O/T....does anyone know a Physicist?

[tkav1980]

Id like to talk to someone with an actual PHD...its just something im interrested in and since i only have a bachelors i cant really answer some of my own questions on certain things.

 

[Physick]

That would be a very interesting person to talk to. I haven't met too many people that can discuss much about it so I'm sure even with a bachelors you could lose me pretty quick.
I'd really like to find a theoretical physicist that is capable of dumbing what he is saying down enough for me to understand.

 

[tkav1980]

its not that hard to "dumb it down" my question involves high velocity super massive objects orbiting within each others gravitational fields.

 

[kfrost06]

If you have a BS why not talk to your professors? I got my under grad degree in physics and had plenty of other physicist to converse with. The professors all had an open door policy. There are also plenty of sites dedicated to physics and they love to talk.

 

[tkav1980]

If you have a BS why not talk to your professors? I got my under grad degree in physics and had plenty of other physicist to converse with. The professors all had an open door policy. There are also plenty of sites dedicated to physics and they love to talk.

i got my degree in 2001...havent been back to that school since.

 

[kfrost06]

ahh, that would make it tough. I think I know what you mean, your mind is getting the itch to be used/challenged again. Do you get any periodicals? or Blow the dust off an old text book, thumb through it till you get a topic you like and start reading. I need to do the same thing. What area do you like?

 

[tkav1980]

well the last thing i did was try to fix the alcubierre metric so it doesnt require negative mass energy. needless to say i still havent been successful. as far as i knwo once you get into grad school there really isnt any new math you can learn so i dont see why tackling a complex problem would be an issue. its just compounding the basics. i love theoretical physics, M-theory, super gravity as it deals with quantumn gravitational fluxuations(this only works dealing in 11 dimensional space time)

 

[cracker backer]

I work with 2 phd physicists (i'm a medical dosimetrist), but their expertise is in medical radiation, so I don't know if they could help with your question.

my physics education is limited to radiation

 

[kfrost06]

well the last thing i did was try to fix the alcubierre metric so it doesnt require negative mass energy. needless to say i still havent been successful. as far as i knwo once you get into grad school there really isnt any new math you can learn so i dont see why tackling a complex problem would be an issue. its just compounding the basics. i love theoretical physics, M-theory, super gravity as it deals with quantumn gravitational fluxuations(this only works dealing in 11 dimensional space time)

wow, the Murky-theory(thats what we called it), thats out of my league. I wanted to study physical chemistry in grad school so I focused on thermodynamics. I ended up studying analytical chemistry anyways but always loved physics. Sounds like you are trying to study how to travel faster than light?

 

[kfrost06]

here's a messageboard with people in your area of study

**broken link removed**

 

[tkav1980]

ok heres my actual question......first picture a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. there will be a dent in the sheet. that dent represents what gravity does to space. lets say its a deep dent because the bowling balls size is the same but it weighs as much as a dump truck. now lets say theres an atlas stone like in WSM but it weighs 2000 lbs far enough away on the sheet that the 2 dents dont touch at all. now the first dent is so deep it tears a hole in the sheet but the dent still remains. now remember that big ass atlas stone? add 4 more that form a perfect pentagon around our bowling ball and start them orbiting. increase the velocity to near what stars that orbit the supermassive black hole at the galactic center travel at. now move those stones into the rim of the dent from the bowling ball, but increase the velocity to the point where they wont fall down into the bowling balls dent. what heppens to the space at the conjuncture of the 2 gravitational fields? will it tear? will a naked singularity form? will space warp back in and around itself?

 

[Sammich]

ok heres my actual question......first picture a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. there will be a dent in the sheet. that dent represents what gravity does to space. lets say its a deep dent because the bowling balls size is the same but it weighs as much as a dump truck. now lets say theres an atlas stone like in WSM but it weighs 2000 lbs far enough away on the sheet that the 2 dents dont touch at all. now the first dent is so deep it tears a hole in the sheet but the dent still remains. now remember that big ass atlas stone? add 4 more that form a perfect pentagon around our bowling ball and start them orbiting. increase the velocity to near what stars that orbit the supermassive black hole at the galactic center travel at. now move those stones into the rim of the dent from the bowling ball, but increase the velocity to the point where they wont fall down into the bowling balls dent. what heppens to the space at the conjuncture of the 2 gravitational fields? will it tear? will a naked singularity form? will space warp back in and around itself?

Let me wake up a little more today and get some chores done. Then I will do my best to answer this for you tonight.

 

[njpooldude]

you lost me at "picture a bowling ball" lol

all kidding aside, tkav... your one smart dude.. and for that i have to give you props man... no wonder your a ladies man

i never did well in school.. i always have trouble focusing on things when im not interested...

