/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7163614
made me think for a second
4/10

>>7163622
I don't get it. Care to explain?

>>7163631

The black hole firewall problem. It's related to the blackhole information paradox

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_paradox

Not too sure of the details but basically it works on the principles on what would happen to quantum entangle particles if one was outside the event to raise and the other was in. This leads to several tenets of physics contradicting with each other.

>Einstein’s Equivalence Principle >Quantum Field Theory
>physical information indestructible

pick two

so far the only reasonable explanations are white holes or string theory holograms

This is one of those "Oh my god, who cares?" things.

The event horizon is literally an infinite distance from everything outside of the singularity. As you send beams of light closer and closer to the event horizon, their paths get longer and longer without limit. The path to the event horizon is infinite.

>B-b-but the time dilation as you fall toward it cancels out, so you'd SUBJECTIVELY only experience a finite amount of time before reaching the event horizon!
So? An infinite amount of ACTUAL time would have to pass, and never mind your theoretical la-la time. That means it just never happens. The black hole would evaporate before you reach it. At some point you'd encounter some sufficient amount of cosmic background radiation over some sufficiently short span of time to be vaporized. The universe would meet its ultimate fate.

"Real" black holes with event horizons don't make any fucking sense, and therefore we can reasonably conclude that they don't exist.

A "singularity" in a model is generally a place where the model breaks down and reminds you that it was only an approximation. Well, black holes are where GR breaks down and reminds us that it's not a final truth.

>>7163689
When is a black hole not a black hole?

Damn, New scientist keep saying it's resolved every other month. When all they do is just rises more questions.

The only way to get black holes work with the current maths is for them to no have 'real' event horizon, at which point they really ought to stop calling themselves black holes.

>>7163700
>ACTUAL time
Sorry, but there's no such thing.

Seek out Mr Motl. He has several blog posts about it at The Reference Frame.

>>7163700
>>7163700
So if a near infinite amount of actual time passes then the black hole is isolated in its own universe-bubble because flat and forever expanding spacetime.

And once the core black hole evaporates everything stored in the event horizon system is now freed in what is presumably a rather violent event?

Now we just need some explanation to boost the banginess of the black hole due to the isolated heat death bubble it exists to have an eternal black-hole-cycle universe model.

I don't actually care about the accuracy of this, just give me more reasons to believe in an never-ending universe.

>>7163700
>>7163722

Hang on, Why would the black hole evaporated if it self can't experience time?

Even if you took for ever to reach it it would still be there before you reach it. Because no for time it has passed

>>7163704
That's an assumption of a theoretical system that isn't consistent with observation, or even self-consistent. GR's a pretty good approximation, but it breaks down and starts spitting out absurdities and contradictions when you push it far enough.

>>7163731
>That's an assumption of a theoretical system that isn't consistent with observation, or even self-consistent
>le obvious troll post XD
your argument is basically LOL NO UR WRONG BECAUSE GR BREAKS DOWN AT SOME POINT SO I MUST BE RIGHT INSTEAD XD

>>7163730
Local time will always move

>>7163704
wouldn't actual' time just be the chain of causality?

>>7163742
Sure, but quantitatively there is no "actual time."

However, we could take the time experienced by an observer far away from a black hole as the coordinate time; this is what's done when the Schwarzschild metric is expressed in its most usual form.

>>7163741
But if the local time inside the black hole is allways slower than outside shouldnt it never evaporate from the outside point of you, or at least not before you can reach the event horizon

>>7163737
Well no. Your argument is "GR can't be wrong because GR says so".

My argument is that GR predicts situations where GR can't predict outcomes, which is exactly what a singularity is.

Theoretical physicists can get very strange when there's something they can't get experimental data on. A good theoretical physicist is ready to consider every possibility that could fit the data. Without data to fit, there's nothing to limit or guide them, they just go off on random tangents, and often believe passionately that their tangent is the correct one.

Black hole theory is one such example. "Hey guys, I found a situation where GR breaks down and goes silly!" "Well, let's assume that the silliness is an actual, real thing, and start reasoning from contradictions!" "Oh, and hey, GR isn't compatible with QM!" "So let's just mix and match whatever we like from either and talk about time travel!"

They're out past the end of the data, and into crazyland.

>>7163747
I just jumped in with the "chain of causality" bit.
>just pick some time frame far away from gravitational effects
would people on habitable exoplanets experience significant time distortions?

>>7163747
You understand that "an infinite amount of actual time" doesn't imply a single absolute standard of time, right?

Just like "an infinite distance from everything outside of the event horizon" doesn't imply a single absolute standard of space?

When for everything not falling into a black hole, an INFINITE (not just large, but actually infinite) amount of time passes before something happens, then it's not something that ever happens, no matter what your stupid infinity-over-infinity math says. If you believe something that can't ever happen is something that happens, you've tangled yourself up in your thoughts and gotten confused.

>>7163769
You do realize the post you're responding to agrees with you

>>7163758
You obviously have down syndrome so I will explain it a different way. We already know GR is wrong, but that doesn't mean your bull shit is correct because of that.

>>7163700
>infinite amount
pick one

>>7163758
Theoretical physicists can get very strange when there's something they can't get experimental data on. A good theoretical physicist is ready to consider every possibility that could fit the data. Without data to fit, there's nothing to limit or guide them, they just go off on random tangents, and often believe passionately that their tangent is the correct one.

Well, yes. It can get uncomfortably similar to the Theology department.

You can never get proven right, but if you're really lucky you might just get chance to be proven wrong, and a good scientist should embrace that.

>>7163722
>near infinite amount of actual time
wat

>>7163614
I actually came up with the solve for this the other day, but unfortunately my high school education doesnt allow me to express it properly

>>7165187
oh boy, we sure haven't heard that one before

>>7164088
A solution that cannot be expressed is hardly a solution.

No experimental data can be taking, only meticulous mathematical rigour can separate the chaf from the grain. With out at least a work expressible mathematical model, you might as well just say it turtles all the way down.

>>7163614
Did anyone ever tell you that that explosion looks like a pie.

Like a really big slice of flaming gasoline pie.

Cos it does. Like, it really, seriously does.

>>7163614
I can solve the paradox for you: our current model of quantum mechanics, or relativity, or (most likely) both, is incorrect. OR, both are correct, the contradiction stands, and our understanding of the nature of contradiction itself is incorrect.

>>7165187
Made me chuckle a little.

>>7166213
so eitherway we're incorrect?
sounds scary either way.

>>7166190
Its length is approximately 2pi * its height?

>>7166264
Generally when your predictions clash with your observation or with each other then you've gone wrong somewhere.