It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 345
79
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:40 PM
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
In some sense we do have an awareness of the future, in terms of being able to make some accurate predictions. For example if you flash a light that radiates in all directions, you can predict that 1 second later the light will then be visible at all points 1 light second away with a clear line of sight to the light which is a 3-dimensional sphere but physicists often draw this in 2 dimensions as a "light cone" with the third dimension being time. The light cone is seen as representing the limitations of past and future events with respect to a certain observer in space-time.

Another observer may see a different sequence of events, but there are limitations as seen around 10 minutes in this video where someone would have to travel faster than the speed of light to change the sequence of event #2, and this is not possible in local space.

Special Relativity: 4 - Past, Future and Causality

So these space-time diagrams and light cones are how many physicists look at what Brian Greene was talking about though I think he went a little too far with his exaggeration in saying "everything that has ever happened or will happen, it all exists". Everything that ever has happened exists but not everything that ever will happen, which limitations can be demonstrated by space-time diagrams. Greene has somewhat of a reputation for making some statements which aren't entirely correct or verifiable as you have apparently already surmised.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:55 PM

originally posted by: joelr

Right but as soon as they measure one particle then they know the state of the 2nd particle, even if the 2nd particle is 1 light year away. Do you understand that?

Better than you apparently. A particle can only be in state A or B for this measurement. For an experiment I only have a red and blue ball. I send one down a track and the other down another track, until they are miles apart. You look at the end of one track, its a red ball...you wouldnt believe what you are able to know next.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:47 AM

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

originally posted by: joelr

Right but as soon as they measure one particle then they know the state of the 2nd particle, even if the 2nd particle is 1 light year away. Do you understand that?

Better than you apparently. A particle can only be in state A or B for this measurement. For an experiment I only have a red and blue ball. I send one down a track and the other down another track, until they are miles apart. You look at the end of one track, its a red ball...you wouldnt believe what you are able to know next.

Yes and with classical mechanics the ball is already in it's blue or red state before anyone looks. We assume.
In quantum mechanics it's not, it's in a superposition.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:58 AM
I'm riding my bicycle at 20 meters per second.
I turn on my head light.
Is the beam of light now traveling at 299,792,478 meters per second?

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:59 AM

Text

No.
Because time slowed down.

Are you wearing a helmet? You should, you know.

edit on 10/8/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 01:28 AM

originally posted by: joelr

Yes and with classical mechanics the ball is already in it's blue or red state before anyone looks. We assume.
In quantum mechanics it's not, it's in a superposition.

Reread my post you responded to to discover its not.

There is no reason to assume particle 1 is A/B, Red/Blue, and particle 2 is A/B, Red/Blue. Just because you cant possibly know when they are created what particle 1 and what particle 2 is.

You measure particle 1 and see that it is B, Blue. You ...... guess...... that particle 2 is A, Red.

Your partner looks at particle 2, and LO AND BEHOLD, its A, Red.

You have unsubstantiated fuzzy concepts, ideas and images that make up the worldview you see in your head when you think about these things and it is not congruent with reality.

When particle pair particle 1 and particle 2 are created scientists do not know the A/B state of particle 1 or particle 2.

DO NOT KNOW. DO NOT KNOW.

When one of the particles is detected, it is discovered to be particle 1.

WHY DO YOU ASSUME IT WAS NOT ALWAYS 1?

You take the ignorance, DO NOT KNOW, when the 2 particles are created... DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE.

WHEN PARTICLE 1 AND PARTICLE 2 ARE CREATED YOU DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE, YOU DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE.

YOU TAKE THIS, I DO NOT KNOW THE STATE AND SAY: THEY EACH ARE BOTH STATES.

I DO NOT KNOW IF PARTICLE 1 IN CHANNEL 1 WHEN DETECTED WILL BE A OR B........ THEREFORE...... BEFORE I DETECT IT, IT MUST BE BOTH A AND B AT ONCE!!!!!!

AND THEN WHEN I DETECT IT, IT MUST TELEPATHICALLY COMMUNICATE FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT TO PARTICLE 2 TO TELL IT TO TURN IN A.

OR, MORE RATIONALLY, REASONABLY, LIKELY. A PARTICLE PAIR 1 AND 2 ARE CREATED, 1 SENT DOWN CHANNEL 1, 2 SENT DOWN CHANNEL 2, WHEN 1 IS DETECTED IT IS STATE A, WHEN 2 IS DETECTED IT IS STATE B, WHEN 1 WAS CREATED IT WAS STATE A, WHEN 2 WAS CREATED IT WAS STATE B.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:10 AM

originally posted by: LiberateEarth

originally posted by: joelr
Arb is right all of the ufo videos NEVER show the ufo whipping away at crazy speeds of any other proof of advanced physics.

I recall Tom Valone showing a clip at the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, but I don't see it on the free videos posted on YouTube. As I recall I purchased the full webcast of the event at the time it took place.

The information is on the internet for those who want to find it.

I started watching his video on zero point energy and his first point was that Harold E. Puthoff has "pretty much" proven zero point energy is the cause of gravity and inertia and shown to be a useful energy source.
Well Harold E. Puthoff (born June 20, 1936) is an American engineer and parapsychologist who hangs out with magicians and does remote viewing. His work is considered a pseudoscience and I'm not surprised at all.

I can't waste any more time on that lecture.
The ufo video so far is just using anecdotal evidence - random sightings - which may be interesting but do not back up the idea that the Gov has ufo tech.
Then he uses various magazine articles, David Fronings paper on zero point propulsion which is just a bunch of speculation with no math or theory at all. Then of course a Bob Lazar reference and a bunch more articles from different magazines.

There really isn't anything there, the synopsis is: " The Gov might have ufo technology if Roswell is true and Roswell might be true because people see ufos.
Zero point energy might one day be an energy source. Physicists don't think so yet and I'm not a physicist but here are a bunch of theoretical or hypothetical articles from pop-science magazines like Invention and Popular Mechanics that suggest one day it might be possible. Also the strong force may be related to gravity because Bob Lazar says so."

Also, he actually showed one of those youtube clips from like South America where there is an actual computer graphic ufo ship flying over palm trees. You know that clip, we've all seen it. A grown ass man actually aired that clip at a lecture.
How dare you.

edit on 8-10-2017 by joelr because: g

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:58 AM

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

originally posted by: joelr

Yes and with classical mechanics the ball is already in it's blue or red state before anyone looks. We assume.
In quantum mechanics it's not, it's in a superposition.

Reread my post you responded to to discover its not.

There is no reason to assume particle 1 is A/B, Red/Blue, and particle 2 is A/B, Red/Blue. Just because you cant possibly know when they are created what particle 1 and what particle 2 is.

You measure particle 1 and see that it is B, Blue. You ...... guess...... that particle 2 is A, Red.

Your partner looks at particle 2, and LO AND BEHOLD, its A, Red.

You have unsubstantiated fuzzy concepts, ideas and images that make up the worldview you see in your head when you think about these things and it is not congruent with reality.

When particle pair particle 1 and particle 2 are created scientists do not know the A/B state of particle 1 or particle 2.

DO NOT KNOW. DO NOT KNOW.

When one of the particles is detected, it is discovered to be particle 1.

WHY DO YOU ASSUME IT WAS NOT ALWAYS 1?

You take the ignorance, DO NOT KNOW, when the 2 particles are created... DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE.

WHEN PARTICLE 1 AND PARTICLE 2 ARE CREATED YOU DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE, YOU DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE.

YOU TAKE THIS, I DO NOT KNOW THE STATE AND SAY: THEY EACH ARE BOTH STATES.

I DO NOT KNOW IF PARTICLE 1 IN CHANNEL 1 WHEN DETECTED WILL BE A OR B........ THEREFORE...... BEFORE I DETECT IT, IT MUST BE BOTH A AND B AT ONCE!!!!!!

