User talk:11341134a

Question on Black Hole Physics
If nothing, not even light can escape a black hole than how do graviton waves escape the black hole to act on other objects? Also I have heard a lot about exotic matter that would make a black hole a stable wormhole. If this matter even exists it has a negative charge. Thus would it not be repelled by gravity? How would one even get it to the black hole without the matter being repelled by the black hole's gravity?11341134a (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse waves with fields. A wave is a kind of field, but not all fields are waves. The field of a black hole is not a wave or a collection of waves, it's a static equilibrium configuration. Gravitons, if they exist, would be waves; a static field would not be made of gravitons. Maaaybe it would be "made of virtual gravitons", but virtual particles don't follow the usual rules of causality, so (a) they're not stopped by event horizons and (b) they don't make much physical sense anyway. In general relativity the field of a black hole stays there because there's nothing else for it to do. Fields are local, so any change would have to come from somewhere, and it can't come from inside the hole because of the event horizon. So once the field has settled into an equilibrium state, it doesn't change any more. Negative mass would gravitate just like ordinary mass according to the equivalence principle, i.e. it would be attracted toward a black hole. But being attracted isn't any better than being repelled; what you need is something that will keep it in just the right place, and there's no known physics that will do that. General relativity lets you take any geometry and work out a corresponding distribution of energy. That doesn't mean that every geometry makes sense, because for most of them you'll get a energy distribution that can't arise from any plausible physical laws. So the existence of stable wormhole and warp drive solutions doesn't really mean anything. The energy distributions don't look reasonable, not only because of the negative mass but because there's nothing to force it to be where it needs to be. -- BenRG (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BOLD STATEMENTS! "[Virtual particles are] not stopped by event horizons and ... they don't make much physical sense anyway". Virtual particles are stopped by the "event horizon" according to Stephen Hawking: that's where Hawking Radiation comes from; two virtual photons not being able to annihilate each other because one got taken by the "event horizon". The presence of virtual particles also accounts for various other physical anomalies that I can point you to in my Quantum Mechanics textbook if you want. Also, maybe you should review your quantum mechanics textbook--> EVERYTHING is a wave, including light, including atoms and also including your "gravitational fields"; All of space and time that we can presently observe is made of photons (also waves).--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Quantum Physics

Could you send me a document explaining why everything is a wave and virtual particles. I kinda get the jist of it but I don't have a quantum mechanics text book. I am a lowly high school frosh that is extremely interested in astronomy. Also explain any complex math, I haven't even taken calculus yet :-)11341134a (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (from the black hole discussion page)

Oh boy, that's a tall order there. What you're asking is to summarize a century-and-a-half of physics. And if you don't know calculus then you probably won't understand any of it, but I can give you very watered down explanations of things. Light is a particle (photon) A lot of those particles can superimpose themselves on each other and make a wave Hence, light is a particle-wave Mass also is a particle-wave Any questions? Lol, don't expect to understand it until you've taken 4 semesters of college-level calculus, and 4 more semesters of physics. Math is very very important, for without it we could not describe the physics of our universe. So stay awake in math class, and learn it if you want to learn physics.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaizeAndBlue86" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole"


