Ok if scientists are cool with saying that a black hole has infinite density and has a mass of zero ( i may be wording that wrong) then why do they say going faster than light with a mass is impossible because it takes infinite energy to make it happen. What im saying is why is one infinite accepted, and the other disregarded as impossible?
2006-06-23 08:22:30 · 6 answers · asked by StoneWallKid 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
If you consider that density is defined as mass per unit volume, to claim that something has infinite density and zero mass is entirely false. What I think you meant to say is infinite mass and infinitesimally small volume which would mean that density is infinite, too.
Hey, Jesse P. I'm not sure if you were talking to me when you said that "because mass is zero infinite density is possible", but if that's the case, I was merely saying that to have zero mass would be impossible and make density non-existent. There is no answer for density if mass=0 since mass is in the denominator and we know about dividing by zero. Thus, it has to be infinitesimally small, but not zero. I agree that it may be easier to understand conceptually to think of it as zero, but my point is valid. I guess the absolutely accurate thing to say is that density has a limit of infinity as mass approaches zero.
2006-06-23 08:43:25 · answer #1 · answered by A Guy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A black hole does indeed have a great deal of mass so I don't know where you heard that "mass of zero" phrase. The center is considered to have infinite density and is also known as a singularity.
As for faster than light travel, there is nothing to say it's impossible. I think what you are referring to is the energy required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. That would take an infinite amount of energy because the faster that mass is accelerated, the more massive it becomes and the more energy it requires to accelerate it. As it approaches light speed its mass approaches infinity and so it becomes impossible to accelerate it to light speed. On the other hand, it may be possible to find a way to get around that rather large speed bump and go from a sub-light speed to super-light speed without ever travelling at light speed itself.
So, to answer your question about the two different infinites, they are unrelated to each other.
2006-06-23 15:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by ebk1974 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the mass being 0 is why infinite density is possible. Second, when getting near the speed of light, we're dealing with seconds, not minutes. Any idea how much fuel we're talking to achieve 186,000 miles per second. Just to go a few miles in a second, your fuel tank would be bigger than the craft that you're in. To get any amount of weight to travel faster than the speed of light would require an( infinite) amount of fuel. You would be burning the equivalent fuel of an olympic size swimming pool every second.
2006-06-23 16:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
photon has a mass of zero and travels at the speed that all zero mass particles travel at like gravitons and stuff like that. You simply cannot have more than infinite energy put into something. And E=MC2 says that you gain mass as you speed up. You get where I'm going right?
2006-06-23 18:17:32 · answer #4 · answered by cosmologist dude 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that both are not infinite, only that we have not developed a method, scale (or even theory) to be able to quantify those attributes. Wow, deep stuff, what kinda question is that for a Friday. . . .LOL
2006-06-23 15:31:12 · answer #5 · answered by sjconline 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
E = m* c*c
blackhole is a theory,, but photon star exist,
2006-06-23 15:31:36 · answer #6 · answered by Henry W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