Baby Astronaut

'O' charge particles are said to be their own anti-particle, that is to say that one particle fulfils both functions; this would apply to the '0' charge graviton and therefore also to gravity.

Whoops, I did mean to say anti-gravitons producing effects of anti gravity.

Something odd, how couldn't being their own anti-particle end up destroying the boson?

I meant: would anti-gravity produce effects of anti gravity? I'm not quite sure if that's what your answer referenced. As for the original existence of anti-matter, do you know if that was possibly created by the anit-Higgs boson?

Yes, boson have antiparticles also.

So if gravitons were to exist their antiparticles would perhaps be anti-gravity? Or the anti-Higgs boson would be the producer of anti-matter?

A modified version of inflation (I think is now generally accepted) by Linde called "slow roll inflation" solves this problem and gives sensible reheating.

Nice, thanks. I shall check it out.

Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called "frozen stars," because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Also, there is a limit on how redshifted photons we can detect, very close to the Event Horizon they get redshifted to much for observation.

Great find, Spyman. That means the black hole's definitely still gonna appear black.

However, the part about excessive redshift (blackshift?) opens up a new implication: theoretically, it should be possible, that if for some reason the universe were everywhere full of *blackshifted* light we'd be totally unaware of it.

I think Space could be infinite.

 

Seeing how there are infinite points on a 1 cm line, infinite lines on a 1 square cm plane...

Wouldn't planck be the natural limit to infinite subdivisions?

No. To give an example, suppose there was simple work that could be done as easily by one man or by several, taking the same number of man-hours to do. If the job takes 1000 man-hours, you could have 1000 men working 1 hour, or 1 man working 1000 hours, or 100 men working 100 hours, etc. Now if you went up to infinity, 1 man working infinite hours, could do the same work as infinite men working 1 hour.

Isn't that 100 men working 10 hours?

Actually science is just now around the corner to explaining love, once it's pinpointed the elusive Huggs boson.

I understand what you think of here. Theoretical physics is really a mathematical pursuit. All the constructions really live in the "mathematical world", whatever that is.

.....

So, I would not worry too much about the question "is the space and time around us really a manifold?" (and similar questions) The question is completely loaded! All we can really say is that "we model the physical universe, or part of it using the mathematical theory of manifolds". (for example).

A lot of things make sense now, ajb. Jeez, I was thinking of the constructions as real entities one can actually physically inspect given the right tools.

Question is, how can you tell it's only a mathematical construction when you encounter a scientific description or concept? Is there a list or database to check somewhere to see what's real (physical/observed) or mathematical?

I think the idea of reference frames is best illustrated by this video, and I'm not kidding:

That's a really great example. I'll definitely be using it to explain frames.

As we seem to languish in our little corner of the universe, why does the rest of it seem to be running away at light speed?

New space is being created everywhere in the universe, meaning objects that are distant will be even further away by tomorrow, next day, etc. So if you add up all the new space between us and a distant galaxy, then the more further away the galaxy, the faster it's going to recede from us. After a while, the speed it recedes becomes greater than the speed of light.

Also, to viewers from that galaxy we'd be receding at faster than light.

But galaxies closer to us don't recede because our combined local gravity is stronger than the expansion.

Yes. Antiparticles have the same mass as their counterparts.

Would anti-bosons exist too? (anti-force carriers?)

Presumably gravity and electromagnatism.

For gravity, I can't see how the gravity waves ever caught up to objects that were receding faster-than-light due to expansion.

Also, please clarify how electromagnetism would've slowed distant objects.

1. Does anti-matter have gravity?

2. If the universe expanded faster than light at its very beginning, then what caused all the stuff within it to slow down enough for any light to reach us from other sources?

@Spyman: perhaps you can edit those pics smaller and only enlarged when clicked, or a mod do it. Then your post is also easier to read.

By that do you mean that you think Black Holes are not what they are currently beleived to be?:eyebrow:

No, they function as descried. But maybe they're not black due to the relativistic images of objects frozen (eternally) on their way in.

Sure. But my question was...

...near the other side of an event horizon....wouldn't that have even less of it or anything/particles than the emptiest regions of intergalactic space?

Not empty, but less full than the emptiest regions of deep intergalactic space. For example, let's place the black hole in the most empty regions of intergalactic space. Not much would be rushing in then, giving it a chance to have even less stuff near the horizon -- compared to the other neighboring space around the black hole.

Let's think.

Supposedly, you'll never detect a black hole visually. It doesn't let anything -- including light -- escape. So all we'd see is a black patch of space.

