The McCaustland Theory

[TJ McCaustland]

Hello I am TJ McCaustland, now I obviously do not hold a PHD in Quantum physics, but I would like to propose a new theory that I have. This theory is that atoms when they enter the singularity of a black hole are given a technically infinite velocity due to the nearly infinte density and nearly gravity of a black hole, and all energy (Except kinetic of course) is removed from the atoms, which causes everything except the binding atomic energy (which is tiny) to be lost. Therefore allowing these particles to take on an amplified form of a tachyon effect, all except losing the kinetic energy over time because of the atomic binding energy. Now the interesting thing is you would not be able to see, nor detect such a phenomenon because the particles would be travelling faster than photons, and therefore would be invisible to detection through a tiny light emission. Now because the particles have no energy (except of course binding energy) there would be no energy emission whatsoever from the particles. Now If I am correct (Which I may not be on the lightspeed part) this is cohesive with the laws of physics, and special relativity (Correct me if I am not, Thanks ). Equation (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC (Atom's velocity is infinite) (Universal drag equals Energy times energy density times the universal constant)

Edited September 13, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[fiveworlds]

infinite velocity?

 

Oh and since I haven't introduced myself yet. I am called fiveworlds because I invented the most random name I could think of in 1996. I was three at the time. I wanted to make up a name for playing a video game but mine was already taken.

Edited September 13, 2014 by fiveworlds

[TJ McCaustland]

Wtheck man? even though in quantum physics that could be true and false it is the most random video ever.

*also infinite velocity is technically possible so long as the particle has a tiny mass, or none at all. Hence Tachyons.

[elfmotat]

This isn't a theory, it's a bunch of word salad.

[fiveworlds]

Tachyons are hypothetical particles particles i.e. nobody can prove you are right. Also note that particles with infinite velocity will have infinite momentum if they have any mass at all.

Now here is where the error comes from light which can escape a black hole.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/10/hercules_a_huge_black_hole_emits_two_beams_of_matter_into_space.html

Edited September 13, 2014 by fiveworlds

[TJ McCaustland]

Yes, I know that tachyons are INDEED theoretical but there is strong evidence of their existence, but I would also like to make the point that if a particle has no mass, it has no drag allowing it to achieve theoretically infinite velocity. hence the word THEORY. BTW unless you want an my theory in mathematical this is not word salad, it is theory in word.

[Sensei]

Hello I am TJ McCaustland, now I obviously do not hold a PHD in Quantum physics,

Obviously.

 

but I would like to propose a new theory that I have.

Obviously.

Only people without PhD have here any theory..

 

This theory is that atoms when they enter the singularity

The problem is that there is known 118 atoms, and nearly 3143 isotopes. Which one do you have in mind? Each of them have different mass, different energy, and different binding energy (I don't believe you know what is binding energy)..

 

Yet another problem is that not only atoms are attracted by black hole, but also light-photons.

 

(cut there rest of crap)

[ACG52]

There is no evidence of the existence of tacyhons. Massless particles can only travel at the speed of light. Your use of the word theory is incorrect, what you have is a conjecture at best.

 

If you have any mathematics to support your idea, lets see it.

[TJ McCaustland]

Please correct me if this is non-cohesive with special relativity and quantum mechanics.

Alright any atom out of the periodic table, this is supposed to be a *Hypothesis with a wide view that accounts for all possible circumstances. But I will admit that you do have me on Theory.

Very well (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC (Atom's velocity is infinite due to nearly infinite gravity *Meant to put that is post* Universal drag equals Energy times Energy density times the universal constant.)

[ACG52]

 

Very well (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC (Atom's velocity is infinite due to nearly infinite gravity *Meant to put that is post* Universal drag equals Energy times Energy density times the universal constant.)

You realize that this is totally meaningless?

[TJ McCaustland]

There is no evidence of the existence of tacyhons. Massless particles can only travel at the speed of light. Your use of the word theory is incorrect, what you have is a conjecture at best.

 

If you have any mathematics to support your idea, lets see it.

this is not only not right, it is not even wrong. such is quantum physics.

Actually that equation does have use in calculating this instance because this is thinking of a black hole in a way that has never been done before, or at least not to my knowledge.

