is .5*m1*(sqrt(2*g*m2/c))^2 = m1*m2*g/c (where m1 is the mass of the escaping object and m2 is the mass of the "black hole".) The fact that the amount of energy is finite in the newtonian case is the source of the ability to escape any object as long as some non-zero net force can be applied for long enough. (since the integral of F dx = the energy (this relationship between force and work/energy is the same in newton's theory and special relativity))
My head can not wrap around the math but I am curious. Could someone OUTSIDE the even horizon PULL SOMEONE from INSIDE The event horizon out ?

In order to correctly answer this problem (mathematically) with current theory, I would have to know general relativity, which is not yet the case (maybe in another 2-3 years); however, I am fairly certain from previous reading that it is impossible for anything to come out of a black hole in general relativity (so the answer is: No, you cannot pull anything/anyone out of a black hole.) Via Hawking Radiation, the particles that make up an object that falls into a black hole will eventually escape, but I doubt such would still be much like the original object (assuming it is macroscopic, i.e. people go in, particles come out.) So, as far as mainstream science goes; no, it is not possible to pull a person out of a black hole once they have passed the event horizon.
Gendou
not rated yet Mar 23, 2009
The event horizon is not some magical surface where stuff accumulates it is simply a point of no return in space

From what I've read (The Black Hole War by Susskind), objects falling into the Black Hole appear to asymptotically approach the Event Horizon due to time dilation. This is indeed a paradox when you consider what it would be like to be that object crossing the Event Horizon. Assuming the tidal forces are negligible, you wouldn't notice it at all (in that you wouldn't be ripped apart or anything, due to the curvature of spacetime anyway). Of course, if you shine a flash light on an object falling across the event horizon, the Doppler shift of your light beam would cause the photons to tear apart the poor object. It's weird stuff.
jgelt
not rated yet Mar 23, 2009
If I understand Mr. Stein correctly, the event horizon is the place where photons decompose.
So light doesn't escape because it's no longer light.
The items of which the light was composed can escape.
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2009
Hello jgelt
Thank you for your questions
In nature there are forces which either attract or repel and it is common that opposites attract. But the degree of attraction varies depending on the force that drives them together. For example positive and negative magnetic poles have very attractive forces working between them. Positrons and electrons like each other so much that they seek each other out from long distance. When they meet they collide with each other so hard that only 2 photons remain. Gravity is also an attractive force between 2 masses. On earth gravity is far smaller than the coulomb force in electromagnetism but in the black hole gravity is taking over because the mass is gigantic, and to a large extent the coulomb force cancels out because there are equal numbers of electrons and protons distributed throughout the volume of the star.

On the other hand there are some weak forces like sexual attraction there is only a preference. You may walk along a path and 3 ladies are sitting on benches and you may be more attracted to one bench then the other 2 benches. But this small attraction over time will cause evolution to be selective by the choice of the weak force. This weak force exists in nature in a particle called neutrino. The neutrino has a strong preference for being attracted to positrons. And it has a dislike for electrons. And it is this preferential weak attraction which causes the predominance of protons over anti-protons so that matter wins over anti-matter.

The second question infers that items separate masses. However, the item and mass are essentially the same. I have not mentioned this property of the item before but since the question is posed I shall explain the principal behind the velocity and mass of the item.

For the origin of mass you must consider the equation E=mc^2 and note that energy is a function of mass x velocity. Now consider that when velocity is at c^2 mass must be zero and when velocity is zero mass must be c^2. Consider that mass varies between these 2 extremes in the proportion identified by Einstein.

Now consider that everything in the universe is made of identical items then the item must have an intrinsic property of mass as well as velocity in the proportions noted above. Note both mass and velocity are essentially different forms of potential energy which are present in the ratio of E=mc^2.

That means if you were travelling in a rocket when you reach the speed of light you and the rocket will have no mass. And if earth were not travelling around the centre of our universe at 220 km / s relative to space and stood still suspended in space you would personally gain mass (eg you would have to go on a serious diet).

Or, mass could look like Milo in the paper cup when the cup is at rest on the table it is full and the faster you pull it towards you the more you spill and the less mass is in the cup.

Gravity is as described by Newtons law but remember the mass is relativistic as explained above.

