Hi all.
I appologise if this is either dumb or obvious, but I am no professional, just a very enthusiastic amatuer.
1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any.
2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Swarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity)
I admit to having only a laymans knowledge on this and am maybe wildly wrong in my understanding of a singularity, so please be gentle. But I have started to think of something lately that may cancel out the information paradox, amongst other things, but am probably missing something obvious that y'all may spot instantly. As I make more posts you'll start to get the idea, but I need to do a bit of work first.
Thanks
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 11:40 AM)
1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any.
This page might have what you are looking for:
Schwarzchild radius
I think you have this slightly mixed up. The Schwarzchild radius is simply that upper size limit given an amount of mass for a singularity to occur. The challenge is fitting all that mass behind the radius to begin with.
When a star collapses, it can form a neutron star, in which the gravitational force overpowers the force of each atoms electrons keeping the nuclei apart. The atoms all collapse into nuclei comprised mostly of neutrons.
The formation of a black hole is shrouded in mystery. There is a force in the neutron star that is keeping the atoms from collapsing even further. It is unknown what this force is, or what the collapsed form is. It could be space-time, or it could be a subatomic particle that collapses, but the effect is the same. If a supermassive star collapses, this unknown force gives way, and the star collapses to a point behind its Schwarzchild radius, creating a black hole. The Schwarzchild becomes the event horizon of the gravitational singularity.
Of course, I have neglected to mention that these event are coincided by supernovae.
Anyway, to summarize, gravity and density are a double-edged sword. One increases the other, which increases the other. The repelling forces stop it in most cases, except where the mass is to great to resist.
This page might have what you are looking for:
Schwarzchild radius
QUOTE
2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Schwarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity)
I think you have this slightly mixed up. The Schwarzchild radius is simply that upper size limit given an amount of mass for a singularity to occur. The challenge is fitting all that mass behind the radius to begin with.
When a star collapses, it can form a neutron star, in which the gravitational force overpowers the force of each atoms electrons keeping the nuclei apart. The atoms all collapse into nuclei comprised mostly of neutrons.
The formation of a black hole is shrouded in mystery. There is a force in the neutron star that is keeping the atoms from collapsing even further. It is unknown what this force is, or what the collapsed form is. It could be space-time, or it could be a subatomic particle that collapses, but the effect is the same. If a supermassive star collapses, this unknown force gives way, and the star collapses to a point behind its Schwarzchild radius, creating a black hole. The Schwarzchild becomes the event horizon of the gravitational singularity.
Of course, I have neglected to mention that these event are coincided by supernovae.
Anyway, to summarize, gravity and density are a double-edged sword. One increases the other, which increases the other. The repelling forces stop it in most cases, except where the mass is to great to resist.
1a.) "rate of collapse"? You mean like the speed at which the core collapses? If so yes, it will be the acceleration of gravity. This is calulated with Newton's law of gravitation, which is dependent on the mass of the star and the gravitational constant of the universe. (forumla, example)
1b.) There is no increase in gravity when a star turns into a black hole.
2.) An object must become a singularity once it becomes smaller than its Schwarzschild radius because... I'll let AN answer this one.
EDIT:
1b.) There is no increase in gravity when a star turns into a black hole.
2.) An object must become a singularity once it becomes smaller than its Schwarzschild radius because... I'll let AN answer this one.
EDIT:
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 13 2009, 12:06 PM)
The formation of a black hole is shrouded in mystery. There is a force in the neutron star that is keeping the atoms from collapsing even further. It is unknown what this force is, or what the collapsed form is. It could be space-time, or it could be a subatomic particle that collapses, but the effect is the same.
Actually, there are no atoms in a neutron star. (Or if any, they would all form a thin atmosphere on the surface of the neutron star.)
The force is known. It's called neutron degeneracy pressure. Electron degeneracy pressure keeps atoms from collapsing, but once that is overcome by gravity, the atom will collapse -- the electrons will merge into the protons in the nucleus, therefore the protons will turn into neutrons and release a neutrino as a bi-product. The collapse of the star will then stall because of neutron degeneracy pressure -- in other words, two neutrons cannot occupy the same spot.