AND THEN WHEN I DETECT IT, IT MUST TELEPATHICALLY COMMUNICATE FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT TO PARTICLE 2 TO TELL IT TO TURN IN A.

OR, MORE RATIONALLY, REASONABLY, LIKELY. A PARTICLE PAIR 1 AND 2 ARE CREATED, 1 SENT DOWN CHANNEL 1, 2 SENT DOWN CHANNEL 2, WHEN 1 IS DETECTED IT IS STATE A, WHEN 2 IS DETECTED IT IS STATE B, WHEN 1 WAS CREATED IT WAS STATE A, WHEN 2 WAS CREATED IT WAS STATE B.

Owch my eyes...

So you think the particles have spin states already embedded in them? Those would be called hidden variables and were proven to be impossible a long time ago Caplock.
Even just statistically if particles could do that then we can easily calculate what the results would look like over many tries. There can also be 2 vertical states as well as horizontal and we can calculate what the stats would be over so many readings. There are no preferred spin states in the particles, there is just conservation of angular momentum.

So entangled particles have to follow that law and when you force one of the pair to take a specific state then at that instant the other particle takes the opposite.

Quantum mechanics is not always congruent with classical reality and hidden variables are long discarded fake news.
I'm going to pass that ignorant hat right back to you.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:09 AM

Thanks for the explanation Arbitrageur, and for the vid. It makes sense to a non physicist. Looks like Brian Greene could be given to using a bit of exaggeration or artistic licence at times. Entertaining though. It's still a weird universe (IMO).

ps. What is your opinion on determinism re the way the universe is evolving at the macro level? What would be the general consensus, as there seems a confusing mix of opinion from what I read. Are events always determined by preceding events, or is there some element of randomness? As I understand it, the term "probabilistic" that some physicists use means that there is some inherent randomness? Is it possible to really know this?

edit on 8-10-2017 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:51 AM

Hi Daniel, good to see you back.

It might help to recall that in Stern-Gerlach we can separate electrons via their spin states. If you do this on a beam of electrons you get two beams. One is aligned with the Stern-Gerlach measuring device in one way (let's say "up) and the other beam the other way (let's say "down"). If we do subsequent measurements on them, up stays up and down stays down. They are in up and down states. But if we do a sideways measurement on either beam, let's say the "up" one, then it will split into a "left" and a "right" beam. And if we now re-measure those "left" and "right" beams (recall that they both started as "up") we learn that they are now half "up" and half "down". So the states change as a result of measurement.

So if we now take a spin zero particle that decays into two spin 1/2 states, say an e+/e- pair, we know that the pair if measured must have a total spin of zero - that is, if one is up the other is down. Or if one is left, the other is right. But if we are clever we can also tilt our detectors at various angles and look at the correlations. And we can be even more clever and change the detectors during the flight time of the particles, to really mess things up. Quantum mechanics predictions hold in all tests that have been done like that. But if we say, well, each particle started out with a spin in a specific direction and its partner in the opposite direction (this is called a hidden variable) then the calculations turn out not to be correct. What happens is that the act of measurement changes the internal conditions in a way similar to the Stern-Gerlach tests I mentioned above. And the "spooky" thing is that when you change the state by measuring it, the correlation measurement on the partner says that the partner was also changed.

Now this is all only spooky from a relativistic mindset. From the absolute space-time theory of Lorentz (or my modification) it is easy to understand. In absolute theory, an event at point A simply affects the event at point B instantaneously. But via relativity, the collapse should not be allowed - as emphasized by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. This is because of the relativity of simultaneity within relativity. In relativity, there is no way a point-like event at one place can affect a second point-like event at another place in a way that requires faster than speed-of-light signaling. Relativity apologists state otherwise, but I stick with Einstein on the need for an underlying objective reality.

We should simply reconsider the absolute theories.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:37 PM

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
ps. What is your opinion on determinism re the way the universe is evolving at the macro level? What would be the general consensus, as there seems a confusing mix of opinion from what I read. Are events always determined by preceding events, or is there some element of randomness? As I understand it, the term "probabilistic" that some physicists use means that there is some inherent randomness? Is it possible to really know this?
There are some facts, and there are some opinions.

