TheBox on black holes

  • 310 Replies
  • 17454 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #150 on: 04/03/2016 14:20:57 »
These are all points that I have made to you and you have disputed. Since you have clearly held up this person as an authority on these things that should be believed over both you and me then you currently have no choice but to admit that you are wrong in exactly the ways I indicated earlier.
False. I don't have to admit anything, especially to some bloviated blowhard with zero credentials.

Mass and energy are properties of things. Properties are not things and therefore can not be made from something. Things have a property. Properties are not made out of things.
That's pretty funny. I criticized you for using the imprecise word "matter", now you resort to the word "things." So, the agyegy theory is that "stuff is made of things." The Craig W. Thomson theory is that "mass is made of energy." Pretty easy to see which explanation is closer to reality.

When correctly stated and understood science is not contradictory. The scientific method is pretty much designed to identify and remove contradictory ideas from any system of thought to which it is applied. Sometimes to the layman even correctly stated science can sound contradictory but that is simple a symptom of a lack of understanding.
That's great. Maybe you can help me understand this:

List of unsolved problems in physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?[2] Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere? Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are they a separate arrow of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causality? Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness? Why does time have a direction? What links the quantum arrow of time to the thermodynamic arrow?

How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this is the measurement problem – what constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state? Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously "local", "causal" and "real", but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error that doesn't even make sense to talk about if one properly understands quantum mechanics.

Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants?[2] Is the theory string theory? Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are, why observed spacetime has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, and why all laws of physics are as they are? Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time? Are any of the particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed, and, if so, which ones are they and what are their properties? Are there unobserved fundamental forces implied by a theory that explains other unsolved problems in physics?

Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist?

Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement.[3][4] What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some extremely distant place?[5]

Why is the distant universe so homogeneous when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed? Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?[6]

Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?

Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?[7]

What is the identity of dark matter?[6] Is it a particle? Is it the lightest superpartner (LSP)? Do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the Universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?

Is a non-spherically symmetric gravitational pull from outside the observable Universe responsible for some of the observed motion of large objects such as galactic clusters in the universe?

Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e. of a comoving spatial section of the Universe, informally called the "shape" of the Universe? Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the Universe may be unmeasurable, but, since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al., and other groups have suggested that the shape of the Universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space. Is the shape unmeasurable; the Poincaré space; or another 3-manifold?

Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?[8] Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible?[9] Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to the entanglement revealed in the violations of the Bell inequalities, or can information and conserved quantities also move in a non-local way? Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed? What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

Are the branching ratios of the Higgs boson decays consistent with the standard model? Is there only one type of Higgs boson?

Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 1019 GeV, much above the electroweak scale (100 GeV, the energy scale dominating physics at low energies). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents quantities at the electroweak scale, such as the Higgs boson mass, from getting quantum corrections on the order of the Planck scale? Is the solution supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning?

Did particles that carry "magnetic charge" exist in some past, higher-energy epoch? If so, do any remain today? (Paul Dirac showed the existence of some types of magnetic monopoles would explain charge quantization.)[10]

Is the proton fundamentally stable? Or does it decay with a finite lifetime as predicted by some extensions to the standard model?[11] How do the quarks and gluons carry the spin of protons?[12]

Is spacetime supersymmetry realized at TeV scale? If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking? Does supersymmetry stabilize the electroweak scale, preventing high quantum corrections? Does the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP or Lightest Supersymmetric Particle) comprise dark matter?

Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?[13]

What is the mass of neutrinos, whether they follow Dirac or Majorana statistics? Is mass hierarchy normal or inverted? Is the CP violating phase 0?[14][15][16]

Why has there never been measured a free quark or gluon, but only objects that are built out of them, like mesons and baryons? How does this phenomenon emerge from QCD?

Why is the strong nuclear interaction invariant to parity and charge conjugation? Is Peccei–Quinn theory the solution to this problem?

Why is the experimentally measured value of the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment ("muon g−2") significantly different from the theoretically predicted value of that physical constant?[17]

What is the electric charge radius of the proton? How does it differ from gluonic charge?

What combinations of quarks are possible? Why were pentaquarks so difficult to discover?[18] Are they a tightly-bound system of five elementary particles, or a more weakly-bound pairing of a baryon and a meson?[19]

Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?[20] Why are there quasi-periodic oscillations in many accretion discs?[21] Why does the period of these oscillations scale as the inverse of the mass of the central object?[22] Why are there sometimes overtones, and why do these appear at different frequency ratios in different objects?[23]

Why is the Sun's corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface? Why is the magnetic reconnection effect many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models?

