Does matter convert into any forms of energy or subatomic particles that aren't, or won't ultimately decay into, electromagnetic photons?
QUOTE (Nomath+Aug 19 2006, 03:01 AM)
Does matter convert into any forms of energy or subatomic particles that aren't, or won't ultimately decay into, electromagnetic photons?
Of course, such process occurs in high gravitational fields (space-time curvature), where the matter spontaneously changes into radiation. The matter has it's own weak gravitational fields - so it's unstable, in principle. The most stable particles, like proton should decay in the range of 170 billions of years by Standard model and the Universe becomes free of observable matter.
As example can serve the radiation of the matter during accretion into black holes. By AWT such process has occurred in the large scale during formation of matter at the very beginning of our Universe after inflation in so called quasars (super-massive black holes, resulting for compactification of vacuum). During this the excessive matter of quasars was separated by gravitational field into radiation and transfered to longer distance. After the gravity field has decreased, the part of matter has precipitated back again, thus forming the interstellar matter (the origin of galaxies). Some part of matter rest dissipated in the vacuum as so called dark matter. We can even observe such process at very distant and old quasars, which are very radiative. The more closed quasars have radiated the excessive energy and they have been transformed into cool black holes in the center of galaxies, so they cannot be observed so easily.
It's obvious, such process is solely reversible: in strong electromagnetic fields, the light spontaneously decomposes into matter under formation of particle-antiparticle pairs and the formation of matter (so called "energy materialization"). The resulting particles are having its own electromagnetic field often, so at the presence of excessive energy (i.e. the photons of high energy gamma or cosmic ray radiation), such process is "auto-catalytic" and the particle formation process appears in cascade, until the energy is depleted. It's similar to the vortex formation process in fluids. It should be pointed out, the very same things are valid for gluons and W/Z bosons, too.
Unfortunately, the gravity is longer distance interaction than electromagnetic interaction and it has no charge sign, which enables the action compensation - so such equilibrium is shifted towards photon formation and the matter is unstable with the contact of vacuum, so it's evident, it doesn't appeared in thermodynamical equilibrium. The matter is rather result of fast adiabatic cooling of Aether, simmilar to the preparation of unstable compounds by chemical reactions.
Of course, such process occurs in high gravitational fields (space-time curvature), where the matter spontaneously changes into radiation. The matter has it's own weak gravitational fields - so it's unstable, in principle. The most stable particles, like proton should decay in the range of 170 billions of years by Standard model and the Universe becomes free of observable matter.
As example can serve the radiation of the matter during accretion into black holes. By AWT such process has occurred in the large scale during formation of matter at the very beginning of our Universe after inflation in so called quasars (super-massive black holes, resulting for compactification of vacuum). During this the excessive matter of quasars was separated by gravitational field into radiation and transfered to longer distance. After the gravity field has decreased, the part of matter has precipitated back again, thus forming the interstellar matter (the origin of galaxies). Some part of matter rest dissipated in the vacuum as so called dark matter. We can even observe such process at very distant and old quasars, which are very radiative. The more closed quasars have radiated the excessive energy and they have been transformed into cool black holes in the center of galaxies, so they cannot be observed so easily.
It's obvious, such process is solely reversible: in strong electromagnetic fields, the light spontaneously decomposes into matter under formation of particle-antiparticle pairs and the formation of matter (so called "energy materialization"). The resulting particles are having its own electromagnetic field often, so at the presence of excessive energy (i.e. the photons of high energy gamma or cosmic ray radiation), such process is "auto-catalytic" and the particle formation process appears in cascade, until the energy is depleted. It's similar to the vortex formation process in fluids. It should be pointed out, the very same things are valid for gluons and W/Z bosons, too.
