Collision on the black hole superhighway !

[GeneralTheoryOfBadassery]

There are a whole lot of giant kabooms in space, but we've never seen anything quite like this before: for the first time, astronomers have captured on video a collision between knots of matter inside a super-speed jet of plasma shooting from a black hole -- demonstrating a hypothesis that may explain how these jets can travel at such incredible speeds.

The discovery is only the second time matter that seems to be travelling faster than the speed of light has been observed at distances of hundreds of thousands of light-years away from the source of a black hole. This indicates that jets continue to travel at near light-speed at distances that rival the size of the host gallery, and could provide clues to understanding galactic evolution.

As a black hole spins on its polar axis, it shoots massive jets of plasma into space from its poles. These are known as relativistic jets because they travel at what is known as relativistic speed, or speed that is a very close to the speed of light. The speed of relativistic jet energy is beyond what could be produced by the spin of the black hole's accretion disc, and it's something that astrophysicists are still trying to figure out.

One hypothesis for how the plasma is energised to the point where it can travel so fast is called the "internal shock model". It is not really known how the jets are created, but one hypothesis suggests that, as material falls towards the black hole, it is superheated and ejected along the black hole's spin axis, confined to a narrow jet by strong magnetic fields. If the fall of the material towards the hole is uneven, it's ejection would not be even either, creating knots of matter within the jet.

Op :- http://www.cnet.com/news/collision-on-the-supermassive-black-hole-superhighway/

Whoa ... Things travelling ( possibly ) faster than light ... *nerdgasm*

[Jamdog]

That seems pretty epic, I don't think Einstein would be very happy about his theory bieng disproved though... 

[Trik'Stari]

What's that? Einstein was WRONG?!

 

Huzzah, we don't live in a doomed universe after all.

[jcbiddulph]

to quote the article:

 

"To her surprise, she came across a knot that seemed to be travelling at seven times the speed of light (an illusion caused by the real speed of the plasma, which is almost travelling at light speed, combined with the angle at which the jet is pointed towards the observer; this phenomenon is called "superluminal motion") catching up to a slower superluminal knot."

So not traveling faster than light

[GeneralTheoryOfBadassery]

to quote the article:

"To her surprise, she came across a knot that seemed to be travelling at seven times the speed of light (an illusion caused by the real speed of the plasma, which is almost travelling at light speed, combined with the angle at which the jet is pointed towards the observer; this phenomenon is called "superluminal motion") catching up to a slower superluminal knot."

So not traveling faster than light

That's exactly why wrote " possibly " in the brackets ...

You can never be too sure ...

[Delusional Phil]

What's that? Einstein was WRONG?!

 

Huzzah, we don't live in a doomed universe after all.

Welp time to scratch off any foundation of Physics we sees that is weak and build a new foundation ... 

[Trik'Stari]

Welp time to scratch off any foundation of Physics we sees that is weak and build a new foundation ... 

Hopefully. I just want Einstein to be wrong about it so that our existence isn't ultimately doomed to failure.

[Delusional Phil]

Hopefully. I just want Einstein to be wrong about it so that our existence isn't ultimately doomed to failure.

Oh yeah ... We won't live until the Big Crunch ... The sun will swallow us in about 5 billion more years ... ( At 3,75 million more years we can see our Milky Way colliding with Andromeda . Exciting even though I would be dead by then ... 

[cesrai]

Hopefully. I just want Einstein to be wrong about it so that our existence isn't ultimately doomed to failure.

You know I don't think he is wrong.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh yeah ... We won't live until the Big Crunch ... The sun will swallow us in about 5 billion more years ... ( At 3,75 million more years we can see our Milky Way colliding with Andromeda . Exciting even though I would be dead by then ... 

I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to upload my consciousness to a computer and live forever.

 

You know I don't think he is wrong.

Quite a lot of people think that he's correct. I don't think it makes sense. Not to mention it being an entirely illogical and impossible statement. You can't prove an absence or a negative. How do we know that we just don't currently have the ability to detect or observe something traveling faster than light?

 

A scientist would probably reply "we would at least be able to observe the effects on other objects, of something traveling faster than light". Which isn't necessarily true. Without being able to see or detect it, how can we even know that something traveling that fast would interact with the rest of the physical universe?

[cesrai]

I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to upload my consciousness to a computer and live forever.

 

Quite a lot of people think that he's correct. I don't think it makes sense. Not to mention it being an entirely illogical and impossible statement. You can't prove an absence or a negative. How do we know that we just don't currently have the ability to detect or observe something traveling faster than light?

 

A scientist would probably reply "we would at least be able to observe the effects on other objects, of something traveling faster than light". Which isn't necessarily true. Without being able to see or detect it, how can we even know that something traveling that fast would interact with the rest of the physical universe?

