shmengie

Grief! The more I learn, the less I understand... So matter can be produced from electro-magnetic radiation. Probability of matter forming from electro-magnetic radiation increases in proportion to the strength of the gravity field (supposition or I read it somewhere). When matter forms independent of existing atomic particles, it forms in pairs, particle and anti-particle, presumably of equal mass. When an atomic particle absorbs electro-magnetic radiation (say a photon), measurement is limited to electric force and weight. Where does the anti-particle aspect exist, or does it? A photon consists of both electric and magnetic wave(s) perpendicular to each other. If mass forms as particle and anti-particle, from these waves, does it mean the particle is the electric field/wave and the anti-particle the magnetic field/wave or visa-verse? I feel like I'm growing dumber than dumb. w00t. -- I thought the higgs field was more or less verified by the LHC project. Doesn't that mean there is evidence of dark matter being produced? -crackpot

Since black holes seem to contain a lot of mass in a volume the size of a singularity, much like the beginning of the universe in the Big Bang theory. Some suppose that each black hole could contain a whole other universe. If the ultimate math of the universe boils down to a fractal equation, this would be a logical extrapolation. -- Sci-fi is intended to be fiction... Even though some authors have had ability envision ideas that have matriculated into reality, you can't expect all of them to. Sci-fi that uses an alternate reality, gain artistic license to stretch the imagination, not a good basis for scientific advancement, in my opinion.

Every process, natural and man-made involving e=mc2 is associated with the release of energy, that I know of. Aside from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, I'm not aware of any process that synthesizes matter or specifically reverses release of energy, so I preclude e=mc^2 is unidirectional, outside of BBN. The purpose of LHC is learn enough about matter to be able to construct it, if not physically, mathematically. I have a naive view understanding of the LHC and all colliders, in general. I'm pretty sure they all attempt to supply enough energy particles to break cohesion. When I view pictures of shattered matter, I envision it as the point at which collided matter gains dark properties. -- I'd like to know if there's any truth in that statement. Is there a process for synthesizing matter from energy? I'm not really interested in fusion. If it happened at the LHC, that would be curious, but I don't believe that's an objective of a collider. Fusion is a release of energy, AFAIK. I want to know if anyone, has ever or still does create a protons or neutrons from energy. I don't believe it's possible, but there are a lot of things I don't know...

You may have heard e=mc2 basically means one tiny piece of matter is equivalent to the speed of light (times the speed of light) in energy. BBN theory basically states in order to convert all the energy of the universe into matter, it had to expand faster than the speed of light, after the time of God's great kickoff. To my knowledge, this is the only mechanism known for converting energy into matter and therefore e=mc2 is (or more specifically was) bipolar. I tried, once upon a time to conceive a process to convert energy into mass. So far, no success, I failed. I've heard about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)... I view that as large machine that shatters defenseless massive particles into dark matter, with no earthly means, nor intention, of ever putting all the little humpty dumpties back together again. That view is slightly skewed by (my) tendency to hug trees and effort to comprehend how many trees aren't hugged by ability to build and operate machinery, such as the LHC. I think of a physicist as a very mathematically capable creature, yet this math precludes (or dismisses) any thought of climatological implication of such ability. (A topic for some other forum, elsewhere.) I guess all the physicists, even w/all their math capabilities, haven't figured out how to make matter, so the pick a bunch of poor little bozons, just to crack 'em open and so they can mathematically re construct 'em... Seems the ultimate consequence of the LHC will be the construction of a machine that might reverse the process. Is there some laser project somewhere that has a bunch of lasers focused on a point that results in matter production? Best Regards, -crackpot

