NASA Announces Black Hole Merger Breakthrough (1pm EDT)

[xtraflossy]

I may be the only one who finds this interesting,.. but:
Invalid Link Removed

NASA Announces Black Hole Merger Breakthrough

NASA will hold a media teleconference 1 p.m. EDT Tuesday, April 18, to announce a breakthrough in simulating black hole mergers and predicting their gravitational wave signatures. The finding is based on the largest astrophysical calculation ever performed by a NASA supercomputer.

To participate reporters should call: 1-800-369-3196 or: 210-234-0005, passcode "NASA." Images and graphics supporting the briefing will be posted at the start of the event at:
Invalid Link Removed

Audio of the event will be streamed live at:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

Not by a long shot. There are lot of physics heads in here actually. Seems interesting, though I don't know if it's more a proof of their computer power than anything useful about the universe. I think they're already looking for gravity waves from black holes, don't see how merging holes would be easier to detect or tell us more or something different about the universe.

 

[LakeMountD]

Depends on how they are using the words "merge". They could be referring to the singularities themselvse merging, which would lead to a wormhole and faster than light travel. Or they could be referring to basically black hole collision type mergers where one is basically eatin by a larger one.

 

[xtraflossy]

Depends on how they are using the words "merge". They could be referring to the singularities themselvse merging, which would lead to a wormhole and faster than light travel. Or they could be referring to basically black hole collision type mergers where one is basically eatin by a larger one.

Yeah, exactly. Although, eventually that would happen anyways,...

But I honestly beleive its more of a displaty of their computing power. BEcause their breakthrough involves Simulation of this occurence. And from what I know, we really can only measure the EFFECTS of gravity, not so much graviey itself.

I could be a bit rusty,.. but if the gravity is so strong, that escape veloicity (from the center)would have to be greater then then speed of light, then that would imply something like gravity being a paice of matter, that can be excellerated to those speeds.
This would be of course if their looking for "gravity waves".

They must be refering to something almost "anti-gravity", as the description would lead me to beleive that Gravity is emmitted in waves.
Well, I could go on,.. but I just assume wait for the thing conference to air.


Also glad to see others sharing the same interest!!:woohoo:

 

[LakeMountD]

Yeah, exactly. Although, eventually that would happen anyways,...

But I honestly beleive its more of a displaty of their computing power. BEcause their breakthrough involves Simulation of this occurence. And from what I know, we really can only measure the EFFECTS of gravity, not so much graviey itself.

I could be a bit rusty,.. but if the gravity is so strong, that escape veloicity (from the center)would have to be greater then then speed of light, then that would imply something like gravity being a paice of matter, that can be excellerated to those speeds.
This would be of course if their looking for "gravity waves".

They must be refering to something almost "anti-gravity", as the description would lead me to beleive that Gravity is emmitted in waves.
Well, I could go on,.. but I just assume wait for the thing conference to air.


Also glad to see others sharing the same interest!!:woohoo:

Actually I have been very interested in string theory, quantum mechanics, and relativity since about 8th grade. It is a rarity for sure but there are some of us out there. This stuff isn't like IGF-1 though bro, even top scientists don't fully understand it. Even experts in the field don't have a true grasp on things such as quantum mechanics!!! It has been long thought that gravity is made of something "per say". This is a large gray area as these things don't necessarily have to have mass but are called gravitons. In fact, theoretically, they have a mass of zero and are unlimited quantities throughout the universe as well as being universal, meaning they exhibit their force throughout the universe, not matter how small. The gravity that our bodies produce (yes it is a VERY small number) exhibits some minute force to the outter reaches of the solar system. They are also an attractive force, and the anti-graviton is a repelling force, think how cool it will be to be able to cancel gravity with an equal and opposite force of anti-gravitons. Flying saucer anyone?

As for the black holes, gravity doesn't exert a velocity. Space-time can be thought of as a fabric. The heavier the object in this fabric the more it bends space time. So gravity doesn't pull so hard that it creates a "velocity", but instead has such a sharp bend in space-time that light cannot escape. This "point of no return" is called the event-horizon. The reason the light doesn't enter and then come out the other side is because at a black holes singularity, which is the bottom, main point of graviational focus where gravity=infinity, there is thought to be a slight tear in space time, although it doesn't matter how fast a supercomputer is, we have no idea what is here as all laws of physics break down at this point and begin to disagree with one another. There are detectable signs from black holes though, one of which is called Hawking Radiation, where anti-particles are repelled by their normal counterparts and are accelerated away. Another interesting point about black holes (and you can think about this visually) is that since gravity is a bend in space time, think of it as a progressively steeper slide, it will pull on your feet harder than your head, it is distant dependent, the further away the less force it exerts. We have this effect now but it is too small to feel, get near an event horizon and you will drastically feel the difference, begin to pass even horizon? You will be stretched like spighetti as your feet are ripped from your body and so on all the way up.

