Re: Anti-Matter/Photons as Blackholes, or 1e100 photons/atom

From: Creighton Hogg (wchogg_at_hep.wisc.edu)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:50:19 -0600

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Brad Guth wrote:

> If per given black hole there were to be such a core or nucleus of
> anti-matter that's rather nicely surrounded by way of those trillions
> upon trillions of photons per atom (perhaps 1e100 photons/atom), then it
> stands to my subjective reasoning that a blackhole in of itself is not
> necessarily the all-consuming density worth of normal matter, nor that
> of any subsequent space time continuum sink-hole of mass that's been
> continually touted.

Where is this anti-matter coming from? What's the process that is
producing it? Also, how has it managed to stay there? We've seen
accretion disks going into black holes. If it was anti-matter in there,
it wouldn't be there for very long.

> In fact, if this notion of an anti-matter core is what it is, whereas we
> should be able to safely utilize such as a viable point-source and/or
> that of a super-nullification zone that could be offering us an extreme
> performance gateway to wherever, or perhaps otherwise as for that of a
> handy pitstop of snatching a little anti-matter as energy along the way.
>
> I've had this topic badly ongoing within other forums, such as the BBC
> space forum that sucks, and numerous other supposed all-knowing physics
> forums that suck, whereas there has usually been more of their
> sanctimonious style of mainstream NASA/Apollo *** sucking flak than
> viable contributions upon this or any other topic of worth, though
> generally I've identified upon many two-faced individuals contributing
> quite nicely wherever there's absolutely no chance of involving
> intellectual morals or remorse.
>
> In spite of such flak, I have a few too many questions:
>
> 1) Wouldn't there honestly have to be a containment shell, sphere or
> perhaps that of an atmosphere of something reacting as rather
> anti-photonic (non-illuminating) surrounding anti-matter?

Anti-photonic? Anything that has electric charge can couple to photons.
 
> 2) Would not the interaction between the slight energy and otherwise
> extremely slight mass associated with the individual photon become
> altered in some inverse way as to be safely coexisting around
> anti-matter?

Individual photons don't have mass. Systems of photons may have mass
however, e.g. a pion decays to two photons and these two photons as a system
have the same mass as the pion.

> 3) If a photon was no longer AM/FM modulated, thus nearly resting as
> stripped of all associated energy and mass, wouldn't a sufficient
> collective of such photons become dark-matter or perhaps dark-energy?

Is the CMBR a candidate for dark matter or dark energy? No. Dark matter
has a particular distribution. A system of photons is going to be moving
at the speed of light and won't exactly be bound to one place. As for
dark energy, that doesn't really work at all. Wrong energy density
behaviour.

> 4) As perhaps far away from any blackhole, or at least outside the event
> horizon, is there anything to the likes of Orme atoms, especially when
> it's getting down to one such (absolute zero K) atom/m3?

> 5) Is there actually any relevant limitation as to the population of
> such photons/m3?

Eh, not really per se. What matters more is how much *energy* you're
trying to put in there.

Quantcast