View Full Version : My Final Theory


Reiku
12-07-07, 04:21 PM
My Final Theory

I was reading an article today concerning black hole production at the LHC...
You know... the same dogma; ''its alright... that damn thing will evaporate,'' lingo.

At E>M(Planck), we should be able to create black holes. It turns out, that gravity might become strong at about 1 TeV, and thus theory suggests that M(Planck) might also be of the same magnitude, which is reasonably small. If 1 TeV is the limit, then we might be able to create Black Holes with a mass of something like 5 TeV.

The reason why it is causing such a fuss right now, is because we know black holes to ‘’swallow’’ matter and energy. If one is created at the LHC, we might think that the mini black hole would eat the LHC first, then move towards the center of the Earth, and start eating away at the planets core. But Hawking says that this is not a problem. The mini black hole would be a tiny superhot and dense object that would radiate away its mass so quickly, it wouldn’t even have a chance to devour anything. Of course, many physicists are not convinced, and proclaim that Hawking Radiation is still only a theory.

Other scientists have asked the question of how Hawking Radiation is able to escape the strong spacetime curvature produced by the black hole, without the radiation simply falling back into the black hole. Either way, we simply do not know enough about black holes (I think), to go about meddling with these primordial forces. I dare say, by the time I get myself into gear and get this book published (possibly a very long while yet), they will have tested the theory, because scientists are just like that… maybe I’ll be surprised?
Black Holes have no upper limit. They can be as big as nature wishes. But the smallest black hole must be in accordance with the Planck Mass (hc/2piG)^1/2, where h is Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light and G is the Gravitational Constant. Mini black holes seem to be the best chance for scientists.

There is simply no way we could create a minimum sized hole with a mass of about 22 micrograms because we would need about 10^16 TeV just to produce it, which is many magnitudes higher than we can produce today. A mini black hole would have a radius of about 2 x 10^-19m – very small – with a very large temperature of 1.5 x 10^14 K, or about 25 billion times hotter than the Sun! We can calculate such a temperature by having the energy of the electron estimated as:

E=p^2/2m - 1_e^2/4πE_0|e^2/r

Now, here comes the interesting parts. One of my favorite scientists, John G. Cramer has made a proposal concerning the production of black holes. He says that white holes might also be produced in pairs with black holes, and the black holes would feed off its cousin.

Now, white holes are nothing but time reversed black holes. But, what did come to mind again, was all of this discussion concerning the Hawking Radiation. The black hole, according to the theorists, will have evaporated nearly as quick as it arrives; BUT, will that still be the same if the black hole is found to be created in a pair with a white hole, only to find that the black hole is eating nearly as much as it is evaporating>? If so, then wouldn't this give the balck hole enough time to move towards the center of the earth?

If The Universe is a Back Hole, Then Perhaps This Universe Was Also Created As a Pair?

When this universe began, and if Dr Cramer is correct, then there is the undeniable theory that there is a ‘’twin universe,’’ – which could be seen in light of the Big Bounce Thepry, a.k.a. The Ekpyrotic Theory. This is when two universes collide after trillions, perjaps quadrillions of years causing the Big Bang all over again.

Q1. If this is true, then there does exist a paradox of how we extrapolate the Classical Multiverse Theory.

In effect, we are according from this theory, that the infinite wave function represents an infinite amount of universes, to account for the wave lengths of all superpositional matter and energy.

The paradox is that you cannot have JUST TWO universes: Because then that would suggest that the infinite wave function would be very limited, almost vanishingly small, which it isn’t. Unless… Each produced multiverse was created in such a way, as my theory suggests. This would mean that each and every universe ever borne, was in fact produced in pairs of black holes and white holes… and to top it off, each universe (black and white universes) are in fact ‘’entangled’’ into infinity.

This would mean that universes are just particles/electrons, inextricably entangled through the wave function of all possibilities. This would also mean there is an infinite amount of universes which have an infinite collision factor… Deeply related to the Cyclic Cosmological Theory. Such an entangled universe with its antiverse, is given as:

(1/sqrt(2))(|01>-<10)

theough Quantum Cosmology, since this equation describes two entangled particles, and QC describes the entire universe as an atom.

Why Should This White Hole Stuff Be Considered Seriously?

Black Holes, Worm Holes and Other Universes

Gravity has a strange effect on light. It will couple with light, and bend it around large masses. The idea arose from Einstein, and on the 9th of November in 1919, light was seen to bend around the sun during an eclipse. The times reported on the discovery, 'space would no longer be looked at as extending indefinitely in all directions. Straight lines would not exist in Einstien’s space. They would all be curved and if they traveled far enough they would return to their starting point.'

