/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6051535]

Hey, /sci/. No dark matter guy here again.

I'm depressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rezcl-EA_Dk

I made a video earlier this year explaining how the big bang probably emerged under the event horizon of a hyperdimensional black hole.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2013/09/was-our-universe-born-in-an-extra-dimensional-black-hole/

Physicists agree.

Now it's quite clear to me that science is going to embrace the nonsingular model of the black hole very soon, but my work isn't what's going to push it in that direction.

My hopes of one day being known as 'that black hole guy' are soon to be dashed. However, just for the record on anything about black holes and the universe once the nonsingular model is embraced I can at least say that I called it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-IW90lMSQ

[Anonymous No.6051560]

>>6051535
ok

[Violent Simians Guy No.6051579]

>>6051535
> Physicists agree.

Agree with *what*? We can't know what formed the universe, since we're a singularity. We can't see outside of it, and in fact information could not survive transit across the Big Bang.

<----- Take your e/x/ceptional stupidity elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.6051638]

If you wanted to be known for this, why didn't you write up a paper instead of making videos on YouTube which looks like it just explains what the Einstein field equation is?

[Anonymous No.6051810]

>>6051638

No experience. This is as far as I'm willing to go as yet.

http://14rivers.com/NonsingularityAN.pdf

dolaraf as;klfjdaf

[Anonymous No.6051907]

Perhaps spacetime is shaped somewhat like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_torus..

Perhaps an event horizon is where the product of three values approaches the fourth, eg: x1*x2*y1=y2=1. One could give them 4 different names {θ,ϕ,i,c} and define the frame of reference (i) as:

lim(i>N)={(cos(θ),sin(θ),cos(ϕ),sin(ϕ)}|i<θ<(i,c),i<ϕ<(i,c))=R

where N is the set of natural numbers and R is the set of real numbers. Maybe e[K°/t2]=(m2/c)(m-m/c)/4.

[Anonymous No.6051934]

>>6051810
Hate to break it to you, but you are definitely not the first person to think of this, and I'm almost positive this idea has been fairly well-known among physicists who work on the subject.

[Anonymous No.6052044]

>>6051934

If it were, then they'd just throw out the singular model all together. The whole point of this venture is to get the science community serious about doing just that. Once the singular model is gone you have to reconcile the existence of sustained Einstein-Rosen bridges. They don't vanish inside singularities as is currently believed because the very existence of an Einstein-Rosen bridge proves that singularities cannot sustain themselves.

Once you have to reconcile these bridges it becomes clear that mapping galactic clusters will involve n-dimensional geometry and linear algebra.

If this is a fairly know idea as you claim, then where is the research on it?

[Anonymous No.6052074]

>>6052044
I have no idea what you are trying to argue. What singular model? The Schwarzschild metric? How is it wrong?
What nonsingular model are you presenting?

[Anonymous No.6052087]

>>6051810
>http://14rivers.com/NonsingularityAN.pdf
Why don't you go back to school and do a physics PhD?

Nobody does work in physics outside of the academic system.

[Anonymous No.6052102]

>>6052087
>implying

patent troll here.
Thinking I am going to work for slave wages and give away all my ideas for nothing... I shig

[Anonymous No.6054010]

>>6052074

The Schwartzchild metric becomes a singularity at the event horizon. The current fix for this problem is the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, or tortoise coordinates. This coordinate system allows for the crossing of the event horizon and a 'mass' singularity at the center. The singular model.

However if you do not change the coordinate system, and adopt Einstein and Rosen's transformation then the event horizon becomes a surface which joins two hypersurfaces of opposite sign.

Wheeler and Fuller acknowledged that such a hypersurface forms but showed how it was unstable. Their paper, however did not consider the possibility of nonsingularity of black holes.

Without any mass singularity to pinch off the bridge throat, the Einstein-Rosen bridge should remain open.

[Anonymous No.6054526]

>>6054010
The fact that you can coordinate transform away the singularity at the event horizon shows that the "singularity" is not physical but an artifact of the parametrization you choose to describe the surface.

Dealing with coordinate singularities is a common problem in computational general relativity.

