SCIENCE!!!

[lukeb28]

All the light the black hole ever absorbed would all be emitted at once. This is because the light is not gone, it is simply in orbit below the event horizon. With gravity gone it would all escape. While it would be a great light show, any matter within an unimaginable distance would be instantly vaporized by all the light. Depending on the black hole, they have billions of years worth of light stored up. Just the light alone would make a super nova look like a grain of sugar burning up.

[holymage!]

All the light the black hole ever absorbed would all be emitted at once. This is because the light is not gone, it is simply in orbit below the event horizon. With gravity gone it would all escape. While it would be a great light show, any matter within an unimaginable distance would be instantly vaporized by all the light. Depending on the black hole, they have billions of years worth of light stored up. Just the light alone would make a super nova look like a grain of sugar burning up.

THAT IS SOOOOO COOOOL!!!!!! (no really)

It is definitely not a "poof gone" thing: that has been proven not to be the case. (Articles about that found in: nature, science, NWT and NOT google, but google scholar)

About the wormholes, no one knows exactly how strong the spacetimedilitation of a black hole really is. If it is a wormhole, it needs to break Einstein and thus have like a gap in spacetime. The only way a black hole might achieve this is with a tremendous amount of mass. Now luckily that is present in a black hole. But another thing needed may, or may not be existent in a black hole which is required to keep it open and stable: negative energy (in -Joules).

Negative energy has been created once before on earth in an experiment, so it might exist out there... But, like with the Majorana particle it has been created using a workaround... The Majorana particle is It's own counterpart, it annihilates with a particle of the same kind. The Majorana particle was created using a gap (an unoccupied space in a see of electrons, creating an effective positive particle) and an electron. Those two annihilate, tadaa: a Majorana particle... That's not really a Majorana particle, now is it?

thanks for the clarification

[Viktor_Berg]

All the light the black hole ever absorbed would all be emitted at once. This is because the light is not gone, it is simply in orbit below the event horizon. With gravity gone it would all escape. While it would be a great light show, any matter within an unimaginable distance would be instantly vaporized by all the light. Depending on the black hole, they have billions of years worth of light stored up. Just the light alone would make a super nova look like a grain of sugar burning up.

Are you sure that you're not talking about the photon sphere around the black hole, which is an unstable orbit which can either release the photons, or absorb them into the event horizon? I am pretty sure that once light crosses the event horizon, it is inevitable to be absorbed into the singularity at its center.

[holymage!]

Are you sure that you're not talking about the photon sphere around the black hole, which is an unstable orbit which can either release the photons, or absorb them into the event horizon? I am pretty sure that once light crosses the event horizon, it is inevitable to be absorbed into the singularity at its center.

but in his expample the singularity went poof....it died, burned up or something along those lines....

now were is all the light from the last illion years go?

[Viktor_Berg]

If the singularity does indeed absorb light into itself, then the light is most likely gone. Converted into something else, maybe, I dunno. Point being, whatever emits from a dissolved singularity will not be the same light that was captured in it to begin with.

[Kocken926]

Why wouldn't it be the same? Perhaps some of it is absorbed into the singularity, but remember that light can't be still.

[Viktor_Berg]

Light can't be still, but it can be gone. In everyday life, photons get absorbed into the electrons of the atoms that they hit, elevating their energy status. Now, another thing is that eventually, this energy is released, often as another photon with a different energy level, but the point is, photons are not eternal.

[Markarthian]

Light can't be still, but it can be gone. In everyday life, photons get absorbed into the electrons of the atoms that they hit, elevating their energy status. Now, another thing is that eventually, this energy is released, often as another photon with a different energy level, but the point is, photons are not eternal.

That's true, however according to the quantum expelling principle of Pauli these waves (energy or mass, doesn't matter) can't stay there. They will be emmitted.

[lukeb28]

Are you sure that you're not talking about the photon sphere around the black hole, which is an unstable orbit which can either release the photons, or absorb them into the event horizon? I am pretty sure that once light crosses the event horizon, it is inevitable to be absorbed into the singularity at its center.