Finding that our universe was not a Euclidean flat spacetime was indeed a marvel of physics. It showed that space was highly twisted and curved into time, and that gravity itself was a product of these bends in time and space through the presence of matter. It was these types of distortions that led the way for a new prediction in Einstien’s 'theory of relativity.' It predicted a black hole - a whopping gravitational body, unto which nothing can escape its grasp. The center of a black hole has perfect infinite curvature; and it is here that the distortions of space and time become so highly stressed it can actually rip a hole in the fabric of spacetime itself. This is the singularity at the center of the black hole - but it wasn't the same as the singularity of the big bang.

A black hole has this strength because it is a dense concentration of mass. Actually, this mass is so dense, it actually drags space and time around with it, and the curvature it produces is fantastic. For a space shuttle to leave earth's gravitational pull, it needs to have a speed that is strong enough to make the 'escape velocity.' You can imagine the escape velocity is stronger the closer you are to the earth's core. To leave earth, you need a constant speed of something like 25,000 mph.

Now, take the speed of a photon (light) - the fastest particle known. The speed of light is very hard to grasp - saying that it travels 186,000 miles a second isn't always easy to reconcile; just remember, the sun is 15 million km away, and it takes a photon a little over 8.3 minutes to reach us!
Now imagine a massive body in space with such a high concentration of mass, it is actually able to stop light itself - this is a black hole - and this must mean it has an escape velocity of light! A photon, traveling quite happily will be abruptly slowed down until it reached zero-speed. All Luxens (that is particles with a speed of light v=c) and obviously all Bradyons (particles with a velocity under the speed of light v<c) would inexorably be trapped by the intense pull of the black hole... only a hypothetical particle called the 'Tachyon' could escape its pull, quite easily actually. A Tachyon is a particle that moves faster than light v>c.

The idea that an object with a large concentration of dense mass goes right back to the 18th centaury - just after Einstein developed his important relativity theory. It was a physicist Karl Schwarzschild (that is were the black hole gets the name, ‘Schwarzschild radius’ from) who discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an exotic object. It was only later in the 1930's that theorists Oppenheimer, Volkoff and Snyder took the theory seriously.

Certain stars that cannot support itself against its own gravitational field have a special destiny ahead of them - a star that does this will collapse and form into a black hole. It was John A. Wheeler that coined the term 'black hole' - before that, it had been called 'frozen stars.' Our star, as big as it is, will not collapse until another 5-6 billion years. Altogether, our sun will have lived a total of 11 billion years, and this is quite a good lifespan. Other stars will not be so lucky. They would collapse into a spherical black hole in half that time.

Let's consider a star that is 666,000 times that of the mass of planet earth - this star will have a lifespan of about 5.5 billion years. And there will be much heavier stars out there. You can imagine, stars with a lesser life span with 5.5 billion years as a lifespan would not have given earth enough time to develop life properly; in fact, if science is correct, there wouldn't have been enough time to allow human life to form, considering science informs us that human life did not appear until only about 100,000 years ago, and the earth being 6 billion-odd years old itself. This is another factor that makes human life on earth rather extraordinary.

Physicist Stephen Hawkings, arguably the best mind in the world, has spent much of his time working on the theory of Black Holes. His contribution into the hypothetical black hole is astounding, and if you want more information on his work, i advise you to read his book, 'A Brief History of Time.'
A black hole has something called 'the event horizon' - the event horizon is the spherical surface, or boundary of the black hole. This is the point, that if anything passes it, nothing can escape (apart from a Tachyon mentioned earlier), or unless an object began its journey from the interior; this is because of a strange rule: You cannot pass the surface twice.

It was this reason it was called the event horizon, just like a sunset horizon - you can travel towards it but never quite reach it, or at least, this is what it would be like for an observer sitting comfortably away, watching me traveling towards the black hole... It would seem to take an infinitely long amount of time, and it would look like as if the closer i got to it, the slower i would be in momentum, until it looked as if i had stopped completely. This is because time becomes highly dilated between the traveler and the observer who is a bit away - this is the bizarre effect of relativity. We must take these facts into consideration, when one moves closer to the weird singularity. If our calculations are singular, this means that aspects, like a time interval, or space itself take on infinite values. If this is hard to imagine or a little tedious on the mind - do not fret - anything you don't understand just move on and tackle it later.

If one passed the event horizon, you will inevitably move closer and closer to the singularity in its center, moving faster and faster because space is dragging you closer to the speed of light.
To an observer who is sitting comfortably far away from the event horizon, the hole itself appears static. However, if we moved a little closer to the boundary, it would become visible that the hole itself has a remarkable velocity - in fact, a black hole spins with a velocity of the speed of light. Once inside of the black hole, spacetime are distorted to such a degree, that space and time switch roles (more on this in next part). We could not jump into a nonrotating black hole - the force of the black hole would rip matter apart!

How big can a black hole be?

