astroyphsyics question?

Discussions on scientific and technological advances, both old and new.

astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby willow » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:23 pm

oookay im not entirely sure where im going with this but bare with me please. I was just reminded of this while reading:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -religion/ - Obama's nominee to head the National Institutes of Health is a creationist, reasoning that if the Universe had a beginning, it thus had a creator.
-fark


in one point of refutation he refers to the origin of the universe and the big bang theory and the creation of matter from nothing. it reminded me of two things, the first was a conversation on the chat a few days ago re the possibility of a supernateral, i posited things which exist outside our physics, other universes (bubble universe theory) where our physics is meaningless, he wanted to know what the bubbles were floating in. the second thing it reminded me of was an idea i and im sure others, im too lazy to look, had about the creation on universes etc. i wonder if people would except the idea of supra-natural?.

when a star large enough implodes, due to its own gravity into a hypernova, it leaves behind a black hole where the star used to be. black holes have intese gravity such that it can pull in light itself, and dense material creates gravity, so my hypothesis is that at the center of the black hole, which we cant see into, is the core of that former star compressed into an infinitely small super dense unit of... something, is it still matter if its so tiny? and thats what causes the intest pull, it would also explain where things go when pulled into the black hole itself, to the core, sorry your worm hole is in another castle. gravity acording to einstein also bends spacetime around it. Im curious if given enough matter the core at the center of the black hole's particles repulsion could overcome its own intesne gravity causing... boom. inside its own lil bubble of space time.

hair brained in know but hey :P
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby DarthRavanger » Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:49 pm

I've heard that one before. The idea that a universe can be born from within another universe via black holes or quantum fluctuations or some such. I suppose another universe could form from an existing one, though by what mechanism I don't know.
According to robots, we taste like BACON! http://www.wired.com/table_of_malconten ... identifie/

The Throne of Heaven was built my man to serve as the pedestal for nothing.
User avatar
DarthRavanger
Mod Group Leader
Mod Group Leader
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:47 am
Location: D.C metro Area
Reputation point: 1912

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby roid » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:56 am

The confusing aspect of black holes for me is the breakdown of time within the event horizon.
As you approach the event horizon, time slows down as your approach it - and afaik, one must logically conclude that once you pass the event horizon time actually STOPS. So do the particles that enter a black hole technically go anywhere? You can't "move" without time, so once they pass the event horizon they will never move again, they cannot move closer to the center of the black hole. Those particles are stuck in a moment, no?

Without time, you don't have causality. And without causality, you can't have prediction, and therefore you can't have knowledge. AFAIK without causality you don't even have existance in the popularly understood sense.
They are quire literally "holes". They lead outside of our universe, to a place without time.


I'd like to add into the pool an astrophysics question i've also had for a while:

In TV shows about astrophysics, they often say that when a star supernovas, the huge cloud that makes up it's remnants then become "a stellar nursery" fostering the birth of new stars.
But to me - that's like saying that after one car crashes into a wall, you can take apart that car and make a hundred new cars of the same size.
It goes against the laws of conservation of matter/energy.
The only way i can reconcile this, is if the children stars are a lot smaller than the original star (ie: the children "cars" are smaller than the "original big car". But i've never actually heard this specifically said.
Or, it would make sense if the stellar nurseries are produced by multiple supernova. But whenever i hear them talk about these nebulae and stellar nurseries, they only seem to ever mention ONE - SINGLE - STAR - SUPERNOVA.
Maybe it's coz Supernova and it's plural Supernovae sound identical in speech.
??

willow wrote:oookay im not entirely sure where im going with this but bare with me please. I was just reminded of this while reading:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -religion/ - Obama's nominee to head the National Institutes of Health is a creationist, reasoning that if the Universe had a beginning, it thus had a creator.
-fark


(reads through the chain of articles and commentary articles)
THIS MAKES ME ANGRY
User avatar
roid
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Reputation point: 0

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby DarthRavanger » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:37 am

roid wrote:The confusing aspect of black holes for me is the breakdown of time within the event horizon.
As you approach the event horizon, time slows down as your approach it - and afaik, one must logically conclude that once you pass the event horizon time actually STOPS. So do the particles that enter a black hole technically go anywhere? You can't "move" without time, so once they pass the event horizon they will never move again, they cannot move closer to the center of the black hole. Those particles are stuck in a moment, no?

Without time, you don't have causality. And without causality, you can't have prediction, and therefore you can't have knowledge. AFAIK without causality you don't even have existance in the popularly understood sense.
They are quire literally "holes". They lead outside of our universe, to a place without time.