Some light does drop into the singularity itself but most of it orbits below the event horizon. Since its in an orbit, it never leaves that orbit. Think about satellites, Once they are in orbit they never need to worry about de-orbiting. This is mainly due to the vacuum of space. If earth suddenly disappeared, all the satellites would go flying off at the velocity they were when earth disappeared. Its the same with photons of light.

[TheBytemaster]

All the light the black hole ever absorbed would all be emitted at once. This is because the light is not gone, it is simply in orbit below the event horizon. With gravity gone it would all escape. While it would be a great light show, any matter within an unimaginable distance would be instantly vaporized by all the light. Depending on the black hole, they have billions of years worth of light stored up. Just the light alone would make a super nova look like a grain of sugar burning up.

I love how the first thought that came to my mind when I read this was, "This would make a great weapon."

Faster than light... by that, I assume you mean ~300,000 m/s?

Light can be slowed down. Experiments have been done that reduce light's speed to something jet planes could easily surpass. If I remember correctly, just passing through water slows it to ~200,000 m/s.

[lukeb28]

I love how the first thought that came to my mind when I read this was, "This would make a great weapon."

I was thinking the same when I did the thought experiment

Faster than light... by that, I assume you mean ~300,000 m/s?

When did I say that? Also, the speed of light is ~300 000 000m/s

Light can be slowed down. Experiments have been done that reduce light's speed to something jet planes could easily surpass. If I remember correctly, just passing through water slows it to ~200,000 m/s.

Your wrong on thoses points, light does slow down in any medium but no medium we have slows it down that much. Also, theres no such hope of a plane going faster than 200km/s. Those are intersteller speeds.

[Viktor_Berg]

Some light does drop into the singularity itself but most of it orbits below the event horizon. Since its in an orbit, it never leaves that orbit. Think about satellites, Once they are in orbit they never need to worry about de-orbiting. This is mainly due to the vacuum of space. If earth suddenly disappeared, all the satellites would go flying off at the velocity they were when earth disappeared. Its the same with photons of light.

But the problem is normal laws of physics do not necessarily apply inside the event horizon. The space-time warps so much that the photons might not be able to maintain spherical orbits, and will inevitably decay into the singularity. Sadly, I do not have the expertise to say anything more concrete on this matter.

[TheBytemaster]

When did I say that? Also, the speed of light is ~300 000 000m/s

Sorry, I confused km with miles there and then forgot to add the k.

Your wrong on thoses points, light does slow down in any medium but no medium we have slows it down that much. Also, theres no such hope of a plane going faster than 200km/s. Those are intersteller speeds.

Ahem. http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/people/hau.cfm

I'm pretty sure we have jet planes that can go faster than 37 mph.

[Torezu]

Think about satellites, Once they are in orbit they never need to worry about de-orbiting.

I have to beg to differ on this point. All, or at least the vast majority of, satellites have attitude thrusters that keep them in a particular orbit or allow them to move between orbital paths. Otherwise, orbital decay slowly takes place. This occurs with all satellites, and the primary causes are friction from high-atmospheric particles and the magnetic fields of the Earth and Sol.

[lukeb28]

But the problem is normal laws of physics do not necessarily apply inside the event horizon. The space-time warps so much that the photons might not be able to maintain spherical orbits, and will inevitably decay into the singularity. Sadly, I do not have the expertise to say anything more concrete on this matter.

I see what your thinking and thats a good thought but just does not hold very well. When we are talking about speeds of light and the mass of black holes reletivity takes a nose dive in logic.

Now all of this on is thought experiment. This is me typing and working out the logic as I go. Read it all because I'll probibly bounce between ideas a lot.

[crazy thought experiment]

When travling at the speed of light, time for the object moving is nil i.e. it is not passing through time. Adding to that the mass of a black hole with it's time dilation propertys, your looking at an ageless partical (As they don't experience time) going back in time possibly. Now this would be, increadable if not a pardox. It means that as soon as light enters a black hole (Or gets close for that matter) the particle is going abck in time.

Since we can see the light that gets close to the event horizon, that means even though it would be travling back in time, we can still see it as if it was not. This raises the question of time travle... I'll go back to that later.

