Tag Archives: General relativity

Do space-time black-holes really exist?

Cosmologists, astrophysicists and other ‘space scientists’ have a good idea how massive objects such as stars, dwarf stars, neutrino stars, magnetars, galaxies and quasars function within our Universe today. Theoretically the mechanics of what forms a “black-hole” are understood by many physicists. But what is a black-hole?

The conventional explanation is that a black-hole is a region of space-time from which nothing, not even light can escape. A black-hole is formed by a stellar object that has collapsed in on itself due to the star’s own gravitational forces. Surrounding a black-hole is a mathematically defined region of space called an event horizon; this is a boundary where not only nothing can escape but also the current laws of physics break down. Where boundaries exist within scientific knowledge, usually a theory is incomplete.

Missing knowledge with black-hole theory is a problem, not least because the two main descriptions of the Universe are currently incompatible: relativity (general) and quantum theory. Black-holes were first postulated by Karl Schwarzschild. Many other physicists have subsequently analysed Albert Einstein‘s theory of general relativity and produced new insights into the theoretical behaviour of gravitationally large objects. Continue reading

Comments Off on Do space-time black-holes really exist?

Filed under NatSci

What constitutes time?

A definition of time can be found within the second law of thermodynamics, in entropy. From entropy we can establish a direction for the flow of time within the classical physics world. Entropy at its core is about energy and heat transfer. Heat can be transferred from one body to another by electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation has several measurable components, wavelength, electron volt and frequency and its energy can be calculated using classical and quantum methods, seen as a wave or a particle. Waves and oscillations permeate the universe and are present in whatever form of tool we use to describe the world about us.

One component of a wave or an oscillation is its frequency. We can experience frequency in the form of an earth tremor, as the ground shakes and the earth’s mantle vibrates. The word frequency is defined as being, “The rate of repetition of a regular event. The number of cycles of a wave, or some other oscillation or vibration”, source: Oxford Dictionary of Science, John Daintith, Elizabeth Martin, et al., 2005, Oxford University Press.

Subatomic particles can be broken down into smaller and smaller components. LHC at CERN is attempting to confirm experimentally what theoretical physicists postulate for the structure of matter. I am proposing a thought experiment as to postulate further what time is. Continue reading

Comments Off on What constitutes time?

Filed under NatSci

A new definition of space-time?

What is space-time?

Well we all know of its description in terms of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity papers, not to mention countless other interpretations and further work to Einstein’s original thought experiments, from John Archie-ball Wheeler through to modern-day scientists such as Kip Thorn, Paul Davies, Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose and Stephen W. Hawking, to name a few.

But none of these great minds, as far as I am aware, have come up with a physical tangible non-mathematical description. The closest we have describes space-time akin to a 2 dimensional rubber sheet where planets and stars glide across the top of it. Modern day computer graphics can provide images of 6 dimensional space manifolds, but these are still represented on 2 dimensional paper; no element of time is represented pictorially. Continue reading

Comments Off on A new definition of space-time?

Filed under SFF

One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Like the accolade to Disney in its heyday with the great comedic British Actor… I feel a certain sense of nostalgia to the missing Universe debate; an article published at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1 discusses how “dark matter” is still nowhere to be found.

If astronomers are correct in that only 4% of the known visible universe is made up of ordinary matter, with the rest being made up of dark matter and or dark energy {which is responsible for the universe’s expansion}, then one might sensibly ask, where is the rest of the missing matter? Or is it missing?

It is good to debate, discuss and form hypothesis, as this keeps people thinking; though to describe dark matter in scientific journals as though it was “real” as normal matter that we can see and touch, is stretching it a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for debates, discussions and hypothesis, but also, there is nothing wrong in saying: “we don’t know” where the rest of the missing matter is.

Continue reading

Comments Off on One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Filed under NatSci