# Black holes, cosmos, and martial arts



## DeLamar.J (Oct 18, 2004)

Call me crazy, but I belive that the cosmos and black holes are the answer to the secrets of life, and martial arts. Anyhow, here is a couple good websites that has taken up many hours of my life reading about this sort of thing.
Warning, very addictive, may waste hours of life!!

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q1

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 18, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but I belive that the cosmos and black holes are the answer to the secrets of life, and martial arts.


Why, James?  Let's talk.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Oct 18, 2004)

Here is one example,

The equations of general relativity have an interesting mathematical property: they are symmetric in time. That means that you can take any solution to the equations and imagine that time flows backwards rather than forwards, and you'll get another valid solution to the equations. If you apply this rule to the solution that describes black holes, you get an object known as a white hole. Since a black hole is a region of space from which nothing can escape, the time-reversed version of a black hole is a region of space into which nothing can fall. In fact, just as a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out. 

White holes are a perfectly valid mathematical solution to the equations of general relativity, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist in nature. In fact, they almost certainly do not exist, since there's no way to produce one. (Producing a white hole is just as impossible as destroying a black hole, since the two processes are time-reversals of each other.) 

Yin and yang, a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out. 
Soft and hard combined in space creating the ultimate power in all the universe, the black hole. or something, ok now I just confused myself lol.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Oct 18, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Yin and yang, a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out.





			
				DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Soft and hard combined in space creating the ultimate power in all the universe, the black hole. or something, ok now I just confused myself lol.


   Space and time is thought provoking.  LOL I don't think you are crazy for being interested in it!  I've never heard of the idea of a white hole, but it's more comforting to think of black holes sucking everything up in concert with the existence of white holes spitting it all back out.  I see the :yinyang:Yin Yang  symbol as the balance of nature, the seed of darkness in light and the seed of light in darkness.  It's interesting how you equate the Yin Yang symbol to the possibility of black and white holes in the universe. :asian:


----------



## Gary Crawford (Oct 18, 2004)

Sounds like "flashbacks"!


----------



## emortis9 (Oct 18, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Here is one example,
> 
> The equations of general relativity have an interesting mathematical property: they are symmetric in time. That means that you can take any solution to the equations and imagine that time flows backwards rather than forwards, and you'll get another valid solution to the equations. If you apply this rule to the solution that describes black holes, you get an object known as a white hole. Since a black hole is a region of space from which nothing can escape, the time-reversed version of a black hole is a region of space into which nothing can fall. In fact, just as a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out.
> 
> ...


 
 What about non-linear equations? Chaos changes everything. But I like your thinking.


----------



## bignick (Oct 18, 2004)

i share the same passion/addiction...i'm not even going to click on those links...because i'll be there for hours and i need to shower and get busy on homework.....


alright...i just clicked on them...but only to bookmark....

only to bookmark....only to....

................


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

Cool - I'll have to go read.

I like thinking new, sometimes conceptually difficult things.


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 18, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> i share the same passion/addiction...i'm not even going to click on those links...because i'll be there for hours and i need to shower and get busy on homework.....
> 
> alright...i just clicked on them...but only to bookmark....
> 
> ...


Somebody save Bignick!!!! He's disappeared in a black hole!!!!:yinyang:

"Bignick?  (echoing....)  Can you find a white hole?"

- Ceicei


----------



## bignick (Oct 18, 2004)

nope...but it was a close one...luckily...once i was in the black hole the laws of time and space no longer applied....so i just went back in time before i got sucked in...simple enough...


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 18, 2004)

Whew!  That's a relief!  You'll have to tell me more about time travel....

- Ceicei


----------



## bignick (Oct 18, 2004)

eh.....

it was alright..the in flight movie sucked...but there was plenty of overhead storage


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 18, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> eh.....
> 
> it was alright..the in flight movie sucked...but there was plenty of overhead storage


Did you have the barf bag handy??  :barf:

- Ceicei


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 19, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Here is one example,
> 
> The equations of general relativity have an interesting mathematical property: they are symmetric in time. That means that you can take any solution to the equations and imagine that time flows backwards rather than forwards, and you'll get another valid solution to the equations.