Most black holes will have formed from supernovae, so it is expected that they will be as big as a standard candle (usually depicted as bright white dwarfs - the remnant of stars) and much bigger, and if Stephen Hawkings is correct, each supergalaxy has a supermassive black hole at their centers. And if theory is correct, the universe itself has a supermassive black hole at its center, where all matter orbits over billion upon billions of years. And there is even a theory suggesting our universe is a black hole itself, based on the fact that our universe has a lot of mass, but isn't too dense. And if black holes do exist, Stephen Hawking believes we might be able to detect a small black hole, as it will radiate a glow... a natural lantern in space. I presume that black holes would also be more visible nearer stars. Light reflects off natural objects and creates the ability to see them. A black hole would absorb light, and it would become visible as a hole.

The attention black holes have received over the years is truly mind-blowing... let us just hope that the work does not go in vain, and that black holes do indeed exist. They should exist... after all, Cosmology and Relativity Theories predict them as real 'things out there'. Whether or not they are indeed portals into other universes is another thing... Though, if theory is right, a lot of physicists will be proven wrong; it would seem to indicate a universe without the collapse of the wave function.

Falling into a Black Hole

If black holes do actually exist, there is some debate as to whether a human could endure a trip into one – the reason why is because anything that falls into Black Holes get’s shredded into spaghetti. Why would we even want to jump into a black hole? Well, theory says that 'wormholes' which are topological openings inside the black hole might lead to other universes! This is the theory of parallel universes, and we shall see more on this theory in next part. It was John A. Wheeler who named these openings as wormholes. The problem is, if one does not enter a wormhole in the correct way, there is the chance that the object will be stretched apart.

It was in 1935, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen predicted that black holes themselves where natural bridges into another possible universe. This bridge from one world into another, came to be known as the 'Einstein-Rosen Bridge,' and most of the developments of this theory came from several physicists - some being Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler and Martin Kruskal.
So let's imagine i decided to jump into a spinning black hole inside a space ship... what would i see? Well, before i entered, i would see nothing spectacular. I would just see a big ball of darkness. I wouldn't even see it rotate at first - neither do i feel anything - i am in what is called a state of 'free-fall'.

Free-fall is when all the atoms and molecules i am made of are all being pulled at the same rate. Even my ship is being pulled at the same pace towards the black hole. A good way to compare this is with astronauts that orbit our earth - they too are in a state of free-fall.

Now i begin to pass the event horizon (remember that is the first boundary, or surface). Now something quite remarkable happens. The space coordinates switches roles with the time coordinate. What does this mean? Well, we move through space freely, back and forth without any problems, and when we consider time, that imaginary dimension, we tend to think we sweep along with it without recourse. Once i pass the event horizon space begins to drag me and my ship, and i begin to move in one direction only - that being forward - however, i begin to move through time backwards and forwards, just as easily as i had moved through the space dimension. In this case, we say that space has become 'timelike', and time has a 'spacelike' character - they are thus interchangeable given the correct conditions.
As i move closer and closer to the black hole, the force of gravity becomes stronger and stronger. Now, suppose my legs are closer to the dreaded center of the black hole, i will begin to feel as if my body was being stretched. A greater force will be pulling at my feet, than that of the force pulling at my head. This is called the 'gravitational tidal effect' - thus called because it is similar to the tidal effect on earth caused by the moon.

If i looked out of a window towards the singularity, i would see something rather interesting. The center will look like a dark sphere, with a halo of light surrounding it. This light is coming from another universe. And, if i looked back out of the event horizon, i might be fortunate enough to see the universe, and all of its history and future flash past me as if it took no time at all. I would see all the stars die out... most of them forming black holes, but they would not be visible to the naked eye. I might even see the universe undergo an 'omega point' (the end), as a 'Big Crunch' were everything is drawn back, or quite possibly by a 'Big Rip', were everything physical is ripped apart by the universal pressure of acceleration, (note however, someone outside of the black hole cannot see you).

Now i have crashed into the dreaded singularity, and i will no longer exist. Here, just like the Big Bang singularity mentioned in part one of chapter one, everything takes on infinite attributes - the laws of physics become invalid. However, you might not crash into the center. It is possible you can fall into the 'inner horizon' - this horizon is adjacent to the singular region. Here, space and time flows the correct way. In theory, you can float around in the inner horizon without ever crashing into the dreaded center.

Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger
than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;

g=(GM)/d2

Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak.
We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial
system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a
gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black
hole you can work out its mass against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;

M=gd2/G

We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms.

The smallest black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as

h/mc=2pi(h/mc) ~ of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius;

1 / (2M − r) >

– which leads to the solution of -

R_s=2GM/c2;

Very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these
little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 1016 K, which is 200 GeV, or about 25 million times hotter than the sun.

We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black
hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).

If our universe is indeed a black hole, you might imagine we exist in the inner horizon. In fact, our universe may as well be a black hole. Now, if one passes by the singularity, we might be able to move out of the inner horizon and pass through a second inner horizon, and then by finally passing another outer horizon, we will have entered another universe - but i had better be careful. There is a very good chance that this universe is made up mostly of antimatter. If i come into contact with antimatter, me and my ship will explode in a flash of light.

