If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You misunderstand me my friend. Big Bang is scientific conscientious. That's not what I was stating the community didn't agree upon.
What is up for grabs is what happened then. I mean, we don't even have a clear definition for space-time. There is still a whole lot of debate on what that even is.
Quote
As for more big bangs within the confines of this universe, we will not see that level of quantum nothingness for about another trillion years.
Why? Is all of space occupied and defined?
Quote
As for your presupposition that it is God the all present observer that created the universe, and evidence by human observation change the state of photons, this argument breaks down. Because and ever present God would observe anything and everything independent of humans. Humans would never be able to observe anything that was not already observed/being observed etc, hence our observations could not create the phase changes to which you credit them.
So, you reject the Copenhagen Theory?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
Where else do we have evidence of singularities existing?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Evolution and abiogenesis are recognized as two separate fields of study I consider pre and post bang cosmology to effectively be two separate fields. In both instances, at some point we may possess the knowledge to unite the fields, but at this point IMO we do not.
This is my understanding of science as well, amigo.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
Where else do we have evidence of singularities existing?
The term singularity is also used to describe the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Although both produce some very unusual conditions, I do not believe we can conclude the two are equal.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The term singularity is also used to describe the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Although both produce some very unusual conditions, I do not believe we can conclude the two are equal.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about either to extrapolate more than what we've discussed already in this thread. So, like you I cannot conclude that they are equal. Personally, due to my limited understanding, cannot conclude that they are not equal.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
With Hawking's discoveries, we know that things do and can escape "black holes". This stuff is called Hawking Radiation.
Because I cannot rule out the Big Bang "singularity" similarities with "black hole" singularities, I wonder if what the Big Bang emitted was this Hawking Radiation stuff...
Physicist do say that Hawking Radiation is unlike anything else....
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
Apparently, there are billions of those puppies passing through us every minute. I had never heard of them before until I saw show on them at the Museum of The Rockies Taylor Planetarium. That's another far out area physics is dealing with.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
I used to work with an associate professor of theoretical quantum physics (Sacto. St.)...interesting guy to have BS sessions with...before I got to know him, I figured him for a crankster biker dude...
With Hawking's discoveries, we know that things do and can escape "black holes". This stuff is called Hawking Radiation.
Because I cannot rule out the Big Bang "singularity" similarities with "black hole" singularities, I wonder if what the Big Bang emitted was this Hawking Radiation stuff...
Physicist do say that Hawking Radiation is unlike anything else....
When you start talking about black holes and their relationship to Universes (plural), you are opening up a whole new can of worms.
In simplest terms, the Universe consists of three things, Matter, energy, and space/time. However, we know that E=MC^2, so matter is just a phase of energy. Therefore the entire universe is made up of two sides of an equation, E=Space/Time. Now where E is positive, and Space/time is it's negative counter part, we end up with a universe with net zero energy, which would be consistent with the laws of the conservation of energy.
When we contemplate a black hole, it is a massive reservoir of negative energy (by convention, gravitational energy is negative), Now for hawking radiation to escape a black hole, the total energy of the system (mass is a for of positive energy) must approach zero, with a slightest of edges going to the positive energy. As the Hawking's radiation escape, some mass is lost, and with it some negative potential energy (lost gravity). This process continues all the way down to planck scale, so the blackhole never losses it's Event Horizon, nor reaches a point here E exceeds Gravity enough to cause the system to enter a re-inflationary stage. However if it did reach a re inflationary state, it could create some interesting possibilities. The density of a black hole warps time and space. So what happens when this containment is lost? Radiation begins to leave at the speed of light. As the mass of the blackhole shrinks space expands. As light moves through this rapidly expanding, unwarping, space, this light could be perceived as changing it's position at a rate faster then the cosmic speed limit. All that stuff crushed together at near infinite pressures, would it once again be reduces to form of primary particles? Primary particles, space and time expanding faster then the speed of light, could this be what the early universe looked like?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
It's not that they are small, it's that they only interact with the very short range strong nuclear force.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
So, the duality of light is more than a duality then?
The duality of light is an unfortunate fiction. Goes back to how we do science. We observe events and build a model (theory) which allows us to predict future events. We set up experiments to gather more refined observations and see if that matches our predictions. If not, the model is wrong or incomplete.
Wave theory allowed predictions that matched observations at the time perfectly. Then came photoelectric effect and wave theory couldn't account for that. However there wasn't a model that could account for all the stuff wave theory could predict AND the photoelectric effect. So they were stuck with two incomplete models and called it "duality."
Then came the quantum electrodynamics model with which you could predict ALL observations. The trouble is that to predict events on a large scale, every day size to us, you have to do an unbelievably large number of calculations. We know how but can't do it. But we can calculate such with wave theory and the answers are good enough for, say, designing a rifle scope. The wave model is an approximation which is very handy for getting stuff done.
That's where general education goes horribly wrong IMHO. They firmly stick things like Newtonian physics in your head and then try to explain Einsteinian physics as a separate deal when it really amounts to a refinement of an earlier approximation. You get wave theory so stuck in your head it's hard to admit it's an incomplete (wrong) model and accept the "bizarre" alternative model that is quantum electrodynamics.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
It is only when some classical object such as the photon passing through a wine glass, water, or a sensor, that causes it to slow below the full speed of C that time actually passes for the photon, causing it to move from a timeless state, to a state of existing in time.
So, can a photon actually slow below the full speed of light (in vacuo) or is it that the propagation through a media appears to be at less than C?
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are insanely complex fields of study that is beyond my ability to grasp. However, some simple experiments that have been conducted in studying this has blown my mind.
I wonder if any of you guys have looked into this at all, and am curious as to what it means....
Ignore the title of this video, I only post this because it has a great visual explanation of the Two-Slit Experiment.
This experiment showed that matter only exists as a result of observation. I still don't understand how observation creates matter, only that it does.
Not only does observation create matter, but it gives that matter a history and a backstory. Crazy!
So, if all matter, and reality, exists only as a result of observation, then.....ummm.... what or who is the original observer? It would have to be something or someone outside of matter and material reality.... wouldn't it?
You hurt my head with this, I'm gonna go converse with Kawi to ease the pain.
