What does "within the event horizon" mean to you?
Can Anyone Answer These Black Hole Problems?
- Thread starter A-wal
- Start date
What does "within the event horizon" mean to you?
...with very few sentences aided by oodles amount of coffee.
....and not just coffee judging by some of the tedious rambling.
When I was at Uni, one of my fellow students thought it would be a good idea to do a Philosophy exam on speed.
It was a final paper, really important. Unrepeatable.
The lecturers brought him in and asked him to explain his answers, just in case they meant something.
He looked at his papers for a bit, and said: "I'm fucked if I know what I was on about"
This presented a bit of a philosophical problem.
It could well be a work of genius. No-one could tell.
As no-one knew what he was on about, and being as it was the Philosophy Department, they allowed him to retake the exam drug-free.
His drug-free answers certainly were not genius material, and he got a Third.
When I was at Uni, one of my fellow students thought it would be a good idea to do a Philosophy exam on speed.
It was a final paper, really important. Unrepeatable.
The lecturers brought him in and asked him to explain his answers, just in case they meant something.
He looked at his papers for a bit, and said: "I'm fucked if I know what I was on about"
This presented a bit of a philosophical problem.
It could well be a work of genius. No-one could tell.
As no-one knew what he was on about, and being as it was the Philosophy Department, they allowed him to retake the exam drug-free.
His drug-free answers certainly were not genius material, and he got a Third.
Last edited:
Maximum_Planck
Registered Member
Do you not know what it means?
Because Einstein explained "time" in terms of "simultaneity". This "simultaneity" can not be observed in the Black-Hole. Neither can "gravitational collapse" of light itself.
No, this isn't a trivial detail and it isn't semantics. Presume a black hole "exists today" (of any arbitrary mass, etc). Now run time backwards to locate its creation event, and you will discover that it exists at "negative infinity" (i.e. prior to the big bang). You asked the question and I gave you the answer, getting sarcastic with responses doesn't change the facts.
So are you implying that outside of the event horizon that light does have mass? Or are you implying that because light in general does not have mass it can escape a black hole?
Using infinity as a scapegoat for not questioning things shows poor character.
Maximum_Planck
Registered Member
wait. what are you implying instead?
I'm the one not questioning things here...? It would appear that I've presented you with a mathematical conundrum and you're sticking your fingers in your ears because it runs contrary to your understanding. Are you suggesting that the mathematical models of black holes is wrong? Or that my assertion is off?
Maximum_Planck
Registered Member
he was not using anything as a scapegoat. he was trying to explain clearly
"Simultaneity" is that when two events are happening at the same time. Einstein considered "clock" as one of the events and not as time.
For example when we say that "the Sun rises at 6'O clock". Here 'the Sun rise' is one event and 'positioning of hands in the clock to indicate 6' is other event. These two events are simultaneous. Thus "simultaneity" of any event can be made with the clock.
"Time Dilation" is slowing down of the "clock" and not "slowing down of time".
In the Black-Hole as the "clock" will not move due 'very strong gravity', so "simultaneity" of any event with this "clock" can not be observed.
So, it seems as if "time" has stopped in the Black-Hole.
In reality in the Black-Hole, "time marches" but "the clock does not march".
From my pop physics readings this actually came as a surprise as the dominent philosophy of the internet. And from my own work in SR, I actually believe that time itself is actually slowing down from analyzing equations that then lead to time dialation equations. I think this philosophy has come about from looking into equations of the light clock example that does not even lead to the correct equation of the proper time.
You have bizarre, ludicrous assumptions alongside some weird, almost grotesque, misunderstanding of what I am saying, as you have validated my argument monumentally in your post. So, hopefully it is just semantics after all.
I'll quote the best part of your post again for clarification that does this boundlessly:
The whole point is to question things. The whole point in researching areas of: condensed matter, cosmology, mathematical physics, particle physics, quantum fields and strings, quantum foundations, quantum gravity, quantum information, and strong gravity... is to question things. That's what they're there for.
