[Higgsfield]

Shawshank, on 21 November 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

^ yeah i saw that too . I find particle physics to be a bit dull to be honest though, definitely prefer the more theoretical side to it...

Also relevant to the neutrino stuff:

http://www.guardian....P=FBCNETTXT9038

the problem with this critique on the faster-than-light-neutrino is a bit stupid in my opinion. one of the results of the fact that if these neutrinos are really faster than light is that current physiscs are incorrect. using an argument from that very physics theory to discredit the results is a bit odd.
it's like you know the alibi of the killer to be wrong and that indeed mister X is the killer but his lawyer still insists claims innocence based on the alibi that has been falsified.

if our current theory is wrong on lightspeed being the maximum possible, it is also likely to be wrong on the idea that the neutrino MUST lose energy (it actually isn't as bremsstrahlung makes particles change kinetic energy to photons (light) )this would even more so be the case if the bremsstrahlung-theory were (partially) based on Einstein's ideas on lightspeed.

that said i'd find it amazing if these neutrinos were really faster than light...but again, Newtonian physics were supplanted by Einstein and Einstein bymodern physics without being actually totally wrong. it's likely that the speed of light rules still stands except for some rare cases like neutrinos.

[Shawshank]

Yeah that was my reaction to the story too. It's a very unsubstantial theory to prove or dissprove something like this...

I think one of the problems with the whole scenario is the nature of neutrinos. They aren't normal particles, they behave in very weird ways, and in many aspects we don't really understand them as our knowledge of them isn't as deep as other subatomic particles...

[Handloader1]

I hate to go a bit off-topic, but on the first page, I saw that there was a discussion on black holes. Black holes have a point where they do not absorb any more mass.
I personally think that this is because the force of gravity can only compress matter to a certain point, so a black hole can become more and more dense, but when the core reaches a certain volume, it's density relative to gravity decreases a little bit which makes it expand much more slowly until it reaches a point where it is full. There also have been instances of things escaping from black holes. I have not gone into the subject, so I cannot explain how they escape yet. Think of a black hole as a person, it can't do much as a baby, but grows very fast. It reaches it's prime, where it can do the most, growth slows down, and it has the greatest pull. When it reaches old age, it pretty much stops growth. I have no clue if black holes "die" or not, but there is a limit to where it stops growth, unless if the matter could be compressed to a whole new level, then you're screwed, and black holes will eventually destroy everything.

[Higgsfield]

Handloader1, on 24 November 2011 - 05:18 AM, said:

I hate to go a bit off-topic, but on the first page, I saw that there was a discussion on black holes. Black holes have a point where they do not absorb any more mass.
I personally think that this is because the force of gravity can only compress matter to a certain point, so a black hole can become more and more dense, but when the core reaches a certain volume, it's density relative to gravity decreases a little bit which makes it expand much more slowly until it reaches a point where it is full. There also have been instances of things escaping from black holes. I have not gone into the subject, so I cannot explain how they escape yet. Think of a black hole as a person, it can't do much as a baby, but grows very fast. It reaches it's prime, where it can do the most, growth slows down, and it has the greatest pull. When it reaches old age, it pretty much stops growth. I have no clue if black holes "die" or not, but there is a limit to where it stops growth, unless if the matter could be compressed to a whole new level, then you're screwed, and black holes will eventually destroy everything.

not quite.
actually theoretically black holes do give up radiation (hawking radiation) and will eventually shrink if the radiation >accretion (if there is no matter for the black hole to attract, obviously it cannot grow) but the larger the blackhole, the less radiation it gives

[Shawshank]

dorkslayer., on 09 December 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

I keep hearing that gravity is so strong in a black hole that light can not escape. Why do we presume that light exists in a black hole to begin with?

Because it's as it's name suggests. It's black. Black objects supposedly give off no visible electromagnetic radiation, which is why when you turn the light off, the room goes black or at least very dark. If we can not see it, it can not reflect or radiate any light (although it does emit highly energetic X-Ray frequencies, which is how we observe them).

As for why do we think light is around a black hole to begin with. Obviously, these black holes within space are amongst stars and galaxies, things that emit light, so they are in an environment containing light.

This post has been edited by Shawshank: 09 December 2011 - 09:07 AM

[Higgsfield]

dorkslayer., on 09 December 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

I keep hearing that gravity is so strong in a black hole that light can not escape. Why do we presume that light exists in a black hole to begin with?

because there are processes in a black hole that actually make for the electromagnetic radiation we call light.
and because Einstein's calculations do point out any light being pulled in from the outside is still there..it just gets shifted to near infinite

however, the photons of that light cannot get outside of the event horizon, but they are still there. in fact you can also still see the light from outside the black hole, perhaps in streaks being sucked towards the singularity. that light will have a shift (either blue or red, depending on type of black hole and where you are "in")
there is also the photonsphere; a layer of photons that have enough speed to nearly escape the blackhole and that end up in an orbit (not unlike satelittes around earth)
a funny thing is that due to gravitational lensing you will probably see the whole universe in front of you, looking out from the black hole, no matter in what sense you look.
provided we could survive the tidals and the immense radiation, of course.

http://www.spacetime...peditionsl.html
is a "how it would look like to get into a black hole"

you could expect the black hole to have more light (and it might) so that it's not actually black on the inside as well but it would seem that even in the black hole lights gets twisted and directed to the singularity (the utter center of the black hole) since all photons (and all matter, including you actually) can only go in 1 direction you can not quite see it.hence why you can see what is on the outside, but not the inside.
now that ghasts one's flabber, right?