If you consider the black hole may creeps around in space so slow that a snail could keep up. Now consider what happens when the item in the black hole nucleus gets to the centre of rotation. Its velocity in space would suddenly reduce to almost zero. Now suddenly the item will weigh a massive c^2. This mass creates gravity which is at its maximum at the surface and zero in the middle of the star the nucleons at the poles will have the strong force broken like scissors cutting the shoe string. Free Items will speed out the polar window at maximum velocity c1.4 and will have zero mass.


How items in the nucleus and for that matter in the BH are bonded together is in the form of the STRONG FORCE. The strong force both separates and holds together the items. This appears at first inspection to be a contradiction. But let me explain by example how this may work without revealing the actual structure of the item and nucleus of atoms which takes care of this phenomenon.

Firstly the item theory indicates that the nucleus is not like a liquid drop where items are randomly flying around. In fact the nucleus must is a rigid 3 dimensional structure where items are bonded together in 3 directions by the interlacing of the STRONG FORCE. This means the Items are touching each other.

The item could be seen as a ping-pong ball which is quite rigid but when enough pressure is applied it collapses inwards and becomes a half ball which is hollow so that several balls could be stacked inside one another. A better explanation may be by making items look like paper cups.

Let us revisit the photon storey with the 2 bottles of Jameson above, But you imagine that these bottles are now paper cups which you can stack inside each other however because the shoestring is in a figure 8 configuration the cups cannot be stacked inside one another and are separated or stacked on top of each other. If you put enough pressure on the string for it to break the cups will stack inside each other. The stacking of cups inside each other substantially reduces the space the cups take up. However, at the same time the items are no longer tied together and will fly apart. So when you throw this stack of cups out of the window they will separate and make a big mess in the car-park.

Now if you take this example and apply it to the nucleus where the cups are the items and the shoe string is the STRONG FORCE that holds all the items together and apart at the same time. Then you will have the model which answers your question with respect to the nucleus and black holes.

The strong force can therefore be seen as a type of lacing arrangement which is under tension when the items are pulled apart and is under compression when items are forced together and there is a strong rigidity within its structure to create very low elasticity. This rigidity leads to the high energy of W bosons which is essentially a transfer of kinetic energy between quark in the beta decay process.

To answer your question: the items are the masses themselves and E=mc^2 quantifies it. Newton laws together with Einstein General relativity defines the relationship and forces in space and time. And the strong force is what keeps the items simultaneously together and apart.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2009
Hello Nerys
Escape from BH & velocity. I can give you and simple example which you can try.
Get a kayak and paddles and put it on a fast flowing river. And paddle up river. If you can paddle a tiny bit faster than the water current you will eventually reach the next town up river. But if your speed is less you will never get there, no matter how long you paddle. Now replace the waters flow to > than c and your paddling ability to = c and you have the predicament of the black hole.

Can we pull something out of the black hole. My answer theoretically would be yes and I shall explain how it could be done. Say you are in a boat on top of the Niagara falls and your boat can easily cope with the flow of water (engine on of course). Now assume you just caught a fish on your line which disappeared over the edge of the fall and past the event horizon. If you can apply enough force to pull the fish up the waterfall you will have saved the fish and it will survive the waterfall in one piece. Provided of course that the fish didn%u2019t hit the rocks at the bottom and your boats motors can cope with the extra force. But you would have to replace the fish with something stronger to withstand the crushing gravity of a BH.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2009
Hello lomed
I appreciate your comment regarding the QCD problem and you have confirmed my comment that integer charges can be obtained in Baryons which have 3 quark. All the examples you have given sum together 3 charges and are therefore baryons. Now Mesons have 2 or 4 quark and as such you can only sum together 2 or 4 charges and in all cases the Meson sum will not be integer (eg 2/3 -1/3 = 1/3 or 2/3 2/3=4/3 and -1/3 -1/3 = -2/3. ) So there is a problem unless they have missed out some pages in the standard model which I have not seen.

If you were to ask me for example how Protons can change into Neutrons and pion without the quark changing charge. I can explain the process by a simple model. However I would prefer the question to be raised by someone who is an expert in the field of QCD and the standard model.

