1 2
21 22 23
30 31
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
If marshmallow is put in an airtight container and air is sucked out of the container, does the marshmallow a) shrink, b) expand, or c) stay the same, and why?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
This video shows how much it takes for light to travel from the Sun to Jupiter... but of course from a completely Newtonian point of view. Relativity is not taken into account in any way. Never mind what it would look like. I'm, however, interested in the actual times. Light takes approximately 8 minutes 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to Earth... from our point of view. From the photon's own point of view it takes 0 seconds. So I was thinking: At what speed would you need to travel so that, from your own point of view, it takes you 8 minutes 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth? (To simplify the calculations, let's just assume special relativity, unless someone is really willing to go to GR.)
Amaraticando
It/Its
Editor, Player (159)
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 673
Location: Brazil
The time dilatation dilation formula is: T' = T/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²), where T' is the time measured by someone on Earth and T the proper time. In this example, the proper time is D/c, where D is the distance Sun-Earth. So: D/v = (D/c)/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²) c/v = 1/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²) sqrt(1 - v²/c²) = v/c 1 - v²/c² = v²/c² 2v² = c² v = c/sqrt(2) This holds for all distances. PS: awesome video!
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (761)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Amaraticando wrote:
The time dilatation dilation formula is: T' = T/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²), where T' is the time measured by someone on Earth and T the proper time. In this example, the proper time is D/c, where D is the distance Sun-Earth. So: D/v = (D/c)/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²) c/v = 1/ sqrt(1 - v²/c²) sqrt(1 - v²/c²) = v/c 1 - v²/c² = v²/c² 2v² = c² v = c/sqrt(2) This holds for all distances.
That starts well but goes horribly wrong after the first equation. The second equation should be this: (D/v) = T' / sqrt(1 - v²/c²) Here, D is the Earth-Sun distance in the reference frame of the Earth, v your speed in this same reference frame, and (D/v) is how much time you take to cover that distance in the same reference frame. D is given (Earth-Sun distance), T' is given (8 minutes 20 seconds), v is the desired unknown. Solving for v gives an equation; plugging the given values in it gives the same answer Amaraticando found — but only for this specific distance with this specific proper time. Change to another distance, or to a different proper time, and you get a different value for v. The root of Amaraticando's mistake is that the proper time is not D/c.
Marzo Junior
Amaraticando
It/Its
Editor, Player (159)
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 673
Location: Brazil
marzojr wrote:
That starts well but goes horribly wrong after the first equation. The second equation should be this: (D/v) = T' / sqrt(1 - v²/c²) Here, D is the Earth-Sun distance in the reference frame of the Earth, v your speed in this same reference frame, and (D/v) is how much time you take to cover that distance in the same reference frame. D is given (Earth-Sun distance), T' is given (8 minutes 20 seconds), v is the desired unknown.
8:20 is the proper time that the traveller must measure. Warp choose this value because it's the time that light takes to travel from the Sun until the Earth, as measured by someone on Earth. Therefore, T = 8:20 = D/c
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (761)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Amaraticando wrote:
8:20 is the proper time that the traveller must measure. Warp choose this value because it's the time that light takes to travel from the Sun until the Earth, as measured by someone on Earth. Therefore, T = 8:20 = D/c
Hm. I started to write a post in reply; but the more I thought about it, the more I realize that you are correct. So the post was scrapped. As it turns out, we both solved different versions of Warp's problem: You: "given one reference frame, how fast does someone have to travel relative to it such that his proper time is equal to the time light takes to perform the same journey"; Me: "given one reference frame, how fast does someone have to travel to go through a given journey as fast as light takes to go through another given journey". I ended up going too broad in my interpretation, so much so that it led me to reject your conclusion as too general; instead, it is perfectly accurate for the problem you considered. This is an overlong way of saying "sorry", by the way. And damn, I am getting rusty...
