Gamma Ray Bursts From Black Holes *May* Exceed Speed Of Light

[farkas]

I was editing my post when:
catweazel wrote

There are fundamental differences between opinion, interpretation, theory, fact and law, and one needs to keep this in mind when discussing physics within earshot of a retired physicist

I didn't mean to offend you by my post . If I did, my humble apologies . I'm just a retired electronics tech with 13 fewer orbits around our sun than you.
Just trying to keep an open mind and maybe learn something.
This might be the one of the oldest sayings
"The dumbest question is the one you don't ask".
So, I keep asking so I can and learn something new.
Not stuck on Newtonian universe. Maybe in some n~dimensional that may or may not be real.
Meanwhile in this universe:
Thanks for your reply catweazel.

[catweazel]

I was editing my post when:
catweasel wrote

There are fundamental differences between opinion, interpretation, theory, fact and law, and one needs to keep this in mind when discussing physics within earshot of a retired physicist

I didn't mean to offend you by my post . If I did, my humble apologies .

No, no. Not at all.

Just trying to keep an open mind and maybe learn something.

Oh, I can discuss things that will test the very limits of anyone's open-mindedness...

Maybe in some n~dimensional that may or may not be real.

Take that statement as an example. I assume you're sat in front of a desk or perhaps have a laptop on your knees. Tap the table or some other hard surface with all four fingers and your thumb. What is it that you are feeling?

[farkas]

Four fingers and a thumb.
Hard surface.
OK.
My fingers and my thumb are real as far as I'm concerned.
So is the desktop.
BTW what does that have anything to do with
Gamma Ray Bursts From Black Holes *May* Exceed Speed Of Light ?

[catweazel]

Four fingers and a thumb.
Hard surface.
OK.
My fingers and my thumb are real as far as I'm concerned.
So is the desktop.

Ok, but what were you feeling? Atoms, perhaps?

[farkas]

Atoms, electrons, positrons, etc. take your pick of the atomic and subatomic particles zoo.
I'm feeling with a combination of all of the above things that make my body and mind.
Or it's possible that that I'm not feeling anything, just a sensory illusion. I take that back, I cut a finger yesterday and it still hurts.
But this seems to be a philosophical question.
Why?
Or
Why not?
Meanwhile back at the ranch everyone is wondering if "Gamma Ray Bursts From Black Holes *May* Exceed Speed Of Light" or anything else may do so?

[Pippin]

Some think so:
http://www.distinti.com/solution.html

The Distinti Solution requires that we break the light barrier by a factor of 500. Physicists say that this is impossible; but every time a physicist has stated the something was impossible, an engineer found a way.

http://www.distinti.com/about.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti/ ... ry=barrier

[catweazel]

Or it's possible that that I'm not feeling anything, just a sensory illusion.

You're very much on the right track. You aren't feeling atoms, electrons or any kind of particle. You're feeling electromagnetic waves. When you touch something, you can't actually touch it because all matter essentially has the same charge so when you bring your finger to some object, you're not touching it because the same charge repels, like the same poles of a magnet. Everything you think is real is just electromagnetic waves.

Now, let's say you have the grand total of one dollar in an old bank account. The bank comes along and hits your account with a fee of $0.9999999999999 cents, leaving you with $0.0000000000001 cents. How much of the remainder can you spend? Or, effectively, what have you got left?

But this seems to be a philosophical question.
Why?

You want to learn, don't you? Nothing is as it seems. Absolutely nothing.

[pascal111]

I think this's the first time to record something like this in space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYcHsFkoIvc


I think the victim tends to keep its form and escape from the gravity, but the so incredible gravity made the huge star to be eaten and decay.

Edit: I added a comment.

[rene]

We don't know if [black holes] spin, contrary to statements by others above.

With an eerie sense of déjà vu --- oh, wait, it was only the previous comment I made on this board, although in a rather different context --- that's true only in a strict, and "do they all spin" sense. I.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole:

As all known stars rotate and realistic collisions have non-zero angular momentum, it is expected that all black holes in nature are rotating black holes. Since observed astronomical objects do not possess an appreciable net electric charge, only the Kerr solution has astrophysical relevance.

So, "we" may not know, but only in a fundamental sense; "we" in a practical one rather do...

[Portreve]

Exceeding the speed of light according to current theories is not possible. Travelling FTL is the stuff of SciFi.

c is 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum. The moment you get to 299,792,458.whatever you are by definition traveling FTL.

And honestly, I think ideas such as warp drive or some form of tunneling (hyperspace, etc.) are likely to be the source for whatever means might be developed to travel faster than light.

Us physicists don't cook turkeys at Christmas for that very reason. There is a non-zero probability that the neighbour's fully cooked turkey will quantum tunnel out of her oven and manifest itself on my table.

This is why you're an awesome 80-something, sir. I tip my hat in your direction.

Oh, incidentally, that same PBS Space Time series I linked to earlier had another episode which talks about the apparent contradiction you brought up later in this thread about c and galaxies moving apart faster than c. The short version is: space itself is expanding, therefore it's only the cumulative rate which appears to be >c.

Vis a vis black hole spin rate, honestly I'm not sure how scientists determine if a black hole is spinning or not. I've never heard of there being something which would prevent it, but at the same time, I think I'm on the same page as you: if you can't actually see a black hole, how can you know it is (or isn't) spinning?

Also, my read on the article I originally linked was the gamma rays were coming from the black hole itself. Nevertheless, if it's in orbit, what is deflecting it outward? Why do they seem to only come from the poles?

[rene]

Vis a vis black hole spin rate, honestly I'm not sure how scientists determine if a black hole is spinning or not.

