Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, even though in this case there is evidence.
This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.
If Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?
The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to
or related math.
If Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?
The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations or related math.
A simple search finds so much of it I didn't think it would be challenged:
Artificial black hole created in lab - physicsworld.com
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33256
Mar 6, 2008 – Everyone knows the score with black holes: even if light strays too close, the immense gravity will drag it inside, never to be seen again.
Artificial Black Hole Created in Chinese Lab - Technology Review
www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24234/
Oct 14, 2009 – Cloaking technology used to create a region of space that allows microwaves in, but not out again.
Physicists Create Black Hole 'Light' in Lab - ScienceNOW
news.sciencemag.org › News › ScienceNOW › November 2010
Nov 12, 2010 – Now you see it. Physicists fired polarized laser pulses at a block of glass, creating distortions that emitted Hawking radiation out the sides of the ...
Pseudo Black Hole Created in Lab | Space.com
www.space.com/7438-pseudo-black-hole-created-lab.html
Oct 27, 2009 – Researchers have simulated a mini black hole in the lab, though luckily not the kind that could swallow up the Earth. This pseudo black hole ...
#79: Sonic Black Hole Created in Lab | Light | DISCOVER Magazine
discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/079
Dec 22, 2009 – No atoms could escape the void within the cloud: “It's like trying to swim upstream in a river whose current is faster than you.”. Visit Discover ...
Physicists create sonic black hole in the lab
phys.org/news/2011-01-physicists-sonic-black-hole-lab.html
Jan 10, 2011 – (PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes get their name because they absorb all incoming light, and are so dense that none of that light can escape their ...
Black hole effect created in lab - Technology & science - Space ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/.../ns/.../t/black-hole-effect-created-lab/
Mar 6, 2008 – This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color represents radiation pouring out from material ...
Black Hole Accretion Disk Created in the Lab - Softpedia
news.softpedia.com › News › Science › Space
Tudor Vieru by Tudor Vieru · More by Tudor Vieru
Oct 21, 2009 – Black holes are known to be the remnants of massive stars' collapsed cores, which fall under their own weight to an area of intense gravity that ...
Artificial Black Hole Created in Chinese Lab | Popular Science
www.popsci.com/technology/article/.../black-hole-fits-your-pocket
Oct 15, 2009 – Just because most black holes are solar-system-sized maelstroms with reality-warping gravitational pulls doesn't mean you can't have one in ...
Mini BLACK HOLE Created In Lab -GIANT Leap Towards REAL Time ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread567805/pg1
1 post - 1 author - Apr 5, 2010
Check out the article: April 9, 2010. Black Hole Created An artificial "black hole" designed to capture wayward atoms has been created. It paves ...
If you still want to challenge it, I'll find stronger evidence, but so far you have offered no evidence at all against my theory, only your opinion, very unscientific.
QUOTE
Fact: There are simply too many erroneous statements in the preceding posts to bother correcting them one by one.
Then I'll be satisfied with the first error in my theory, not something you think is irrelevant, but something you prove is wrong with evidence of the opposite.
AlexG
25th April 2012 - 12:53 AM
Ah yes, the cry of the crank: "Prove me wrong".
BTW, did you actually read any of the articles you cite? There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole.
brucep
25th April 2012 - 07:07 AM
QUOTE (BenRayfield+Apr 24 2012, 10:55 PM)
Every part of the universe is connected to every other part, which we call a wavefunction. Everything means something to everything else.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, even though in this case there is evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electronIf Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?
The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations or related math.
A simple search finds so much of it I didn't think it would be challenged:
If you still want to challenge it, I'll find stronger evidence, but so far you have offered no evidence at all against my theory, only your opinion, very unscientific.
Then I'll be satisfied with the first error in my theory, not something you think is irrelevant, but something you prove is wrong with evidence of the opposite.
It's a hypothesis not a theory. A very stupid hypothesis to boot.
BenRayfield
26th April 2012 - 09:51 PM
QUOTE
There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole.