Yes my knowledge extends past IGF/MGF hahaha.

 

[xtraflossy]

Hmmm,.. funny LMD, I too have been interested in the whole subject as well since around the same time

I understand completely what you mentioned above,.. Actually, this understanding is what caused some of the questions in regaurds to a few things.

OK, so I "buy" the " There are detectable signs from black holes though, one of which is called Hawking Radiation, where anti-particles are repelled by their normal counterparts and are accelerated away." , after reading one of his books on black holes and baby universes.. What really confused me (and what I was thinking when I posted earlier,..) is that -in theory - IF that Gravity has a "zero mass" -gravitons- then;

-Can gravity influence something that has NO mass (or a null gravitational effect on other objects)??? We know that the greater the mass, the greater the G force. This would have to work in reverse too wouldnt it? (eventually that a "no mass" graviton, would have no effect on .......) -Damn, I hate when things get to the unknown! like with Infiinite,.., and that a number can always be cut in half, .. so theoriticly, It's like Zero cant be reached:blink: )
- So, having no mass, where would the "energy" come from to escape a black hole?
(just out of curiousity LMD, have you read anything on Quantum Computing?... interesting concept,..)
It was just me thinking,..

I like your description on Gravity,.. you write is as if you were teaching a class or something... I mean, I dont know if its for others bennifit that stumble upon this, or if I give the impression that I have no clue what I am even discussing..:icon_lol: )

"As for the black holes, gravity doesn't exert a velocity."
I wasnt impling that gravity pulls so hard it creates a veloicity... I was saying that the escape velocity of a black hole is so "high", that for gravity itself to be alowed to be emmitted in waves just didnt sound right. (nevermind that velocity requires a mass, and the whole thing about gravitons having none,.. and anti-gravitons,.. well,.. whats the opposit of zero? ,..
I'm not so much asking you personally, I was listing some of the things that given HALF the information, didnt seem "correct".

 

[CDB]

Hmmm,.. funny LMD, I too have been interested in the whole subject as well since around the same time

I understand completely what you mentioned above,.. Actually, this understanding is what caused some of the questions in regaurds to a few things.

OK, so I "buy" the " There are detectable signs from black holes though, one of which is called Hawking Radiation, where anti-particles are repelled by their normal counterparts and are accelerated away." , after reading one of his books on black holes and baby universes.. What really confused me (and what I was thinking when I posted earlier,..) is that -in theory - IF that Gravity has a "zero mass" -gravitons- then;

-Can gravity influence something that has NO mass (or a null gravitational effect on other objects)??? We know that the greater the mass, the greater the G force. This would have to work in reverse too wouldnt it? (eventually that a "no mass" graviton, would have no effect on .......) -Damn, I hate when things get to the unknown! like with Infiinite,.., and that a number can always be cut in half, .. so theoriticly, It's like Zero cant be reached:blink: )
- So, having no mass, where would the "energy" come from to escape a black hole?
(just out of curiousity LMD, have you read anything on Quantum Computing?... interesting concept,..)
It was just me thinking,..

I like your description on Gravity,.. you write is as if you were teaching a class or something... I mean, I dont know if its for others bennifit that stumble upon this, or if I give the impression that I have no clue what I am even discussing..:icon_lol: )

"As for the black holes, gravity doesn't exert a velocity."
I wasnt impling that gravity pulls so hard it creates a veloicity... I was saying that the escape velocity of a black hole is so "high", that for gravity itself to be alowed to be emmitted in waves just didnt sound right. (nevermind that velocity requires a mass, and the whole thing about gravitons having none,.. and anti-gravitons,.. well,.. whats the opposit of zero? ,..
I'm not so much asking you personally, I was listing some of the things that given HALF the information, didnt seem "correct".