What is responsible for the numerous interstellar absorption lines detected in astronomical spectra? Are they molecular in origin, and if so which molecules are responsible for them? How do they form?

How do these short-duration high-intensity bursts originate?[2]

What is the origin of the M-sigma relation between supermassive black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion?[24] How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 1010 solar masses so early in the history of the Universe?

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). Can the discrepancy between the curves be attributed to dark matter?

Why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper belt fall off rapidly and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

Why is the observed energy of satellites flying by Earth sometimes different by a minute amount from the value predicted by theory?

Is dark matter responsible for differences in observed and theoretical speed of stars revolving around the center of galaxies, or is it something else?

What is the exact mechanism by which an implosion of a dying star becomes an explosion?

[6] Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high,given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth? Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit?[2][6]

Why does the magnetosphere of Saturn exhibit a (slowly changing) periodicity close to that at which the planet's clouds rotate? What is the true rotation rate of Saturn's deep interior?[25]

What is the origin of magnetar magnetic field?

Is the Universe at very large scales anisotropic, making the cosmological principle an invalid assumption? The number count and intensity dipole anisotropy in radio, NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) catalogue[26] is inconsistent with the local motion as derived from cosmic microwave background[27][28] and indicate an intrinsic dipole anisotropy. The same NVSS radio data also shows an intrinsic dipole in polarization density and degree of polarization[29] in the same direction as in number count and intensity. There are other several observation revealing large-scale anisotropy. The optical polarization from quasars shows polarization alignment over a very large scale of Gpc.[30][31][32] The cosmic-microwave-background data shows several features of anisotropy,[33][34][35][36] which are not consistent with the Big Bang model.

Why do galaxies and quasars produce about 5 times less ultraviolet light than expected in the low-redshift universe?

Why is space roar six times louder than expected? What is the source of space roar?

Is there a universal age–metallicity relation (AMR) in the Galactic disk (both "thin" and "thick" parts of the disk)? Although in the local (primarily thin) disk of the Milky Way there is no evidence of a strong AMR,[37] a sample of 229 nearby "thick" disk stars has been used to investigate the existence of an age–metallicity relation in the Galactic thick disk, and indicate that there is an age–metallicity relation present in the thick disk.[38][39] Stellar ages from asteroseismology confirm the lack of any strong age-metallicity relation in the Galactic disc.[40]

Why is there a discrepancy between the amount of lithium-7 predicted to be produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the amount observed in very old stars?[41]

In 2007 the Ulysses spacecraft passed through the tail of comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught) and found surprising results concerning the interaction of the solar wind with the tail.

The ultraluminous X-ray source M82 X-2 was thought to be a black hole, but in October 2014 data from NASA's space-based X-ray telescope NuStar indicated that M82 X-2 is a pulsar many times brighter than the Eddington limit.

Fermi acceleration is thought to be the primary mechanism that accelerates astrophysical particles to high energy. However, it is unclear what mechanism causes those particles to initially have energies high enough for Fermi acceleration to work on them.[42]

Transient radio pulses lasting only a few milliseconds, from emission regions thought to be no larger than a few hundred kilometers, and estimated to occur several hundred times a day. While several theories have been proposed, there is no generally accepted explanation for them. They may come from cosmological distances, but there is no consensus on this, either.

What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the evolution of cosmos? What is the detailed partonic structure of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime? Do glueballs exist? Do gluons acquire mass dynamically despite having a zero rest mass, within hadrons? Does QCD truly lack CP-violations? Do gluons saturate[disambiguation needed] when their occupation number is large? Do gluons form a dense system called Color Glass Condensate? What are the signatures and evidences for the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuarev-Lipatov, Balitsky-Kovchegov, Catani-Ciafaloni-Fiorani-Marchesini evolution equations?

What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the origin of simple patterns[which?] in complex nuclei? What is the nature of exotic excitations in nuclei at the frontiers of stability and their role in stellar processes? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of the elements in the cosmos? What are the nuclear reactions that drive stars and stellar explosions?

Fusion energy may potentially provide power from abundant resource (e.g. hydrogen) without the type of radioactive waste that fission energy currently produces. However, can ionized gases (plasma) be confined long enough and at a high enough temperature to create fusion power? What is the physical mechanism of the transition from Low to High confinement scenarios?

