Question: Aliens--do they exist? (not the group Trump is fired up over)
- Thread starter KentuckianaBFan
- Start date
Yeah. Way to screw up the mysticism of the force, Lucas.I'll buy that. Sounds at least as reasonable as midi-chlorians.
Personally I try (I'm not perfect in this I admit) to state things in such a way to indicate that I am fallible in my assessment. Generally qualifying statements like "I believe", or "as I understand it", or "finding" instead of "fact" when discussing my beliefs and conclusions with those that may disagree with me is all that I think is needed. Just a little humility sprinkled in never hurts.
Not so fast says Hawking just last year:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ole-stephen-hawking-firewall-space-astronomy/
The article actually addresses one of the findings that tend to reinforce my belief system. The finding that particles are created in pairs, and that when we try to separate what we currently believe are fundamental particles from their pair a new one is created (or generated if you like).
Last edited:
On areas unsupported by research or the research is sketchy, at best, I am generally very careful about what I present as fact. Wel established and supported science, however, not so much.
Are you describing Hawking's metaphor for Hawking radiation?
This is why I don't generally do thought experiments on these matters. Here's a list of the liberties I took.
1. Pilot's frame of reference - I constructed the experiment from the pilot's frame of reference to simply show what it would be like to descend within the event horizon and to skip the whole "it takes literally forever" aspect from an outside observer. This wouldn't even be possible without an:
2. Indestructible ship - I made the ship indestructible because things get uninteresting pretty quickly once you realize that you'll still be quite a ways away as you're extruded into spaghetti. In reality, you'll be broken down to your constituent atoms before you get anywhere near the event horizon. Which brings me to:
3. Actually entering the event horizon - Viewing a black hole from the outside, there's nothing discernible but the event horizon. Even the singularity is technically only a mathematical artifact that only arises under certain conditions and cannot meaningfully be said to exist. A black hole consists of an event horizon and nothing else. Because of the tidal forcing and intense warping of space-time around the black hole, all matter approaching the black hole be broken down to its constituent particles and basically end up a thin smear before it even hits the event horizon.
4. FTL engines - There's a caveat here. If I was willing to bend the laws of physics to allow Moan a ship capable of FTL travel, then he might be able to escape. Because theoretically you'll be traveling back in time once you pass c. Of course it is impossible to accelerate anything with mass to c, but it's my experiment so nyah.
5. Crushed to the size a carbon atom - I'd feel really bad if I just let Moan's indestructible ship sit there while he starved to death. Better to end it quickly.
Now, regarding Hawking. Here's what he's talking about when we discuss this:
There's a paradox associated with black holes regarding the first law of thermodynamics. It's called the information paradox. See, the prevailing theory used to be that black holes were a sort of eternal matter and energy sink. Under this old model, you could drop a lump of matter, with some entropy, into a black hole and it would simply vanish from the universe. Which is not okay. It must be conserved to be consistent with the first law.
The modern models resolve that. Entropy that's dropped into a black hole is not destroyed. It's pending. Any local effects that matter had on space-time and on other matter — things like gravity and electric charge, for instance — are, in a very loose sense, "encoded" on the black hole event horizon during the scattering process, and will be re-emitted into the universe in deep time (long long looooooooooong after we're gone) when that scattering process completes.
There's still some uncertainty there, but we have learned enough, a metric ton of strides in the last few decades, to posit there's not a universe inside of a black hole, which was the claim I was originally countering.
Last edited:
#5 is just funny.
All I was saying is that there is a great deal of difference observing something that far way based on how things behave around them and physically observing planetary bodies traveling around our solar system.
It is probable that Copernicus could discern more with his naked eye about our solar system than we can discern about black holes using what we have available to us.
Don't sell Copernicus short. Took a lot of abstract reasoning to reach that conclusion in its own right. We can discern quite a bit about their nature from the observations available to us since they were confirmed to exist.
Last edited:
Thanks for clearing this up! I was beginning to think maybe you, or some scientist had actually been to and in a black hole lol!! Just kidding!
