since different sets of physics laws apply to different spectrums of mass...

..continue please..

i love this type of shit.. even tho i dont understand any of it, i like to see what everyone has to say

 

Well, photons have no mass, and we have physics to apply to what they do.

It might be easier and more accurate to say the same physics don't necessarily apply to everything we observe.

Take Newtonian physics - it works well enough on a human scale, right? Things tend to fall apart on either the quantum or the universal scale in regards to how things work.

General Relativity covers Newtonian physics, and works pretty damn well when studying things out in space, but doesn't have a good handle on quantum physics either.

Quantum Physics covers things that are so small gravity doesn't matter to them, and coincidentally certain quantum processes act against physics, i.e. electrons emitting photons, travelling back in time, and reabsorbing the photon they emitted in the future, as well as quantum tunneling, which is apparently how black holes give off Hawking radiation.

The funny thing about our rules is that they cover all spectrums of mass, meaning things with negative mass are included. Then again, how do you measure negative mass?

 

Just going to respond to this one, photons do not have a mass because if they did they would not be able to travel the speed of light (anything with mass would require infinite energy to propel it to the speed of light according to our physics. This is of course only counting propulsion systems, not crazy stuff like destroying space or traveling through hyperspace, though I doubt any of that is even theory yet.)

Also not super sure on this one, but a photon is made of energy and energy does not have mass correct?

 

Photons have a rest energy of 0, due to not having any mass. However the equation you would use is:

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² where p is momentum

The rest energy of an object with mass is:
E² = (mc²)² + (0 * c)² (the momentum of the object at rest is 0)
E² = (mc²)²
E = mc²

The total energy is:
E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²)

For a massless object, m is 0, so it has no rest mass, and its total energy is:
E = pc

Now, the momentum of a photon is integrated by its frequency:
p = ℎf/c (ℎ is Planck's constant)

So the energy of a photon is:
E = ℎf

 

I don't think it's so much that different laws of physics apply to different scales, but that the current theories in physics are inherently only approximate descriptions of reality. Indeed they are great approximations, but they all have their limitations. We've essentially created a patchwork description of reality because, let's face it, we don't fully understand reality.

Basically, the need to use different theories is more a reflection of our inability to understand nature at the most fundamental level and is not necessarily a reflection of nature itself. The holy grail of physics of course is to find that one unifying theory that explains it all, from subatomic to multi-universe scales. If and when that happens, then it will all fall into place so to speak.

 

Gravity is the weakest of the four universal forces - on the quantum scale, the big players are the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. Yes, mass implies gravity, but no subatomic particles are held together by gravity, except in the cases of neutron, quark, and lepton stars - but there's a pretty damn good reason for that (and it's because those stars didn't start out as masses of subatomic particles). That's the basis of my statement.

Things on the macro scale, in the grand majority of events, can't travel backwards in time or escape a black hole's event horizon. Quantum objects aren't so bothered by those things.

Negative mass is any mass below zero. A hypothetical particle, the tachyon, has negative mass, which is what allows it to move faster than light.

 

[quote name='"since93"']a. so like, say a quantum particle like a lepton, can escape a black hole when it has mass?
b. im gonna read up about this negative mass thing because you are blowing my mind with it-however theoretical it might be[/quote]

There is a good chance it or something like it exists. A theoretical particle isn't something made up. Its a theory meant to explain something. Usually it fits within a theoreticle construct.

For example. The graviton is a theoreticle particle. But the reason we theorize it exists is because of gravity and what we know about particle physical.

So we know for sure a graviton or something like it exists. That's why its a theoreticle particle. Its pretty.much real just misunderstood

 

I don't recall exactly which type of particle it is, but Hawking Radiation works like this;

Particle/antiparticle pairs will form in the event horizon due to vacuum fluctuations. One of these particles will always escape, the one with a positive charge, via quantum tunneling through the event horizon (though that's only one model of how it happens). This way, the process maintains equilibrium and the black hole slowly loses mass over time (as a black hole's charge is reduced, it loses mass in the form of energy). Quantum tunneling is based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that subatomic particles exist as both waves and particles at the same time. The reason the particle can escape is because its position and speed can't both be known simultaneously, and the faster anything is moving, the more likely it is to go through otherwise impassable barriers.

So - if you know the particle is in the black hole, it could possibly be moving at infinite velocity (from borrowing energy from everything around it) and the possibility of the particle existing outside of the event horizon becomes more than zero. At this point, there's a probability that the particle will be observed outside of the black hole with no evidence of having crossed over, simply because you knew it was moving infinitely fast and no longer knew exactly where it was.