SCIENCE THREAD

SCIENCE THREAD

Photons are mass-less. The reason light (e.m. radiation) can't escape a black hole isn't because gravity pulls on it but because gravity curves space-time. The curvature of space-time below the event horizon is so extreme that space itself is falling inward faster than the speed of light.

Gravity has no direct effect on light. Gravity doesn't bend light, it bends space, and the light merely travels through that curved space.

Also, black holes aren't holes, they're spheres. But you already knew that.

Bonus: Time stops at the event horizon. Watch something fall into a black hole, you'll see it slow down, and red-shift infinitely until the wavelength of light is so extreme in the red end of the spectrum that it appears to fade away. No observer can ever see anything cross the event horizon.

Correct me where I'm wrong anons, I don't know everything.

but can rocket-fuel melt steel-beams?

That gif turns me on.

Sounds ok as far as I know, but would like to add gravitational lense effect

>Gravity has no direct effect on light. Gravity doesn't bend light, it bends space, and the light merely travels through that curved space.

This is gravitational lensing.

meant for

Yes, sure. It was meant as an example for this theory.

Time doesn't just stop at the even horizon, it stops when you travel at the speed of light. And the frequency of light doesn't intensify, it weakens to a lower and lower frequency until it dims to red and then to invisible wavelengths.

Evolution has been proven by science and if you disagree, you can fuck off. Or prove me wrong, which you can't.

Yes, I know time stops at C. Space-time is relative, space contracts and flattens as you approach C and time slows. My wording might not have been super clear, but yes, I understand that not only is the light red-shifted, but its frequency decreases.

Do you think we will ever be able to use photons as a means of propulsion?

I agree.

Never mind then, we good. Relatively accurate so good job user. How about more theoretical concepts like the Fermi Paradox, the quantum realm, or dark matter and energy.

It wouldn't make sense for non-mass entities to be able to propel entities with mass.

We already can, eg: light sails. If you mean in a more efficient way, like photonic propulsion, perhaps.

Please continue.
I'm not very familiar with this shit, but find it fascinating.
Also I didn't know black hole was a sphere. Please explain.

Photons are not fully understood. While most equations assume they are massless for convenience, it is not provable. I'm fairly certain they either have some tiny mass or are in some way representative of a deeper/smaller/faster? fabric of our universe.

Nice trips. I mean say you fire a laser from stationary earth. Could one day maybe have that beam push something

Regarding Fermi's Paradox, I think it's highly probable that any intelligent civilization has either been wiped out before it could achieve interstellar travel or communication, either by their own hand or nature's. Furthermore, I'm not convinced any signal from another star system wouldn't degrade and/or weaken along its travel to the point that we could no longer detect it or recognize it if we did. I read somewhere that even our own radio transmissions into space likely haven't survived much farther than the oort cloud, which extends to about 2 light-years beyond our solar system.

I'd imagine you'd have an issue keeping that beam straight if it were fired from Earth's surface, unless it was a sufficiently wide beam. But then you'd need a lot more energy. I can't say it's impossible.

Black holes are spherical, like a star or planet. But there's no surface. Where you see the edge, the black sphere against a background of stars, that's the event horizon, a non-physical barrier defined by the Schwarzschild Radius.

Any anons out there have any science questions? Want to test your knowledge against other anons? Doesn't have to be about black holes and relativity. I'm in the mood for some good discussions, whether above or below my level, I don't care...