What is the solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom in arbitrary electric and magnetic fields?

What's the momentum of photons in optical media?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #151 on: 04/03/2016 14:30:04 »
That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.
Give me a break. You don't understand squat. You're just another layman hanging around a science forum pretending to understand things that PhD's don't even understand completely.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #152 on: 04/03/2016 17:36:41 »
Interesting, you have told me I am wrong by the opinion of popular  vote of Wiki. So are you now saying that the popular vote and ideas on wiki are not the ''truth''?

I never used wikipedia as my source for anything I told you. In general wikipedia is not a good source and can often be wrong which is why I don't use wikipedia as a source.

Relativity is what two observers agree on, I assure you we would both agree the weight is getting heavier relative to us, relative to the ground, relative to space.  Relativistic mass is when the object is not at rest mass in an inertial accelerating reference frame, the greater the speed and/or distance, the greater the mass relative to another body , relative to  the ground.

An object at rest on the moons inertial accelerating reference frame, has less mass than the same object on Earth.

Your definition of relativity is wrong, your definition of mass is wrong, a frame of reference cannot be both inertial and accelerating because inertial literally means not accelerating, and you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the subjective perceptions of the human brain and objective measurements. The rest of the post I took this quote from is just more of the same.

Switching people.

False. I don't have to admit anything, especially to some bloviated blowhard with zero credentials.

Sure if you don't want to admit it you don't have to admit it but it just makes you seem unreasonable and no one wants to talk to an unreasonable person.

Quote
That's pretty funny. I criticized you for using the imprecise word "matter", now you resort to the word "things." So, the agyegy theory is that "stuff is made of things." The Craig W. Thomson theory is that "mass is made of energy." Pretty easy to see which explanation is closer to reality.

I used the word thing because I wished to include fields (like the electromagnetic field), force carriers (like photons and gluons), all the known subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc), and all other physical phenomena in the universe (dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, etc) without have to type all that out. Someone you held up as an expert that should know more than both of us unequivocally disagrees with the concept that anything can be made of energy. Also, composite entities are certainly made out of things (like atoms out of subatomic particles).

Quote
That's great. Maybe you can help me understand this:

List of unsolved problems in physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was no need to quote all that. Also, it has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.

Give me a break. You don't understand squat. You're just another layman hanging around a science forum pretending to understand things that PhD's don't even understand completely.

This seems to be little more than an insult. It certainly isn't a reasoned argument.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #153 on: 04/03/2016 17:59:07 »
I never used wikipedia as my source for anything I told you. In general wikipedia is not a good source and can often be wrong which is why I don't use wikipedia as a source.
Using you as a source would be an even bigger mistake.

no one wants to talk to an unreasonable person
Oh, I don't know, TheBox and I are both talking to you, so ...

There was no need to quote all that. Also, it has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.
False. You said I only think there are contradictions in science because I don't understand science. In response, I posted a long list of unsolved problems and contradictions that the most highly qualified physicists in the world haven't been able to explain. So, when you sit here and act like an authority, contradicting material I've read in books written by highly accredited professionals and learned in college courses taught by other highly accredited professionals, all the while using words like "matter" and "things" when you refer to mass/energy equivalence and conversion, I have no alternative but to laugh in your face.

Oh, and let's not forget that time you said my photon model was inappropriate and cited earthquakes as proof, LOL, rolling eyes. Reading your posts is like reading a bunch of random, out-of-context stuff copied and pasted from various otherwise legitimate Wikipedia entries.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:10:23 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #154 on: 04/03/2016 18:08:53 »
Your definition of relativity is wrong, your definition of mass is wrong, a frame of reference cannot be both inertial and accelerating because inertial literally means not accelerating, and you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the subjective perceptions of the human brain and objective measurements. The rest of the post I took this quote from is just more of the same

So inertia is something else you don't understand.   Inertia is the resistance to change while at rest mass or resistance to change  relativistic   mass velocity , You obviously don't know what you are talking about.


« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:12:28 by Thebox »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #155 on: 04/03/2016 18:14:28 »
False. You said I only think there are contradictions in science because I don't understand science. In response, I posted a long list of unsolved problems and contradictions that the most highly qualified physicists in the world haven't been able to explain. So, when you sit here and act like an authority, contradicting material I've read in books written by highly accredited professionals and learned in college courses taught by other highly accredited professionals, all the while using words like "matter" and "things" when you refer to mass/energy equivalence and conversion, I have no alternative but to laugh in your face.

