# Conjurer

Curmudgeon

339

1. ## Holographic Principle (split from Why light speed?)

The holographic principal says that all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole. That doesn't mean that the entire universe is literally on the surface of a black hole. It would just appear as though the Earth did collapse inside of a black hole. The information of what is going on with the planet would be censored. Then people would see them convert into a black hole, so the information on the ship would be censored from them. Then in the holographic universe they are able to calculate what happens everywhere in the universe by looking at what it would look like on the surface of a black hole. It would be unavoidable for the math to say that it would not produce a singularity in that type of situation. If you knew how to calculate for that without it producing a singularity, I would love to hear about it. The entire universe could be considered a black hole. Information from outside of the visible universe is censored from us, and nothing can be seen to surpass the speed of light in order to escape it.
2. ## Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?(Speculation)

It sounds like an argument against Hawking Radiation even working at all. How could a black hole evaporate if the anti particle adds to the mass of a black hole? According to what you are saying, the black hole should increase in mass due to Hawking Radiation. I don't think Hawking radiation even considers the mass of the energy in a black hole.
3. ## Why light speed?

One of the main axioms of SR is that ALL objects traveling at a constant speed can assume they are at rest, and of course it doesn't predict anything; everything would just be zero in that frame. It would end up in a state of superposition, and it would have to be described as a probability of traveling in one direction to be more likely than traveling in every other possible direction at once, like in quantum mechanics... There is no preferred frame of reference, so both observers would detect a mass increase in the others mass. I was trying to leave mass out of the example on purpose, because I was trying to highlight the idea that a singularity would be caused just due to the length contraction alone in Minkowski Spacetime. That is because they would both detect each others space contracting, so then most masses would end up closer together just from the length contraction. Then approaching the speed of light would be more like a game of "trying to dodge the black hole", since everything else apparent mass would increase while they came closer and closer together. Then I think it is a lot easier to picture the speed of light barrier using length and time dilation instead. Galaxies are not predicted to move faster than the speed of light unless they are outside of the visible universe. The edge of the visible universe is actually the location where the speed of galaxies approach very closely to the speed of light. Anything beyond that distance is pure speculation.
4. ## Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?(Speculation)

It kind of makes the law of conservation sound like some type of mechanism for an additional force of nature. Sometimes, I wonder if Hawking was too big of a fan of conservation laws. A matter antimatter collision result into pure energy or only photons. Photons have no mass, so I have no idea where all of this is coming from. It all seems like news to me; even though, Einstein did show that energy can exert a gravitational pull.
5. ## Capacitors (split from So are quantum entangled or teleported particles instantly there)

I think that would probably be an interesting failed experiment if that did happen. It would, essentially, disprove one of the primary links made into the theory which allowed the development of quantum electrodynamics. It would be one of the biggest blunderbusses the Standard Model had ever seen. Whom I studied electronics under just told us the only time that really matters is in high power systems that have huge capacitors which would probably be to large for anything that we would probably ever work on, now that I think about it. Circuits are mostly tuned by the impedance of the materials they are made out of, since Alexander Grand Bell got a hold of them. Then most of the time, nobody even has to worry about that sort of thing, since mostly all electronics use small capacitors that charge up very quickly.
6. ## Did Michelson-Morley experiment prove there was no Aether or that there was no "Aether-wind"

I don't see why that would be necessary. I am not trying to use the theory to make any type of predictions the theory doesn't already make. I meant to say how the theory affects the interpretation of the MM experiment, but I fully agree; It would have no affect on the MM experiment at all, whatsoever. Then I am not sure that there has been any Newtonian experiment throughout all of history that has had to account for the movement of the Earth. If anyone gave me one example of a case where this did happen, then I would surely be wrong about what I am saying, and I would be done with it. They discovered "evidence" to support the theory. The theory of general relativity assumes that the aether is a relativistic spacetime. Spacetime was made into one word to be used this way to show this. It is a noun because it describes an object... I am just saying that there is no evidence to support the idea that planetary accelerations has any influence on Newtonian physics on the surface of the Earth. It doesn't have to be accounted for in any physical experiment, like what would be needed to, if the same experiment was done on an airplane or whatever. Then the laws of physics become dependent on if the experiment is done on Earth or just some other accelerating object. To answer the question of the OP, I am saying that there is just no aether wind on the surface of the Earth, period, for any experiment. It hasn't been detected, for as far as I know, by any means with any physical object.
7. ## Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?(Speculation)

