B Could Traveling at Near-Light Speed Create Black Holes?

Click For Summary
Traveling at near-light speed does not create black holes, as suggested by a common misconception regarding length contraction. Length contraction affects how a fast-moving observer perceives a star, but it does not alter the star's physical properties to the point of collapse into a black hole. Observers in different frames of reference will see different phenomena, but these observations do not imply that a star can be transformed into a black hole simply due to high velocity. The Lorentz transformations, which account for length contraction and time dilation, are well-established and consistently validated through experiments. Ultimately, the physics of relativity does not support the idea that high-speed travel can induce black hole formation.
  • #31
Please get back on topic @Matt Fenwick Neither the discussion of Wikipedia nor the discussion of anyone's Nobel prize is relevant to this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Orodruin
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ibix said:
We just look at whether it makes accurate predictions.
And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #33
No, you are wrong. No one light clock should be any more or less valid than another.
Dale said:
As a professional scientist, I can tell you that this is wrong. I do get some of my information from Wikipedia. I also write information on Wikipedia for others to use. I also quote Wikipedia to people on the internet as an easily accessible resource for them to use, regardless of where I originally got the information.

You are misinformed on multiple points in this thread including the value of Wikipedia, the experimental confirmation of the Lorentz transforms, and the predictions of relativity.

See here for a list of experiments confirming the Lorentz transforms: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
  • #34
Matt Fenwick said:
No, you are wrong

You came here to learn, or to argue with those who know way more than you?
 
  • #35
Matt Fenwick said:
No one light clock should be any more or less valid than another.
Indeed. And this claim is incompatible with length contraction not existing - glad to see you starting to come round.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #36
Orodruin said:
And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.
S.R. is fundamentally misguided. And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R. Seems you are fundamentally misguided. Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for S.R. Matter of fact many physicists rejected it.
 
  • Sad
Likes Dale
  • #37
Matt Fenwick said:
And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R.
He said quantum electrodynamics, not quantum theory. Early quantum theory was non-relativistic, but quantum field theories (including quantum electrodynamics) are entirely based on a relativistic worldview.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Orodruin
  • #38
This thread is closed for moderation.
In the meantime @Matt Fenwick should give https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/ms-qft-DRAFT.pdf (this because it is online and free and the errors in draft are inconsequential for present purposes) a try to understand the relation between quantum electrodynamics and SR - QED is fundamentally based on SR, just as Orodruin says.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #39
It looks like the OP has left the building, so this thread will remain closed. Thanks all for trying to straighten out the OP's misconceptions.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K