Sadly I don't know.

[Glenwing]

I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to upload my consciousness to a computer and live forever.

 

Quite a lot of people think that he's correct. I don't think it makes sense. Not to mention it being an entirely illogical and impossible statement. You can't prove an absence or a negative. How do we know that we just don't currently have the ability to detect or observe something traveling faster than light?

 

A scientist would probably reply "we would at least be able to observe the effects on other objects, of something traveling faster than light". Which isn't necessarily true. Without being able to see or detect it, how can we even know that something traveling that fast would interact with the rest of the physical universe?

 

If something has exactly zero interaction with the rest of the physical universe, there's no difference between it existing and not existing.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Quite a lot of people think that he's correct. I don't think it makes sense. Not to mention it being an entirely illogical and impossible statement. You can't prove an absence or a negative. How do we know that we just don't currently have the ability to detect or observe something traveling faster than light?

 

A scientist would probably reply "we would at least be able to observe the effects on other objects, of something traveling faster than light". Which isn't necessarily true. Without being able to see or detect it, how can we even know that something traveling that fast would interact with the rest of the physical universe?

 

I already gave you an answer the last time; it has to do with the properties of light itself.

 

FYI, I am still waiting for the questions you wanted to ask me...

[Trik'Stari]

If something has exactly zero interaction with the rest of the physical universe, there's no difference between it existing and not existing.

That's an interesting point.

 

I already gave you an answer the last time; it has to do with the properties of light itself.

 

FYI, I am still waiting for the questions you wanted to ask me...

I don't remember those questions. I just can't see how inter-stellar travel is impossible.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I don't remember those questions. I just can't see how inter-stellar travel is impossible.

 

The laws of physics are bound to specific limits (hence called 'laws'). As to your specific inquiry, let me provide an example. What happens when you retrofit a jet engine to a boat or submarine? On it's own, nothing, but one you use the unit, the boat will try to hop through the water before been ripped apart, and the submarine will implode. The water limits the velocity of a given object. While space does not have the level of confinement that air does, it still have limits, as it is not a total void.

 

Also, as I had explained earlier, the faster you travel, the heavier you become, relatively speaking (this takes 1500 pages to explain properly). To increase speed involves acceleration, and more mass makes acceleration more difficult, as you need to exert more force and work to change the speed. It becomes a point where the effort required to posh the object is mathematically infinite, which thus makes infinite speed theoretically impossible.

 

One more factor against inter-stellar travel is the Newtonian Laws of Motion. In order to travel efficiently in a short period of time, you need an abrupt starting and stopping acceleration. According to the first law, the law of inertia:

 

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

In layman's terms, what this means is that when you start travel, you get a force pushing you back, relative to the ground. When the travelling body attains constant velocity, you become a part of the vessel. When the travel stops, you get a force pushing you forward, as you are still technically in motion. The amount of positive and negative acceleration required to make interstellar travel possible would instantly kill any human or living being, as their internal organs will be tossed around like coins in a slot machine.

[Trik'Stari]

 

The laws of physics are bound to specific limits (hence called 'laws'). As to your specific inquiry, let me provide an example. What happens when you retrofit a jet engine to a boat or submarine? On it's own, nothing, but one you use the unit, the boat will try to hop through the water before been ripped apart, and the submarine will implode. The water limits the velocity of a given object. While space does not have the level of confinement that air does, it still have limits, as it is not a total void.

 

Also, as I had explained earlier, the faster you travel, the heavier you become, relatively speaking (this takes 1500 pages to explain properly). To increase speed involves acceleration, and more mass makes acceleration more difficult, as you need to exert more force and work to change the speed. It becomes a point where the effort required to posh the object is mathematically infinite, which thus makes infinite speed theoretically impossible.

 

One more factor against inter-stellar travel is the Newtonian Laws of Motion. In order to travel efficiently in a short period of time, you need an abrupt starting and stopping acceleration. According to the first law, the law of inertia:

 

In layman's terms, what this means is that when you start travel, you get a force pushing you back, relative to the ground. When the travelling body attains constant velocity, you become a part of the vessel. When the travel stops, you get a force pushing you forward, as you are still technically in motion. The amount of positive and negative acceleration required to make interstellar travel possible would instantly kill any human or living being, as their internal organs will be tossed around like coins in a slot machine.

I do realize all of that. What I am saying is that we have observed, in nature, things that seem to break the laws of physics, such as light falling into a black hole faster than light travels through the rest of space, the laws of physics seemingly not applying at a quantum scale, etc. Which leads me to my main point, we don't understand every single thing in the universe, so you can show me all the math you want, but I still refute the statement that "nothing can travel faster than light", or that "inter-stellar travel" is impossible.