Newtonian physics do not apply when high velocities are involved. You must use Einstein relativistic formulas in such cases and the speed of light cannot be exceeded by photons no matter how long the engines are running. Sorry there is no way out that way. Even the Item which has 2 engines can only escape if the engines are perpendicular to each other. If both engines faced in the x direction the item would not be able to escape either because both of those engines cannot exceed velocity c either.

Cheers Zwei Stein

Hello Gendou

Light will not tear apart objects at the event horizon. But the light that comes from the falling object will torn by the event horrizon.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Gendou
not rated yet Mar 23, 2009
Hello Stein

You're mistaken. First, light cannot be "torn"; or at least, I don't know what that means. From outside, the redshift is infinite at the event horizon. From inside, the blueshift is infinite, meaning that any light shown on you as you pass though the event horizon will be shifted into the x-rays and gamma ray spectrum, and will tear you apart before you make it all the way across.

http://www.physic...php?b=46
rosscairn
not rated yet Mar 23, 2009
I'm not a scientist, nor a mathematician. But I wonder about black holes a lot.



I always wondered why we had the impression that black holes spin.



I don't think it's based on observation because we can't observe a black hole. Is it then based on assumption?


At any rate, I don't think space-time is like a "rubber sheet." I think it's more like a really thick, viscuous syrupy fluid - kinda like the stuff inside a Stretch Armstrong toy.



Therefore, gravity isn't a result of some body's mass causing a depression in and stretching the proverbial rubber sheet, it's more the result of a body's floating on top of a thick, syrupy fluid.



So then, a collapsing star becomes so dense and heavy, that eventually it completely overcomes the surface tension of space-time's viscosity and becomes completely submerged. As it goes through this process, it behaves like the phenomenon we call a black hole.



The super dense star doesn't descend into an infinite pit.



Eventually, it pinches off and sinks below the surface of space-time. Then it becomes preserved in the space-time goo like a pre-historic insect preserved in a hunk of amber.



Has space-time ever been represented as a fluid, as opposed to a sheet of rubber?



Just wondering.
lomed
not rated yet Mar 23, 2009
Hello lomed



I appreciate your comment regarding the QCD problem and you have confirmed my comment that integer charges can be obtained in Baryons which have 3 quark. All the examples you have given sum together 3 charges and are therefore baryons. Now Mesons have 2 or 4 quark and as such you can only sum together 2 or 4 charges and in all cases the Meson sum will not be integer (eg 2/3 -1/3 = 1/3 or 2/3 2/3=4/3 and -1/3 -1/3 = -2/3. ) So there is a problem unless they have missed out some pages in the standard model which I have not seen.







If you were to ask me for example how Protons can change into Neutrons and pion without the quark changing charge. I can explain the process by a simple model. However I would prefer the question to be raised by someone who is an expert in the field of QCD and the standard model.







Newtonian physics do not apply when high velocities are involved. You must use Einstein relativistic formulas in such cases and the speed of light cannot be exceeded by photons no matter how long the engines are running. Sorry there is no way out that way. Even the Item which has 2 engines can only escape if the engines are perpendicular to each other. If both engines faced in the x direction the item would not be able to escape either because both of those engines cannot exceed velocity c either.







Cheers Zwei Stein




My mistake, I was thinking that mesons were made of 3 quarks. After reading your post and the wikipedia article on mesons, I think I can more validly approach this problem. By definition, mesons are made up of a quark and an anti-quark; however, this does not mean they are the same type of quark. As is obvious, if a quark and an anti-quark of the same type are part of a particle (aside from being inherently unstable) the charge of the particle will be 0. However, if for example, a top quark has charge (-1/3)e and a bottom quark has charge (2/3), a meson composed of a top quark and an anti-bottom quark will have a charge of -e (where e is the charge of an electron.) Thus, mesons can have a charge of -e, 0, or e.

I know newtonian physics does no apply at high velocities in the real universe; I was merely saying what that in a universe governed solely by newtonian physics, it would be possible to escape a "black hole."