I think it would lose mass, because the collision of matter and antimatter would convert whatever mass there is inside into energy. Then energy has little to no mass. That is why the theory says that black holes would evaporate to begin with. The particle pairs are not generated from the energy of the black hole. The are freely created particle pairs that are created and annihilated with each other everywhere in space. The event horizon just creates the possibility for the situation where they do not annihilate each other which is a different situation for when the particles are created elsewhere. These particle pairs have been discovered with the absence of black holes, since one has been created in the lab. I think Leonard Susskind finally conned him out of it with his theory from the idea of the holographic universe where he said that all the information would be stored on the surface of a black hole, so there was no need for theory since information wouldn't be lost from going inside of a black hole to begin with.
8. ## Capacitors (split from So are quantum entangled or teleported particles instantly there)

I think every equation in electronic circuit theory doesn't include a time variable. I don't think science will ever be able to bring unification of electron speed and electronic circuit theory either. The limitations of the speed of electronics is mostly dependent on clock speed or crystal frequencies. Most physicist would probably just treat this example like the same way that the electromagnetic forces comes from inductors, so I don't think anyone would even be qualified to answer that question. Then they say that it would have to exchange a photon to transmit the electromagnetic force, and that is limited by the speed of light. According to what you are saying, they wouldn't need to exchange a photon to transmit the force between two charged plates.
9. ## Why light speed?

I think, if you wanted to be able to imagine why something cannot travel faster than the speed of light, you would only need to use this thought experiment. Say, you started traveling the speed of light and you were traveling at a constant speed, like a photon. According to SR, you can then say you are actually at rest, and everything else is traveling the speed of light. Then, if it looks the same as if everything else was traveling the speed of light, everything's time would stop, and everything's distances would contract to zero. If you were that photon traveling the speed of light, you wouldn't observe any more time or distance to speed up and travel into. Increasing your speed would require more distance and time to travel in. It would be like you were in a singularity, but you would probably become a singularity long before you even reached the speed of light. I have heard scientist are starting to move away from the idea that the mass increase caused by relativity would prevent that. The speeds of galaxies don't seem to be limited by them containing black holes, but this is usually explained by the relative speed to the space itself which is expanding. Then a lot of people don't believe in an aether or physical spacetime, so they don't buy into that explanation.
10. ## Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?(Speculation)

I think it would be better to try to test for what is in a black hole by just using antimatter and making it lose enough mass in order to show a naked singularity. I still haven't gotten anyone to tell me why it is always the negative particle that ends up going into the black hole, but I think Hawking retracted his theory before he died anyways. Then the amount of particle pairs is only about one pair per cubic meter, so they would have trouble interacting with the black hole to even begin with. Then Hawking did claim the theory became more inaccurate at smaller scales, but he never seemed to mention that. It seems like it would be a good idea for the LHC to keep a canister of antimatter to shoot at a black hole, just in case someone decides to really crank it one day anyways rather they are testing for them or not.
11. ## Did Michelson-Morley experiment prove there was no Aether or that there was no "Aether-wind"

I guess the discovery of gravitational rotational frame dragging never really received that much attention, or they never bothered to explain to everybody how this affects the MM experiment either? I thought the discovery was supposed to disprove the discovery of the MM experiment. I don't think the MM experiment could be done with a cannonball to show up with this result either. I don't think Newton had to account for this when developing the laws of motion. We are always accelerating as we move on the surface of the Earth, but no one ever had to calculate for that in any physical experiment to show how it was different in one place or another. Therefore, I think that proves that there is an aether, since any frame of reference that is accelerating with the surface of the Earth can be considered to be at rest. Then the Earth isn't even perfectly round, so the aether seems to be moving with the Earth's center of mass. Then it starts dragging the further out away from the Earth you are, hence the discovery of gravitational rotation dragging.
×