Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

Hello CraigD

 

You said

Pluto, can you back up this claim with links or references? Can you provide an example of light being affected by electromagnetic force? Are you perhaps misunderstanding basic physics?

 

I'm very supprised at your statement. What do you want me to do, explain the physics behind it.

 

One on of the main influences of electromagnetic forces is the Z-pinch.

 

=================================================

 

I'm reading through these papers as we speak

 

[gr-qc/0503104] Electromagnetic radiation due to naked singularity formation in self-similar gravitational collapse

Electromagnetic radiation due to naked singularity formation in self-similar gravitational collapse

 

[astro-ph/0505394] Finding the Electromagnetic Counterparts of Cosmological Standard Sirens

Finding the Electromagnetic Counterparts of Cosmological Standard Sirens

 

[astro-ph/0605624] On the search of electromagnetic cosmological counterparts to coalescences of massive black hole binaries

On the search of electromagnetic cosmological counterparts to coalescences of massive black hole binaries

 

[astro-ph/0608412] Effect of charge on negative-phase-velocity propagation of electromagnetic waves in the ergosphere of a rotating black hole

Effect of charge on negative-phase-velocity propagation of electromagnetic waves in the ergosphere of a rotating black hole

 

[astro-ph/0609766] Electromagnetic Signatures of Massive Black Hole Binaries

Electromagnetic Signatures of Massive Black Hole Binaries

 

[0705.3551] Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon

Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon

 

[0801.1423] Linear Waves in the Kerr Geometry: A Mathematical Voyage to Black Hole Physics

Linear Waves in the Kerr Geometry: A Mathematical Voyage to Black Hole Physics

 

[0802.0951] Disk illumination by black hole superradiance of electromagnetic perturbations

Disk illumination by black hole superradiance of electromagnetic perturbations

 

 

oops forgot this one

 

[hep-th/0008068] Electromagnetic scattering on D3-brane spikes

Electromagnetic scattering on D3-brane spikes

[Mike C]

I’m aware of no theoretical prediction or observed data – basic or otherwise - suggesting that electromagnetic forces can have any effect on light, or any other elementary particle with zero charge.

 

Pluto, can you back up this claim with links or references? Can you provide an example of light being affected by electromagnetic force? Are you perhaps misunderstanding basic physics?

 

Craig

 

My own personal opinion is that magnetic fields could bend a light beam depending on its orientation relative the the two fields.

 

Electric fields transmit the photons and in my opinion, these photons are 'condensed'' field particles that have an electric charge that would be negative.

So passing through a magnetic field created by gravity, this magnetic field would bend the photon ever so slightly.

Proof? Electrons passing through a magnetic field will have their trajectory bent.

This is known basuc physics.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

Hello CraigD

 

Please explain how the so called black holes prevent light and other electromagnetic radiation from escaping.

 

Gravity.

[freeztar]

Proof? Electrons passing through a magnetic field will have their trajectory bent.

This is known basuc physics.

 

Electrons are not elementary particles with zero charge, so of course they are affected by magnetic fields. Electrons are not the same as photons.

[CraigD]

I’m aware of no theoretical prediction or observed data – basic or otherwise - suggesting that electromagnetic forces can have any effect on light, or any other elementary particle with zero charge.

 

Pluto, can you back up this claim with links or references? Can you provide an example of light being affected by electromagnetic force? Are you perhaps misunderstanding basic physics?

I'm very supprised at your statement. What do you want me to do, explain the physics behind it.

I’m surprised at your surprise. :hihi: The first and arguably most important hypography site rule is

In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

It’s important because it’s easy to be wrong when making scientific claims. The best, though not a foolproof way to avoid this is to always back up your claims with a link to a website supporting it with a thorough, understandable explanation. Most of the time, this exercise will prevent you from making obvious mistakes, as when you try to back them up, you’ll discover not supporting references, but explanations of why you’re wrong.

 

In the case of your original claim

Science needs to go back to basics and look at the properties and workings of stars and galaxies, in particular compact matter that is able to create electromagnetic forces that prevent light from escaping.

unless you’ve a very exotic and generally unheard of reference or explanation, the claim that light can be prevented from escaping from a volume of space, or have its path changed in any way, by electromagnetic forces, is simply wrong. The electromagnetic force, though (according to the Standard Model) carried by photons, does not affect photons. A beam of light can be passed through the strongest magnetic fields with no change whatever to its path or travel time.