As a matter of interest, do you have math to go along with your model? It is possible to obtain copyright protection without submitting your paper(s) to a peer reviewed journal. So, if you are concerned about protecting your intellectual property, but don't want to publish in a peer reviewed journal yet, maybe you should use one of these other methods. Additionally, it would give people an opportunity to understand your theory more fully if they could read the entire paper.
Loverman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2009
Hello Zwei Stein, I have been reading the posts. Very interesting. I believe the "portal" theory about black holes, only I think these portals are to the other side of the universe, making the universe round instead of flat. Like the sliver of what ever percent they say our brain's are aware, our universe is known. Dark energy/matter wiil one day step out of the shadows, like our minds will when we start affirming we are more aware than we tell ourselves. We will know and be known, 100%, of course, give or take some years of graceful evolution!
Loverman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2009
Crazy as this may sound, I had a dream about the "Big Bang". In the beginning, I saw/heard a spinning particle emerge from darkness, which increased in spin movement, making an ever higher pitching sound, almost like a (spinning) tea kettle sounding at tea time. Interestingly there was sound as well as sight, instead of what one might imagine, where light plays all the roles. The particle got to spinning so fast, finally exploding outward with a very loud BANG, thundering down through time, echoing up to space. I got to see the formation of our first stars, as large balls of gas condensed to become... in unison, all galaxies swirled... then I woke up! Thanks for the blog.
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2009
Hello Gendou
Perhaps %u201Ctorn light%u201D is not the right terminology to use at the event horizon.
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2009
Hello lomes
Thank you for your questions and interest in QCD.

I have refrained from giving equation because I wish to explain the model and principle by means of everyday examples so that it can easily be understood and visualized by someone who is not a scientist.

Most of the equations that are in the physics book do not require correction.

Science is looking at nature from the outside and sees the end result and I respect highly its achievements.
I am looking at it from the inside out and see what causes the effect. I use logic to deduct what may cause the observed without resorting to probability. That is not to say that probability is incorrect. Not at all, but it may hinder progress when one seeks the final truth, in the quest of knowledge.

I am concerned that the information may be used for the wrong purpose, if in the wrong hands.

If you seek an equation which science does not have at this point than you may consider my Decay Equilibrium equation. It is currently called the Line of Stability. the liquid drop model and its variable constants (which is somewhat of a contradiction) is currently used for calculation. My equation is perhaps a little simpler to use to find the number of neutrons N based on the number of protons Z. Please consider this equation draws a line with an S shape which identifies where isotopes of nuclei change from beta to beta %u2013 decay (where N= neutron # and Z= Proton #:

N = Z ((Z^-8/3) %u2013 2/1) ((Z^-8/3) -3/2) ((Z^-8/3) %u2013 5/3)

I know 2/1 = 2 but I have given the equation in this form so that you may see a pattern.

Thank you for you assistance with the Meson problem. You may be interested in considering a much simpler solution without anti-particles and fractional charges.

The beta decay theory.
To describe beta decay we could use a model with 4 (yes 4!) metal marbles suspended by 2 stings in alignment similar to fig 9.13 in the book by Serway %u2013 Beichner, Physics For Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics fifth edition, Harcourt College Pyblishers. Mark the marbles from left to right as down e-, up v , down e , up v just as Pauli would like it

Now take this model in the QCD class room and demonstrate the quick Quiz 9.8 conservation of kinetic energy. When doing so please see if you can detect the invisible W boson. With some imagination you may detect beta decay. If you can do that all the color pencils will roll off the table and into the bin. And quark happily retain charge. Fayman diagrams will reveal themselves in living 3 dimensional action.

If you split it into 2 pairs you will have 2 pions. Oh yes, nearly forgot. There are strings attached and the up arrows are v..v..very weak.

By now there may be phones ringing and email going. The neutron star may suddenly homogenize and absorb all the electron vapor into a solid and rigid mass. And after that the black hole will copy them. The coulomb repulsion inside the nuclei of atoms may come to the surface.

Note that neutrino capture is identical to antineutrino emission, but this way it is easier to retain the 3 quarks and you can get rid of the anti. As you see it is not necessary to resort to antiparticles. In addition some well known particles receive a new use. You may ask. How can the positron exist inside a proton? Now that would be a smart question, and the answer will lead to why there is hydrogen in outer space which Ethelred would like to know. Or you could ask. Why do free Neutrons decay? Now that would be an easy question because a positron is exposed on the end. And you could ask why does Z43 and Z61 not have a stable isotope? That%u2019s also easy to answer. How does matter form in outer space is more challenging but quite within reach.