There may be a quark degeneracy pressure as well, once neutron degeneracy pressure is finally overcome by additional gravity.
Actually, there are no atoms in a neutron star. (Or if any, they would all form a thin atmosphere on the surface of the neutron star.)
The force is known. It's called neutron degeneracy pressure. Electron degeneracy pressure keeps atoms from collapsing, but once that is overcome by gravity, the atom will collapse -- the electrons will merge into the protons in the nucleus, therefore the protons will turn into neutrons and release a neutrino as a bi-product. The collapse of the star will then stall because of neutron degeneracy pressure -- in other words, two neutrons cannot occupy the same spot.
There may be a quark degeneracy pressure as well, once neutron degeneracy pressure is finally overcome by additional gravity.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 11:40 AM)
Hi all.
I appologise if this is either dumb or obvious, but I am no professional, just a very enthusiastic amatuer.
1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any.
Yes. I do not, however, know them.
You might try the following link:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+gravi...e/0/1/0/all/0/1
When a body collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, it is then too dense to resist further collapse. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object generating the gravitational field in question, and proportional to the square of the distance between it and the object experiencing it's pull. When an object (which is made of many individual particles) collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, then the amount of energy needed for those particles on it's surface to resist the pull of gravity generated by those particles in it's interior is greater than the energy provided by the other forces, resulting in those particles being pulled in tighter, further increasing the gravitational force they experience.
When a body collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, it is then too dense to resist further collapse. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object generating the gravitational field in question, and proportional to the square of the distance between it and the object experiencing it's pull. When an object (which is made of many individual particles) collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, then the amount of energy needed for those particles on it's surface to resist the pull of gravity generated by those particles in it's interior is greater than the energy provided by the other forces, resulting in those particles being pulled in tighter, further increasing the gravitational force they experience.
I admit to having only a laymans knowledge on this and am maybe wildly wrong in my understanding of a singularity, so please be gentle. But I have started to think of something lately that may cancel out the information paradox, amongst other things, but am probably missing something obvious that y'all may spot instantly. As I make more posts you'll start to get the idea, but I need to do a bit of work first.
Your assessment of the validity of your idea is quite likely accurate, however feel free to share. Anyone who can admit as much will not be lampooned the way many cranks are.
No, you cant do this as the rate of collapse would be tailored to the area of space in which they collapse.
No, you cant do this as the rate of collapse would be tailored to the area of space in which they collapse.
2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Swarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity)
This is not known, as it may be that the core, not the said singularity of the idea of coming into the collapsed star, might act as a liquid would.
So therefore the term a relative round, is sought.
\\
Note, spatial geometry changes in your relational approach to a black hole.
If you come straight at what you perceive as the center of a BH with no angle, so that your approach is similar to coming at the center of the circle, then this would be termed as the singularity.
However if you approach compensated, at an angle to the BH, then nobody knows the dynamics of that situation?
If you gradient up by example to a lighter higher gravity body, such as a massive brown dwarf, which is composed of iron silicate dust, then gravity might be great?
However if this approach were by an instrumented probe, then an observable gradation of layers of other entry points into time space, might be noted?
I appologise if this is either dumb or obvious, but I am no professional, just a very enthusiastic amatuer.
1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any.
Yes. I do not, however, know them.
You might try the following link:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+gravi...e/0/1/0/all/0/1
QUOTE
2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Swarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity)
When a body collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, it is then too dense to resist further collapse. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object generating the gravitational field in question, and proportional to the square of the distance between it and the object experiencing it's pull. When an object (which is made of many individual particles) collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, then the amount of energy needed for those particles on it's surface to resist the pull of gravity generated by those particles in it's interior is greater than the energy provided by the other forces, resulting in those particles being pulled in tighter, further increasing the gravitational force they experience.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Swarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity) |
When a body collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, it is then too dense to resist further collapse. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object generating the gravitational field in question, and proportional to the square of the distance between it and the object experiencing it's pull. When an object (which is made of many individual particles) collapses to it's Schwartzchild radius, then the amount of energy needed for those particles on it's surface to resist the pull of gravity generated by those particles in it's interior is greater than the energy provided by the other forces, resulting in those particles being pulled in tighter, further increasing the gravitational force they experience.
