An epiphany that needs disproving

[mmmcannibalism]

Is it possible the base unit of matter is a type of energy we havent discovered yet? That could account for how it is not divisible

 

 

 

I just have to go on their being a basic particle, or realize that if there isnt we will keep breaking down matter till we go extinct so it doesnt matter whether there is an end or not.

[Giordano]

Is it possible the base unit of matter is a type of energy we havent discovered yet? That could account for how it is not divisible

 

 

It's what I think. Originally it was just the atom...now its quarks. Then its.........

[Laura]

Which is why I theorized quite awhile ago, that the smallest unit in any specific particle is pure energy.

[Sbrideau]

<< Quote snip >>

 

No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured.

 

 

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-black-holes/

 

 

 

As for the OP, just because what you know now seems to indicate a pattern doesn't mean it holds true forever - assuming quarks weren't the smallest component, we can assume SOMETHING is. Matter isn't infinity divisible; for an example look at the string theory. As stated before, unless your a team of physicists arguing or wondering about it won't really result in anything meaningful.

 

 

 

Don't look at blogs for info, it's not reliable.

 

 

 

What I learned about Black holes is that they're Neutron Stars that are so heavy and dense that they have enough gravity to deform time and space. They explained it a bit, but I can't make an image of what I mean :wall:

[assassin_696]

No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured.

 

 

 

I think he was actually talking about the density at the singularity, not the average. I don't see how you seem to think that a black hole the mass of the Earth would be larger than the Earth either, since an object with the same mass as the Earth but larger volume clearly wouldn't collapse. Unless you're considering adding mass to a very small one.

[compfreak847]

<< Quote snip >>

 

No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured.

 

 

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-black-holes/

 

 

 

As for the OP, just because what you know now seems to indicate a pattern doesn't mean it holds true forever - assuming quarks weren't the smallest component, we can assume SOMETHING is. Matter isn't infinity divisible; for an example look at the string theory. As stated before, unless your a team of physicists arguing or wondering about it won't really result in anything meaningful.

 

 

 

Don't look at blogs for info, it's not reliable.

 

 

 

What I learned about Black holes is that they're Neutron Stars that are so heavy and dense that they have enough gravity to deform time and space. They explained it a bit, but I can't make an image of what I mean :wall:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

 

The average density of a supermassive black hole (measured as the mass of the black hole divided by its Schwarzschild volume) can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of air. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume.

 

 

 

Basically, because the volume increases faster then the mass, the heaver the black hole the less dense, and a black hole the mass of the visible universe would be much larger then the visible universe.

[meol]

Why didn't you keep on reading that article?

 

One should be aware however that this phenomenon results from scientific definitions and does not necessarily manifest itself as a real physical property. Also, this may simply mean that the diameter of the event horizon is extremely large, thus encompassing a large region of relatively low density, whereas the central region of a supermassive black hole would still be extremely dense.

 

That pretty much answers your own question. Remember the event horizon is no concrete boundary where the black hole "ends", so you shouldn't really be measuring its density there.

[compfreak847]

Why didn't you keep on reading that article?

 

One should be aware however that this phenomenon results from scientific definitions and does not necessarily manifest itself as a real physical property. Also, this may simply mean that the diameter of the event horizon is extremely large, thus encompassing a large region of relatively low density, whereas the central region of a supermassive black hole would still be extremely dense.

 

That pretty much answers your own question. Remember the event horizon is no concrete boundary where the black hole "ends", so you shouldn't really be measuring its density there.

 

It's really the best measurement though; the event horizon is the point at which the escape velocity is greater then the speed of light, hence everything is trapped and nothing - including time - escapes. It's certainly part of the black hole.

[Will H]

Well I'll just start this off by describing the events the led to my epiphany. School got out so I took the bus home, listened to music like I always do. Nothing to do, but look out the window. Then I started thinking to myself.

 

 

 

What am I looking at? Trees

 

But really what am I looking at? Molecules

 

Molecules are made of atoms so really I'm looking at atoms...

 

No wait I'm looking at protons and neutrons and electrons.

 

Hold on protons are made up of quarks so I'm really looking at quarks.

 

 

 

Then I thought to myself "Isn't everything made up of something else?". I found this to be true and then had my epiphany.

 

 

 

If everything is made of something else doesn't this lead to and infinite amount of different tiny particles we can't see? Infinite is unobtainable... Doesn't this mean matter had to have been created?

 

 

 

Someone prove me wrong before I get too into this :P

 

Well, you'd be getting closer and closer to energy, which is again infinitely dividable. Unless you have an infinitely powerful creator which can produce something which is infinitely dividable. Ok, but what about the creator itself? Is that not infinitely dividable? Surely that had to be created? By whom? Another creator? You can go on (pun intended) infinitely. You have to conclude that there has to be a method of something creating itself. So, why can't the universe create itself and cut out a creator entirely?

