The Big Bang time paradox

[KrazyHorse]

So again for the record, if an object is accelerated close enough to the speed of light can it eventually collapse into a black hole?

No.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

So again for the record, if an object is accelerated close enough to the speed of light can it eventually collapse into a black hole?

No.

so relativistic mass contributes to the gravitational field of an object in what way? Obviously it doesn't seem to simply make the object "heavier". Perhaps to all observers at rest with respect to the relativistically fast object the object will appear to have it's rest mass but to observers to which it's moving at relativistc speeds it will appear to have the gravitational tug of a stellar black hole? (for the example of our very overly accelerated baseball)

[KrazyHorse]

Perhaps to all observers at rest with respect to the relativistically fast object the object will appear to have it's rest mass but to observers to which it's moving at relativistc speeds it will appear to have the gravitational tug of a stellar black hole?

Of course.

[KrazyHorse]

The only thing to note is that you don't spend very long next to the baseball when it flies past you at 0.99999c...

[Jon Miller]

I was in MD today, and had a WMAP guy give a colloqium. He did mention Big Bang, though :P:

He was from Princeton I think, the rest of people work at Goddard (and Bennet at John Hopkins).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Perhaps to all observers at rest with respect to the relativistically fast object the object will appear to have it's rest mass but to observers to which it's moving at relativistc speeds it will appear to have the gravitational tug of a stellar black hole?

Of course.

But isn't that what I said? One observer sees the baseball as a black hole while the other sees it as a baseball at rest?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


But isn't that what I said? One observer sees the baseball as a black hole while the other sees it as a baseball at rest?

I guess it will only have a gravitational tug like that of a backhole but would still "look" like a baseball travelling at 99999...c and not be possible to mistake for a backhole?

Certainly the gravitational field would presumably be quite distorted. Maybe, an object approaching this particular baseball head on would find the baseballs gravitational tug even greater than that of a stellar black hole at rest while an object approaching it from behind would find the apparent gravitational tug reduced?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


But isn't that what I said? One observer sees the baseball as a black hole while the other sees it as a baseball at rest?

No. No. No.

You can't blindly apply the scwarzschild radius to an object in motion. Things look different.

Either you've got an object with the pull of a baseball and it's at rest or you've got an object with the pull of a star and it's flying past you.

Neither one is a black hole.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I guess it will only have a gravitational tug like that of a backhole but would still "look" like a baseball travelling at 99999...c and not be possible to mistake for a backhole?

Basically it will have a strong pull in the observer's frame, but things don't get sucked past a point of no return. There's no event horizon.

It's simple enough to transform coordinates in the scharzschild metric and show this.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Basically it will have a strong pull in the observer's frame, but things don't get sucked past a point of no return. There's no event horizon.

It's simple enough to transform coordinates in the scharzschild metric and show this.

ok, I think I also see how I got mixed up in the older thread years ago.

Thanks!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I was in MD today, and had a WMAP guy give a colloqium.

Gary Hinshaw? I met him last year.

[Ned]

KH, I am thinking the following:

The big bang was caused by a collision of singularities that broke down the event horizon of at least one of them releasing its mass and energy. (Actually, both of the might have to break down, otherwise the one that didn't break down would absorb the expelled matter of the one that did, not so?)

Dark matter somewhat behaves like a singularity would: Matter behind an event horizon. You would never see dark matter because it would absorb any light or matter that it encounters. (Right?) However, you can detect its presence due to its gravational effects.

Dark matter may have been formed during the Big Bang when everything was dense, or may be "residual" expelled singularity matter. I can imagine some of the expelled matter becoming light matter and some of it remaining dense enough to immediately form further singularities.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, it seemed to be that the simple cosmological model fits the data very well.

Since the simple model includes things like dark energy and inflation, I am wondering what the complex models are?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

NED

I can see a number of problems with that, and I'm not sure they're resolvable.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Yeah, it seemed to be that the simple cosmological model fits the data very well.

Since the simple model includes things like dark energy and inflation, I am wondering what the complex models are?

JM

DE with a complex eqn of state, complicated inflation (rather than simple exponential expansion) etc.