So you knows that time slows to a stop at the speed of light.
In theory if anything were to go faster than the speed of light then it would be able to go back in time but only at a steady pace depending on speed.
Say if I were to go 1 mph over the speed of light then the progression back in time would be so slow that time would have seemed to stop.
I could spend the rest of my life waiting to go one second into the past and just die of old age so the proper thing to do is either set up a cycle system of robots or send digital messages back in time.
My theory is that blackholes are a broken set of atoms, or in terms for the internet, the universe's final chemical boss.
I don't want to confuse people but in necessity to explain I need to give you an example.
Take Tin and Copper, put them together, set a cast for a ring.
This ring is phenomenal you have just created the literal impossible, a two in one combination of metals.
The good and bad of both metals, with ratio, have been made into this and now you have an alloy.
Now let's look at the spectrum of the theory.
That was an alloy, a common chemical reaction that anyone can do.
You took two metals, mashed them into a furnace, then into the caster.
Lets take the broad of this, that was a natural reaction of two chemicals.
Lets say we take 50 items off the table and put them together.
What in the sam tarly fuck will we get, the good and the bad of every single element, no ratio. You see where I am going?
Say you had 5 gram's of each when you UNNATURALLY combined them, you would have 250? Wrong
You have literally just mashed together 50 different sets of atoms and created a entirely different substance.
This substance has so many electrons that it is rapidly moving never stopping.
Now comes the part where we talk about the never touching theory, or fact.
Supposedly you will never technically touch anything because your electrons are always preventing that, but these are regular atoms.
Cont.

You seem to be physicist. I'm a beginner level chemist (end of 4th semester right now). I know, it's not really related to the original topic of the thread, but what do you think about super heavy elements? When will we get the first stable ones? Do you have any expectations for their characteristics? I wonder how they could come into use.

Digestion starts at the mouth #SpitFacts

Physics is definitely my thing, but I'm a high school drop-out and never been to college.

I don't know a lot about chemistry, but I'm fascinated with it and have slowly been branching myself in that direction. I doubt we'll ever find/create any super-heavy elements that are also stable, but I'd love to see the day we create some super exotic materials, or potential sources of energy. I just don't know a whole lot to be able say with any confidence whether or not it's likely. Being a physics enthusiast, I know that if you could trap those heavy atoms in a magnetic field that keeps them at high velocities at close to the speed of light, you can slow down their decay. (In fact, that's the only way cosmic rays reach the Earth's surface; they're travelling so fast that they don't have time to decay before they reach our detectors.)

Why do you do doubt? As far as I've read up on it it is believed that along the lines of element 125-130 they will be stable again, as it is believed the number of protons/neutrons in the number of protons/neutrons in the core will reach a stable preferred state again, similar to noble gas configuration for electrons. You should read up on it, I was excited to hear that.

I didn't quite comprehend this post. People think that exceeding C would mean time reverses, but that's not necessarily the case, especially since, afawk, nothing can ever exceed C except space.

On the "never touching anything" bit, it depends on how you define touch. Yes, electrons prevent, for instance, you walking through walls (or falling to the center of the Earth), but look at the nucleus, are protons and neutrons touching? What about the quarks that make up protons and neutrons? If you follow field theory, then everything solid is just an illusion anyway, everything is just energy and forces, the fundamental particles are just anomalies in their respective fields.

This new substance is so quick that the electrons pass through the object, or at least they envelop it.
Once something goes pass a specific point in the vicinity of the substance it has already been enveloped by the electrons but does not know it.
There are so many electrons that the layers are almost uncountable.
Now back to the ratios, take your ring out again.
A regular reaction has a ratio for it's good and bad, but this unnatural gangbang has NOTHING to stop it.
It has become a mashed substance so volatile and so strong that nothing will stop it.
But yes, anything other than a few specific elements has to have something that creates a chemical reaction.
Because of this unnatural combination it now has all the gaps of all these elements of every single atom that it initially started with.
Lets throw a piece of lead into our new substance.
After you threw it you can tell that it has seemed to stop. Wrong
The Electrons of the lead have been stopped in place by the electrons of our new element, it has been stripped of its electrons.
The bare atom has been enveloped by the horde at the center.
But nothing can technically touch right? No, this new substance defies our laws, defies our mind.
In the center of this substance is something, maybe it's a super nucleus, maybe it's a hungry god, but the piece of led you just threw is now apart of this monster.
It's few electrons have been used to fill it's own substance's gaps.
But gravity is here amirght?
In theory the black hole is able to be created by anything at any time.
So with our 250 grams of black hole what can we accomplish?
Well the death of everything in our solar system of course.
At first the electrons of this god are sweeping particles of dust and ice into itself between Mars and Jupiter.
Nothing is seeming to be happening.
In a matter of a few weeks this little shit has grown, but we can't tell.
In most situations we can tell how dangerous something is by how big it is.
Cont.

