Theoretical Physics

For non-Starport related topics

Moderator: Major

Supermassive Black Holes Existing Before the Big Bang?

Yes
9
56%
No
7
44%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Theoretical Physics

Post by Manganator » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:10 am

If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)

User avatar
Cheesy
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:40 am
Location: Classified (hiding from the aliens)
Contact:

Post by Cheesy » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:18 am

i now know who mang is in Hercules now, as i said in game i believe the expansion of the universe is based simply on how gas expands to fill its container, so the universe expands to fill whats beyond, and if whats beyond has no limits, then the universe will continue to spred out. the big bang occured because of the pressure differences between the very dense matter which banged, and the vacuum of space, and and newtons laws did the rest

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Post by Manganator » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:20 am

Lol my cover was blown when Puplehaze told the entire patch who I was. So it's not really a big blow ;)

McGrod
Posts: 1837
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 5:50 am

Post by McGrod » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:33 am

Sorry this text no longer exists due to god mod.
Last edited by McGrod on Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
awmalzo
Posts: 1550
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: 11th President all yours ;)

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by awmalzo » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:04 am

Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
we can't answer those question yet. its like trying to solve a qudratic equation without knowing how to solve a linear.

what about a more short but complex question like this.

does time dilation exist?

DionysuZ

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:06 am

There was nothing before the big bang, no space, no time. So your question is meaningless.

DionysuZ

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:07 am

awmalzo wrote:
Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
we can't answer those question yet. its like trying to solve a qudratic equation without knowing how to solve a linear.

what about a more short but complex question like this.

does time dilation exist?
It's a logical outcome of the observation that lightspeed is constant for each observer.

User avatar
awmalzo
Posts: 1550
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: 11th President all yours ;)

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by awmalzo » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:55 am

DionysuZ wrote:
awmalzo wrote:
Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
we can't answer those question yet. its like trying to solve a qudratic equation without knowing how to solve a linear.

what about a more short but complex question like this.

does time dilation exist?
It's a logical outcome of the observation that lightspeed is constant for each observer.
so If I am moving with the speed of light[ well almost], I will still see the light moving at the same speed? [ assuming same direction]

808gage
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:13 pm

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by 808gage » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:59 am

awmalzo wrote:
Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
we can't answer those question yet. its like trying to solve a qudratic equation without knowing how to solve a linear.

what about a more short but complex question like this.

does time dilation exist?
This made me lol, because I'm studying for my Algebra 2 final. rofl.

User avatar
Knives.
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:54 am
Location: If I tell you, your parents might file for a divorce.

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by Knives. » Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:35 pm

Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.

#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?

#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
Em...I like pie.

And I think Elmo should be green...red is just ugly.

And cookie monster should ease up on the cookies...a well- balanced meal is key to good health.

I hope that helps! :wink:

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by Caia » Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:37 pm

Manganator wrote:If anyone knows anything about theoretical physics can you help me out with these questions I have on the laws of the universe? I'm doing a paper for my course and I want to know if my assumptions on the weaknesses of these various theories are correct... or if I'm going to fail.
#1- I have heard Dark Matter is spread evenly throughout the universe. If this is so, why is it not self-contradictory (as in all the edges simply repulsing against each other and canceling each other out) if it isn't spread evenly, then why are the repulsive affects not apparent within our own solar system?
It isn't. If it were we'd have some sitting in our backyard. In fact, "dark matter" is still in the theory stage. They have yet to provide conclusive evidence that it actually exists. (Though, they are slowly building their case.)
#2- Doesn't the introduction of white holes and Dark energy violate Occam's Razor? If a white hole cannot be created then how was it "made"? Is it not more feasible to say that the super condensed matter of the big bang was indeed a gigantic black hole whose matter overcame the singularity rather than violating Occam's Razor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

If a White Hole is just a Black Whole "in reverse" AND you assume that time can run backwards as well as forwards, then I'd say this falls well within Occam's Razor. Secondly, its really hard to apply OR to certain things. Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg Uncertainty princilple, wave/particle duality. Let's be honest, a lot of physics after Einstein doesn't fall under OR.