Mordred, Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading. Your are right, I should have a firm grasp of the science before I make such blanket statements... The nature of BH's kinda precludes knowledge to the realm of theory. Strange, I apologize for not including reference, my bad. The paper stated 40-90% of flux may be released as radiation. It didn't go into details of that conclusion... Not the purpose of the paper. Best I could construe the paper focused on quantifying radiation emitted from accretion disk vs radio jets and results of modeling energy conversions via different principles. It included enough terminology I'm not familiar with, I was exhausted after reading. It piqued my interest. I asked myself, "what happens to matter at the event horizon?", a few (maybe 5) years ago. The article you linked (ty again) is the closest to observational evidence I've seen. Back then I concluded at most 50% might enter the event, due to testability constraints, I abandoned that train of thought. If up to 90% exits the event via relativistic jet, there is most likely room for +/- 10% statistical error. I'm inclined to believe that the formation of a black hole may be the only point in time where matter can cross the threshold where mathematics breaks down. If that's true. It explains the energies witnessed from the jets to me. But that's so much conjecture, I feel like Sgt. Sholts; I know nothing. Oh... That postulation would prevent black holes from growing in mass, it doesn't prevent them from merging. All of these (somewhat plausible) possibilities have ramification on the gravometric focus postulation, hence my frustrations revolving around (my) limited knowledge. FWIW, Thank you guys!!! for reading my crackpottery... If I ever mathematically construct a pot, I fear it'll be cracked. Regards, -crackpot

I have a simple question about black holes, I haven't been able to find an answer. Is it possible for a black hole to accrete matter? While reading the blackhole wiki, I noted citation for 40% resting matter is converted to radiation, which blows away fusion @ 0.7%... I read the cited paper. 40-90% of total flux +/- 10% could be 100%, so I'm left wondering... The way I see it, we know very little about black holes. Regards, -Crackpot

Advancement progresses slowly in the realm of theory, when hypothesis cannot be tested. Theorist must start with abstract or vague postulation, relying on intuition when observational data do not clearly connect. We have a lot of theories about black holes. Things we actually "know", is a very short list. I'd find a list of more than one "fact" impressive. We understand concepts of black holes, such understanding lies solely on the rim of theory, not proof. The only fact I know about them: A black hole is a mathematically defined region of spacetime. Please don't fuzz up, my crackpot understanding of science.

FWIW, it's not a (or the) "wiki" page... Its the wiki(talk)/discussion associated with the same page of your link. At the top of the "talk" page, to the left of talk tab is a link for the same wiki article. Wiki is a work in progress. It makes sense there's a "talk" section where ppl share ideas not out in the open. I gained some insight reading the talk, behind the article. It's not organized like the article, since it's a "behind the scenes" thing, why would it be... You can go back to ignoring me, now, I'm still a crackpot... I don't reject all BB theories. I've been vying for an alternate explanation of redshift, which has concluded an expanding universe. I think I've finally stumbled across a plausible cause. Though fully cracked, I try to reason out why this postulation hasn't been considered. I suspect I've identified an area of cosmology/physics that has not really been under the scientific or theoretical microscope. Most physicists/cosmologists, who contemplate a blackhole have attention drawn into the blackhole with matter. After an exhausting spaghettification of thought, few consider the consequences of matter accumulation, outside the event of horizon. Some get distracted by jets escaping the clutch of gravity at the poles. Blackholes are something we know little about. Their existence is limited mostly to theoretical understanding. -- My initial postulation included all matter being concentrated into celestial bodies as a cause of shift -- the idea teeters on my balance scales of plausibility. The more consideration I give it, it seems limited to a function of blackhole mass accumulation. Stars expend energy, matter and weight through nuclear fusion, emitting light/weight. Which negates their participation in this postulation, in fact a burning star may have an opposing effect... gerr... If this postulation ever going to get off the ground, I think that aspect needs to be omitted for now. On the other hand, clouds of gas collapsing into star formation, would exhibit a similar effect on the field of gravity, focusing gravity into a body of mass. New title: Gravity focus, a cause of cosmological redshift Exclusion of burning of stars and (definitely) exploding stars, in the hypothesis seems prudent, leaving mass concentration in blackholes and collapsing clouds (formation of stars, planets, etc). The main thing I need to prove is that the field of gravity increases in all directions as matter concentrates at a focal point. Logically, there's the same amount of mass/gravity in the neighborhood, but it's not focused until it falls or accumulates in a black hole or other focal point not emitting mass or energy. BTW, whatcha think, should I change my handle to "crackpot" so I don't have to remind ya'll. Regards, -shmengie, err.. crackpot

