Jump to content

There has never been NOTHING


Ki22
 Share

Recommended Posts

  If the theory of a "black hole" can suck up everything into it, including light, or at least bend it (this is by no means my field of study), then couldn't there be a "white hole" that sucks up dark ? 

Maybe there are two sides. The black hole sucks in everything and the white hole expels it at the other end thats why we cant see a white hole if it exists. it should be bright enough to be detected. But that is a good point and i have no answer.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How, when, where, and even if a white hole forms depends on several factors.  The type of gravitational theory, shape of space, type of metric chosen within that space, etc.  

As for the speed of dark, shadows can move at variable speeds, even up to many times the speed of light. But, it's questionable if the movement of a shadow is a material thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to put into words, white holes are mostly theoretical.  They turn up in math in General Relativity in what are called "vacuum solutions".   You can think of them as a time-reversed black hole.  However, these type solutions are unphysical, as most black holes mostly from from a star that collapses (there is no vacuum).  

If there were a real example of a white hole, the energy and mass would come from black hole in either another part of our universe or from outside our universe (whatever that would mean), depending on which Relativity Theory math is used.  

Where does the material go after falling into a black hole?  Depending on the math, it either crushes down into a singularity (it's where the math fails) or it stays within the event horizon (the "surface" of the black hole).  Black holes have a temperature, and the energy of material that has fallen into the black hole will be radiated out.  

I know, I know, everyone hears that nothing escapes from a black hole.  But, that is only with General Relativity involved.  When you take quantum effects into account, particles can escape.  The problem is we can't work with a full General Relativity theory and a full Quantum Theory, as the current models are incompatible.  That is the whole reasoning behind Loop Quantum Gravity model and/or the String Theory model.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:
7 hours ago, gsxdoug said:

 

 

Since darkness is merely the absence of light, I don't see(!) how it could be said to have a speed.

 

 

 

 

But we know dark matter exist. Well we think it does. Its is alleged it can travel faster than light. Just because we can't see it and measure it doesn’t mean it hasn't got a speed. With the trillions and trillions of stars out there, why is the universe 90% dark and invincible? Just like light it's travelling but darkness can be detected but not measured. Yet.

The existence of dark mater has not been verified yet. It is invoked to explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

I have never heard it alleged dark mater can travel faster than light. But no one has actually figured out what it is made of yet. It is still possible that some other explanation will be found for observations.

Darkness is not the same as dark matter. Darkness is the absence of light. If it really exists dark mater is matter that does not interact with light.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, walnutcowboy said:

  If (and I'm sure most of us agree there is) a speed of light, and given the fact (?) of negative energy, shouldn't there also be a speed of dark ?

 Just wondering.

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Light is generally described in one of two ways. 

  1. an electromagnetic wave (described by James Clark Maxwell - yes Amy was not nice http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/maxwell-s_impact_.html)
  2. photons (concept developed by Einstein)

Maxwell was able to show that the speed of  electromagnetic  waves must be MaxwellEquations11.gif

Darkness is nothing but the absence of these waves/particles.

Edited by djsurrey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Light is generally described in one of two ways. 

  1. an electromagnetic wave (described by James Clark Maxwell - yes Amy was not nice http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/maxwell-s_impact_.html)
  2. photons (concept developed by Einstein)
Maxwell was able to show that the speed of electromagnetic  waves must beMaxwellEquations11.gif

Darkness is nothing but the absence of these waves/particles.

I know that dark matter and darkness are not the same, was just using it as an example because like darkness the universe could be made up of 90% of dark matter, we don't know that yet but the idea has been floating around for years. I also know darkness is the absence of light, just like light is the absence of darkness but the moment that light leaves, darkness returns. In this respect, darkness has the same speed as light.That was my point.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:

I also know darkness is the absence of light, just like light is the absence of darkness but the moment that light leaves, darkness returns. In this respect, darkness has the same speed as light.That was my point.

Light is not the absence of darkness! Light is electromagnetic radiation and it has properties like wavelength, polarization, phase and mass. Light can be defracted, refracted, reflected, emitted and absorbed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light is not the absence of darkness! Light is electromagnetic radiation and it has properties like wavelength, polarization, phase and mass. Light can be defracted, refracted, reflected, emitted and absorbed.