Yes, 





			
				DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> If you apply this rule to the solution that describes black holes, you get an object known as a white hole. Since a black hole is a region of space from which nothing can escape, the time-reversed version of a black hole is a region of space into which nothing can fall. In fact, just as a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out.


This only stands to reason, given the math,





			
				DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> White holes are a perfectly valid mathematical solution to the equations of general relativity, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist in nature. In fact, they almost certainly do not exist, since there's no way to produce one.


James, this is good, but follow it, your on the right track.



> take any solution to the equations and imagine that time flows backwards rather than forwards, and you'll get another valid solution to the equations


 So do that - look back in time, and reverse the process. What is there? Big Bang. The universe is infinite, yet we know the beginning and the end. The Big Bang and the black hole are different manifestations of the same thing. Where one ends, the other begins.

Where gravity is, space-time bends. As gravity approaches infinity, how does this affect the bending?


----------



## bignick (Oct 19, 2004)

also...as your velocity increases, time (relatively) slows down...this is a proven fact...

so the faster you go...the slower time gets...so at a certain point...as you continue to increase your speed, time will eventually stop (for theory's sake)...so...

let's say that the magic number is the speed of light...once you get there...time stops....so if you can hit the speed of light (yes, physically impossible...but theoretically)....you can travel anywhere...instantly...

because time has stopped...to you, it takes you absolutely no time to get where you're going but to everyone else...it took however long it normally would for light to go from point A to point B....

aha...but one step further...if you travel instantaneously...how do you stop...you instantly arrive at your destination...but we aren't talking about teleportation...you are traveling linearly through space...so you are still going the speed of light when you get to your destination...so you are still moving....so in the exact same instant you arrive at your destination, you are already past it...going nowhere, FAST...forever...until you hit something....

or run out of gas because someone forgot to fill up at the station before they left...


----------



## bignick (Oct 19, 2004)

also..energy and mass...the same thing...which is what E=mc^2 says...

basically...if you want to see how much energy you are made out of...just enter your mass, in kilograms...and multiply it by the speed of light squared....

c=299,792,458 meters/second

do the math...and then think twice before you say, "i'm so tired, I don't have any energy."


p.s....one ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000 joules, the hiroshima bomb was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT...

if i did the math right...i come in at about 13,889,852,762,296,272,618 joules

or about 3,319,754,484 tons of TNT...
again...that's roughly a 3300 megaton bomb....


----------



## DeLamar.J (Oct 21, 2004)

Also, here is some taoism. Some of this reminds me of the black hole. Its almost like they knew it was out there, felt its surpreme power, but did not know what is was.

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable, they are one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
Unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
Form of the formless,
Image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it - there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the Tao, Move with the present.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 21, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> White holes are a perfectly valid mathematical solution to the equations of general relativity, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist in nature. In fact, they almost certainly do not exist, since there's no way to produce one. (Producing a white hole is just as impossible as destroying a black hole, since the two processes are time-reversals of each other.)



What you describe as a "white hole" sounds an awful lot like a singularity such as the Big Bang. 

Black holes are now believed to be more important than ever to the construct of the universe as we know it. Research indicates that the middle of most spiral galaxies contain massive black holes at their centers that  constantly absorb more matter from the surrounding stellar material. As a side effect, they're the glue that holds the galaxies together.   

Just about everything we do or study is a microcosm of the wider universe. Great stuff.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

To further expand on James notion of white holes, and psi radar's indication of the similarities between that and the BB singularity, let us not forget about the concept of time.

The BB was, essentially the beginning of time.  The flow of time varies relatively with the quantity of gravity under which it is observed.

Space and time are intertwined, and inseperable - "space-time".