One on of the main influences of electromagnetic forces is the Z-pinch.

A Z-pinch device is one that uses an electric current - moving electrons - to generate a magnetic field to “pinch” (compress) a plasma of charged particles – primarily protons and electrons – increasing its density and temperature. It works because the particles in the plasma have charge. If the plasma were replaced with beams of light, they’d not be even slightly effected by the device’s magnetic force.

Please explain how the so called black holes prevent light and other electromagnetic radiation from escaping.

Short, simple answer: gravity.

 

Unlike electromagnetic force, gravity interacts with particles with zero charge, including photons.

 

Though it has a provisional name for the particle carrying gravity - the graviton - the Standard Model has yet to be successfully modified to include gravity. Gravity is one of the great, arguably the greatest, outstanding challenges of particle physics.

I'm reading through these papers as we speak …

Although the many preprints you reference all appear to describe light and gravity, none of them appear to support the claim that a magnetic field can alter the path of a photon.

 

Simply put, the claim is, by the most basic to the most advanced physics, simply wrong. :shrug:

[Pluto]

G'day all

 

Gravity maybe the answer, than explain gravity or is it the unification of the forces.

 

The jet stream ejected from the so called black hole has electromagnetic fields that keep the properties of the jet stable for millions of years.

[Moontanman]

G'day all

 

Gravity maybe the answer, than explain gravity or is it the unification of the forces.

 

The jet stream ejected from the so called black hole has electromagnetic fields that keep the properties of the jet stable for millions of years.

 

Pluto, I want to ask a question to try and understand your ideas here, you do understand that the jets associated with black holes does not represent matter being ejected from a black hole, right? The matter being accelerated from the vicinity of a black hole is matter torn apart by the intense gravity and electromagnetic effects associated with the black hole not by matter actually being ejected from a black hole. If a black hole doesn't have an inflow of matter it cannot have the jets emerging from it's poles.

[coldcreation]

What about Hawking radiation?

 

Smaller 'micro' black holes [MBHs] are currently predicted by theory to be larger net emitters of radiation than larger black holes' date=' and to shrink and evaporate faster.[/quote']

[Moontanman]

What about Hawking radiation?

 

Hawking radiation isn't part of the jets from black holes phenomenom, Hawking radiation is only a large part of radiation from mini black holes. A really tiny black hole would radiate so fast it would be brighter than a star and would be deadly to aproach closely. The smaller a black hole is the faster it radiates and evaporates.

[CraigD]

My own personal opinion is that magnetic fields could bend a light beam depending on its orientation relative the the two fields.

This is an easily testable prediction. Just shine a laser pointer on your wall, and hold an ordinary bar or horseshoe magnet various places near the beam, and see if the dot on the wall moves.

 

Given the decreasing commonness of CRT televisions and computer monitors, it’s a bit less easy to demonstrate the deflection of an electron beam, but if you still have such a device, you can easily demonstrate it by holding the same magnet near the edge of the screen, and observing the distortion of the picture. Precisely controlled electromagnets are how images are formed on the phosphorescent screen of a CTR monitor or television set.

Electric fields transmit the photons…

According to the Standard Model, electromagnetic fields are photons. Photons are not charged particles contained by magnetic fields.

 

… and in my opinion, these photons are 'condensed'' field particles that have an electric charge that would be negative.

So passing through a magnetic field created by gravity, this magnetic field would bend the photon ever so slightly.

As described above, if this were the case, it should be experimentally verifiable, not something that need be accepted on opinion or faith. However, despite the ease with which such experiments can and have been done, no such effect has, to the best of my knowledge, been observed.

Proof? Electrons passing through a magnetic field will have their trajectory bent.

This is known basuc physics.

As mentioned up thread, it is basic and easily demonstrated that charged particles, such as electrons, have their paths deflected.

 

Mike, if you can cite any experiment supporting your claims (either links, references, or your own experiments), please do. Nearly everyone with even an undergraduate experimental physics background, including myself, has performed numerous experiments contradicting them.

 

:) As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data.

[Mike C]

Electrons are not elementary particles with zero charge, so of course they are affected by magnetic fields. Electrons are not the same as photons.

 

Electrons ARE elementary particles that contain the coulomb negative charge (force).

 

Granted, I never said electrons were the same as photons. But photons move through the electric fields that surround the electrons.