Darkness is constant. Always there. Light is fleeting. Turn off the stars and darkness prevails. Darkness doesn’t need light, light needs darkness. Therefore darkness is the presence of darkness and light is the absence of darkness

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djsurrey said:

Light is not the absence of darkness! Light is electromagnetic radiation and it has properties like wavelength, polarization, phase and mass. Light can be defracted, refracted, reflected, emitted and absorbed.

 How do we know dark can't have the same properties ? However, it can only be tested in complete darkness.

Is the cat alive/dead/or both ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, walnutcowboy said:
4 hours ago, djsurrey said:

Light is not the absence of darkness! Light is electromagnetic radiation and it has properties like wavelength, polarization, phase and mass. Light can be defracted, refracted, reflected, emitted and absorbed.

 How do we know dark can't have the same properties ? However, it can only be tested in complete darkness.

Is the cat alive/dead/or both ?

That is an odd sidestep to the conversation. To have the same properties of light would make the thing the same as light. It would be light. Physicists make a distinction between inferred and visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum extends beyond visible light in both shorter and longer wavelengths. Darkness in the conventional sense is simply the absence of visible light. Darkness does not imply other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum are present or absent.

Your TV remote is an example if a device that makes use of inferred light. If you sit in a dark room with an inferred remote and push a button on it the IR emitter at the end will still appear dark to your eyes. If you happen to have a cheep webcam it may well be able to detect the inferred from your tv remote and it may be displayed as red in images from your webcam.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-possible-to-see-pink-coloured-IR-led-of-remotes-using-your-camera-phones

If one does not press the button there is no infrared and the inferred emitting diode looks dark to the webcam and to ones eyes.

Beyond the other end of the visible spectrum (meaning visible by humans) is ultra violet light. Near ultra violet is not visible to most mammals but it is to many non mammal species.

https://www.reference.com/science/animal-can-see-ultraviolet-color-339b16996f4bdbda

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620140929.htm

The conventional black light is useful for this discussion as it produces ultra violet light mostly at wavelengths that humans can't see. In fact the discharge inside florescent lights is mostly in the ultra violet. The inside of the glass tubing contains a phosphor coating that absorbs the ultra violet and then emits visible light. A "black light" lacks the phosphor coating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight

Many clothing detergents contain "brighteners". These brighteners absorb  ultra violet and emit visible light. This is the reason some fabrics appear to glow under "black lights".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

Getting back to the question we are still left with darkness simply refers to the absence of visible light. It does not really imply anything about something replacing visible light. Other wavelengths are orthogonal to visible light. That means they can coexist without interacting. In other words one can't tell if the wifi is on depending on if the room is dark or not and your favourite radio station does not help you or hinder you seeing a photo across the room.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an odd sidestep to the conversation. To have the same properties of light would make the thing the same as light. It would be light. Physicists make a distinction between inferred and visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum extends beyond visible light in both shorter and longer wavelengths. Darkness in the conventional sense is simply the absence of visible light. Darkness does not imply other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum are present or absent.

Your TV remote is an example if a device that makes use of inferred light. If you sit in a dark room with an inferred remote and push a button on it the IR emitter at the end will still appear dark to your eyes. If you happen to have a cheep webcam it may well be able to detect the inferred from your tv remote and it may be displayed as red in images from your webcam.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-possible-to-see-pink-coloured-IR-led-of-remotes-using-your-camera-phones

If one does not press the button there is no infrared and the inferred emitting diode looks dark to the webcam and to ones eyes.

Beyond the other end of the visible spectrum (meaning visible by humans) is ultra violet light. Near ultra violet is not visible to most mammals but it is to many non mammal species.

https://www.reference.com/science/animal-can-see-ultraviolet-color-339b16996f4bdbda

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620140929.htm

The conventional black light is useful for this discussion as it produces ultra violet light mostly at wavelengths that humans can't see. In fact the discharge inside florescent lights is mostly in the ultra violet. The inside of the glass tubing contains a phosphor coating that absorbs the ultra violet and then emits visible light. A "black light" lacks the phosphor coating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight

Many clothing detergents contain "brighteners". These brighteners absorb  ultra violet and emit visible light. This is the reason some fabrics appear to glow under "black lights".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

Getting back to the question we are still left with darkness simply refers to the absence of visible light. It does not really imply anything about something replacing visible light. Other wavelengths are orthogonal to visible light. That means they can coexist without interacting. In other words one can't tell if the wifi is on depending on if the room is dark or not and your favourite radio station does not help you or hinder you seeing a photo across the room.