I don't keep up with all the modern models in theory. Always loved watching Morgan Freeman in the show Through the Wormhole and all the theories described and explained by scientist on the show. The quantum theories, string theories, Higgs bosom and so forth could get a bit confusing for me but I have always enjoyed the show! P.S. I actually do not think that there is another universe inside a black hole, I was just wondering if a black hole could be the parent or conception event for a Big Bang origin of another universe in another dimension. There is a lot of scientist who speculate about a multiverse and ours universe is just one of many. I don't claim to know anything about anything, just full of questions without answers that I can understand when it comes to this stuff.
Last edited:
I'd be lying if I said I could grasp the first thing about string theory. Takes a small amount of crazy to grasp all the hair-raising mathematics involved.Thanks for clearing this up! I was beginning to think maybe you, or some scientist had actually been to and in a black hole lol!! Just kidding!
I like the multiverse idea personally. The problem is that it's stark-raving unfalsifiable.P.S. I actually do not think that there is another universe inside a black hole, I was just wondering if a black hole could be the parent or conception event for a Big Bang origin of another universe in another dimension. There is a lot of scientist who speculate about a multiverse and ours universe is just one of many. I don't claim to know anything about anything, just full of questions without answers that I can understand when it comes to this stuff.
Now we got "White Holes" to deal with lol!!
"
Black holes might end their lives by transforming into their exact opposite — 'white holes' that explosively pour all the material they ever swallowed into space, say two physicists. The suggestion, based on a speculative quantum theory of gravity, could solve a long-standing conundrum about whether black holes destroy information.
The theory suggests that the transition from black hole to white hole would take place right after the initial formation of the black hole, but because gravity dilates time, outside observers would see the black hole lasting billions or trillions of years or more, depending on its size. If the authors are correct, tiny black holes that formed during the very early history of the Universe would now be ready to pop off like firecrackers and might be detected as high-energy cosmic rays or other radiation. In fact, they say, their work could imply that some of the dramatic flares commonly considered to be supernova explosions could in fact be the dying throes of tiny black holes that formed shortly after the Big Bang."
Link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...de-_n_5597006.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000043
"
Black holes might end their lives by transforming into their exact opposite — 'white holes' that explosively pour all the material they ever swallowed into space, say two physicists. The suggestion, based on a speculative quantum theory of gravity, could solve a long-standing conundrum about whether black holes destroy information.
The theory suggests that the transition from black hole to white hole would take place right after the initial formation of the black hole, but because gravity dilates time, outside observers would see the black hole lasting billions or trillions of years or more, depending on its size. If the authors are correct, tiny black holes that formed during the very early history of the Universe would now be ready to pop off like firecrackers and might be detected as high-energy cosmic rays or other radiation. In fact, they say, their work could imply that some of the dramatic flares commonly considered to be supernova explosions could in fact be the dying throes of tiny black holes that formed shortly after the Big Bang."
Link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...de-_n_5597006.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000043
PS - I want to go to there.The multiverse is way easier to explain than string theory.
what does higgs' chest have to do with any of thisThanks for clearing this up! I was beginning to think maybe you, or some scientist had actually been to and in a black hole lol!! Just kidding!
P.S. I actually do not think that there is another universe inside a black hole, I was just wondering if a black hole could be the parent or conception event for a Big Bang origin of another universe in another dimension. There is a lot of scientist who speculate about a multiverse and ours universe is just one of many. I don't claim to know anything about anything, just full of questions without answers that I can understand when it comes to this stuff.
They can't be meaninfully said to exist.
It goes back to what we were discussing earlier. Our understanding of black holes was further developed. We originally though they were, like I said earlier, matter and energy sinks that violated conservation law. So we came up with these white holes so this fundamental law would be maintained.
They basically hypothesized them by taking a black hole model an switching a bunch of signs. The math worked, but it was only consistent with itself and nothing else we've ever observed. What it basically boiled down to was an example of the equations telling us is that what we're trying is impossible, but keep at it and eventually the equations will say "Fine! Imaginary inverted black holes! Happy?"
Today we know that the black hole problem isn't a problem. Black holes are not matter an energy sinks we thought they were. They're basically liquidizers. Matter and energy interact with them but don't vanish. It scatters, eventually coming out the other side. Nothing gets lost or destroyed.
So we don't need white holes any more.
Black and White is so racist......we should rename them "A" and "B"
this thread is already full of "A" Holes.....
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
SEC Shorts - The past learns what happens to college football...- Started by colbysullivan
- Replies: 3