1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?

« on: 23/09/2020 12:21:31 »

And if you think of it, I would call this a lot more mind boggling than any ideas of taychons existing. If it is correct, but it should be. Inside a Black hole, depending on how you define that 'center' you should disappear from any outside observer, and that is without 'wormhole technology'.
=

Locally defined it should look as if space becomes infinite, possibly? The event horizon won't exist for you any more as any direction you choose invariably will lead you only one way, towards that 'center', where or what -ever it is. Some define as if the 'center' is reached as soon as you passed your (real) event horizon. It's pretty weird, a black hole.
=

Have a read https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-big-bang-may-be-a-black-hole-inside-another-universe-79ce12613c60
=

One assumption I build it on (not the article, that's unrelated) is that 'c' will be 'c' wherever you are, and that 'c' is a equivalence to a locally defined 'perfect clock'. It's not the 'speed' I'm interested in there, it's like a conservation law, the speed doesn't matter, the equivalence do.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?

« on: 23/09/2020 11:28:43 »

This " Inside the event horizon space and time change their roles " is about mathematics. It's a specific solution to the standard Schwarzschild coordinates. In reality it is about a zone from where noting escapes, not even light. You falling in wouldn't notice time and space 'changing place', and your wristwatch would give you the same clock rate, well, more or less if introducing tidal forces. But without them there would be nothing special happening to you, and you would reach whatever 'center' there is in a, for you, measurable time.

What happens to 'space' inside is that it conforms to gravity and 'shrinks'. And so do you and your meter stick, as defined from a outside far away. Not to you locally defined though. The same goes for the time component, as from a outside it 'slows down', and as the inside is a singularity the 'center' should be a place where a outside observer would say that your clock has stopped, as far as I see. And the same should then go for your 'size' as a guess. Aka, you 'disappeared'

And yes, the 'evaporation' is a quantum physical effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would an immersed bottle be filled?

« on: 27/03/2020 21:18:45 »

Everyone seem to get it except me. I get stuck directly reading ' immerse inversely a sealed bottle ' Inversely meaning? A Klein bottle or?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can quantum entanglement be proven?

« on: 10/11/2019 16:23:24 »

The whole point of a quantum entanglement is that you don't know what spin this particle you measure will have, it has a fifty fifty percentage in a simplest case of being 'up' or 'down', and you can do the a same experiment with a same collection of particles several times to find that sometimes they are 'up' and sometimes they are 'down'.

What you do know is that the other 'particle' split from the original through a beam divider of some sort 'instantly' will know its partners spin as soon as you measure the first one. Measuring it collapses the probabilities it contained, and for its 'twin' too. But before that measurement nothing was sure.
=

And yes, the whole question becomes one of how it could 'know instantly' what spin its partner would present. As for information the idea is that this won't be allowed as it is 'ftl'. Information is presumed to have a 'speed' no higher than 'c'. But then you have the injection of 'energy' as you measure it (bump it), and that's something I wonder about. Will its partner gain energy too? Or is there no 'energy' involved in this measuring?

the point of that question is one of if we still can 'separate' them from each other, or if they are 'indivisible'. There is a difference I think? You could also call it a question of 'information'  and 'speeds' ..

And yes, if someone knows of a experiment checking this I would be very interested. But it has to be a classic one in where we separate the particles a fair distance. both in 'splendid isolation' before measuring, also defining their energy before a measurement, then adding whatever 'kinetic energy' we create in our first measurement, comparing it to its twin. As it is our interference with their indeterminate state that defines the 'wave collapse' the 'spin' of the first is not the interesting factor here, we can shoot the first one with a laser if we like as long as we know the energy it contained before. And it's not the spin of its twin that we are interested in anymore, just its energy.

=

spelling

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?