Unfortunately, the gravity is longer distance interaction than electromagnetic interaction and it has no charge sign, which enables the action compensation - so such equilibrium is shifted towards photon formation and the matter is unstable with the contact of vacuum, so it's evident, it doesn't appeared in thermodynamical equilibrium. The matter is rather result of fast adiabatic cooling of Aether, simmilar to the preparation of unstable compounds by chemical reactions.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
As example can serve the radiation of the matter during accretion into black holes. By AWT such process has occurred in the large scale during formation of matter at the very beginning of our Universe after inflation in so called quasars (super-massive black holes, resulting for compactification of vacuum).
Hey Zephir - I know this is off-topic, but could you describe black hole radiation in the ATW theory?
Hey Zephir - I know this is off-topic, but could you describe black hole radiation in the ATW theory?
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 19 2006, 09:35 PM)
could you describe black hole radiation in the AWT theory?
It can be described by multiple ways even in context of AWT , I'd prefer the "total reflection model" based on the laws of optic for each energy wave spreading. By AWT the light is bended by gravity field gradient due the different vacuum density. At the presence of extremely high gravity field gradient (i.e. space-time curvature) so called total reflection can occur:
But, as we know, the vacuum is never quite homogeneous, so the surface of event horizon is violated by the tiny disturbances & vacuum density quantum fluctuations. As you probably know, if you scratch the surface at total reflection angle, the surface becomes semitransparent, so some radiation can pass through event horizon from inside of such black hole.
What insights brings the AWT into Hawking radiation model? For example, we can imagine, how to gather the energy from black hole - if we put some smaller energy into it, it makes the surface of event horizon wavy, "scratched" and semitransparent for larger energy shinning back. The event horizon undulations are supposed the source of most energetic radiation inside our universe during black holes collisions (you can see the simuation video here). We can even imagine, how to look inside of such black hole after event horizon scratching and how to observe the objects inside of daughter universes.
It can be described by multiple ways even in context of AWT , I'd prefer the "total reflection model" based on the laws of optic for each energy wave spreading. By AWT the light is bended by gravity field gradient due the different vacuum density. At the presence of extremely high gravity field gradient (i.e. space-time curvature) so called total reflection can occur:
But, as we know, the vacuum is never quite homogeneous, so the surface of event horizon is violated by the tiny disturbances & vacuum density quantum fluctuations. As you probably know, if you scratch the surface at total reflection angle, the surface becomes semitransparent, so some radiation can pass through event horizon from inside of such black hole.
What insights brings the AWT into Hawking radiation model? For example, we can imagine, how to gather the energy from black hole - if we put some smaller energy into it, it makes the surface of event horizon wavy, "scratched" and semitransparent for larger energy shinning back. The event horizon undulations are supposed the source of most energetic radiation inside our universe during black holes collisions (you can see the simuation video here). We can even imagine, how to look inside of such black hole after event horizon scratching and how to observe the objects inside of daughter universes.
Hi, thanks for the reply. Basically what I'm wondering is if matter is 100% E-M. Is a black hole more like a cube of ice that takes longer to melt and evaporate, or more like a lump of coal that has spent it's fuel (E-M). Are there any types of sub-atomic particles that aren't essentially condensed E-M? Quarks, gluons, neutrinos, etc... will all continue to break down and convert to energy with no by products?
QUOTE (Nomath+Aug 20 2006, 04:17 PM)
Basically what I'm wondering is if matter is 100% E-M. Is a black hole more like a cube of ice that takes longer to melt and evaporate, or more like a lump of coal that has spent it's fuel (E-M).
Of course, the E=mc^2 postulate is the weakest point of AWT. It would be much better to derive it directly from topology principles.
Nevertheless till now no exception is known for me for such rule.
Of course, the E=mc^2 postulate is the weakest point of AWT. It would be much better to derive it directly from topology principles.
Nevertheless till now no exception is known for me for such rule.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 01:38 PM)
Of course, the E=mc^2 postulate is the weakest point of AWT. It would be much better to derive it directly from topology principles.
Nevertheless till now no exception is known for me for such rule.
