I'm quite certain I've discovered the grand theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRyckman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equation D=E(t), which posits that distance (D) is always equal to one, while energy (E) must be less than one unless at a singularity. Participants argue that time (t) is inversely related to energy, suggesting that traveling near light speed results in significantly dilated time compared to Earth. The conversation also explores the concept of fundamental units of distance, particularly the Planck length, and its implications for measuring energy and time in a relativistic framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, specifically time dilation.
  • Familiarity with the Planck length and its significance in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of black hole physics, including escape velocity and event horizon.
  • Basic grasp of natural units in physics and their applications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Planck length in quantum gravity theories.
  • Study the relationship between energy and mass in the context of black holes.
  • Learn about natural units and how they simplify physical equations.
  • Explore the mathematical definitions and algorithms for calculating pi.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the intersection of energy, distance, and time in relativistic contexts.

  • #31
Many people work in the natural units, as I said. In those units, \hbar = G = c = 1. It simplifies equations significantly. Remember that nature doesn't care what units we use, as long as we're consistent; units are an invention of man.

- Warren
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Would a value of E equaling one be critical mass?
 
  • #33
In natural units, an energy of one is 543 kilowatt-hours. I don't know what you mean by "critical."

- Warren
 
  • #34
The point where too much energy exists in one spot and creates a black hole /singularity.
 
  • #35
No, that's defined by the Schwarzschild radius:

r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2}

If you pack mass M within radius r_s, you'll have yourself a black hole. If you'd like a fun exercise, try casting that equation in natural units.

- Warren
 
  • #36
I wouldn't know where to begin, could you tell me the interpretations of such an answer? Oh and what's the equation for pie again?
 
  • #37
Well, it's simple. If you pack a given mass, M, into a small enough space, you will create a black hole.

Do you know what defines a black hole? It's simple, really. First, imagine the good ol' Earth. You know that if you throw a baseball up into the air, it'll come to the ground, right? What happens if you throw it really hard, by strapping a big rocket to it? If you can accelerate it up to 11 km/s, the baseball can actually leave the Earth's gravitational field entirely, and never come home.

That speed, 11 km/s, is called the escape velocity, because an object will have to go at least that fast to escape the Earth's gravity.

A black hole is an object with such intense gravity that even light cannot escape. In other words, at some distance from the object, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. The distance from the object at which this occurs is called the event horizon, and the event horizon is at a distance of 2GM/c^2 from the object.

Let's put in a concrete example. How about the mass of the Sun? How small would you have to compress the Sun to turn it into a black hole?

Answer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=2+G+(mass+of+sun)+/+c^2&btnG=Google+Search

Keep in mind that I haven't mentioned singularities at all. Why not? Because you don't have to have a singularity to have a black hole. All you have to do is get enough mass into a small enough space. Current physical models know of no forces that could prevent such a mass from collapsing all the way to a singularity, and most physicists feel that means that current physical models are wrong!

It is quite likely that a theory of quantum gravity like string theory will eliminate the singularity in our models of black holes.

- Warren
 
  • #38
(And there is no such thing as an "equation for pi". Note the spelling, too -- it's pi, a greek letter, not pie, a dessert.)

- Warren
 
  • #39
So what is the calculation that has been defined to millions of decimal points to no end?
..On topic
Does that Energy have to be in wave form to cause a black hole? (compressed matter would have an extremely high Energy field
 
  • #40
Ah, you're saying "what's the algorithm used to calculate the digits of pi?" There are many such algorithms.

The terms 'wave form' and 'energy field' are not part of accepted physics, so I don't know what you mean.

- Warren
 
  • #41
Does the Energy have to have no mass, that causes the black hole, for instance would a bright enough laser focused perfectly cause small black holes?
 
  • #42
I thought the value for pi was calculated using radius and area for a circle
 
  • #43
For a black hole, it doesn't matter whether the stuff inside is mass or energy. It's all the same to gravity.

Pi is defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. That definition is not useful for calculating its digits with a computer. That requires an algorithm.

- Warren
 
  • #44
No for a black hole it doesn't matter, for my equation it does :)

Okay could you relate trying to find pi to trying to find edges on a perfect circle?
 
  • #45
I don't really care what your equation says, to be frank.

A perfect circle has no sides.

- Warren
 
  • #46
So then that'd be why you can't find a value for pi?
 
  • #47
What do you mean by 'value?' Pi has a perfectly well-defined value.

- Warren
 
  • #48
and what value is that? 3.14 ?
 
  • #49
No, 3.14 is an approximation of pi. What I mean is that pi occupies a distinct spot on the number line.

- Warren
 
  • #50
And although you don't care could you make an educated guess based on your obvious wealth of knowledge, what passes into a black hole would it be energy or mass when crossing the event horizon.
 
  • #51
It doesn't necessarily become either. Once again, as far as gravity is concerned, energy (by that I assume you mean light) and mass are the same stuff.

- Warren
 
  • #52
hmm, I think I'll need some time to theorize after that statement. So your opinion then is it stays in the form it was before reaching that point?
 
  • #53
May I suggest that spend more time reading and less time theorizing? I mean no offense, but you are quite ill-equipped to be formulating new physical theories. You would do well to understand existing physics before attempting to make your own.

- Warren
 
  • #54
I think understanding the concept is more important than understanding the math, it seems to me I can turn equations into language easier than I can language to math, and you visa verca.
However You didn't answer my question
Is your opinion that Energy stays in the form it was in when crossing the event horizon?
 
  • #55
Yeah, light stays light when it crosses the event horizon.

Keep in mind that language is not a very useful tool for either learning or communicating physics. To paraphrase a cliche, an equation is worth a thousand words. Actually, probably even more than that.

- Warren
 
  • #56
I can answer that question for you, we know incredible energy is given off in the criation disk(i know that's off) This is all energy not matter. Therefor we must assume all mass is transferred into quanta


enough quanta, Plancks energy in a certain distance and you have a black hole.
 
  • #57
The accretion disk is outside the event horizon. What happens in the accretion disk has nothing to do with what happens inside the event horizon.

Your last sentence, properly worded, should be "Enough matter or energy in a small enough volume, and you have a black hole."

- Warren
 
  • #58
Therefor to swing it all back to the interference patterns, quanta, or energy is what has an affect on gravity, And that effect can be seen by the interference
 
  • #59
but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?
 
  • #60
There is no relationship to interference patterns.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

Undergrad FTL Travel: The Matryoshka Paradox
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Spacetime interval question involving a Pendulum in a Space Ship
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
High School Am I understanding the concept of proper frame of reference?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
High School Theories about light and time near a black hole
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad How Does Special Relativity Affect Perceptions of Simultaneity?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
High School Conflict Between Time Dilation and Red/Blue Shift?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Undergrad I think the special theory of relativity self-contradicts
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Undergrad Understanding Spacetime simultaneity in twin paradox scenarios
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Undergrad Battery life on VERY fast moving object
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
7K