If you take a radioactive substance like Uranium with a lot of atoms that will decay, the fact is there seems to be no determininstic way that we can find to predict which atom will decay when. So unless we can figure out something we don't know today, it seems there's no determinism for predicting the behavior of the individual atom's decay and other quantum-scale behaviors. There seems to be randomness in those behaviors.

However, probabilistic does infer some sense of determinism if you look at larger scales than individual atoms, such as say a 1 kg chunk of uranium. We can say based on experience what the "half-life" of this collection of atoms will be. It's not precisely deterministic, but given a large enough number of atoms where random inconsistencies cancel each other out, the true half-life can end up being very close to the predicted half-life.

So I don't know if this is really deterministic but we can say half of the radioactive atoms will decay over the course of the half-life, and that will end up being a fairly accurate prediction with a large enough number of atoms, but we can't say which atoms will be in the half that decay.

Because these probabilities seem to be consistent and predictable for the most part (there are investigations into slight variations in atomic decay for example but they are somewhat dubious and the jury is still out on those as far as I know), the macro universe does seem to be somewhat deterministic, though I think Feynman made a good argument that even without quantum mechanics, true determinism isn't really practical even in a classical sense, because it requires perfect information about everything which we rarely have.

Take one classical example which should be important to all of us, the chances of Apophis colliding with the Earth.

The orbit of Earth and the orbit of Apophis should be extremely deterministic and if we had perfect information about the orbits and all the factors affecting them we should be able to make deterministic predictions about whether or not there will be a collision. However we don't have that kind of perfect information, so as a result there is some uncertainty about the probability of a collision. NASA explains some of the issues with our lack of information (whether or not this information is the latest available, and it may not be, it still illustrates the point about imperfect information related to the practicality of determinism):

Predicting Apophis' Earth Encounters in 2029 and 2036

Trajectory predictions for asteroids are normally based on a standard model of the solar system that includes the gravity of the Sun, Moon, other planets, and the three largest asteroids.

However, additional factors can influence the predicted motion in ways that depend on rarely known details, such as the spin of the asteroid, its mass, the way it reflects and absorbs sun-light, radiates heat, and the gravitational pull of other asteroids passing nearby. These were examined, along with the effect of Earth’s non-uniform gravity field during encounters, and limitations of the computer hardware performing the calculations.

One would normally look for the influence of such factors as they gradually alter the trajectory over years. But, for Apophis, the changes remain small until amplified by passage through Earth’s gravity field during the historically close approach in 2029.

For example, the team found solar energy can cause between 20 and 740 km (12 and 460 miles) of position change over the next 22 years leading into the 2029 Earth encounter. But, only 7 years later, the effect on Apophis’ predicted position can grow to between 520,000 and 30 million km (323,000 and 18.6 million miles; 0.0035-0.2 AU). This range makes it difficult to predict if Apophis will even have a close encounter with Earth in 2036 when the orbital paths intersect.
So even if classical determinism exists theoretically, as this example shows, that doesn't mean it exists practically because we don't have perfect information so we aren't really sure how close Apophis might get to Earth in 2036, or weren't at the time that was written a few years ago.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:45 PM

"In absolute theory, an event at point A simply affects the event at point B instantaneously."

How is that physically explained? If you dont know, any guesses, and hypothetical theories, as to a physical mechanism? (same question for qm theory, of particle 1 is measured and particle 2 a million light years away changes state instantly, any theories physically mechanically how?).

So there is actual evidence that you have particle 1 and particle 2.

particle 1 is sent down channel 1. particle 2 is sent down channel 2.

Particle 1 is measured and seen to be state A (out of two possible states, states A and B).

And before particle 2 is measured, particle 1 is then placed into a device that changes it into state B.

Then particle 2 is measured and it is state A?

That seems like conceptually the only way of evidence instant particle telepathy.

I did not see the big give away, as to how anything you said express that particle 1 when measured instantly forces particle 2 to be its opposite state.