There was actually something not too long ago in Scientific American about seeing black holes as giant computers. Basically the information they suck in is eventually released, just in a highly processed form. as far as a zero mass object I think that would equate to zero energy as well, and so technically not exist.

There's all kinds of new **** out there, next year or the year after there's going to be a satelite launch, GLAST I think the name is, and that sat should be able to detect the refraction that's predicted by quantum loop gravity. If that theory is correct then spacetime itself comes in discrete units and is granular, not continuous. I think it also allows for gravity to scale differently across larger distances, allowing it to be attractive on one scale but repulsive on a larger/different scale. Or maybe that was String Theory. Haven't read about them in a bit.

Since there are a few people interested here, let's keep the geek postings going in the news and articles.:thumbsup:

 

[xtraflossy]

Well, I actually was refering to Quantum Computing done by machines,..
Like, instead of 1's and 0's, .. "data" could exist being neither a 1 or a 0,..
Its not just theory. Well, its based on it,.. but I recal that there are actually "built" machines that are designed for this. I remember reading about it through Yahoo not soo long ago.

Before that I herd it from slashdot, Which, of course joked that Results could never be seen, because simply viewing the results changes the outcome :rofl:
(Got to love a bunch of smart "smart-asses",..)

 

[LakeMountD]

Hmmm,.. funny LMD, I too have been interested in the whole subject as well since around the same time

I understand completely what you mentioned above,.. Actually, this understanding is what caused some of the questions in regaurds to a few things.

OK, so I "buy" the " There are detectable signs from black holes though, one of which is called Hawking Radiation, where anti-particles are repelled by their normal counterparts and are accelerated away." , after reading one of his books on black holes and baby universes.. What really confused me (and what I was thinking when I posted earlier,..) is that -in theory - IF that Gravity has a "zero mass" -gravitons- then;

-Can gravity influence something that has NO mass (or a null gravitational effect on other objects)??? We know that the greater the mass, the greater the G force. This would have to work in reverse too wouldnt it? (eventually that a "no mass" graviton, would have no effect on .......) -Damn, I hate when things get to the unknown! like with Infiinite,.., and that a number can always be cut in half, .. so theoriticly, It's like Zero cant be reached:blink: )
- So, having no mass, where would the "energy" come from to escape a black hole?
(just out of curiousity LMD, have you read anything on Quantum Computing?... interesting concept,..)
It was just me thinking,..

I like your description on Gravity,.. you write is as if you were teaching a class or something... I mean, I dont know if its for others bennifit that stumble upon this, or if I give the impression that I have no clue what I am even discussing..:icon_lol: )

"As for the black holes, gravity doesn't exert a velocity."
I wasnt impling that gravity pulls so hard it creates a veloicity... I was saying that the escape velocity of a black hole is so "high", that for gravity itself to be alowed to be emmitted in waves just didnt sound right. (nevermind that velocity requires a mass, and the whole thing about gravitons having none,.. and anti-gravitons,.. well,.. whats the opposit of zero? ,..
I'm not so much asking you personally, I was listing some of the things that given HALF the information, didnt seem "correct".

Read The Elegant Universe and Hyperspace (Green and Kaku respectively). That explains it very in depth. Gravitons don't need mass to exert a force, just like there are one dimensional strings that don't have mass and technically if you think truly about one dimension, they have no size either. 3d objects have x,y,z dimensions, 2d x,y, and 1d has what? No thickness or nor height. So you don't necessarily need anything to exert force, you have to think outside the box on quantum mechanics.

 

[xtraflossy]

Well, I know,. I mean, no mass, means it is made of nothing, no energy, IS nothing.
In many areas Quantum physics are just a set of made up rules to help solve equations we dont understand. Plus you have to remember that the "things" you are refering to are "theoritical",..
Special theoritical things, being goverened by theoritical rules, cant hold more weight on the bareings of science then things we have found to be true.

I love the subject,.. but there is NO dening that at MANY times, Quantum physics and "real" science have conflicting rules (also conflicting results). I'm sure there at least one person who holds the same view on this..


Not to say its useless of course,.. :nutkick:

 

[xtraflossy]

Read The Elegant Universe and Hyperspace (Green and Kaku respectively). That explains it very in depth. Gravitons don't need mass to exert a force, just like there are one dimensional strings that don't have mass and technically if you think truly about one dimension, they have no size either. 3d objects have x,y,z dimensions, 2d x,y, and 1d has what? No thickness or nor height. So you don't necessarily need anything to exert force, you have to think outside the box on quantum mechanics.