Yes, I agree it is difficult to judge validity of an argument, if not all the pieces are clearly laid out. If there is a genuine interest in my theory I would provide what information I can. But for now at least the pieces pertaining to the BH may have to do.

It would not be reasonable to copyright something like the item. It is too all encompassing. That would be like copy protecting DNA or GM food. So how can one own copyright to a person or wheat or the universe itself? It would be uncontionable.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2009
Hello Loverman
Thank you for your interest and comments for there are some wise words hidden therein.

Don%u2019t pay much attention to my hypothesis on other universes for that is all it is. There is enough to think about in this universe.

Funny you should have similar dreams as I. Just have a look at the bang below.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2009
Hello lomed
Text above is distorted by the software.
here it is corrected.
Please consider this equation draws a line with an S shape which identifies where isotopes of nuclei change from beta PLUS to beta MINUS decay (where N= neutron # and Z= Proton #
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2009
Hello lomes

I am having great difficulties with this text editor it does not like to accept mathematical operators. It may have something to do with my key board. The equation posted yesterday is missing a PLUS oprator after the first variable Z and some MINUS operators are being replaced by %u2013 so here it is with the words PLUS and MINUS spelt out

N = Z PLUS((Z^-8/3) MINUS 2/1) ((Z^-8/3) MINUS 3/2) ((Z^-8/3) MINUS 5/3)

What is your comment on the beta devay theory?

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2009
Hello jgelt
in answer to your posting 23 Mar
The event horizon is the place where photons can no longer escape from the black hole.
So light can not escape.
The photon is no longer a photons when the strong force betwen the 2 items of the pohon breaks. longer light.
and yes
The items of which the light was composed can escape.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2009
Hello jgelt
in answer to your posting 23 Mar
The event horizon is the place where photons can no longer escape from the black hole.
So light can not escape.
The photon is no longer a photons when the strong force betwen the 2 items breaks.
and yes
The items of which the light was composed can escape.
Cheers Zwei Stein
lomed
not rated yet Mar 27, 2009
Hello lomes

I am having great difficulties with this text editor it does not like to accept mathematical operators. It may have something to do with my key board. The equation posted yesterday is missing a PLUS oprator after the first variable Z and some MINUS operators are being replaced by %u2013 so here it is with the words PLUS and MINUS spelt out

N = Z PLUS((Z^-8/3) MINUS 2/1) ((Z^-8/3) MINUS 3/2) ((Z^-8/3) MINUS 5/3)

What is your comment on the beta devay theory?

Cheers Zwei Stein




As I have not studied QCD as of yet, I will restrict my comments to the equation and its interpretation. Your first post with this equation stated that it is written this way in order show a pattern. The pattern I observed was that the numerators in the constant terms were a fibonacci sequence while the denominators increased sequentially. I also noticed the power to which each of the z's inside the parentheses was raised was 8 divided by the number of other z's with which it was to be multiplied. I assume that your suggestion of a pattern implies that the pattern is infinite. However, if one expands the equation and computes the values of the various z coefficients for more and more terms of the multiplicative series (I will call k the number of terms in the multiplicative series), one notices that the final term (a constant) grows very quickly. This is to be expected since it is a multiplicative series of the fibonacci numbers divided by k factorial. In fact, the value of the constant term goes to infinity as k goes to infinity. Therefore, either my interpretation of your equation is wrong, or your equation is not useful for prediction.







Secondarily, I found a source that gives the decay method of isotopes, it is near the bottom of this post. After using the equation you gave: (N=Z ((Z^-8/3)-2/1)((Z^-8/3)-3/2)((Z^-8/3-5/3), I found that it is not a very good predictor of the dividing line between EC B and B-. Indeed, for values of Z>50 it is not a good indicator of anything measured since the N values are so much less than the stable (or relatively so) values for a given Z (i.e. nuclei with N numbers as small as predicted would decay essentially instantaneously.) So, I am not sure what to make of your equation except to say that my interpretations of it so far have not convinced me that it is correct. Of course, I am open to revising my interpretation if it was incorrect.