Because I'm a crackpot And guesses, based on suggestions from "lightbox" to "samdhatte" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravitational_redshift

Explaination for redshift, other than recession goes directly against BB/inflation. Matter welling cause redshift, would prove problematice for most of BB. We don't have that experience on Earth, which leaves the doppler effect as preferred conclusion. I'm a crackpot, because I don't agree with BB, don't have rigerous objection nor alternatives. Though I'm 95% sure matter contraction/welling is a significant source of redshift, in cosmological measurements. There are no earthly means to test the hypothesis. Any equation, would rely on a lot of guess work, so it seems pointless. BB is the best model we have, breaking it (if possible) would be counterproductive. I don't like being labeled crackpot, but I can live with it. If I was a phycisist, I suppose it would be more problematic... And I'd bite my tounge more often. To develop an equation for this postulation, equations of GR would need to be expanded. GR doesn't deal well with changing masses and that math is already complex. The vector of a photon would varry, as well as wavelength. I estimate two or more tensors need to be added, and I don't comprehend GR... I apologize that my depression, around this state affairs, causes me to lash out in frustration. There's little comfort, knowing few others face the same perplexity. Though familiar with [some] predictions of BB that later coinside with observation. I take that w/a grain of salt, since they already targeted logical hypothesis. Agreement between hypothesis and observation is encouraging, but they conclude Dark Energy, which seems highly improbable (IMO)... Doubt that welling would erradicate Dark Energy, but it would be a step in defining stable aether. That I would find more agreeable, not that I believe in aether...

You understand, BB is a lot of theory, which doesn't equate to science, right? I percieve you are convicted it is nothing but science. That doesn't mean there isn't scientific study of BB, but study and "science" are descrete concepts, IMO. The biggest problem I have with BB or BBN is that it's mostly theories explaining the theory BBN/inflation. There is no proof and there may never be... Dark energy is a figument of BB postulation. Don't know what it is, if it's real or what, but it fits with a postulation of the accelerating universe. There are a lot of things I like about BB/inflation. A few I find difficult to agree with. All matter has been concentrating into stars and galaxies since some form of a starting point. Most agree, based on observation it appears fact. I consider matter falling into gravity wells as a plausible explanation for some redshift of light, but that concept doesn't agree w/BB, so it's "wrong"... It goes against BB, so it's not worth investigating. BB is a tidy conceptulization for the beginning, easy to visualize in the minds eye. I suspect that's why it's the most accepted and also why recieved the most attention. Just because it's the most accepted doesn't make it right, nor does it make it science. Acceptance does have a tendency to label those who disagree as crackpot and easier to neglect competing theory. That, my friend, is a sad state of the "science". Conceptualizing a complete and competing theory for BB, is way beyond my ability. No matter how try, I lean toward a "starting point" which I believe is the bigesst hole in Steady State. Regards, -Joe

I understand how it can be concluded heavier elements than iron don't fuse. Seems to me the ability to form heavier elements would be proportional to the size of the star. Baryonic mater has quantititave propperties, therefor there is an upper limit to atomic neclitides size. I postulate that once this upper limit is achieved, dark matter becomes a product of the fusion process. It's easy for me to concieve dark matter production, correlates to super novae episodes. At best I have a rudimentary understanding of thermo-dynamics, can't substantiate this hypothisis, its a gut feeling...

So to answer my own question, I really am that dense.... Think I understand log scale but have difficulty dividing by 10... :-/ (see reference to personal density) Still, there are a lot of elements heavier than iron. My initial analysis of the chart was of by factors of 10, which clarifies to me why iron is suspect. I still find it very difficult to believe iron is cause of novae events.