I am assuming strings is the same thing as "Super Strings",.. an "idea", or hypothesis in every sence of the word, of a way to wrap ones mind around the concept of gravity.
- So, then based on a concept like this, you could assume that since we have no evidence what so ever that these strings exist, they must be invisiable,. or 1 dimentional,.. of course, it cant have mass, because,... that would cancel out...
I mean,.. When I hold true the finding of some things in Quantum mechanics OVER real word physics, It's like beleiving a true story, based on a fictional one.
When it comes down these conflicts, the thinking should be the other way around.

Crap! ok, this is not a double post, I think I just liked THIS way of saying better,..... or something

 

[rocketscientist]

OK, so I "buy" the " There are detectable signs from black holes though, one of which is called Hawking Radiation, where anti-particles are repelled by their normal counterparts and are accelerated away." , after reading one of his books on black holes and baby universes.. What really confused me (and what I was thinking when I posted earlier,..) is that -in theory - IF that Gravity has a "zero mass" -gravitons- then;

-Can gravity influence something that has NO mass (or a null gravitational effect on other objects)???

No - like photons (the exchange boson in electromagnetic interaction) gravitons can only act on objects that carry a 'charge', in this case the charge would be the mass of an object.

We know that the greater the mass, the greater the G force. This would have to work in reverse too wouldnt it? (eventually that a "no mass" graviton, would have no effect on .......)

I don't really understand what you're out for here. But if you are trying to say that gravitons can escape the gravitational field of a black hole because they have no mass, you are dead on.

-Damn, I hate when things get to the unknown! like with Infiinite,.., and that a number can always be cut in half, .. so theoriticly, It's like Zero cant be reached:blink: )

- So, having no mass, where would the "energy" come from to escape a black hole?

Now you are referring to the Hawking Radiation, right. The energy is taken from the black hole itself over a magical quantum mechanical process called 'tunneling', where energy/particles/information from one system can be transferred to an otherwise isolated separate system.

The Hawking Radiation consists of massive particles (be it particles itself or their anti-particles - both are massive btw). I can try to explain this to you, but it will take some space. But basically what happens is that a particle anti-particle pair is created on the very edge of the black hole in such a constellation that one particle is sucked up by the black hole. Given energy and momentum conservation of the pair production process has to be satisfied, this can only work if the surviving particle get the same energy as the swallowed one and is therefore catapulted away.

And now the disclaimer: None of what I described here is really exact (and I don't know the details) - but that's roughly the picture.

 

[LakeMountD]

I love the subject,.. but there is NO dening that at MANY times, Quantum physics and "real" science have conflicting rules (also conflicting results). I'm sure there at least one person who holds the same view on this.

That is the thing though bro, it is real science. Now whether it follows "common sense" that is a different story, because it doesn't follow common sense. It is just like realtivity, we travel at such low velocities relative to our surroundings that we can't see things like the doppler effect on wavelengths of light where when something is coming at you its wavelength is shortened and vice versa.

Plus you really don't have the background into strings I don't think to see what I am saying, if you read The elegant universe you will have a better idea of what I am trying to say. They aren't invisible, they are just smaller than the planck length. Things like calabi-yau spaces play a large part in why things happen the way they do. Curled up multi dimensional spaces (more than 3d) may be impossible to imagine in our brains but they exist and although they defy common sense they exist.

You can detect strings and they could one day but you would currenly need an accelerator the size of the solar system to detect them.

 

[LakeMountD]

Plus, no offense but I think you are trying to hypothesize this stuff like you do IGF and it isn't the same bro lol. This stuff is extreme.

 

[CDB]

You can detect strings and they could one day but you would currenly need an accelerator the size of the solar system to detect them.

Isn't the large Hadron collider (I think that's the name) supposed to be able to test some aspects of string theory? I was sure there was an accelerator built or close to completion that, while it couldn't detect strings directly, could detect some of the odder predictions of the theory at the energy levels it could reach.

 

[rocketscientist]

Well, I know,. I mean, no mass, means it is made of nothing, no energy, IS nothing.

Nope - photons have no mass and are very real. They have energy, momentum all that stuff. They are so real, that you can in fact measure ("see") single photons.

