Templar

There're some questions related to black holes at Usenet Physics FAQ.

-The gravitation field has negative energy, which should balance the energy you observe as matter & EM waves. -Virtual particles do not violate conservation of energy. -If SR holds to be correct, there's no way a mass can reach c. SR says, energy you need to give a mass to make it go at speed of light is infinite, ie impossible. Massless particles on the other hand are allow to go at c only. Since there's no experiemental proof that SR is wrong, this thread is speculation entirely. How can the fact that light cannot escape beyond it's event horizon mean massive objects near black holes should reach c?

No. The wavefunction constains a collection of eigenstates and probability amplitudes for them. With wavefunction, you can at most say somethime like this: after a measurement of momentum, chances you get 9 is %32, 15 %60, etc. You can predict the possibilities of measurement outcomes, in theory. In real life, add the experimental errosr and the fact that you usually don't know the wavefunction.

I wonder how you measured it. And at what distance is B supposed to be 1.23? 1m? 10 light-years?

We have a box filled with gas, and a piston that can move horiziontally. There's no external pressure (such as air pressure, etc). Now, If we compress the gas by applying an external force to the piston, we do work on gas, right? Therefore [math]\Delta W[/math] should increase (I'm assuming that [math]\Delta U = \Delta Q + \Delta W[/math]). This makes sense to me. I note that the volume decreases in this process. This force seems to have done work against the random collisions of the piston. In an adiabatic expansion, it's said that the gas does work. Against what? Plus, it's said that Q is decreased. Since this's an isolated system, this means W has increased. The gas does work, and still W increases?!? How doesn't this violate conservation of energy? (there seems to be an error in signs somewhere, but I'd prefer an explanation with physical reasoning, rather than speaking pure-equation-wise)