It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theoretical Physics Question’s 101

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Hello, I have so many interest in the field of physics. Sadly my school only teaches basic physics, and I can not even take that class until I am in a higher grade. I have a few questions that I wish for you guys to answer.
Please post your opinions and have something to back up those opinions, or facts. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my ?'s.


1st. I was wondering what would happen if you were in a wormhole traveling at the speed of light and the Wormhole collapsed? Would this cause a singularity? If so how?
If you were traveling at the speed of light in a wormhole would you be traveling backwards in time? If so where would you end up? Can you destroy a singularity, if so how? What is a singularity? What kind of particles are in a singularity? Plus how has the string theory combined both Quantum Mechanics and General Theory of Relativity so that they both work together? Can you predict the subatomic movements accurately?

2nd Is it possible for a black hole to suck up a wormhole?
If so what would happen, and what if you were inside the wormhole traveling at the speed of light when the black hole sucked up the wormhole?

3rd What is a membrane in space? What is it made up of? How does it function? What is its use? Can it be created? Can it be destroyed? What happens if you travel at the speed of light near one? If two membranes hit each other would it cause a singularity, and a "big bang"? If so how?

4th What happens if you reach the very edge of space while it is expanding? Would you start back at the beginning of space? If so where would that be located? How can one reach the end of space or time? Did time exist before our Universe was created?
What is time? What is the present, past, and future?

5th. What kind of particles are in a black hole? can anything escape a black hole? If so how, and why? What kind of particles are in a wormhole? Does anything exist called a white hole? If so what would that be? What kind of particles are in gravity? What is gravity? How can you control gravity?

P.S. What are Tachyons, and can anything break the speed of light barrier?
Can you travel back in time at the same time traveling forward in time? If so how? Can you kill yourself in the process of moving back in time, and watch yourself die? Can you stop time, if so how? Can one exist outside of time and space? Can one create their own time, and space? If so how?

Okay I'll stop there for now, Hope you can answer me!

-LOD


Theoretical Physics Question’s 101



[edit on 073030p://000 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Someone please reply


-Thanks, LOD



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
So, some of these won't be what you're looking for, but that's because of the way they are asked and from false background info, I would think.

1. Well, you won't be, because you're not traveling at the speed of light. Ever. A wormhole works by having a massive object bend space, and having that bent space 'touch' the bent space caused by another massive object. You cross a large distance in a short amount of time because space itself has been altered. A singularity is a point. Infinitesimal in size. You don't have 'particles' in one, there is no 'in.' You just have a singularity.

2. See above, but yeah. The mas from a wormhole could, I guess, technically fall into a black hole. (black holes don't suck, things fall into them. they only suck if you're still alive)

3. A brane isn't an object as such. Not my strongest subject, but it is more analogous to space-time in that it's fabric that we live in. It has been theorized that if they crash, a "big bang" might accure, but it's not been shown/proven/quantified iirc.

4. You'll never know. You'll never, ever, ever get there. Assuming there is an end, of course. It's possible that space curves back on itself, in which case you could end up where you started if you could go fast enough. If space is how we think it is, you won't because it's moving WAY too fast for you.

5. Yes, things can escape a black hole. I'm doing it right now. Can things escape once past the event horizon, you mean. Yes. Black holes emit large amounts of radiation, Hawking included, which eventually contributed to their death. You can find all sorts of particles in one, but once something passes the event horizon it becomes part of the singularity in an instant. Every particle is in gravity because gravity is everywhere. You control gravity by being heavy (Don't eat at subways!) and by twisting space (spinning, etc.). A white hole? Nyet.

6. Tachyons are crap. And no, you cannot break the speed of light barrier. It HAS been mathematically proven that you can go forward in time, not backward. Time is a dimension, you do not stop time you do not stop width; it doesn't make sense.

You can exist on other dimensions, and we wouldn't know it if they didn't correlate to our own. It's very feasible there are plenty of other universes that exist along 11 different dimensions, and we'll never know about them since we don't have any in common.