If something exists, then one would think it was made at some point in the past. However, since White Holes are merely Black Holes working in reverse, one could argue one of two things. The White hole was made when the Black hole was (as they are the same object) OR the White hole will be made sometime in the future. Most people think Cause and effect HAVE to happen in that order. QM says otherwise.

#3- Is there any solid proof that there were no black holes which existed before the big bang which could be influencing the outward acceleration of our Universe? (making up for the missing matter observed by WMAP and proven by the measured inconsistencies in Hubbles constant)
There is no solid proof about ANYthing "before" the big bang. Without going into too much details, they would have had to exist outside normal space/time. In fact, the very idea of something happening "before" the big bang is a bit silly as there simply aren't any reference points to compare to.

Now all that said, is it possible? Yes, though our current understanding simply can't handle this type of thing. Its more along a philosophy than a science.

Moreover, science rarely looks to disprove things. No, there is no evidence that there were NOT black holes "before" the big bang, but there is no evidence that Pluto is not inhabited by unicorns. The whole idea behind the scientific method is to provide evidence FOR something.

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Post by Manganator » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:53 pm

DionysuZ wrote:There was nothing before the big bang, no space, no time. So your question is meaningless.
Forgive me, but that sounds absurd. If there was no time before the big bang, the big bang would never have occurred.

Can you prove no matter existed outside of the singularity of the big bang?

Oh and sorry guys in my #1, I meant "Dark Energy" NOT Dark Matter. Dark Energy has the repulsive anti-gravitational force.

DionysuZ

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:26 pm

Manganator wrote:
DionysuZ wrote:There was nothing before the big bang, no space, no time. So your question is meaningless.
Forgive me, but that sounds absurd. If there was no time before the big bang, the big bang would never have occurred.
May sound a bit absurd but that's the big bang theory =) time and space were created at the big bang.

DionysuZ

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:26 pm

awmalzo wrote:
DionysuZ wrote:
awmalzo wrote: we can't answer those question yet. its like trying to solve a qudratic equation without knowing how to solve a linear.

what about a more short but complex question like this.

does time dilation exist?
It's a logical outcome of the observation that lightspeed is constant for each observer.
so If I am moving with the speed of light[ well almost], I will still see the light moving at the same speed? [ assuming same direction]
yes

User avatar
awmalzo
Posts: 1550
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: 11th President all yours ;)

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by awmalzo » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:58 pm

DionysuZ wrote:
awmalzo wrote:
DionysuZ wrote: It's a logical outcome of the observation that lightspeed is constant for each observer.
so If I am moving with the speed of light[ well almost], I will still see the light moving at the same speed? [ assuming same direction]
yes
;0 kinda wierd ;0

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by Manganator » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:51 pm

awmalzo wrote:
DionysuZ wrote:
awmalzo wrote: so If I am moving with the speed of light[ well almost], I will still see the light moving at the same speed? [ assuming same direction]
yes
;0 kinda wierd ;0
Well when you think about it, there's no way of telling what speed you're going at at any moment. If you're in a vacuum and you see everything flying past you, it could be that everything else is just moving fast.

There's no test to determine what is "motionless" which means that constancy of the speed of light is the only outcome.

User avatar
milo
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:58 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know
Contact:

Post by milo » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:01 pm

the big bang is a mathmatical outcome which is derived from axioms based on observations which by soandso's law cannot be accurate.

DionysuZ

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:46 pm

awmalzo wrote:
;0 kinda wierd ;0
Might sound weird, but it is observed ;). For example, look into the Michelson-Morley experiment.
In 1887, the physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed the influential Michelson–Morley experiment to measure the velocity of the Earth through the aether. As shown in the diagram of a Michelson interferometer, a half-silvered mirror was used to split a beam of monochromatic light into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, each beam was reflected back and forth between mirrors several times (the same number for each beam to give a long but equal path length; the actual Michelson-Morley experiment used more mirrors than shown) then recombined to produce a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. Any slight change in speed of light along one arm of the interferometer compared with its speed along the other arm (because the apparatus was moving with the Earth through the proposed "aether") would then be observed as a change in the pattern of interference. In the event, the experiment gave a null result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson- ... experiment

The constancy of the speed of light is one of the axioms of the theory of relativity. There are only two axioms, proving any of these 2 wrong would disprove the theory of relativity.