The two particles always result in opposite states of one another, unless you before finally measuring either, sufficiently tamper with one or both.

To be more clear on that last statement, question:

Normally every simple pair creation and measurement results in each particle being out of two states, one of each.

There is a way after pair creation, to get the particles to not be opposite states?

But its never A A or B B. But it involves creating more than just two states, by using subtler angles and such, like 10%?

Or is that incorrect, there is only A and B states. The particles results is always either A B or B A.

Two pairs no matter what kind of intermediary tampering will not result in a measurement of A A or B B?

And there is never a result like Aish-sdfds and Bish-sljlfsh

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 06:54 PM

Let me try to put clearer.

Particle pair, two particles, 1 and 2 are created, every time 1 is measured and seen to be A, when 2 is measured it is seen to be B. (everytime 1 is measured to be B, 2 is seen to be A)

Now: when 1 is measured it is seen to be A, but 2 is kept unmeasured.

So at this point 2 should be B, as followed from the first proof. (if 2 were measured, it should definitely be B, but it is kept unmeasured).

1 was measured and seen to be A.

After this measurement, something is done to it that turns it into B.

When particle 2 is measured, it is seen to be state A.

Is this the gist of the oddity?

Even if this were the case, where I would draw caution is when this apparent mysterious principle is then assumed to be able to be extrapolated to be able to take place over thousands of miles, or light years. Such a thing can be brought up to express and highlight the oddity of if that were true, but there is no evidence of such, that there is not some hidden local attachment that causes the apparent oddity, which would over greater and greater distances have some 'slow down' in its time function process.

Just because it appears an instant action occurs in experiments taken place in yards and miles, doesn't mean it would be instant in thousands of miles or light years. And I don't know if it is true that the action, if it does occur, is 'exactly instant.

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:17 PM
The video by professor Allan Adams posted here explains how nature appears to not follow human logic in experiments. He renames the actual properties to metaphors so people don't get hung up on terminology, but he says nearly the same thing as Delbert Larson said except "dumbed" down and with plenty of diagrams explaining how the experiments work as "black boxes".

If you apply the Copenhagen (textbook) interpretation I think the implied correlation speed is at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, which doesn't mean it's not instantaneous, just that there are measurement limitations. So we can't say if it's instantaneous or 11,000 or 100,000 times faster than the speed of light.

If Sean Carrol is right about the "Many Worlds" interpretation being the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics (he admits we don't know but that's his speculation), then what happens is something along the lines of there being two universes where in one "universe" the "up" particle takes path A and "down" particle takes path B, and in the other "universe" that is reversed so "down" takes path A and "up" takes path B. In that scenario, nothing happens faster than light and the particles are predetermined depending on which universe you're in, and that's what the measurement tells you, which universe you're in.

Many people don't like this "many worlds" idea, but it's not so easy to explain entanglement correlation with the Copenhagen or any other interpretation of quantum mechanics for that matter. It's an observed behavior of nature that seems to rub our human logic the wrong way.

edit on 2017108 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:47 PM

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

Let me try to put clearer.

Particle pair, two particles, 1 and 2 are created, every time 1 is measured and seen to be A, when 2 is measured it is seen to be B. (everytime 1 is measured to be B, 2 is seen to be A)

Now: when 1 is measured it is seen to be A, but 2 is kept unmeasured.

So at this point 2 should be B, as followed from the first proof. (if 2 were measured, it should definitely be B, but it is kept unmeasured).

1 was measured and seen to be A.

After this measurement, something is done to it that turns it into B.

When particle 2 is measured, it is seen to be state A.

Is this the gist of the oddity?

Even if this were the case, where I would draw caution is when this apparent mysterious principle is then assumed to be able to be extrapolated to be able to take place over thousands of miles, or light years. Such a thing can be brought up to express and highlight the oddity of if that were true, but there is no evidence of such, that there is not some hidden local attachment that causes the apparent oddity, which would over greater and greater distances have some 'slow down' in its time function process.

