saturation point of light

[stevebtaylor]

this page will deal with the formation of black holes. your comments are welcome on the following points.

perhaps youve seen pictures of black holes with swirling clouds orbiting around them? this would seem to indicte that during collapse (preferably during spatial contraction and because of it) only a certain amount of mass/energy is required for its formation, and no more. the saturation point is reached or satisfied, composed exclusively of packed in, scrunched-up light?

 

remember the gravity-well illustration for black holes? previously it was considered as an inward-spiral to the center.

now, however, it may be that it should be viewed as concentric rings, each one representing an energy level. maybe the only way to get past the event horizon is to be invited during spatial contraction. nothing can get in that wasnt included in the final conditions, and never will.

the black hole can only deteriorate and thus contribute to its environment. the material would be frayed bits of field-bound lightwaves. the bound fields will have properties unlike normal stuff.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

this field-bound light should have properties similar to dark matter.

having been formed by spatial contraction, the binding energy would be greater than even high-energy and interaction with normal matter impeded by it being bound to itself.

[Mr Skeptic]

A black hole can be made of anything that contains energy, and it is not known what form the energy takes. It could be light, it could be the original particles. It very likely does not matter anyways (see the no hair theorem).

 

There is no point at which the black hole is "saturated" or "full". Adding more matter will simply make the black hole bigger and less dense (as measured by the volume inside the event horizon).

[stevebtaylor]

the infalling mass is accelerated to relativistic values where, proof exists, that mass turns into eenergy. on this proposal im goin with energy.

the light i refer to is energy.

an aside: just read the other day that initial studies indicate black hole size seems to be related to the mass in its environment- for globular clusters and galactic centers. this info came along just in time for me!

 

particles from the cloud left in orbit that approach the black hole seem to be radiated as it approaches the event horizon, which is at relativistic velocity. it seems that the event horizon is a barrier.

[Mr Skeptic]

Black hole size relates to mass within the event horizon. The mass that can be consumed by the black hole depends on how much mass there is nearby. Kind of like you don't find blue whales in a goldfish bowl.

[stevebtaylor]

good one!

do you have mass inside the event horizon, or are you refering to the singularity itself?

[Mr Skeptic]

It doesn't matter how the mass is distributed within the event horizon.

[stevebtaylor]

most models have the mass in the singularity and the event horizon as transmitting area, from the outside right to the center. wouldnt mass inbetween be incompatable?

[Mr Skeptic]

Incompatible with some models, sure. But how do you intend to check whether there is mass not at the singularity? What difference would it make in reality?

[stevebtaylor]

in reality, an understanding of the properties of a singularity could lead to many advances in science and technology.

for instance, if the singularity is composed of and formed by high-frequency waves that have been amplified and then interfered with (spatially contracted), then that sounds like a reproducable experiment. it couldnt be that hard to come up with... well, maybe the spatial contraction part.

there is some info from electrical engineering that amplified high frequency waves will interfere with one another.

Edited April 1, 2010 by stevebtaylor
addition

[Klaynos]

The singularity is probably in reality not a singularity just a break down of our current physics.

[stevebtaylor]

not so! the black hole and singularity are in and of this universe.

there is no break down of the laws of physics, perhaps some shuffling and re-arrangements, but not a break down.

here are two facts: mass when accelerated to relativisitic speeds turns to energy. amplified high energy waves' fields interefere with each other. the order of events in stellar colloapse shouldnt be in much doubt.

 

en mass,(as in an imploding star that suddenly has its mass converted to energy), this is a calculatable situation and one that could easily, and i stress easily, could easily be tested.

[Klaynos]

Show me some situation where a theory has predicted a singularity or infinity (they are the same) which has been shown to be experimentally true and not later discovered to be a break down of the physics.

 

We don't know how gravity acts on such small scales, GR breaks down, this is shown by the singularity.

[stevebtaylor]

how the fields react is the point here.

 

during collapse, mass turns to energy at relativistic speeds.

this high-frequency energy has its amplitude increased, initiated by another wave.

the area under the waves, as well as the distance between waves, is contracted spacially.

this puts the em fields in a predicament. the simplest solution would re-arrange the fields.

this would result in bound energy, and have gravitational properties.

[Klaynos]

how the fields react is the point here.

 

during collapse, mass turns to energy at relativistic speeds.

this high-frequency energy has its amplitude increased, initiated by another wave.

the area under the waves, as well as the distance between waves, is contracted spacially.

this puts the em fields in a predicament. the simplest solution would re-arrange the fields.

this would result in bound energy, and have gravitational properties.

 

Show this mathematically please. I'm particularly interested in the mass->'energy' which you seem to be using as mass->photons.

