Insightful Discussions with my Father

[Thunder Of Zeus]

Link to original post: Insightful Discussions with my Father



My dad is very intelligent and knowledgeable. I often discuss questions that I have (mostly about science and religion) with him. Here I will log our conversations. I'd like to hear your thoughts or questions.

11-17-09:

Antimatter-
Our Discussion: We talked about what antimatter is, what evidence we have that it exists and what matter + antimatter would yield. We decided that antimatter is just the opposite substance as any particular matter. Our conclusion was that we have no evidence of antimatter's existance. We could not settle on the product of antimatter and matter, but thought it could be a vacuum; it is energy, the amount of which is determined by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Community Input: We do, in fact, have antimatter.

Loss of Water-
Our Discussion: Plants use water in their photosynthesis. Would it not stand to reason that we are running out of water if H20 is not part of the product that photosynthesis yields (6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2)? We decided that there had to be an H20-yielding reaction to maintain the natural balance (particularly of water) that exists (hence our discussion on antimatter). Upon research, we found out that there are many reactions that bond hydrogen and oxygen, such as burning hydrogen or in the presence of oxygen.
This discussion was also spurred by my $1,000,000 idea of an electrolysis device that seperates the oxygen and hydrogen in water, releases the hydrogen and fuels your breathing with the oxygen; it would allow you to swim without air tainks. The electrolysis process would be activated when you began to breathe in.
Community Input:

Black Holes-
Our Discussion: Are they true vacuums? Is there ANY matter in a black hole? We decided no. We "see" black holes, in that we see the effects. The analogy my dad made was with darkness. Do we see darkness? No. Darkness is the absence of light; black holes are the absence of matter. We see the effects of each. Black holes are, as far as we have concluded, the only true vacuums.
Community Input: Black Holes are infinitely dense bodies, not true vacuums. My dad questions the difference between infinite density and no density; he uses the analogy of going around the world. There are two ways to go around the world: you could go east, or you could go so far the opposite direction that you reach the same point the other way. At what point does high density result in no density?

 

[Scott!]

............That's not how black holes, or vacuums work. A vacuum (like space, not the appliance) is the absence of matter. They do not have gravity, as gravity comes from matter. Thus, they don't influence the nearby matter.

A black hole is matter compressed into a dense point, or singularity. Any body of matter has an escape velocity, which is the speed needed to escape its gravitational influence. A black hole's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Thus, light cannot escape, which is why they are black. This high concentration of matter is the complete opposite of a vacuum.

For the scientifically knowledgeable readers, I know some of my definitions aren't perfectly scientific, but they get the point across.

 

[Mewter]

Those seem like very interesting discussions, and very fun ones to be had! Not surprisingly though, you and your father have arrived at very off conclusions (it would be very hard to arrive at the correct one just through discussion). My sources are at the bottom.

Antimatter:
Antimatter exists, and we have created small amounts of it in labs before and have been doing it for quite some time. From what I understand, their differences lie in electrical charge. and when matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other and create tons of energy. What is strange is why antimatter seems fairly absent in what we can see of the universe so far instead of there being a balance between the two types of matter.

Photosynthesis:
The wording is a bit confusing. Explain please?

Black Holes:
The reason you can't see black holes is because they are keeping their own light from escaping their gravitational pull. Think of it this way: matter is to gravity as vacuum is to no influence. Matter always bends the space and material around it, distorting its surroundings. If black holes were truly vacuums, then it would also follow that the vacuum of space itself would be a black hole (and it isn't).

"Black holes" as they are called are large masses of constantly collapsing matter (because their density reached a point where even the heat and pressure trying to escape couldn't resist gravity) and it then reaches an infinitesimal point. This then creates a large distortion where the object would normally be, and gravity from that point to the center of gravity is very strong. The easiest picture is the one likened to Einstein's theories, where space is like a fabric and mass "bends" the fabric.


All in all, it is very interesting stuff. I would recommend reading up on the subjects.

