Ask any question you want about Physics

New question.

When you read about the creation of neutron stars they give a sequence. Iron core builds, gets beyond a certain size, collapse, protons and electrons fuse and you end up all neutrons. Neutron star.

But in regard to the formation of black holes (excepting SMBH for now), they just say 'if the star is larger then even the neutron mass collapses in on itself and...black hole'.

To me that's skipping some step or omitting or not having enough knowledge to make that claim. Why no mention of neutron degeneracy pressure stopping the collapse? Why no conjecture about size or rate or when or how neutron degeneracy is surpassed?

Do we REALLY know how BHs are created from stars or not. I say it's just 'lazy concluding' that 'too big for neutron star, then BH'.

Ideas?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
What if physicality doesn't move, and instead, information moves or rather energy purposed/measured moves. So then it is that force moves through physicality, and is physicality, but what differentiates force from physicality is how it is measured/its information/the information of force.

Can you describe an experiment that would test this idea?

originally posted by: Maverick7
To me that's skipping some step or omitting or not having enough knowledge to make that claim. Why no mention of neutron degeneracy pressure stopping the collapse?

Good question. I have seen that mentioned as the reason 1.5 solar masses becomes a neutron star and not a black hole, as it's definitely above the Chandrasekhar limit for electron degeneracy pressure which we can calculate, and likely below the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit for neutron degeneracy pressure, which we haven't been able to calculate exactly.

The smallest black hole discovered is apparently GRO J0422+32 at maybe 4 solar masses (a mass estimate of 3.66 to 4.97 solar masses had been reported though this range isn't certain), so if that mass estimate is correct, then one might presume that 4 solar masses is above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, so that could be an upper bound (unless a smaller one has been found by now), and the lower bound of about 2.01 solar masses could be given by this:

The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well known. The mass of the pulsar PSR J0348+0432, at 2.01±0.04 solar masses, puts an empirical lower bound on the TOV limit.

Why no conjecture about size or rate or when or how neutron degeneracy is surpassed?

Do we REALLY know how BHs are created from stars or not. I say it's just 'lazy concluding' that 'too big for neutron star, then BH'.

Ideas?

If the above is correct then the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit where neutron degeneracy pressure is exceeded is somewhere between 2-4 solar masses, and I've seen common conjecture for the limit as maybe in the range of 2.5-3.0 solar masses, but you're right that we don't really know how to calculate the exact value as we can do for the Chandrasekhar limit for electron degeneracy pressure.

Edit to add:
I found an interesting paper where small mass estimates of black holes were reviewed. Below is the link to the paper and a graph of the mass estimates:

Mass Measurements of Black Holes in X-Ray Transients: Is There a Mass Gap?

I have a couple of ideas from reviewing this paper:
1. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that 5 solar masses and above exceeds neutron degeneracy pressure to form a black hole.
2. There is some uncertainty in the data regarding estimates below 5 solar masses to the point I don't have a lot of confidence in it.

For example, black hole XTE J1650-500 was estimated to have 3.8 solar masses in 2008, which was later revised upward to 5-10 solar masses, and it's not the only such example.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As with the belief that physicality is moving, rather than information alone, it would be innate to all experiments and would simply fall to interpretation.

a reply to: Bleeeeep
In that case I don't understand the difference. Are you saying maybe this plane crashing into a test barrier isn't really moving and it's just information flow? If so you lost me.

F4 test into concrete barrier at Sandia

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Imagine you have a solid object in the way that you thought of solids when you were a child: it was not made of smaller parts. (nothing doesn't exist to enable separation.)

Now imagine that what that thing's properties appear as (physicality as we know it, for example) is based solely on whatever information is assigned to it - so then, at the most fundamental level, all of physicality is the same and all things are made of said stuff.

So with that solid object still in mind, and it being all stuff, expand its dimensions to infinity, and imagine that its appearance of motion is just an appearance of its information change, coupled with your own interpretation of said change.