Capiche?
While I agree with your sentiment that research is a form of questioning...I would ask for less prose and more math when trying to refute my assertion.
I was talking about this sort of thing the other day, it's probably worth repeating:
Clocks don't literally measure "the flow of time". That's a figure of speech. What they actually do, is employ some kind of motion which is usually regular and cyclical, and show you a cumulative result that you call "the time". All you need to do to verify this is examine an egg timer, a grandfather clock, a spring-driven mechanical clock, a quartz wristwatch, an atomic clock, or an optical clock. The gedanken parallel-mirror light-clock used extensively in relativity is an idealized version of the latter, wherein the reflections are counted. That's it, take it at face value. The proper time is basically just the cumulative count. It's related to the Lorentz factor which comes straight out of Pythagoras' theorem. Treat one side of the /\ angled path as a right-angled triangle. The hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). If the moving mirror is going at .99c with respect to you, the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.02 = 1/0.142 = 7. We use a reciprocal because time dilation has the opposite sense to length contraction. It's hard to get out of the habit of thinking as time as something that flows or through which we literally travel. But what might help is A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It's heavy-going philosophy at times, and the blurb rather suggests that "time does not exist", which is misleading. Instead it should be "time does not exist as it is commonly understood". A clock is not a proper-time gas meter.
This just confirms what I was saying, the equation $$ t' = t / {sqrt{1 - {v^{2}}/{c^{2}} $$ is the equation that is commonly used to determine this problem if time actually slows down or if it is just the clock being seen to slow down. But, that equation is not an accurate description of time dilation, the more accurate equation is the proper time that does not have a Lorentz factor in the denominator. $$ tau = t sqrt {1- {v^{2}}/{c^{2}} $$ In order to derive tau in the classical sense, you have to assume that length actually gets shorter and the amount of time taken for light to travel a shorter distance would actually have to be slower. It is the amount of time it takes to measure a photon to travel a shorter distance that actually matters.
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Funny, I don't recall ever saying light could escape the mass of a body inside the Schwarzschild radius.
I would like you to rigorously think of what it means to care and be curious about the mysterious universe before telling people what there perspectives are because such mysteries simply don't "exist."
RJBeery:
No, this isn't a trivial detail and it isn't semantics. Presume a black hole "exists today" (of any arbitrary mass, etc). Now run time backwards to locate its creation event, and you will discover that it exists at "negative infinity" (i.e. prior to the big bang). You asked the question and I gave you the answer, getting sarcastic with responses doesn't change the facts.
Come on Lads, surely two people with Beer in their names can get on.
added later
@BwS
Try to get on with RJB.
In my experience, he is one of the smartest people on the site.
I'm sure he can provide the mathematics to support his assertions.
But meanwhile, have another read through what he has posted.
Funny, I don't recall ever saying light could escape the mass of a body inside the Schwarzschild radius.
I would like you to rigorously think of what it means to care and be curious about the mysterious universe before telling people what there perspectives are because such mysteries simply don't "exist."
RJBeery:
No, this isn't a trivial detail and it isn't semantics. Presume a black hole "exists today" (of any arbitrary mass, etc). Now run time backwards to locate its creation event, and you will discover that it exists at "negative infinity" (i.e. prior to the big bang). You asked the question and I gave you the answer, getting sarcastic with responses doesn't change the facts.
Come on Lads, surely two people with Beer in their names can get on.
added later
@BwS
Try to get on with RJB.
In my experience, he is one of the smartest people on the site.
I'm sure he can provide the mathematics to support his assertions.
But meanwhile, have another read through what he has posted.
You didn't make the assertion with any math.
*like*:cheers:
I stated what the mathematical result is, and you said that infinity is "just a scapegoat"; that doesn't follow. If you believe the results would differ from this please tell me what those results would be. If you insist that a creation time of "negative infinity" is permissible then we'll simply agree to disagree (even if I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that).Beer w/Straw said:
I am not impling anything, I am asking a question about your statement for clarification.