*phew*

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask for more, or clarification. Others will respond as well.


apc

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Ill toss in my two cents on branes..
A membrane is essentially analogous to 'spacetime' in our reality. Everything in our universe exists within one membrane. A membrane can either be referred to as one of the 11 dimensions proposed by string/mtheory, or as the explosive result of two of these dimensions colliding. The latter is the more commonly accepted notion.
Our membrane would be considered an 'upper dimensional object', meaning it's properties supercede our perceived dimensional laws. One explanation for the big bang is the forementioned collision. The unimaginably energetic explosive creation of a membrane started at a single point and grew outward in 4 or 5 dimensions or so, creating our reality and everything in it. Our membrane has been expanding ever since that moment of creation giving us a possible explanation for the apparent expansion of the universe.
If this is the case, there is an edge, but it is not an edge that we could ever possibly perceive. This edge would exist beyond our reality, so the farther you fly the more things just seem to repeat themselves, although you are not flying in circles.
This is just my interpretation of some aspects of membranes, so Im not authoritative by far.. Id definitely suggest independant research if your school cannot provide you the proper resources.

> and string theory has tied quantums to relativity through the implication of the existance of a particle responsible for the effects of gravity.


[edit on 24-4-2005 by apc]



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Do you mean Stephen Hawking is being shot out of black holes, wheel chair and all, right as we speak?



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
A membrane is essentially analogous to 'spacetime' in our reality.


OMG That's what I said! GET OUT OF MY HEAD APC!1!1!!!1one!!@!

Anyway T, no, I meant "radiation, Hawking Radiation included." Kinda like bond...



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I was being a smartass.

Hawking Radiation is...well...I myself am a physicist, and I take most of that stuff at face value. It's a cool idea, but there's no way to really test it.


apc

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Amorymeltzer: hahaha... you're thinking of the word, KITTY!!
> whoa it was word for word... hi5! heheh

Hawking radiation sounds funny..



[edit on 25-4-2005 by apc]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
How can you form a wormhole using both a white hole, and a black hole?
What kind of exotic matter would it take to create a stable wormhole?

Does anyone else have any answers to my ?'s

& Amorymeltzer there are some loop holes in physics that will allow you to travel the speed of light, while still obeying einstein's physics; i'm sure.


[edit on 093131p://111 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Plus AmoR do you know anything about Quantum Nonlocality and the Possibility of Superluminal Effects?


nonlocality, the mysterious ability of Nature to enforce correlations between separated but entangled parts of a quantum system that are out of speed-of-light contact, to reach faster-than-light across vast spatial distances or even across time itself to ensure that the parts of a quantum system are made to match. To be more specific, locality means that isolated parts of any quantum mechanical system out of speed-of-light contact with other parts of that system are allowed to retain definite relationships or correlations only through memory of previous contact. Nonlocality means that in quantum systems correlations not possible through simple memory are somehow being enforced faster-than-light across space and time. Nonlocality, peculiar though it is, is a fact of quantum systems which has been repeatedly demonstrated in laboratory experiments.


Is quantum mechanics non-linear? & What does the term
linear really mean?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Anyone want to give me a helping hand with my ?'s?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
1. White hole? No. There's no evidence for white holes other than what you read in (bad) science fiction. Throwing out matter like that violates thermodynamics, and would also kill anything travelling through it, so it's worthless anyway. Not much more here.

2. I don't know what kinds of exotic matter would be required. Technically, however, you just need two, exceptionally massive masses to bend space.

3. That could be a loophole, bending space. It's not travelling any faster, but since you're not going as far as you might have had to, you could make the case, but you'd probably lose. Also, space can move however fast it wants. It's moving through space that has limits. Sometimes things seem to be faster than light because space has expanded while the light has traveled.

4. This site says it a lot better than I will, and does a great job of it too, but nonlocality doesn't mean we can travel faster than the speed of light. It just means, put simply, that we don't know nearly enough about the universe, and that we've only begun to scratch the surface.

5. I hate the word linear. Linear algebra sounds like a breeze because, what, it's algebra of lines, right? Wrong. It's post calculus math, and is really not fun at all. (often time boring) In this context, it means:


a technical term meaning that when quantum waves are superimposed they may generate a small cross-term not present in the standard formalism.


Source - You might like this.

That paper also says something else interesting which I didn't know. Basically, all tests have shown QM not to be non-linear, but that any non-linear-ness would show up at much lower energes than those used.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Awww, linear algebra isn't fun? Come on now...you know you love it.

Most of the time math depends on your textbook and professor.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Awww, linear algebra isn't fun? Come on now...you know you love it.

Most of the time math depends on your textbook and professor.


No, that's true, and I do exaggerate a bit. Still, it's a real pain going through the motions of those things, a real time-killer, and rarely for a greater purpose other than flexing your mathematical muscles.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
MY ?'s is can you travel at the speed of light while being sucked into a black hole?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

3. That could be a loophole, bending space. It's not travelling any faster, but since you're not going as far as you might have had to, you could make the case, but you'd probably lose. Also, space can move however fast it wants. It's moving through space that has limits. Sometimes things seem to be faster than light because space has expanded while the light has traveled.