Essentially, 'physicality as we know it' would be the appearance of certain kinds of information, rather than information being the appearance of actual physicality, OR actual physicality is second to information and reality is not based on physical constructs but information constructs.

If information comes before physicality, which is the only thing that seems logical, then reality would appear, and behave, exactly like it does now.


Edit: Instead of information being the image of shapes, or the measurement of shapes, let shapes be the measurement of information. Like how your words, their image/formation, is the measurement of your conception of your will/forces -- those words are what you saw when you measured your desire (forces) to respond to me.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Imagine you have a solid object in the way that you thought of solids when you were a child: it was not made of smaller parts. (nothing doesn't exist to enable separation.)

Now imagine that what that thing's properties appear as (physicality as we know it, for example) is based solely on whatever information is assigned to it

This is where you lose me, because we have evidence of why different objects made out of different materials have different properties...they are constructed of different elements, molecules and compounds, which is not just information, it's the arrangement of matter.

- so then, at the most fundamental level, all of physicality is the same and all things are made of said stuff.

Most of the stuff we are familiar with is made of protons, neutrons and electrons, so the physicality of those are similar to a large degree, that much is true.

So with that solid object still in mind, and it being all stuff, expand its dimensions to infinity

You lost me even more right there, as expanding the dimensions of something to infinity makes no sense to me. It sounds like gobbledeygook to me.

and imagine that its appearance of motion is just an appearance of its information change, coupled with your own interpretation of said change.

That seems like it does not follow logically from the preceding thought, but on it's own one can say the appearance of motion is relative. An object which appears stationary to one observer might appear to be in motion to another observer. We have math to translate between reference frames to explain this but again I don't really follow your idea.

Anyway there are questions about the ontology of reality raised in the opening post video by Sean Carroll, and those are real questions which physicists acknowledge and nobody knows the answer.

So in some sense reality could be an illusion of some sort, depending on which ontology if any of the ontologies proposed is ultimately correct. Maybe you should watch the video in the opening post to get a scientific view of such questions, or if you have a link to a scientific paper discussing the scenario you're describing, post a link to that paper, and I'll try to see if I can understand that, because your explanation isn't making much sense to me. I mean if you said something like "maybe reality is just like the movie "The Matrix" but without the glitches so we can't tell", then at least I could understand what you're saying because I've seen that movie.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

With somewhat less hooey, there is actually (or was, maybe) a fairly interesting yet difficult read called "Information Mechanics" by Kantor.

If you bulldoze your way through it (warning: tensors lie ahead) you can find him deriving basic stuff like Maxwell's equations from his theoretical base. Spooky action as well. I don't know how far it was taken, or if it runs into a brick wall at some point like Kaluza-Klein.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

With somewhat less hooey, there is actually (or was, maybe) a fairly interesting yet difficult read called "Information Mechanics" by Kantor.

If you bulldoze your way through it (warning: tensors lie ahead) you can find him deriving basic stuff like Maxwell's equations from his theoretical base. Spooky action as well. I don't know how far it was taken, or if it runs into a brick wall at some point like Kaluza-Klein.

Interesting, that your description implies a lot of math but the wikipedia description says it lacks mathematical rigor (I haven't read it so I can't comment on the incongruity):

Digital physics

The first formal presentation of the idea that information might be the fundamental quantity at the core of physics seems to be due to Frederick W. Kantor (a physicist from Columbia University). Kantor's book Information Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1977) developed this idea in detail, but without mathematical rigor.

So if "without mathematical rigor" implies it doesn't make any predictions different from what we already observe, then experimental confirmation of such an idea can't happen until sufficient mathematical rigor is provided to make predictions which can be experimentally tested.

However that doesn't mean that other information-based ideas can't be tested, such as the idea that our apparent 3-D space could consist of encoded 2-D information:

Do we live in a 2-D hologram? New Fermilab experiment will test the nature of the universe

A unique experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory called the Holometer has started collecting data that will answer some mind-bending questions about our universe – including whether we live in a hologram.