DionysuZ

Post by DionysuZ » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:56 pm

milo wrote:the big bang is a mathmatical outcome which is derived from axioms based on observations which by soandso's law cannot be accurate.
The model of the big bang relies on General Relativity. The consequence of general relativity was that the universe should either expand or deflate. Because Einstein thought the universe was static, this outcome was weird to him so he introduced the cosmological constant to nullify the effect, something he later regretted.

Hubble observed that all galaxies seemed to have a redshift, meaning they would be traveling away from us, instead of towards us, supporting the big bang theory.

Also, cosmic microwave background radiation supports the big bang theory.

I'm not a big fan of it myself but i'm not an expert ;)

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Post by Caia » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:40 am

Forgive me, but that sounds absurd. If there was no time before the big bang, the big bang would never have occurred.
It isn't time, its space/time. You can't have one without the other. Since there was no space "before" the big bang, there couldn't have been time either.

Yes, this sounds odd and it takes a while to wrap your head around the idea.

More to the point, if there was nothing before the big bang, what caused the big bang? Nobody knows. Its unlikely we'll ever know as all our rules of physics cease to apply "before" the first event (the big bang) took place.

As for your question on dark energy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe.
We're sorta just using it to explain some stuff that we don't have a whole lot of understanding of at the moment. I suspect the idea of dark energy will change radically over the next few decades. Since we're really not sure what is going on, I'd be hesitant to try and answer our question with any certainty.

JD
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:24 am
Location: Behind You With A Nuke

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by JD » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:55 pm

Manganator wrote:
awmalzo wrote:
DionysuZ wrote: yes
;0 kinda wierd ;0
Well when you think about it, there's no way of telling what speed you're going at at any moment. If you're in a vacuum and you see everything flying past you, it could be that everything else is just moving fast.

There's no test to determine what is "motionless" which means that constancy of the speed of light is the only outcome.
Here is one theory based on traveling at light speed:

Traveling at light speed really doesn't negate time. It is just that time is relative, as is velocity. My computer seems motionless to me, but an observer looking down at the solar system would see me and my computer moving quite rapidly. If you could get into a ship and accelerate to very near the speed of light and travel for ten earth years, your personal experience of time will not seem to you to have been any different from when you were on earth. Every moment would have passed normally for you, without anything seeming odd. It's just that at the end of the trip, you will have experienced it as only a fraction of the ten years. It will seem impossible to you that 10 years has gone by on earth. Time will have gone by differently for you than for earth. The same thing would happen even if you could reach the velocity of light. Upon decelerating, you would not report anything unusual regarding your experience of the passage of time; time will have passed for you as normally as ever. But you will notice that you spanned a huge distance instantaneously. You would find it nearly impossible to believe that dozens, hundreds or thousands of earth years had passed by during that instantaneous surge. From your vantage point in that ship, you could as easily ask: How does traveling at light speed accelerate time (for earth)? It doesn't.

DionysuZ

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by DionysuZ » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:42 am

JD wrote: Here is one theory based on traveling at light speed:

Traveling at light speed really doesn't negate time. It is just that time is relative, as is velocity. My computer seems motionless to me, but an observer looking down at the solar system would see me and my computer moving quite rapidly. If you could get into a ship and accelerate to very near the speed of light and travel for ten earth years, your personal experience of time will not seem to you to have been any different from when you were on earth. Every moment would have passed normally for you, without anything seeming odd. It's just that at the end of the trip, you will have experienced it as only a fraction of the ten years. It will seem impossible to you that 10 years has gone by on earth. Time will have gone by differently for you than for earth. The same thing would happen even if you could reach the velocity of light. Upon decelerating, you would not report anything unusual regarding your experience of the passage of time; time will have passed for you as normally as ever. But you will notice that you spanned a huge distance instantaneously. You would find it nearly impossible to believe that dozens, hundreds or thousands of earth years had passed by during that instantaneous surge. From your vantage point in that ship, you could as easily ask: How does traveling at light speed accelerate time (for earth)? It doesn't.
Traveling at light speed is impossible for anything with mass.

