Black Hole, mass or energy?

[elas]

Is it possible that within a Black Hole mass has converted to energy that is to say that we observe the effect of the Black Hole energy value (not the Effect of the Black Hole in mass values). Therefore in the Schwarzschild radius equation m should be replaced with E. This would mean that the Schwarzschild radius equation for mass would be m=r/2G (r=2Gm).

[swansont]

r = 2Gm/c^2. If you replace m, you have to replace it with E/c^2

[elas]

Thanks, should have checked my maths instead of waiting for you to return,

elas

[lucky45]

Listen Im not an expert in this field, But I would say Mass and energy. Doesant all mass have potential energy, and doesnt something that gives of energy have mass that will produce it ,I would say mass.

[elas]

Listen Im not an expert in this field, But I would say Mass and energy. Doesant all mass have potential energy, and doesnt something that gives of energy have mass that will produce it ,I would say mass.

 

It seems to me that experts regard this matter in two different ways, some say that mass 'converts' into energy, and vice versa (i.e. two different interchangeable entities); others (including Einstein) say that mass and energy are the 'same thing' that is to mean two different ways of measuring one entity. David Bodanis (E=Mc^2) gives a lengthy description of nuclear fission in which he appears to switch between the two explanations with some hesitation caused (I suggest) by an unwillingness to accept the degree to which a particle can expand.

 

The difference seems to arise from the two different approaches to the interpretation of observed actions; should it be Quantum interpretation with its 'point like' particles; or should it be classical interpretation where particles have volume.

 

One simple example of the confusion (at least amongst we amateurs!) that can arise lies in the dismissal of 'ether theories' on the grounds that no ether theory can explain away the resistance caused by friction. But QT predicts a minimum energy level throughout infinity, and as E=Mc^2; it is therefore, using Einstein's interpretation, an ether theory.

 

My own proposal is based on the fact that the ether does not need to move hence there is no material friction; the (vacuum) force field moves reshaping the ether as it does so. There is no friction between vacuum force fields, but the speed of force fields are determined by the density of the ether (thereby determining the speed of light).

Note that I am not saying that the ether does not move; only that it is not necessary for it to move under all circumstances.

 

In modern times as Lee Smolin makes clear in the introduction to 'The Trouble With Physics', 'experts' have a financial stake in their work and a personal reputation to defend, therefore they tend to defend the status quo rather than keep an open mind. Lower order professionals know that if they want to retain their academic post, they must support their superiors, at least until they get to the top; so we end up waiting for changes at the top in order for major changes to theories.

 

Meanwhile we amateurs can fire arrows at Achilles heel to our hearts content!

Edited January 20, 2010 by elas

[ajb]

If you replace m, you have to replace it with E/c^2

 

People do this all the time in general relativity. For example we have the ADM and Bondi mass/energy for asymptotically flat space-times.

 

As a side remark, the notion of the energy/mass content of an arbitrary space-time is problematic. One problem is that the gravitational field does not directly contribute to the energy-momentum tensor. Also, a space-time may have few if any Killing symmetries. So what people do is separate the "gravitational" and "nongravitational" parts and define energy pseudotensors. The problem is that these depend on the coordinates used!

[mv]

Hello,

 

I made public my opinion, including this subject, on January 04, 2010 in the article from:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

<<<The photons, resulted after Big Bang, each of them having a kind of "graviton" with it (in other words, the smallest gravity unit being associated with a photon), have started to join each other, when they were "close enough" to each other, so that the smallest elementary particle is the one formed by joining two photons, which were "close enough" to "connect" each other.

 

Next, this first elementary particle, was coming in contact with other photon and formed the second type of elementary particle, also two first elementary particles joined together have formed the third type of elementary particle and so on ... in time ... all the today's known elementary particles have been formed.

 

Therefore, by forming the particles of matter as mentioned above, the resultant of the joined "smallest gravity units", around each particle, have generated the gravity as we know it today (more elementary particles are in a celestial body, bigger/stronger gravity field is around it).

 

As a conclusion, all forces known in our Universe (including all forms of matter manifestations) are results of these elementary particles behavior/interactions, function of their type (how many photons are containing) and their position in space (how close they are one from each other), having their initial moving, given by the Big Bang, influenced (changed) continuously.

 

[...]

 

The ending of each Universe can be a huge black hole, which, if its mass is big enough, in time may produce a new Big Bang, giving birth in this way to a new Universe. >>>

[swansont]

mv, please keep the discussion on-topic, and refrain from introducing other alternative theories. They can, and must, be discussed in their own thread.