To me scientists do not understand darkness because it's hard to study or can't be seen without light which makes it hard still to study. When you are unsure òf something or how it operates. It gets less interest of study. How then can we know darkness is just darkness and nothing else. The fact that 90% of the universe is in darkness says something and need further analysis.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

51 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

To me scientists do not understand darkness because it's hard to study or can't be seen without light which makes it hard still to study. 

dj has defined darkness as a lack of visible light.  Do you agree or disagree with this?  If not, what is your definition of darkness?  Unless we agree on exactly what darkness is, the conversation could go round and round.  

 

51 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

To me scientists do not understand darkness because it's hard to study or can't be seen without light which makes it hard still to study. When you are unsure òf something or how it operates. It gets less interest of study. 

Actually, this isn't true.  It's the unknown parts of known theories that gets most of the attention.   Once discoveries are made, it's handed over to graduate students.  Why don't galactic rotation curves follow the equations of General Relativity?  Dark matter is a candidate.  Why does it seem the expansion of the universe is accelerating?  Dark Energy is a candidate.  But what exactly are Dark Matter and Dark Energy. 

51 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

How then can we know darkness is just darkness and nothing else. 

Again, define darkness.  Is is a lack of light?  Lack of anything material?  What?

51 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

The fact that 90% of the universe is in darkness says something and need further analysis.

That analysis is taking place.  Dark matter and Dark Energy are placeholders.   Those are the names that are used for an effect we can measure, but are unsure as to what it exactly is.  They could have been called unknown matter or unknown energy.   

The name Dark Matter came about simply because we could see it's effects, gravitationally, in those galactic rotation curves, but we couldn't see it in EM (light) wavelengths.   That doesn't necessarily mean it's dark, it just means we can't see it over a great distance.  One idea is that there a are billions of brown dwarves (stars that failed to light as they didn't have enough mass to turn on).  If they were close enough to a light source and we were close enough to them, we might be able to see them.    As it currently stands, we don't see them, but they would have a gravitational effect.  There are other possible candidates, (very massive sub-atomic particles)  and it is a very active field of study.

Dark energy is the name for the effect that is accelerating the universe.  We know how it enters the equations (through the cosmological constant).  And we know how it acts (as negative energy), and the name came about as a companion to dark matter.   The reason it acts as negative energy, that's the question.   

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

The fact that 90% of the universe is in darkness

That is not true at all. Dark matter and dark energy are not equivalent to darkness.

 

58 minutes ago, Tonstar17 said:

When you are unsure òf something or how it operates. It gets less interest of study.

Quite the opposite. An enormous effort is going into attempts to study dark matter. The evidence for dark mater really only started to take shape in the 1970s. Attempting to find dark matter is one of the goals of the LHC which is the biggest physics lab on earth.

https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider

https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter

Also keep in mind the evidence for dark energy is new (since 1990s).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:

 

 

To me scientists do not understand darkness because it's hard to study or can't be seen without light which makes it hard still to study. When you are unsure òf something or how it operates. It gets less interest of study.

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

2 hours ago, djsurrey said:

That is not true at all. Dark matter and dark energy are not equivalent to darkness.

 

Quite the opposite. An enormous effort is going into attempts to study dark matter. The evidence for dark mater really only started to take shape in the 1970s. Attempting to find dark matter is one of the goals of the LHC which is the biggest physics lab on earth.

https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider

https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter

Also keep in mind the evidence for dark energy is new (since 1990s).

 Couldn't the size of the paycheck have something to do with the interest in your field of study ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walnutcowboy said:

 

 

 Couldn't the size of the paycheck have something to do with the interest in your field of study ?

Smart guys that can get a Ph.D. in physics could likely make more money doing something else.  They work in physics out of interest I expect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, djsurrey said:
1 hour ago, walnutcowboy said:

 

 

 Couldn't the size of the paycheck have something to do with the interest in your field of study ?