I would like it known to my readers that Hawkings has changed his mind on the theory of Black Holes, as he no longer believes that it is possible for a spacetime traveler to jump into one and move into other universes… This was proposed because of a fundamental problem involving information. If information moved into a Black Hole, it would suggest that the information would be lost, but here lies the paradox, because information can never totally be lost. Thus instead, he now believes that information is ‘’mangled’’ and returned back into this universe through quantum tunneling. In fact, a more recent research into mathematics shows us that there actually needs not be any Black Holes at all! If any do exist, then they would have formed at the very beginning of time. But to keep things not too complicated, I will continue with the idea that it is all still possible, and this is based on one well-known fact: That is, that our mathematics could be formulating a lie, instead of the truth. Thus, as much as I like the idea that no one can travel into other universes, because I protest against the multiverse theory, I must admit still that we may have it all very wrong, because mathematics may be pointing to the wrong conclusions… Who knows but God? We will certainly never achieve any unification, as I believe. Such knowledge must be left to God alone > Thus, for the sake of it, let us imagine we have got it wrong, and that universal spacetime traveling is possible…

By the accepted theory of GR, antiparticles, are particles with an atomic clock going backwards; in other words, they move back in their own time frames... What has confused me about this, is that if that was the case, then how come we can trap a positron, and observe it? Shouldn't this, ''backward-through-time-travel'' particle, eventually dissipate into previous time frames in the past? Disappearing by moving back into past spaces?

This \\backward through// formula, describes the antiparticle or antipartner of everything. This even describes what is found at the end of a perilous journey into a black hole... You come to the time-reversed black hole.... the White Hole, which instead of sucking in matter, it spews matter out.

I hypothesize no singularity.

1. I do not believe God would allow a totally lawless region in spacetime (singularity)

2. A wormhole would link to another universe, but with the boundaries now formaulated by Einstein, they look drastically insure to be correct.

3. Instead, we can say the Big Bang is indeed correct, if we say it didn't have a shape like that of 1 or axiom 2, but rather spewed out energy much like a White Hole.

If this is true, then there can only be one universe. The energy spewing from this Hypothetical White Hole (providing everything with matter in the universe) could not have come from a brother-sister universe. But a solution is found, through CTC’s…

For this reason, i have jacked the theory of mine called ''The Big Flow,'' unless this slow is in fact oscillated through only two universes, entangled, as provided as my new theory.

The Big Flow Theory

In Quantum Cosmology Dr. Hawking wants us to view the universe is a very unique way. If we are indeed to take Hawkings seriously by viewing the universe as an atom, does that mean the universe will quantum leap in the future? Coming back to this question, two main things can happen, depending on what kind of energy state our universe is in. There are two known states called 'Ground State,' and 'Excited State.'

A ground state atom arranges its inhabitants; the electron, the proton and the neutron ect., to a certain frequency, so that they can have the smallest energy possible. If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes... However, i would like to add, that Hawkings is not so sure any more if singularities really exist. Thus, if our universe is in a ground state, it wouldn't have come from a singular region. Instead, it will have had at its center an opening in the fabric of space and time; this is a worm hole, threaded with a substance called 'exotic matter’. This wormhole might loop in on our own universe, and anything that can travel through it, might turn up in a different region of space, at a totally different time of history - theoretically, i could jump into the wormhole a few minutes after big bang, and end up coming out of the wormhole, 40-odd billion years later when the universe decides to contract. Or, if theory is correct as we have seen, it might link this universe up with other universes.

A ground state atom will not spill out energy - this means that it is a very stable particle. If our universe is in its ground state, it will not be able to quantum leap in the future. If the atom is in an excited state, then it will eventually spill out its energy and will inexorably quantum leap. If it was a universe i am speaking about here, it will spill out its energy, quite possibly into a branch that is in its ground state, and will quantum leap.

Now even though Dr. Hawking has shown us that anything that moves into a Black Hole becomes ‘’mangled’’ the information creating a thing is never lost, so nothing can move into other universes: That is, unless it was at the very beginning of time. He has never suggested this, but it makes perfect sense, if we assume that if nothing existed, then something from another universe could enter here in this universe, so long as the other universe has just ended… a big crunch, followed by a big bang.

It may become evident that I am suggesting a whole new creation to matter: Something which will allow energy to enter this universe from another universe, without resorting to the standard interpretation that energy came ‘’from nowhere’’. It simply came around into existence.

I don’t like this, and is admittedly the only real problem I have with the big bang theory. But, if energy came from the other universe, crushing its energy into our universe, then even that universe must have got its energy from somewhere.