I'd like to add into the pool an astrophysics question i've also had for a while:

In TV shows about astrophysics, they often say that when a star supernovas, the huge cloud that makes up it's remnants then become "a stellar nursery" fostering the birth of new stars.
But to me - that's like saying that after one car crashes into a wall, you can take apart that car and make a hundred new cars of the same size.
It goes against the laws of conservation of matter/energy.
The only way i can reconcile this, is if the children stars are a lot smaller than the original star (ie: the children "cars" are smaller than the "original big car". But i've never actually heard this specifically said.
Or, it would make sense if the stellar nurseries are produced by multiple supernova. But whenever i hear them talk about these nebulae and stellar nurseries, they only seem to ever mention ONE - SINGLE - STAR - SUPERNOVA.
Maybe it's coz Supernova and it's plural Supernovae sound identical in speech.
??

willow wrote:oookay im not entirely sure where im going with this but bare with me please. I was just reminded of this while reading:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -religion/ - Obama's nominee to head the National Institutes of Health is a creationist, reasoning that if the Universe had a beginning, it thus had a creator.
-fark


(reads through the chain of articles and commentary articles)
THIS MAKES ME ANGRY

I believe the implication is that the star that went supernova was a big ass star. I mean, they can get pretty big.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -sizes.jpg
According to robots, we taste like BACON! http://www.wired.com/table_of_malconten ... identifie/

The Throne of Heaven was built my man to serve as the pedestal for nothing.
User avatar
DarthRavanger
Mod Group Leader
Mod Group Leader
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:47 am
Location: D.C metro Area
Reputation point: 1912

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby TheBlueFalconX » Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:56 am

Alrighty so. A star capable of a supernova must be like 5 times greater in mass than our Sun. Star masses have been found to be up to 190 times the mass of our own. And stars can be less massive than our own too.

So Imagine if a huge star goes supernova... it would be capable of creating a vast nebula where other stars can be born, even ones the size of ours.
I guess it takes a firm belief in the invisible magician to properly sell a gun online. Who knew?-Shawna
RSS YouTube
>>An empyreal poem possessing resplendent beauty of divine descent birthed by essence is an arcanum.<<
User avatar
TheBlueFalconX
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Reputation point: 918

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby Grimstad » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:02 am

When you look at the Milky Way it has these big dark spots in it. That is because there is lots of interstellar dust there, not fewer stars. When there is a nova the star ejects most of it's matter back into space. The reason we can see these nebulae is because they are being lit up by the enrgy of the exploding star. I think some are being lit up by neighboring stars too. When the mass of an exploding star gets ejected it compresses into the rest of the dust thats already there. In these shock waves of compressing dust is where the new stars are formed.
Thats the best simple explanation I can do.
Of all my senses, I value my sense of humor the most

agnostic: Subcategory Apetheist.
User avatar
Grimstad
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington
Reputation point: 12

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby TheBlueFalconX » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:08 am

T''is an excellent explanation.
I guess it takes a firm belief in the invisible magician to properly sell a gun online. Who knew?-Shawna
RSS YouTube
>>An empyreal poem possessing resplendent beauty of divine descent birthed by essence is an arcanum.<<
User avatar
TheBlueFalconX
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Reputation point: 918

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby tetropods » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:19 am

WOOH astrophysics :P (i love this type of stuff)

So the center of a black hole can only be speculated about because the event horizon is a one way door. but the center would have to be a ball of super tiny particles but it is still matter. And time isn't completely stopped just slowed down incredibly.

and the whole nebulae thing, supernova shock wave knock into invert interstellar gas clouds and make them gravitationally collapse.
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights. :)
User avatar
tetropods
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:39 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA
Reputation point: 500

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby HalloweenWeed » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:11 am

roid wrote:The confusing aspect of black holes for me is the breakdown of time within the event horizon.
As you approach the event horizon, time slows down as your approach it - and afaik, one must logically conclude that once you pass the event horizon time actually STOPS. So do the particles that enter a black hole technically go anywhere? You can't "move" without time, so once they pass the event horizon they will never move again, they cannot move closer to the center of the black hole. Those particles are stuck in a moment, no?

I am just explaining the time portion here. BTW, sorry for taking so long to answer, I have been quite busy for the last week roid. Let me start with the example I was taught in school. When a person is transported at a high speed, time slows down for him. For example, when the astronauts went into space at high velocity, their watches became off, they were slow in relation to earth time. But did time in the universe slow down just because the astronauts' time slowed down? No, and if it did we would not know as we would have no way to tell that. You see, time only slowed down for the mass approaching the speed of light. The earth just kept right on going the same speed as always, and the people on it. So roid, you see, if the particles you speak of had a watch, and it remained workable, the watch would come to a stop. The electron movement around the atom neucleus would stop. But it would still move into the black hole because external time is unaffected. If one had appropriate tracking equipment, you could still track the object's movement, even though time stopped for the object itself.