 

Consider the theory of the warp drive for a moment, creating a small "bubble space" around a ship, then moving the bubble. Relative to the rest of the universe the bubble moves, whereas relative to the space inside the bubble, the ship does not, meaning you don't have the acceleration/deceleration effects. Granted we don't know how to do that. or if it is even possible. Not to mention idea's like mass corridors (like in the game Mass Effect) etc. There has to be a way.

 

If the universe is relative, then the statement "as far as we know, nothing can travel faster than light" or "as far as we know, inter-stellar travel is impossible" is a much more accurate and plausible statement, rather than stating it from an omnipotent point of view, as it is currently stated.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I do realize all of that. What I am saying is that we have observed, in nature, things that seem to break the laws of physics, such as light falling into a black hole faster than light travels through the rest of space, the laws of physics seemingly not applying at a quantum scale, etc. Which leads me to my main point, we don't understand every single thing in the universe, so you can show me all the math you want, but I still refute the statement that "nothing can travel faster than light", or that "inter-stellar travel" is impossible.

 

Consider the theory of the warp drive for a moment, creating a small "bubble space" around a ship, then moving the bubble. Relative to the rest of the universe the bubble moves, whereas relative to the space inside the bubble, the ship does not, meaning you don't have the acceleration/deceleration effects. Granted we don't know how to do that. or if it is even possible. Not to mention idea's like mass corridors (like in the game Mass Effect) etc. There has to be a way.

 

If the universe is relative, then the statement "as far as we know, nothing can travel faster than light" or "as far as we know, inter-stellar travel is impossible" is a much more accurate and plausible statement, rather than stating it from an omnipotent point of view, as it is currently stated.

 

I do not mind some exceptions being provided, in fact that is how science works. One theory is provided within the limits of what is understood, and other theories cover the potential flaws of the original theory. But as I explained earlier, they need to be well-documented and well-explained. The way you explained the warp drive makes no sense. When the bubble stops, the ship continues motion, and when the ship stops, everything inside it continues motion. Also, the concept violates a fundamental law of conservation of momentum, as well as the third law of motion, where the warp drive somehow exerts a force without a valid counter-force. Also look at the source of the claim; "NASA spaceflight". Research of it's correlation to the actual NASA group turns up empty. This is now debunked by the scientific community due to the lack of follow-up research.

 

Unless it has met some scientific criteria, then it will simply be discarded. Unfortunately, this appears to be a case of veiled pseudo-science that is easily swallowed up by blind optimism (remember water-energy?). Everything in science is reviewed and criticized before being accepted. There is no conspiracy theory in this; it is simply how it works.

[Trik'Stari]

I do not mind some exceptions being provided, in fact that is how science works. One theory is provided within the limits of what is understood, and other theories cover the potential flaws of the original theory. But as I explained earlier, they need to be well-documented and well-explained. The way you explained the warp drive makes no sense. When the bubble stops, the ship continues motion, and when the ship stops, everything inside it continues motion. Also, the concept violates a fundamental law of conservation of momentum, as well as the third law of motion, where the warp drive somehow exerts a force without a valid counter-force. Also look at the source of the claim; "NASA spaceflight". Research of it's correlation to the actual NASA group turns up empty. This is now debunked by the scientific community due to the lack of follow-up research.

 

Unless it has met some scientific criteria, then it will simply be discarded. Unfortunately, this appears to be a case of veiled pseudo-science that is easily swallowed up by blind optimism (remember water-energy?). Everything in science is reviewed and criticized before being accepted. There is no conspiracy theory in this; it is simply how it works.

Didn't think there was a conspiracy theory, merely a lack of vision.

 

I just think there has to be a way to accomplish inter-stellar travel.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Didn't think there was a conspiracy theory, merely a lack of vision.

 

I just think there has to be a way to accomplish inter-stellar travel.

 

That is what people are trying day and night to figure out, but as NASA said it themselves, it remains a dream. There is a very big difference between vision and blind optimism; you do not just throw out certain theories to just to support artificial scientific progress. Standardization goes a very long way, whether you like it or not.

[Trik'Stari]

That is what people are trying day and night to figure out, but as NASA said it themselves, it remains a dream. There is a very big difference between vision and blind optimism; you do not just throw out certain theories to just to support artificial scientific progress. Standardization goes a very long way, whether you like it or not.

You can't know unless you try. There's no way to prove a negative you know. No matter what mathematical stuff you come up with, you can't truly state "inter-stellar travel is impossible" as a fact, unless you have tried all possible means. Giving up is just, giving up. And that's my original point. Mathematics only goes so far, and can be inherently flawed by the fact that "we don't know what we don't know".