Now inside the event horizon, the time dialation would tip the laws of physics on it's head and it's just FUBR and we can only guess at what might happen. My guess would be that time in the black hole would be destroyed in terms of light unless light does not work on the same principals of matter. Going back to the time travle of ageless light particals, and the fact they can still be seen means that they do not obey the same laws we do in regards to space-time. Since even with this time dialation issue they are still predictable, I can say that they do obey newtonian physics even under these ridiculous circumstances. This means they should obey the same laws still inside the black hole therefore orbit the same.

[/crazy thought experiment]

Edit for the 10 minute 's

Ahem. http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/people/hau.cfm

I'm pretty sure we have jet planes that can go faster than 37 mph.

Thats a cool read.

I have to beg to differ on this point. All, or at least the vast majority of, satellites have attitude thrusters that keep them in a particular orbit or allow them to move between orbital paths. Otherwise, orbital decay slowly takes place. This occurs with all satellites, and the primary causes are friction from high-atmospheric particles and the magnetic fields of the Earth and Sol.

I was more meaning in a perfect sence of the world. I think that my example still holds true.

[okamikk]

i just had an idea, what if we were to send a huge amount of relatively stable exotic matter into a black hole and then start shooting photons into the black hole to investigate the potential space-time fold, also known as a wormhole?

[Markarthian]

I see what your thinking and thats a good thought but just does not hold very well. When we are talking about speeds of light and the mass of black holes reletivity takes a nose dive in logic.

Now all of this on is thought experiment. This is me typing and working out the logic as I go. Read it all because I'll probibly bounce between ideas a lot.

[crazy thought experiment]

When travling at the speed of light, time for the object moving is nil i.e. it is not passing through time. Adding to that the mass of a black hole with it's time dilation propertys, your looking at an ageless partical (As they don't experience time) going back in time possibly. Now this would be, increadable if not a pardox. It means that as soon as light enters a black hole (Or gets close for that matter) the particle is going abck in time.

Since we can see the light that gets close to the event horizon, that means even though it would be travling back in time, we can still see it as if it was not. This raises the question of time travle... I'll go back to that later.

Now inside the event horizon, the time dialation would tip the laws of physics on it's head and it's just FUBR and we can only guess at what might happen. My guess would be that time in the black hole would be destroyed in terms of light unless light does not work on the same principals of matter. Going back to the time travle of ageless light particals, and the fact they can still be seen means that they do not obey the same laws we do in regards to space-time. Since even with this time dialation issue they are still predictable, I can say that they do obey newtonian physics even under these ridiculous circumstances. This means they should obey the same laws still inside the black hole therefore orbit the same.

[/crazy thought experiment]

Edit for the 10 minute 's

Thats a cool read.

I was more meaning in a perfect sence of the world. I think that my example still holds true.

About the alleged paradox. Alleged because it is not, you're looking at it wrongly. You don't go backwards in time, everyone else goes forwards, relative to you.relative to them, you are a slow sun of a gun but you don't go back in time.

About the time stuff. Time is an independent thing, not bound to light; in fact, it is a two dimensional thing. Therefore it will not get destroyed, and neither will light. The only thing that changes is the vector and the amplitude of the wave.

About the ageless particles. At speeds of 10% or more c, no Newtonian law works anymore. The only 'common' thing that works is gravity, for which there is no correct law yet. Also, with forces this massive one should speak of waves instead of particles, because quantum mechanics (I'm on my phone as always, don't feel like typing all that out). Waves behave entirely different from particles.

i just had an idea, what if we were to send a huge amount of relatively stable exotic matter into a black hole and then start shooting photons into the black hole to investigate the potential space-time fold, also known as a wormhole?

Not gonna happen if you don't find negative energy 'in the wild' first. It depends on that.

[Kocken926]

Wait, who started balabbing about negative energy? No such thing exists, and the idea of it is completely illogical.

[lukeb28]

About the alleged paradox. Alleged because it is not, you're looking at it wrongly. You don't go backwards in time, everyone else goes forwards, relative to you.relative to them, you are a slow sun of a gun but you don't go back in time.