This is where timelike curves comes into play. Energy flowing through a finite number of universes, in a timelike curve which in theory, even though a beginning was necessary, is possible to remove all notions of what we specifically call a beginning; in short, the universes, possibly something like 10^100 or even 10^500 predicted by string theory landscape, is from the moment the first universe became excited with energy, was all shared among them in one massive time loop…

If there is a supermassive time-loop within all the universes, then there can’t be a real definite end or beginning to any universe, but rather an infinite amount of beginnings and ends…

IN SUMMERY:

The curve in this ‘’Big Bounce’’ is in fact the product of a White Hole Singularity curving into the Black Holes Singularity, and this equals an infinite amount of big bangs. In very short words, the universe is infinite, and so is the amount of time it expands… it has an infinite series of ends and beginnings.

The End. ;)

superluminal
12-07-07, 06:57 PM
Holy fucking mother of god! And you expect people to actually do more than just marvel at how much free time you have on your hands?
Here's how much 99% of the people here will read of that:

"My final..."

and

"The End"

So, is this your final theory because you expect us all to be destroyed by a singularity created in the LHC?

Or because you're sick of the lack of respect your writings are getting?

Reiku
12-07-07, 07:25 PM
You didn't even understand my theory did you>?

Until i hace an intelligent response from you, I will not comply to your narrow comparrisons of my theory.

As for time on my hands, at least i do something with it constructive, unlike yourself.

superluminal
12-07-07, 07:33 PM
You didn't even understand my theory did you>?
I didn't read it in the full and certain knowledge that I would indeed not understand one word of it.


Until i hace an intelligent response from you, I will not comply to your narrow comparrisons of my theory.
I was just asking why it was your "final" theory. Not comparing it to anything.


As for time on my hands, at least i do something with it constructive, unlike yourself.
Are you suggesting that knitting booties for my gerbil, and compulsive masturbation are not constructive??? :bugeye:

Reiku
12-07-07, 07:47 PM
''I was just asking why it was your "final" theory. Not comparing it to anything.''

It's MY FINAL THEORY, meaning that this is my theory of everything. Why can't this seem to compute? I am open to all unified theories, but this one is a personal interpretation. The Big Flow Interpretational Theory.

''Are you suggesting that knitting booties for my gerbil, and compulsive masturbation are not constructive??? ''

No, but rather i present these theories, and you try and fail so miserably to descredit them. It's nothing but pure hate on your behalf.

superluminal
12-07-07, 07:51 PM
It's nothing but pure hate on your behalf.
Hate? I don't hate anyone.

Except this guy down my street. And pushy drivers. And my old friend from school who stole my girlfriend. Bastard. And screaming kids. And scotland. I hate scotland. And people with long hair. Or red hair. Ooohhh. They make me sooo mad.

Reiku
12-07-07, 08:09 PM
Sarcasm makes no one. Not even you.

superluminal
12-07-07, 08:26 PM
Sarcasm makes no one. Not even you.
What's wrong with sarcasm?

Reiku
12-07-07, 09:12 PM
Just so long as it isn't done out of spite... You know... that hate thing i was talking about?

MetaKron
12-07-07, 09:51 PM
Look, Superluminal is just being weird. Reiku's interpretations of black hole theory here aren't even particularly out of the ordinary if you've read Hawking and Penrose. I think that they are wrong, but they are according to the state of the art of black hole theory right now. Reiku explained black hole theory exactly the way that you would expect a very mainstream theorist to explain it these says. (No offense intended, Reiku!)

I heard that it was Einstein who predicted that an object at the event horizon of a black hole would appear to be frozen in time. This idea is actually patently wrong, even if the great and wonderful Einwiz said it was true, but it is the "mainstream" idea of how it looks. Also, Einstein never said that the object was actually frozen in time.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 09:54 PM
This idea is actually patently wrong,

Well, it depends. The light coming from the object is infinitely red-shifted, so you can't really see anything.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 09:55 PM
Dear Scientists Everywhere:


I hypothesize no singularity.

1. I do not believe God would allow a totally lawless region in spacetime (singularity)

Please give me my Nobel Prize now.

Yours---
Reiku

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 09:56 PM
PS: Nermind that you spent 1700 years trying to take God out of science.---R

superluminal
12-07-07, 09:59 PM
Look, Superluminal is just being weird.
Yeah, well...



I heard that it was Einstein who predicted that an object at the event horizon of a black hole would appear to be frozen in time. This idea is actually patently wrong,

Of course it is, and no he didn't.

What is predicted by GR is that time, as observed by someone far outside the event horizon, would appear to be stopped for the poor fellow at the event horizon, not that he would appear frozen at the event horizon.

Particles clearly will progress very rapidly across the EH even though they will be observed to be highly gravitationally time dilated (and probably velocity time dilated as well).

superluminal
12-07-07, 10:01 PM
Well, it depends. The light coming from the object is infinitely red-shifted, so you can't really see anything.
Righto.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:18 PM
Well, it depends. The light coming from the object is infinitely red-shifted, so you can't really see anything.