An unsolved problem or an unexplained observation is not a contradiction. Nothing on that list is a contradiction.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #156 on: 04/03/2016 18:24:42 »
So inertia is something else you don't understand.   Inertia is the resistance to change while at rest mass or resistance to change in relativistic   mass velocity in motion, You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, but here, he keeps telling me "mass is a property, not a thing." In my estimation, there are two possibilities: Either he doesn't understand, which would be pretty pathetic considering how he acts as though he's more than qualified to teach us about the subject, or he understands but he obfuscates issues to make others appear foolish. Either way, he seems to have a need to feed his fragile ego.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #157 on: 04/03/2016 18:31:04 »
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, ...

I would never make that argument if for no other reason than it runs counter to even Newtonian physics.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #158 on: 04/03/2016 18:31:56 »
An unsolved problem or an unexplained observation is not a contradiction. Nothing on that list is a contradiction.
False. Just off the top of my head, there are at least four contradictions on that list.

1) Non-locality

2) Wave-particle duality

3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #159 on: 04/03/2016 18:36:36 »
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, ...

I would never make that argument if for no other reason than it runs counter to even Newtonian physics.
Good, not only am I glad I was mistaken, I'm pleasantly surprised to have finally made a statement broadly applicable enough for you agree with it and not nitpick it apart like some obsessive-compulsive know-it-all.

Miracles never cease.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:38:53 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #160 on: 04/03/2016 18:40:32 »
1) Non-locality

2) Wave-particle duality

4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.

Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science. The fact that you feel these things contradict how you believe the universe should work does not actually make them contradictions within science.

Quote
3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

This isn't a contradiction because it results from the attempt to apply theories outside their domain of application. Quantum Mechanics was never supposed to handle gravity and Relativity was never supposed to describe very small things. It is unsurprising that neither theory when extended that far past their valid domain of application give incorrect answers. Well that and the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #161 on: 04/03/2016 21:36:55 »
, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia,

To be honest the ambiguity of some definitions tend to lead them to meaning the same thing.   Mass is a measurement of inertia and also rest mass is a measurement equal to Newtons, although three different words with three different definitions they all actually relate to the same thing.
In my younger years when I did a bit of vehicle mechanics we use to class inertia has liking to a ''sharp'' applied force to undo rusty nuts.

The nuts mass remained the same but the rust gave the nut more resistance to change so we would have to apply torque or an impact driver to create inertia a type of ''shock'' force  to apply the change we demanded of undoing the nut. 

So to me inertia is like when something is ''glued'' to the floor rather than just loosely ''standing'' .



*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #162 on: 05/03/2016 14:33:49 »
the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #163 on: 05/03/2016 14:40:29 »
Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science.
On the contrary, your common sense feelings about how I should behave based on your subjective interpretations of physics are not a part of science.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #164 on: 05/03/2016 16:01:50 »

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.
I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #165 on: 05/03/2016 16:04:15 »
My dad's bigger than your dad!
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #166 on: 05/03/2016 16:09:45 »

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.
I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.

Not quite, it is telling you that the measurement is beyond the radius of light ,

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #167 on: 05/03/2016 16:44:23 »
Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #168 on: 05/03/2016 16:46:05 »
Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.

But surely we can present N in place of infinity?


*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #169 on: 05/03/2016 18:35:52 »
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

Quote
contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #170 on: 06/03/2016 15:40:27 »
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

Quote
contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.
This is a physics forum, not an English class. Unfortunately, your argument at this point consists in nothing more than lexical nitpicking. Despite your protests, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between saying that getting infinity as a solution "is a contradiction," or that it "means something is wrong."

Also, you said everything that exists "has some observable properties." So, I guess infinities don't exist; you cannot observe infinity, as you clearly don't have sufficient time to verify that their properties are consistent everywhere. Is that "a contradiction," or is it an example of you "sucking at math" ??

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #171 on: 06/03/2016 16:07:49 »
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #172 on: 06/03/2016 16:38:52 »
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
Maybe I'm not using math, but I am talking about it. From Wikipedia:

Physics[edit]

"In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value. For instance, by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. Concepts of infinite things such as an infinite plane wave exist, but there are no experimental means to generate them."