[stevebtaylor]

actually, im doing both.

the mass turns to energy, which is electro-magnetic radiation, or generically, light. is this in fact correct?

whether the energy or photons behave as a wave or a particle, im going with the wave.

[Amr Morsi]

Much electromagnetic radiation is prisoned on the inner side of the event horizon of a black hole. They can't reach it. How light can enter the event horizon, in special cases.

 

When a mass is lost, due to electromagnetic radiation, gravitational waves get emitted, resulting also in the changing the gravitational field outside.

[stevebtaylor]

amr, could you go over the first three sentences for clarity, please?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

klaynos, the math isnt worked out, as yet.

 

during an electronics class some years ago the prof pointed out the behaviour on an oscilliscope when dials were turned to, first, increase the amplitude and second, to shorten the wavelenth, on the screen. the result was wobbly waves, then many horizontal lines, followed by them all falling to the bottom of the screen. this was not part of the course, he merely pointed it out.

 

has anyone ever come across this oscilloscope demonstration before or since?

[Amr Morsi]

I was saying that although we don't see any light coming from a black hole, there is radiation of light from the star within the event horizon, i.e. inside the event horizon there will be light seen coming from the star. The light only "gets delayed" at the event horizon........ that's what I meant by "prisoned".

 

Although there is nothing that can escape from the event horizon from the inside, still a particle, or light, MAY enter from outside to the inside.... but the path must have some properties for that to happen.

[Klaynos]

amr, could you go over the first three sentences for clarity, please?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

klaynos, the math isnt worked out, as yet.

 

during an electronics class some years ago the prof pointed out the behaviour on an oscilliscope when dials were turned to, first, increase the amplitude and second, to shorten the wavelenth, on the screen. the result was wobbly waves, then many horizontal lines, followed by them all falling to the bottom of the screen. this was not part of the course, he merely pointed it out.

 

has anyone ever come across this oscilloscope demonstration before or since?

 

 

Photons are not energy, they are something with the property of kinetic energy. They have other properties as well.

 

How can you say that is what is happening without any evidence or maths? You have no predictions, just pulling things out of the air.

 

To understand why the scope was doing that you would need a lot of information about the settings, type of scope and input.

[stevebtaylor]

amr, you have a model that has light radiating within the event horizon?

ive begun viewing the gravity well diagram of a black hole from a different angle. if it is seen from above, they would look like concentric rings and not a groove, indicating a gradient of energy levels.

the hallmark sign of a black hole is the signature radiation that is emitted as matter is accelerated and emitted before reaching the event horizon. if it is emitting radiation then there shouldnt be anything to absorb. either way, it seems that they are barriers.

 

klaynos, photons are not energy? can we say the sine wave describes energy levels? when mass is accelerated to relativistic speeds and radiates, is not the electro-magnetic radiation described by a sine wave representing a photon?

why i am presenting without maths is because math is a very seductive and elegant art. however, before popping into another universe, before going down a wormhole, before pinpoint singularities, before the laws of physics break down, the singularity and blackhole are understandable as objects in and of this universe. black holes are now thought to be as old, if not older, than galaxies, as well as an integral part of galactic structure.

blackholes are older than galaxies? theres lots of them!

the universe is expanding? the acceleration increases!

 

whats going on? does the collapse of structures that capture light even from the beginning of time create a universe that expands faster than light?

black holes must be giving back in a big way! do any current models consider this?

Edited April 7, 2010 by stevebtaylor
add, correct

[Klaynos]

klaynos, photons are not energy?

 

No, they have energy, energy is a property of stuff, not itself a thing.

 

can we say the sine wave describes energy levels?

 

Energy levels in what?

 

when mass is accelerated to relativistic speeds and radiates, is not the electro-magnetic radiation described by a sine wave representing a photon?

 

It's a little bit more complicated than that. As something like:

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x911r552780q5881/

 

Will show you.

 

why i am presenting without maths is because math is a very seductive and elegant art. however, before popping into another universe, before going down a wormhole, before pinpoint singularities, before the laws of physics break down, the singularity and blackhole are understandable as objects in and of this universe. black holes are now thought to be as old, if not older, than galaxies, as well as an integral part of galactic structure.

 

Some are, yes, some are significantly more modern.

 

I'd suggest you do some reading on the methods used by modern physics to describe and test the universe.

 

blackholes are older than galaxies?

 

Some are possibly, the jury is still out.

 

theres lots of them!

 

Not lots, some.

 

the universe is expanding? the acceleration increases!

 

So observational evidence tells us.

 

whats going on? does the collapse of structures that capture light even from the beginning of time create a universe that expands faster than light?

 

No, probably not, i don't see how. There is nothing we know of that would create a limit to universal expansion.

 

black holes must be giving back in a big way! do any current models consider this?