Space time is a manifestation of the separation of matter.

A black hole is the coming together of matter at approximately infinite density - Therefore, time does not exost within - it is the end of time.

How far of a stretch would it be to assert that the moment before the BB singularity, the moment after assimilation into the black hole, are both undefinable in terms of time, therefore outside of space-time.  By both occupying the "spot" outside of spacetime, does it not resolve the "infinite" paradox by defining them both (BB singularity & Black hole) as different aspects of the same thing?  Opposite sides of the same coin?


----------



## clfsean (Oct 21, 2004)

Just enjoy the scenery y'all.... it's a lot less stress to figure out & will still make you go ".......oh wow....."

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html


----------



## bignick (Oct 21, 2004)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Just enjoy the scenery y'all.... it's a lot less stress to figure out & will still make you go ".......oh wow....."
> 
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html


good work on the link...great pictures


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Oct 22, 2004)

I agree bignick that's an awesome collection of pictures!!!  Thanks for sharing the link!:ultracool
MJ  :asian:


----------



## clfsean (Oct 22, 2004)

Oh no problem... it's one of my daily visits in the AM after checking email & boards... it sets perspective for the day.


----------



## the_kicking_fiend (Oct 31, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> So do that - look back in time, and reverse the process. What is there? Big Bang. The universe is infinite, yet we know the beginning and the end. The Big Bang and the black hole are different manifestations of the same thing. Where one ends, the other begins.



As a physicist I have to step in on this debate!  Some of the things being said are a little confused.  Physicists believe that the universe is not infinite, but due to the curvature of space-time, actually probably meets itself like a sphere.  In other words, if you travel in one direction long enough you will come back to where you started.

You say the Big Bang and a black hole are manifestations of the same thing... what thing?  I don't believe this is an accurate desciption of reality, black holes exist after the death of a super massive star and a phenomenon due to gravity.  The Big Bang was so energetic gravity did not play a key role, the Big Bang to me is very different because it represents the beginning of everything.  Despite, popular belief, a black hole is not the end.  Black holes evaporate over aeons into Hawking Radiation due to quantum fluctuations over the event horizon.  The universe is likely to end up as a froth of highly dispersed low level radiation than anything dramatic.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> also...as your velocity increases, time (relatively) slows down...this is a proven fact...
> 
> so the faster you go...the slower time gets...so at a certain point...as you continue to increase your speed, time will eventually stop (for theory's sake)...so...
> 
> let's say that the magic number is the speed of light...once you get there...time stops....so if you can hit the speed of light (yes, physically impossible...but theoretically)....you can travel anywhere...instantly...



Time will never stop onboard a spaceship that you're travelling on, no matter how fast you travel practically, theoretically or otherwise.  It seems an obvious step forward to make this assumption but it would require infinite energy to do so, this is impossible.  The fact it is impossible means that asking what would happen here is meaningless.

However, one particle does travel at this speed, it is the photon, light.  For light, time does no have no meaning.  It doesn't leave a destination and then arrive later on, it simply exists in 4-dimensional space time on a certain set of co-ordinates.  But for us, we see the light leaving at t=0 and arriving at t'=x/c.  The light doesn't exist everywhere, or our eyes would be burning quite badly.

d


----------



## bignick (Oct 31, 2004)

hey...thanks for the info....i've taken some physics...but my knowledge of a lot of this stuff is extremely limited....ok....now that i have someone on here to question....about the photon...

here is a particle and yet it travels at the speed of light, as stated, anything with mass cannot travel the speed of light because of the infinite amount of energy involved...

how can the photon, since particles have mass...travel at the speed of light...where does the dual nature(wave,particle) of light fit in?


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2004)

> about the photon...
> 
> here is a particle and yet it travels at the speed of light, as stated, anything with mass cannot travel the speed of light because of the infinite amount of energy involved...
> 
> how can the photon, since particles have mass...travel at the speed of light...where does the dual nature(wave,particle) of light fit in?


