Not to be too negative, but if what think about relativity is confirmed by Farsight - that is not a good thing....
Can Anyone Answer These Black Hole Problems?
- Thread starter A-wal
- Start date
Not to be too negative, but if what think about relativity is confirmed by Farsight - that is not a good thing....
Er, just where did you get that idea?
And the Big Bang could have an infinite amount of time in the past before it went off and there is no reason why this naked singularity should exist in the first place, but it seems to be.
While I've got you in a good mood, perhaps you could answer me this question.
Why should time-backwards be the same as time-forwards reversed?
Has the Uncertainty Principle gone out of fashion?
If it is impossible to run time backwards, except with pen and paper,
it removes a lot of problems.
It also removes this inviolability of information,
which is some kind of metaphysical ideal.
Re: Now run time backwards to locate its creation event, and you will discover that it exists at "negative infinity".
What is "negative infinity"?
@BwS
I think the doctrine is that time did not exist before the BB
It's actually a good question. Apparently the laws of probability have a time preference because running our clock backwards continues to produce less and less likely outcomes.
I made it up while having a bourbon. Care to explore?
Sorry, perhaps I'm misreading something here, but the Lorentz factor is right there in the expression you've given.
Again maybe I'm misreading something, but with the Lorentz factor in your expression, you're deriving it from Pythagoras' theorem. Follow the link I gave to "extensively in relativity" and check out the wiki simple inference of time dilation. A shorter distance doesn't feature. If you imagine you're watching the parallel-mirror light clock through a gedanken camera that lets you see the light beam bouncing back and forth, then imagine you're panning as it goes by: you don't see the zigzag path, you only see the up and down motion, and you see it going slower. You don't see time going slower.
What I say about relativity ties in with what Einstein said. I'm forever giving references. But sadly it doesn't always square with what other people say.Origin said:
RJ: you're thinking of the central singularity which is forever in the future. IMHO you should examine the old "frozen star" black hole interpretation.
No my friend, it's reasoning. For something "to have occurred" for an observer in a certain frame it must exist in that observer's past light cone. Mass crossing the event horizon will never exist in any outside observer's past light cone, therefore it has also never crossed the event horizon in the past for those observers, or else those observers would be able to identify such a future event prior to that time.
Inductive reasoning.
In the equation you claim that is used extensively in relativity, actually is not the equation used. It is only a description that has been made more simple and easier to understand to introduce the idea of relativity. Then it is used as an example in order to explain some concepts in relativity, and I think people have tended to take it too literaly from this example.
In the example, it says the change in time is the straight distance perpendicular to the direction of travel, but an observer on a ship in constant motion would use his dilated time and observe the beam to travel this same distance. He would use his dilated time inorder to calculate how far the beam has traveled in his own frame. Same thing goes for the time used in the diagonal direction, that would be the distance the observer at rest would measure the beam to travel, and he would use his time as being the obeserver at rest in order to measure this. Because of this the dilated time is then related to this larger distance, so then it must become a larger value. This is then corrected by saying that it is the number of ticks of a clock, so then an inverse is taken because it is then seen to be the frequency of the clock. So then it does not give correct or accurate values, and it is not the correct way to derive the equation mathmatically.
So in the simple inference example in the wiki, both observers do not even actually measure the correct speed of light. They measure what the speed of light would be if they used the other frames time variable.
I don't think it was Einstein that used the light clock example, I think it was made up later by other would be scientist. In his paper on SR it uses the proper time, not the equation in the light clock example. People often associate this to being Einsteins work, but I dought it.
Ask the question of an intelligent 10 year old:
If you have smashed a window with a football, how likely is it that the window will re-form and the ball appear at your feet.
That's why time goes forward rather than backwards.
In order for it to be possible to reverse time,
you have to reverse probability.
Is that possible?
If you wanted to get an accurate value you would want to use the Time Dilation Calculator.
Who says it has to cross the event horizon? Hailstones grow. I guess you've read The Formation and Growth of Black Holes by Kevin Brown:
"Incidentally, I should probably qualify my dismissal of the "frozen star" interpretation, because there's a sense in which it's valid, or at least defensible. Remember that historically the two most common conceptual models for general relativity have been the "geometric interpretation" (as originally conceived by Einstein) and the "field interpretation" (patterned after the quantum field theories of the other fundamental interactions). These two views are operationally equivalent outside event horizons, but they tend to lead to different conceptions of the limit of gravitational collapse..."
He and most people schooled in MTW don't hold with the original frozen star interpretation, but I think it's right myself. That's not to say that black holes don't exist. It's just that the description of what's within the event horizon differs. By the way, Kevin Brown originally ascribed the geometric interpretation to Wheeler and the field interpretation to Weinberg.
I said the parallel-mirror light clock was used extensively in relativity.
Honestly, the Lorentz factor is closely related to Pythagoras' theorem. Check it out on google. A version of it is used in the spacetime interval too.Prof.Layman said:
Einstein derived Lorentz transformation here, using x - ct = 0. It isn't quite the same as the simple inference of time dilation using the parallel-mirror light clock, but the latter really isn't wrong. The main thing to realise is that the wave nature of matter means the observer on the ship is affected too. So he doesn't notice anything untoward.
"Something" necessarily must have crossed the event horizon in our past lightcones in order for us to proclaim that the black hole "exists"...or else it is simply a neutron star on the brink of collapse for eternity. If the event horizon is never formed from our perspective then we cannot say the black hole exists by definition of the BH. No, I did not read the book you mentioned but I deduced the frozen star interpretation, so we agree on this. I would disagree on your phrasing of
only because you are still making the assumption that an event horizon exists, which is incompatible with frozen stars as I understand them.Farsight said:
If you can come up with a less arbitrary response, then sure.
Referring to your previous posts, how did you get from this:
to virtually the complete opposite of that:
?
RJBeery said:
przyk said:
You believe those concepts contradict each other? What I'm saying is that if the creation event of a black hole exists at t = 'negative infinity', and negative infinity does not exist, then the black hole cannot be said to exist. In other words, if a black hole existed today then it necessarily always did, which (among other problems) is contradicted by the Big Bang theory.RJBeery said:
No, I don't think they necessarily contradict each another. But certainly neither implies the other.