Of course E=mc^2 is the weakest axiom of the crank theory called AWT. After all, E=mc^2 is:
1. A THEOREM in relativity
2. Not even a complete theorem any more in the above. The complete form of the theorem has been given to Zephir multiple times. You need to "update" your AWT.
Nevertheless till now no exception is known for me for such rule.
Of course E=mc^2 is the weakest axiom of the crank theory called AWT. After all, E=mc^2 is:
1. A THEOREM in relativity
2. Not even a complete theorem any more in the above. The complete form of the theorem has been given to Zephir multiple times. You need to "update" your AWT.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 05:16 PM)
You need to "update" your AWT.
I don't think so, it makes the AWT implicit theory with respect of evolution in time.
I don't think so, it makes the AWT implicit theory with respect of evolution in time.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 02:24 PM)
I don't think so, it makes the AWT implicit theory with respect of evolution in time.
Standard word salad from the "Wings of Zephyr"
Standard word salad from the "Wings of Zephyr"
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 05:51 PM)
The complete form of the theorem has been given to Zephir multiple times
The E=mc^2 is complete form of such theorem with respect of the relativistic mass of photon, which increases the mass of resonator after trapping of such photon with the energy E=h f
The E=mc^2 is complete form of such theorem with respect of the relativistic mass of photon, which increases the mass of resonator after trapping of such photon with the energy E=h f
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:24 PM)
The E=mc^2 is complete form of such theorem with respect of the relativistic mass of photon, which increases the mass of resonator after trapping of such photon with the energy E=h f
Zbbzzt! Wrong again. Try reading a book: E=mc^2 does NOT apply to photons.
Zbbzzt! Wrong again. Try reading a book: E=mc^2 does NOT apply to photons.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 06:46 PM)
Try reading a book: E=mc^2 does NOT apply to photons.
Which book, exactly? The only true book is the Bible (and Koran, of course) ..
Which book, exactly? The only true book is the Bible (and Koran, of course) ..
Good Day!
At last ..... I can see that this picture is conveying a new concept.
Words are not needed. This picture is self explanatory.
I can now understands the universe better.
With this new knowledge.... I can become a millionaire.
A container of light is heavier than and empty container.
At last ..... I can see that this picture is conveying a new concept.
Words are not needed. This picture is self explanatory.
I can now understands the universe better.
With this new knowledge.... I can become a millionaire.
A container of light is heavier than and empty container.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:54 PM)
Which book, exactly? The only true book is the Bible (and Koran, of course) ..
The one by Jackson or any other ones they study in university. Where you can't get in. So, try the library. Come back when you read it (and understood it).
The one by Jackson or any other ones they study in university. Where you can't get in. So, try the library. Come back when you read it (and understood it).
QUOTE (jal+Aug 20 2006, 07:02 PM)
A container of light is heavier than and empty container
So what? Can you disprove it?
So what? Can you disprove it?
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 19 2006, 03:20 PM)
It can be described by multiple ways even in context of AWT , I'd prefer the "total reflection model" based on the laws of optic for each energy wave spreading. By AWT the light is bended by gravity field gradient due the different vacuum density. At the presence of extremely high gravity field gradient (i.e. space-time curvature) so called total reflection can occur:
But, as we know, the vacuum is never quite homogeneous, so the surface of event horizon is violated by the tiny disturbances & vacuum density quantum fluctuations. As you probably know, if you scratch the surface at total reflection angle, the surface becomes semitransparent, so some radiation can pass through event horizon from inside of such black hole.
What insights brings the AWT into Hawking radiation model? For example, we can imagine, how to gather the energy from black hole - if we put some smaller energy into it, it makes the surface of event horizon wavy, "scratched" and semitransparent for larger energy shinning back. The event horizon undulations are supposed the source of most energetic radiation inside our universe during black holes collisions (you can see the simuation video here). We can even imagine, how to look inside of such black hole after event horizon scratching and how to observe the objects inside of daughter universes.