 The photon has no mass, Nick.  That's why it can travel the speed of light.  Particles of matter have mass, but the photon is not matter, it is energy.

The dual nature of photons arises from the way it behaves under certain conditions.  Photons will behave either like particles or waves, depending on how they are observed.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 5, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> The dual nature of photons arises from the way it behaves under certain conditions.  Photons will behave either like particles or waves, depending on how they are observed.



Though according to the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle, the very act of observing a particle changes its behavior.

Wow, look at me!  I remember something from physics!


----------



## bignick (Nov 5, 2004)

Yes, the uncertainty principle really only applies when trying to determine the position or velocity of a particle...

you can know one but not the other...because observing changes one or the other...


----------



## the_kicking_fiend (Nov 12, 2004)

Going back to the question about the photon.  A photon is a fermion and to say it has no mass is incorrect.  A photon has no *rest* mass, as in when it is stationery (which doesn't happen except in some unusual Bose-Einstein condensates).  When a photon is moving, it has energy, and since energy IS mass, it has a mass.  This can eb easily shown practically by considering lasers that are used in industry and research which exert a force on an object due to the momentum of light particles.  For light to have momentum it must have a mass.

Any particle that has no rest mass can travel around at c if it likes, although massless particles are uncommon.

As for Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle... most people take this to mean we can't knwo what's going on in at atom or make any kind of precise calculations about the state of an atom.  However, we can find eigenvalues of the equations of energy, momentum, spin, etc which means we can precisely know this value.  However, say we know the eigenvalue of momentum, we cannot simulateously find an eigenvalue for the equation of position.

It is better to think of it in this theoretical way than experimentally.  Otherwise it suggests that the reason we can't know momentum and position simultaneously is due to the experimenters designing an experiment which isn't good enough to find both.  This isn't the case, it is simply impossible mathematically and physically to know both to a high degree of accuracy at the same time.

I find it interesting that this underlying law of physics, closely related to probabilities, means that the future is completely uncertain and unpredictable.  The future is not written.  Fate it seems, is just a fabrication of the human mind.

d


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

'I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time'-Stephen Wright


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 12, 2004)

> When a photon is moving, it has energy, and since energy IS mass, it has a mass. This can eb easily shown practically by considering lasers that are used in industry and research which exert a force on an object due to the momentum of light particles. For light to have momentum it must have a mass.


 Sorry, but this does not make sense to me, can you clarify?  My understanding is that the practical definition of mass is M = F/A. Given that E=MC2, if a photon had mass, would it not require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to C?  It seems to me that it would be imprecise to assert that "energy is mass".  Perhaps "energy contains a mass component", or, "mass contains an energy component" would be more accurate.


----------



## bignick (Nov 12, 2004)

there is a bit of a difference between physics in the big world and working in the world of quantum physics...technically, all the standard equations we use when deailing with a lot of physical properties are wrong and give us the wrong result because they don't take into account relativity...at the low speeds and values we deal with they give a perfectly acceptable approximation...but they are still slightly off......

mass and energy are the same thing...it's as simple and complicated as that


----------



## the_kicking_fiend (Nov 16, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Sorry, but this does not make sense to me, can you clarify?  My understanding is that the practical definition of mass is M = F/A. Given that E=MC2, if a photon had mass, would it not require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to C?  It seems to me that it would be imprecise to assert that "energy is mass".  Perhaps "energy contains a mass component", or, "mass contains an energy component" would be more accurate.



You're getting confused between two different definitions.  Rest mass and (inertial) mass.  Rest mass the mass a body has when it's velocity is zero in a given frame of reference.  In a different frame of reference that is moving at velocity v', where v' is close to c, we will find that the mass in this new frame is m' = (gamma)m.  Since gamma is always greater than one (since v'>0) then this mass m' will be greater than m.