And fiveworlds, that video does support evidence of my hypothesis, because if not even light can escape a black hole then these particle are travelling faster than light.

*particles

Because gravity remains the same under any circumstance so long as there is the same amount of mass.

Because Black holes contradict all laws of physics, and can break them.

[ACG52]

 

 

because if not even light can escape a black hole then these particle are travelling faster than light.

The source of the particles is the accretion disk formed AROUND the Black Hole, not from inside the event horizon.

[TJ McCaustland]

this is not only not right, it is not even wrong. such is quantum physics.

Actually that equation does have use in calculating this instance because this is thinking of a black hole in a way that has never been done before, or at least not to my knowledge.

And fiveworlds, that video does support evidence of my hypothesis, because if not even light can escape a black hole then these particle are travelling faster than light.

*particles

Because gravity remains the same under any circumstance so long as there is the same amount of mass.

Because Black holes contradict all laws of physics, and can break

Crap didn't mean to post that. Ah, that makes sense, but after the accretion disk dissipates there are still residual particals being emitted. Not saying you're not right on the accretion disk it's just the residual.

Also on the equation it has use in this case because I am thinking of black holes in a way that has never been thought of before, or at least not to my knowledge

[Bignose]

Equation (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC (Atom's velocity is infinite) (Universal drag equals Energy times energy density times the universal constant)

TJ, welcome to the forum. Let me expand a little on what has been said above.

 

You have 2 equations here that are poorly defined at best.

 

Firstly, if an atom has infinite velocity, how does that jive with "nearly infinte density"? Because if the density was so high, the particles would be running into each other an awful lot. If you take that a step further, if a particle truly had infinite velocity, it should actually physically be in every single position in the universe at every single time. I am pretty sure there aren't any black hole particles in my living room where I am typing this! In short, I think the idea of a particle having infinite velocity needs to be rethought.

 

Secondly, your second equation is rather meaningless too. What is universal drag? Drag is a force, so it has units of Newtons. The right hand side of your equation is energy (units of joules), energy density (joules per meter cubed), and 'universal constant'... which one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_universal_constants It can't be any of these we've already defined, because for this equation to be dimensionally sound, this constant has to have units of N*m^3/J^2.

 

Thirdly, the reason people are bristling at the use of the word 'theory' is that as that word is used colloquially, it is not used in science. In science, the word theory is reserved for something which we have found an enormous amount of evidence to support. Like the Theory of Gravity. What you have here is a speculation, supposition, or really a story.

 

Fourthly, if you want to take this beyond being just a story, you need to present evidence that supports your idea. This is how science is really done. You have an idea, you make predictions based on that idea, then you gather data and see how closely your predictions agree with what was actually measured.

 

Now, we don't know a whole lot about black holes. But, your ideas, as presented, have implications. (i.e. something with infinite velocity would be in every position in the universe at every moment.) You need to make predictions based on these ideas. This is why people typically ask for (useful, dimensionally sound) mathematics, because mathematics makes it much, much easier to make predictions with. It is far easier to objectively measure "the ball weighs 5 kg" compared to "the ball didn't weigh very much".

 

So, at this point, you need to help us. You need to actually turn your idea into predictions, and then you need to compare those predictions to data we've observed.

 

Edited to add: p.s. lastly, it is a small point, but it also considered rather tacky to name something after yourself. If someday, you flesh this idea out with the tools of science and get is published and it becomes famous, the rest of the community will de facto name it after you. But, it is considered poor form and grossly egotistical to presumptively name it after yourself.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Bignose

[ajb]

Yes, I know that tachyons are INDEED theoretical but there is strong evidence of their existence...

I am not aware of any experimental evidence for their existence. Tachyons would be unstable and quickly decay into standard particles.

 

 

...but I would also like to make the point that if a particle has no mass, it has no drag allowing it to achieve theoretically infinite velocity.

No, particles with zero mass travel at the speed of light, for example photons are massless.

[Ophiolite]

Also on the equation it has use in this case because I am thinking of black holes in a way that has never been thought of before, or at least not to my knowledge

I am pretty certain this is true, but I wouldn't go around talking about it.

