Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

If he and the mirror could move at the speed of light, then he would never know if his light reached the mirror or not, because he would be frozen in time.

from your point of view, not his !
for him the speed of light is C according to Einstein
and it doesn't really matter what you are observing, for his reference of frame he is standing still and you are moving !

You are correct...my bad.

That's why it's difficult to try to explain what would happen when given what physics tell us is an impossible scenario -- such as a person moving at the speed of light.

The paradox here would be that the person who was moving at the speed of light would look frozen in time to an outside observer -- that is, the outside observer would never see the light reach the mirror because they would say the person moving was frozen in time. However, to the person who was moving, he WOULD see the light hit the mirror, and that outside observer would be the one who seemed frozen in time.

So in one frame of reference, the light does NOT hit the mirror, but it does in the other frame of reference. And that, to me, seems like a paradox...a paradox created when the person did the impossible -- move at the speed of light.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: krash661
a fourth and very important condition also exists,
it is the one bordering on the sphere of influence or plasma realm
a controlled transformation or an elevation of the frequency of matter and the stable existence of this fourth aggregate condition of matter exists at a very primitive level.
there are simply five states of matter.
plasma, i don't mean just "hot gas" (as the concept is generally simplified),
but rather i mean a higher aggregate condition of matter.
the plasma state of matter is a special form of matter which lies between its real existence and the sphere of influence,
that is,
a complete loss of mass and pure accretion of energy of various form whenever matter is "pushed or shoved."
the fourth state of matter is very important for certain physical conditions which can be used to generate antigravity.

I'm not sure how the "spheres of influence" you mentioned are involved, but "Plasma" can be more easily defined as simply being matter that has had its electrons in its atoms disassociated from the nucleus of the atoms.

This can be achieved by running an electrical charge through gas, such as in a neon sign. The visible stuff in a neon sign would be the plasma.

If you have a different definition for plasma than the standard one, then I like to hear it. Also, could you explain what this other state of matter (you called it the fourth state, with plasma being the fifth)? What are the physical characteristics of this state of matter?

For example:

Solid: Matter with not enough energy to break its intermolecular bonds (bonds holding the molecules together) -- Therefore the atoms can not move around freely.

Liquid: Matter with enough energy that atoms do move around freely, but still not enough to completely break free of the intermolecular bonds.

gas: Matter with enough energy that atoms break free of the intermolecular bonds.

plasma: Matter with enough energy that the electrons break free of (or at least they become disassociated with) the rest of the atom.

Other state of matter: ??? Please describe.

instead of doing the typical flawed interpretation of my words,
try to actually understand my words.
interpretation,
every time i see that word it's nauseating,
it's the same as " short cuts " in mathematics
interpretation is a result of not understanding words or meanings that were used.
so it's done to attempt understanding using other words or meanings to fit the individuals mind.
when done by the individual that does not understand to begin with,
it always leads to continuous misunderstanding ,
which is exactly your and soylent green is people
situation.

the questions you seek, have answers in what supposedly you read.

originally posted by: krash661
instead of doing the typical flawed interpretation of my words,
try to actually understand my words.

I neither interpreted no misinterpreted your words. Any interpretation of what you said was not in my post. All I simply did was give the general definition for plasma (because I could not tell what your definition of it was) and then simply asked a question:

What is the physical characteristics of this "other" form of matter you are talking about?


Could you please just answer that question rather than pontificating about non sequitur things. Answering questions directly and stating things without pretenses would make this thread move along so much more efficiently.

That's the way we do things here on ATS. I see you're new here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that you don't know how we do things here.




And Soylent Green seems to have a good understanding of the question you asked about the mirror moving at the speed of light. The light would reach the mirror in your frame of reference, but to a person watching from the outside, you would be locked in time, so the light would not reach the mirror.

Right?

Even if you and your mirror were moving at 99% light speed, time dilation would make it that you would always think the light was reaching the mirror at the right time. Same would be true if you were moving 75%, 50%, or 25%. Time dilation would always work it out so that,TO YOU, it would seem that the light is moving at the regular speed of light.

Because of time dilation, light would ALWAYS appear be moving at light speed to you.

