Calling All Scientists on ATS!

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I have a theory on light and black holes. I wanted to ask you guys if my theory may have some merit or is completely wrong. Alright here it is....

First I will start off with stars. As most of you know ,many stars spin. You may also know that massive stars are really hot. The reason that black holes form is not compression. The reason is the heat and the spin of the star. When a star dies it cools first from the core.When that core cools down all the way it will become an IMPERFECT black body. This IMPERFECT black body will absorb close to 100% of all light. As the new black center of the star absorbs the light it gains mass. It gains the mass because of the spin. The light is absorbed which then becomes mass. "Why?" you may ask. Because of this equation: E=mc2. The more it spins the more light is turned into mass. So when the spin stops it starts to release the black holes contents. This would be a BIG BANG. This would also prove that black holes themselves have their own "Life" if you will. So at the end of their life it is a big bang. Then at the beginning a big conversion. It would also I believe would account for the radiation coming out of the black hole.

I have also thought of light being in 3 states. The first state is obviously light. The second state is energy. The last state is matter. This is related to my theory of black holes because it directly contribute to why and how a black hole can be made using light. So by manipulating light you can also manipulate matter.Light can change states the same way matter can change states.The first change is absorption. The second change is motion. The third and final change is stopping the spin.I don't want to really elaborte on this paragraph but if anyone doesn't understand I will.




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Hello,
I'm only 'interested' in science, I am by no means a scientist. But the way I understand black-holes is confusing to me; They suck-in all matter within their gravitational pull, including light. Nothing escapes- from whence it entered. I have a sneaking suspicion that black-holes are equipped with an exit, like-wise, an entrance. A balancing mechanism, if you will. Therefore, their live's don't end for all eternity, if they are alive at all. For, if they were allowed to consume endlessly without giving anything back, the entire universe would be swallowed-up. Somehow, I think I may've just said what you may've implied? I better read your post again!


Sorry sir. I think I better throw in the towel on this one!


[edit on (2/9/1010 by loveguy]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I have a theory on light and black holes. I wanted to ask you guys if my theory may have some merit or is completely wrong. Alright here it is....

First I will start off with stars. As most of you know ,many stars spin. You may also know that massive stars are really hot. The reason that black holes form is not compression. The reason is the heat and the spin of the star. When a star dies it cools first from the core.When that core cools down all the way it will become an IMPERFECT black body. This IMPERFECT black body will absorb close to 100% of all light. As the new black center of the star absorbs the light it gains mass. It gains the mass because of the spin. The light is absorbed which then becomes mass. "Why?" you may ask. Because of this equation: E=mc2. The more it spins the more light is turned into mass. So when the spin stops it starts to release the black holes contents. This would be a BIG BANG. This would also prove that black holes themselves have their own "Life" if you will. So at the end of their life it is a big bang. Then at the beginning a big conversion. It would also I believe would account for the radiation coming out of the black hole.

I have also thought of light being in 3 states. The first state is obviously light. The second state is energy. The last state is matter. This is related to my theory of black holes because it directly contribute to why and how a black hole can be made using light. So by manipulating light you can also manipulate matter.Light can change states the same way matter can change states.The first change is absorption. The second change is motion. The third and final change is stopping the spin.I don't want to really elaborte on this paragraph but if anyone doesn't understand I will.
Interesting post, but seems pretty uninformed.

A black hole is thought to be formed when a large star's fusion "engine" shuts down.

A normal, functioning star is in a state of constant balance: gravity is attempting to crush the mass of gas inwards, but the fusion occuring at the star's core provides enough pressure to keep it out.

When a particularly large star runs through all its fusionable material (in other words; it has fused all its lighter elements into heavier elements, and then some of those heavier elements into even heavier elements), the balance is overridden. The pressure from the core is extinguished, and suddenly the mass collapses in on itself.

There are a few possibilities at this point, depending on the mass of the star. An average star will undergo a supernova, and expel its remaining material into space. A larger star below a certain threshhold of mass will become a neutron star (a tiny, super dense star, where the pressure previously provided by fusion energy is now replaced solely by the repulsion within the now-crushed atoms), and the largest stars will collapse beyond the point of nova, beyond the point of subatomic particle repulsion, and collapse into a ball of mass so small that its gravity warps space around it.

To address a few points in your OP:

1. All stars spin. A star couldn't have been formed if the gas that formed it wasn't spinning to start with, and due to conservation of energy, it will never stop spinning unless an outside force acts upon it (and it'd have to be quite a large outside force).

2. I don't think you understand what a "blackbody" is. There is certainly nothing about a cooling star that would absorb enough light to convert that light into meaningful mass.

3. Radiation from black holes already is explained. It's given off from material that is being sucked into a black hole, and only is given off before that material has passed the black hole's event horizon.

I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean by the last paragraph.

For reference, I am a student of astrophysics at the University of Missouri: St. Louis.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by AshOnMyTomatoes]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
A day or two ago I was having a discussion with a friend about the nature of photons. I asked the simple question, "What's the opposite of light?" My buddy gave the usual answer, "Darkness." I then kindly reminded him darkness is the absence of light and also stated that there is no such thing as an "anti-photon" because light behaves similarly to an electromagnetic wave. Meaning the only thing that can cancel light is an interference pattern.

To better explain what I was looking for I put forward another question to provide a comparison.

What is the opposite of love? Ask a schooled philosopher and 9 times out of 10 the answer will be apathy. Ask an average person off the street and you'll get, "Hate." Who's right?

Apathy is the absence of love or hate. Love is a passion (i.e. 1), and can only be countered by a passion from the opposite end of the spectrum, that is hate (i.e. -1). Apathy is that point in the middle (or 0 as representing the summation). Another possibility that's commonly ignored is the idea of not even having a feeling towards the situation because none has been created yet. This is clearly different from apathy, but also represents 0 (as the empty set).

