So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 04:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  All of what you are saying seems to hinge on "spacetime." I get that, and with your education you will most certainly be partial to it. I probably would be too. However, I am speaking of something so radically different as there can be no comparison.

Yes... from your ass.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Emerging theories regarding spacetime suggest that perhaps they are not the unified properties we think they are, which is something I personally have always advocated.

Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

I find the above article from Scientific American to be extremely interesting, and it explains heaps about certain problems with spacetime as per Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. I suggest you read this.

Is Gravity the Force Driving Time Forwards is another article that is certainly worth study. It's by Flavio Mercati at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, here in Canada. You should read this also.

They still aren't in agreement with you, though.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Now, I am not saying that I have anywhere near the education you may have on this subject, for all I am doing is studying emerging theories and coupling them with Hawking's theory, and seeing something that each of these theories can contribute to each other, and to what my original post was on this thread.

So far as the remarks prompting this thread are concerned... they are not remotely comprehensive enough to be a "theory". They're Hawking's spitballs.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes, yes, yes, I certainly can be wrong, but your explanations rely on spacetime, and I am asking you to consider alternatives to spacetime and see all of this from an entirely different perspective.

"Spacetime" is a wholesale reference. Different models are not quite the same thing. If a new geological model shows that I am living on granite rather than limestone, far enough beneath the surface, that does not mean there is an "alternative" to bedrock. Do you see what I mean? There is no alternative to the empirical.

This is a matter of definitions and conventions. Bluntly, this sort of thing matters when discussing the edges of possibility.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  But here is a more detailed explanation of what I see here ...

Let us say that there are two points, A & B. B is at the center of the black hole, and A is on the event horizon watching B. From subject A's perspective, would subject B appear to be frozen in time or not? I suspect that if the model is true, then subject B would appear to be frozen in time, with no movement detected from Subject A's point of view. From Subject A's perspective, subject B is experiencing zero time.

Then B - not that a discrete object can exist in that sense at that point - is not observable by A. In any case, as I said several times, it's not a matter of no motion. There can't be no motion. If you say there can be, you're throwing out the very foundation on which you're building - it's a non-starter.

The rules break down at the singularity. The "singularity" construct may well be an artifact - as I mentioned previously - but whether so or not, it's meaningless to project onto it; the rules "outside" do not apply, and it is extremely unlikely to then behave in ways that someone who knows nothing in detail would predict.

There has to be a thing to experience time. I still don't know quite what you think you're arguing for but even if we grant it I don't think you'd also argue that it's somehow possible to meaningfully define time in the strict absence of any interaction.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  However, from Subject B's perspective, time would appear to be progressing normally, and if he looked back at Subject A, subject A would not be visible at all. Now, if subject B could somehow escape the center of the black hole, subject A would eventually either reappear in a much older state, or subject A would have completely deteriorated from the passage of Subject A's time.

Crudely, yes, in the sense that all gravity wells work like this. But only so far as the rules apply, and within a black hole, they don't. You can't just naively apply them (and selectively!) to the singularity itself. That makes no sense. That's been my whole point.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If both A & B were exactly the same age at the beginning, Subject A would have deteriorated into oblivion, while subject B may not have appeared to age at all. For subject B, an hour went by. For subject A, 1000 years went by. From subject B's perspective, subject A's time was going so fast that subject B could not detect the existence of subject A while subject B was in his own timeline.

So, gravitational time does appear to create different time lines...

Rather, everything creates different time lines. That's what relativity means: there is no privileged reference frame. Only when one observer enters the frame of the other does the matter resolve itself.
(likewise any interaction as it propagates from one to the other)

In thermodynamically open systems a net change in entropy defines time's "arrow"; for certain theoretical isolated systems (the universe!) or certain quantum fluctuations even that isn't present. That isn't the same as where time "comes from".
(incidentally that's what the second linked page actually discusses)

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and depending upon the gravitational mass- in this case a black hole- innumerable timelines are created, each with a different time. This is staggering because it would appear that the closer you moved towards a gravitational mass, time either becomes warped, or is created anew according to your proximity.

Time can't be "created". It's a property.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If this were true, then if a body was at the event horizon, and progressed towards the black hole, and new timelines were created for each instance of progression, then the object would exist in innumerable timelines, and be in innumerable locations according to each timeline.

If all the paths end up in the same place - and they do - then you just get a standard quantum sum over histories model?

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  No information would be lost, ever. It couldn't be. Hawking says the info is stored in "alternate universes," but what I am saying is that it is stored in different points of time; different timelines created upon proximity to gravitational mass. They very much would resemble alternate universes though.

But you aren't physically literate, and your suppositions are incoherent.

Hawking is just idly speculating.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude, I am asking for your expertise and your mind minus spacetime, not your adversarialism. So put some thought into this and get back to me.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything. It's hard to say this without coming across as a dick.

Modern physics is not intuitive. That could be my motto. Hell, I could be satisfied with that as an epitaph. Intuition is irrelevant. You very much have to work your way up to understanding it on its own terms before speculating any farther.

Crocoducks, man. Crocoducks. Sometimes the question simply doesn't stand.

All of this brings up the age old question of, "What is time?"

Imagine for a moment an infinite universe, but completely void of all matter and energy.

Could time exist? Would it persist in the absence of materialistic existence? If time is a property of matter, it seems like it cannot exist without matter.

This article is interesting.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 05:26 PM)Free Wrote:  All of this brings up the age old question of, "What is time?"




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 03:31 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 05:26 PM)Free Wrote:  Imagine for a moment an infinite universe, but completely void of all matter and energy.

Could time exist? Would it persist in the absence of materialistic existence? If time is a property of matter, it seems like it cannot exist without matter.

Time is our feeble attempt to ground change in a context so we can understand it. It's a feeble attempt.

And my time is a piece of wax
Falling' on a termite
Who's choking' on the splinters
Soy un perdedor




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
08-09-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(08-09-2015 03:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 05:26 PM)Free Wrote:  All of this brings up the age old question of, "What is time?"







Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
08-09-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(08-09-2015 03:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Time keeps on slippin' slippin' into the future.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-09-2015, 08:55 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.



... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
10-09-2015, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 04:51 PM by Free.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(08-09-2015 03:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 05:26 PM)Free Wrote:  Imagine for a moment an infinite universe, but completely void of all matter and energy.

Could time exist? Would it persist in the absence of materialistic existence? If time is a property of matter, it seems like it cannot exist without matter.

Time is our feeble attempt to ground change in a context so we can understand it. It's a feeble attempt.

I'm a "need to know" kind of guy. I will postulate any conceivable idea in an effort to get feedback off of those who have more education than me, all because not knowing drives me up the fucking wall.

About 10 years ago I sent an email to Hawking about black holes and never expected a reply at all. But he did reply, stunning the fuck out of me. That email was in Microsoft Outlook and I treasured it. But then that hard drive failed about 6 years ago and I damn near cried. I had backed up that PST file onto another hard drive, but could not remember which hard drive it was because I owned literally dozens and dozens and they were all over the damn place in my very untidy tech shop.

I asked him if a black hole could have been the singularity that created the Big Bang. I just had to know.

But I do have another question!

How can we arrive at assuming the possibility that a black hole could be infinite?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: