| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2004 07:57:26 PM |
| Object: |
When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
09 Nov 2004 09:55:45 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411021757.22e52e18@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting. A reminder has been sent to your email, because you have
seem to have forgotten.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
09 Nov 2004 07:50:51 PM |
|
|
(Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0411090755.429d20e6@posting.google.com>...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411021757.22e52e18@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting. A reminder has been sent to your email, because you have
seem to have forgotten.
You know you really are a crackup Eric.
Time ends at an event horizon.
But what is the timerate inside the black hole Eric?
How can time end then start over again and then end again
at the singularity?
The slowdown of time gives the gravitational redshift also.
But it goes infinite at the event horizon.
That means GR predicts light of infinite wavelength Eric;
Energyless light in the infinite Einstein shift.
Dead light?
PoppyCock.
If you say that time doesn't end at the event horizon then
it is not an event horizon and we can see into black holes.
But you can't do that.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
11 Nov 2004 11:35:37 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0411090755.429d20e6@posting.google.com>...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0411021757.22e52e18@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Stop posting. A reminder has been sent to your email, because you have
seem to have forgotten.
You know you really are a crackup Eric.
Time ends at an event horizon.
Not really. If you are freely falling through
the event horizon, nothing happens to your clock.
It just keeps on ticking.
If you are suspended above the event horizon, then
it appears to you that the freely falling observer
takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon.
If you don't understand the distinction, then you
shouldn't be posting on the subject.
John Anderson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
09 Nov 2004 09:07:50 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Time ends at an event horizon.
When will Raemsch understand that time is observer dependent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
11 Nov 2004 01:38:55 PM |
|
|
Reminds me
If time is observer dependent, and time ends at the event horizon, then is
the event horizon observer dependent? If it is, what does that determine
about it's existence?
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aCfkd.388521$D%.287135@attbi_s51...
Mitchell wrote:
Time ends at an event horizon.
When will Raemsch understand that time is observer dependent?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
11 Nov 2004 06:42:37 PM |
|
|
"Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I7158u.69q@news.boeing.com>...
Reminds me
If time is observer dependent, and time ends at the event horizon, then is
the event horizon observer dependent? If it is, what does that determine
about it's existence?
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aCfkd.388521$D%.287135@attbi_s51...
Mitchell wrote:
Time ends at an event horizon.
When will Raemsch understand that time is observer dependent?
I have pointed out to Sam that gravitational time is independent
of any observer. Time slows in gravity and there's no argument
against this - Sam.
MItch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
12 Nov 2004 11:50:45 AM |
|
|
"Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I7158u.69q@news.boeing.com>...
Reminds me
If time is observer dependent, and time ends at the event horizon, then is
the event horizon observer dependent? If it is, what does that determine
about it's existence?
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aCfkd.388521$D%.287135@attbi_s51...
Mitchell wrote:
Time ends at an event horizon.
When will Raemsch understand that time is observer dependent?
I read somewhere (by Einstein or Feynman or someone who should know
these things) that an observer falling through an event horizon
wouldn't notice anything special (except a bit of spaghettification
perhaps). As space-time is still a meaningful concept inside an event
horizon, their clocks keep on going, but the signals they are sending
out from the black hole slow down to zero. It's only the singularity
right at the centre that is the totally physically weird bit (if one
exists...). Quantum gravity theories are trying to fix that too.
I think this implies that if you travel towards a black hole, the
event horizon shrinks a bit in your direction, but I could be wrong.
A light wave would similarly fall through an event horizon without
problem. Backscattered light from dust near the horizon would get
progressively red shifted, but that doesn't cause a problem does it?
All spacetime lines going through the event horizon end on the
singularity (according to GR, but who knows according to quantum
gravity), so any part of the light crossing the horizon would have to
disappear. If the mode cross-section of the light is broader than the
horizon, I guess all that means is that the fraction hitting the
horizon is "absorbed". The fraction of the mode which "misses" the
black hole will get a gravitational lens effect.
*How* the black hole absorbs EM waves, I would not like to say, but if
space time ends on a singularity, there is nowhere for it to go -
maybe this is where the concept of wormholes comes in?
That's my attempt at an answer.
B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
17 Nov 2004 06:02:40 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Photon" <brendan.roycroft@nmrc.ie> wrote in message
news:b8f632e2.0411120950.1a0d00f@posting.google.com...