 

[Physick]

ok heres my actual question......first picture a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. there will be a dent in the sheet. that dent represents what gravity does to space. lets say its a deep dent because the bowling balls size is the same but it weighs as much as a dump truck. now lets say theres an atlas stone like in WSM but it weighs 2000 lbs far enough away on the sheet that the 2 dents dont touch at all. now the first dent is so deep it tears a hole in the sheet but the dent still remains. now remember that big ass atlas stone? add 4 more that form a perfect pentagon around our bowling ball and start them orbiting. increase the velocity to near what stars that orbit the supermassive black hole at the galactic center travel at. now move those stones into the rim of the dent from the bowling ball, but increase the velocity to the point where they wont fall down into the bowling balls dent. what heppens to the space at the conjuncture of the 2 gravitational fields? will it tear? will a naked singularity form? will space warp back in and around itself?

This kind of stuff fascinates me and I've been thinking about this for a few hours now. I'm smart enough to understand the question but I could never in two lifetimes begin to give you and answer.
Very impressive tkav. If you have any other questions or ideas feel free to post them. I'd love to read them and proceed to give myself a headache pondering them, only to be no help at all.

 

[SVFootball]

ok heres my actual question......first picture a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. there will be a dent in the sheet. that dent represents what gravity does to space. lets say its a deep dent because the bowling balls size is the same but it weighs as much as a dump truck. now lets say theres an atlas stone like in WSM but it weighs 2000 lbs far enough away on the sheet that the 2 dents dont touch at all. now the first dent is so deep it tears a hole in the sheet but the dent still remains. now remember that big ass atlas stone? add 4 more that form a perfect pentagon around our bowling ball and start them orbiting. increase the velocity to near what stars that orbit the supermassive black hole at the galactic center travel at. now move those stones into the rim of the dent from the bowling ball, but increase the velocity to the point where they wont fall down into the bowling balls dent. what heppens to the space at the conjuncture of the 2 gravitational fields? will it tear? will a naked singularity form? will space warp back in and around itself?

my guess would be that space would tear. i know a few physicists...i'll ask around for you.

 

[machola]

ok heres my actual question......first picture a bowling ball on a big rubber sheet. there will be a dent in the sheet. that dent represents what gravity does to space. lets say its a deep dent because the bowling balls size is the same but it weighs as much as a dump truck. now lets say theres an atlas stone like in WSM but it weighs 2000 lbs far enough away on the sheet that the 2 dents dont touch at all. now the first dent is so deep it tears a hole in the sheet but the dent still remains. now remember that big ass atlas stone? add 4 more that form a perfect pentagon around our bowling ball and start them orbiting. increase the velocity to near what stars that orbit the supermassive black hole at the galactic center travel at. now move those stones into the rim of the dent from the bowling ball, but increase the velocity to the point where they wont fall down into the bowling balls dent. what heppens to the space at the conjuncture of the 2 gravitational fields? will it tear? will a naked singularity form? will space warp back in and around itself?

easy
just multiply the thickness of space rubber by the british thermal units of a dumptruckbowlingball and you have your answer... seriously come down off the spaceship

 

[iflexit_1]

the universe

Well TKAV1980, will try to answer your question as I see it. First of all, I do not have a formal education in physics. My degree is a BS in Liberal Arts. But I have a passion for astronomy/cosmology, so I study physics to understand the math behind the universe.
I'm assuming the tear left by the bowling ball is at least 3 solar masses in size. If this is true, then we have a black hole widely assumed to have gravity so strong that it prevents the escape of light or anything else. I'm also assuming that our atlas stones are at the edge of the event horizon. Of course, if the stones enter the event horizon, end of story.
So, we have 5 stars orbiting around our black hole at the edge of the event horizon, traveling at a velocitiy near the speed of light. Will it tear? According to Einstein's General Relativity, it is impossible to tear the fabric of space. Still, there are many string theorists after discovering that quantum physics is a violent turbulance, that perhaps the universe indeed can be ripped and torn. Will a naked singularity form? Naked singularities are the singularities of rotating black holes that are spinning so fast that the two event horizons merge and shrink inward. Since our scenario contains only one black hole and one event horizon, it is doubtful we could form a singularity. Will space warp back in and around itself? I think this is the most interesting theory. We know that when space is displaced, it becomes warped and thereby exerts a force in the direction of its displacement. The force of displaced space is proportional to the amount of matter/energy displacing it. If our atlas stones are generating enough energy to prevent them from being pulled in to the event horizon, I believe it is highly predictable that at the conjuncture of the two gravitational fields we would see a displacement (warping) of space.
Hope this helps, and if nothing else, gives you some more food for thought!!

