 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Do you go to the doctor to check if you have the flu, even if you have no
>> symptoms? No, because lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary. :-)
>
> LOL! I tried to find a good scientific example, but didn't come up with anything
> good - yours hits the mark ;)
Yes. The proper expression is "absence of proof is not proof of absence."
But evidence certainly is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
> Well, even with fermions, it is questionable whether this is a problem with GR,
> or rather with QM.
I think we've all acknowledged that repeatedly. :-)
>> I don't think anyone on p.o-t knows whether GR or QM is wrong for sure.
>
> I think you can apply this theory to outside p.o-t as well... there's currently
> little evidence to the contrary ;)
Yup. Except that wouldn't nearly be as sarcastic. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Doesn't QM say (at least in some interpretations) that a particle's properties
> are not determined until it interacts?
Some are, some aren't. A photon is always positively charged whether you're
measuring it or not. Only the properties that are orthogonal (i.e.,
"uncertain") are indeterminate.
> So assume a particle actually falls into a black hole; Is any information lost?
I'm told there is. :-)
> And so on.
Nice thought, but again, I personally am willing to take the word of people
like Hawking over my own understanding of QM. :-)
> So as it seems, a lot of matter out there is actually just unused spare memory,
> ready to back-up information of other particles doomed to fall into black
> holes... the queer thing is, we don't know *which* particles are used and which
> aren't...
Cute. Sounds like a good SF story.
Oh, wait, already did one. Permutation City by Greg Egan. Highly
recommended. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
> be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.
How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
communicate with him.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Maybe what we see isn't the "big bang" after all, but the "big crunch"?
My favorite personal random idea is ... what if we really *are* at the
center of the universe, and everything really *is* moving away from *us*?
What if we happen to be near the very peak of a big curve of space-time, and
everything else is rolling faster and faster down the big hill away from us,
while we're perched at the top?
> (Okay, I'm back entirely in BS mode again now, too :))
I saw a great line: "Of *course* God put the Earth in the center of the
universe. That's why all the stars shine *towards us*!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> in a collapsing superstar, maybe this is sufficient to slam two fermions
> together into the same quantum state,
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. It isn't like pushing two magnets
together, where if you just squeeze hard enough, you overcome the
resistance. There's no interaction between the fermions keeping them apart -
rather, there's no pair of paths that both end at the same place that don't
cancel each other out.
It's like waves, I guess. No matter how hard you try, you can't combine
sin(t) and -sin(t) and wind up with a wave. It's not a matter of squeezing
them real hard - they just cancel out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Perhaps we get to know a universe in one single dimension? "Hey, Phil,
> long time no see! Somewhat overcrowded here, huh?"
"In the beginning, before the big bang, my friends and I all hung out with
each other. I mean, where else was there to go?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> So if there's no EH, you can just zip straight through the singularity?
I think it's more that you can see things coming out of the singularity.
> actually decide to turn around any time? Speaking of which, how will time be
> affected near the singularity?
Dunno. Complex math.
> I think I recall remember having heard that spinning black holes would actually
> not have a point-shaped singularity at all, but a loop, because their drag on
> spacetime is that extreme.
Yep. And if you fly through the hole, you wind up ... somewhere else.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Perhaps only Phil Connor would know. :P
>
> Maybe - I don't know *him*... should I?
Ever seen "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray? A classic. :)
> Yeah... so next step would be a few bit shift registers, accumulators, and - ah!
> There you go: Correct pin, so spit out them greenbacks... :P
or that! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> clipka wrote:
>> Maybe what we see isn't the "big bang" after all, but the "big crunch"?
>
> My favorite personal random idea is ... what if we really *are* at the
> center of the universe, and everything really *is* moving away from *us*?
Shouldn't then we not see them above the peak? Oh, alright, spacetime
is curved and light would also bend and come from the sides and seem to
be right above our heads fooling us into thinking the universe is
roughly spherical.
> I saw a great line: "Of *course* God put the Earth in the center of the
> universe. That's why all the stars shine *towards us*!"
Well, it's all relative to the observer, so from our point of view the
universe indeed revolves around us. Actually, to the common man in the
streets -- whose view at nights is occluded by both smog polution and
city lights so he doesn't really take the time to look up the few
blinking stars so far away and so static -- the universe revolves around
mundane job, bills and society's many rituals. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
>> be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.
>
> How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
> communicate with him.
If he could, he'd be in the very same spacetime region and thus subject
to the same effects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