I was definitely talking about a mathematical contradiction when I used as an example what happens when one combines the equations of QM with those of Relativity to describe singularities and ends up with infinity as the solution. Please don't ask me to demonstrate that. I'm not bad at math, but I have insufficient experience to perform operations like those. I'm taking scientists word for it on that one.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 16:40:55 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #173 on: 06/03/2016 17:25:37 »
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #174 on: 06/03/2016 17:42:47 »
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
Gotcha. I paraphrase quotes from Peter Fong, Leonard Susskind and Brian Greene, agyejy replies by quoting Noah Webster. You nailed it.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #175 on: 06/03/2016 17:52:51 »
This is a physics forum, not an English class. Unfortunately, your argument at this point consists in nothing more than lexical nitpicking. Despite your protests, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between saying that getting infinity as a solution "is a contradiction," or that it "means something is wrong."

There is a massive difference between those two things. Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?

Quote
Also, you said everything that exists "has some observable properties." So, I guess infinities don't exist; you cannot observe infinity, as you clearly don't have sufficient time to verify that their properties are consistent everywhere. Is that "a contradiction," or is it an example of you "sucking at math" ??

For starters I already said that scientists are pretty sure literal infinities don't exist. Although if they did exist it is ok as long as the infinite valued part is somewhere you can never observe. The other finite valued parts can still be observable. Also, you can never verify the properties of anything everywhere because that would take much too long. The Universe is very big.

Quote
I was definitely talking about a mathematical contradiction when I used as an example what happens when one combines the equations of QM with those of Relativity to describe singularities and ends up with infinity as the solution. Please don't ask me to demonstrate that. I'm not bad at math, but I have insufficient experience to perform operations like those. I'm taking scientists word for it on that one.

Once again that is not a contradiction mathematical or otherwise.

Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?

I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #176 on: 06/03/2016 18:21:08 »
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
Gotcha. I paraphrase quotes from Peter Fong, Leonard Susskind and Brian Greene, agyejy replies by quoting Noah Webster. You nailed it.

And that relates to mathematical ability how?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #177 on: 07/03/2016 15:39:32 »
And that relates to mathematical ability how?
Those are my math tutors. I started reading Peter Fong's book on QM a couple of years ago, and it had way too many complex equations for me to understand. I have a college degree, but never took Calculus. So, I worked my way through a Precalculus book recently, and now I have a used copy of Calculus Early Transcendentals from the US Military Acadamy. I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2016 15:44:23 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #178 on: 07/03/2016 16:17:19 »
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Quote
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #179 on: 07/03/2016 21:53:02 »
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Quote
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #180 on: 08/03/2016 15:46:32 »
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Quote
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.
I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #181 on: 08/03/2016 15:48:54 »
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #182 on: 08/03/2016 15:58:16 »
I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.

I have every right to point out when someone says something that is factually incorrect. Doing so is not an insult. You do not have the right to insult me. Correction of factual errors and observations of your demonstrated level of comprehension based on those factual errors are not in anyway an insult. Your continued disparagement of me is beginning to seem rather immature. Also, we drifted far afield of the topic and I suggest we both make an effort to return to it.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #183 on: 08/03/2016 16:39:30 »
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?

Yes equations over abrasions any day.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #184 on: 08/03/2016 23:11:40 »
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.



« Last Edit: 08/03/2016 23:31:20 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #185 on: 09/03/2016 00:45:47 »
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #186 on: 09/03/2016 03:27:27 »
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.
Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #187 on: 09/03/2016 06:30:37 »
Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......

I should be more clear I apologize. Both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy are positive quantities. In general encoding a message into a sub-system requires you change something (flipping a bit on a hard drive for example). The overall entropy of the sub-system remains positive but in general is lower after you've written the information to it than it was at thermal equilibrium. This is ok because it took energy to change the sub-system and encode the information (flipping the bit) and this energy will also cause a corresponding greater increase in entropy somewhere else such that total entropy in the universe increases. So if you just encoded information onto a black hole you'd expect an entropy decrease of the black hole. However, that is not actually what is happening when a black hole grows. When a black hole grows it is more akin to increasing the size of your sub-system rather than simply encoding more information on to what was already there. Thus it is not surprising that the entropy would increase with size.

I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?

I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #188 on: 09/03/2016 10:44:51 »
Ok, now we are on subject,



Firstly let us consider the only real evidence of a black hole.   The observation of  ''dust'' circulating a ''black hole''  in a ''disk'' formation.


My first thought would be why doe's the dust have to be circulating anything, why could the circulation not be a product of the dusts own polarities?