Smart guys that can get a Ph.D. in physics could likely make more money doing something else.  They work in physics out of interest I expect.

 

Many top banks and financial institutions will hire PhD physics grads as they have the kind of skill and experience with the math and programming those institutions require to run their financial simulations.  

Mike, you may not understand what drives a lot of the academic sector.  The chance to find an answer to one of the deep physics questions has a pull all of it's own.  Leon Lederman describe the feeling when he discovered the bottom quark while working at fermilab.   He had called a fellow physicist and all he could think about was "I know something you don't know".   He said the feeling was almost overwhelming. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said darkness is what it is. Darkness. It's not necessary a lack of visible light. Because even if there was no light there will always be darkness. Darkness is really just the absence of electromagnetic radiation.

I'm not talking about dark matter or dark energy. The nature of dark energy is one of the unsolved problems in all of science

Again you can't study what you can't see. We know lots about light because we can see, feel it etc. And what we know always trumps over the unknown. Again i ask If there are almost an infinite number of stars, why is the night sky black?

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:

 Like i said darkness is what it is. Darkness. It's not necessary a lack of visible light. Because even if there was no light there will always be darkness. Darkness is really just the absence of electromagnetic radiation.

So then we know what darkness is, absence of EM radiation.  Does that require an absence of the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum? How about the curvature of space-time?

6 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:

I'm not talking about dark matter or dark energy. The nature of dark energy is one of the unsolved problems in all of science

Well, you were talking about 90% of the universe being described as being dark(either matter or energy and actually, about 96%), so that's what I thought you we talking about. 

6 hours ago, Tonstar17 said:

Again i ask If there are almost an infinite number of stars, why is the night sky black?

It's called Olber's Paradox,  first discussed in the 18th century.  The night sky being black is one of the pieces of evidence for The Big Bang Theory.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tensor said:

 

 

Many top banks and financial institutions will hire PhD physics grads as they have the kind of skill and experience with the math and programming those institutions require to run their financial simulations.  

Mike, you may not understand what drives a lot of the academic sector.  The chance to find an answer to one of the deep physics questions has a pull all of it's own.  Leon Lederman describe the feeling when he discovered the bottom quark while working at fermilab.   He had called a fellow physicist and all he could think about was "I know something you don't know".   He said the feeling was almost overwhelming. 

 

  In my own way, I DO understand the academic sector. Just a short time ago you posted the news about this site reaching a half a million posts and me being the top poster. That news that made my year.

 However, if we were to get paid, say $1.00 per post, I'm sure the outcome would be much different on this site. And following that thought, if a PhD grad made the same as an entry level person, I think there would be a lot less frames hanging on walls. I DO believe that MOST of all the PhD's start out for the love of their field, but the money certainly doesn't hurt to keep them in their field.

 

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, walnutcowboy said:

  In my own way, I DO understand the academic sector. Just a short time ago you posted the news about this site reaching a half a million posts and me being the top poster. That news that made my year.

 However, if we were to get paid, say $1.00 per post, I'm sure the outcome would be much different on this site. And following that thought, if a PhD grad made the same as an entry level person, I think there would be a lot less frames hanging on walls. I DO believe that MOST of all the PhD's start out for the love of their field, but the money certainly doesn't keep them in their field.

 

One of the things that does, is familiar to all TBBT fans.  The chance for a Nobel prize.   Of course the majority of grad students don't end up in the field.  Cal Tech has about 65 physics faculty position and supports over 200 graduate students and post docs, which is three times the number the faculty needs to replace itself. Money doesn't drive everyone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Ok...Dark or Light MATTER....you are talking about subjects that maybe measurable.  I am talking about an infinite ALL that our UNIVERSE exists in.   Our Universe is finite... Existence is the all .  

Metaphor...your "life" on EARTH is like our UNIVERSE  in EXISTENCE.   You are a unique piece of matter...you exist in a specific point of existence.   You are a tiny part of the whole of Existence.   Our Universe is a tiny part of  the whole of EXISTENCE.

I know it is a strange concept....but , I think it true.

Play...

ki

Edited by Ki22
Needed quotation marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.