....
I read somewhere (by Einstein or Feynman or someone who should know
these things) that an observer falling through an event horizon
wouldn't notice anything special (except a bit of spaghettification
perhaps). As space-time is still a meaningful concept inside an event
horizon, their clocks keep on going, but the signals they are sending
out from the black hole slow down to zero.
I have a problem with that. I understand the idea of a local view where
everything is normal except for a bit of gravity. The problem is that if an
event horizon exists, and it is easier to see it for very very very large
event horizons with low fields, then our local lab would have to find itself
bisected by the event horizon at some point in the trajectory, or it has to
be bizarrely distorted in some way that does not make sense to me. Just how
do you avoid bisecting the local lab with a "real" event horizon? (Real here
means that all observers, at least all outside observers, will agree that
object X is, or is not, below this horizon. and in this case outside means
every thing actually outside the event horizon, not just far off things.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
12 Nov 2004 12:44:36 AM |
|
|
Time ends at an event horizon.
Not really. If you are freely falling through
the event horizon, nothing happens to your clock.
It just keeps on ticking.
If you are suspended above the event horizon, then
it appears to you that the freely falling observer
takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon.
If you don't understand the distinction, then you
shouldn't be posting on the subject.
John Anderson
Learn what your theory has to say Anderson.
What do you have to say to GR's prediction of energyless light by
an infinite Einstein shift at the event horizon??
Anybody point that out to you before?
Its the proof of General Relativity's demise.
Black holes are the very failure of GR.
If time ends at the event horizon then what is the time rate inside
a black hole? If you can't answer this then don't bother with me.
There is only one time and if it ends it ends absolutely. But it doesn't.
If there is an infinite gravitational redshift at the event horizon
then GR predicts energyless light; an infinite redshift -
light of infinite wavelength. Dead light?
PoppyCock.
The prediction of an infinite Einstein shift at the event horizon
of black holes is the demise of an unmodified GR.
Another would be authority. You don't know squat. Gravity doesn't stop time.
If it did the energy of light could be zero; a zero energy photon?
What a joke.
Your under the same misconceptions as Sam. I have completed GR John.
You can't have it both ways. If time ends at the event horizon it ends
absolutely. How could it end and then start again and then end again?
You got it wrong.
"The patterns of curved space-time around mass are absolute." A. Einstein
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
06 Nov 2004 08:58:32 PM |
|
|
Has anybody addressed when light is bigger than a "black hole?"
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
07 Nov 2004 07:33:49 AM |
|
|
In article <9c3da975.0411061858.20644eea@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
Has anybody addressed when light is bigger than a "black hole?"
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Why should anything special happen? What happens if a light wave is
bigger than an ordinary absorber like you might find right here on Earth?
A peice of carbon soot, for instance.
The absorber doesn't have to be as big as an entire wavelength to do
something to the light. No absorber ever acts on light an entire
wavelength at a time. Even if the absorber is much bigger than the
wavelength of light, it will be interacting with the leading edge of a
light pulse before it begins interacting with the middle or the tail. The
absorber doesn't care.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crown-Horned Snorkack" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
09 Nov 2004 04:13:29 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<cml87t$hr$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0411061858.20644eea@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
Has anybody addressed when light is bigger than a "black hole?"
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Why should anything special happen? What happens if a light wave is
bigger than an ordinary absorber like you might find right here on Earth?
A peice of carbon soot, for instance.
The absorber doesn't have to be as big as an entire wavelength to do
something to the light. No absorber ever acts on light an entire
wavelength at a time. Even if the absorber is much bigger than the
wavelength of light, it will be interacting with the leading edge of a
light pulse before it begins interacting with the middle or the tail. The
absorber doesn't care.
But an ordinary absorber has hair!
A piece of soot may have magnetic and electric dipole and higher
moments. If it is in an electric field, it has polarizability and
acquires electric dipole moment. If it is in a magnetic field, it has
magnetizability and acquires magnetic moment. If it is in a changing
electric field, the dipole moment changes and may be accompanied by a
current flow and resistance to it. If it is in a changing magnetic
field, eddy currents may be set up and start to decay through
resistance. Plus, all of the above cause the piece to be excited. It
may undergo spontaneous or induced emission.