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Physics

Post by Manganator » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:28 am

DionysuZ wrote:
JD wrote: Here is one theory based on traveling at light speed:

Traveling at light speed really doesn't negate time. It is just that time is relative, as is velocity. My computer seems motionless to me, but an observer looking down at the solar system would see me and my computer moving quite rapidly. If you could get into a ship and accelerate to very near the speed of light and travel for ten earth years, your personal experience of time will not seem to you to have been any different from when you were on earth. Every moment would have passed normally for you, without anything seeming odd. It's just that at the end of the trip, you will have experienced it as only a fraction of the ten years. It will seem impossible to you that 10 years has gone by on earth. Time will have gone by differently for you than for earth. The same thing would happen even if you could reach the velocity of light. Upon decelerating, you would not report anything unusual regarding your experience of the passage of time; time will have passed for you as normally as ever. But you will notice that you spanned a huge distance instantaneously. You would find it nearly impossible to believe that dozens, hundreds or thousands of earth years had passed by during that instantaneous surge. From your vantage point in that ship, you could as easily ask: How does traveling at light speed accelerate time (for earth)? It doesn't.
Traveling at light speed is impossible for anything with mass.
Yet light has mass, which is why it's affected by the force of gravity. It's just that since it's at the speed of light it's mass is contracted to the infinity small.

And guys... doesn't it violate Occam's Razor to say that a white hole and dark energy explain our universe rather than making the leap that black holes have existed in our universe before the big bang?

The existence of said black holes would alleviate a number of inconsistencies (such as Black Holes which have far surpassed the Eddington limit, or the massive amounts of Hawking's radiation at the edges of our universe) in modern physics without inventing new BBQ.

User avatar
M2-Destroyer
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: The Bonny, Bonny Banks of Loch Lomond!
Contact:

Post by M2-Destroyer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:05 pm

Dark Energy should (in theory) not exist.

It is the same as mass and anti-mass .. the anti mass is cancelled out by the mass.

User avatar
BlackNova
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Land of the English :O

Post by BlackNova » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:19 am

The simple answer to this is:

Matter + Antimatter = pwnzorisation

Therefore, the meaning of existence, the purpose of the universe and all who inhabit it, is to pwnzorise. This can be done in many fashions - one way is by killing n00bs in starport.

DionysuZ

Post by DionysuZ » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:42 am

Manganator wrote:
Yet light has mass, which is why it's affected by the force of gravity. It's just that since it's at the speed of light it's mass is contracted to the infinity small.
Light has no mass. It has impulse, but no mass.
And guys... doesn't it violate Occam's Razor to say that a white hole and dark energy explain our universe rather than making the leap that black holes have existed in our universe before the big bang?
Again, there is no before the big bang, the universe (EVERYTHING, including time and space) were created in the big bang.

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Post by Caia » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:41 am

Light has no mass. It has impulse, but no mass.
QFT. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
In Physics, the photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and thus the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. This force's easily-visible human-scale effects and applications, from sunlight to radiotelephones, are due to the fact that the photon has no mass and thus can produce interactions at long distances. Like all elementary particles, the photon is governed by quantum mechanics and so exhibits wave-particle duality: that is, it exhibits both wave and particle properties. For example, a single photon may undergo refraction by a lens or exhibit wave interference, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its location is measured.

However...
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E / c2. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form E / c2 for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).
Photons do not have mass, but they can interact in such a way to "add" mass.
Again, there is no before the big bang, the universe (EVERYTHING, including time and space) were created in the big bang.
Again QFT.

The universe BEGAN when the big bang happened. There was nothing (quite literally that lack of ANYthing) before the big bang.