Thanks for replying. Could you show some mathematics - specificallly regarding the surface of the event horizon - so I could understand it better?
Thanks again.
But, as we know, the vacuum is never quite homogeneous, so the surface of event horizon is violated by the tiny disturbances & vacuum density quantum fluctuations. As you probably know, if you scratch the surface at total reflection angle, the surface becomes semitransparent, so some radiation can pass through event horizon from inside of such black hole.
What insights brings the AWT into Hawking radiation model? For example, we can imagine, how to gather the energy from black hole - if we put some smaller energy into it, it makes the surface of event horizon wavy, "scratched" and semitransparent for larger energy shinning back. The event horizon undulations are supposed the source of most energetic radiation inside our universe during black holes collisions (you can see the simuation video here). We can even imagine, how to look inside of such black hole after event horizon scratching and how to observe the objects inside of daughter universes.
Thanks for replying. Could you show some mathematics - specificallly regarding the surface of the event horizon - so I could understand it better?
Thanks again.
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 02:25 AM)
Could you show some mathematics - specifically regarding the surface of the event horizon - so I could understand it better?
Nope, it's just a conceptual approach, at least at this moment. But its evident - the vacuum isn't homogeneous in energy density, so all the wave mechanic effects are affected by such way.
Concerning the black hole event horizon, it's pretty opened question yet. By single laws of optic such event horizon shouldn't exist at all - it means, all the singularities in the Universe should appear naked and the Universe censorship conjecture should be violated heavily. But I can feel, the problem is more complicated - the Aether can behave like inhomogeneous metamaterial, so that the simple Schwartzild geometry can be right too. But the event horizon diameter can be substantially smaller, then Schwartzild solution predict due the violation of equivalence principle in high gravity field gradients. And the black hole isn't formed by the singularity, having the finite diameter like immense dense star. It's even possible, the Schwartzild radius corresponds the black hole diameter nearly exactly.
Here's a lotta opened questions yet, because the existing models of black holes can be very schematic.
Nope, it's just a conceptual approach, at least at this moment. But its evident - the vacuum isn't homogeneous in energy density, so all the wave mechanic effects are affected by such way.
Concerning the black hole event horizon, it's pretty opened question yet. By single laws of optic such event horizon shouldn't exist at all - it means, all the singularities in the Universe should appear naked and the Universe censorship conjecture should be violated heavily. But I can feel, the problem is more complicated - the Aether can behave like inhomogeneous metamaterial, so that the simple Schwartzild geometry can be right too. But the event horizon diameter can be substantially smaller, then Schwartzild solution predict due the violation of equivalence principle in high gravity field gradients. And the black hole isn't formed by the singularity, having the finite diameter like immense dense star. It's even possible, the Schwartzild radius corresponds the black hole diameter nearly exactly.
Here's a lotta opened questions yet, because the existing models of black holes can be very schematic.
QUOTE
But I can feel, the problem is more complicated - the Aether can behave like inhomogeneous metamaterial, so that the simple Schwartzild geometry can be right too.
But if you're just accomodating the Aether to fit in with all the known theories and geometry, what is the point of having the Aether at all? It is not needed to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are; it seems to not really explain anything that we don't already know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But I can feel, the problem is more complicated - the Aether can behave like inhomogeneous metamaterial, so that the simple Schwartzild geometry can be right too. |
But if you're just accomodating the Aether to fit in with all the known theories and geometry, what is the point of having the Aether at all? It is not needed to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are; it seems to not really explain anything that we don't already know.
And the black hole isn't formed by the singularity, having the finite diameter like immense dense star. It's even possible, the Schwartzild radius corresponds the black hole diameter nearly exactly.
Well it depends what you mean by "diameter". The center of the black hole is the singularity. The singularity curves space-time dramatically, and that is what causes the "black hole". The event horizon is simply the place where space-time is curved so much that not even light can escape. It is no different than the rest of the black hole; exept that it is the "point of no return" as you could say.
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.