A black hole has no hair. It has its mass and electric monopole
charge. It has no structure, no electric dipole moment, no magnetic
field. So if you put it in electrostatic or magnetostatic field, how
can it interact with the field, lacking any moments of its own? If you
put it in a slowly changing electromagnetic field - flow of photons
whose wavelength is much bigger than its Schwarzschild radius - how
can it absorb or scatter it? Without any eddy currents inside to be
set up and dissipated? No dielectric hysteresis losses? Without any
internal polarization, a black hole ought to be unable to even
reradiate and scatter electromagnetic waves. Well, it is black, it
cannot radiate, not even reradiate, and that would rule out
scattering... Yet, if you have electromagnetic waves of small
wavelength, they are supposed to be lost if they enter the
Schwarzschild sphere... How do they diffract from the edges of the
Schwarzschild sphere? Plus, the rays/waves passing nearby are also
supposed to be bent out of their paths by the gravitational field.
What exactly do the wavefronts do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
09 Nov 2004 09:48:41 AM |
|
|
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<cml87t$hr$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0411061858.20644eea@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
Has anybody addressed when light is bigger than a "black hole?"
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Why should anything special happen? What happens if a light wave is
bigger than an ordinary absorber like you might find right here on Earth?
A peice of carbon soot, for instance.
The absorber doesn't have to be as big as an entire wavelength to do
something to the light. No absorber ever acts on light an entire
wavelength at a time. Even if the absorber is much bigger than the
wavelength of light, it will be interacting with the leading edge of a
light pulse before it begins interacti ngwiththemiddleorthetail.The
absorber doesn't care.
But an ordinary absorber has hair!
A piece of soot may have magnetic and electric dipole and higher
moments. If it is in an electric field, it has polarizability and
acquires electric dipole moment. If it is in a magnetic field, it has
magnetizability and acquires magnetic moment. If it is in a changing
electric field, the dipole moment changes and may be accompanied by a
current flow and resistance to it. If it is in a changing magnetic
field, eddy currents may be set up and start to decay through
resistance. Plus, all of the above cause the piece to be excited. It
may undergo spontaneous or induced emission.
A black hole has no hair. It has its mass and electric monopole
charge. It has no structure, no electric dipole moment, no magnetic
field. So if you put it in electrostatic or magnetostatic field, how
can it interact with the field, lacking any moments of its own? If you
put it in a slowly changing electromagnetic field - flow of photons
whose wavelength is much bigger than its Schwarzschild radius - how
can it absorb or scatter it? Without any eddy currents inside to be
set up and dissipated? No dielectric hysteresis losses? Without any
internal polarization, a black hole ought to be unable to even
reradiate and scatter electromagnetic waves. Well, it is black, it
cannot radiate, not even reradiate, and that would rule out
scattering... Yet, if you have electromagnetic waves of small
wavelength, they are supposed to be lost if they enter the
Schwarzschild sphere... How do they diffract from the edges of the
Schwarzschild sphere? Plus, the rays/waves passing nearby are also
supposed to be bent out of their paths by the gravitational field.
What exactly do the wavefronts do?
No magnetic field? You haven't heard of the conservation
of angular momentum (the spin of swallowed particles)? BHs
can have enormous (gigaGauss) magnetic fields.
They also have nonzero "surface" resistivity, which means
it takes nonzero time for swallowed charges to rearrange the
way their flux lines extend from the horizon. This permits
short-term dipole and higher moments, or "temporary hair".
For that matter, not being rigid (in any sense of the word)
the assorted horizons slosh around quite a bit and fairly
rapidly at that, which will look from a distance like higher
multipole moments. Then there are non-spherical BHs.
They're also usually surrounded by masses of rapidly
moving, highly charged matter doing electromagnetically
interesting things as well, which induce all sorts of
EM-interesting effects on the BH.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crown-Horned Snorkack" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
10 Nov 2004 11:14:00 AM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<QD5kd.50306$G15.48248@fed1read03>...
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<cml87t$hr$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0411061858.20644eea@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
Has anybody addressed when light is bigger than a "black hole?"
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Whether or not they have been redshifted they could always be
bigger than a black hole diameter. Light would be able to
be half way inside a black hole and halfway outside.
What's wrong with this picture?