Now this brings up some interesting possibilities. My favorite is that: If you could transport a person and ship at light speed, they would not age, or even think, until they slowed down. So theoretically a person could go billions of light years away this way and if surviving the deceleration would then arrive the same age as when he hit light speed, even though billions of years expired! The problem is, at light speed all the instrumentation and computers time would stop too, meaning they would not be operational, so there would be no way to tell the ship when to stop; and since time had also stopped for any on-board engines, they would not be able to stop either, since no transitions are possible without time. Have I sufficiently exercised your mind? Not yet, I have a hypothesis:

Hypothesis: I believe that if one could go faster than light, time might even reverse! It only seems a logical assumption. If time didn't reverse, time might speed back up forward as you go multiples of the speed of light. And remember, one need not accelerate past the speed of light, one might do so somehow without acceleration! There are particles theorized to always travel at or above the speed of light, such as quarks and neutrinos. I hope I have been enlightening.


Addendum (edit): If you were watching your watch as you approached the speed of light, the watch would not seem to slow down to you, as your thoughts would be slowing just as well. But therefore, your speed (the relative speed that outside bodies passed you) would seem that much faster.
"Religion is just mind control." "Atheism is a non-prophet organization." - George Carlin
"If God existed, why would he care about any of the us fools contributing to the end of the earth as we know it?" - HalloweenWeed
User avatar
HalloweenWeed
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:22 am
Location: Maine, USA
Reputation point: 1989

Re: astroyphsyics question?

Unread postby roid » Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:11 am

HalloweenWeed wrote:...if the particles you speak of had a watch, and it remained workable, the watch would come to a stop. The electron movement around the atom neucleus would stop. But it would still move into the black hole because external time is unaffected....
HalloweenWeed wrote:Have I sufficiently exercised your mind?


Well.. not really, sorry. What kindof self-respecting space nerd would i be if i didn't have at least a rudimentary understanding of special relativity :).
If we were on a spaceship able to accelerate at a constant and comfortable 1 Gee of apparent acceleration, due to our very quickly reaching relativistic speeds we could actually travel to anywhere in the universe and slow down and stop again, all within less than one human lifespan (ie: less than 80 years). As most of that time we will experience is spent speeding up to, and slowing down from, the incredibly high relativistic speeds.

As you approach the event horizon of a black hole you are approaching light speed, this is what i meant when i said that time is slowing down for you (relative to an outside observer).
I understand that time, mass, and speed are all competing values on the one same axis.
(ie: increase speed and you increase apparent mass, thus why it is so impossible to "accelerate" in the traditional sense to light speed - you never actually reach it, your mass just keeps getting closer to infinity, thus requiring more and more energy to accelerate. The energy requirements are infinite).

But the moment you break through the event horizon, you are now travelling at the speed of light. So time is now not moving AT ALL, it has completely stopped. I think the fact that (to an observer) you will also now disappear behind the event horizon at the very same point - i think this is key to showing how time has actually stopped. You suggested that an outside observer could be used to show that time is still ticking over as you punch through the event horizon, however the observer can no-longer watch you, you're gone. So no, an outside observer CANNOT watch you past the event horizon - past you reaching the speed of light.
This is why i think that you cannot go any further than the event horizon, everything stops right there. Just past the event horizon is an infinitely thin empty shell of a near-infinite amount of matter and energy frozen in time, as it just keeps piling up on the surface of the shell. But it's not piling in the sense that we understand piling up and taking up space, instead it is piling up taking up not space but TIME. It's like quasi-parallel-universes, "bigger on the inside than in the outside" kindof Dr Who stuff. If you could see it it could look roughly like this, but the bullets would be infinitely thin:
Image
And inside that infinitely thin shell - is a place outside of our universe. It is a place without time. Due to causality breaking down, nothing can ever actually "enter" this space. No processes can occur, as all processes require the existence of time.

If apparent time just slowed down to really really really slow speeds, then the event horizon would not exist, yes?
The existence of the clear defined event horizon is proof that time has actually stopped at that point, and who knows what's going on behind it (perhaps time is reversed like you suggest, or perhaps time just doesn't exist. Either circumstance in it's own right would prevent anything from ever* entering past the event horizon).

*perhaps a rather unintuitive word to use, since it refers to time.
User avatar
roid
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Reputation point: 0

Next

Return to Science and Technology



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]