Actually Ben, Einstein had a problem with zero-time photon, experiencing a zero-time reaching the horizon. The problem was renormalized by treating the horizon as a singularity itself.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:21 PM
PS: Nermind that you spent 1700 years trying to take God out of science.---R

Drinking the brew again Ben?

Science cannot remove the notion of a God, as much as God cannot be removed from science. The mathematical notion is the Incompleteness Invariant. Somethings cannot be proven, either way.

MetaKron
12-07-07, 10:25 PM
Actually Ben, Einstein had a problem with zero-time photon, experiencing a zero-time reaching the horizon. The problem was renormalized by treating the horizon as a singularity itself.

Or someone is confusing the fact that zero time is spent actually at the event horizon with the idea that the object is frozen in time.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 10:25 PM
The horizon is a coordinate singularity only. This can be seen by looking at the curvature tensor, or just using a good set of coordinates (i.e. Kruskal coordinates) you will see this. This means that, while the horizon appears to be a singularity in the Schwarzchild corrdinates, a suitable change of variables aleviates the problem.

So, I don't know who told you there was a singularity at the horizon, but I think they're wrong.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 10:25 PM
Science cannot remove the notion of a God, as much as God cannot be removed from science. The mathematical notion is the Incompleteness Invariant. Somethings cannot be proven, either way.

Ahh yes. A view that most scientists hold today.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:26 PM
Righto.

Gloria self-reflectus, et Graviora Manent.

MetaKron
12-07-07, 10:27 PM
Yeah, well...



Of course it is, and no he didn't.

What is predicted by GR is that time, as observed by someone far outside the event horizon, would appear to be stopped for the poor fellow at the event horizon, not that he would appear frozen at the event horizon.

Particles clearly will progress very rapidly across the EH even though they will be observed to be highly gravitationally time dilated (and probably velocity time dilated as well).

Please leave off playing games when you knew exactly what I meant.

superluminal
12-07-07, 10:27 PM
What is predicted by GR is that time, as observed by someone far outside the event horizon, would appear to be stopped for the poor fellow at the event horizon, not that he would appear frozen at the event horizon.

Particles clearly will progress very rapidly across the EH even though they will be observed to be highly gravitationally time dilated (and probably velocity time dilated as well).
Ok. My research informs me that this is not entirely correct. Apparently an outside observer will see particles slowed to a virtual stop as they approach the EH.

So, ben, what is the real mechanism at work here? (assuming we can still observe the particle even though it's light is red-shifted into the long radio portion of the spectrum).

superluminal
12-07-07, 10:28 PM
Please leave off playing games when you knew exactly what I meant.
You really do have a stick up your butt.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:29 PM
Or someone is confusing the fact that zero time is spent actually at the event horizon with the idea that the object is frozen in time.

This is what i meant. Sorry if i sounded incoherent. ;)

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:32 PM
The horizon is a coordinate singularity only. This can be seen by looking at the curvature tensor, or just using a good set of coordinates (i.e. Kruskal coordinates) you will see this. This means that, while the horizon appears to be a singularity in the Schwarzchild corrdinates, a suitable change of variables aleviates the problem.

So, I don't know who told you there was a singularity at the horizon, but I think they're wrong.

He says this, because both theories or speculations cannot be disproven.... deja vu... After all, we can only speculate on the true nature of such systems ;)

MetaKron
12-07-07, 10:37 PM
You really do have a stick up your butt.

You give yourself too much credit.

superluminal
12-07-07, 10:40 PM
You give yourself too much credit.
Huh? Wha?

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 10:45 PM
So, ben, what is the real mechanism at work here? (assuming we can still observe the particle even though it's light is red-shifted into the long radio portion of the spectrum).

Basically, the infalling observer gets an infinite time dialation relative to your (stationary) reference frame.


He says this, because both theories or speculations cannot be disproven.... deja vu... After all, we can only speculate on the true nature of such systems

Not really. It is quite clear that the event horizon is only a coordinate singularity. Most students who have given a GR book only a cursory glance can tell you this.

Tell me, does everything you know about physics come from pop science books?

MetaKron
12-07-07, 10:47 PM
This is what i meant. Sorry if i sounded incoherent. ;)

Really? What's amazing here is that Superluminal actually seems to understand that the singularity at the event horizon is a "coordinate singularity" only. If he goes on about the coordinate singularity having a physical meaning he won't be the first one I've seen go both ways on that subject.

What I meant was that I think that people are confusing the coordinate singularity with the object being frozen in time (what I meant by "frozen"), when the time spent there is actually zero. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I think that in this set of equations there is nothing that says what time rate the object in question experiences compared to the outside, but when you do the math for right there at that infinitely thin boundary condition, you only have one point in time. Also, the temporal rate is going to be related to the actual gravitational stress at the event horizon. I haven't yet seen anyone mention at what remove the event horizon is from regular time.