Not done user

Yeah, now that you mention it, I did hear that as well, that there might be a point where they're stable again. I think that would be very exciting. Again, I'm no chemistry buff, but I imagine some cool things could arise from this if it turns out to be right. I'll definitely read up on it.

Sorry

Dubbies

This thread hurts my feeble mind but I want to learn

not op but i love these threads. used to make them a year or two ago
regarding e=mc^2, even the tiniest mass imaginable would require an infinite amount of energy to travel at light speed. photons have been proven to travel at light speed, so they can't have any mass, otherwise electromagnetic effects would behave way different. quantum field thoery is still trying to pin down the exact nature of the slippery little fucks
the inverse square law of propagation means that any signals we send out into space will become exponentially weaker the further it travels. past a certain point, traditional radio transmissions will become too "dim" to pick out from the background of space. focused sources (like pulsar bursts or lasers) are able to transmit more powerful signals over tighter arcs, but they too have a limit before losing signal quality
travelling faster than light and moving backwards through time would violate causality, breaking pretty much every law of physics in the book and creating fucky spacetime paradoxes.
your second part is a bit confusing. an alloy isnt a chemical reaction, its a homogenous mixture of two still-distinct elements. if youre talking about black holes and particle accelerators, then youre headed in the right direction. as far as we can tell the inside of a black hole's event horizon is just a roiling soup of broken-down subatomic particles and energy. there would be too much pressure and heat for anything resembling a structured atom to form or survive, so everything stays broken down into quarks and gluons and whatever the fuck else is in there.
unless the black hole merges with another black hole, or sweeps thru a few nebulae, it wont grow. they actually shrink over time via emitting hawking radiation, eventually evaporating back into nothing. this is why we dont have to worry about killing everyone whenever we fire up CERN

To disprove evolution you would have to try and disprove hereditary traits. Which I doubt anyone could do.

But at the center of our new substance there is little to no limit.
Any foreign atom is processed and mashed into this new substance, creating more of the substance.
The electrons are getting faster now that more atoms have joined the fray.
What do we know about speed?
Lets get in a car.
Let's go fast.
You put the pedal to the metal and go 200km.
You're going super fast right? You feel like you're being held to the seat.
The nucleus of our new substance is like our seat, but instead of going 200km you're going 1.0x10^∞.
All atoms have this but our substance is so unstable and large that it's electrons are faster, faster than our regular electrons that we have observed.
I am about to accidentally explain gravity
Fuck me I got off course.
All in all blackholes are a slow time machine that are literally how we figure out how to go into the past. Sorry I fucked it up anyone reading. Connect the dots

Light isn't steady speed as is. Physics as we know it is changing. Some lady, I don't have the source but Google probably does, stopped a photon in a vacuum. When she "released" it back, it was slower than light speed. Feminists... can't even make light go light speed again. Lmao

regarding photons, you beat me to it.
regarding Fermi, thanks for clearing that up, I felt I was on the right track about signal loss.

What are your guy's thoughts on White Holes?

They exist but even in the future we don't know how they work.

it really makes you think

Yes, light slows down when travelling through anything other than a vacuum. And I too heard about stopping light, and "slow light" before that. From what I understand, what they (a German team) did was take an opaque crystal, fire a laser at it that made it transparent (electromagnetically induced transparency), then fired another laser at it (the light they wanted to stop) then made the crystal opaque again, effectively "trapping" the photon inside. The atoms of the crystal absorbed the photon, turning its energy into their own spin excitation. When the crystal was made transparent again, those atoms released that same energy back as a photon.

At this point in time, that would be much like trying to disprove that fire is hot and water is wet.