If we imagine a ''ball'' of positive energy, this ball will always want to expand by it's own repulsive forces, a bit like a balloon expanding leaving a negative  ''void'' in the middle, the skin of the balloon representing the dust.


Now if we was to rotate this ball, because of the extremely low density, the y-axis contracts totally to expand the x-axis forming a disk.


Added - imagine a football, and we kick the football so hard and fast with some spin on the ball , while in travel spinning, it turns into a disk, now imagine we kick several more footballs into space and they all do  the same thing, now imagine these football disks, bounce of each other before they even touch unless the football disk is not equal  because then they join.

[attachment=21147]



















« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 11:08:54 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #189 on: 09/03/2016 13:44:55 »
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.
I have an hypothesis about that. I am of the opinion that black holes do not conserve entropy. I think they recycle the universe. Entropy is when things go from an ordered state to a disordered state. In my mind, what happens in a black hole is basically the reverse of entropy, the opposite of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. All the mass and energy that goes into a black hole merges into a sort of plasma, the same sort of plasma the Universe condensed out of after the Big Bang. I think that, like a supernova, a black hole has some sort of limit beyond which it cannot take in any more mass or energy without triggering some sort of "explosive" event. Black holes don't evaporate very fast, so given enough time, lots of black holes in an aging universe could merge. In short, once enough mergers have happened for a black hole to reach one universe in mass, it blows its top in a Big Bang, leading to a new round of nucleosynthesis.

In my mind, this hypothesis neatly resolves the conflict of why entropy supposedly cannot be reversed, and explains the apparently finite "starting point" of the universe and time as merely the beginning of a cycle.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #190 on: 09/03/2016 13:47:05 »
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.

I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 13:56:54 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #191 on: 09/03/2016 13:55:41 »
An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #192 on: 09/03/2016 14:09:00 »
An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.
That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.

By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #193 on: 09/03/2016 14:29:03 »
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.

I did and anyone who has read and understood the thread knows that. Are you having trouble understanding what you read?

Quote
I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.

Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.

That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.

This is nothing but a misunderstanding of entropy. If the gas in the bottle was allowed to expand in a reversible isothermal process to fill the entire room the entropy of the system would remain unchanged. However, if you just allow the gas to freely expand into the room the entropy of the system increases. For gases the change in entropy when going from one state to another state is always dictated by the process used to go from the initial to final state. Therefore it is in general not possible to make statements about the relative entropies of two states of a gas without knowing how those states came about.

Quote
By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.

You are misusing the word contradiction again. You are also confusing your flawed classical intuition for logic (everyone's classical intuition is flawed). Scientists have known for quite awhile that the fact that an idea "makes sense" in their heads is absolutely meaningless without well defined predictions and experimental verifications. These are things Beckenstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc have and until you have the same your ideas cannot supercede theirs.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #194 on: 09/03/2016 16:28:42 »


I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?

I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.
I think Jeff just gave the correct description in post #191. It appears I was mistaken.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #195 on: 09/03/2016 19:12:31 »
Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.

EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 19:16:53 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #196 on: 10/03/2016 12:33:47 »
Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.

EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?

That black holes neither emit light or absorb light because they are a relativistic  box singularity sin=0 and coss=n?


I used your maths to make this for the box singularity of light propagating through space.


f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

The problem you have is that space-time is really my singularity , and t=c    , you have not accounted for the constant behind the space time that is an invariant, real space-time.


Light propagating through space is the singularity woven fabric, light is a polymorphism multidimensional  singularity that when it ''hits'' something it creates a tangent at the tips of contact, light can contract or stretch , but the space-time behind the light is constant. Length contraction, time-dilation is all light related and has nothing to do with real time which is the synchronisation of observation of 0.

 







« Last Edit: 10/03/2016 13:13:31 by Thebox »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #197 on: 10/03/2016 13:38:03 »
If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #198 on: 10/03/2016 14:35:42 »
If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.

I did not guess you read it correctly to the meaning I wanted and looked up, cos, sin and tan  explaining a singularity extending away from all observers in the light or dark to an unbounded ''point''

Length is a bounded quality.

Light changes when it makes contact with an obstruction and becomes 3 dimensional.




1,0,0,1


d=f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L


''The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.''


Yes the stresses affect wavelength not ''time''.







« Last Edit: 10/03/2016 14:47:43 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #199 on: 10/03/2016 15:44:42 »
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.

Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.
Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html

I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2016 15:52:55 by Craig W. Thomson »