In the principally same manner as how you detect them at all: by their effect on the surrounding space. I.e., https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/nust ... 16696.html

By the way, the main link at the top of your OP is at least at the moment 404; needs .html removed.

[all41]

Now, let's say you have the grand total of one dollar in an old bank account. The bank comes along and hits your account with a fee of $0.9999999999999 cents, leaving you with $0.0000000000001 cents. How much of the remainder can you spend? Or, effectively, what have you got left?

Something strange about the math south of the equator

[Portreve]

The bank comes along and hits your account with a fee of $0.9999999999999 cents, leaving you with $0.0000000000001 cents. How much of the remainder can you spend? Or, effectively, what have you got left?

Something strange about the math south of the equator

Yeah, well, here's a photo of catweazel's house taken after he used Australian math to divide by zero:

[lsemmens]

BigThink.com: Astrophysicists: gamma-ray jets exceed the speed of light

The reason that "nothing can escape a black hole" is that, just like every other object in the universe, a black hole has an escape velocity. Earth's is about 28.163,52 kph (17,500 mph). A black hole's is some (presumably) nominal amount greater than the speed of light. If gamma ray bursts emanating from a black hole are actually coming from the black hole itself, by definition they have to be traveling faster than the speed of light.

In my maths book 28.16352kph is only around 17.5mph, where do you get the extra from?

As another thought, if an object is travelling at near light speed, and is throwing stuff off at near light speed, then surely the stuff being thrown off in the direction of travel is exceeding light speed. As it stands we are all travelling at approx 30Kps just sitting in front of our computers (orbital velocity)

[Portreve]

In my maths book 28.16352kph is only around 17.5mph, where do you get the extra from?

Sorry, I'm used to giving metric measurements using German notation standards.

They use decimals where we use commas, and commas where we use decimals. So, in our own respective native parlance, 28,163.52 kph.

As another thought, if an object is travelling at near light speed, and is throwing stuff off at near light speed, then surely the stuff being thrown off in the direction of travel is exceeding light speed. As it stands we are all travelling at approx 30Kps just sitting in front of our computers (orbital velocity)

Under known, conventional rules of physics, an object cannot emit anything at a rate greater than c. To be honest, I'm not really certain what it would look like, and I kind of get the impression even physicists don't really know, either. I have a feeling there yet remains a considerable amount more to learn. Likely as not, that's a very good thing.

[all41]

the stuff being thrown off in the direction of travel is exceeding light speed.

not sure what stuff you are referring to.

travelling at near light speed

Light speed varies greatly, and is only one phenomenon that is constrained by c as maximum.
Light speed conforms to c only in a total vacuum (and only beyond an event horizon, perhaps). 300 million meters/second, or 300 meters/microsecond. Slower in atmosphere, slower in water, and particularly slower
in Bose-Einstein condensates where it has been slowed to less than 65k/h

[rene]

As another thought, if an object is travelling at near light speed, and is throwing stuff off at near light speed, then surely the stuff being thrown off in the direction of travel is exceeding light speed.

No, that is exactly the result of special relativity; speeds add not as v1+v2 but in fact as (v1+v2) / (1 + v1*v2/c^2), a Lorentz transformation. It's just that for small v1 and v2 this is nearly the same as v1+v2. But try for example with even both v1=v2=c; the relativistic sum becomes 2c / (1 + c^2/c^2) = ... still c!

Yes, physicists most definitely know. Results such as these are shown daily in particle accelerators.

[all41]

As another thought, if an object is travelling at near light speed, and is throwing stuff off at near light speed, then surely the stuff being thrown off in the direction of travel is exceeding light speed.

No, that is exactly the result of special relativity; speeds add not as v1+v2 but in fact as (v1+v2) / (1 + v1*v2/c^2), a Lorentz transformation. It's just that for small v1 and v2 this is nearly the same as v1+v2. But try for example with even both v1=v2=c; the relativistic sum becomes 2c / (1 + c^2/c^2) = ... still c!

Yes, physicists most definitely know. Results such as these are shown daily in particle accelerators.

And the periodic table of heavy elements is growing big time.

[all41]

I'm just an old fart trying to exercise my mind by asking questions and maybe get some answers that I can figure out how and why .......?

Well, I'm 86, young man. The reason I asked what I did is because you seem to be confusing theory with fact and interpretation with theory, as do some others above. For example, we know only this much about what a black hole looks like:



We don't know if they spin, contrary to statements by others above.

It is not a fact that the maximum speed of anything is c - there are galaxies receding away from us at speeds in excess of c - and in the laser experiment, the end of the beam moves over the surface of the moon at FTL. It is not a fact that information cannot travel faster than light; it is theory. Theory must acquiesce to fact, and when it does so it becomes a law. There are a number of different interpretations of qm but they all agree that information does not travel FTL. However they are interpretations, and interpretations are lesser than both theories and facts, being just slightly above mere opinion, which requires absolutely no facts whatsoever, not even evidence.

There are fundamental differences between opinion, interpretation, theory, fact and law, and one needs to keep this in mind when discussing physics within earshot of a retired physicist

Perhaps it looked like this 100 years ago (light years). Perhaps it's even gone now. Our offpring should know in another 100 years
But as cw said exceeding speed of light is not a problem, exceeding c is, at least for objects of mass (us)

[rene]

Now that you repeat it...

Note that both the receding galaxy and the moon-laser thing is not about objects moving through space and do not in any way refute c as a limit for latter. In the first, space itself expands, and in the latter no object on the moon moves from left to right; individual photons travel simply still with c from laser to moon; what moves is a rapid succession of different photons.