What is your understanding of time dilation? If some of us are wrong (in your eyes) about this, then please explain to us your thoughts. You are quick to say we are wrong, but you don't seem to explain how we are wrong, nor what you think is right.

again,
it's like an elementary student attempting to do graduate level work,
without knowing or understanding anything in between.
every question you had asked has answers.

i had enough of these shenanigans.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
So in one frame of reference, the light does NOT hit the mirror, but it does in the other frame of reference. And that, to me, seems like a paradox...a paradox created when the person did the impossible -- move at the speed of light.

It may be impossible to move an observer and his mirror at the speed of light, but we have a similar situation when one observer enters the event horizon of a black hole where time theoretically stops.

In this situation, an observer on Earth wouldn't be able to see the clock of the observer entering the black hole actually stop, because as they got closer and closer to the event horizon, the light would get more and more red-shifted until it was so red-shifted it just wasn't visible anymore. If you could still see the light it would show an observer on Earth a stopped clock, if theory is correct, but theory says you wouldn't be able to see the light due to red-shift.

The observer just outside the event horizon would have an interesting perspective, as they would see billions of years go by when they watched the outside (to them, blue-shifted) universe.

So if we want to talk about time stopping between frames of reference, entering a black hole may be a more realistic scenario than a mirror traveling the speed of light, while the apparent paradoxes are similar. But as stated earlier, most doubt the theory about an infinitely dense singularity in a black hole is precisely correct, instead favoring the idea of some kind of quantum gravity theory to be determined offering a better explanation and in that yet to be determined model, who knows if time will actually stop completely at the event horizon, to an outside observer?

originally posted by: krash661
again,
it's like an elementary student attempting to do graduate level work,
without knowing or understanding anything in between.
every question you had asked has answers.

i had enough of these shenanigans.

The questions are simple, and it should be possible to answer in a way that even we idiots can understand.

1. What are the characteristics of your other state of matter?

2. Do you agree or disagree that if you and a mirror are moving at 99% of the speed of light, you would experience no delay in your light reaching the mirror, because time dilation would make light always move at light speed.

The answers to these need not be complicated. Just simple answers will suffice.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To have fun with a thought experiment, lets suppose matter can travel the speed of light.

If he and the mirror could move at the speed of light, then he would never know if his light reached the mirror or not, because he would be frozen in time.

It wouldnt make sense to say 'frozen in time'. Because this is suggesting there is not radiation also surrounding his area, and going in all directions, that he is always heading into and towards, would this not be some indicator of his relative movement, if he had the means to detect radiation?

I understand what you mean by frozen in time. If we imagine those long treadmill things at airports, if we imagine there was a football sized one of those, just constantly scrolling, and it traveled at one speed, (a symbolized light speed), and then you place 100 marbles on them, you would say 'those marbles are frozen in time'.

If he is traveling lightspeed however, and is holding a mirror in front of him, and a laser pointer gripped between his teeth, and he presses the laser pointers button to emit a laser beam, you are suggesting the beam would never touch the mirror, if we could compress or symbolize this sequence of materials in a non motive manner, it would appear as informational parcels; his body, the laser pointer, his arms extended, the mirror. In fact, yes, it would be said, the light would never be able to leave the laser pointer! But! Because the button is pressed and mechanically, physically, this produces the energy that produces the production of light, would this light 'tail off' the back end, like the relative appearance of a tennis ball dropped out of the window of a quickly moving car? Because the event of energy creation occurs, and when EM radiation is created it 'has to spread out' right? So when the button is pressed, the body and mirror, will continue traveling, at speed of light, and the moment the button is pressed, the EM radiation created will spread out in the speed of light, so that EM radiation created in the laser pointer will 'always be in the persons mouth'? because it will travel with them there? Or practically, it would be immediately absorbed? Ignoring the absorption, saying this person is an immaterial ghost that can god likely interact with material, like a water ripple ring the EM radiation would spread out from the point in time and space of button pressage, but never reach the mirror. k.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But as stated earlier, most doubt the theory about an infinitely dense singularity in a black hole is precisely correct, instead favoring the idea of some kind of quantum gravity theory to be determined offering a better explanation and in that yet to be determined model, who knows if time will actually stop completely at the event horizon, to an outside observer?