I know the math checks out, but i still doubt they could form naturally in the current state of the universe.

Thank you for the breakdown. I just got off work and I'm a physics major, but that wasn't my field. So are you saying that it had something to do with piezoelectric qualities?

>piezoelectric
Not familiar with this effect. Electrical charge from pressure? I have some reading to do.

In regards of brothers saying about the use of protons.

Anything can be used, Thay is the most logical way of thinking, every time we do a practical experiment with different variables, we do come closer to a new solution(endless in number tho)

the nuclei of atoms are held together by the strong nuclear force, one of the 4 fundamental forces (other 3 being weak nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity). the strong nuclear force diminishes within atomic nuclei according to their size, so the larger the atom, the weaker the bond holding it all together. this is why heavier atoms are more unstable/ready to decay, because there essentially isn't enough quantum glue to hold such massive nuclei together.
the electroweak theory, which predicted things like the higgs boson, might help us better understand and eventually harness the strong nuclear force for ourselves in order to make shiny exotic new elements beyond our mortal ken
regarding (You), got you fam
evolution has two facets, entropy and natural selection. entropy as a physical phenomenon is indisputable; thermodynamics states that disorder (and thus complexity) always increases. natural selection is the part where people get all butthurt, but unless we literally stumble upon god's book of life blueprints then it will stand as scientific consensus
they're a theoretical bandaid for the current problems regarding black holes and physics. our math breaks down when trying to explain what happens at singularity points, so white hole theory does away with singularities entirely in favor of another mechanism for how shit goes down around event horizons. they seem to raise more questions than they answer tho, so im not a fan of the theory

Piezoelectric quality is when you tap a crystal or add pressure and electricity is produced, or when you apply electricity and the crystal vibrates. Its how quartz powers certain watches. They also reverse the energy back into the quartz and count the vibrations to calculate a second on watches as well

>This*

Photons have momentum. There is recoil on a laser ...

You wouldn't think so, but what do you think of the EM drive they are fucking around with. Last I checked, NASA was testing it and they produced a tiny amount of thrust in a vacuum(to prove it wasnt thermal air currents) with no reaction mass. Just pump some electrons into a magnetron with some fancy cone looking apparatus, and it somehow produces thrust.

Nice. I knew about quartz and vibrations, but I guess my understanding of it is weak atm.

It comes down to cause and effect, yes? Move something, and you can expect it to move you.

even then, if God's mind were similar enough to human minds, he would have never created a world where he needs to manually input every single detail at every timestep. He'd have written a script that does that by itself, then go on to create something entirely different (while keeping a backdoor to sometimes intervene voluntarily, which we call "miracles")

I mean as soon as we do a task more than 3 (or n times, n being a positive integer which is "very small") times, we already search for ways to automate it because we either get bored of the novelty of that action, or want to do it more efficiently. I would not expect a creator-god to be any different in that regard (especially for the second reason. It's difficult to conceptualize a bored God compared to a min/maxer one)

Just out of curiosity; is it possible to create a man made planet?

Truth. I have a quick question, how is light produced by chemical changes? Photons are a particle, and most possibly have mass.. so are we part light?

Theoretically. Capture enough asteroids, throw them together, boom - planet. You'll have to find a stable orbit for it around a star or similarly massive object.

Photons have no mass. Think of them as force carriers. They come from chemical reactions because the chemical "give up" energy. That energy is a photon.

How exactly is all of this proven? Technically there's only been footage of stars orbiting a black holes, not actually black holes. I would understand that a lot of this has been based off logical physics, but black holes don't follow such rules. Have I missed something? Is there actually proof of such claims?

Same goes for a man made earth? Around the same orbit as ours and what not

Thank you for the explanation

> black holes don't follow such rules
Yes they do. It's at the singularity that our understanding breaks down. That doesn't mean the physics leading up to it are bogus.

The protons would have to be in such massive quantity in order to propel something, the amount of energy consumed would be similar to supernovae. At least at a light speed pace.