 

Consider this: shortly after the invention of the train, a scientist stated "humanity will never travel faster than X (I think it was 5 or 15) miles per hour, to do so would be fatal", and we know that to be untrue. So why should we be any more willing to accept a statement of impossibility in this day and age? We still don't know what we don't know.

 

All the science tells us, from my point of view, is that there are still problems we haven't solved, not that it's impossible.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

You can't know unless you try. There's no way to prove a negative you know. No matter what mathematical stuff you come up with, you can't truly state "inter-stellar travel is impossible" as a fact, unless you have tried all possible means. Giving up is just, giving up. And that's my original point. Mathematics only goes so far, and can be inherently flawed by the fact that "we don't know what we don't know".

 

Consider this: shortly after the invention of the train, a scientist stated "humanity will never travel faster than X (I think it was 5 or 15) miles per hour, to do so would be fatal", and we know that to be untrue. So why should we be any more willing to accept a statement of impossibility in this day and age? We still don't know what we don't know.

 

All the science tells us, from my point of view, is that there are still problems we haven't solved, not that it's impossible.

 

Exactly! We have not solved the problems yet, and at this point of time, we have not even started in the concept on instant travel. We do not just have a random discovery that jumps a concept from theoretical though-train straight to design concept. The hard, cold, bitter truth of the matter is that the progress of science (and product design) is painfully slow.

 

Currently (emphasis on currently), the disintegration and reintegration of a person is more feasible way to travel than a "warp drive" vessel (but not by much).

[Trik'Stari]

Exactly! We have not solved the problems yet, and at this point of time, we have not even started in the concept on instant travel. We do not just have a random discovery that jumps a concept from theoretical though-train straight to design concept. The hard, cold, bitter truth of the matter is that the progress of science (and product design) is painfully slow.

 

Currently (emphasis on currently), the disintegration and reintegration of a person is more feasible way to travel than a "warp drive" vessel (but not by much).

Ahhhh. I think I see where you stand now. My problem with scientists (on this matter) has always been the statement that "travel between stars is impossible". Which we already know isn't true. It IS possible, it would just take a ridiculously long time, and (barring some kind of stasis or immortality) no one who began the journey, would be alive to witness the end of it.

 

Although, when I think about it, the idea of "transporting" across that distance, would still require an ability to send information at a rate faster than the speed of light, although that might be more "possible" than sending actual matter at the speed of light. Although...how would you re-integrate that information into matter?

 

Damnit science, stop fighting my dreams of leaving this shitty planet.

 

Edit: wait a second....if the problem is transporting living matter at such a rate, moving an inanimate object, easily capable of withstanding the forces involved (compared to a human), wouldn't necessarily be as difficult (taking star trek as an example, launching a "transporter pad" to one star, and then "transporting" people to it once it has arrived....

 

Edit #2: I don't see how the warp drive is flawed by acceleration/deceleration. If I put a cigarette butte in a bottle, stuck to the edge of the neck (so the smoke falls to the bottom of the bottle when left alone), and move the bottle around (even "violently"). The smoke doesn't really move that much inside the bottle. (picture below). While the smoke has dispersed by the time I took this picture. When I first put the butte in the bottle, there are distinguishable loops and swirls as the smoke "falls" to the bottom of the bottle. If I shake the bottle around (as long as the butte doesn't fall) the swirls do not move very much (other than if they rub up against the side of the bottle or something).

 

[Lethal Seraph]

What's that? Einstein was WRONG?!

 

Huzzah, we don't live in a doomed universe after all.

That's the beauty of science though... one thing only leads to another. There's nothing concrete, only better understanding.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Edit #2: I don't see how the warp drive is flawed by acceleration/deceleration. If I put a cigarette butte in a bottle, stuck to the edge of the neck (so the smoke falls to the bottom of the bottle when left alone), and move the bottle around (even "violently"). The smoke doesn't really move that much inside the bottle. (picture below). While the smoke has dispersed by the time I took this picture. When I first put the butte in the bottle, there are distinguishable loops and swirls as the smoke "falls" to the bottom of the bottle. If I shake the bottle around (as long as the butte doesn't fall) the swirls do not move very much (other than if they rub up against the side of the bottle or something).

 

First, I have no idea what a "cigarette butte" is; i think you are referring to cigarette butt.

 

Second, I simply suggest of you to read up on the three laws of motion, because I honestly do not think you understand what they actually mean. You have to remember that you are taking about a gaseous state, and the law of inertia still applies, as all objects of mass resist changes to it's state of motion. When a smoke generates in a moving vessel, it creates a gas trail due to such resistance.

 

Try this experiment; instead of shaking the bottle wildly, have the bottle travel a distance where the cigarette smoke gets collected at one end of the bottle. Then stop moving the bottle; what are the results?

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law