In many areas Quantum physics are just a set of made up rules to help solve equations we dont understand. Plus you have to remember that the "things" you are refering to are "theoritical",..
Special theoritical things, being goverened by theoritical rules, cant hold more weight on the bareings of science then things we have found to be true.

Yes - what equations are concerned that is true for sciences dealing with the macroscopic world as well. And no - they are not theoretical they are real. Nuclear powerplants, bombs etc. are a direct application of quantum mechanics, and not a theory. Anti-particles are real, not theoretical or science fiction. Several labs in the US are making them as we speak.

I love the subject,.. but there is NO dening that at MANY times, Quantum physics and "real" science have conflicting rules (also conflicting results). I'm sure there at least one person who holds the same view on this..

Again - no. What is conflicting is our experience with the macroscopic world and the rules of the microscopic world. But as LMD mentioned, if you enter the microscopic world everything changes. But it's all measurable and visible, one can actually 'see' these effects.

 

[rocketscientist]

Isn't the large Hadron collider (I think that's the name) supposed to be able to test some aspects of string theory? I was sure there was an accelerator built or close to completion that, while it couldn't detect strings directly, could detect some of the odder predictions of the theory at the energy levels it could reach.

Yes - that will be part of the LHC program. And a new project that should address string theory more directly is in planning/exploration. String theory can make some predictions of things to happen that would not fit in a world w/o strings. So whereas this would not be a direct proof for the existence of strings as it still may leave the door open for other theories, it would strongly support the theory.

 

[xtraflossy]

Sh!t, I done did it now,.... :woohoo:

Not sure where to begin...
Quote:
We know that the greater the mass, the greater the G force. This would have to work in reverse too wouldnt it? (eventually that a "no mass" graviton, would have no effect on .......)

I don't really understand what you're out for here. But if you are trying to say that gravitons can escape the gravitational field of a black hole because they have no mass, you are dead on.

Kinda- that is very interesting though. But I think that comment wasnt related to escaping a black hole as much as asking how can something not exist (when defining a one dimentional object??), yet have an effect on something... (Im loosing myself here....)

That is the thing though bro, it is real science. Now whether it follows "common sense" that is a different story, because it doesn't follow common sense. It is just like realtivity, we travel at such low velocities relative to our surroundings that we can't see things like the doppler effect on wavelengths of light where when something is coming at you its wavelength is shortened and vice versa.

We can detect Red or blue shifting in stars from here on earth, but again, that shift too is relitive.


Getting back to the origin of my confusion,....

NASA was looking for Gravity waves from black holes. I was under the impression that gravity, was more of a "constant" thing, then something that could be "emitted",...
The entire thing about having NO mass (gravitons,.. again,.. show me a photo picture of a graviton) didnt make sence to me because if it exists, it has energy,.. energy, then it has mass.
I understand particals, and anti-particals (as related to being emmited by black holes), A ying and a yang. I just didn't know gravity was something to be "emmitted", as the artical explains (measuering gravitational wave signatures).

LMD- I ordered The Elegant Universe ,.. just for S&G,..
Ya could have just let me borrow it though!!! :blink: :rofl:

 

[CDB]

NASA was looking for Gravity waves from black holes. I was under the impression that gravity, was more of a "constant" thing, then something that could be "emitted",...

I think gravitons are just presumed to follow the same rules other force particles follow in QM, so they have the properties of a wave and a particle depending on the circumstances under which it's measured. I'm not sure about what RocketScientist said regarding objects with no mass, I was under the impression that photons and gravitons did have mass, just a mass so miniscule it was ridiculously small. I think there's a conflict with some physics on this issue.

You want something really whacky, look up the Higgs Boson. The LHC is supposed to be able to detect that too.

 

[rocketscientist]

I think gravitons are just presumed to follow the same rules other force particles follow in QM, so they have the properties of a wave and a particle depending on the circumstances under which it's measured. I'm not sure about what RocketScientist said regarding objects with no mass, I was under the impression that photons and gravitons did have mass, just a mass so miniscule it was ridiculously small. I think there's a conflict with some physics on this issue.

No problem with anything. The masses of photons is really 0 (like in nothing, zip). To illustrate that - the photon mass has to be 0 if it is supposed to move at, well, the speed of light. Now according to the special theory of relativity any object with (rest) mass > 0 can never reach the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.

On the other hand a massless particle has to move with the speed of light, otherwise it would violate the energy-momentum conservation rules (as given by special relativity).