I admit to having only a laymans knowledge on this and am maybe wildly wrong in my understanding of a singularity, so please be gentle. But I have started to think of something lately that may cancel out the information paradox, amongst other things, but am probably missing something obvious that y'all may spot instantly. As I make more posts you'll start to get the idea, but I need to do a bit of work first.
Your assessment of the validity of your idea is quite likely accurate, however feel free to share. Anyone who can admit as much will not be lampooned the way many cranks are.
Thanks so much
I didn't expect replies so fast, and it's certainly given me more reading to do (allways willing) and also the confidence to go for the really (possibly) dumb bit.
when I see drawings of a BH it shows the EH with a small dot in the centre (singularity) and in between is the Swarzchild field (right so far?)
Here goes.
Is it possible that the field is a lot smaller i.e. that the constantly added mass that enters the BH can prevent a singularity whilst the resulting Gravity keeps it within the Rs. so that whilever there is mass available a singularity cannot be acheived, untill there's no more mass available.
makes sense to me, but QM doesn't, so appologies if it doesn't make sense, but thanks.
I didn't expect replies so fast, and it's certainly given me more reading to do (allways willing) and also the confidence to go for the really (possibly) dumb bit.
when I see drawings of a BH it shows the EH with a small dot in the centre (singularity) and in between is the Swarzchild field (right so far?)
Here goes.
Is it possible that the field is a lot smaller i.e. that the constantly added mass that enters the BH can prevent a singularity whilst the resulting Gravity keeps it within the Rs. so that whilever there is mass available a singularity cannot be acheived, untill there's no more mass available.
makes sense to me, but QM doesn't, so appologies if it doesn't make sense, but thanks.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 01:12 PM)
Thanks so much
I didn't expect replies so fast, and it's certainly given me more reading to do (allways willing) and also the confidence to go for the really (possibly) dumb bit.
when I see drawings of a BH it shows the EH with a small dot in the centre (singularity) and in between is the Swarzchild field (right so far?)
That is a fair assessment.
Not really. The Standard Model (of which QM is a major part) uses point particles as it's fundamental structure. These are zero dimensional, and so have no size. Therefore, you can fit an infinite amount of them into any amount of space, even an infinitesimal point in space. This means you could never achieve a 'maximum' density. This means that any additional matter which falls into a black hole would serve only to increase the gravitational strength of the black hole.
Now, string theory and M-Theory posit extended objects (1-11 dimensions) comprising the fundamental particles, which means that there could possibly be some maximum density. In this case, I believe that infalling matter would continue to add to the gravitational strength (and thus the Swchartzchild radius) of the singularity at a rate higher than its contributions to the size of the singularity, meaning that you would only get a larger black hole as you add more matter. I haven't checked this out with the math however, so I could be wrong.
Hopefully, AlphaNumeric, Euler, rpenner or someone else who actually knows the maths needed will contribute an answer, although it strikes me as possible that the math needed would be highly complex, given that we're discussing a black hole in terms of string theory.
I didn't expect replies so fast, and it's certainly given me more reading to do (allways willing) and also the confidence to go for the really (possibly) dumb bit.
when I see drawings of a BH it shows the EH with a small dot in the centre (singularity) and in between is the Swarzchild field (right so far?)
That is a fair assessment.
QUOTE
Is it possible that the field is a lot smaller i.e. that the constantly added mass that enters the BH can prevent a singularity whilst the resulting Gravity keeps it within the Rs. so that whilever there is mass available a singularity cannot be acheived, untill there's no more mass available.
