C1ay Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Black holes have a reputation for voraciously eating everything in their immediate neighborhood, but these large gravity wells also affect electromagnetic radiation and may hinder our ability to ever locate the center of the universe, according to an international research team. lefthttp://www.hypography.com/gallery/files/9/9/8/black_hole_thumb.jpg[/img]"Any attempt to discover what was happening a long time ago at the beginning of our universe must take into account what gravitationally assisted negative refraction does to the radiation being viewed," said Akhlesh Lakhtakia, distinguished professor of engineering science and mechanics at Penn State. Electromagnetic radiation is affected by the material through which it travels. A material with a negative index of refraction transmits light or other wave energy differently than one with a positive index of refraction. Natural materials have positive index of refraction. When an energy beam -- light, radar, microwaves -- passes through water or glass or some other natural material, the material displaces the beam in the same direction. The amount of displacement depends upon how different the material is from air or vacuum. The displacement, due to a material with negative index of refraction, is in the opposite direction. Previously, Lakhtakia and Tom G. Mackay, lecturer in mathematics at the University of Edinburgh, used Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to examine refraction by moving materials. They calculated that negative refraction can be concluded to have occurred by an observer moving at a very high relative velocity in certain directions. Later they showed that no material is needed for negative refraction in outer space. Instead, when a beam passes through the gravitational field of a massive object such as a rotating black hole, negative refraction theoretically is possible. When it comes to the influence of gravity caused by rotating black holes or other massive objects, it really depends on where one stands. A local observer can see only a very small piece of the universal picture of how large gravitational forces influence electromagnetic radiation. To the local observer, gravity is uniform and does not cause negative refraction. However, Lakhtakia and Mackay, assisted by Sandi Setiawan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh, decided to look at a global observer -- one who stands in space-time as described by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity. A global observer sees a region around rotating black holes, called the ergosphere, as possibly bending electromagnetic radiation according to a negative refractive index. These new derivations, reported in the March 7 issue of Physics Letters A, indicate that not only do the effects of the minute stuff of the universe have to be considered when mapping the universe, but the existence of large gravity wells also must be considered. "When we are tracking light, we must take into account gravitational forces," said Lakhtakia. "Although the effect is only significant very close to rotating black holes." The three researchers have extended their theory of negative refraction to even more general scenarios, in a paper published today (March 8) in the New Journal of Physics, an electronic journal. As we reach out in extrasolar space, for example via Pioneer 10, scientists are getting more interested in the actual existences of such scenarios. Normal light bending by a gravity source such as our Sun is known as gravitational lensing. It has been suggested since Einstein’s time and was experimentally shown by a British team of scientists in 1919. This gravitational lensing sometimes causes multiple images to be seen. The effect is taken into account in global positioning systems. However, this light bending is positively refracted. When researchers search for the origin of the universe, multiple black holes and other massive objects can make the light beams bend in unexpected and unpredictable ways. "We should not be disappointed if we cannot discover the origin of the universe," said Lakhtakia. “The gravitational effect probably makes it so that we do not really know where we are looking.” Nevertheless, Lakhtakia and his collaborators are optimistic that scientists eventually will overcome many of the obstacles put forward by negative refraction in outer space. Source: Penn State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 I thought the current thinking is that there is no center of the universe.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 well if it's expanding omnidirectionally, it's got to have some sort of approximated center, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 well if it's expanding omnidirectionally, it's got to have some sort of approximated center, right? Not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 well if it's expanding omnidirectionally, it's got to have some sort of approximated center, right? Of course, and I'm in Lakeside, Cailifornia. :) But really, I'm pretty sure, with the scientific evidence provided, that there would be some center. I mean we're almost positive the universe started with the breaking down of a 10 (or 26?) dimensional universe and that had to have started at some place in space, now we just need to find out where. But if it also expanding omnidirectionally wouldn't that mean there was an end or border to the universe. I think we need to be more like these people -->:) if we want to find anything out about outer-space ;). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 linda, please enlighten me because i seem to have false knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Drat! You beat me to it lindagarrette. I was hoping my post would be right after orbsycli's. Oh well. Your post was shorter and therefore quicker and mine... well, it wasn't short enough I guess. What's your proof for that statement not being correct. I at least provided some reason for why it should be right, but let's hear your rebuttal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Wow. Last posts are kinda close together. This is like instant messaging. (12:13, 12:19, 12:21, and 12:22) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 What's your proof for that statement not being correct. I at least provided some reason for why it should be right, but let's hear your rebuttal.There's a *great* article in this month's Scientific American: "Misconceptions About the Big Bang" and this is the first one it covers. To use the good old "imagine the universe is the surface of a balloon that is being blown up," there is no "center" of the surface of the balloon, yet everything is moving away from everything else. Every galaxy is moving away from every other one, but there is no "center." Anywhere you go in the universe, you will see the same distribution of galaxies around you. I know, it makes no sense, but that's cosomology for you.... :) Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 ohhh now i understand. so we're on something relatively thin...is this where the string theory comes in?i have read a few books on this stuff, but to be honest i've never fully grasped it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 so umm...what's in the middle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 ohhh now i understand. so we're on something relatively thin...is this where the string theory comes in?Not quite: The idea is that the balloon is a simplification: the surface of the balloon is two-dimensional, and to get what's going on you have to be three-dimensional, which we can, so we can kinda grasp what is going on. Now, take the balloon analogy and shift it from 2-D to 3-D, and *that's* what's going on with the expansion of the universe: everything is moving away from everything else, but there's no "center of the explosion"... In fact, the "center" of the explosion is in *every* direction: that's why the cosmic microwave background--aka the "echo" of the big bang, is evenly distributed around the entire sky in every direction. I prefer cosmology to quantum mechanics, but its the same as Feynman and others have said about quantum: "If you think you understand it, you've misunderstood" Keep reading! The light will go on eventually! Whoa!Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 so umm...what's in the middle?For the 2-D folks *on* the balloon, there's only the surface. there's no up or down: the third dimension is something they can't really perceive except as maybe "time".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 hah, thanks a lot. I understand the concept, it's just so crazy. i love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Don't we all. That's probably the purpose of physics, now what's ours? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 come on chuck we discuss this all over the place, it's up to you buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 The idea is that the balloon is a simplification: the surface of the balloon is two-dimensional... take the balloon analogy and shift it from 2-D to 3-D, and *that's* what's going on with the expansion of the universe: But wouldnt that analogy then break-down and become more like the inside of the balloon (filled with maybe foam instead of air)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.