 

Hawking radiation is the only method known that allows black holes to "give back", why would they need to?

[stevebtaylor]

klaynos, thank you very much for the itemized reply.

 

photons have energy, energy is a property, i agree.

however would energy is a measurement, be as accurate as mass is a measurement? if energy is not itself a thing, is mass also not itself a thing?

 

the area under the sine wave was, at one time, was a measure of the energy of the wave.

 

went to website, saw page one. it seems the rest is for sale.

maxwells equations do describe a more compex photon.

 

its an observation. ie, blackholes may be older than galaxies and the universe is expanding. i dont see how, either, but they must play a part in the space ecosystyem and/or recycling business.

 

the suggestion wasnt to a limit of spatial expansion, rather more to an unknown or as yet undiscovered recycling system, including space.

 

wouldnt blackholes need to give back, must, for an expanding system? ?karma!

so, i suggest that dark matter comes from, or is produced by, primal galactic black holes. sorry, no proofs here.

it may be prudent to consider that one type of blackhole is not the same species as another, in position (galactic) or time (primal).

how would a blackhole form at the beginning of space-time and yet still the universe accelerates its expantion?

[stevebtaylor]

actually, how would many blackholes (one per galaxy, minimum) form at a time near the start of space-time and yet still the universal expansion accelerates? this is a digression and i apologise for it.

 

back to matter at hand. a standing wave of energy is considered or defined to be matter. and a standing wave is produced by two similar waves travelling in opposite directions.

 

for my proposal to work, the spatial contraction would shorten the wavelengths and then rebound to establish standing waves throughout, resulting in the formation of the blackhole. the field bonds would then not be necessary.

a single wavelength singularity would not occur.

Edited April 12, 2010 by stevebtaylor
clarification

[Klaynos]

klaynos, thank you very much for the itemized reply.

 

photons have energy, energy is a property, i agree.

however would energy is a measurement, be as accurate as mass is a measurement? if energy is not itself a thing, is mass also not itself a thing?

 

Mass is indeed a property of things, similar to energy. Mass (read rest mass) is an unchanging quantity for fundamental particles, whereas energy can change, although it must be conserved (mass energy in fact is the conserved quantity to be precise).

 

the area under the sine wave was, at one time, was a measure of the energy of the wave.

 

I'm not sure that's ever been true for photons. Their quantised energy is planks constant multiplied by their frequency.

 

went to website, saw page one. it seems the rest is for sale.

 

Yeah, sorry, not sure which journals are free as I'm using a university internet connection.

 

maxwells equations do describe a more compex photon.

 

Maxwell's equations are classical, quantum electrodynamics is what you're after.

 

its an observation. ie, blackholes may be older than galaxies and the universe is expanding. i dont see how, either, but they must play a part in the space ecosystyem and/or recycling business.

 

You've jumped to a conclusion with no firm pathway between them.

 

The universe is expanding.

 

There were black holes at some point in the early universe, exactly when we don't know.

 

But, outside the event horizon black holes are gravitationally not spacial. If the sun turned into a black hole now we would continue to orbit exactly the same as we do now. So just because there were black holes does not mean there was any greater gravitational attraction stopping the universal expansion.

 

the suggestion wasnt to a limit of spatial expansion, rather more to an unknown or as yet undiscovered recycling system, including space.

 

I think you should have a look at hawking radiation, see wikipedia.

 

wouldnt blackholes need to give back, must, for an expanding system? ?karma!

 

Not really as long as there is eneough starting energy to exceed the original gravitational attraction there is no requirement for black holes to give anything off for an expanding universe.

 

so, i suggest that dark matter comes from, or is produced by, primal galactic black holes. sorry, no proofs here.

 

Most of what you are talking about is dark energy, not matter, dark energy is the name given to the energy that is causing the accelerating expansion, we don't know what it is.

 

Dark matter is areas of mass which do not interact with electromagnetism strongly, but it is massive so would be effected by black holes in the same way as normal matter.

 

it may be prudent to consider that one type of blackhole is not the same species as another, in position (galactic) or time (primal).

how would a blackhole form at the beginning of space-time and yet still the universe accelerates its expantion?

 

I think i covered this above in this post...

 

I'll try and have time to look at your other post in a bit.

[stevebtaylor]

whew, you sure know your stuff, and thanks for staying up so late.

your answers are appreciated. my apologies for getting side-tracked.

 

the main thing bugging me is formation of blackholes. there is no formula that describes the events, as i understand them.

the chaotic collapse of stellar mass will cause a physical gravity wave to travell through the matter.

blackhole formation ends with spatial contraction.

in between, the anology is to nuclear explosion, initiated by an implosion to cause an explosion. the black hole implodes that, too.

 

are these correct?

 

is it worth research and experiments?