 

On the positive side:

1. You have imagination.

2. You have enthusiasm.

3. You have an interest in science.

 

Recommendation:

 

Learn just what the box looks like, feels like, sound like, etc, before you try thinking outside of it.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

1. Moved to speculations.

 

2. Cut some slack to new members - not on the science nor the criticism but on the manner of criticism

 

[fiveworlds]

Tachyons simply cannot have infinite velocity in the way you expressed since velocity is expressed as a unit of time. If a particle enters the gravity of a black hole it is only going to travel the distance to the black hole. Given this information we can ascertain that if the distance to a black hole was 300,000 kilometers and a particle travels the distance in one second. It has an instantaneous velocity of about 300,000 kilometers a second. If a particle had infinite velocity it would move an infinite distance which is impossible.

Edited September 13, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Knifeman 222]

Hrmm... bring the equation cut 90% of the words to take it from a word sandwich to a steak dinner with a side of mathematics, although I will say, you are thinking of this "theory" as you call it in a way that most likely has not been done before.

Also (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC is an interesting equation, but only applies to this bunch of words, and contradicts all known laws of physics.

You realize that this is totally meaningless?

TRUE DAT

And Actually TJ, Your equation needs to not have infinite velocity, you can have near infinite velocity, but never infinite because it would basically cause mass havoc in the universe. Because if the atoms collided with something because then the energy from that would be infinite as well causing a universal destruction scenario. BTW if you want to learn more about black holes check out Brian cox. And that Univeral Drag, is a bunch of garbage, you can have drag from a solar wind, but universal drag really? No star equals no drag, and also that drag would be so small it would take many many years to slow down your particle. Not to be a hater but guys, help this guy out, he has an idea but no idea what that idea is.

[Phi for All]

Hrmm... bring the equation cut 90% of the words to take it from a word sandwich to a steak dinner with a side of mathematics, although I will say, you are thinking of this "theory" as you call it in a way that most likely has not been done before.

Also (A)V=∞ UD=EEDC is an interesting equation, but only applies to this bunch of words, and contradicts all known laws of physics.

TRUE DAT

And Actually TJ, Your equation needs to not have infinite velocity, you can have near infinite velocity, but never infinite because it would basically cause mass havoc in the universe. Because if the atoms collided with something because then the energy from that would be infinite as well causing a universal destruction scenario. BTW if you want to learn more about black holes check out Brian cox. And that Univeral Drag, is a bunch of garbage, you can have drag from a solar wind, but universal drag really? No star equals no drag, and also that drag would be so small it would take many many years to slow down your particle. Not to be a hater but guys, help this guy out, he has an idea but no idea what that idea is.

 

!

Moderator Note

Starting a second account as a sockpuppet to support your first account is against the rules you agreed to when you joined, TJ McCaustland. Please take some time to think about the intellectual honesty required to use science effectively.

 

Sockpuppet banned. Report this post if you have anything to say, don't respond to this in the thread.

[Ophiolite]

TJ, you are interested in science, you have an imagination, you are obviously young, you could have a great future. Why don't you knuckle down to some hard work and learn the basics, instead of spouting nonsense?

[nullus]

velocity it self is not a material thing, it's can be infinite and it's no problem, but velocity of material things have limits in their environment ( atmosphere )...

[ajb]

velocity it self is not a material thing, it's can be infinite and it's no problem...

True, but this would not be the velocity as measured by (local) inertial observers as we usually mean in relativity. One can have, for example, separation speeds greater than c (< infinity) but this speed is not a velocity as measured by any observer.

[nullus]

True, but this would not be the velocity as measured by (local) inertial observers as we usually mean in relativity. One can have, for example, separation speeds greater than c (< infinity) but this speed is not a velocity as measured by any observer.

 

agree, but we can always use infinite velocity like and a black holes in a comics .

are you sure that separation speed is higher than c ? and wich separation we are talking about ( just want to be sure ) ?

[imatfaal]

agree, but we can always use infinite velocity like and a black holes in a comics .

Not so much on a science forum ;-)

 

 

are you sure that separation speed is higher than c ? and wich separation we are talking about ( just want to be sure ) ?

 

You are in open space and fire two objects away in opposite directions. Each object has a velocity relative to you, and there is a velocity of object A with respect to object B and vice versa; but there is also another measurement. You can measure/calculate how fast the distance between the two objects from your perspective is opening; this can be greater than c as nothing is actually moving through space at this velocity.