Not really. The Standard Model (of which QM is a major part) uses point particles as it's fundamental structure. These are zero dimensional, and so have no size. Therefore, you can fit an infinite amount of them into any amount of space, even an infinitesimal point in space. This means you could never achieve a 'maximum' density. This means that any additional matter which falls into a black hole would serve only to increase the gravitational strength of the black hole.
Now, string theory and M-Theory posit extended objects (1-11 dimensions) comprising the fundamental particles, which means that there could possibly be some maximum density. In this case, I believe that infalling matter would continue to add to the gravitational strength (and thus the Swchartzchild radius) of the singularity at a rate higher than its contributions to the size of the singularity, meaning that you would only get a larger black hole as you add more matter. I haven't checked this out with the math however, so I could be wrong.
Hopefully, AlphaNumeric, Euler, rpenner or someone else who actually knows the maths needed will contribute an answer, although it strikes me as possible that the math needed would be highly complex, given that we're discussing a black hole in terms of string theory.
MP,
You outlined that quite well. But, the problem is that the Standard Model says that a singularity is zero-dimensional - has no size, while String Theory says that a singularity has size. I have no problem with either of these interpretations but what strikes me is that PHYSICS needs a single, universally understood definition of a singularity which is clear on this point. As things stand we now seem to be in a position which is akin to having two conflicting definitions of zero - as in zero= nothing while, on the other hand, zero= something.
E3
You outlined that quite well. But, the problem is that the Standard Model says that a singularity is zero-dimensional - has no size, while String Theory says that a singularity has size. I have no problem with either of these interpretations but what strikes me is that PHYSICS needs a single, universally understood definition of a singularity which is clear on this point. As things stand we now seem to be in a position which is akin to having two conflicting definitions of zero - as in zero= nothing while, on the other hand, zero= something.
E3
Where does it say that? I think in both cases, a singularity is thought of as either a zero-dimensional point or a 1 dimensional ring (since it's rotating)
And I'm not certain, but I think the point does have "zero size". Not sure how big the ring would be...
And I'm not certain, but I think the point does have "zero size". Not sure how big the ring would be...
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jul 13 2009, 03:17 PM)
MP,
You outlined that quite well. But, the problem is that the Standard Model says that a singularity is zero-dimensional - has no size, while String Theory says that a singularity has size.
I'm not sure that String Theory says that, and I wasn't saying that it does. I only said that the extended nature of fundamental particles in ST and MT would make that possible. There are a great many things about those two theories which could still allow for zero dimensional singularities.
The word singularity as used in the SM currently can mean either that there is an infinite value, or a functionally infinite value. It makes absolutely no difference which one you use, because they both produce the same result.
You outlined that quite well. But, the problem is that the Standard Model says that a singularity is zero-dimensional - has no size, while String Theory says that a singularity has size.
I'm not sure that String Theory says that, and I wasn't saying that it does. I only said that the extended nature of fundamental particles in ST and MT would make that possible. There are a great many things about those two theories which could still allow for zero dimensional singularities.
QUOTE
I have no problem with either of these interpretations but what strikes me is that PHYSICS needs a single, universally understood definition of a singularity which is clear on this point. As things stand we now seem to be in a position which is akin to having two conflicting definitions of zero - as in zero= nothing while, on the other hand, zero= something. E3
The word singularity as used in the SM currently can mean either that there is an infinite value, or a functionally infinite value. It makes absolutely no difference which one you use, because they both produce the same result.
All very helpful thanks.
so, if a singularity has infinite density (have I got this right) then when more mass is added then it makes it more dense, but can't if it was already infinetly dense.
My brains hurting.
I have read and seen a bit on string theory/M theory, but could anyone recomend some good books on the subject that may take me to the next level, it looks like I need to know more.
I don't mind struggling with huge text books, my math is not of a grad level, i.e. don't know calculus, (not bad with algebra) but quite competant and I'm willing to learn more if neccessary.
so, if a singularity has infinite density (have I got this right) then when more mass is added then it makes it more dense, but can't if it was already infinetly dense.
My brains hurting.
I have read and seen a bit on string theory/M theory, but could anyone recomend some good books on the subject that may take me to the next level, it looks like I need to know more.
