Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


1. Time dilation is so extreme they never see it cross the event horizon.

Once the ship in reality, crosses (can we agree there is an objective reality, where the ship actually crosses in), and the light that reflected off the ship outwards at the speed of light, reflected outwards at the speed of light, that would be the end of ship information outside of the black hole.

Why it would matter if the event horizon was rotating, is because I think this might be the only reason your theory about this exist. Think of a tornado. I think your theory people, are thinking of the event horizon like a film/membrane/screen, which is a curvature, which once light comes in contact with, the light cant go outwards, so the light just rotates around the event horizon indefinitely, because this is light following the curve of space, like perhaps if you threw 10 gallons of paint into a lab made perfect tornado, perhaps the paint would just spin around with the outside of the tornado.

You are saying maybe, even if the information is not spinning around, because the event horizon might not be spinning around, the information still remains there, and radiation is still coming in contact with the information of the ship (which really isnt there, because in reality it fell in) which is then reflected outwards, to any observer.

2. Even if they were immortal, they still wouldn't see it destroyed because the clock on the spaceship theoretically "freezes" to an outside observer, when the ship reaches the event horizon.

Ugh, I think you are confusing these, weird theories, and concepts, and mixing and matching theoretically cool sayings and ignoring what would really happen in reality. even if we want to ignore some things for thought experiment sake, even without me, even for your own good, you still must be psychotically thorough.

OK. So... I think this kind of thought is really an error with some aspects of physics thinking. To say time freezers. Am I right in saying, what you really are saying is that as a clocks velocity approaches the speed of light it moves slower? At least to an outside observer. And lets not be simpletons! What about the clock, why about the clock, does it move slower to the observer? This is physics, this isnt imaginary fun time, its not just because any clock we make when we send it at faster and faster speeds the hands go slower is it? Is it because every single atom of the clock takes slightly more space and energy of itself to stay bonded, to make the movements it 'normally' does at 'normal' velocity?

Or are you thinking in not a physical way. But if a clock was traveling from one end of a football field to another. At first it travels the distance in 100 seconds. Then it travels the distance in 10 seconds. When it traveled the distance in 10 seconds. This is because it had greater velocity. That means it clock slowed down to an observer?

So, is your physical excuse for why the clock stops to an outside observer, when it passes the event horizon, because the gravity is so strong, it is tugging all the atoms of the clock towards the common gravity point, and this doesnt let the atoms move? So the hands of the clock cant move? Or if digital clock, the particle cant decay?

I know my skeptically and thinking is correct, if you attempt to answer my questions honestly, we will move on, and we will arrive at a greater level of understanding, either in the incorrectness of what you are saying, or how although the models are wrong, they are fun to play with.

If other matter is falling into the black hole, that would cause a lot of radiation on the ship.

Yea, but not 100 years worth of radiation... the radiation has to reflect off the ship and then into the observers eyes, there will only be so much radiation that does this, it cant maintain around the ship, and 'not be able to travel outward because too strong gravity'...but 'travel outward in infinite amounts' while 'the ship is not really there', but 'I know that I cant explain how the observer sees the ship there as a projection for ever, but I know its there', 'because..i think someone said it was'.

For the sake of this thought experiment, let's say the spaceship has a window, and a light inside the spaceship shining on a clock which is visible through the window to an outside observer.

Ok, once the ship is destroyed in reality, lets say it is. Then, no more light, once the ship is destroyed, and the last gasps were radiated towards the observer, that should be all the reflection and visibility of the ship.

As I said if the black hole is large enough, the ship need not be annihilated when crossing the event horizon. But even crossing the event horizon is not visible to an observer on Earth, so what happens to the ship after it crosses the event horizon is irrelevant to the Earth observer. The light from the ship will redshift to invisibility as it approaches the event horizon, and of course once the event horizon is crossed the light from the ship cannot escape.

We were talking about a thought experiment circumstance, at least I was thinking of it this way, where there is a na observer, only a bit away from event horizon, watching the ship travel towards and then collide.

It's a bit like the puzzle, travel half the distance to the wall. How many times do you have to do this before you get to the wall? The answer is, mathematically you never reach the wall. Similarly, an earth observer will never actually see the ship reach the event horizon, while time passes normally in the ship as it crosses the event horizon.

Unlike the issue KrzYma raised, I know of no easy solution to say how something can happen in the ship which can never be observed from Earth, but in a way, this relates to one of the unsolved problems in physics, called the Black hole information paradox. It's not quite the same thing, but actually there's not really a contradiction because the ship is never destroyed from the time frame of an immortal observer on Earth.

You may puzzle over how that can happen if the ship is eventually destroyed according to the observer on the ship, and that may fry your brain, but it's not really a contradiction. It's strange though, because things happen in the reference frame of the spaceship (like the ultimate destruction of the ship), which can never be observed from the reference frame on Earth, no matter how much time passes.

No, if the ship is destroyed, even if an observer sees its ghost, it is seeing its ghost, reality is tautological, it only ever equals itself. It would be like showing me a picture of your great great grandfather and saying, see this is a paradox, because he is annihilated, but for thousands of years people will still be able to see him.

But as I have suggest above, I think there is err in folks thinking. Unless, the ship does not fully get sucked in, or just a silhouette like outline is preserved in the event horizon, which all radiation still reflects off of.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh, and this sounds like the complete opposite of the reason we had QM arguments in that other thread, (from your black hole information paradox link):

"A fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense. This is the strictest form of determinism"

(that sounds like it is admitting hidden variables)

Why don't electrons stick onto protons?

Why don't electrons repel each other from the vicinity of an atomic nucleus?

How is electromagnetic force manifested at a distance?

How is gravitational force manifested at a distance?

Where does antimatter come from?

Is empty space an equilibrium of matter and antimatter?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Why don't electrons stick onto protons?

Because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics. When the electron gets really close and you try to squeeze its position to a smaller location (near the proton) then its momentum must be higher and so it scoots away faster. In quantum mechanics there is just a minimum energy state, unlike classical mechanics.

Once you allow addiitional particle-transforming interactions (seen in Standard model) you sort of can get electrons to stick on to protons and turn in to neutrons, a nuclear reaction called "electron capture". This needs special circumstances.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't electrons repel each other from the vicinity of an atomic nucleus?

They do.

How is electromagnetic force manifested at a distance?

How is gravitational force manifested at a distance?

Classical field equations called Maxwell's equations and Einstein field equation show what they do.

Where does antimatter come from?

Particle physics reactions which allow antimatter to be created given sufficiently intense & energetic input particles.

Is empty space an equilibrium of matter and antimatter?

No.

originally posted by: [post=18284807]Box of Rain

imo this other form of matter is the by product of anti gravity rather than the cause of it.
Basically atomic restructuring

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Mon1k3r
Indeed there's a lot we don't know about them, nobody would argue with that.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean our knowledge about them is zero. We have made certain observations related to both which gives us an idea of their properties, even if we don't know exactly what they are.

The knowledge that we have is a mathematical extrapolation of a hypothesis. No one has observed dark matter or dark energy, yet we observe galaxies rotating at rates which should cause them to fly apart. The the galaxy is held together by the increased pressure from a rapidly inflating space encountering a not so rapidly inflating space. The difference between the rates of inflation is the strength of the pressure wave produced. Gravity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sorry I forgot to quote, this is a reply to a question on page 29 re- reduction of chem to phys.


I have an interest in the Philosophy of sciences and tend to approach ideas of reductionism, in the many forms, from this arena.

I tend to view this matter as far from solved, many entrenched views exist, each addressing a very specific ontological/epistemological unease.

I think that claims made by such figures as Dirac in the past, has contributed to an oversimplification of the matter, useful only to a pragmatic approach.

As far as I am aware the `molecular` basis of chemistry , a common feature of this branch, I am sure you will admit, has many approaches in various states of refinement, with no agreed upon strong contender.

Ontological issues regarding substance and process are still very hotly debated, as are epistemological issues regarding the possibility of a complete chemical knowledge, then add to this the natures of the various methodologies...this seems to be far from over.

I can agree that theories should not be treat as sacrosanct but somewhere down the line, if a believable tale of reductionism to physics is to exist, these problems will have to be hammered out.