 

I wrote an article on the Creation of Photons. I transformed these fields as composed of Real Field Partcles rather than the current theory that portrays them as 'virtual particles'.

The reason is obvious. The fields that surround the electrons are REAL

I wrote that the photons are 'condensed negative field particles'.

So they have charge as well as momentum. Proof?

They can BUMB an electron into outer orbits as happens in the hydrogen atom. This could NOT happen if these photons had no charge. Their charge is the 'condensed' field particles.

Of course, these are my own opinions but they are based on real basic physics.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

This is an easily testable prediction. Just shine a laser pointer on your wall, and hold an ordinary bar or horseshoe magnet various places near the beam, and see if the dot on the wall moves.

 

I have had this told to me before.

My conclusion is that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending because of this.

 

Given the decreasing commonness of CRT televisions and computer monitors, it’s a bit less easy to demonstrate the deflection of an electron beam, but if you still have such a device, you can easily demonstrate it by holding the same magnet near the edge of the screen, and observing the distortion of the picture. Precisely controlled electromagnets are how images are formed on the phosphorescent screen of a CTR monitor or television set.According to the Standard Model, electromagnetic fields are photons. Photons are not charged particles contained by magnetic fields.

 

As described above, if this were the case, it should be experimentally verifiable, not something that need be accepted on opinion or faith. However, despite the ease with which such experiments can and have been done, no such effect has, to the best of my knowledge, been observed.As mentioned up thread, it is basic and easily demonstrated that charged particles, such as electrons, have their paths deflected.

 

Mike, if you can cite any experiment supporting your claims (either links, references, or your own experiments), please do. Nearly everyone with even an undergraduate experimental physics background, including myself, has performed numerous experiments contradicting them.

 

:D As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data.

 

I am aware of the workings of TVs and electronics in general.

I am also aware of the current teachings of the science that portrays current in 'solid state electronics' as moving from positive to negative.

This is 'wrong'.

You have both positive and negative currents in liquids and gases but only 'one' current in SSE and that is from negative to positive...

So why hasn't this error been corrected?

Power science is opiniated.

 

I may appear to be opiniated but I am a follower of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newtom, Planck and Bohr as far as Cosmology is concerned.

 

Einsteins science preceded the obsevations and experiments rather than following it. Math is just a sub science that follows the real science as mentioned above by the real scientists.

That is why I do not give Einstein much credinility.

 

I hope you can understand this.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

My conclusion is that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending because of this.

 

Conclusion? Based on what? Shouldn't a conclusion be based on conclusive evidence?

[freeztar]

Electrons ARE elementary particles that contain the coulomb negative charge (force).

 

And hence, are not zero-charge.

 

wrote an article on the Creation of Photons. I transformed these fields as composed of Real Field Partcles rather than the current theory that portrays them as 'virtual particles'.

The reason is obvious. The fields that surround the electrons are REAL

I wrote that the photons are 'condensed negative field particles'.

So they have charge as well as momentum. Proof?

They can BUMB an electron into outer orbits as happens in the hydrogen atom. This could NOT happen if these photons had no charge. Their charge is the 'condensed' field particles.

 

From what I understand, it's the energy of a photon that bumps the electrons. No mysterious charge needed.

 

Of course, these are my own opinions but they are based on real basic physics.

 

Real physics does not involve opinions. As Craig stated a few posts back: "As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data."

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Moontanman said

 

Pluto, I want to ask a question to try and understand your ideas here, you do understand that the jets associated with black holes does not represent matter being ejected from a black hole, right? The matter being accelerated from the vicinity of a black hole is matter torn apart by the intense gravity and electromagnetic effects associated with the black hole not by matter actually being ejected from a black hole. If a black hole doesn't have an inflow of matter it cannot have the jets emerging from it's poles.

 

Mainstream agrees with you.

 

But! bottom line is nobody knows.

 

If all matter is collected into the so called black hole than we have a problem. Black holes get bigger and bigger, than what happens to the evolution of galaxies that are directly related to the size and activity of the black hole.

 

I'm of the opinion that matter in combination with infalling and black hole activity is ejected.

 

The other question is , what drives the jet at close to the speed of light and why is it not effected by the gravity of the black hole.

 

I'm looking at the potential of the Z-pinch, to explain the driving force.

 

I will have to come back to you on that and support my ideas. Until than go with mainstream.