Much like characters on a television show would not know that their seemingly 3 - D world exists only on a 2 - D screen, we could be clueless that our 3 - D space is just an illusion. The information about everything in our universe could actually be encoded in tiny packets in two dimensions.

Get close enough to your TV screen and you'll see pixels, small points of data that make a seamless image if you stand back. Scientists think that the universe's information may be contained in the same way, and that the natural "pixel size" of space is roughly 10 trillion trillion times smaller than an atom, a distance that physicists refer to as the Planck scale.

That article was from 2014, and I found this paper by the same scientist, Aaron Chou (and others) about a year later, which talks about experimental results from the same apparatus:

Search for Space-Time Correlations from the Planck Scale with the Fermilab Holometer

Measurements are reported of high frequency cross-spectra of signals from the Fermilab Holometer, a pair of co-located 39 m, high power Michelson interferometers. The instrument obtains differential position sensitivity to cross-correlated signals far exceeding any previous measurement in a broad frequency band extending to the 3.8 MHz inverse light crossing time of the apparatus. A model of universal exotic spatial shear correlations that matches the Planck scale holographic information bound of space-time position states is excluded to 4.6σ significance.

So it's nice to see that some ideas about information-based ontology can be and apparently are being tested experimentally, which makes it look like real science. If I'm reading the paper correctly, at least this one information-based model of the universe was excluded to 4.6σ significance.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The matrix (physicality as we know it) arises when we compile (measure/conceptualize) forces (reality code/will/spirit). The matrix is not the image of the forces themselves -- the matrix is the image of your measurement.

com•pile
(kəmˈpaɪl)

v.t. -piled, -pil•ing.
1. to put together (documents, selections, or other materials) in one book or work.
2. to make (a book, writing, or the like) of materials from various sources: to compile an anthology of plays.
3. to gather together: to compile data.
4. to translate (a computer program) by means of a compiler.
[1275–1325; Middle English < Latin compīlāre to rob, pillage]

You cannot tangibly see forces (will/spirits) anymore than you can see your impulses/desires(your will/spirit). What you see when you try to measure your impulses is your thoughts/mental images [which, again, are the image of your conceptualization, and not your will itself]. So, if you measure your forces as chemicals (as apposed to your impulses) you see chemicals (as apposed to thoughts.) If you measure an impulse as sound, you will hear an inner monologue, if you measure by sight you see images, if you measure sensually, you feel your will, and so on and so forth.

Are you thinking right now, or are those just chemical reactions? You think that's air you're breathing now?


To try to clarify some of my earlier posts:
The infinite body that I was referring to is both “physicality as we know it” and what is in the source code/spirit - He is all form. The parallel I tried to draw was the human body, but “I lost you.”

The trinity:
Form = Jesus
Translator = Father
Source = Holy Spirit

What I was addressing when I jumped in the topic a couple pages back is what imafungi has been asking you about over and over: “what is the source of form”. Which, I think, is the spiritual body / the body of forces - the thing that is intangible unless you are “in the spirit.” Of course, all you ever say is: “fields, infinite fields, not aether but fields, etc.” so I weighed in on it, while also trying to stress the above: that our measurements (physicality as we know it) aren’t exactly measurements of the forces, but are instead, measurements of our measurements, or images of our measurements, and so all we can really know of the “fields/forces” is limited because it doesn’t exist like a materialist thinks. To reiterate, again, e.g. if you compose a question like “what is 1+1“ and then press enter to compute, you are partially responsible for the answer. And the answer is not so much about what is there in the code/forces, but how you measure/question it.

And that’s enough for now. Good luck.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

He derives some things you normally have to do as part of any Big Theory, like Maxwell's equations. You can do that with K-K, though. I think they mean he didn't go through the entire panoply of derivations and verifications you need to do.

Still, it's pretty trippy that you can even get that.

