herme3 Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I just came up with a theory about black holes. I've read that they appear to be black because the gravity pulls all light into the black hole. In Physics class, I learned that the acceleration of gravity in a black hole would cause any object falling into a black hole to exceed the speed of light after only 2 seconds. What if light and matter doesn't just get pulled in black holes, but instead they just start moving faster than the speed of light? Wouldn't that make them appear black because they wouldn't be able to reflect any light? They would be moving so fast that light couldn't touch it, and reflect off of it? Would it be possible that light can move faster than the speed of light, but we just can't see light that is moving faster than what we call the speed of light? Let me know what you all think about my theory. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Light speed is constant.Photons are created moving at the speed and are destroyed at that speed. and black holes arent black just the singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 The problem I see with the above reasoning is that only the mass of the black hole restricts light from leaving because it curvs space time. The big thing is that as it aproaches the spead of/faster then light, time slows down to a hault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted December 5, 2004 Author Share Posted December 5, 2004 How has it been proven that time stops when something reaches the speed of light? If that was true, how could light travel? Wouldn't light be frozen in one place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 The problem I see with the above reasoning is that only the mass of the black hole restricts light from leaving because it curvs space time. That´s actually the reason why no light escapes the area within the event horizon. Spacetime is curved in a way that none of the possible light-paths (and no "matter"-paths also) lead out of it. The big thing is that as it aproaches the spead of/faster then light, time slows down to a hault Do you know that, did you hear that somewhere or is it simply what you think? If case 1 or 3: Could you please explain what you mean with that statement? I don´t understand that, especially not when I consider that light allways travels at lightspeed. @Herme3: I hardly doubt that anything exceeds the speed of light when falling into a Black Hole although I have to look up the formulas to be certain. If I´m right, then your idea is simply wrong. Otherwise I might have met a very interesting new phenomenon today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I think he's reffering to when matter is accelerated to near light speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 How has it been proven that time stops when something reaches the speed of light? If that was true, how could light travel? Wouldn't light be frozen in one place? [math]t'=\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}[/math] put c in for v and time is undefined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairychild Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 ...and black holes arent black just the singularity. ...and everything within the event horizon to an observer outside. though, there is the hawkings radiation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 "I don´t understand that, especially not when I consider that light allways travels at lightspeed." [nitpicking]The phenomenon we call light doesn't necessarily travel at lightspeed. However, photons always travel at c.[/nitpicking] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Wouldn´t it have been a better idea to apply this comment on the statement my remark referred to? That statement makes even less sense, then. However: [smart-assing] We are talking about Black Holes. The only known solutions of the Einstein equations for that imply that there is no mass except for the singularity.You´ll have a hard time finding light that doesn´t travel at c there [/smart-assing] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdurg Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Speaking of light, I've always found it interesting how when we look up at the stars at night, we're actually looking back in time (Since if a start is hundreds of thousands of light years away, it takes the light hundreds of thousands of years to reach us). For all we know, many of the stars we are looking at may have gone 'BOOM' a long time ago. I always found that to be neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Also quite astonishing is to think how many photons are created every second by even a small star. I mean, they're all lightyears away and still an amount of photons noticable with bare eyes reaches the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 Speaking of light, I've always found it interesting how when we look up at the stars at night, we're actually looking back in time (Since if a start is hundreds of thousands of light years away, it takes the light hundreds of thousands of years to reach us). For all we know, many of the stars we are looking at may have gone 'BOOM' a long time ago. I always found that to be neat. I've just thought up of a new theory about this. It is off-topic so I'll start a new thread about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Myth Guy Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 The speed of light cannot be changed...so if the speed of light still cannot prevent itself by sucked into blackhole...so nothing can do better than it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rebel Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I agree with the comments on proving that time has slowed down. Is there any evidence of this? I've heard experiemtns where atomic clocks go faster in an aeroplane jetting through the sky than one on the ground, but with the amount of vibration, and changes in pressure, temperature, etc. There's bound to be a difference. I still believe we can't afford to treat light as a particle with mass. Even though m=E/c^2, we can manipulate a formula to say anything. Isn't the reason for a black hole simply that the matter is contorting the field that emits the photon, to such an extent that the light is not able to pass. A bit like what happens when a magnet is edged towards a crt screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 well as for the whole gravity in black holes vs massless photons there's a whole thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7905 about it which covers the subject very well. the only problem with the original theory is that it is hard to actually proove that time slows down around black holes as people havent been there and as far as i am aware i dont think that anything approaching black holes CAN go faster than light as that would require it to have a negative mass! it is said that if you went faster than light (FTL) then time would appear to slow down if one happens it is possible the other appears to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Btw, have you seen the (Flash-made?) animations of blackholes observed from different angles? They're quite awesome, especially the orbiting and approaching animations. Of course, they are just assuming, but still quite cool. Just blackness, with light bent around it. Now then, if only I could find one somewhere... Bah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 you mean like from here: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml (same site... similar) http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html or this: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/rxj1242/animations.html ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Yeah, similar to those, but it only showed white dots that were stars and how they appear when they're behind (not directly of course) the black hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
us.2u Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 But to me everyone seems to be answering logically or using einestines maths by using relativity; but what of black holes? I believe they're not of our understanding or math equations.. so, all relativitys that we have on the matter at the moment I believe is a sheer nonsense; let's hope we do have a reasonable solution in time in actual creditory I do believe you Herme 3 that you may have started an extraordinary phenomenon are there any sort of quantum maths we can use to give us a better understanding? looking forward to imaginative replies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxhead Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 nothing can exceed the speed of light ...... or einstein is a fool ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
us.2u Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I believe einesteine was & is far from a fool but let's not be hasty einesteine's theories of relativity are all related to the planet we inhabit...EARTH beyond the relativity of EARTH I honestly believe we have to take new maths aboard what is here I believe is not necessarily conformity in the realms of space I think to judge anyones calculations & even if we did indeed opened our eyes to a new brand of maths that worked to label someone like einesteine a fool would be extremely tunnel visioned as the majority of his maths are indeed excellent but that's relative to this planet!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 the whole point of theories in physics is that they are universal... ie. they apply EVERYWHERE. sure there are things wich look like they break the laws but they dont, quantum phonomenon (spelt wrong!), light bending near black holes, but its still travelling in straight lines... physics theories apply everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rebel Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 light bending near black holes, but its still travelling in straight lines... This could be argued though. Over a distance of different mediums in varying environments, light does bend and change speed too. Only by constraining everything to a vacuum and/or considering light a very small scale between each change in a photon within a singular medium do we consider it to be straight. But then, if we broke all "travel" or "movement" down to infinite steps, would it not all be travelling in straight lines??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Let's try to spell and capitalise Einstein correctly before we start calling him names, hey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now