I don't mind struggling with huge text books, my math is not of a grad level, i.e. don't know calculus, (not bad with algebra) but quite competant and I'm willing to learn more if neccessary.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 04:38 PM)
All very helpful thanks.
so, if a singularity has infinite density (have I got this right) then when more mass is added then it makes it more dense, but can't if it was already infinetly dense.
My brains hurting.
No, mass added doesn't make an infinitely dense object more dense. It has no effect on the density of the new object, but it does affect the mass of the object, which in turn will affect the strength of the gravitational field.
Text books on string theory will be well above your level. They are well above my own level, and I think it would be fair to say I've more knowledge of string theory than you.
However! (Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with not knowing something!)
I would recommend anything by Brian Greene if you wish to learn a bit more about ST.
If you really want to get into it,. there's nothing for it but to pursue a degree in it, which means graduate level mathematics are a prerequisite. You could conceivably learn advanced mathematics on your own(I'm certainly trying, though the going is slow), but I wouldn't recommend it if you have any interest in pursuing a career in physics.
so, if a singularity has infinite density (have I got this right) then when more mass is added then it makes it more dense, but can't if it was already infinetly dense.
My brains hurting.
No, mass added doesn't make an infinitely dense object more dense. It has no effect on the density of the new object, but it does affect the mass of the object, which in turn will affect the strength of the gravitational field.
QUOTE
I have read and seen a bit on string theory/M theory, but could anyone recomend some good books on the subject that may take me to the next level, it looks like I need to know more. I don't mind struggling with huge text books, my math is not of a grad level, i.e. don't know calculus, (not bad with algebra) but quite competant and I'm willing to learn more if neccessary.
Text books on string theory will be well above your level. They are well above my own level, and I think it would be fair to say I've more knowledge of string theory than you.
However! (Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with not knowing something!)
I would recommend anything by Brian Greene if you wish to learn a bit more about ST.
If you really want to get into it,. there's nothing for it but to pursue a degree in it, which means graduate level mathematics are a prerequisite. You could conceivably learn advanced mathematics on your own(I'm certainly trying, though the going is slow), but I wouldn't recommend it if you have any interest in pursuing a career in physics.
Thanks MP
the way you explain the increasing mass but not density actually helps me understand it a bit better, it did seem to click a bit more.
I did watch the elegant universe on google and was impressed by Greene, I'd never heard of him before watching, all we tend to hear about over here is Stephen Bl**dy Hawkins, UK seems to think he's the only physicist on the planet, (and it grinds my gears)
I'd love to go into physics, but alas, at 40 it may be a bit late to change, should have done it at 14 like I wanted to, before I started as a musician.
Thanks for all the help.
the way you explain the increasing mass but not density actually helps me understand it a bit better, it did seem to click a bit more.
I did watch the elegant universe on google and was impressed by Greene, I'd never heard of him before watching, all we tend to hear about over here is Stephen Bl**dy Hawkins, UK seems to think he's the only physicist on the planet, (and it grinds my gears)
I'd love to go into physics, but alas, at 40 it may be a bit late to change, should have done it at 14 like I wanted to, before I started as a musician.
Thanks for all the help.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 05:29 PM)
Thanks MP
the way you explain the increasing mass but not density actually helps me understand it a bit better, it did seem to click a bit more.
I did watch the elegant universe on google and was impressed by Greene, I'd never heard of him before watching, all we tend to hear about over here is Stephen Bl**dy Hawkins, UK seems to think he's the only physicist on the planet, (and it grinds my gears)
Definitely check out his books then, they're much more in-depth than the specials. Plus the Simpsons analogies are more numerous (I don't recall if there even were any in the specials...)!
Well, it's never too late to learn (even if it is a bit late to change careers) and string theory is the right theory for a musician. I'm a musician myself, although not professionally. What genres and instruments do you play?
the way you explain the increasing mass but not density actually helps me understand it a bit better, it did seem to click a bit more.