 

 

===================================================

 

[CM1.004] Theory and Simulations of the Origin of Astrophysical Jets

 

R.V.E. Lovelace, P.R. Gandhi, M.M. Romanova (Cornell University)

 

Powerful radio, and in some cases optical and gamma ray, emitting jets are observed to emanate from many compact accreting objects, from stellar mass black holes to super massive black holes in galactic nuclei. The jets are widely thought to arise from the twisting of an ordered magnetic field threading a differentially rotating accretion disk which acts to magnetically extract angular momentum and energy from the disk. Two main regimes have been discussed, hydromagnetic jets, which have a significant mass flux and have energy and angular momentum carried by both matter and electromagnetic field and, Poynting jets, where the mass flux is small and energy and angular momentum are carried predominantly by the electromagnetic field. Here, we describe recent theoretical work on the formation of Poynting jets from magnetized accretion disks. Further, we describe new relativistic, fully-electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of the formation of jets from accretion disks. Laboratory Z-pinch experiments promise to further our understanding of the origin and nature of astrophysical jets.

 

Theory and Simulations of the Origin of Astrophysical Jets

 

 

==================================================

 

What is the unkown factor?

[CraigD]

This is an easily testable prediction. Just shine a laser pointer on your wall, and hold an ordinary bar or horseshoe magnet various places near the beam, and see if the dot on the wall moves.

I have had this told to me before.

My conclusion is that the velocity of light is so great as to avoid any detectable bending because of this.

The speed of light and energy of photons is precisely known, so this claim is an (moderately ;)) easy one to design and conduct an experiment to test.

 

The electron gun in a typical CRT accelerates its electrons to about 0.1 c.

The mass of an electron at this speed is about the same as its rest mass of about [math]9.11 \times 10^{-31} \,\mbox{kg}[/math].

The equivalent relativistic mass of a photon of a typical red laser pointer is [math]\frac{h}{c \cdot 650 \,\mbox{nm}} = 3.4 \times 10^{-36} \,\mbox{kg}[/math].

 

The lateral velocity given to a one-electron charge particle passing though a constant-voltage deflection field of a CRT is directly proportional to the time it spends between the deflection coils or plates, so inversely proportional to its speed, and inversely proportional to the particles mass. The deflection distance from the center of the screen is directly proportional the its lateral speed and the time it spends reaching the screen. So the deflection amount is inversely proportional to the square of the speed of the particle and its mass ([math]d = \frac{k}{v^2 m}[/math]). Using the ratio of mass and speed of a laser pointer photon and a typical CRT electron, we can find how the distance a photon would be deflected if it had the charge of an electron compared to how far a CRT’s electron is deflected without calculate [math]k[/math].

 

[math]\frac{d_\lambda}{d_e} = \frac{v_e^2 m_e}{c^2 m_\lambda} = \frac{0.1^2 \cdot 9.11 \times 10^{-31}}{1^2 \cdot 3.4 \times 10^{-36}} \dot= 2680[/math]

 

So we’d expect a typical photon to be deflected several thousand times the distance of a typical CRT electron.

 

Relating this to the materials I have on hand:

• A red laser pointer
  
• Some pretty strong magnet, estimated 0.001 T as closely as I can position 2 of them around the laser beam, compared to about 0.1 T for the magnetic yoke of a typical TV.
  
• Lots of available distance between the magnets and the wall – about 2 m without moving my table, compared to about 0.2 m between the yoke and the screen on a typical TV.
  

All together, I should expect to be able to deflect my laser about 30 times the width of a TV screen - completely off the wall.

 

Doing the experiment, however, I can’t detect any deflection at all, other than a slight jiggle that occurs when I lean over to adjust the laser pointer, magnets, paper and tape holding them all together, which disappears when I hold still. I’m on a plywood vs. a massive concrete slab floor, so such jiggling is common – jumping up and down in the middle of my floor can visibly shake various decorative hangings around the room, and my laser pointer on a table is much more sensitive.

 

For Mike’s “photons have charge” hypothesis to survive this simple experiment, the charge of a photon would have to be a very small fraction of that of the electron. Mike, is this the case? :QuestionM

 

There are many good sources outlining the calculations needed for this experiment, such as this one.

[Mike C]

Conclusion? Based on what? Shouldn't a conclusion be based on conclusive evidence?

 

My conclusion is that the light beam in question is a series of photons. So the visible photons are very short (about 5^-7 meters) that they would not be passing through a field that could/would bend them and because of their velocity.

 

Mike C