h a l f b a k e r yThe word "How?" springs to mind at this point.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Gravity Time Mirror
Seeing our past using the sling-shot effect of a black hole's gravitational pull on light. | |
Using a very powerful telescope, we could look right at the very edge of a black hole where a light path made it 180degrees around the black hole due to the slingshot effect of gravitation. If the black hole were, say, 1000 light years distance from us, we would be looking back at ourselves 2000 years
ago, a gravitational mirror to the past.
TimeCube!
http://www.timecube.com/
Utterly unlike the above: "There's no human entity, only corner Cubics,
rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis." [Trout, Dec 03 2004]
Black holes are dark energy stars
http://www.nature.c.../full/050328-8.html
[JesusHChrist, Apr 05 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Are you saying that we could look at the light that goes into a black hole at a such angle that the gravity(it didn't get inside the event horizon, just barely) pulls it around and heads it back in the direction it came? |
|
| |
Could work with extremely highly advance stuff, but you'd need filters for all of the other light heading towards you, and the light has to head to where the black hole will be in 1000 years, and then return to where the earth would be in 2000 years. |
|
| |
Yes, light could actually do this, but no, we would have to wait milleniums and millions of years before we have sufficient technology to do this. |
|
| |
More to the point, it wouldn't be possible to view anything with any detail - keep in mind that intensity decreases as a function of the square of the distance from earth to the black hole, divided by two...the light would be very dim, and in poor resolution. |
|
| |
It would be possible to view our position and the positions of heavenly bodies, but that's about all we'd get out of it. |
|
| |
Actually, the place to look for a 180 degree photon is not at the edge of the event horizon, but somewhat further out (3/2 radii). A + for the idea. |
|
| |
If you took a number of massive bodies (or found a suitable arrangement of them) you might be able to provide better resolution and focus. |
|
| |
The relative movements of ourselves and the gravity lens would be very difficult to take into consideration, assuming you wanted a magnified image (which you'd need to since things 1000 light-years away are mere specks of light anyway, even under the largest magnification available to us now) |
|
| |
[+] for you! Especially because when I
saw the title I was expecting something
more like TimeCube (q.v.). |
|
| |
Everybody's gotta have a hobby......I'm glad his [the link] isn't halfbaking. |
|
| |
WOW! - Top Link [Trout]. The Man, he scare me with Jesus Sun Up, Clinton Mid Day.
Human form is a Personified Pyramid. |
|
| |
Wouldn't this work for any mass? This should be
happening to whatever miniscule degree around even the
moon, shouldn't it? If you could coordinate information
coming back from lots of different sources you could have
a sort of time machine. |
|
| |
The complete slingshot effect only occurs near, as
[ldischler] points out, a distance 3/2 times the
Schwarschild radius from the centre of the mass. If the
Schwarschild radius (or, rather, 3/2 of it) is "inside" the
spatial extent of the object - as it is with the moon - then
it doesn't really describe anything physically interesting
and you won't see this. |
|
| |
I will wager $10,000 that the Cubic Creation is a load of old cobblers. |
|
| |
And I thought [Detly] was unhinged. |
|
| |
[Detly] I'm not sure I understand. I thought things like
the Eyeinstiyne's cross happen when there in something
very
heavy between us and them - but that for us to see the
doubling the light has to sort of give the heavy object a
reasonably wide berth, on either side, so that it can be
bent in our direction and look like two things -- so some
light must be getting bent not at the Swartzchild radius
but further out. So wouldn't that mean that any mass at
all bends light a little bit? |
|
| |
Pssssstttt. JHC, it's Einstein, not Einstine. |
|
| |
Brilliant! I wonder also if you couldn't
use reflected light from a regular
object? Given that reflective objects
(dust, planets) are presumably more
abundant than black holes, there should
be more earth-originating light
returning to earth by reflection than by
gravitational back-bending. You'd have
to do all kinds of weird stuff to correct
for the angle and distance of the
reflecting surface at the time the
photon hit it (and also its radial velocity,
I guess - redshifts an' all), but I think
the problems you'd have to solve are in
principle no different from those in the
black-hole-slingshot idea. Basically,
you need a technology that can collect
incoming photons and figure out which
direction their coming from and how
long they took. A starting point would
be to reconstruct an image of earth a
few seconds old, from light reflected
from the surface of the moon. Some
WIBNIsh elements, but no more than
many halfbaked ideas. Bun. |
|
| |
[JHC] any mass deflects light, but not by 180 degrees until you get closer in - maybe I didn't understand what you meant in your original anno. |
|
| |
[Detly] I guess I'm thinking that, since all mass bends light
a little bit, the moon is really bending all the light in the
sky a little bit (from my perspective) towards it -- even
the light coming almost straight at the back of my head --
and that the bendingness gets stronger the closer you get
to the moon (from my perspective, and since this sets up
a curve that increases increasiingly toward the moon, that
that curve must go up asymptotically at some really
microscopically close degree to the edge of the moon. I
guess another way to say it would be that the moon must
be bending the already bent light the closer you get to it
so by the time you get really really close it is bending the
bent light that was already bent to the nth degree sort
of. Ok now I'm going to hit OK and read this and it is not
going to make any sense. |
|
| |
//that that curve must go up asymptotically at some really microscopically close degree to the edge of the moon// |
|
| |
No - it would simply reach some finite value, because the spatial extent of the moon is larger than the magic radius. |
|
| |
How do you know there isn't one? |
|
| |