There's a whole board for your science fairy tales

>2016
>believing in science
top kek

Define "man made earth." And do you mean literally in the same orbit, sharing it with the Earth?

prove that the speed of light is constant

post evidence that black holes exist

You're asking for something that can't be given in this space. Your answers are readily available if you actually want to know.

Wouldnt the strong/weak (I forgot which one and I'm on my phone so I'm not going to loo it up) not be strong enough to overcome the repulsive force of the positron's in the nucleus once the radius is too big?

Yeah, in the same orbit. With all the water, plants so on so forth

photon absorption and electron excitation happens all the time. any reflected light isnt really reflected; the photon is absorbed by whatever atom it hits, raising the atom's energy level to a higher state. the atom then drops back to its previous energy state by emitting another photon, which continues on until it hits something else. the photons hitting your eyes when you look at the sky didn't originate from the sun, but rather are a result of the ricochet of absorption-emission as the photon trail bounces around thru the atmosphere. (one of my favorite concepts to explain to buddies when we're lit. the expressions on their faces are fucking gold) this is all quantum electrodynamics if you wanna learn more
photons and em radiation dont have mass, but since mass and energy are interchangeable via relativity, they do still have momentum and are able to impart a force on matter. look up "radiation pressure" and solar sails
light is just a transfer of energy, so anything that creates or releases energy also creates or releases light. anything above 0 kelvin (read: everything in the known universe) emits blackbody radiation, including us. if someone were to look at you against a backdrop of pure empty space, you would shine like the blazing faggot you are
yep, even man made stars. just get enough shit in a big enough pile and bam, youve done what normally takes gravity a few million years
mostly predictions based in physics and mathematics, later backed up by evidence
>2016
>trying such weak bait
might want a refund from the tackle shop lads

im sure i probably misinterpreted something somewhere while learning this shit, but fuck it. im an engineering student, not a quantum physicist. gotta get to bed for work in the morning.
gud thred op, 10/10

Photons don't have mass. It's confirmed by every experiments for the moment, and this is a theoretical necessity.

When you have a chemical reaction, it can be exothermic or endothermic (absorb or create heat).
In fact a chemical reaction always involve photons.

In some way you're composed of every fundamental particles which exist because they transform in each other at very fast rates.

Good point. It just seems as though the singularity is the starting point of it all. Obviously black holes are spheres of infinite gravity, that feed off everything. Hmm. I guess I accept your point. It just seems as though it's a theory.

Sooo... A black hole could just be a super dense star?

>positron's
do you mean protons? That's what I figured, but again, I'm not the chemistry buff in this thread...

,Yes and no. It would have to orbit directly opposite Earth and have exactly the same mass, lest the orbits would interfere and end in eventual destruction of both planets. I'm not so sure it would jive well with the other planets either. As for life, we could transport life from Earth to populate it, sure. A mammoth undertaking, but not "impossible." Create life? That's not so far fetched either. We may not yet know how to create life, but it's clear that life arose from physical processes, so it should be possible to replicate. It would be quite the undertaking though, and the feat itself would likely be the limiting factor.

>photon absorption etc etc
You're right, and I knew that was the case. I only just came to that realization myself a couple years ago.

Or your mom's ass

What do you mean? I understand the basics when it comes to Newton's laws. But, because this EM drive does need a reaction mass to propel itself, its a pretty big deal, assuming it is actually doing what they think it is.

Imagine you are trying to fly somewhere far away, say 10 light years. You have two ships you can take, a spaceship that's chemically propelled, or a ship with an em drive. With the chemically propelled ship, you can accelerate for a little while before using up your allotted fuel, I'm not sure how fast our current shuttles can go but let's say 30,000 mph. So your 10 lightyear trip would take about 223,000 years.

On the other hand, you take the em ship, assuming it has a max acceleration of 1.5g, with a top speed of say 0.1c just so we don't have to fuck around with the massive energy required to move faster than that. You will accelerate to 0.1c in about 23.5 days and have covered 0.077 light years, because you will have to decelerate as well, you can add another 23.5 days to travel time. That leaves 9.8 46 light years left, which will take 98.46 years at 0.1c.