Just because it appears an instant action occurs in experiments taken place in yards and miles, doesn't mean it would be instant in thousands of miles or light years. And I don't know if it is true that the action, if it does occur, is 'exactly instant.

One of these pop-sci videos could catch you up to speed.
I watched this one and it has all the statistical information that you are not getting.

1. We know the entangled particles must have undefined spins before we measure them because if they didn't they would sometimes give the same spin when measured in a direction perpendicular to their well-defined spins (and they never do).

2. We know the entangled particles can't have hidden information all along about which spin they will give in different directions because if they did we would measure different results at the two detectors >5/9ths of the time and we don't - we only get different results 50% of the time.

3. We can't use this behaviour to communicate faster than light because we can only pick the direction to measure in, we can't force the spin to be up or down - and it will be random with 50/50 probability. When the two detectors pick the same direction to measure in the results at one detector will be random but the opposite random of those measured at the other detector, which is a bit spooky.﻿

So the take away is that the entangled particles both have no defined spin. But, since they are entangled when you detect one particle spin the other has to take the opposite spin to conserve angular momentum. QM predicts that the 2nd particle takes the opposite spin instantly, faster than even a light signal could reach it.
Experiment results confirm this.

There is no solution to this problem yet.
edit on 8-10-2017 by joelr because: w

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:14 PM

Between my previous post and the links and descriptions presented by others, I hope you have a better appreciation of the issue of entanglement. I should mention that what I am calling a classical view of the wave function is of course not completely classical, because the innate randomness caused by quantum mechanics is itself a non-classical phenomenon. What I mean is that we can envision a model of things - a real, existing cloud that has a density equal to the square of the wave function amplitude - and we can also use classical space and time, and then things can be understood in a way that is similar to classical thought. And if you then go to the absolute theories that allow a good definition of simultaneity, I just don't think entanglement is spooky at all.

As for how instantaneous the collapse really is, or how far out it applies, that is something for experiment to tell us. And truly large separations would require NASA to set up, and the conditions would be very demanding. So we really don't know the answers there.

I have given some thought over the years to the internal mechanism of the collapse, and I have not come up with a satisfactory model. Science always has limits, and while I believe I have advanced things in several areas, the mechanism of collapse is one thing that I remain mystified about, and I don't have a model for it right now.

posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 02:16 PM

Thanks for the reply. The Christians had their day in the sun as well burning people at the stake and other gross violations of human dignity - fortunately, they seem to have dropped that method of indoctrination. It's unfortunate that Islam remains in the dark ages, but as long as people accept it, I really don't care what they do to each other. On the other hand, force yourself into my backyard and you'll be blasted back into the stone age where you belong. That still might happen.
The Jews, of which I'm one, have arguments among the different sects about the validity of science - one doesn't believe in evolution, another thinks the Earth is the center of the universe. But most Jews have reconciled their different beliefs by acknowledging modern science but also engaging in Kabbalah where their more mystical and unscientific beliefs can be discussed.

As for time travel, perhaps someone will come up with a way to access or configure one of these:

In the meantime, I have a question about the mass of a black hole. Objects approaching a black hole don't actually fall into a black hole; they're caught up in an accretion disk which I presume destroys, but doesn't annihilate, the object.
1. Does the object caught in the accretion disk become part of the mass of the black hole or is it stuck in the accretion disk?
2. Where is the accretion disk relative to the holographic surface? Is it inside or outside? Or is the accretion disk part of the holographic surface?
3. If energy is added to the black hole and energy can be emitted in the form of Hawking radiation, how can we calculate the true mass?
4. Does the entropy of a black hole follow the second law? It's my understanding that anything in the black hole is "recorded" on the holographic surface and can be "reconstructed" or rebuilt. If that's the case, then the process is reversible. If it's reversible, then entropy can increase or decrease. Wouldn't time be reversible as well?

Still studying. But hard to get answers to questions.