That sounds quite confusing.  To try and put it more simply, rest mass is never changing, it is simply a property of a given particle.  A photon, for example, has a rest mass = 0.  BUT, a photon is never stationery (excepting recent experiments in Bose-Einstein condensates) and hence its mass is never zero.  Because its moving it has kinetic energy and therefore it has mass.

Many people find it hard to really understand what such a simple equation as E = mc^2 really means.  It means ENERGY IS MASS and MASS IS ENERGY.  hey are two manifestations of the SAME THING.  You can consider, if you like, that mass is like incredibly dense energy that is so dense it appears solid, and similarly that energy is like really diffuse mass.

I hope this answers your question, don't hesitate to ask me anything else.

d


----------



## bignick (Nov 16, 2004)

I am continually amazed by the variety of people on this board...


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Nov 17, 2004)

the_kicking_fiend said:
			
		

> You're getting confused between two different definitions. Rest mass and (inertial) mass. Rest mass the mass a body has when it's velocity is zero in a given frame of reference. In a different frame of reference that is moving at velocity v', where v' is close to c, we will find that the mass in this new frame is m' = (gamma)m. Since gamma is always greater than one (since v'>0) then this mass m' will be greater than m.
> 
> That sounds quite confusing. To try and put it more simply, rest mass is never changing, it is simply a property of a given particle. A photon, for example, has a rest mass = 0. BUT, a photon is never stationery (excepting recent experiments in Bose-Einstein condensates) and hence its mass is never zero. Because its moving it has kinetic energy and therefore it has mass.
> 
> ...


These are awesome definitions...and since this is an MA board I'd like to equate this to that a bit...in our school we've been fooling around with using our energy to try and move our opponent while we are in a relaxed state by using our mass and forward direction, and I find your explanation of _mass as incredibly dense energy_ to be a great visualization for what we are exploring!  It's amazing what you can accomplish when you relax and drop in the proper manner...the task of moving your opponent becomes effortless and far more effective.

Thanks for posting this!

MJ


----------



## the_kicking_fiend (Nov 17, 2004)

No problem, glad it found interest with you.  Many scientific and religious schools have noticed that the concept of energy being the same as matter was suggested a long time before Einstein.  Buddhists believed that all matter was just a form of energy.

To give it a modern day analogy, imagine looking at any point in space with a really powerful microscope.  You can see the atom and the molecules, etc.  Now imagine zooming in further.  You can see the fundamental particles, the electrons, the quarks...

If you zoom in even further, all you will see is a sea of energy, like a foam of energy spread out across whatever point in space you look at (even in a vacuum there is large amounts of energy everywhere you look).  In other words, the entire structure of the universe is in essence just a sea of energy, all the objects we see around us are just illusions in the phenomenal realm and not real at all in terms of the extreme microscopic level.  And how it to say what scale is the right one?

Buddhists believe that the universe is a sea of energy (ki) and that matter (jin [i think]) is just manifestations of this energy.  This sea of energy is filled with consciousness.  So in other words, we are all part of the same ocean of consciousness.  I find this interpretation appealling and satisfying.  It is incredible to think that the relationship between matter and energy was deduced so early on in human history through simple power of thought and meditation.

d


----------



## Adept (Nov 17, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> if i did the math right...i come in at... roughly a 3300 megaton bomb....


 Now, if we could just find a way to detonate humans...


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Nov 17, 2004)

the_kicking_fiend said:
			
		

> No problem, glad it found interest with you. Many scientific and religious schools have noticed that the concept of energy being the same as matter was suggested a long time before Einstein. Buddhists believed that all matter was just a form of energy.
> 
> To give it a modern day analogy, imagine looking at any point in space with a really powerful microscope. You can see the atom and the molecules, etc. Now imagine zooming in further. You can see the fundamental particles, the electrons, the quarks...
> 
> ...


More cool and interesting thoughts. :asian:  I am amazed and humbled by things I've seen an Aikido master do in terms of using his ki to redirect his opponents.  I need to still find the key to unlocking my ki though LOL


----------