Marzo Junior
EgixBacon
He/Him
Player (184)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Vsauce's "Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?" Somewhere near the end of the video, Michael puts forward the idea that our universe may be "a simulation created by some other intelligent species", but then proceeds to point out that a possible dismissal for this could be the existence of irrational numbers. However, I myself have my own theories as to why this "simulation" may not be possible: - Does this mean that there is another, different universe exterior to our own? Is it a 4-dimensional universe? - If so, how large is the computer running the simulation? Is it perhaps several times larger than our 'observable' universe? - How is the computer actually able to simulate a universe with ~10^80 atoms, each consisting of a number of quarks and electrons, at a step rate of (1/tP) step/second, where tP = Planck time? - Now, let us make some assuumptions: 1. Hydrogen is by far the most abundant element in the universe, so for ease of calculation we will approximate that the universe consists of 10^80 hydrogen-1 atoms. This comes out as 4*10^80 particles to simulate (each atom consisting of three quarks, and one electron.) 2. The computer acts as a Laplace's Demon, advancing the simulation based on the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe. Because position and velocity are vectors, they could be internally represented as six addresses for each particle, or 24 for each atom. 3. Assuming that the computer represents data as 64-bit double-precision floating point, the amount of RAM required would be 6 * (4E+80) * 64 = 1.536*10^83 bits. Unless the 'exterior universe' the computer exists in has its own shortest measurable time, even shorter than tP, it would be impossible to manipulate this many bits in one Planck time. Tell me what you think, guys.
FanFiction|Youtube Still on Win7! Take that, Microsoft!
Joined: 2/19/2010
Posts: 248
Given we know nothing about this universe which contains the simulator of our universe, what makes you think 10^83 bits is "too much"? Eg if it were an 83-dimensional universe, that would "just" require a hypercube of data storage with a length of 10 1-bit storage units on each side. Also, there's no reason that our time has to have any relationship with the time in the simulator's universe. For the same reason that emulators can record at one frame per hour but play back at 29.97 frames per second. If the emulator ran slowly, we wouldn't notice it, because our perception would slow down at the same rate as the rest of our observable universe.
Amaraticando
It/Its
Editor, Player (159)
Joined: 1/10/2012
Posts: 673
Location: Brazil
EgxHB wrote:
but then proceeds to point out that a possible dismissal for this could be the existence of irrational numbers.
The only part that I didn't agree is this. What the irrationality of pi, for instance, has to do with it? This happens to be a theorem, with no relationship with reality. Pi would still be irrational, even if no computers can store all its digits.
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4124)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
EgxHB wrote:
Unless the 'exterior universe' the computer exists in has its own shortest measurable time, even shorter than tP, it would be impossible to manipulate this many bits in one Planck time.
Not withstanding the assumption that time in the exterior universe functions the same as time does in our universe, this assumes that the simulation necessarily runs in real time (from our point of view). There's no real reason to assume that needs to be the case. (A point of note: if the simulation does run at 'real time' pace, and time works the same in their universe, it would have been running for over 13 billion years. Must be some really patient species if they're still doing anything with it. Or they just forgot to shut it down. This is assuming that they didn't set up the whole universe like some Last Thursdayism-based thing, but that is also impractical because it would require ludicrous amounts of setup). Even if it would run at real time, the assumption that it is 'impossible' seems based on physical constraints that do not necessarily apply in the exterior universe. Really, with the exterior universe's properties being as much undefined as they are, practically anything would be possible.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa <dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects. <Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits <adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
There is no necessity for the simulation to run in real-time or slower. It can also run faster, exactly like an emulator can run the game slower, in real-time or faster than the original console. (This is assuming that the "meta-universe" where this simulation is running even has the same concept of "time" as we do. It's not completely out of the realm of conceptuality that what we perceive as "time" is also an artificial simulation, and there is no such thing in the simulating universe.)
EgixBacon
He/Him
Player (184)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Mothrayas wrote:
Not withstanding the assumption that time in the exterior universe functions the same as time does in our universe, this assumes that the simulation necessarily runs in real time (from our point of view). There's no real reason to assume that needs to be the case. (...) Even if it would run at real time, the assumption that it is 'impossible' seems based on physical constraints that do not necessarily apply in the exterior universe. Really, with the exterior universe's properties being as much undefined as they are, practically anything would be possible.