Your thoughts.?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
again a question gone under, maybe because no picture so here I ask again

you know, I was analysing this representation of space bend.



it is savvy


so gravity is the axis rotation in a coordinate system on a piece of paper now...
what causes it ? the slowdown of time, matter ?
is time inside the nucleus slower then outside the atom ?

I don't think so, looks rather like some force outside the paper rotates the axis

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

this relates to one of the unsolved problems in physics, called the Black hole information paradox. It's not quite the same thing, but actually there's not really a contradiction because the ship is never destroyed from the time frame of an immortal observer on Earth.

Quantum bounce could make black holes explode
www.nature.com...

Mysterious black holes may be exploding into ‘white holes’
rt.com...

originally posted by: Mon1k3r

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Mon1k3r
Indeed there's a lot we don't know about them, nobody would argue with that.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean our knowledge about them is zero. We have made certain observations related to both which gives us an idea of their properties, even if we don't know exactly what they are.

The knowledge that we have is a mathematical extrapolation of a hypothesis. No one has observed dark matter or dark energy, yet we observe galaxies rotating at rates which should cause them to fly apart. The the galaxy is held together by the increased pressure from a rapidly inflating space encountering a not so rapidly inflating space. The difference between the rates of inflation is the strength of the pressure wave produced. Gravity.

everything points to dark matter and dark energy existing.
dark matter is said to be extra gravity ,which is what is holding the galaxies together.
dark energy is what is causing the accelerated expansion, not inflation.
energy and gravity are in a constant fight, fighting each other.

edit-

there's extra energy(dark energy)multiplying it's self like a cell or microbe causing the accelerated expansion.(big freeze)
cosmic models of galaxies and such shown they can not hold together unless extra gravity was added(dark matter)
there's a gravitational spectrum.
also look into advance ligo.
for now there's lisa, elisa, nanograv 2015 and nonograv.
there's also,
virgo and advance virgo and geo600
also look into something called
exotic matter and mach's principle
also,
anti matter.
look into,
gravitational interaction of antimatter

originally posted by: krash661

everything points to dark matter and dark energy existing.
dark matter is said to be extra gravity ,which is what is holding the galaxies together.
dark energy is what is causing the accelerated expansion, not inflation.
energy and gravity are in a constant fight, fighting each other.

Everything points to words existing, I understand. Words exist. Even the idea that the words represent exist. Dark matter and dark energy are words. And what they really mean is, "I don't know what out there doing these things I observe."

I don't think it is observationally correct to say that energy and gravity are in a constant fight. If there is something tacking us to the surface, it must be a force. Force implies energy. Energy in the form of realized potential. Gravity IS energy, they don't fight. They are one in the same.

originally posted by: Mon1k3r

originally posted by: krash661

everything points to dark matter and dark energy existing.
dark matter is said to be extra gravity ,which is what is holding the galaxies together.
dark energy is what is causing the accelerated expansion, not inflation.
energy and gravity are in a constant fight, fighting each other.

Everything points to words existing, I understand. Words exist. Even the idea that the words represent exist. Dark matter and dark energy are words. And what they really mean is, "I don't know what out there doing these things I observe."

I don't think it is observationally correct to say that energy and gravity are in a constant fight. If there is something tacking us to the surface, it must be a force. Force implies energy. Energy in the form of realized potential. Gravity IS energy, they don't fight. They are one in the same.

this post is not only incorrect but also complete nonsense.
this level of physics is obviously far advance for you.
you have no qualifications to say such things.
i have no interest in your typical science denying spewing.

i'm also going to point to your own quote, and say you should learn from it,
" You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality. AR "

edit-
also,
what's your agenda ?

a reply to: krash661

And I suppose attempting to belittle someone for what you only suppose is a lack of knowledge and understanding is your victory condition. Very well, you win. But likewise, I cannot take seriously someone who writes in order to be read and understood, but can't be bothered to use proper grammar, capitalization, or punctuation.

No one will ever touch, see, or measure the darkness, because it does not exist.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Once the ship in reality, crosses (can we agree there is an objective reality, where the ship actually crosses in)

No we can't agree that there's "an" objective reality which implies one. According to relativity, each observer has a different perspective and each is equally objective and real. Only the observer in the ship crossing the event horizon experiences that, and it's equally valid that the observer on Earth never sees the ship cross the event horizon.