[Smapla]

You're just rambling, really.

 

 

 

Irony at it's best

 

 

 

Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money.

 

 

 

Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example.

 

 

 

Can you prove it?

 

 

 

Prove what? The infinite density? It's just theoretical of course, but it's what happens when you divide by zero. A huge amount of mass compressed into zero volume singularity (black hole) equals infinite density.

 

No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured.

 

 

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-black-holes/

 

 

 

As for the OP, just because what you know now seems to indicate a pattern doesn't mean it holds true forever - assuming quarks weren't the smallest component, we can assume SOMETHING is. Matter isn't infinity divisible; for an example look at the string theory. As stated before, unless your a team of physicists arguing or wondering about it won't really result in anything meaningful.

 

 

 

 

 

okay so,

 

 

 

the schwarzschild volume is a volume dependent on the schwarzschild radius, and it is a volume at which a certain amount of matter will collapse into a gravitational singularity, IE a black hole

 

 

 

however, the matter does not stop there, and continues to collapse into zero, or near zero (less than the volume of an atom) volume. so the density of the actual matter of the black hole, over the volume of that matter, is infinite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but uh... can we get off of this black holes topic?

[Rebdragon]

Well, you'd be getting closer and closer to energy, which is again infinitely dividable. Unless you have an infinitely powerful creator which can produce something which is infinitely dividable.

 

This feller right here ain't never heard of a photon, mmhm.

[H2PM]

Technically what you are looking at is light reflected off objects, which means you are seeing photons.

 

 

 

:thumbup:

[saif]

you know what happens if we split atoms ;)

 

 

 

OT: no 99 u so pro@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[MicroLegionnaire]

I prefer to go on the assumption that eventually, you'll eventually reach a particle that just can't get any smaller. Currently, it's assumed that the said particle is the Higgs-Bosun particle, A.K.A God particle, the particle that supposedly gives all matter mass.

 

 

 

Sometimes, some facts simply cannot be denied, for the reason that its just the way they are.

 

 

 

1 + 1 = 2 (Unless you're talking about binary)

 

Energy cannot be destroyed or created

 

 

 

Infinity doesn't often mean it's intrinsic meaning. It's more to describe quantities the human mind simply cannot comprehend (yet).

[dragoonson]

Funny.I was going to ask a question about energy.We all know the law of conservation,eh?So what happens if say I have a lightbulb in a closed room with no plant to use its light.So the electrical energy is converted into the bulb's light energy.And we also know once you cut the flow of electrical energy no more light energy emerges.So what is this light energy being changed into?There's no "sight" energy,and even if there was,its not permanent either,so what would it be changed to?

[mmmcannibalism]

Funny.I was going to ask a question about energy.We all know the law of conservation,eh?So what happens if say I have a lightbulb in a closed room with no plant to use its light.So the electrical energy is converted into the bulb's light energy.And we also know once you cut the flow of electrical energy no more light energy emerges.So what is this light energy being changed into?There's no "sight" energy,and even if there was,its not permanent either,so what would it be changed to?

 

 

 

it would slightly heat up every particle in the room. You might not be able to measure the difference but all the energy would energize particles in the room causing heat increase or chemical reactions.

[Lateralus]

I prefer to go on the assumption that eventually, you'll eventually reach a particle that just can't get any smaller. Currently, it's assumed that the said particle is the Higgs-Bosun particle, A.K.A God particle, the particle that supposedly gives all matter mass.

 

 

 

Sometimes, some facts simply cannot be denied, for the reason that its just the way they are.

 

 

 

1 + 1 = 2 (Unless you're talking about binary)

 

Energy cannot be destroyed or created

 

 

 

Infinity doesn't often mean it's intrinsic meaning. It's more to describe quantities the human mind simply cannot comprehend (yet).

 

 

 

Why would the Higgs Boson be any different from any other elementary Boson, or any other elementary particle for that matter? I don't think there's any suggested subdivisions of any of them.

[assassin_696]

The Higgs Boson is just one of many other fundamental particles that exist. It's not more fundamental than any of the others, it just plays a different role.

[Will H]

Well, you'd be getting closer and closer to energy, which is again infinitely dividable. Unless you have an infinitely powerful creator which can produce something which is infinitely dividable.

 

This feller right here ain't never heard of a photon, mmhm.

 

Depends how you look at it. You're saying particle, I'm saying wave. Erk. :?

 

 

 

I don't really know enough about photons to get around this, though. Any help?