So similarly light would be 1, the absence of light would be 0 as the empty set, and 0 as the summation would be an interference pattern. Leaving us with one unknown in the above model of opposites. Which is what I was looking for when I originally asked, "What is opposite of light (as -1)?"

My friend shook his head and said, "I have no idea, tell me."

I said, "-1 represents a black hole." This can be seen rather easily in the sense that black holes behave like perfect black bodies. If you can see this it then gives us a rather interesting notion that the opposite of light (as -1) is basically mass.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I have also thought of light being in 3 states. The first state is obviously light. The second state is energy. The last state is matter.


Matter is the state that light from the sun is in before it's converted to light. But light is just a form of energy so what you are really saying is the first state is energy, the second state is energy, and the third state is matter...but wait, that's really only 2 states, yes the same ones in E=mc^2.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AshOnMyTomatoes
 


I am pretty sure that no star will spin forever.I meant that light is just electromagnetic radiation until it interacts with an object. Since photons are like energy packets ,when they interact with other objects that energy goes into the other object. Which is what I meant by absorption.SO when a star dies it would LOOK like it was being compressed but it was just absorbed and converted.
I already know all about Hawking radiation, and nuclear fusion . I meant that when the light is absorbed then that means it has interacted with the imperfect black body. During the whole time this imperfect black body is spinning. So time has to change around the imperfect black body due to relativity.And while time has warped around the imperfect black body so must space. Also since you can't pull mass out of nothing something else has to be turned into mass. That something was light.
When I meant stopping the spin I meant completely stopping all spin in and outside. Which is way harder than it sounds.This completely stops the light to mass conversion which destroys the so called "Black Hole".
This also means that right now we have the supplies to create a black hole.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


A star will spin forever until something external stops it from spinning. This is a basic law of physics. Even neutron stars spin, albeit fantastically quickly, much faster than the star it was formed from did.

I fear you have some more reading to do before you can flesh your hypothesis out.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I had already known that stars spin. What I was saying was that I had never seen ,in all the books I read about stars, that stars spin forever. I have already read a lot about this in physics already. Right now I can't see how I missed that. I also already know about the specific law which you are reffering to.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
Hello,
I'm only 'interested' in science, I am by no means a scientist. But the way I understand black-holes is confusing to me; They suck-in all matter within their gravitational pull, including light. Nothing escapes- from whence it entered. I have a sneaking suspicion that black-holes are equipped with an exit, like-wise, an entrance. A balancing mechanism, if you will. Therefore, their live's don't end for all eternity, if they are alive at all. For, if they were allowed to consume endlessly without giving anything back, the entire universe would be swallowed-up. Somehow, I think I may've just said what you may've implied? I better read your post again!


Sorry sir. I think I better throw in the towel on this one!


[edit on (2/9/1010 by loveguy]


Hello,
check out this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by davesidious
 


I had already known that stars spin. What I was saying was that I had never seen ,in all the books I read about stars, that stars spin forever. I have already read a lot about this in physics already. Right now I can't see how I missed that. I also already know about the specific law which you are reffering to.


Davesidious didn't mention any specific law but he's right you either have more reading to do, or if you've read it, more comprehension is needed. But I'll mention a specific law for you to research:

Conservation of angular momentum


Conservation of angular momentum is the principle that the angular momentum of an object remains constant as long as no external torque, or moment, acts on that object.


So have you rethought your statement that "I am pretty sure that no star will spin forever."?



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But I am talking about a black hole. If that doesn't matter then the angular momentum can be a constant. I think that the fact that it is a black hole change the angular momentum.Mostly because of all the things in the universe I think that a black hole has the most interaction with other objects.
About the light being absorbed. That works as being a kind of loophole in the space time continuum. How it works is hat light follows the shortest path. If light is absorbed into an object and that object is spun then you can trick the space time into thinking that a large amount of mass is there.
Here is my equation for that.( Basically it shows how much energy you can really get from light ,and how much mass you can make using light.)
LAP x Sa x D x V x Am
c2
= RME

LAP= Light absorption percent Sa=surface area
D=density V=velocity
Am=Angular momentum C= speed of light
RME= rotating mass equivalent



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But I am talking about a black hole.


If you are talking about a star, then you should say star (which you did say), if you are talking about black hole, you should say black hole. While a star can collapse into a black hole, that doesn't mean they are the same thing, the star obeys more or less normal laws of physics. The black hole is supposedly a kind of singularity with some odd physics all its own, but given the difficulty in observing and experimenting on black holes, I see the black hole physics as theoretical and difficult to prove with observation. It's easier to show they exist, because of their gravitational effect on other objects, than to show what's really inside them.

Maybe you should try to get a grip on the physics we DO know about on ordinary matter, before you go knocking yourself out with black hole theories. For example I agree with AshOnTomatoes that you don't seem to know what a black body is. There is no reason it must convert all the absorbed energy into mass, and in fact it can and does re-radiate the energy it absorbs, that's what they call black body radiation.

I would humbly suggest you consider taking some courses in physics and cosmology like AshOnTomatoes, who has done so and seems to know his or subject, and then work on your theories.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I already know about black body radiation.Like I said before I am not new to this subject.The reason I have studied black holes is that I find them really interesting. What I said that I needed an imperfect black body.A perfect black body absorbs ALL light that comes to it and does NOT radiate at all.The reason it has to be converted is to make that energy cause frame dragging. And it can't cause frame dragging at it's energy form. Hence the 3 states of light.Like I said before it is a loophole.This loophole I think would be very useful in creating an artificial black hole ,but rarely occur naturally.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

accidental copy.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]





new topics
 
1

log in

join