Maybe there is a little confusion between the rest mass of an object (the mass an object would have in it's own rest frame) and the 'effective mass', which is the mass that a object appears to have if it moves at a certain speed and is what gravitation cares about. In that sense photons are affected by gravitation. Though I think the concept of two different masses is somewhat confusing and replacing the 'effective mass' simply with the energy of the object is unambigouus.

 

[CDB]

No problem with anything. The masses of photons is really 0 (like in nothing, zip). To illustrate that - the photon mass has to be 0 if it is supposed to move at, well, the speed of light. Now according to the special theory of relativity any object with (rest) mass > 0 can never reach the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.

If you listen carefully you'll hear the echo of my hand hitting my forehead.

On the other hand a massless particle has to move with the speed of light, otherwise it would violate the energy-momentum conservation rules (as given by special relativity).

Maybe there is a little confusion between the rest mass of an object (the mass an object would have in it's own rest frame) and the 'effective mass', which is the mass that a object appears to have if it moves at a certain speed and is what gravitation cares about. In that sense photons are affected by gravitation. Though I think the concept of two different masses is somewhat confusing and replacing the 'effective mass' simply with the energy of the object is unambigouus.

I just looked on Wiki and they had the same thing, which rings a bell in my head with stuff I read a long time ago. I'm getting the drift now. ****ing stupid I didn't get the light speed point right away though. Must be getting old.

 

[LakeMountD]

XF- You can't think of something without mass not being there. With photons, they form bundles called quanta. They follow electromagnetic rules and act as a wave, yet have momentum,etc. and act as a particle. This is the wave/particle duality that you might have heard about so much in physics circles. Kind of interesting how something that can be a wave can have momentum eh? Soundwaves can only do this through the fact that interact with oxygen around them.

 

[xtraflossy]

No problem with anything. The masses of photons is really 0 (like in nothing, zip). To illustrate that - the photon mass has to be 0 if it is supposed to move at, well, the speed of light. Now according to the special theory of relativity any object with (rest) mass > 0 can never reach the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.

On the other hand a massless particle has to move with the speed of light, otherwise it would violate the energy-momentum conservation rules (as given by special relativity).

Maybe there is a little confusion between the rest mass of an object (the mass an object would have in it's own rest frame) and the 'effective mass', which is the mass that a object appears to have if it moves at a certain speed and is what gravitation cares about. In that sense photons are affected by gravitation. Though I think the concept of two different masses is somewhat confusing and replacing the 'effective mass' simply with the energy of the object is unambigouus.

YEp, I beleive that clears things up about my "no mass" confusion. I wasn't thinking of particals moving at SoL.

(inner thoughts here: For the love of God, I need to let things die - So just read if you like, as I am as capable as the next guy of finding these answers,..
light can be bent by gravity. Photons move at the SoL. SoL = no mass...?
Does gravity require that something have mass in order to be effected by it,.. that would imply that particals moving SOL do have a mass if it does,.. just one not measureable.???
One thing that still gets me though, and it has to do with REACHING the SoL... (Assuming a partical is excellerated from a speed less then sol)

This was just random thoughts that popped in my head after reading:
No problem with anything. The masses of photons is really 0 (like in nothing, zip). To illustrate that - the photon mass has to be 0 if it is supposed to move at, well, the speed of light. Now according to the special theory of relativity any object with (rest) mass > 0 can never reach the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.

On the other hand a massless particle has to move with the speed of light, otherwise it would violate the energy-momentum conservation rules (as given by special relativity).


The Faster an object moves, the less "weight" it will have (like an excellerating car, less heavy at high speeds),.. so, faster and faster it goes until it closes in on light speed. Now, is there a moment in time where that speed is actually reached? If an photon requires a null mass to travel at light speed, but we know that it had a mass previously (at slower speeds),..
Honestly, Im not sure of my question yet, but it has something to do with a photon, moving at light speed, meaning that it had to ALWAYS have been moving at light speed?...
And wouldnt that spped itself be relitive to the motion it's interacting to?

 

[LakeMountD]

The Faster an object moves, the less "weight" it will have (like an excellerating car, less heavy at high speeds),.. so, faster and faster it goes until it closes in on light speed. Now, is there a moment in time where that speed is actually reached? If an photon requires a null mass to travel at light speed, but we know that it had a mass previously (at slower speeds),..
Honestly, Im not sure of my question yet, but it has something to do with a photon, moving at light speed, meaning that it had to ALWAYS have been moving at light speed?...
And wouldnt that spped itself be relitive to the motion it's interacting to?