About the time stuff. Time is an independent thing, not bound to light; in fact, it is a two dimensional thing. Therefore it will not get destroyed, and neither will light. The only thing that changes is the vector and the amplitude of the wave.

About the ageless particles. At speeds of 10% or more c, no Newtonian law works anymore. The only 'common' thing that works is gravity, for which there is no correct law yet. Also, with forces this massive one should speak of waves instead of particles, because quantum mechanics (I'm on my phone as always, don't feel like typing all that out). Waves behave entirely different from particles.

Not gonna happen if you don't find negative energy 'in the wild' first. It depends on that.

I'm coming from grade 12 physics so I don't know all yet. Thanks for that, this thread is being exactly what I wanted it to be, intelligent questions, intelligent answers, and intelligent corrections.

[okamikk]

Wait, who started balabbing about negative energy? No such thing exists, and the idea of it is completely illogical.

the only way to have negative energy is for the laws of physichs as we know them to be rewritten, i think, so yeah.

and the logic thing doesn't work because antimatter exists

[Markarthian]

Wait, who started balabbing about negative energy? No such thing exists, and the idea of it is completely illogical.

the only way to have negative energy is for the laws of physichs as we know them to be rewritten, i think, so yeah.

and the logic thing doesn't work because antimatter exists

Negative energy had been created in an experiment, so yes, it does exist. (Proof, Science and a scene in through the wormhole, a tv show.)

I already explained that it hasn't been found 'in the wild' yet, so we don't know whether it exists outside of the labs or not.

What's this logic that doesn't work?

[Kocken926]

the only way to have negative energy is for the laws of physichs as we know them to be rewritten, i think, so yeah.

and the logic thing doesn't work because antimatter exists

In one sentence you agree with me and in the other you disagree? You can't have negative energy, as there is no absolute direction in space. "Anti-energy" would just be energy going the opposite direction.

As for antimatter, it's just like normal matter but with opposite quantum parts (dunno what they're called in english.) So there's no logic in argumenting for anti-energy.

EDIT: Mark, I'd like to see proof of that, as it doesn't fit into the current theories, and therefore cannot possibly have been found by credible sources.

[Viktor_Berg]

In one sentence you agree with me and in the other you disagree? You can't have negative energy, as there is no absolute direction in space. "Anti-energy" would just be energy going the opposite direction.

As for antimatter, it's just like normal matter but with opposite quantum parts (dunno what they're called in english.) So there's no logic in argumenting for anti-energy.

EDIT: Mark, I'd like to see proof of that, as it doesn't fit into the current theories, and therefore cannot possibly have been found by credible sources.

You mean anti-quarks, right?

[Markarthian]

In one sentence you agree with me and in the other you disagree? You can't have negative energy, as there is no absolute direction in space. "Anti-energy" would just be energy going the opposite direction.

As for antimatter, it's just like normal matter but with opposite quantum parts (dunno what they're called in english.) So there's no logic in argumenting for anti-energy.

EDIT: Mark, I'd like to see proof of that, as it doesn't fit into the current theories, and therefore cannot possibly have been found by credible sources.

I'll have to see if I can find it again, it was a couple of months ago...

Of what I remember of how it worked was that the energy was in counterphase with the other energy. Alike the anti fermions and bosons, they are actually energy, but just a counterpart of the conventional one.

It could easily fit btw, everything has it's counterparts(+technobabble, again, on my phone)

Please note that I'm not arguing in favor or against the theory of negative energy, I'm putting it out there. It is a theory based on a theory based on wild imagination, keep that in mind.

[okamikk]

In one sentence you agree with me and in the other you disagree? You can't have negative energy, as there is no absolute direction in space. "Anti-energy" would just be energy going the opposite direction.

As for antimatter, it's just like normal matter but with opposite quantum parts (dunno what they're called in english.) So there's no logic in argumenting for anti-energy.

EDIT: Mark, I'd like to see proof of that, as it doesn't fit into the current theories, and therefore cannot possibly have been found by credible sources.

thinking about it, yeah that it a bad example. how about the (supposed) fact that we're made of tiny little strings?