Yeah. Most physicist would tell you that if the term "infinity" or "infinite" needs to be included in the math, then something is wrong with the theory (or at least wrong with the math). A black hole is probably not of infinite density and infinite gravity, but the math right now tells us that it is.

However, that's a function of the math (which may be limited in trying to explain a black hole) and is not a real description of nature.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Mon1k3r
It's trying to inflate everywhere, but the force causing the inflation is offset by gravitational forces where there are gravitational forces......

Someone calculated what the expansion of our solar system would be due to inflation, which turned out to be a non-zero number, but it was too small to actually measure.

I say that gravitational forces are a RESULT of that non zero number, not offset by it. Matter influences the RATE OF INFLATION. In areas of high matter density, there is a lack of equilibrium, ie. space inflates slower where there is matter, and at a 'normal' rate in deep, interstellar space. But what I believe one day someone will observe, is that in those areas of deep space, new matter will eventually congeal, creating new clusters of matter, and so it goes on.

Consider possibly that we, standing on the surface of the Earth, are simply at the bottom of an ocean made from water we know nothing of as yet. Consider the moon always facing us on one side because it is more dense on the near side than the far, so in effect, it is floating on a sea of density, like a duck on a pond. Consider the possibility that the effect of gravity being influenced by altitude is a result of an increased pressure closer to the surface, as an object sinking to the bottom of the sea accelerates due to the pressure above. Stop looking for particles that don't and never will exist as objects. Seek resonant frequencies and their influence on the space in and around. Consider the amount of electrical potential inherent in any cubic centimeter of space, and don't deny what power exists in the infinitesimal that we cannot yet perceive.

Things are more simple than we've been told.

What is gravitational lensing but the slowing of light as it passes through a space of high density?

EDIT to include...

When light is subject to gravitational lensing, and it seems that the trajectory would be changed significantly enough that the 'report' of light would not allow for direct observation, bounce it off this real world observation:

Soldiers learned that they should not stay against walls because bullets have significant enough momentum that they tend to 'skip' repeatedly off the walls, maintaining enough inertia to stay along it's initial trajectory. Light is a fast bullet.

When a single atom absorbs EM radiation, and the 'electron moves up a level', and it can exist in this new manner for some time as a stable atom; How does the nucleus - electron system contain the absorbed EM radiation in its confines?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It may be impossible to move an observer and his mirror at the speed of light, but we have a similar situation when one observer enters the event horizon of a black hole where time theoretically stops.

In this situation, an observer on Earth wouldn't be able to see the clock of the observer entering the black hole actually stop, because as they got closer and closer to the event horizon, the light would get more and more red-shifted until it was so red-shifted it just wasn't visible anymore. If you could still see the light it would show an observer on Earth a stopped clock, if theory is correct, but theory says you wouldn't be able to see the light due to red-shift.

The observer just outside the event horizon would have an interesting perspective, as they would see billions of years go by when they watched the outside (to them, blue-shifted) universe.

So if we want to talk about time stopping between frames of reference, entering a black hole may be a more realistic scenario than a mirror traveling the speed of light, while the apparent paradoxes are similar. But as stated earlier, most doubt the theory about an infinitely dense singularity in a black hole is precisely correct, instead favoring the idea of some kind of quantum gravity theory to be determined offering a better explanation and in that yet to be determined model, who knows if time will actually stop completely at the event horizon, to an outside observer?

I don't think so... definitely NOT !

Besides that Relativity can handle acceleration , I don't agree.
This imaginary Black Hole is accelerating the space ship, I agree on that scenario, even to the speed of light -1, OK.
but in his frame of reference speed of light must be constant Einstein said.
So the rocket pilot sees the Universe behind him time stopped by reaching the speed of light not billions of years is a sec.
He knows he moves toward black hole, we know it too, relativity does not.
All behind him moves and he stays still ! Black hole is rushing toward him...