MetaKron
12-07-07, 10:47 PM
Huh? Wha?

It will come to you eventually.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:53 PM
Basically, the infalling observer gets an infinite time dialation relative to your (stationary) reference frame.



Not really. It is quite clear that the event horizon is only a coordinate singularity. Most students who have given a GR book only a cursory glance can tell you this.

Tell me, does everything you know about physics come from pop science books?

A coordinated system, Ben n' super, is a system which has a directionality about it. Sinularities of boundaries, such as a Kerr Singularity CANNOT have a coordination.

1. Because all physical rules break down at singularities,

and

2. A Boundary can only be passed once, therego, there is no coordinated system that allows something to enter and leave, unless mangled and spat out like a peice of junk through information tunelling.

Reiku
12-07-07, 10:55 PM
Really? What's amazing here is that Superluminal actually seems to understand that the singularity at the event horizon is a "coordinate singularity" only. If he goes on about the coordinate singularity having a physical meaning he won't be the first one I've seen go both ways on that subject.

What I meant was that I think that people are confusing the coordinate singularity with the object being frozen in time (what I meant by "frozen"), when the time spent there is actually zero. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I think that in this set of equations there is nothing that says what time rate the object in question experiences compared to the outside, but when you do the math for right there at that infinitely thin boundary condition, you only have one point in time. Also, the temporal rate is going to be related to the actual gravitational stress at the event horizon. I haven't yet seen anyone mention at what remove the event horizon is from regular time.

Exactly. Imperviously omniscient information here. It would be good for super and ben to get off their high horses. :bugeye:

draqon
12-07-07, 11:00 PM
wait...so Reiku do you or do you not believe that God exists? because from what you wrote it seems you do believe in God.

superluminal
12-07-07, 11:11 PM
A coordinated system, Ben n' super, is a system which has a directionality about it. Sinularities of boundaries, such as a Kerr Singularity CANNOT have a coordination.

1. Because all physical rules break down at singularities,

and

2. A Boundary can only be passed once, therego, there is no coordinated system that allows something to enter and leave, unless mangled and spat out like a peice of junk through information tunelling.
What does any of this mean?

A coordinate system is simply a method of measuring things against a chosen reference. There is no "directionality" inherent in a coordinate system itself. Vectors in a coordinate system have directionality as specified with respect to a coordinate system.

A coordinate singularity is one in which a coordinate transfom can (happily) remove infinities (singularities) from your descriptive equations. An actual singularity you are stuck with.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 11:16 PM
super---

there is a theorem in differential geometry that says no one coordinate system can define an entire manifold---essentially there are always coordinate singulatities. For example, what are the longitude and lattitude of the north pole?

The event horizon is just a coordinate singularity. Mathematically there is nothing special about it.

Reiku is just regurgitating words that he read in some book. He does that a lot.

draqon
12-07-07, 11:18 PM
For example, what are the longitude and lattitude of the north pole?


0,0?

superluminal
12-07-07, 11:19 PM
super---

there is a theorem in differential geometry that says no one coordinate system can define an entire manifold---essentially there are always coordinate singulatities. For example, what are the longitude and lattitude of the north pole?

The event horizon is just a coordinate singularity. Mathematically there is nothing special about it.

Good example. Thanks.

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 11:31 PM
0,0?

The point is that they are multiply defined. Why not 360, 360?

Reiku
12-07-07, 11:44 PM
wait...so Reiku do you or do you not believe that God exists? because from what you wrote it seems you do believe in God.

Good quest.

I said, ''I do not believe God would allow a totally lawless region in spacetime.''

My solution is that HE is such a singularity> God is the lawless boundary we call the singulairty, since HE can do anything.

In short, God i do believe to exist. Just misunderstood.

Reiku
12-07-07, 11:46 PM
''Reiku is just regurgitating words that he read in some book. He does that a lot.''

Not at all. It seems as though you do not understand what a singularity is, and how it blows things into unimaginable calculations: Even coordinations. If you deny this, you are showing yourself up as a very bad physicist.

draqon
12-07-07, 11:47 PM
you are showing yourself up as a very bad physicist.

:p:p:p

BenTheMan
12-07-07, 11:48 PM
I'm glad someone noticed the irony.

Reiku
12-08-07, 12:03 AM
You are a walking irony Ben. Answer This.\

1. Singularities are non-calculatable... why?

2. Since they are, then no coordinated systems can arise from them.

You try and act smart, and instead show yourself up to be a total idiot sometimes.

BenTheMan
12-08-07, 12:08 AM
Don't take my word for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric#Singularities_and_black_holes ).

MetaKron
12-08-07, 11:55 AM
The funny thing is that Ben is defending a case that I tried to make a long time ago, on this board, and people attacked me for trying to make that case. It would be a lot more useful, considering what is going on here, to know what is on Ben's mind when he does this.

It's no wonder a lot of good people won't go to universities to play the game of science.