While a 100 year trip is still not ideal, it is a monumental achievement compared to nearly a quarter million years. The only reason it would be possible is because the em drive would allow us to use solar or even an onboard nuclear reactor to propel a ship without having to expel a limited amount of onboard reaction mass, such as with traditional chemical propulsion.

I haven't looked into solar sails before, so I guess we have discovered other methods of propulsion. It seems like the amount of force the solar sail creates is kinda low though, being a passive method.

Black holes are at a time-like (not space-like) infinity. If you could escape one you might be able to go into the past, but you can't because c.

Also what drugs are you on son?

It's actually the result of a dying star collapsing on itself, thus creating a supernova, which leaves you with a black hole

No, because at that point, below the Schwarzschild radius, gravity is stronger than the electron repulsion force and even quarks get crushed together. Matter as we know it can't exist beyond that point. Black holes are bodies of gravitational energy/mass.

>you seem to be a physicist

Dude. I knew that shit at 13 due to Discovery Science

OP here.
It's 4:39 here. I'm going to bed in a few. Thanks for a decent thread.

"Sooo... A black hole could just be a super dense star?"

My point is: all theoretical math aside, nothing has been visually observed to the contrary? You can only "prove" so much with numerous suppositions, used as factors, plugged into equations. It's like proving a proof with proofs drawn from proofs of the originally proposed proof in a circle of endless theoretical suppositions...

Lol. "Let's take a bunch of guesses, then paint them over with math, then, once the math pans out, we call it science!"

If U see totally black sphere on light surface it appears as black circle to you not sphere because its surface does not reflect light and cast shadows.

All right. No, no one has ever seen a black hole directly. It isn't likely anyone will ever see into one. But the evidence is more than substantial. These aren't guesses, they're solutions that are drawn BY the math, not the other way around. And of course it falls in line with what we CAN observe.

It's simple math. Pic related is a formula for a phenomenon called "Time Dilation".
C represents the speed of light. V represents how fast you are moving.
Mind you, if we can all agree on the speed of light, we have to be able to disagree about the passage of time.
Via relativity, as your velocity approaches the speed of light, time around you speeds up whereas your own time is slowing down. In a sense, a person in motion can live longer if they are in motion because time is moving faster around them.
Should your velocity ever reach the speed of light, you would find the equation leads to diving time by zero, and as it would approach infinity for everything around you, time would essentially be stopped for you.

Plants are green because they follow the golden ratio and green is 1.618 of the way into the visible light spectrum.

Yup. Time travel to the future is physically possible thanks to relativity, though it wouldn't be like teleporting there, it would be a journey.

Physics noob here, so black holes are basically super dense matter right, like a star that went supernova and collapsed into itself so its just a sphere of deconstructed atoms. If you were some kind of god that could ignore the gravity and time effects of a black hole, would you eventually be able to touch solid matter towards the centre, or is it some kind of fucked up portal to hell intetstellar/ event horizon style

Photons=energy energy=matter therefore photons have mass remember e=mc2

They call the center of a black hole the singularity basically the term they use when they don't know. Some theorize it could lead to another universe's "big bang" ,

Dont let this die I had such a scientific boner..

Time doesn't stop at the event horizon. It moves infinitely slowly relative to time outside the event horizon.

And yes, there's an important distinction.

Bump

All the mass of a black hole is at one fixed point of space, hence singularity.

And that whole big mass can be incredibly small. Like so compact you wouldn't even see it with your own eyes from a distance.

Take a near the speed of light train around the world for a year and you would have aged 1 year, while time on earth would have gone 40 years.

I think your interpretation is possibly correct in a relative sense, you are certainly wrong that photons are not directly affected by gravity because they are massless. Gravity attracts energy the same way it attracts mass and photons have energy. E=mc^2 mothafucka.