Sources: Antimatter and a lot of books I have read on the subject.
Also Antimatter .
Maybe not entirely correct, but fairly accurate source: Black Holes

 

[CRASHiC]

Doesn't Stephan Hawking still believe that Black Holes can't exist?

 

[Sucumbio]

From: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6151-hawking-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html and
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6193-hawking-concedes-black-hole-bet.html

In 1976, he calculated that once a black hole forms, it starts losing mass by radiating energy. This "Hawking radiation" contains no information about the matter inside the black hole and once the black hole evaporates, all information is lost.

But this conflicts with the laws of quantum physics, which say that such information can never be completely wiped out. Hawking's argument was that the intense gravitational fields of black holes somehow unravel the laws of quantum physics.

Then later in 2004 he recanted:

Black holes do not obliterate information about things which fall into them, but mangle information instead. "I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes. If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state."

o.O yah, this kinda thing makes my brain hurt. XD

 

[Jonas]

On reactions that produce water:
Photosynthesis is a reaction that turns carbon dioxide into organic compunds. It requires sunlight and water and happens in any plant cell.

Respiration happens in any non-plant cell and can be described as opposite of photosynthesis. It basically uses oxygen to turn organic compunds into energy and produces water as a byproduct.

 

[Mewter]

Lol, yeah. Steven Hawking changed his mind about "information loss" in black holes.

Community Input: Black Holes are infinitely dense bodies, not true vacuums. My dad questions the difference between infinite density and no density; he uses the analogy of going around the world. There are two ways to go around the world: you could go east, or you could go so far the opposite direction that you reach the same point the other way. At what point does high density result in no density?

Does this mean that adding a positively infinite quantity 0 can result in -1? How about turning the temperature up so high that it's snowing at 0 degrees Celsius?

Keep in mind that black holes are surrounded by gravity, and "void/space" has (as far as I know) no effect on anything at all unless it is filled with "something". A black hole becoming infinitely dense and then wrapping around to become not dense at all would result in it not existing because there is nothing, and in effect, there would be no gravity (because there is no object anymore). Because it still exists and produces effects (we have observed the effects of black holes on companion systems), you can assume it hasn't reached a point like that (if that point exists at all).

On reactions that produce water:
Photosynthesis is a reaction that turns carbon dioxide into organic compunds. It requires sunlight and water and happens in any plant cell.

Respiration happens in any non-plant cell and can be described as opposite of photosynthesis. It basically uses oxygen to turn organic compunds into energy and produces water as a byproduct.

What he said ^.
Water more or less will always be preserved on Earth unless you find a way to make an indestructible, un-covertable rock out of the molecule or dump all of the oceans and animals out into space.

 

[Thunder Of Zeus]

Lol, yeah. Steven Hawking changed his mind about "information loss" in black holes.
Does this mean that adding a positively infinite quantity 0 can result in -1? How about turning the temperature up so high that it's snowing at 0 degrees Celsius?

Keep in mind that black holes are surrounded by gravity, and "void/space" has (as far as I know) no effect on anything at all unless it is filled with "something". A black hole becoming infinitely dense and then wrapping around to become not dense at all would result in it not existing because there is nothing, and in effect, there would be no gravity (because there is no object anymore). Because it still exists and produces effects (we have observed the effects of black holes on companion systems), you can assume it hasn't reached a point like that (if that point exists at all).


What he said ^.
Water more or less will always be preserved on Earth unless you find a way to make an indestructible, un-covertable rock out of the molecule or dump all of the oceans and animals out into space.

And Hydrogen or Oxygen.

 

[highfive]

Wish I had intelligent conversation with my dad like that. We usually just listen to the news then either say it's good news or bad news.

 

[Teran]

I don't like Stephen Hawking tbh. He's a bit pedantic.

Thing is, what gets me more is how everyone laps up everything he says, just because admittedly he does have incredible brainpower.

That doesn't make him right all the time though, he's also full of hot air.

Also, I never bother discussing stuff with my dad, it'll eventually turn into him trying to cause a debate for some reason, and those are just him trying to be right no matter what. He's unbelievable stubborn too, worse than me.

I don't like talking smart stuff with my family.