I know - Black holes are going out with a bang.
Why should anything special happen? What happens if a light wave is
bigger than an ordinary absorber like you might find right here on Earth?
A peice of carbon soot, for instance.
The absorber doesn't have to be as big as an entire wavelength to do
something to the light. No absorber ever acts on light an entire
wavelength at a time. Even if the absorber is much bigger than the
wavelength of light, it will be interacting with the leading edge of a
light pulse before it begins interacti ngwiththemiddleorthetail.The
absorber doesn't care.
But an ordinary absorber has hair!
A piece of soot may have magnetic and electric dipole and higher
moments. If it is in an electric field, it has polarizability and
acquires electric dipole moment. If it is in a magnetic field, it has
magnetizability and acquires magnetic moment. If it is in a changing
electric field, the dipole moment changes and may be accompanied by a
current flow and resistance to it. If it is in a changing magnetic
field, eddy currents may be set up and start to decay through
resistance. Plus, all of the above cause the piece to be excited. It
may undergo spontaneous or induced emission.
A black hole has no hair. It has its mass and electric monopole
charge. It has no structure, no electric dipole moment, no magnetic
field. So if you put it in electrostatic or magnetostatic field, how
can it interact with the field, lacking any moments of its own? If you
put it in a slowly changing electromagnetic field - flow of photons
whose wavelength is much bigger than its Schwarzschild radius - how
can it absorb or scatter it? Without any eddy currents inside to be
set up and dissipated? No dielectric hysteresis losses? Without any
internal polarization, a black hole ought to be unable to even
reradiate and scatter electromagnetic waves. Well, it is black, it
cannot radiate, not even reradiate, and that would rule out
scattering... Yet, if you have electromagnetic waves of small
wavelength, they are supposed to be lost if they enter the
Schwarzschild sphere... How do they diffract from the edges of the
Schwarzschild sphere? Plus, the rays/waves passing nearby are also
supposed to be bent out of their paths by the gravitational field.
What exactly do the wavefronts do?
No magnetic field? You haven't heard of the conservation
of angular momentum (the spin of swallowed particles)?
Er, yeah. Kerr black holes.
BHs can have enormous (gigaGauss) magnetic fields.
Can they?
They also have nonzero "surface" resistivity, which means
it takes nonzero time for swallowed charges to rearrange the
way their flux lines extend from the horizon. This permits
short-term dipole and higher moments, or "temporary hair".
For that matter, not being rigid (in any sense of the word)
the assorted horizons slosh around quite a bit and fairly
rapidly at that, which will look from a distance like higher
multipole moments.
Provided that a charge has been swallowed, leading to a Nordström
black hole. But for a black hole with zero charge?
Then there are non-spherical BHs.
The Kerr ones? They have ergosphere and circular singularity. But that
is the only nonspherical shape allowed for a black hole.
I imagine that a black hole which is both Kerr and Nordström black
hole might have quadrupole and higher moments. Electric dipole moment
is definitely forbidden by symmetry.
They're also usually surrounded by masses of rapidly moving, highly charged
matter doing electromagnetically interesting things as well, which induce all > sorts of EM-interesting effects on the BH.
Mark L. Fergerson
Usually, but this is no part of the definition of the black hole.
So, let us repeat the definition of the thought-experiment set up:
We start with a strictly Schwarzschild black hole. It has zero charge
and zero spin, possessing perfect spherical symmetry.
There is no matter whatsoever around the black hole. Only an
electromagnetic field is applied, and measured. If the field is
time-changing, the phases are related so that the waves have linear
polarization, rather than elliptic or circular, and the black hole
cannot build up angular momentum from capture of photons. It might
acquire spin one by capturing a photon, or a relatively small spin by
statistical chance captures of unequal numbers of photons of opposite
spins, but this effect can be expected to be small.
Now - how does a black hole influence an external electromagnetic
field?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: When Light Waves are Bigger than Black Holes |
02 Nov 2004 08:01:58 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
In the gravitational redshift of light light's wavelength
becomes larger.
But what if the light waves are bigger than the black holes?
Near field microscopy. The emitter tip is much smaller in diameter
than the wavelength of light emitted.
Idiot.
A neon atom emits a 633 nm photon. What is the diameter of a neon
atom?
Idiot.
[snip crap]
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
