sr.vinay

That's what I meant. I know that the gravity acts within the horizon. So, how would the radiation escape it in the first place?

Merged post follows:

And, can someone elaborate on how black holes disintegrate? What are the after effects of such a disintegration, if any?

The radiation won't be sucked back in due to the immense gravity? I mean, light gets sucked in!

There is no known reason/mechanism for an upper mass of a black hole, as far as I know. There is a trivial limit on the lower mass (zero). Black holes are often believed to lose mass over time by radiating off stuff, even to mass=0 where they then cease to exist. In that sense, there is an end to a black hole, but not in the sense that you seemed to have in mind: The reason stars have "an end" is that there's a process going on (fusion of whatever stuff) that creates a pressure countering the gravitational attraction. This process has a limited runtime (at some point you are out of stuff for the process) and after that runtime gravitation will do what it was prevented to do before. No such process stabilizing a black hole against gravitational collapse -a black hole is already as collapsed as anything can be- exists.

Black holes can radiate? They have so much gravity that they suck in everything in their event horizon right? Even if they do radiate stuff, it would just be sucked in again!

Is there an end to a black hole? That is, what would happen if it died? Is there a limit to the amount of mass a black hole can suck in(so as to say)?

I wanted to know if you're against the whole idea of thinking for oneself, and that one doesn't always need a higher power to go on the right track.

You've sort of forgotten that scientists work really hard to make even one single statement about any phenomenon. You've, I think, imagined a possible explanation. It requires more than a gut feeling to prove something.

The beauty of physics like this is that there is no evidence it exists so you cannot prove it or disprove it. To be honest with you I believe these kinds of physics are excuses and misleading the real reasons for the Universe.

 

How can string theory explain how the universe began?

How can string theory explain the center of galaxies?

How can it explain Life?

How does it explain the magnetic field or the Atom or molecules and why volcanoes erupt?

 

It can't.

Throw the books on string theory in the garbage because it has no grounds in the real world. The question is unanswerable because the string is not real. If you want an answer you might as well make something up like the inventor of this idea did.

 

Cheers!

Hey, come on.

Don't say things like these in a thread meant for string theory!

Who knows? You've no proof that strings don't exist.

How is the energy conserved in a process like splitting of strings?

Also, a photon has energy; if a photon was somehow stopped one would think it's energy would be converted to mass

I had asked this doubt somewhere else. The answers I received weren't exactly satisfying.

Can you perhaps elaborate?

Well, could you welcome me to the 21st century by elaborating on the modern concept of a photon?

The momentum without mass. And, how does 'energy' travel through 'vacuum'?

One of their properties is energy. The other, momentum. Momentum without mass. Energy without a definite boundary. Doesn't add up, don't you think?

They possess energy; energy is a property. They also possess momentum. We don't call them packets of momentum.

Just to be clear, 'they' possess energy? So photons are entities with no mass. But, they possess properties such as energy?

I've a few elementary doubts on the concept (let's call it that) of photons.

First of all, we say the 'rest' mass of photons is zero, when actually photons don't exist at 'rest'.

And, in another thread, one of them had pointed out that the mass to travel at the speed of light must be identically zero. Would that mean that the mass of photons is zero even when they're travelling at 'c'?

Do we define a boundary for photons? As in, there is a certain boundary for each photon, outside which the energy level is minimal?

So, as the frequency changes, the color of the light should change. Does this happen?

When lasers are bounced back from distant objects, if the frequency etc change, shouldn't the information being gathered have disruptions?

There are more number of magnetons as you put two magnets together. This means that there is more density of entities that cause magnetism. This does increase the power. But, not double it, so as to say.

According to Einstein's assumption, light always travels at 'c'. But, according to him, only the relative velocity changes. Isn't this a wrong assumption? Because, everything has to gradually lose energy. Won't photons dissipate an infinitely small amount of energy as they move, making them lose some energy?

Second part of the question: Will gravity affect the movement of photons? Because, if they have zero mass, only then there's no gravitational effect. This is due to considering their 'rest' mass as zero. Shouldn't it just be negligibly small?

What about the continuum? Isn't that a possible aspect?

Isn't 'zero' mass here being referred because the mass is negligible? Or is it that the mass is theoretically zero. With zero mass, I doubt energy can transport itself through vacuum. That is, energy is transferred only when an entity with lower energy state is found. Only a particle can transport energy, right? Even when we talk about waves transporting energy, its actually particles in motion.

There's no paradox. It's just the energy levels of photons and electrons are different. Obviously, electrons don't move at the speed of photons.

MSTCkid's ideas are conflicting. You're on two sides. When we consider a closed system, it's because strings vibrate with discrete frequencies for different objects. And, objects do have a boundary. But, the surface strings are always open looped and interact with other strings with different frequencies. Maybe, the strings are able to sustain the frequency because they're continuously interacting with each other, creating sort of a continuum, and with the surroundings.

You're not considering basic laws of Physics here. ydoaPs is right. You can't talk about collision of photons in this context either.

Light isn't energy?

Woah! Could you elaborate? I know light is the visible range in the EM spectrum. But, saying light isn't energy, that would mean you're claiming photons inexistent?

Aren't they packets of energy?

Just to make sure, what you're saying is the field propagates into the vacuum, thus making it possible for light to travel through?

Light is a form of energy. Energy is radiated out with an initial velocity in the form of packets called photons. Same way, all the radiations are energy. To explain how these propagate, we consider their two alternating energy fields, namely, magnetic and electric. These by themselves don't propagate into vacuum, they travel along with the path of the energy packets, so as to say.

No, there is no lower energy state.

 

Electrons can and do interact with the nucleus, but this happens at any temperature.

Could you explain why a lower state of energy cannot exist? Is it because of the electrostatic forces and the nuclear and centrifugal forces?