OK. So... I think this kind of thought is really an error with some aspects of physics thinking. To say time freezers. Am I right in saying, what you really are saying is that as a clocks velocity approaches the speed of light it moves slower?

The reason I brought up the black hole example is because someone suggested something about time freezing to an outside observer if a person and a mirror (and let's say they were wearing a watch) moved at the speed of light, but then it was correctly noted this was impossible because it would take infinite energy to accelerate a massive object to light speed.

But in the gravitational field of a black hole, it's not impossible for an outside observer to hypothetically observe a clock stop ticking while falling into the black hole, except for the caveats I already mentioned like red shift making the clock effectively impossible to see when it's stopping. There's no infinite amount of energy required to fall into a black hole, as required to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light.

What about the clock, why about the clock, does it move slower to the observer? This is physics, this isnt imaginary fun time, its not just because any clock we make when we send it at faster and faster speeds the hands go slower is it? Is it because every single atom of the clock takes slightly more space and energy of itself to stay bonded, to make the movements it 'normally' does at 'normal' velocity?

In a case of symmetrical reference frames where A sees B's clock slow and B sees A's clock slow, it's just a matter of perspective. A good thought experiment to chew on is the train relativity experiment in this video, which also addresses your "clock" question with a discussion of muons which aren't really clocks as in a digital watch, but they have a known lifetime, so in a way we can use their lifetime as a clock:

Relativity Paradox - Sixty Symbols

Or are you thinking in not a physical way. But if a clock was traveling from one end of a football field to another. At first it travels the distance in 100 seconds. Then it travels the distance in 10 seconds. When it traveled the distance in 10 seconds. This is because it had greater velocity.

Different non-relativistic velocities are just that, the relativistic effects become prominent at a significant fraction of c, the speed of light, when as discussed in the video the Lorentz contraction means the football field can become shorter from one perspective compared to another perspective (meaning different relativistic reference frames).

So, is your physical excuse for why the clock stops to an outside observer, when it passes the event horizon, because the gravity is so strong, it is tugging all the atoms of the clock towards the common gravity point, and this doesnt let the atoms move? So the hands of the clock cant move? Or if digital clock, the particle cant decay?

Watch the video and try to get some insight from it, and stop thinking there's one objective reality. It depends on your perspective, or reference frame. Remember the clock still ticks normally to the observer in the spaceship, so atoms not moving can't be the cause. Again I say it's just looking at it from another perspective, not the atoms stopping, because nothing actually stops in the ship's reference frame, or even slows down.

We were talking about a thought experiment circumstance, at least I was thinking of it this way, where there is a na observer, only a bit away from event horizon, watching the ship travel towards and then collide.

Depending on how close you were to the other ship, you might not see any "collision", because there's nothing actually at the event horizon to collide with. The event horizon is a mathematical construction, it's not like hitting a wall. What you see really depends on your perspective and how close you are to the ship. If two ships fly into the black hole side by side they would never see the other ship nearly stop at an event horizon as would a distant outside observer.

No, if the ship is destroyed, even if an observer sees its ghost, it is seeing its ghost, reality is tautological, it only ever equals itself.

Here you go again with your one objective reality. No, there isn't only one objective reality, that's why relativity says things are relative. If you're an observer on Earth, the ship never crosses the event horizon from your perspective, there's no ghost in your objective reality as an Earth-based observer.

originally posted by: happytoexist
Ontological issues regarding substance and process are still very hotly debated, as are epistemological issues regarding the possibility of a complete chemical knowledge, then add to this the natures of the various methodologies...this seems to be far from over.

Can you link me to some information about these debates you may have run across? I'm not denying there are debates, but I'd need to familiarize myself with the magnitude and nature of the debates to comment further.

If it's what I discussed in the OP that ontological/epistemological regarding quantum mechanics interpretations are unresolved as explained in the OP video, people debating about it won't bring resolution if the correct interpretation can't be proven by experiment. Therefore I don't see the benefit of such a debate. We can debate about how many other universes there are, zero, one, 50, 100, 1000, a million, infinite, but what is the point of the debate? It could be any of those so it seems like a waste of breath to debate it until we have evidence which in that case it seems likely we will never have. We may have a resolution to QM interpretation someday.