I tried to derive Maxwell from my theory that we're an atom in someone's fingernail, got nothin'.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

reply to: Arbitrageur

As with the belief that physicality is moving, rather than information alone, it would be innate to all experiments and would simply fall to interpretation.

edit on 3/3/2016 by Bleeeeep because: edited for clarity

I guess, he meant that to experience flow of events where I can hypothetically imagine myself as stationary capture 'device' upon which events pass frame (quanta) by frame leaving its passage with imprint (information) as I was stationary to it? Like a boulder in massive water torrent. The surface of the boulder will start to accumulate complex mix of residue.

Anyway, I kind of support that notion )

a reply to: greenreflections

More like the body is everywhere and information moving through it causes it to look as it does in said position (where info is measured). You were close but still thinking in terms of separation of physical constructs rather than of mental constructs. But then I don't want to get into that in this topic I guess, everyone is too materialistic - the only reality they can fathom is one made of solids. But yeah it was something I was leading into / proposing.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You keep using the word 'information', would you mind defining it?

Also here is an example; a person balances a basketball on their finger and then catches it; then they balance the basketball on their finger and spin the ball (like perhaps you have seen before), how does your theory/understanding of the universe, express the difference between the spinning ball and the not spinning ball; the person touches pure information, and moves information, and information gives the illusion of spinning? What the heck are you saying?

Or are you pretty much saying; we might be in a matrix, we might be in a simulation, ok.

What you are saying I suppose would be the essence of simulation potential; because in a computer the idea is there is 'hard ware' that which is stable, software can be or is relatively stable too, but its made of 'information', and 'energy' is required, energy, electricity is the mover, and there is real movement and interaction that occurs, it is just the product witnessed on a screen is different than the code and electricity and hardware computing in a chip, but even if there is not a simulation there are still things like that about being human, like how our view of reality is different than the computations of synapses in our brain, or how all our cells and organs are constantly doing all their movements and work but we do not see it.


If spooky action at a distance is ever proven, which I dont know how or if it can be, then it will be proof that the universe is an illusion of some kind (creation/simulation);

A few on the thread might disagree with that statement, but I have written it before, and have plenty of statements to back it up, and those who disagree will not be able to provide any acceptable counter statement, argument, or thought.

a reply to: greenreflections

The surface of the boulder will start to accumulate complex mix of residue.

Nope. It will erode away.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

The surface of the boulder will start to accumulate complex mix of residue.

Nope. It will erode away.

Errr...you mean like it will erode instantaneously? You have seen stones in the shallow river, right? You have seen algae forming on them too, I carefully assume?

To continue on your remark, I say 'yes', the stone might erode eventually unless the river dries out first.
That was an analogy. Analogy of stone erosion in the river would be phenomenon of particle decay.))) May be) Think of it as an energy flux in space tends to rip matter apart (dissolve matter in itself) where QM strong forces are counter acting, maintaining atom composure. But before it is destroyed, matter can form complex compounds.

This is an uneducated speculation of mine) I look at cosmos mostly from amateurish philosophical point of view, that's all.

a reply to: greenreflections

This is an uneducated speculation of mine) I look at cosmos mostly from amateurish philosophical point of view, that's all.

Allegory is fun and can be thought provoking.
It is not, however, physics.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I know you love physicality so think eigenstates and/or information systems as their being measured.

My interpretation of your example would be that there is no real separation between the ball and the finger - the separation is only conceptual or what is conceived of their state changes/variations.

e.g. There is no separation between your nose and your hand - the information of your body is "decoded" and "re-encoded" (measured) so that each part of the body is a reflection or image of its measurements (information). e.g. Think of the variation in dna while it is read as information - like changes in frequency, sound, light, etc., etc.

The encoding / information itself is more of a process, and is therefor intangible (like forces/the changes themselves would be intangible) -- like a concept is the conception of something and not just a single state - it is the process of awareness.