The website with the decay modes is:



http://www.nndc.b...Color=dm







It would not be reasonable to copyright something like the item. It is too all encompassing. That would be like copy protecting DNA or GM food. So how can one own copyright to a person or wheat or the universe itself? It would be uncontionable.







Cheers Zwei Stein




All what I was talking about would grant you is the ability to more easily prosecute people that might attempt to publish your work/papers as their own. I did not mean patenting your idea of the item (I don't think it is possible to obtain a patent for abstract concepts.)
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2009
Hello Lomes
Thank you for your response. Your observations are correct. However it was not intended by my comment to infer that the fibonacci sequence is continued bejond the 3 terms. The Z inside the brackets is raised by the 2.66667th root ^Minus8/3. The equation is comlete as defined and the fibonazzi number does not continue. It defines the theoretical division between the blue and pink decay seen in your posted isotope data. You are correct that alpha decay takes over at heavy nucleons. It is a mathematical equation which does not reqire any adjustable variables to define a complex curve.

It is not an important equation in my theory and was only used to obtain a theoretical decay equilibrum. It may gives some insight into the possible shape and structure of nuclei which I have.


I do have diagrams of the layout of all nuclei from Z1 to Z120 with invariable constants to calculate bonding energy constants which equate to the empirical mass with a difference of less than 0.4%. The constants are based on the lightest nuclei. In addition the spin is also mathematically calculated.

I have provided informaton of the beta decay and the 2 item Photon only to provide a theoretical basis for my predictions regarding the process inside the black hole. And to provide a possible model which would result in the observed jets at the poles of black holes.

You should seriously look at my proposed model for beta decay because it will clearly identify that positrons and electrons are present in the nucleus. This feature is adventageous for the stability of the nucleus because the repulsion between the protons is substantially reduced by the presence of electrons inside the neutron. The quark inside the protons and neutrons pions and other subatomic particles reduce to electrons, positrons and 2 types of neutrinos. This represents a breakthrough in the standard model. The conservaton of knetic energy model described also shows how close the quark are packed together and how the strong force and the item may resist the forces of gravty inside the black hole and the small amount of core density difference and rigidity one would expect in cores of neutron type stars like that of the Black Hole.

Based on the comments from Loverman I take it for granted that science remembers 100% the who when and how. In that case I need not worry about plagerism.

Thank you for everyones time, opinion and critique. It has been my pleasur to discuss these theoretical issues with interested people. It is much appreciated.

Uf widerluege & Cheers Zwei Stein
Loverman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2009
Remember that according to Einstein, once something has gotten to the speed of light, said thing becomes infinite (infinite mass infinity). Therefore, if light which travels at this rate can not escape a black hole, then we are dealing with an Infinirator, which means matter is not destroyed, only changed. At what rate, depending on size, as in pressure plus matter consumed. Could there be a bloated Black Hole, which is not so massive, yet bigger than expected? Of course. Are there White Holes? Yes. Other colored Holes. Absolutely! Worms. Certainly! Visions. You know there are. Wonders. By the shrillions! Black Holes are everywhere... yet, so are all the other HOLES, only some are holy, and some are whole. Like our body, each cell serves a function, whether we acknowledge, or not. Whether we see, or not. We know this. Our Universe (One Verse) is already ONE. To understand this, we peer into darkness (BH) and see wonders of light beholden to light's very foundations. Single Voice (Universe) summoned into Singularity for a single purpose... to increase... at center of Galaxy, we escaped with ease.
Loverman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2009
On another note, not to sound so philosophical, thank you for your blog Zwei Stein. Please don't judge me too much in taking poetic license here; yet poetry and music are part of these mysteries all encompassed in our vibrating Verse. I will continue to observe your genius from cyber Space, which incidentally is not unlike of what we speak, minus a few good partytrons.
superhuman
not rated yet Apr 01, 2009
I'm not a scientist, nor a mathematician. But I wonder about black holes a lot.
I always wondered why we had the impression that black holes spin.

We can deduce it based on conservation of angular momentum, if a rotating star collapses into a black hole it still has to rotate.

