|
 |
On 7/21/2010 5:33 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> In fact, this may be more correct than one might think. There is at
>> least one alternative theory about "black holes", which Hawkings is the
>> one suggesting, which suggests that the concept of singularity is itself
>> flawed.
>
> I assume that the opposition some astrophysicist have against singularities
> stems from the fact that the equations of relativity fail there (in simple
> terms, you get a division by zero, which thus tells you nothing). In other
> words, the theory of relativity predicts the existence of a phenomenon which
> it cannot formulate. Something else would then be needed to formulate the
> physics of a singularity.
>
> That something might not even exist. Some physicists hence conjecture
> that perhaps it's the singularities which do not exist, even though the
> relativistic equations predict them. Maybe the known laws of physics change
> somehow when space bends enough.
>
>> Basically, you can't form one, you can only get increasingly
>> larger, hotter, objects, which, due to their gravitation, merely "look
>> like" a singularity.
>
> There would have to be an unknown phenomenon of physics which would stop
> matter and energy from collapsing into a singularity. No such phenomenon
> has been observed nor probably even plausibly conjectured.
>
It might be noted that singularities where hypothesized "before" we knew
some things in QM that we do now, and other things as well. Not sure
what the specifics are, but I would seem to think that the guy that
concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
proven right, also saying that singularities may be wrong, has at least
*some* odds of having a reason to say so. lol
But, seems to me to be reasonable anyway. The closest you can get in a
Bouse Einstein Condensate, by cooling things down, and that is about as
close as particles can get to each other, since at that point they "stop
moving", there being no space left for them to do so, presumably. How do
you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
sub-particles, like quarks and muons? In some ways, singularity is a bit
like the Zeno's Paradox concept. The math may say that it is possible,
but no one knows *if* that is possible, they just assume so, because the
math says so. Well. Zeno has a similar problem, and if taken to its
logical conclusion, Zeno would be right. Since he isn't, we take the
opposite view from singularity, and assume there *must be* some finite
"size" for an event, such that you can stack events together, thereby
actually reaching a destination. In point of fact, one of the recent
experiments has shown that time, at least as far as QM is concerned,
*does* have a finite "slice" size, and seemingly instant events actually
take that tiny, minuscule, time to happen, such that you can interrupt
the result, and get a different one, even when the state "should have"
become fixed, and thus irrecoverable.
But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed. Observation says so,
even though the math says Zeno should have been right. That the math for
singularity is the same. Its "assumed" that singularities happen,
because the math says they are the logical conclusion. But, we can't
observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
"density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
much gravity you throw at it.
We will have to see what Hawkings eventually publishes on the subject
though, and he has only put out some preliminary things about the
subject, so far.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
