Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
>>> anymore.
> 
>> Err, what are they, then?
> 
>   How should I know? I'm not an astrophysicist.

Why do you think they aren't particles, then?

>   However, even this exclusion principle doesn't exert an infinite force
> on particles,

I'm not sure that's true - the probability in the math that two 
(appropriate) particles occupy the same location is indeed zero. Now, what 
happens when there isn't any space for them not to be apart, I'm not sure.

> and if the gravity is larger than the critical limit, the
> matter just collapses and there's nothing to stop it. (AFAIK according to
> the relativistic equations you would need literally an infinitely strong
> force to keep matter inside the event horizon from falling into the
> singularity. Thus no kind of non-zero-sized shape can be maintained in
> there.)

Yeah. I'm not arguing that any one thing happens or doesn't. I'm just trying 
to figure out why people seem to be asserting that we know what happens in 
the middle of a singularity (where the math doesn't apply or conflicts with 
other theories that have just as much or more evidence in their favor).

>> Or something like the 
>> quantumness of spacetime. Can you actually fit multiple particles into one 
>> plank-length of space?
> 
>   Since there is currently no unifying quantum theory of gravity, nothing
> definitive can be said about that, I think.

Right. So applying relativity where we already know it doesn't apply doesn't 
seem to be supportable, scientifically speaking.

>   The math seems to work everywhere else, so without evidence of the
> contrary the simpler assumption is that it works everywhere.

Well, no, it doesn't work everywhere else.

That's how we know QED and GR aren't compatible and why we need to find a 
quantum theory of gravity. GR does *not* work at quantum scales. It assumes 
space is continuous, and QED only works if you assume space is 
discontinuous. (Or, rather, QED gives nonsensical answers if you calculate 
it assuming that indefinitely small distances in space are possible.)

It's also the case that when you get down to zero size, if you mash 
everything into a single point, then you start violating the duality 
principle (if I understand correctly) as well as a whole bunch of symmetry 
laws, which is why there's now all kinds of talk about holographic 
information on the surface of black holes and such.

It's like saying "Well, arctangent works for every other angle. Why wouldn't 
we assume it works for 90 degrees?" Well, that's why it's called a 
"singularity". There's a point in the math where the math does *not* work, 
precisely because you wind up with equations with zeros in the denominator.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message