The exact amount of gravity expected was observed, which is approximately 0 since gravity is such a small force. Gravity applies to all particles. This is the amount of gravity expected.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole. |
The exact amount of gravity expected was observed, which is approximately 0 since gravity is such a small force. Gravity applies to all particles. This is the amount of gravity expected.
Ah yes, the cry of the crank: "Prove me wrong".
Isn't that what you're saying to me? Prove the model you already think is correct wrong or it will continue to be thought the most accurate even though it describes many things as random and unknowable, like Heisenberg Uncertainty?
My theory isn't actually that far from the existing model. If certain things turn out to be smooth, it may best be modeled as a fractal length-contraction space, which is like a fractal minkowski space except without time.
AlexG
27th April 2012 - 04:57 AM
QUOTE
Isn't that what you're saying to me? Prove the model you already think is correct wrong or it will continue to be thought the most accurate even though it describes many things as random and unknowable, like Heisenberg Uncertainty?
The model we think is accurate produces verifiable predictions, as well as technologically useful data. That's why we think it's accurate.
All you're doing is hand waving.
brucep
27th April 2012 - 08:24 AM
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 23 2012, 04:30 PM)
Fact: This means nothing.
Fact: There have been no such hole made in any experiment.
Fact: There are simply too many erroneous statements in the preceding posts to bother correcting them one by one.
Word salad, served in the large, family size.
I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon. Maximum density? He must mean it's denser than the space between his ears.
Ed Wood
27th April 2012 - 02:42 PM
All inertial frames see waves as quanta
If by that you mean Light/EM radiation and time is quantized by Mass I don't have a problem with that.
There are problems with the rest of it.
A non gravitational black hole has no gravity so I think you need to come up with another example of a lab created gravitational black hole.
BenRayfield
2nd May 2012 - 11:31 PM
QUOTE
I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon.
Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.
Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon. |
Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.
Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.
All inertial frames see waves as quanta
If by that you mean Light/EM radiation and time is quantized by Mass I don't have a problem with that.
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.
I do not know if we are agreeing or not, since the phrase "is quantized" is ambiguous without first agreeing on a definition of time and wavefunction-collapse.
To everyone, I agree Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is incomplete, and I will find more specific evidence and equations before continuing this thread. It may take a long time, but I think I've vaguely defined a good research path to explore.
brucep
3rd May 2012 - 06:23 AM
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 2 2012, 11:31 PM)
Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.
Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.
I do not know if we are agreeing or not, since the phrase "is quantized" is ambiguous without first agreeing on a definition of time and wavefunction-collapse.
To everyone, I agree Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is incomplete, and I will find more specific evidence and equations before continuing this thread. It may take a long time, but I think I've vaguely defined a good research path to explore.
Your pronunciations are bullshit. The maximum density is between your ears. Everything you just said is nonsense. Just like every other comic book gravitational physicists you forgot to learn GR. Because you don't know 'the rest of the story' you make a fool of yourself.
BenRayfield
3rd May 2012 - 09:44 AM
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.
flyingbuttressman
3rd May 2012 - 12:01 PM
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 3 2012, 05:44 AM)
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a
specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.
Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above. Your ideas on time dilation around a black hole go against common sense. As you approach the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down for the object falling in, meaning that the whole falling process can be instantaneous from their POV. From an outside observer's POV, the object just falls in.
Don't give us that "specific flaw" crap when your post is nothing but declarative statements.
brucep
3rd May 2012 - 09:40 PM
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 3 2012, 09:44 AM)
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a
specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.
GR isn't spam dumba$$. The nonsense you're posting is crackpot illiterate bullshit.
You're round filed in the first paragraph. By making a prediction which is in conflict with the predictions of GR you jettison your idea to the bottom of the waste basket. You be specific. What's your equations of state. Derive an equation of motion from your equation of state. If you can't then shut up.
Ed Wood
4th May 2012 - 02:09 AM
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 2 2012, 11:31 PM)
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.
re.
Then it is incorrect or at best useless.