Just outside the event horizon he would see red-shifted slow motion of the Universe

According to Einstein even a Black Hole must have it's own reference frame where light propagates with constant C.

can you see the paradox ?

that's why curvature of space was invented

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
I say that gravitational forces are a RESULT of that non zero number, not offset by it. Matter influences the RATE OF INFLATION.

The observed motions, and expansion or lack of expansion would be the result of assuming dark energy expansion occurs uniformly everywhere, and then adding gravitational forces where matter exists.

Dark Energy FAQ

Dark energy has three crucial properties. First, it’s dark: we don’t see it, and as far as we can observe it doesn’t interact with matter at all. (Maybe it does, but beneath our ability to currently detect.) Second, it’s smoothly distributed: it doesn’t fall into galaxies and clusters, or we would have found it by studying the dynamics of those objects. Third, it’s persistent: the density of dark energy (amount of energy per cubic light-year) remains approximately constant as the universe expands. It doesn’t dilute away like matter does.

See the first property of dark matter listed in that quote. As it says, we can't rule out there may be some interaction of matter we haven't observed yet, and maybe we will find this in future observatons (or maybe we won't). Given this, I think it's premature to say "Matter influences the RATE OF INFLATION" if there's no evidence for this as such, rather, matter creates gravity, and gravity affects the observed inflation. To put it another way, if you subtract gravitational and other fundamental interactions, expansion from dark energy might be the same everywhere, but we admit we need more precise measurements to say this definitively.

Things are more simple than we've been told.

Someone needs to explain that to mainstream science in a credible fashion that will convince scientists, because the current models are somewhat complicated.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I don't think so... definitely NOT !

I said a lot, not sure which part you disagree with.

This imaginary Black Hole is accelerating the space ship, I agree on that scenario, even to the speed of light -1, OK.
but in his frame of reference speed of light must be constant Einstein said.

In his frame of reference, yes he measures the normal speed of light even when just outside the event horizon of a black hole.

So the rocket pilot sees the Universe behind him time stopped by reaching the speed of light

I said nothing about his velocity, and am considering only the effects of the gravitational field here. He could approach the black hole quickly or slowly in this scenario, but I don't ask him to reach the speed of light which we said is not possible for matter as it would take an infinite amount of energy.

Just outside the event horizon he would see red-shifted slow motion of the Universe

According to Einstein even a Black Hole must have it's own reference frame where light propagates with constant C.

can you see the paradox ?

There is no paradox here just like there was never any "twin paradox" but people still talk about a twin paradox.

www.pitt.edu...

The outside world appear to speed up and huge amounts of outside time would elapse in the short time the spaceship would take to reach the event horizon.

If you can figure out why the twin paradox isn't a paradox then you will have an idea why this also is not a paradox, in both cases there is a lack of symmetry:

Twin paradox

the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins. Therefore the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.

There is also no symmetry between the spacetime paths in the above black hole example, thus no paradox. Just as with the twin example approaching the speed of light, the observer who approaches the black hole event horizon and returns to Earth would age less than the observer who stayed on Earth without any paradox, but the idea that there is a paradox here is a common misunderstanding.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

yes, you are right,
I was talking about relative speed without the gravity influence

and yes, I know there is no twin paradox and I did come to the solution myself.
It's why I was talking about the direction of velocity in my earlier post.

You, just like everyone else, is simply assuming dark energy and dark matter are actually things. They are simply words to replace "I don't know."

a reply to: Mon1k3r
Indeed there's a lot we don't know about them, nobody would argue with that.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean our knowledge about them is zero. We have made certain observations related to both which gives us an idea of their properties, even if we don't know exactly what they are.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, exactly what is the reason that an outside observer, would be able to see the space ship for the outside observers entire life?

Are we imagining the event horizon is rotating or not?

So. In reality, the ship is 'sucked in' and passes beyond the event horizon and is likely materially annihilated. But, you are claiming though the real, material, ship no longer exists as a ship, it is still seen as a ship, even after it is destroyed, by outside observers.