So, in a nutshell, the time taken to compute the simulation is irrelevant? Hm, okay.
FanFiction|Youtube Still on Win7! Take that, Microsoft!
Post subject: Physics homework help?
EgixBacon
He/Him
Player (184)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
"For a body subject to a central force, Newton's equations for the radial and transverse components of the acceleration reduce to: r'' - r(theta')2 = f(r), r2 theta' = L, where f(r) is the force per unit mass, and L is the angular momentum (constant). [Where I've put ', it means d/dt] a) If u = 1/r, show that r' = -L (du/dtheta) r'' = -L2u2 (d2u / dtheta2) b) Show that Newton's equations reduce to the following ODE for u, (d2u / dtheta2) + u = -f(1/u)/L2u2" I'm stuck on this question on a physics assignment. Anyone know how I should approach this one?
FanFiction|Youtube Still on Win7! Take that, Microsoft!
Active player (500)
Joined: 11/19/2007
Posts: 128
It's probably too late now, but this looks like a simple exercise using the chain rule. If u = 1/r then u' = -1/r^2 * r'. You can then use u' = du/dtheta * theta' and the 2nd equation to write theta' in terms of L and r. Finding r'' should be pretty similar and part b should follow from just substituting what you have into the original equation.
EgixBacon
He/Him
Player (184)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
NxCy wrote:
It's probably too late now, but this looks like a simple exercise using the chain rule. If u = 1/r then u' = -1/r^2 * r'. You can then use u' = du/dtheta * theta' and the 2nd equation to write theta' in terms of L and r. Finding r'' should be pretty similar and part b should follow from just substituting what you have into the original equation.
Thank you. I'll fill it in before I have to submit it tomorrow.
FanFiction|Youtube Still on Win7! Take that, Microsoft!
Skilled player (1741)
Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 4981
Location: ̶C̶a̶n̶a̶d̶a̶ "Kanatah"
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malament%E2%80%93Hogarth_spacetime
Since \lambda lies in p's past, the Turing machine can signal (a solution) to p at any stage of this never-ending task. Meanwhile, the observer takes a quick trip (finite proper time) through spacetime to p, to pick up the solution.
If every stage completed had a timestamp, what would the end timestamp be?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Conservation of angular momentum has the consequence that if you shrink a rotating object (all other parameters remaining the same), it will start rotating proportionately faster (so that angular momentum is preserved). A (rotating) star that collapses into a black hole becomes zero-sized. By this logic it would rotate at infinite speed. Yet that doesn't happen. It will still rotate at a finite speed. Is the reason that the singularity actually becomes a ring rather than a point? (Which makes me think: Does it become a ring because of conservation of angular momentum?)
z1mb0bw4y
She/Her
Joined: 11/26/2012
Posts: 70
Warp wrote:
Conservation of angular momentum has the consequence that if you shrink a rotating object (all other parameters remaining the same), it will start rotating proportionately faster (so that angular momentum is preserved). A (rotating) star that collapses into a black hole becomes zero-sized. By this logic it would rotate at infinite speed. Yet that doesn't happen. It will still rotate at a finite speed. Is the reason that the singularity actually becomes a ring rather than a point? (Which makes me think: Does it become a ring because of conservation of angular momentum?)
Not to be lame, but to quote wikipedia: "At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[55] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[56] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[57] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." I would suspect that it would have to form a ring of zero volume, such that the mass is distributed away from the axis of rotation. Otherwise, as you stated, conservation of angular momentum would be violated. I'd imagine there's some ugly nice equation that can be solved to determine the radius of the ring, if you're given some other parameters about the black hole.