At any rate, I don't think space-time is like a "rubber sheet." I think it's more like a really thick, viscuous syrupy fluid - kinda like the stuff inside a Stretch Armstrong toy.


What space-time is is dictated by experiment and the data from experiments fit's the theory of general relativity the best, this theory has equations which describe spacetime and it is the best description we have at the moment. To understand spacetime you would have to understand those equations or at least all the consequences of them.

Has space-time ever been represented as a fluid, as opposed to a sheet of rubber?


An object floating in a fluid is carried by it's current and it will go around an obstacle instead of hitting it as the object falling under gravity does so fluid is not a good model of spacetime. Also forces acting on objects immersed in a fluid do not depend on other objects immersed in this fluid this is also in conflict with how the gravity operates. Both these behaviors are captured by a rubber sheet analogy so it is better.
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2009
Hello Superhuman
I Like and agree with your comments
Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2009
Hello Loverman
I like your poetry but for one point

If E = mc^2 than when velocity reaches that of the speed of light then mass reaches Zero like the photon. And when velocity reaches Zero as in the centre of the black hole than Mass will be at maximum
In this univers -
To everything there is a season. For everything there is a reason. A time for every purpose under heaven. A time to be born, and a time to die. A time to break down, and a time to build up. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together. (Ref. King James - Bible)

Cheers Zwei Stein
barkster
not rated yet Apr 06, 2009
D Barkster say it was not spinning but now the whole universe is spinning."
Damn, I've been gone from this post for too long... Only thing spinning now is my brain.

At least this was a good scientific article with great scientific debate.
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2009
Hello Bakster
Good to see that you are still wth us
Thanks for letting me borrow them bottles of Jameson.
Without them I would not have been able to prove that the photon must consist of 2 items, and therefore explain the origin of black hole jets

Cheers, Uf widerluege Zwei Stein.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2009
Without them I would not have been able to prove that the photon must consist of 2 items, and therefore explain the origin of black hole jets


You have proved nothing. That requires actual evidence. Photons still don't travel faster than C.

Ethelred
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2009
Hello Ethelred

You are correct photons do not travel faster than c and that is not my point.

My point is that the photon must consist of 2 interacting particles in order for it to be able to have angular momentum (which requires rotation) and be polarised at the same time (which means the electromagnetic wave does not rotate).

So that the 2 items do not rotate themselves but they rotate about the axis of the photon and therfore the photon has rotation. If therfore the electromagnetic wave is produced by the 2 items so that the elctric wave is produced by one item vertical and the magnetic wave is produced by the other item horrizontal you have the exact sinosoidal wave of the polarised electromagnetic wave. And at the same time You will also have the angular momentum Plank h of the photon particle.

For the 2 items not to separate there must be a force holding them together. I expect this to be the strong force because there are no coulomb or gravity forces involved here.

Supernova explosions create neutron stars and black holes by collapsing the atomic structure. Neutron stars and black holes are therefore massive nuclei held together by gravity. In super massive black holes which emit polar jets the stong force which holds the quark apart is overcome by gravity and the items separate. This includes the items in the photons.

At this point the photon is utterly destroyed and does no longer exist, but the 2 Items still exist and these Items can ascape from the black hole because they are not affected by gravity and they travel at 1.4 times c. To prove this I will have to provide you with the internal structure if the Item which at this point in time I do not wish to publish.

The 2 items travel through space in the form of dark matter. At some point in time 2 randome items will align and bond into a photon. A that moment a new photon will be created somewhere in the universe with its speed limited to c.

Because there is a concentration of items near the poles of black holes where the jets are emitting items. There is a greater chance and abundance of newly created photons and these photons are what you see as x-ray emissions.

And therein lays my argument and hypothesis that this may well be the only possible conclusion and answer for the existance of these jets.

In addition the supermassive black holes which emit excess mass as polar jets will result in a kind of mass and gravity balance. This balance gives greate stability to the galaxy which such black holes are the center of.

Cheers Uf widerluege Zwei Stein

Vali
not rated yet Apr 26, 2009
But nevertheless, black hole seems to eject massive amount of something (was it X-rays) in those jets.
Thecis


It's nice to see you again mr. JOHN TITOR !
:)