Why. You are assuming the light that is reflected off the ship just before being sucked fully into the hole is coming from, where? And you are assuming this light, can get that close to the black hole, and still be reflected off the ship and travel backwards? Once the ship falls past the event horizon and is annihilated, and in reality no longer at the event horizon, there is no way light can still project to an observer the existence of a ship at the event horizon (for the entirety of the observers life, or even half that time), because if the observer were to shine a light every where along the event horizon in hopes of reflecting off the ship to see the ship, which you claim should be visible even after it falls in the black hole, the ship will not be there, because it is not there, so the light will not reflect off the ship, so an observer will not see the ship.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
you know, I was analysing this representation of space bend.
www.pitt.edu...
it is savvy


so gravity is the axis rotation in a coordinate system on a piece of paper now...
what causes it ? the slowdown of time, matter ?
is time inside the nucleus slower then outside the atom ?

I don't think so, looks rather like some force outside the paper rotates the axis

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So, exactly what is the reason that an outside observer, would be able to see the space ship for the outside observers entire life?

Time dilation.

Are we imagining the event horizon is rotating or not?

It doesn't really matter in this example.

So. In reality, the ship is 'sucked in' and passes beyond the event horizon and is likely materially annihilated. But, you are claiming though the real, material, ship no longer exists as a ship, it is still seen as a ship, even after it is destroyed, by outside observers.

No, but you're closer to a paradox there than KrzYma was. The outside observers never see the ship destroyed for two reasons.
1. Time dilation is so extreme they never see it cross the event horizon.
2. Even if they were immortal, they still wouldn't see it destroyed because the clock on the spaceship theoretically "freezes" to an outside observer, when the ship reaches the event horizon.

The observer in the ship may still exist after crossing the event horizon though there's some debate about this. If the black hole is only say 3 solar masses, "spaghettification" would be severe, but perhaps counterintuitively, if the black hole is far more massive like 100 million solar masses, "spaghettification" might not be an immediate issue when crossing the event horizon and the spaceship pilot might not notice anything unusual inside the ship if the black hole isn't "consuming matter" as our Milky Way's supermassive Black hole hasn't been consuming matter in past decades, though we expect it may start feeding soon. If other matter is falling into the black hole, that would cause a lot of radiation on the ship.

You are assuming the light that is reflected off the ship just before being sucked fully into the hole is coming from, where? And you are assuming this light, can get that close to the black hole, and still be reflected off the ship and travel backwards?

For the sake of this thought experiment, let's say the spaceship has a window, and a light inside the spaceship shining on a clock which is visible through the window to an outside observer.

Once the ship falls past the event horizon and is annihilated, and in reality no longer at the event horizon, there is no way light can still project to an observer the existence of a ship at the event horizon (for the entirety of the observers life, or even half that time), because if the observer were to shine a light every where along the event horizon in hopes of reflecting off the ship to see the ship, which you claim should be visible even after it falls in the black hole, the ship will not be there, because it is not there, so the light will not reflect off the ship, so an observer will not see the ship.

As I said if the black hole is large enough, the ship need not be annihilated when crossing the event horizon. But even crossing the event horizon is not visible to an observer on Earth, so what happens to the ship after it crosses the event horizon is irrelevant to the Earth observer. The light from the ship will redshift to invisibility as it approaches the event horizon, and of course once the event horizon is crossed the light from the ship cannot escape.

So this is a bit of a paradox. Just outside the event horizon, 1 second in the ship might be 1 billion years of earth time, and as it gets closer and closer this will stretch out even more.

It's a bit like the puzzle, travel half the distance to the wall. How many times do you have to do this before you get to the wall? The answer is, mathematically you never reach the wall. Similarly, an earth observer will never actually see the ship reach the event horizon, while time passes normally in the ship as it crosses the event horizon.

Unlike the issue KrzYma raised, I know of no easy solution to say how something can happen in the ship which can never be observed from Earth, but in a way, this relates to one of the unsolved problems in physics, called the Black hole information paradox. It's not quite the same thing, but actually there's not really a contradiction because the ship is never destroyed from the time frame of an immortal observer on Earth.

You may puzzle over how that can happen if the ship is eventually destroyed according to the observer on the ship, and that may fry your brain, but it's not really a contradiction. It's strange though, because things happen in the reference frame of the spaceship (like the ultimate destruction of the ship), which can never be observed from the reference frame on Earth, no matter how much time passes.