This post has been edited by Higgsfield: 10 December 2011 - 12:28 AM

[Shawshank]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-16158374

NEARLY THERE WOOP WOOP. I find it amazing how a completely mathematical approach could have presented us with this correct theory. Incredible.

[Higgsfield]

dorkslayer., on 13 December 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

Here is where I have let images from television and the internet confuse my thinking. If a black hole, more specifically a super massive black hole has such gravity as described, why is it always portrayed as having an entrance. Would it not be attracting from every single direction. Therefore should basically appear the same from any direction it was observed from?

well i actually is; there is an entrance from everywhere (except for fast spinning black holes perhaps.)
no matter from which direction you fall into it, the view is 99,9999% the same (actually it differs only at first, once you go beyond the photonsphere everything does look the same)
no matter the size of any super massive black hole, the main focus of it is still a singularity; an infinitesmall point with near-infinite gravity..

[Higgsfield]

well well
CERN did not only find higg's but also Chi_b (3P)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5154
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-16301908

[omgEdison]

More scientific progress will be made once scientists get their head outta Einsteins arse. What we know as science and physics is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of current theory & QED. Science is apportioned and released on a schedule now and has been done so for the last 60 years according to a political and economic scheduled agenda. We have put every effort to mitigate the release of advancements and slow it down as per plan.

[Shawshank]

omgEdison, on 31 December 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

More scientific progress will be made once scientists get their head outta Einsteins arse. What we know as science and physics is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of current theory & QED. Science is apportioned and released on a schedule now and has been done so for the last 60 years according to a political and economic scheduled agenda. We have put every effort to mitigate the release of advancements and slow it down as per plan.

It's hardly having their "head up his arse" mate, the evidence suggests that his thoughts and consequent mathematical findings are pretty accurate. We haven't got a better explanation for gravity, time and space and haven't really come close since 1916. As proven by recent developments with the speed of neutrino's if there's potential evidence to improve our findings (regardless of whether it dissproves Einsteins theories) they will be published and made known.

This post has been edited by Shawshank: 02 January 2012 - 04:25 PM

[Higgsfield]

omgEdison, on 31 December 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

More scientific progress will be made once scientists get their head outta Einsteins arse. What we know as science and physics is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of current theory & QED. Science is apportioned and released on a schedule now and has been done so for the last 60 years according to a political and economic scheduled agenda. We have put every effort to mitigate the release of advancements and slow it down as per plan.

i'd like to see some back up for that claim on the political agenda...(ok, there is for global warming and gene/cell therapy in the US)

and well..Einstein's theory might be wrong in the end, at the moment it's still the best theory out there. there are hypotheses like multiverses, -m-branes etc that may turn out more correct but at this state these are not proven and thuse not theories yet.
still, it used to be true that if you where a physicist and would claim Einstein to be wrong, you'd be ostracized by the academic community, as some biographies of scientists show.. Don't think that is still true though; with enough evidence and some luck deviations on Einstein have been accepted;
Lemaitre and Hubble showed that Einstein was wrong on his belief the universe was static. though Einstein's quotations allowed for expanding space, Einstein believed it did not expand or contract. Lemaitre calculated and Hubble proved however the universe does expand. and that Einstein's work was still valid even with that difference.

see also Niehls Bohr. Einstein no doubt, as scientist would have to accept Bohr's early quantum physics, but on philosophical level he was troubled by it. he therefor stayed critical on quantum and the copenhagen interpretation evenif most scientists leaned towards the Copenhagen interpretation

[Shawshank]

http://blogs.discove...gps-connection/

Egg ----> Face.

[Colorfulz]

Might as well name this Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy.

Let me bring up a topic: Do you believe that teleportation will be possible in ~20-30 years up the road?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3811785.stm

Obviously a way old article, but we know that the idea is there. I just believe that if you can have an electron be two places at once without ever touching in between, it has to be in some way possible to teleport an object as large as a human.

[Shawshank]

Colorfulz, on 26 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Might as well name this Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy.

Let me bring up a topic: Do you believe that teleportation will be possible in ~20-30 years up the road?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3811785.stm

Obviously a way old article, but we know that the idea is there. I just believe that if you can have an electron be two places at once without ever touching in between, it has to be in some way possible to teleport an object as large as a human.

Chemistry?? That's a dark, horrible word .

I think they'll get to the point where it's theoretically possible, but requires too much energy to actually manipulate matter in such a way that it would work.

[Higgsfield]

http://www.time.com/...2108525,00.html
http://www.nytimes.c...n-new-data.html

tevatron corroborates LHC on higgs