BenRayfield
14th May 2012 - 12:08 AM
brucep said in
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39477QUOTE
Those who are familiar with physics know you're physics illiterate. You should figure out why on your own. Preferably from an accredited source. I objected to the irrelevant analogy. Since I'm very familiar with strong field physics I objected to your stupid claim that the surface of the event horizon is maximum density.
You said: "FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole."
I said: Fact: You're a pontificating ignoramus.
You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must. Equations being continuous as they pass the event horizon does not mean those equations are more than a linear approximation. As the Holographic Principle explains, there is nothing inside event horizons, therefore density is maximized on event horizons. This fits perfectly with the part of Timeless Multiverse Relativity which says particles are black holes and they all get mixed together in many combinations as they fall into eachother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principleQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Those who are familiar with physics know you're physics illiterate. You should figure out why on your own. Preferably from an accredited source. I objected to the irrelevant analogy. Since I'm very familiar with strong field physics I objected to your stupid claim that the surface of the event horizon is maximum density.
You said: "FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole."
I said: Fact: You're a pontificating ignoramus. |
You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must. Equations being continuous as they pass the event horizon does not mean those equations are more than a linear approximation. As the Holographic Principle explains, there is nothing inside event horizons, therefore density is maximized on event horizons. This fits perfectly with the part of Timeless Multiverse Relativity which says particles are black holes and they all get mixed together in many combinations as they fall into eachother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principleThe holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.
QUOTE
GR isn't spam dumba$$.
I didn't say it is. You think I contradicted relativity. Nothing ever moves faster than light, so I didn't in that way. Anything which appears as inside a black hole is instead the Holographic Principle or in general black hole thermodynamics, so I don't see a contradiction there either.
Black holes evaporate into hawking radiation before its possible to fall past the event horizon, and if that contradicts relativity, then your argument is not with me and I suggest you get back to the books and solve the contradiction instead of complaining that I pointed out that fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GR isn't spam dumba$$. |
I didn't say it is. You think I contradicted relativity. Nothing ever moves faster than light, so I didn't in that way. Anything which appears as inside a black hole is instead the Holographic Principle or in general black hole thermodynamics, so I don't see a contradiction there either.
Black holes evaporate into hawking radiation before its possible to fall past the event horizon, and if that contradicts relativity, then your argument is not with me and I suggest you get back to the books and solve the contradiction instead of complaining that I pointed out that fact.
You be specific. What's your equations of state. Derive an equation of motion from your equation of state. If you can't then shut up.
I'm working on it and will get back to this thread when I have such equations (unless other challenges are made here that can be answered before that), but ideas of how everything fits together should come before the details in the form of equations.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE
Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above.
I'll find specific references when I write a formal paper. Until then I expected people would be aware of these common facts in physics and why they are true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above. |
I'll find specific references when I write a formal paper. Until then I expected people would be aware of these common facts in physics and why they are true.
Your ideas on time dilation around a black hole go against common sense.
That's a good thing, because time dilation goes against common sense.
QUOTE
As you approach the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down for the object falling in, meaning that the whole falling process can be instantaneous from their POV. From an outside observer's POV, the object just falls in.
Yes. Where did I contradict that?
AlexG
14th May 2012 - 04:20 AM
QUOTE
You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must
You've said this before, and it's not so. A three solar mass black hole would take about 10^64 years to evaportae due to hawking radiation, many orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe. Time does not stop for an infalling object. Black Holes will only evaporate if the rate of Hawking radiation exceeds the rate of accreation. And the larger the black hole, the slower the rate of evaporation.
Learn some basic physics from a source other than wikipedia.
BenRayfield
14th May 2012 - 04:25 AM
I am not concerned with the long time it takes black holes to evaporate or how long that is compared to how long ago the big bang was. None of that changes my point, which we can continue debating in this thread:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39487 "Black Hole Evaporation Vs Falling In". Please do not bring the arguing and name calling of this thread into that one. Its only for that one point.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.