Mag: Can you offer any evidence that there was something before? I doubt it. You want evidence of a negative. I can't give that to you. The onus of proof is on you to give evidence for a positive.
Dark Energy should (in theory) not exist.

It is the same as mass and anti-mass .. the anti mass is cancelled out by the mass.
Well, it exists insofar as it helps to explain why the universe is expanding. As I said earlier, our idea of what dark energy is will most likely change radically over the next few decades. Think of it more as a placeholder.
The existence of said black holes would alleviate a number of inconsistencies (such as Black Holes which have far surpassed the Eddington limit, or the massive amounts of Hawking's radiation at the edges of our universe) in modern physics without inventing new BBQ.
How? How would it alleviate any inconsistancies?

You're going with the premise, "Physics, as we know it, is right." The truth is there are a LOT of things we can't explain. In order to explain them, we invent new theories.

User avatar
Manganator
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Massachusettes
Contact:

Post by Manganator » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:14 pm

#1- There are massive black holes near the edge of our galaxy which are so large that in order to get to their size they would need to surpass the Eddington limit, which is the limit on how much matter a Black hole can absorb in a set period of time.

#2- There have been detected very large amounts of Hawking's radiation on the edges of our Universe.

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Post by Caia » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:37 am

#1- There are massive black holes near the edge of our galaxy which are so large that in order to get to their size they would need to surpass the Eddington limit, which is the limit on how much matter a Black hole can absorb in a set period of time.
No.

From wiki...
The Eddington luminosity (also referred to as the Eddington limit) in a star is defined as the point where the gravitational force inwards equals the continuum radiation force outwards, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry. When exceeding the Eddington luminosity, a star would initiate a very intense continuum driven stellar wind from its outer layers. Since most massive stars have luminosities far below the Eddington luminosity, however, their winds are mostly driven by the less intense line absorption.
The Eddington Limit has nothing to do with matter being absorbed over a given length of time. Moreover, a black hole can absorb ANY amount of matter assuming that said matter can reach the evnt horizon within that time. There IS an upper limit to it, as matter can't move at c. However the upper limit is HUGEly LARGELY BIG. Bigger than that even.
#2- There have been detected very large amounts of Hawking's radiation on the edges of our Universe.
Oh? As far as I know, we've never been able to detect Hawking's radiation at all. Its a theory, and it has a lot of merit to it, but there has yet to be any evidence that it exists outside of math equations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_ra ... _radiation

Spcifically, the end of the article:
Experimental observation of Hawking radiation

Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems this effect is too small to be observed. Recent work[16] shows that if one takes an accelerated observer to be an electron circularly orbiting in a constant external magnetic field, then the experimentally verified Sokolov-Ternov effect coincides with the Unruh effect, which is in close connection with the Hawking radiation.
So, you're 0 for 2 so far... :)

User avatar
LordSturm
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:08 pm
Location: spamming forums to get post count up :}

Post by LordSturm » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:14 am

DionysuZ wrote:
Manganator wrote:
Yet light has mass, which is why it's affected by the force of gravity. It's just that since it's at the speed of light it's mass is contracted to the infinity small.
Light has no mass. It has impulse, but no mass.
And guys... doesn't it violate Occam's Razor to say that a white hole and dark energy explain our universe rather than making the leap that black holes have existed in our universe before the big bang?
Again, there is no before the big bang, the universe (EVERYTHING, including time and space) were created in the big bang.
umm. yes light does have mass. otherwise it wouldnt be bent by blackholes and sent directly back. a black hole has so much gravity that it is able to do this. and gravity only affects things with mass. light is made up of atoms yes? atoms have mass yes?

and my understanding of dark matter was that it exists to attract regular matter and have it clump around it kind of like a framework.
the history channel just ran a mini marathon on its universe series. dark energy pushes the universe farther apart and dark matter is like steel girders on a building.

as for the existance of black holes before the big bang.. can we really ever know?
its kind of a matter of faith on what caused the big bang... but i would think something would of had to exist as a catalyst for the bang.. so time could have existed before the explosion.

Post Reply