149 replies to this topic

[Red Phazon]

I don't see why "half" should loose meaning. Half of what? Space-time or mass/energy? Please explain.

*Confused*

[Russ]

I don't see why "half" should loose meaning. Half of what? Space-time or mass/energy? Please explain.

*Confused*

You can get down to a point so small that no measurement will fit into the space. There, half should theoretically lose it's meaning.

[Eurysilas]

I'm not far enough in my physics learning to answer this question, but are atoms really indivisible in that way?

No, Atoms aren't. We've proven quite definitively that they are divisible into sub-atomic particles (electrons, neutrons, protons), and those sub-atomic particles into "sub-sub-atomic" particles (quarks). But what we don't know is if it stops there. Are quarks truly the indivisible particles that the Greeks considered the atom to be? I personally think not, and that, once you get small enough, conventional matter might become irrelevant. Thus, if matter is irrelevant, such terms as "half" might be so too. But there I think we're getting beyond terms the mind can understand.

What about in terms of energy?

There I'd have to bow out of the argument, though I believe I know what you're referring to (matter = energy?). I never did get that relationship.

[Red Phazon]

You can get down to a point so small that no measurement will fit into the space. There, half should theoretically lose it's meaning.

No measurement will fit into space? Are you talking infinite space? Like a black hole? Explain more.

No, Atoms aren't. We've proven quite definitively that they are divisible into sub-atomic particles (electrons, neutrons, protons), and those sub-atomic particles into "sub-sub-atomic" particles (quarks). But what we don't know is if it stops there. Are quarks truly the indivisible particles that the Greeks considered the atom to be? I personally think not, and that, once you get small enough, conventional matter might become irrelevant. Thus, if matter is irrelevant, such terms as "half" might be so too. But there I think we're getting beyond terms the mind can understand.

I also think that matter can be divided further, but maybe I don't know/understand enough to understand why matter would be irrelevant based on how much of it there is. Maybe after I get into more complex math. Also, my friend told me this, if two subatomic particles (don't remember which) collide at a certain high speed, the matter will be transformed into gamma rays. I've only just begun learning about nuclear physics, just the basics, so I can't really say anything beyond that, but if that's true then there's an amount of energy that can be divided up into halves.

There I'd have to bow out of the argument, though I believe I know what you're referring to (matter = energy?). I never did get that relationship.

Yes, energy = mass. My physics teacher once told me that (I don't know if this was his theory or if this is what is accepted) space and energy are reciprocals and so are time and momentum. The second I understand less but you can kind of see the connection there right? This took some time to straighten out in my head.

[Russ]

Yes, energy = mass. My physics teacher once told me that (I don't know if this was his theory or if this is what is accepted) space and energy are reciprocals and so are time and momentum. The second I understand less but you can kind of see the connection there right? This took some time to straighten out in my head.

I believe Einstein proved that mass can be thought of as another form of energy.

[Red Phazon]

Not just thought of as another form of energy. Mass is actually equal to energy, which I tried to explain in a different way. (E=MC^2) Matter can become energy and not just posses it, as in the second part of my previous post. But yeah, you're basically correct.

[Rocksfan13]

Since we're on the discussion of energy and mass, the topic of Black holes and their blazars have appeared in Yahoo news.
Apparently astronomers were able to see one that really caught their attention.
Here's the article.
Feel free to discuss your thoughts.

[Russ]

Wow, interesting. So know we know that escape from a black hole is possible, somewhat.

[trucky5]

No, actually it isn't. Those beams being shot out is light and dust particles being blasted away from the black hole. I'm pretty sure the light is from all of the energy from mass atoms being ripped apart. So you wouldn't escape, just get torn apart.

[Siguy]

You're both wrong.

I can offer a more reasonable explanation soon, but I don't have time. >.<

[trucky5]

Yay! I was actually hoping I was wrong, because I don't exactly remember what it is and I am too lazy to look it up myself.

[Red Phazon]

The charged matter swirling in an accretion disk around the spinning black hole gets picked up by the perpendicular magnetic field and gets shot out at one of the poles depending on its charge. The wild shape of the field (due to spin and/or gravity?) launches the particles at those extremely high speeds. Is that close?

I didn't actually read that anywhere about the jets, but I did do an 8 page research report on black holes and AGN last year, and that's my theory until Siguy explains this phenomena... or I read about it.

[Rocksfan13]

Been a while but, in the news....

A younger supernova reminant was found in Sagittarius.

Here's part of the article.

About 140 years ago, our time, a stellar explosion lit up our galaxy with a blinding flash of light, sending out powerful shock waves to boot. Now, astronomers have spotted the youthful remains from the explosion. The newly discovered remains mark the youngest known supernova remnant in the Milky Way, snagging the record from the previous holder, 330-year-old Cassiopeia A.

I only wish I was around when this was visible. Wow. What a sight it would have been.

Here's the full article.

And here's one on how they plan on using ocean and water currents to power the planet.
It's simply remarkable. There's where your future lies people.

[Siguy]

I only wish I was around when this was visible. Wow. What a sight it would have been.

Meh. That particular remnant is buried deep within gas and dust in the Milky Way. It wouldn't have appeared very bright at all, probably as inconspicuous as a typical nova, explaining why no astronomers of the period noted it. There have been no observed supernovae (within our own galaxy) since the invention of the telescope, the closest was in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) in 1987. This was known as SN 1987A and was just barely visible with the naked eye. But many supernovae are discovered in other galaxies each year. Most discovered by amateur astronomers.

[AaronJer]

Y'all gotta remember that almost everything we 'know' about black holes is still theory. The only thing that is sufficiently proven is that they're really, really heavy. Other than that we have theories going every which way about how they function and whether or not anything can escape from them. Some theories state that nothing escapes, another theory states that they leak 'hawking radiation'. But we definitely don't know for sure in any direction. You can't really declare people are wrong on something that is still entirely theoretical.