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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PRyckman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed relationship between distance, energy, and time, encapsulated in the equation D=E(t). Participants explore the implications of defining distance as a constant value and its relationship to energy and time, particularly in the context of relativistic travel and fundamental units of measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that distance can always be represented as one, leading to the conclusion that energy must be less than one unless at a singularity.
  • Others argue that this interpretation leads to absurdities, such as equating different units of distance without a clear basis for comparison.
  • A participant suggests that the smallest measurable distance should set the basis for all measurements, while another questions the feasibility of comparing different units of distance.
  • There is a discussion about the Planck length as a potential fundamental unit of distance, with some participants expressing uncertainty about its implications.
  • Some participants assert that energy values should be derived from the relationship between distance and time, particularly in relativistic contexts.
  • There is a debate about whether distances should be expressed as multiples of a fundamental unit or if each distance should have its own unit represented as one.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of distance as a constant value and the implications of defining fundamental units. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of distance, energy, and time, as well as the validity of using the Planck length as a basis for measurement.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of fundamental units, particularly the Planck length and its relationship to energy and time. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the nature of distance and its representation.

  • #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

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
2K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
High School Theories about light and time near a black hole
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Physics of ISV (Interstellar Vehicle) in Avatar Series
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad How Does Special Relativity Affect Perceptions of Simultaneity?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Graduate Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
High School Conflict Between Time Dilation and Red/Blue Shift?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Undergrad Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Undergrad I think the special theory of relativity self-contradicts
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K