I'd probably loose on what case? I am not trying to say you CAN go faster than the speed of light, but simply ASKING can you go the speed of light while being sucked into a black hole?

[edit on 123131p://333 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Hmmm....this seems like a good place to throw in a couple of my own theoretical physics questions if you don't mind
If you do though, I'll gladly move them to a new thread... If these have alread been covered before on here, I'd appreciate a link to the thread but I'd also like to see "fresh" view points if at all possible or relevant.

1) One thing I've asked before (can't remember if I've asked on here or not, but I know I have asked and can't remember the answer) is whether or not the speed of light barrier exists in terms of relative motion. The basic example Einstein used in special relativity was trains, so I'll stick with that.

We know that if I'm in a train moving due south at 10mph (to a static reference point, say the train station) and you're in a train moving due north at 10mph (same static reference), then relative to you I'm moving away at 20mph (and vice versa). Correct? Based on that, if you're moving due north at 94K miles per second (a little over half of the speed of light), and I'm moving due south at 94K miles per second, then relative to you aren't I moving away at 188K miles per second, 2K miles per second over the speed of light?

2) As an object's velocity increases, so does it's mass; that's a given from the theory. An object's gravitational attraction is based on it's mass. Does that mean that an object travelling at extremely high velocities also has much higher gravitational attraction compared to it's rest state?

3) Based on length contraction and time dilation, doesn't an objects velocity need to be recalculated as it accellerates? Or are these different measures of the same effect based on it's velocity (ie as length contracts, time must dilate in order to say that the velocity is the same)?

4) A less esoteric question: it's been proven that it is possible to convert matter directly to energy (through antimatter anihilation). Is it possible to convert energy directly to mass? If not, what is the theoretical backing on that?

I honestly am not attempting to hijack this thread, it just got me thinking and raised some questions of my own. Hope I'm not out of line



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
MCory1, no not at all, I do not mind. It actually made me smile to see you had questions of your on, and posted them in this thread. For that thank you.

I posted this thread so I could have some of my physics questions answered,and debate different matters in physics. I do not know all the answers to those ?'s posted, but I would be very interested in seeing what others would have to say. This makes me want to do more research, and learn as much as I can about physics



Your friend, LOD



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
LOD: No

MC:
1. At high speeds, you can't use the simplified formula for the addition of velocities. You have to use the formula as derived from the lorentz transformations, namely this. I'm rusty, but using .5c for all velocities, it'd be going .8c relative.

2. Yes

3. Huh? Definition of acceleration is changing velocity, so, duh? Normal length contraction and time dilation formulas don't apply when accelerating.

4. Yes, that's how we (inefficiently) create anti-matter.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies Amory, I appreciate it. Looking back on it, I worded #3 wrong. It might be a little difficult to get out exactly how I'm meaning it, so please don't hold it against me too much if this doesn't make sense.

A train that is 10 feet long at rest accelerates to a certain velocity. At this velocity, it's now 5 feet long due to length contraction, so--and this is where the wording gets screwy--even though it's supposedly travelling at this given velocity it now takes it twice as long to cover the same distance (since it's half the size it was.)

My understanding of these translations--length and time--is that they are inversely proportional to the gamma factor, as in v0 / y where y is the gamma factor--I'd write it out for those who don't know, but it's just about unintelligible as plain text. So since the "flow" of time is translated the same amount as the length contracts, that answers the first part of my question I believe: time is now flowing at half the "speed" in the frame of reference for the object that takes twice as long to cover the same distance. Am I correct thus far?

Since I can't expect you to reply before I post this, I'll continue assuming I'm correct and I'll respond to the corrections as needed. Now the velocity is figured correctly, because time has dilated in tandem with the length contraction. This is kind of a chicken and egg question, but which is calculated to which? Is the length contraction the "true" effect, and time dilation is calculated to maintain a constant velocity, or vice versa?

I hope I'm clear enough with this. That's about the only thing I've never liked about physics; it's hard enough to explain as it is, let alone when you don't really know what's going on. I do know the "short" answer to this is "it doesn't really matter, they both happen so that's all that's important," but I'd like to know which--if either--is the true effect. Or am I missing a bigger piece of the puzzle? Okay, I've got enough of a headache now...but I masochistically anticipate any replies



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join