There's one scientist still pushing expanding Earth hypothesis, but I wouldn't characterize his position as much of a debate because he's pretty much a lone fringe person as far as I know, but my point is someone can call that a "debate" about an idea that isn't really given any serious consideration by the vast majority of the scientific community, or rather I should say it was considered and dismissed for not only lack of evidence, but lack of a viable mechanism for substantial mass gain.

Here are Richard Feynman's thoughts on what could be called an ontological/epistemological on another topic in physics, which echoes my thoughts on that subject, though I'm not sure if it is similar to how I will feel about to the physics versus chemistry ontological/epistemological issues or not, until I read your sources.

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
a reply to: krash661

And I suppose attempting to belittle someone for what you only suppose is a lack of knowledge and understanding is your victory condition. Very well, you win. But likewise, I cannot take seriously someone who writes in order to be read and understood, but can't be bothered to use proper grammar, capitalization, or punctuation.

No one will ever touch, see, or measure the darkness, because it does not exist.

i suppose attempting to ridicule something you have no clue of is qualification ?
your own words/comments/ explanations make it obvious of what you actually know and understand.
it's massively obvious to actual scientist.
it's that simple.
ahh yes, the typical grammar policing,
this is done by individuals who are not only low level minded individuals but also, a resort of no other arsenal in your focused arguing nonsense of the subject (physics).
if you were intelligent, then you would understand language its self.
all that grammar nonsense you stated would not matter.

and again, your last piece of comment is also incorrect.

with the nonsense you continue to spew leads me to believe you have an agenda.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

your black hole and time dilation of seeing the ship from non local observers is completely wrong.
you continue to show you do not understand any of this.
this is also far advance for you.

this entire thread is a complete joke.
it's nothing but novice misinforming.

No one has ever come to a conclusion without first having an idea or a conceptualization. The idea must exist before any experiment can take place. You must know what you're attempting to measure before you can measure it. The electron, the proton, the neutron... have never been measured directly, never been directly observed, and never will, because these things are not particles, they are states. It behaves like a wave, it behaves like a particle - all based on attempted observation. These fundamental building blocks of matter, and indeed matter itself, are all simply states of energy. Because we can place our hand on matter, because we feel heat transfer, does not make anything solid or hot or cold. We observe what our apparati allow us to observe. Seeing is believing, not knowing. See: Walter Russell BEFORE you see Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla would tell you he knew what he knew because of the work of others done before him. He too, stood on the shoulders of giants.

more incorrect nonsense.

this entire thread is a complete joke.
it's nothing but novice misinforming.

a reply to: krash661

The entire western education system is a joke. It is creating novices intentionally by misinforming. If you don't believe that, then take a look at what FREE scientists were doing with electrical studies prior to Tesla. If not that, simply compare a 7th grade math text from 1910 to what kids are learning in 7th grade today. You know what you know because you are complacent and happy to simply accept what you are taught, because you are told that you are not to know anything until you are told what to know, and how to know it.

There's a good reason that all Tesla did after the publication of special relativity was feed pigeons in a park, and it's not because he went insane. There's a reason his lab was destroyed, and it wasn't an accident. There's a reason why the FBI's Department of Foreign Property confiscated everything he had, all of his devices, schematics, patents. The same goes for Philo Farnsworth.

Relativity accurately describes what we OBSERVE. The assumptions that we make on our observations are as limited as the observations themselves. Also, relativity NEVER asks the questions WHY or HOW, and neither does it's cheerleaders. Einstein is not a science god, he is a shill and it's a shame we don't see that.

EDIT to add: There is also a reason why Marconi was credited with the invention of the radio and not Tesla. Politics and money, the RCA corporation. Tesla could not be allowed to profit greatly from an invention of those implications, because then he would have momentum to improve and finalize some of his more remarkable concepts and inventions. For his competitors, namely Edison and RCA, he was a threat to their greed. If you don't know by now, greed is the driving force in this world. Money, power, and control, not freedom and enlightenment.