Yet also, if an object were to fall towards a black hole, we'd perceive it as eternally "frozen" on its journey due to relativity.

Therefore, shouldn't a black hole appear as a messy, cluttered ball in space? Due to the accumulated multitudes of cosmic debris that should be "frozen" on all the edges of a black hole.

One would then expect a continuous smooth structure to emerge as a limit of the discrete or "fuzzy" space-time.

Clarify please?

What event horizon? You mean near a black hole?

Yes.

Light can enter a black hole, it just can't leave.

Exactly. And so probably, from within the black hole, the light can't move towards the event horizon again.

I'm guessing from within a black hole, nothing can escape its event horizon or move towards it. Once inside the event horizon, anywhere within it, nothing can escape from its position to move towards the event horizon.

So logically, it'd seem just inside the event horizon would potentially be clear of "debris" and/or light. Because once something passes any distance towards the black hole's center, it's physically impossible for that something to ever move in the opposite direction -- according to the known laws of physics.

Light is everywhere, it's said. But what about near the other side of an event horizon....wouldn't that have even less of it or anything/particles than the emptiest regions of intergalactic space?

If space is really discreet, what's between each "packet" -- nothingness? A lack of space?

However...it could be all those (otherwise) empty areas would get filled in by random other discreet stuff, made 100% snug along their borders, so we'd never find a sliver of an empty place in the universe.

So basically in other words....space might not be continuous, yet the universe might be: existing as a seamless collage of discreet everythings. Who knows.

Unless of course, I'm entirely wrong about the (discreet space) concept's meaning or use in the first place.

Though it seems not exactly a foregone conclusion that space is discreet, according to what Martin had said a few years back.

I don't know how Wolfram Alpha does it, but pi will definitely be non-repeating in any base. Pi is an irrational number, which means it cannot be expressed as a ratio between two integers. There is nothing peculiar to base 10 about that.

Does that mean any irrational number doesn't change type regardless of what base you use?

Is there any example where the quality of a number (or its smoothness of use in an equation) changes when switched to a different base?

I had wondered if looking for Pi in a different base other than "10" would produce finite or repeating decimals.

So using the formula circumference/diameter I started with the normal base 10, as a control, putting 23.12/7.36 into the WolframAlpha engine, of course getting 3.14..... (infinitely non-repeating as usual).

And then I changed it from base 10, entering "23.12/7.36 in base 5". I also tried it with all other bases from 1-20, also 100, and a few in between. Oddly, every single result had the numbers repeating after only less than fifteen digits.

Cap'n Refsmmat advised me just input "pi in base (anything)" to see what happens. And of course doing that returned it back to the familiar infinite non-repeating progression again.

However, there's one reasonable possibility I'd like to eliminate before accepting the results. When you enter "Pi in base ___" into the Wolfram engine, does it make the conversion to "base ___" from the already known non-repeating Pi number (located within its database), or does it attempt to calculate Pi from scratch with each different base number you enter?

If they calculate from a non-repeating Pi already written in their database, of course it would give non-repeating numbers in any base you calculate for. So might anyone shed expert light on the matter?

Anyone know how to phrase the search terms in Google for converting a "base 10" number into a different base number?

I already visited several online converters yet they're only good for computing whole numbers, but I'm looking to convert decimal numbers as well.

Google usually solves math problems you enter, but here it only returns websites that have converters. So either I did it wrong or Google doesn't convert base numbers -- even though I put in only whole numbers.

Just thought of something.

In a different universe that consists of anti-matter, its scientists probably would label ours anti-matter. i.e. viewing theirs as "normal".

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/2299276,CST-NWS-muons21.article

Did you notice that article was categorized under "Health News"?

What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter

Besides gases and thermonuclear reactions, does the sun ever have fire on it?

A related question: if the Earth's atmosphere didn't have oxygen -- say it was a mixture composed solely of hydrogen, nitrogen, and other gases -- can a normal fire still be lit if there were enough hydrogen in our atmosphere? I'm thinking since either oxygen or hydrogen alone is flammable and/or can be highly explosive, it stands to reason you can produce a flame with either. Therefore on the sun also, I must wonder if the hydrogen that's not yet fusing -- the part of it nearer the surface -- would burst into flame due to the heat generated by the already fusing hydrogen occurring nearer to the center.

Maybe the Cap has access to the paper through the university, and if so I'd like to have a glance at it as well. Also, since the paper's nearly fourteen years old, some better/updated info likely exists by now.

Abstract

Actually, the Mayan calender just ends at 2012. It's an inference that it means the end of the world.

Does the calender really end....or simply resets? I thought all calenders "end".