I did watch the elegant universe on google and was impressed by Greene, I'd never heard of him before watching, all we tend to hear about over here is Stephen Bl**dy Hawkins, UK seems to think he's the only physicist on the planet, (and it grinds my gears)
Definitely check out his books then, they're much more in-depth than the specials. Plus the Simpsons analogies are more numerous (I don't recall if there even were any in the specials...)!
QUOTE
I'd love to go into physics, but alas, at 40 it may be a bit late to change, should have done it at 14 like I wanted to, before I started as a musician.
Well, it's never too late to learn (even if it is a bit late to change careers) and string theory is the right theory for a musician. I'm a musician myself, although not professionally. What genres and instruments do you play?
Jazz Guitar, (S. theory definatly applicable) but only semi/pro, still have the boring old day job. but it was music that stopped me carrying on in science.
how about you, coincidence that your also a muso.
P.S.
I was thinking of trying to learn calculus, or taking a course, do you think the reward would be worth the agony of learning, or maybe try something a little more accessable.
how about you, coincidence that your also a muso.
P.S.
I was thinking of trying to learn calculus, or taking a course, do you think the reward would be worth the agony of learning, or maybe try something a little more accessable.
QUOTE
1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any.
No, you cant do this as the rate of collapse would be tailored to the area of space in which they collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) Are there any formulae to show the rate of collapse of Stars, white dwarfs and neutron stars in relation to there mass, and, hopefully, there resulting increase in gravity, if any. |
No, you cant do this as the rate of collapse would be tailored to the area of space in which they collapse.
2) What are the particular reasons (If any) that a mass has to collapse to a singularity once it has reached the Swarzchild radius. (or is reaching the Rs what makes it a singularity)
This is not known, as it may be that the core, not the said singularity of the idea of coming into the collapsed star, might act as a liquid would.
So therefore the term a relative round, is sought.
\\
Note, spatial geometry changes in your relational approach to a black hole.
If you come straight at what you perceive as the center of a BH with no angle, so that your approach is similar to coming at the center of the circle, then this would be termed as the singularity.
However if you approach compensated, at an angle to the BH, then nobody knows the dynamics of that situation?
If you gradient up by example to a lighter higher gravity body, such as a massive brown dwarf, which is composed of iron silicate dust, then gravity might be great?
However if this approach were by an instrumented probe, then an observable gradation of layers of other entry points into time space, might be noted?
Phillip is a wacko, even among wackos. Pay no attention to anything he posts.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 13 2009, 10:55 PM)
Phillip is a wacko, even among wackos. Pay no attention to anything he posts.
Thank god for that, I knew my understanding was limited, but if that makes sense then I'm heading straight for a very tall building that has no safety rail on the roof.
QUOTE
Phillip is a wacko, even among wackos. Pay no attention to anything he posts.
Thank god for that, I knew my understanding was limited, but if that makes sense then I'm heading straight for a very tall building that has no safety rail on the roof.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 13 2009, 05:40 PM)
Jazz Guitar, (S. theory definatly applicable) but only semi/pro, still have the boring old day job. but it was music that stopped me carrying on in science.
Me too, although I've written theme songs for three different television pilots, only one of which even made it to filming, and that one was never sold.
I play piano, guitar, bass, violin and sax (in that order of proficiency). I usually write in the progressive rock/extreme metal genres, but I also branch out into electronica and more often, classical. (One form of extreme metal of which I'm quite fond is black metal: A blending of classical, folk and metal.) The three themes and 1 score I've written commercially have all been very symphonic and orchestral, with some electronic elements, similar to your typical action/adventure movie theme.
I play piano, guitar, bass, violin and sax (in that order of proficiency). I usually write in the progressive rock/extreme metal genres, but I also branch out into electronica and more often, classical. (One form of extreme metal of which I'm quite fond is black metal: A blending of classical, folk and metal.) The three themes and 1 score I've written commercially have all been very symphonic and orchestral, with some electronic elements, similar to your typical action/adventure movie theme.
P.S. I was thinking of trying to learn calculus, or taking a course, do you think the reward would be worth the agony of learning, or maybe try something a little more accessable.