Edit: I think spooky action was proven. The way to conceptualize something like that is to consider that the body is as I tried to describe above: more or less a solid play-doh-esque kind of body that can assume any form - even forms that are "invisible". Like printing a document, if the information says skip this line, then you wont see words printed there. This kind of thing is why I thought it so important to keep stressing that the body is the image of measurement and not the other way around. And what else... oh no, not a simulation or computer... I think it is more like a mindscape (it would explain a lot more - infinity etc.). The matrix-esque terms I used above was only because arbitrageur suggested I use such terms so he could understand. I do not think we are in a computer for reals. lol

Imagine there was a gun that shot out tennis balls against a brick wall a foot away from the wall;

Imagine it shot the tennis balls always at 10 mph;

Imagine one trial it shoots 10 tennis balls in a minute;

Imagine the next trial it shoots 20 tennis balls in a minute;

Is this general analogy to what is meant by photon frequency?

Could you break it further into how the close the balls were grouped in time to one another, if for instance, there was another trial with 50 balls in a minute, if 30 of the balls were within 10 seconds, if in the 20 trial each ball had a 10 second difference, or 20 percent had a 4 second difference;

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
To reiterate, again, e.g. if you compose a question like “what is 1+1“ and then press enter to compute, you are partially responsible for the answer. And the answer is not so much about what is there in the code/forces, but how you measure/question it.

I can program a computer to do that and the computer should still give the same answer after I'm dead.

Richard Feynman said in one of his lectures that moogles explained everything and it was a great theory because nobody has ever proven it wrong. All his students laughed when he said this because they realized that the fact nobody can prove a "theory" wrong doesn't make it a good "theory". A theory is only good scientifically if you can use scientific methods to test it, and in legal battles to keep so-called "creation science" out of US classrooms, the US Supreme Court said that to be scientific, a theory must be falsifiable, a criterion which your idea as well as Feynman's "moogles explain everything" joke apparently fail to meet:

Falsifiability

Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools as such (it can be taught as religion). The argument was presented by philosopher, Michael Ruse, who defined the characteristics which constitute science as explanatory, testable, and tentative; the latter of the three being another term for falsifiability...

United States law also enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial.

So even if it's true, if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. The scope of science is limited to things which can be falsified according to the US court, and science has no opinion on things which cannot be falsified. Since physics is a branch of science and the topic of this thread, I'm afraid that non-falsifiable ideas are off-topic here though perhaps such an idea might be on topic in the philosophy and metaphysics forum.

That doesn't mean information-based hypotheses are off-topic here if they can be tested, since I just gave an example of a scientific experiment to test such a hypothesis, which in that example was in falsified by experiment.

a reply to: ImaFungi
I would call that tennis ball example an example of a frequency. I don't see much analogy between a photon and that, nor 20 toilet flushes a day which is another example of frequency. Frequency is a very broad term and light has unique properties. For example, white light can be separated into light of different frequencies by shining it through a prism as shown here, and I can't see how tennis balls could do anything like this, where 10 balls per minute and 20 balls per minute go in different directions after being shot though glass; they would either bounce off the glass, or crack it and maybe break it:

prism

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I would call that tennis ball example an example of a frequency. I don't see much analogy between a photon and that, nor 20 toilet flushes a day which is another example of frequency. Frequency is a very broad term and light has unique properties. For example, white light can be separated into light of different frequencies by shining it through a prism as shown here, and I can't see how tennis balls could do anything like this, where 10 balls per minute and 20 balls per minute go in different directions after being shot though glass; they would either bounce off the glass, or crack it and maybe break it:

prism

The prism is a strainer of sorts (material that can be passed through, or even if the original light does not pass through the prism, but the original energy makes its way through);

So now imagine in the brick wall there are 1000 holes each twice the diameter of a tennis ball;

And then imagine 1000 tennis balls were shot at the wall in the course of 3 seconds, I bet different frequencies would be detected on the other side;

Does the white light to color glass prism concept only hold for the geometric shape a prism, does it work with the same material but cube shape?

Is there theory as to about how many photons are required at about how many different frequencies in about how spacious proximity to one another to qualify as white light?