The nonsingular model you are talking about is picture related? There are 2 singularities here they are are shaded in.

[Anonymous No.6054622]

>>6054526

The transformation used to describe singular black holes (Eddington-Finkelstein) may not necessarily be physically correct. I don't think it can be called as simple a concept as parametrization when the description of the physical structure of black holes changes depending upon if you adopt it or not. The Einstein-Rosen coordinate transformation maintains that the event horizon is a singularity, one, the other or neither is correct. So the question is not whether we can parametrize the event horizon into being a singularity or not, but rather, if nature does.

I would also not call the Kruskal diagram a close model to the nosingular model. You can probably better imagine the nonsingular model as an inversion of it (The singular model supposes mass is beneath the event horizon, the nonsingular model supposes that mass is above it). This means that on the other side of the event horizon spacelike separation becomes timelike separation and vice-versa. White hole.

[Anonymous No.6054653]

>>6054526

CTD

I personally find the transformation away from calling the event horizon a singularity is based solely on a black hole occupying 3D space. Because it does we can obviously formulate a coordinate system that assumes that space exists. The coordinate system does not allow light cones to behave as we expect, but rather have them close their outside edge, while lining their inside edge on with the singularity. This is just the convenience of geometry. However, in the strictest Schwarzschild solution without giving ourselves any bias to the central singularity and without fixing our light cones we find that the event horizon does indeed serve as a temporal and coordinate singularity.

The Einstein-Rosen transformation of u^2 = r - 2m both acknowledges this, and describes a negative hypersurface which thus bears the existence of a white hole. We have a whole new geometry on our hands.

[Anonymous No.6054803]

>>6054622
The physics is coordinate independent. That is how formulations such as Regge calculus exist.

For the value of u = 0, there is not a singularity.
<span class="math"> ds^2 = \frac{u^2}{u^2+2m}dt^2 - 4(u^2 + 2m)du^2 - (u^2 +2m)^2 d\Omega^2 [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> u = 0 \rightarrow ds^2 = - 4(2m)du^2 - (+2m)^2 d\Omega^2 [/spoiler]
which is finite.

The Krushkal diagram shows that there is no null path from region IV to region I. If there was then you would have a "wormhole" between the two spaces which would allow one-way light communication. The only way this would work is if region II and region II were separated so the "X" became a stick man:
\/
|
/\

I don't know how that relates to your description of a nonsingular diagram but you have to note that the diagrams are tools to understand the metrics. The metric (specifically the geometry) ultimately decides what the physics entails. This stick man is not derivable in the Schwarzschild geometry and therefore is a solution to some other geometry that I have no idea how to represent.

[Anonymous No.6054813]

>>6052102
You know physicists do physics because of intristic drive to push forward scientific and technological progress.

Didn't you watch any star trek when you were a teenager or a child?

Or as a smart person you probably realized that knowledge and your own work have already got you to do things that are far more enjoyable than anything that money can buy. (with the exception of buying means to accomplish something with knowledge, ingenuity and work, as opposed to buying the finished thing)

>give away all my ideas for nothing
So you think publishing an article in some impact journal under your name is giving an idea for nothing?
And what about the grants?
And what about scientific advance?
I suspect that you are just a troll.

[Anonymous No.6054842]

>>6054526

That type of mathematical problem also occurs in (non relativistic) quantum mechanics.

Specifically, you get such "conical intersections" in the rovibronic energy hypersurface where allowed transitions between different energy eigenstates can occur (in terms of the nuclear coordinates)


Similar singularities also arise in CFD, of historical note are those situations involving the formation of shockwaves around aerodynamic surfaces.

IIRC, the mathematical form is even fairly similar in the the fluid dynamical case, I seem to remember a lorentzian form somewhere in there.

[Anonymous No.6054997]

>>6054842
I'm not a solid state guy. Do you have a reference for the rovibronic stuff it looks very niche.

Didn't take fluid dynamics, either. I imagine the nonlinearity in both theories brings in this similarity. I am surprised there would be a lorentzian form. As a classic theory, isn't it derived using Galilean transforms?