MetaKron
12-08-07, 11:58 AM
This is what i meant. Sorry if i sounded incoherent. ;)

My first reply wasn't all that good. I wanted to say that you sounded quite coherent.

superluminal
12-08-07, 12:12 PM
It's no wonder a lot of good people won't go to universities to play the game of science.
Oh come off it. You are so full of crap it stinks.

What kind of idiot disparages a college education? Or thinks that a creative independent thinker is somehow going to be "brainwshed" by the "system" if he goes to university?

A lot of "good" people won't go to universities because they're afraid or they can't hack it. It ain't easy. Especially in the sciences and engineering.

Your "theories" are so ill informed, in even the basics, that even a smart highschool student would see the for what they are. If you can't even grasp the concept of temperature, then where are you? Are you going to tell me that I'm stupider than you because I have college level physics, thermo, etc?

If I could, I'd ban you for disrespecting people like James, Ben and others, who have put in the sometimes gruelling work of getting a degree. Disagree with them for sure, but calling them "childish" or implying that they don't know what they're talking about (and you somehow do?) is just plain stupid on your part.

superluminal
12-08-07, 12:16 PM
My first reply wasn't all that good. I wanted to say that you sounded quite coherent.
He sounds like a rambling fool. His mathemetics is parroted and the bits are put together in no discernable way. They're meaningless.

He claims to be a "psychophysicist" for gods sake! A scientist in the realm of the... I don't even fucking know. Nor does anyone else.

MetaKron
12-08-07, 12:23 PM
Oh come off it. You are so full of crap it stinks.

What kind of idiot disparages a college education? Or thinks that a creative independent thinker is somehow going to be "brainwshed" by the "system" if he goes to university?

A lot of "good" people won't go to universities because they're afraid or they can't hack it. It ain't easy. Especially in the sciences and engineering.

Your "theories" are so ill informed, in even the basics, that even a smart highschool student would see the for what they are. If you can't even grasp the concept of temperature, then where are you? Are you going to tell me that I'm stupider than you because I have college level physics, thermo, etc?

If I could, I'd ban you for disrespecting people like James, Ben and others, who have put in the sometimes gruelling work of getting a degree. Disagree with them for sure, but calling them "childish" or implying that they don't know what they're talking about (and you somehow do?) is just plain stupid on your part.

Reiku got a degree too, and started early, which means that he started out with a bigger brain.

You got yours on an athletic scholarship, didn't you? You haven't shown any intellectual acuity here. If you don't want to be called childish or brutish, behave like a gentleman. If you knew what you were talking about you would already behave like a gentleman instead of the lout that you have been here.

MetaKron
12-08-07, 12:24 PM
He sounds like a rambling fool. His mathemetics is parroted and the bits are put together in no discernable way. They're meaningless.

He claims to be a "psychophysicist" for gods sake! A scientist in the realm of the... I don't even fucking know. Nor does anyone else.

Well, he got the better of you, that's for certain.

BenTheMan
12-08-07, 12:25 PM
The funny thing is that Ben is defending a case that I tried to make a long time ago, on this board, and people attacked me for trying to make that case

What, that there's no black holes, just frozen stars?

No, I am not defending that case at all. Surely, to an infalling observer, a black hole forms, and they can reach the horizon eventually. Further, you aren't considering the gravitational back-reaction on the metric. Light at the surface will be infinitely red shifted by the time it reaches an outside observer, so there will, in fact, be a black hole, just like in all of the cartoons that you see.

invert_nexus
12-08-07, 12:26 PM
Reiku got a degree too, and started early, which means that he started out with a bigger brain.

Not in physics.
And only a bachelor's if I recall. Or was it an associates degree?
And I don't recall him 'starting early'. Perhaps I've missed this or something he told you in private?

Regardless, the manner in which he presents himself would indicate dishonesty. His brain is fried. How can a person with a brain like this even graduate high school?

BenTheMan
12-08-07, 12:27 PM
Reiku got a degree too, and started early,

A degree in what? Nutrition? Surely it wasn't physics. Or, if it was, I feel sorry for the state of higher education in Europe.

superluminal
12-08-07, 12:31 PM
Reiku got a degree too, and started early, which means that he started out with a bigger brain.
He's lying.


If you knew what you were talking about you would already behave like a gentleman instead of the lout that you have been here.
Ok. I respectfully request that Reiku and yourself cease in posting content that is completely mathematically and physically incorrect in the physics forum. It is misleading and potentially damaging to interested readers that may take what you post as "correct". Thank you for respecting this reasonable request.

invert_nexus
12-08-07, 12:40 PM
A degree in what?

A BSc in psychology, apparently.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74014
(A three year degree in Scotland, by the way. He claims to have left university at 22. Thus, he apparently started late. Not early. Unless, of course, he took longer than the usual time to make it through.)

(Q)
12-08-07, 12:42 PM
Topic expired.