 * I didn't mean to be so vague. However, if you have more specific questions pertaining to QM then I would be glad to answer.  Just don't ask me to summarize all of physics.  That's like asking to summarize the entire encyclopedia!  In time you will learn  how everything fits together and that starts by just pondering why things happen.  If you need guidance to your thinking, by all means ask an expert.  But make sure your questions are specific and show that you've put some thought into it yourself.  So feel free to post your questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And, the saving thing is "electrons are just like light", as Feynman said (Feynman Lectures) -- (except that two half-odd particles ("fermions", spin 1/2, 3/2,...) like electrons cannot occupy the same quantum state, but spin-even particles ("bosons", spin 0,1,2,...) "are friendly little fellers, and just love to snuggle down in the same state", as Ed Purcell put it in a class lecture, long long ago.) The EM Field is relatively easy to understand, yet the EM field is the quantum field for light, so if you understand that, and the (very strange) way QM makes photons behave, then you will have a lot of it.  Wwheaton (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Photons are quanta, the quanta of the EM field. In field theory it comes out in the simplest cases that the field looks exactly, mathematically equivalent to, a set of harmonic oscillators (ie, ideal generalized pendulums). The energy of a harmonic oscillator is quantized with exactly equal steps between levels.  So we just count the number of steps, excitons they are called, which are the photons, for the EM case.  But the "quantum weirdness", which applies equally to photons and electrons and all other microscopic systems as well, is really tough.  Feynman said he was not sure anyone could really understand it, you just have to learn how it "is", how it acts mathematically, and carry on as best you can from there.
 * I think you would do well to get his Feynman Lectures, which are big (3 volumes) but available in paperback. You would need a little help on your math (? from Wiki), probably.  I think you could get a lot out of Vol 1 to cut your teeth on the math and learn the ropes.  Vol 3 is elementary QM, and the first few chapters crash into the heart of darkness in a terrific way, which almost anyone can tackle, as it is conceptual, not mathematical.  I learned calculus mostly from the mathematical appendix of Arthur C Clarke's little book, Interplanetary Flight (1950) when I was a freshman & sophomore in HS myself, it is terrific,  and probably still available on Amazon, though long out of print.  Clarke was my hero when I was a kid, and still is, truth to tell.
 * Look forward to further conversations! Best,  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Acts
Hey, thanks! I'm not even sure what I did, but that's my first Barnstar, and I was delighted to discover it. Feel free to ask me questions (as I see you are a student), though my areas of real competence are quite limited. Best regards, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Physics book
I finally have a specific question! Could you reccomend me a good physics textbook or better yet a basic quantum mechanics textbook. I like puzzling things out through theory but I've hit a wall and I need to start to understand the math before I can get around it. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Post any reccomendations on my talk page, thanks!11341134a (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in that kind of stuff, an excellent book to read would be "The Elegant Universe". That book is more specifically about string theory, but that is arguably going to be the key to a future "theory of everything".  It may be a little hard at some points, but most sections are fascinating; including a chapter on special and general relativity that will blow your mind if you don't know much about that yet.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A good QM primer is ISBN 0700222901 ! Can't recommend it enough; it's the one I taught myself QM from when I couldn't follow the lecturers. Makes a lot of helpful analogies between Hilbert space and ordinary space. --Michael C. Price talk 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I in turn for QM would recommend Vol 3 of The Feynman Lectures, as a classic accessible at an elementary level (at least the first few chapters) with connections to many other areas of physics, though with little black holes. The first two volumes are wonderful also, and although they are considered "advanced" by some, I think you would get a lot out of reading them and just skipping over the stuff you cannot yet understand, until you have had a chance to fill in your mathematical background.  Anyhow, they are available in paperback, and separately I think, one volume at a time.  Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics (the later second edition [1992] has an additional author) is a classic introduction to special and general relativity, light on mathematical formalism but strong on physical insight.   Wheeler first coined the term "black Hole", by the way. I agree Greene's Elegant Universe is excellent, totally non-mathematical, but kind of a motivational side trip before you can understand the mathematics of string theory, which is a long hard way ahead.  (Steven Weinberg, after he won his Nobel, said he tried to work in the field of string theory, but the math was too hard for him, so he gave up after a couple of years' effort.  Not that you should be discouraged at your age, but do realize that it is a long haul.) Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A little freelance from me
Astronomy, study of the stars. Back in time is where we look. Constellations and the patterns they make, swirling, circling, geometric, yet as random as froth on the ocean. Delicately the astronomers adjust the lenses, their work is important. Energetically they chart the stars with ever-more accuracy. Fantastically the stars and galaxies reveal themselves understood. Grateful for the clear night, the astronomers snap pictures. Hot stars roil, cold gas courses through the stars, unchanged for eons, astronomer eyes train a pair of new eyes. Inarticulate with awe, a young astronomer examines their work. Joshua is his name. Kilotons of gas erupting into plasma right before his eyes. Luminious galaxies, breathtaking planets, rogue asteroids all reveal themselves in those simple captured photons. “Magnificent” he exclaims. “Nothing in this world could ever compare. Opaque objects beautiful and unknown, oh the thrill of their secret world. Physicist is this boys dream. Quarks, protons neutrinos he knows they are all out there and they makes up what he sees. Rotations of planets, movement of galaxies, origin of the universe. Study and explain how this happens is what he wants to do. Tristars1 rotations and other anomalies, thats why he wants to be a physicist. Universe, what makes it work? Vectors quadrants calculus trigonometry to explain all that is seen. Wild and exciting he finds this to be. X-clusters of high energy. Zealous in his work the young man strives to become an astrophysicist.

Tristars are a fictional anomaly


 * Lovely! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw you also like Bach; take a look at this, find a nice peaceful fugue, and stay cool! :)

B Wwheaton (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You probably know a lot more than I do about bio already, I am envious! -- B Wwheaton (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar - my very first. :-) --Michael C. Price talk 08:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How now?
How are you doing? Busy with the end of school, probably? "Be well, do good work, and keep in touch", as Garrison Kiellor sez. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Josh! Glad to hear from you!  I am afraid you are quickly passing the point where I can be of much use to you in your physics education, but I do love watching new stars rise as old ones set.  The Casimir effect is so weird I probably would not believe in it if it had not been experimentally confirmed (but there it is).  What I really understand about field theory almost ends at phonons and the quantization of lattice vibrations in any case.  Another Wiki editor, a grad student in elementary particle physics, recommends this to help poor me:, as a good upper division undergraduate text, if you have not seen it.
 * Just now I am listening to this, which maybe you have not heard and might enjoy. It's the first great romantic piano concerto, in my opinion.  Cheers,  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Good to hear from you. I am a staff scientist at Caltech, not faculty. Mainly I am just a space freak. I love teaching, but the preparation time would eat me alive if I lived by it and tried to do much else. I worked in gamma-ray astronomy at JPL for 18 years before moving to Caltech. You can get an idea of the little I've done at my work (IPAC) home page, -- work pages. Also, -- family pages (has a picture of me when I was much younger than you) and -- my page, hardly begun... together have a little more about my life. For the last several years neurological problems (which I now discover were due to trouble in my back, congenital skeletal abnormalities due in turn to diastrophic dysplasia) have kept me struggling just to stay employed; am now waiting to see to what extent my late repair job may help me to recover.

Am I right that you are just starting your junior year? When will you enter college? Caltech is a great school, which I recommend highly. It would be delightful to have you here in Pasadena. You are somewhere in SE Mass. if I recall, is that right? Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yale is great, as is Caltech. I'm slowly recovering, getting back to work soon. All the best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Amy Biehl
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Amy Biehl. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

fuck off cunt don't leave me messages on my page you ignorant twat