« on: 07/11/2019 09:20:36 »

If you instead of that want to think about it as fields of different energy density interacting it becomes one more interpretation :)
In that case most of what we take for granted disappear. A hole isn't a hole, it's something of a 'energy density' or maybe lack of, looking as a hole to us. and a 'particle' is not a projectile, instead it becomes a emanation of either ' one field's ' interaction with itself or fields interacting. I think that suits my own taste better than the other approaches. As you wrote light has a wave particle duality, and I see that as absolutely correct.
==

there is one big hurdle with the field idea, to me then. And that is how to make it fit relativity. What that means is that our universe is 'observer dependent' looked at from relativity. You can 'shrink' this universe through mass f.ex or by speeds. And those effects are no artifacts but physical laws. So if we define a universe as a field interacting with itself, or fields, we still need to incorporate relativity in it. And that is where it becomes really weird.

What it means is that everything might be said to have different 'speeds' versus your observation/platform. Which means that every object you observe will have its own definition of a size and time of/in this universe. Scaling it down we meet particles and passing that 'breaking it up' fields.  That's also where it starts to hurt my head.

there is one more dimension we need to add to fields and that is time. Depending on how you look at it it becomes a arrow pointing one way, or a ocean. If you think of it as a ocean then that can contain a lot of possibilities, and also catch the way Einstein defined SpaceTime, consisting of four dimensions. three double ended and one with only one direction. And if you set that together with observer dependencies you get not only one universe but a multitude, one each for each 'observer'.

If you conclude that neither Relativity, nor QM (and fields) are satisfied with what we naively think of as our reality and universe, I would agree :)

==

you could also think of it as an 'ocean' consisting of probabilities in where 'time' is directly connected to decoherence giving us outcomes which then becomes our arrow. But 'probabilities' is also a snake biting its own tail in that it comes from us collecting statistics. so defining it as probabilities doesn't lead us any further as I think, but that may be where I'm wrong?

It may depend on how we define time.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?

« on: 07/11/2019 09:05:11 »

Don't need mathematics to think about it Lloyd. Only if you have another interpretation and then want to have it published. Most of the stuff at the QM level is probabilistic, everything is thought to be a result of that and decoherence. Decoherence can be seen as this small probabilistic level reaching some sort of threshold of interactions and scale leaving the world as we experience it normally.

So in a two slit experiment there is a probability of either one or both slits being 'engaged' by one particle. And the way it unfolds will be defined through your setup. The idea of indirect evidence is increasingly popular in those situations as every time you probe a particle you also force it into a set behavior aka  a 'wave collapse'. Whether one want to think about it first as waves or as particles is more of a question of what you believe than what is right here. I've read physicists stating the particle view while other state the wave view.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 19:23:03 »

Maybe

But if it isn't then what is real? I have to go out from myself and I think I exist. I'm sure you do the same which makes it two of us :)

 'photons' are a equivalence to energy as I think of it, and they are also a local effect in that no matter if they propagate or not the only way we can experimentally prove them are at their impact. There is no way to define them when 'propagating' experimentally.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 18:23:35 »

In a way CPT, then we have 'energy' that might be called a coin of exchange, as JP defined it. But at a origin you don't have particles of proper mass. You have this idea of 'energy' instead creating proper mass.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 16:40:19 »

He's interesting Bill. Time as such is a local definition, invariant locally. It questions what we mean by defining something a locally invariant. Or if you like , lifting up repeatable experiments to 'universal constants'. If you turn your head all universal constants are representations of that idea.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 07:12:39 »

Pretty sweet question Petrochemicals. My own take on it is that it is a part of something more.
That's what the two slit experiment tells us, and so called 'delayed choices'.

What it do is to present us with a 'speed', and looked at from my perspective a way to to define durations (aka a 'local clock'). That one seems to hold true at any experiment, but when it comes to how it will express itself in a outcome, as particles or waves is related to more circumstances than 'light' itself.
=

It's a little more complicated than that though as 'light' is a local definition, when it comes to 'speeds' and 'clocks' both. The same as we find other objects to have a varying time and so 'speed of light' when defined from our own local 'time and clock'. To it we can add that the only way you measure a light particle or wave is at a outcome. You don't see 'light' propagating, you see its results.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Can This Black Hole Be So Big Ton 618 ?