Thanks

posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 04:25 PM

originally posted by: Phantom423
In the meantime, I have a question about the mass of a black hole. Objects approaching a black hole don't actually fall into a black hole; they're caught up in an accretion disk which I presume destroys, but doesn't annihilate, the object.
An accretion disk can form and can be quite spectacular with AGN (active galactic nuclei) for example, however the black hole at the center of our galaxy has no such accretion disk that I'm aware of and I know of no reason why something can't fall into the black hole. Maybe you're thinking of the different time perceptions. Even when there is an accretion disk as with AGN, the material is falling in though maybe spiraling in rather than falling straight in. AGN emissions are from material which hasn't yet reached the event horizon.

If you're in a spaceship falling into the 4 million solar mass black hole at the center of our galaxy, I think you could make it past the event horizon. You couldn't do that for smaller black holes of say 5-10 solar masses where tidal forces at the event horizon would rip you apart, but you could still fall in. Nothing special happens at the event horizon if the black hole is massive enough from your infalling space ship perspective, you just keep falling.

An outside observer, let's say on Earth, would never see you cross the event horizon, because as you approached it they would see your clock running slower and the light emitted from your ship more and more red-shifted until it was no longer visible light any more. This video describes what your experience falling into the black hole would be like from your own perspective and from the perspective of an outside observer and as far as I know the descriptions are correct to the best of our understanding:

3. If energy is added to the black hole and energy can be emitted in the form of Hawking radiation, how can we calculate the true mass?
We don't know the true mass, but that's got nothing to do with Hawking radiation. It's simply because we are estimating the mass. For a stellar mass black hole, you might see a range where astronomers say we think the mass of a particular black hole is anywhere from 6 to 10 solar masses, but even in that case I wouldn't be shocked to see future observations peg the mass closer to 5 or 11 solar masses. Black holes are obviously difficult to observe because we can't see them.

Hawking radiation (assuming it exists since it's not experimentally verified) as far as I can tell will only become significant in the far, far future universe when the background temperature of the universe cools off (or possibly if we make a black hole in a particle accelerator). Right now the background temperature of the universe (2.7K) is higher than the "Hawking radiation" temperature of any known black hole. Any black hole with a mass larger than something like the moon is gaining more mass from the 2.7K background than it is losing through Hawking radiation, and the smallest known black hole is something like 2.8 solar masses. We have a precise way to calculate where a neutron star would form, which happens at 1.4 solar masses, but we don't have a precise way to calculate the smallest black hole that can form and guesstimates vary but I suspect we probably won't find one less than 2 solar masses. There are hypotheses about smaller mass black holes but they've never been observed in nature. We might make one in a particle accelerator someday, but it would "evaporate" quickly if the Hawking radiation concept is valid.

As the universe cools off in the future, the 2.7K background temperature will fall, and then some of the smallest mass black holes could begin to evaporate through Hawking radiation, but that won't happen to a 2.8 solar mass black hole for a very long time.

4. Does the entropy of a black hole follow the second law? It's my understanding that anything in the black hole is "recorded" on the holographic surface and can be "reconstructed" or rebuilt. If that's the case, then the process is reversible. If it's reversible, then entropy can increase or decrease. Wouldn't time be reversible as well?
There are still a lot of things we don't know about black holes. Even Hawking radiation is unconfirmed though I think that sounds plausible to many physicists. Some of the more recent debates about the holographic surface don't have as much support as Hawking radiation, so the best I can tell you here is there are numerous hypotheses and we don't know which is correct or at least I don't but I don't think anybody does. When we have several hypotheses about nature, we usually decide which is correct through observation or experiment. The video above talks about "dumb hole" research as an analogy but I don't know how much it will really tell us about black holes.

By the way, here's a screenshot from the above video. Does it look familiar?

edit on 2017109 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 02:26 AM

Thanks for the explanation Arbitrageur.

Also, great thread, thanks for taking the time explain things to laymen from the pov genuine physics.

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:47 AM

originally posted by: Phage

Text

No.
Because time slowed down.

Are you wearing a helmet? You should, you know.

I guess that's why I look younger than my age.
I don't wear a helmet.
There is nothing worth protecting in my skull.

new topics

top topics

79