 

[Sammich]

Technically speaking, there is no "edge" to the "warped rubber sheet"; i.e. the gravitational field generated by the black hole. Gravity has an infinite range (it drops off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance), and gravitational effects propagate at the speed of light. The "edge" of the field lies at "infinity", meaning the gravitational field drops to zero as the distance from the mass generating the field increases without bound. So you can't really place something at the edge of the black hole's gravitational field, since that field has an infinite range.

But let's keep after your thought experiment. If we had 5 stars symmetrically distributed around a black hole, and the stars were in "stable" orbits, what would happen? Well first off, this is not a mathematically easy problem. There exists no exact solution to the equations of motion for a system like this with 3 bodies, let alone 6. However, this doesn't mean we can't extract information out of it.

Let's expand your idea. What if, instead of 5 stars, we just had a solid ring around the black hole? We can make the ring as dense (heavy) as we want. In this case, as long as the ring is perfectly situated around the black hole (and as long as the black hole is not rotating) then it is stable. This distribution will not generate gravitational waves, and the ring will keep spinning.

1) Will spacetime tear?
-No. Even though we are imagining very massive bodies moving at extremely high speeds, the situation is still well-defined by relativity theory. There would be extreme warping of spacetime (this is what we call a gravitational field) and an effect called the dragging of inertial reference frames, but nothing freaky would occur.

2) Will a naked singularity form?
-No. The singularity will remain hidden from the universe by the event horizon . Again, although this is an extremely powerful scenario, nothing crazy enough happens to cause any unexpected events.

3) Will spacetime fold in on itself?
-Again, no. All we have is a mass orbiting another mass. Although we have high speeds and masses, this is still completely described by relativity theory. In fact, if the speeds and masses are low enough, classical mechanics will describe this. But the presence of a black hole (or another extremely dense massive object) makes relativity necessary.

 

[tkav1980]

Technically speaking, there is no "edge" to the "warped rubber sheet"; i.e. the gravitational field generated by the black hole. Gravity has an infinite range (it drops off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance), and gravitational effects propagate at the speed of light. The "edge" of the field lies at "infinity", meaning the gravitational field drops to zero as the distance from the mass generating the field increases without bound. So you can't really place something at the edge of the black hole's gravitational field, since that field has an infinite range.

But let's keep after your thought experiment. If we had 5 stars symmetrically distributed around a black hole, and the stars were in "stable" orbits, what would happen? Well first off, this is not a mathematically easy problem. There exists no exact solution to the equations of motion for a system like this with 3 bodies, let alone 6. However, this doesn't mean we can't extract information out of it.

Let's expand your idea. What if, instead of 5 stars, we just had a solid ring around the black hole? We can make the ring as dense (heavy) as we want. In this case, as long as the ring is perfectly situated around the black hole (and as long as the black hole is not rotating) then it is stable. This distribution will not generate gravitational waves, and the ring will keep spinning.

1) Will spacetime tear?
-No. Even though we are imagining very massive bodies moving at extremely high speeds, the situation is still well-defined by relativity theory. There would be extreme warping of spacetime (this is what we call a gravitational field) and an effect called the dragging of inertial reference frames, but nothing freaky would occur.

2) Will a naked singularity form?
-No. The singularity will remain hidden from the universe by the event horizon . Again, although this is an extremely powerful scenario, nothing crazy enough happens to cause any unexpected events.

3) Will spacetime fold in on itself?
-Again, no. All we have is a mass orbiting another mass. Although we have high speeds and masses, this is still completely described by relativity theory. In fact, if the speeds and masses are low enough, classical mechanics will describe this. But the presence of a black hole (or another extremely dense massive object) makes relativity necessary.

ok you definately get this so guess what? i have more questions.

matter and energy are interchangeable. the presence of matter is the cause for gravity(some theorize that gravity actualy "leaks" into our universe from another brane). so can energy create gravity?

if so why does the curvature in space have to be an attractive force instad of repulsive?(leave dark energy out of this, i will eventually get to that but need answers in a step by step fashion)
i may not be fully understanding reimannien tensors or ricci curvatures, but mathmetically the equations can be teased out in another fashion by applying a negative value to M in the mathmetical patter that is used to calculate and orbit. from my understanding this calculation is directly showing the actual curvature of space. and the applied negative value would create a "buldge" in space versus a "dent".

 

[tkav1980]

also it seems that early on after the big bang there was something that accelerated spatial expansion beyond C. hence the dark period. so is thats true, then the mechanics of my proposed "buldge" would have to be correct, unless i made a mathemetical error.