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (761)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Tecnically speaking, the ring singularity appears on stationary solutions; that is, the ring singularly exists from -infinity to +infinity, amd there is no dynamic solution showing the collapse of a rotating star into a rotating (Kerr) black hole. However, numerical simulations do exist, and they show collapse going towards an oblate intermediate form. But things inside the event horizon tend not to be modeled because they tend to crashnthe simulation or cause severe numerical stability problems. Whether the singularity would end up as a ring or as a disc is harder to say. Moreover, it is likely there will be a lot of angular momentum and mass lost through gravitational waves during the collapse, so they can't be assumed constant. Finally, the radius of the ring singularity of a rotating uncharged black hole is actually quite simple — it is equal to its angular momentum divided by (mass times speed of light).
Marzo Junior
Mitjitsu
He/Him
Banned User
Joined: 4/24/2006
Posts: 2997
I thought black holes originate from an imploded star. Stars far bigger than our own sun. There is a limit to a black holes density, as you can only pack atoms together so tightly that there is no spaces between them. However, the center of a black hole cannot have an infinite pull. Otherwise the entire cosmos would have been sucked in by now.
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2630
Mitjitsu wrote:
There is a limit to a black holes density, as you can only pack atoms together so tightly that there is no spaces between them.
Yes, there is, it's called electron-degenerate matter. That's what white dwarfs are made out of. When a white dwarf becomes so large it passes what's called the Chandrasekhar limit, atoms are pulled by gravity so tightly that they overcome the electrical repulsion between atoms. The electrons are absorbed by the protons and the entire star becomes as tightly packed as a nucleus instead of closely packed atoms, neutron-degenerate matter, and that's a neutron star. As a neutron star gets more massive it actually shrinks because of different states of nuclear matter, which are not well understood. It's speculated that the next stop is quark degenerate matter. But once it larger than the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, it overcomes even this limit and collapses further, we don't know what actually happens after this, or if there is another type of degenerate matter past quark or neutron degenerate matter. But it's speculated that there isn't anything stopping a collapse to a singularity. At some point, it passes the Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole, and we can't actually find out what its made out of.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Mitjitsu wrote:
However, the center of a black hole cannot have an infinite pull. Otherwise the entire cosmos would have been sucked in by now.
The gravity (outside) of an object depends only on its mass, not on its size. Just because you compress the object to be zero-sized doesn't change its mass, and thus doesn't change its gravity. If our Sun where to be right now compressed to zero size, not much would happen in terms of its gravity and planetary orbits. They would still be the same. The difference comes when you approach this new Sun, and become closer to it than its original surface. The closer you get to it, the stronger the gravity now. (That wouldn't happen with an uncollapsed Sun because once you get inside it, more and more of its mass will be above you, which means that as you approach the center, gravity lessens.) As you approach a singularity, the gravity approaches infinity. At the singularity itself reality breaks (barring some possible quantum effects that we don't yet understand).
z1mb0bw4y
She/Her
Joined: 11/26/2012
Posts: 70
marzojr wrote:
Tecnically speaking, the ring singularity appears on stationary solutions; that is, the ring singularly exists from -infinity to +infinity, amd there is no dynamic solution showing the collapse of a rotating star into a rotating (Kerr) black hole. However, numerical simulations do exist, and they show collapse going towards an oblate intermediate form. But things inside the event horizon tend not to be modeled because they tend to crashnthe simulation or cause severe numerical stability problems. Whether the singularity would end up as a ring or as a disc is harder to say. Moreover, it is likely there will be a lot of angular momentum and mass lost through gravitational waves during the collapse, so they can't be assumed constant. Finally, the radius of the ring singularity of a rotating uncharged black hole is actually quite simple — it is equal to its angular momentum divided by (mass times speed of light).
This is what I get for trying to guess at stuff with an undergrad degree lol.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Is mass evenly distributed in a ring singularity? If it weren't would it become evenly divided (and why would it)?
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (761)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
The known solutions for rotating black holes are all obtained by postulating cylindrical symmetry; stationary solutions also postulate translational symmetry on time. Thus, the ring singularity has a uniform matter distribution by construction, and it does not change over time. Whether this would be true for the singularities of collapsed stars is unknown because of the issues I mentioned above. That said, it is likely that irregularities would be radiated away during collapse.
Marzo Junior
1 2
21 22 23
30 31