Never say Never?

a reply to: SprocketUK



That's a superb question SprocketUK.

Basically, does quantum entanglement circumvent the event horizon of a singularity?

The problem is that the closest known black hole to Earth is Gaia BH1, is located about 1,600 light-years away in the constellation Ophiuchus.

Which might make such an experiment kind of hard to accomplish given current technology.

We may however be able to create our own singularities at some point in the future thus test the premis of that question.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think, if we do, whoever does it will end up vapourising half the planet

a reply to: andy06shake

Additionally, you wouldn't necessarily 'see' an event horizon, so you might stumble into it before you knew it was there.

That might be a bit of a problem.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Naw, it would almost certainly evaporate quickly due to Hawking radiation before posing any threat to the planet.

Creating a black hole capable of consuming the Earth would require technology and energies far beyond what we can achieve.

And again, even then the physics of Hawking radiation likely prevent it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Spaghettification might ruin your day.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It would be your last problem for an infinitely long time.

Well either that or my understanding is you get spaghettified.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

a reply to: andy06shake

I guess that would be a pretty extreme case of... "steppin' in it"!! About as extreme as one could possibly get.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Probably best avoided, then.

a reply to: SuiStoic

Im not sure about Black holes being pure science fiction.

Seems to me that Black holes are very much a part of modern scientific understanding and are not science fiction.

They are a consequence of the general theory of relativity, and describe how massive objects warp the very fabric of space and time.

We have even taken our first direct images of a black hole via the "Event Horizon Telescope" observations.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Ah but. Your first sentence you state "they can't". A definitive. Then the next sentence you state "it depends on a frame of reference", which then throws out the definitive.
2 Space ships, space ship A and space ship B are travelling towards one another at C. What speed are they coming together with the observer on space ship A?
This is called "Relativity of simultaneity" and even Einstein threw in the caveat that it might not be the same for deferent observers. So in his words he didn't definitively know this to be correct.

Einstein knew about Lorentz transformations; Lorentz was one of Einstein's teachers.

Lorentz transformations allow us to take what any observer sees in special relativity, and show what any other observer would see, from doing the transformation. So you make it sound like the physical events are changing, based on observer, when from the perspetive of Lorentz transformations, All observers' points of view are equally valid and mathematically equivalent.

This also covers relativity of simultaneity, and Einstein didn't give any caveat about the Lorentz transformations, he knew full well the different observers points of view were all mathematically equivalent through the Lorentz transformations.

Three counterintuitive, but correct, predictions of the (Lorentz) transformations are:

Relativity of simultaneity...
Time dilation...
Length contraction

Anyway this stuff is counter-intuitive as the article says.
You can see two spaceships, one traveling at .99c to your right, and one traveling at .99c to your left. (.99c means 99% the speed of light)
Intuition tells us the velocities can be added if they are traveling in opposite directions, like when you travel down the highway at 99kph and a car is coming at you at 99kph, the closing speed is 198 kph, so it would look to you in one of the cars like the other car is coming at you at 198 kph.

That math works with cars, but not with spaceships going at .99c. Velocities simply don't add like that at relativistic speeds, but you can use the Lorentz transformations (or even simpler math in that case) to show what all three observers would see, you and the pilot of each space ship.

It's as definitive as we can get with any theory, since relativity is supported by so many detailed observations. By the way, smashing protons going at just under the speed of light in opposite directions is just what scientists do at the LHC, so while they aren't spaceships, their behavior is consistent with relativity.

a reply to: andy06shake

You mean...we have taken a picture of approximately where a black hole resides, right? You can't take a picture of something which doesn't allow any information about itself to escape its grasp, only the circumstances surrounding its existence.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Just what the "Event Horizon Telescope" observations show.

That being a bright ring of light around a dark, circular shadow.

With the dark region corresponding to the "event horizon" of the black hole, or at least that's my understanding.

As you suggest you cannot take a picture/image of something that does not allow light to escape.

Still an amazing feat and the field is advancing, with astronomers working toward even more detailed and refined images of black holes.

To suggest they are mere science fiction is what i would call a bit of a ""stretch"".

a reply to: andy06shake

Totally agree with you. That (other) post you were replying to was pretty silly, and I commented accordingly earlier.

I was just kiddin' ya on the semantics.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Have you not seen the documentary Event Horizon?

That was well scary.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Are you referring to the 1997 sci-fi / horror film with Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Neill, or something else? That wasn't a documentary.

As always, I defer to Blue Oyster Cult:

www.metalkingdom.net...

"Verse 1: Eric Bloom]
Into the whirlpool, where matter vanishes
Degenerate star, arm of Orion
An iron sun, the forbidden circle
Anti-matter is the black horizon!

[Chorus: Eric Bloom]
Heavy metal, black and silver
Fallen matter of the sun
Pours itself into a place
Where there was never, never one!

[Verse 2: Eric Bloom]
By starlight, the heaviest will rise up
Magnetic mirror, scattered bodies slow
All chaos of matter, river of fire
A night sea crossing, the cosmic fluid flows

[Chorus: Eric Bloom]
Heavy metal, black and silver
Fallen matter of the Sun
Pours itself into a place
Where there was never, never one!

[Bridge: Eric Bloom]
Fallen matter, from the cross
Freedom, that was never lost
Beyond being will be coming
Beyond time, space and control
Direction (starlight)
Creation (starbright)
Foundation (we forged the Einstein bridge tonight)
Spans a river (starlight)
We call time (starbright)
World (light of darkness)
Without end (light of light)
[Chorus/Outro: Eric Bloom]
Heavy metal, black and silver
Fallen matter of the Sun
Pours itself into a place
Where there was never, never, never, never one!"

Why Black Hole Environments Are a Lot More Complicated Than We Thought

Food for thought if anyone has a spare hour.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, and that was...levity.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Have you not seen the documentary Event Horizon? That was well scary.

damn good documentary, a real puckerfest filled with a great sense of dread and vivid scenes which according to some the real bad stuff was cut. it's now considered a cult classic.
this is what comes from the other side of them according to the documentary.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Plenty of bad stuff left in it.

It's really disturbing!