« on: 21/08/2019 11:43:45 »

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/03/17/how-supermassive-black-holes-can-form-without-collapsing-stars/

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what would connect chaos theory with multidimensionallity

« on: 31/07/2019 12:00:58 »

when I think of a fractal 'magnifying it' finding it not to end it's not about 'dimensions' being nested inside it. It's a self replicating system.
=

Maybe this is a good explanation of a Hausdorff dimension. https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-what-is-the-Hausdorff-dimension-a-measure-of

Then again, I'm not that particular to the idea of dimensions and this opens for another interpretation of what it is. I see it as a result, not as an origin. But it definitely confuse me trying to imagine how to translate this mathematic into a universe consisting of 1.5 'dimensions'.
=

Ok, Hausdorff did not question the 'dimensions' we find around us. He just invented a new mathematical approach to describing it in where the result of describing certain types of fractals gives you a fractional number using his definitions. That does not state that you have 1.5 'dimensions' because that is meaningless practically. .5 dimensions doesn't mean anything, the translation of it into a real universe fail to even describe a line. As long as we use what we see around us.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« on: 02/06/2019 19:26:14 »

You're perfectly correct,
It can't, everything breaks down at 'infinity'

Although it also involves a arrow.
And it´f the arrow is'c' while 'space' is 'ftl'`?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« on: 02/06/2019 19:23:57 »

" f space-time is infinite ,how gravity extends to infinity?
 we know infinity is unreachable because it continues forever and no-one reach a finite point.How gravity extends to infinite distances while  infinity is unreachable? how gravity bends and curve space-time everywhere while space time end is unreachable? for gravity to bend space-time everywhere it should reach its end , how gravity bends space-time end while this end is unreachable? " By  Yahya A.Sharif

15

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 29/01/2019 11:17:59 »

no, that's perfectly correct. the energy you measure a photon is dependent on what frame of reference you have, being 'at rest' with it or 'moving' relative it. To define a intrinsic energy you have to be 'at rest' with your experimental setup. Light can both be said to 'red shift' and 'blue shift' depending on ones frame of reference, measuring it. It's in principle similar to two cars colliding, depending on relative speed(s), but in the photons frame we better avoid talking about 'mass'.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happened before the Big Bang?

« on: 26/01/2019 19:09:35 »

Well Bogie, we all have a tendency to get of track as we feel we're onto something. The New Theories section is more forgiving in that manner. The idea here seems to be that we should try for informing, trying to stay inside the accepted physics borders, more than presenting new ideas (speculating).

17

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 23/01/2019 07:40:27 »

I think this one is a pretty good start
https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-how-did-Max-Planck-come-up-with-the-Plancks-constant-and-what-problem-does-it-solve

What I find fascinating about Planck is his imagination. He had a very long sight, with that formula just being part of it. He would have made a excellent SF writer, in the best sense. https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071220/full/news.2007.389.html

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happened before the Big Bang?

« on: 22/01/2019 19:51:42 »

Interesting

I don't know, but I would probably first look at the projections of the cmb (cosmic background radiation)
doesn't mean that I don't respect the idea of 'standard candles' setting a standard for measuring a distance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/05/how-henrietta-leavitt-lit-the-way-to-distant-galaxies/

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does my tea bag always turn clockwise when removed from my mug?

« on: 09/01/2019 13:38:14 »

Couldn't we name this wet string theory?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?

« on: 08/01/2019 23:24:54 »

Phyti " A deterministic universe is not possible, since it would require a simultaneous knowledge of its current 'now' state. "

Well, you can. Just allow all possibilities statically.  Forget 'time' for it. Then allow for a arrow and decoherence, scaling it up. Also allow for HUP and 'free will'. Now you got both, your local arrow combined with your free will, redefining your reality in a dynamic manner. 'It's not 'deterministic' in a usual sense, although you can see it as all 'states possible' already are 'known'. The beauty of it is that I don't need to introduce 'new universes' for each 'probability possible', I do it the opposite way, letting your free will create reality, with the rest being 'probabilities' unfulfilled.

You could possibly see it as a result of so called 'super positions'. If one assume that 'systems' unobserved are in superpositions then those include all possibilities too. the definition of a outcome is another thing, but as long as those superpositions exist the system is open for interpretations, no matter what the question or/and circumstances might be. With the probability of a outcome defined by the circumstances surrounding 'the experiment/question' etc.