I've heard a few cosmologists state that once a star (large enough to go bang) makes iron, it goes supernovae. I find that very hard to believe based on distribution of elements. Based on that chart, it looks like half the mass of solar system is heavier elements than iron. It is incomprehensible to me that half the mass of our solar system was converted to heavier elements at the moment of supernovae event. Am I really that dense? ( attempt to be phunny )

The slide doens't explain the cause of redshift, it does indicate that on scales parallax becomes useless, redshift is another method to measure for distance. Hubbles law: Redshift of an object is proportinal to it's distance. BBT postulates recession due to expantion. The smoking gun for BBT, is CMB radiation, even though there are inconsistencies which will presumably be cleard up when Planck project publishes. The slide does state that because BBT has been confirmed by many other observations, curiously, no cititation for any of them. Based on what I've read CMB is the "smoking gun" and even though data from WMAP et al, don't line up with theory or prediction, it's proof... Could lead one to believe BBT science, works differently than other siences... BBT relies on a specific order of forces changing. I'm in favor of such postulation, but if true, theory and prediction will become difficult, likely impossible to prove because the mathmatecial formula must change on a pivot of time. This I'm very skeptical, and believe will never be proven. I commend Allen Guth for postulating inflation. Think he's done more than anyone, WRT advancing our understanding of the evolution of the universe. I'd like to devise a test to prove redshift is caused by... cosmic expantion, matter contraction, dark matter/energy interaction or some other cause... W/out a test that can confirm or deny cause of redshift, I fear we're poking theories in the dark... Not that that's necessiarly a bad thing.

But there's no method to test via experiment in the labratory. Observed cosmic shift are predominately correlated to glactic expantion and/or doppler effect, not associated with mass contraction occuring since the beginning of time.

There's no means to test the hypothesis, so there is little incentive to complete the math, which I find somewhat frustrating. Found this wiki talk session, which contains some similarities to my postulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravitational_redshift It contains some of the math, but its not complete, don't know if anyone is still working on it..

Strange, If the limit to gravity's reach is infinate, I understand your comment, all light is affected by all wells, always. However, if the reach of gravity is infinate, it to lends credence to this thesis. -- I'm confident the thesis merit, however, the more I consider it, the more ways I find it easy to discredit: For instance: Mass acreating onto larger object already have gravitational pull on light waves. At most only the half of mass acreating on the far side of a celestial object would exert a net increase in potential. The mass acreating on the near side, would have weakend potential up to the point of accreation. There could only be a minor net gain in potential which may only affect angle of the vecotor, though if affects the angle of the vector, I think it's reasonable to assume it would also affect energy of the wave. Consider it takes light approx. 100,000 years to traverse the length of the Milkyway. During that time the central black hole could have the munchies several times. Because the reach of gravity may be infinate, the light wave doesn't need to travel close to a galaxy to be minorly affected by a minor gain in potential, due to accreation.

No particular object need increase in mass by substantial amount all once, tho that would amplify the effect. All objects are falling toward heavier ones and have likelyhood of becoming part of the heavier neighbor, unless they estabilish a non decaying orbit, or one gets ejected by a 3rd party. The Milkyway galaxy is in the process of merging with 2 other smaller galaxies, unless that astronomer lied to me. That is a form of mass accreation which increases the net gravity well of the milky way. It's not an instantaneous accreation but it is happening as light passes through any edge of the well. Suspect the shift is minor by most advents. But it is compounded by the fact that light interactes with a lot of gravity wells in this fashion, unless it's trip is very short. This has potential to make things look like we live in an expanding universe. Wish I could do the math...

And when gravitational well accreates more mass while the light is in the zone, does light not exiit more red?

For the sacke of this arguement, the universe began homogonously. From the start of time, gravity causes matter to accreate in larger and larger mass(es). Cloud to planet, star, galaxy and/or blackhole. The accreation process is a natural order of mass and (as yet) un-ending. No theory, I'm aware of, accounts for the effect on light passing through increasing potential of gravity wells. I postulate every wave of light that traverses the course of the universe passes through countless gravity wells. Further postulate the majority of wells encountered experience increased gravity potential, due to accreation, between the moment light encounter and the moment of departure. Most gravity wells increase potential over the course of time. Most light waves transition through numerous wells through the course of travel time. Cosmological redshift could be a function of matter contracting, increasing well potential and stretching waves. Regards, -Joe "shmengie"