Actually the faster it moves the more weight it is, although the word weight is a misnomer here since weight is caused a force, such as gravity. Nonetheless Force= mass x accleration, therefore as you increase your speed your force increases. Inversely if you increase your mass your acceleration comes down. NOTHING can go the speed of light as relativity has shown except light itself. We have gotten particles ever so close to it but can never acctually achieve it. To go the speed of light you need infinite energy, since to accelerate to it, the formulas show your mass becomes infinite.

 

[xtraflossy]

Actually the faster it moves the more weight it is, although the word weight is a misnomer here since weight is caused a force, such as gravity. Nonetheless Force= mass x accleration, therefore as you increase your speed your force increases. Inversely if you increase your mass your acceleration comes down. NOTHING can go the speed of light as relativity has shown except light itself. We have gotten particles ever so close to it but can never acctually achieve it. To go the speed of light you need infinite energy, since to accelerate to it, the formulas show your mass becomes infinite.

Weight is a misnomer?,... where can you go to escape ALL the effects of gravity?

Also, I remember there being theories about particals moving faster then light (this was a few years ago). Of course, this would be relitive. Such like as if a certine partical, moving at or close to the SOL, emmitted another partical. Relitive to the two particals, one was emmitted or broken off at a speed much less, but in other perspectives, you would have the spped of the initial partical + the emmitted one. (I really with I could remember what the particals were called, and for some reason I beleive/remember that this something that explained something else that here on earth we has observed. - that explination doesnt help I know,.. but like I said, it was a while ago).

 

[LakeMountD]

Weight is a misnomer?,... where can you go to escape ALL the effects of gravity?

Also, I remember there being theories about particals moving faster then light (this was a few years ago). Of course, this would be relitive. Such like as if a certine partical, moving at or close to the SOL, emmitted another partical. Relitive to the two particals, one was emmitted or broken off at a speed much less, but in other perspectives, you would have the spped of the initial partical + the emmitted one. (I really with I could remember what the particals were called, and for some reason I beleive/remember that this something that explained something else that here on earth we has observed. - that explination doesnt help I know,.. but like I said, it was a while ago).

Yeah your weight is always relative to a force, usually gravity, so they don't usually use the word weight in the physics community, you would just use force. I exert a force of an x amount of newtons, etc.

The particles you are thinking of are called tachyons and they don't even know if they truly exist yet, but they are said to sort of travel back in time, sort of. Wierd crap yes I know.

 

[CDB]

Weight is a misnomer?,... where can you go to escape ALL the effects of gravity?

You really can't escape all the effects of gravity, but that's just the point. Gravity is variable so weight is variable. In space objects aren't said to weigh this or that, but they mass this or that. For example if a 100 ton meteor was coming at you in space, just because it is technically "weightless" doesn't mean you'd be able to stop it because it masses so much. And as its speed increases so does its mass.

Also, I remember there being theories about particals moving faster then light (this was a few years ago). Of course, this would be relitive. Such like as if a certine partical, moving at or close to the SOL, emmitted another partical. Relitive to the two particals, one was emmitted or broken off at a speed much less, but in other perspectives, you would have the spped of the initial partical + the emmitted one. (I really with I could remember what the particals were called, and for some reason I beleive/remember that this something that explained something else that here on earth we has observed. - that explination doesnt help I know,.. but like I said, it was a while ago).

Think you're talking about the event horizon of black hole. A virtual particle comes into being at the event horizon, goes 'faster' than light which means it goes back in time for a split second and then goes forward again, so for a portion of time three particles exist, two electrons and one positron say, because as the 'first' electron went back in time it exhibits the opposite properties of its original state. In reality though all three particles are the same particle. Then two of them can destroy each other and you're still left with one electron same as you started, but if the hole sucks the positron in you've technically made two particles from nothing, so the black hole has to radiate out the energy of the positron eventually. I think it's conservation of mass and energy and the way Hawking predicted black holes would radiate some type of signal, and also evaporate in the end. I really do need to start reading this stuff again.

 

[Magickk]

Read The Elegant Universe and Hyperspace (Green and Kaku respectively).

LMAO! It's hilarious that you mention these 2 books because I have them both and they're 2 of my favorites on the subject...