It may be that the gravity of local bodies is not enough to pull the light in the full 180 degrees. It might be necessary to bank the light around several large objects to get the correct amount of bend. This would require some fancy math. Alternatively, it could be done empirically, with a powerful laser pulsing a recognizable pattern. You could fire your pulses with the calculated angle / alignment of stars and planets, then watch for the return pulse, which should be detectable by telescope. |
|
| |
The same laser theory could be used with a black hole. In fact, just spraying the black hole with the laser then watching for the return would be the quick and dirty way to do this. Although this would be sloppy pool - really you should have to call your shots. |
|
| |
Or you could look near a black hole for the bent light
from a known nova -- which would be easier to find than
light coming right back from you, and calibrate first using
that. |
|
| |
Would you still know it once it had been bent? Will you still love it in the morning? |
|
| |
[Bungston] The problems with
calibrating the system in the ways you
describe are (a) if you want to calibrate
a system that's giving you 5000-year-
old images, you're going to have to wait
5000 years for the calibration data to
return and (b) things move; your
calibration would have to be dynamic. |
|
| |
Thats why to look for a nova that you know occurred longer ago than the number of lightyears to the black hole but less than twice that long. |
|
| |
Not sure I follow, JHC, but I may be
being dim here. But you're going to
need a continuous succession of
supernovas (if you use them for
calibration), since all the components of
the system will be moving. The
calibration you apply at one instant
won't work a few moments later. |
|
| |
[Detly]
//No - it would simply reach some finite value, because
the spatial extent of the moon is larger than the magic
radius.// |
|
| |
When you look at the edge of the moon you see all
the light that has been bent by the moon. This
includes light coming directly from objects and also light
that has been bent by the gravity of those objects.
Within the light that has been bent by those objects will
be light that has been bent by objects behind them and
so on. The bent light includes light that originally came
from you. All you need is a powerful telescope and a
sorting
algorithm. |
|
| |
Theoretically true, but the bending would be so weak,
and the light so scattered, any signal would be incredibly
weak and swamped with noise. |
|
| |
If there were a black hole that lay between a pulsar and earth, one should be able to detect a bent pulsar signal coming from the black hole as a result of bending. |
|
| |
It is strange how light has no mass, yet travels at superspeeds, can be affected by gravity (even though it has no mass!!), and doesn't even deliver it's inertia to an object when it comes in contact with it. But you can't have inertia unless you have mass. Yet it is still affected by gravity. |
|
| |
“Mass grips space by telling it how to curve, space grips mass by telling it how to move.” - John Wheeler. |
|
| |
"Light just zips around looking good". - Bungston. |
|
| |
Very interesting idea and annos and extremely half baked. Which got me thinking..... |
|
| |
Theoretically, with good enough resolution, and assuming it wasn't cloudy that day, and that the earth was facing the black hole at the time, we could look back and see JesusHCrist (the original) on the sermon on the mount, and even see what he had to say if we can lip read from the top of the head. That might settle a few things, and stir up a lot more. |
|
| |
Presumably, he'd be saying something
like "Gee, Dad told me about the
heavens and the earth bit, but who the
hell made that black hole?" |
|
| |
Ok, call me totally insane but here's my theory. All you
have to do to see this effect is... squint... really patiently
for a long time, and look for patterns in the rainbows in
your eyelashes. I saw this one day while I was playing
around with a jewlers loupe and a toy microscope,
pressing them up to my eye and looking at the rainbows in
the refracted light for a really long time -- I saw a scene
that looked like it was from a movie, except that I could
make it go forward or backward in time by moving my
hands incrementally. It was sort of unsettling because it
told me that what I was seeing was something my head
was doing to the light and not something out there in the
real world. |
|
| |
So, one completely halfbaked explanation for this would
be that, if all light includes information that has been
bent back to its origin by all the local massive objects in
the sky, that information can be extracted by a really
powerful telescope (your eyelashes, a jewlers loupe and a
toy microscope working together), and sorted by a really
powerful computer (your brain). |
|
| |
JHC: Sounds like you're now totally baked.... :) |
|
| |
[EvilPickels] - light carries momentum and energy. Any
distribution of energy - whether it be in the form of rest
mass or otherwise - and momentum is affected by the
curvature of space; this curvature of space is produced by
the distribution of energy and momentum. |
|
| |
Light does deliver momentum upon being absorbed by
matter. It is not that light has no (rest) mass; it is that the
concept of rest mass does not make sense when applied
to a photon, as there is no reference frame, inertial or
otherwise, in which it appears at rest. The rest mass can
therefore not be measured. |
|
| |
[JHC]//Ok, call me totally insane//
You are totally insane. |
|
| |
That the powers of resolution and computation to retrieve any intelligible amount of infomation from the flattened focused waves of light whipping around a black hole are out of the reach of all but god is not my concern. I want it bad, this black hole capitalism. |
|
| |
I fought the space-time continuum, and the space-time
continuum woo o o o o o... .. . |
|
| |
I was pondering a more plausible variation on this idea, which may actually be partially baked. Consider an optical telescope lens: it pulls divergent rays of light together to form a large image of something far away. |
|
| |
A black hole could be used for this. Divergent light from an object on the far side of the black hole should be pulled together to converge into an image. Different gravitational strengths would have different effective focal lengths. The image produced might overlap with the black hole, and so it is good that they do not radiate themselves. This could be used to find distant planets. |
|
| |