It depends on your level of interest in physics. I find the algebra that I've learned (I finished school with almost no mathematical skills) to be very rewarding when it comes to basic GR and SR, and I fully expect to find just as much pleasure in being able to work out more advanced models in those theories as my knowledge progresses. However if you're just a dilettante, you might find the rewards not really worth the effort.
Me too, although I've written theme songs for three different television pilots, only one of which even made it to filming, and that one was never sold.
QUOTE
how about you, coincidence that your also a muso.
I play piano, guitar, bass, violin and sax (in that order of proficiency). I usually write in the progressive rock/extreme metal genres, but I also branch out into electronica and more often, classical. (One form of extreme metal of which I'm quite fond is black metal: A blending of classical, folk and metal.) The three themes and 1 score I've written commercially have all been very symphonic and orchestral, with some electronic elements, similar to your typical action/adventure movie theme.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how about you, coincidence that your also a muso. |
I play piano, guitar, bass, violin and sax (in that order of proficiency). I usually write in the progressive rock/extreme metal genres, but I also branch out into electronica and more often, classical. (One form of extreme metal of which I'm quite fond is black metal: A blending of classical, folk and metal.) The three themes and 1 score I've written commercially have all been very symphonic and orchestral, with some electronic elements, similar to your typical action/adventure movie theme.
P.S. I was thinking of trying to learn calculus, or taking a course, do you think the reward would be worth the agony of learning, or maybe try something a little more accessable.
It depends on your level of interest in physics. I find the algebra that I've learned (I finished school with almost no mathematical skills) to be very rewarding when it comes to basic GR and SR, and I fully expect to find just as much pleasure in being able to work out more advanced models in those theories as my knowledge progresses. However if you're just a dilettante, you might find the rewards not really worth the effort.
Note, akser did not close his questions with question marks, so this thread did not really say anyhting at all.
QUOTE (philip347+Jul 14 2009, 02:05 AM)
Note, akser did not close his questions with question marks, so this thread did not really say anyhting at all.
Note:
You're an idiot.
Note:
You're an idiot.
Cheers uaafanblog, you obviously know him better than me. I'll keep an eye on my grammer next time, some people eh?
Thanks to all, (P347 excepted,) as I don't know any scientists it's been really helpful bouncing ideas and has given me a good idea of what I need to learn to go further.
It definatly seems to be the best forum out of the ones I checked out.
Thanks to all, (P347 excepted,) as I don't know any scientists it's been really helpful bouncing ideas and has given me a good idea of what I need to learn to go further.
It definatly seems to be the best forum out of the ones I checked out.
QUOTE (Guest+Jul 14 2009, 10:01 AM)
Cheers uaafanblog, you obviously know him better than me. I'll keep an eye on my grammer next time, some people eh?
Thanks to all, (P347 excepted,) as I don't know any scientists it's been really helpful bouncing ideas and has given me a good idea of what I need to learn to go further.
It definatly seems to be the best forum out of the ones I checked out.
Sorry, forgot to sign in. mm, I'm sure philip will have a dig at that one.
Thanks to all, (P347 excepted,) as I don't know any scientists it's been really helpful bouncing ideas and has given me a good idea of what I need to learn to go further.
It definatly seems to be the best forum out of the ones I checked out.
Sorry, forgot to sign in. mm, I'm sure philip will have a dig at that one.
G'day
Did someone wanted.
"Anything At All"
What are balck holes in reality?
If you can imagine the solar system, The Sun and Pluto as similar dimension as an Atom. The Sun being the Nucleus and Pluto the electron.
Now imagine trillions of Pluto's been compacted into the Atom resulting in the same density as the Nucleus. Now imagine to compact this five fold.
This means 5 times the density of a Nucleus of an atom. When this occurs, vector fields a generated by electromagnetic fields that prevent EMR from escaping creating an object that looks black.
Similar to but not close to it is the Sun Spots that have huge amounts of electromagnic fields going into the spot hole. The EMR is going into the hole making it look darker than the surroundings.
Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes
Apr-02
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..APRI12011M
Did someone wanted.
"Anything At All"
What are balck holes in reality?
If you can imagine the solar system, The Sun and Pluto as similar dimension as an Atom. The Sun being the Nucleus and Pluto the electron.
Now imagine trillions of Pluto's been compacted into the Atom resulting in the same density as the Nucleus. Now imagine to compact this five fold.
This means 5 times the density of a Nucleus of an atom. When this occurs, vector fields a generated by electromagnetic fields that prevent EMR from escaping creating an object that looks black.
Similar to but not close to it is the Sun Spots that have huge amounts of electromagnic fields going into the spot hole. The EMR is going into the hole making it look darker than the surroundings.
Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes
Apr-02
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..APRI12011M
QUOTE
A new, static, spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's equations is described, that presents a very different alternative from classical black holes for the endpoint of gravitational collapse. The solution is characterized by an interior de Sitter region (p= -rho) of gravitational vacuum condensate with an exterior Schwarzschild geometry of arbitrary total mass M. These are separated by a very thin shell with a microscopic but finite proper thickness of ultracold matter with the eq. of state p= rho, replacing both the Schwarzschild and de Sitter classical horizons. These extreme eqs. of state arise naturally as the allowed phases in the effective theory of quantum gravity, and the classical event horizon is replaced by a phase boundary in the quantum theory. The new solution has no singularities, no event horizons, and a globally defined timelike Killing field. Its entropy is maximized under small fluctuations and is given by the standard hydrodynamic entropy of the thin shell, which is of order M, instead of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula (which is of order M^2). Hence unlike black holes, the new solution is thermodynamically stable and suffers from no information paradox. The formation of such a cold (1 μ K) gravitational condensate stellar remnant very likely would require a violent collapse process with an explosive output of energy. The formation and excitation of such remnants could provide more efficient central engines than classical black holes for some very high energy sources observed in the universe.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 14 2009, 12:51 PM)
Did someone wanted.
"Anything At All"
eh? is this some sort of infinite monkeys with typwriter experiment, cause it's just random words put together.
Is this to do with that electric/plasma cosmology stuff.
"Anything At All"
eh? is this some sort of infinite monkeys with typwriter experiment, cause it's just random words put together.
QUOTE
This means 5 times the density of a Nucleus of an atom. When this occurs, vector fields a generated by electromagnetic fields that prevent EMR from escaping creating an object that looks black.
Similar to but not close to it is the Sun Spots that have huge amounts of electromagnic fields going into the spot hole. The EMR is going into the hole making it look darker than the surroundings.
Similar to but not close to it is the Sun Spots that have huge amounts of electromagnic fields going into the spot hole. The EMR is going into the hole making it look darker than the surroundings.
Is this to do with that electric/plasma cosmology stuff.
QUOTE (darrbev+Jul 14 2009, 08:41 AM)
eh? is this some sort of infinite monkeys with typwriter experiment, cause it's just random words put together.
Is this to do with that electric/plasma cosmology stuff.
If you hang around here you will soon find out that there are many people who don't make a lot of sense.
Harry often babels incoherently, and is known primarily for posting miscellaneous links to articles and websites that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Is this to do with that electric/plasma cosmology stuff.
If you hang around here you will soon find out that there are many people who don't make a lot of sense.
Harry often babels incoherently, and is known primarily for posting miscellaneous links to articles and websites that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.
latrosicarius
Cheers for the heads-up man.
And thanks for your first reply and links, they were really helpful, especialy the stuff on degeneracy pressure, gave me plenty to look into.
Cheers again
Cheers for the heads-up man.
And thanks for your first reply and links, they were really helpful, especialy the stuff on degeneracy pressure, gave me plenty to look into.
Cheers again
G'day Latro
Mate do you really want to understand cosmology or just use this forum as a "Talky".
Maybe the links that I post are beyond you.
Mate do you really want to understand cosmology or just use this forum as a "Talky".
Maybe the links that I post are beyond you.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.