joigus

2 hours ago, iNow said:

So not only do you wish to dictate how others use certain terms, but now you also wish to dictate how members use the reaction vote system? Fascist!  😝🤣

In the Ricky Gervais sense? (Short):

1 hour ago, Genady said:

And then, there is Freeman Dyson (F. Dyson, “The World on a String,” New York Review of Books, May 13, 2004)

 

Oh, yes. What Stanley Deser defined as 'denial' in this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh36XEX7yTk

IOW, the gravitational field is one of a kind. Everything else is quantum. It's only gravity that's classical. Doesn't sound like a sound alternative. People have pointed to paradoxes and the like. And it's no surprise really.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I have a simple argument against the existence of central singularities in Black Holes.

Consider an electron swallowed by a BH.
It crosses the EV and reaches the 'singularity'.
At this point its position is exact; it is a point.
That means that, according to Heisenberg, its momentum ( and speed ) could be any value up to infinite.
That means the electron could escape the BH.
Since this same argument can be applied to every other particle swallowed by the BH, every particle could then escape, and there would be no BH

And since we have photographic evidence that BHs exist, the above inconsistency means that singular points, in a BH, cannot be possible.

This walks in the direction of what I was saying. GR as a theoretical standalone is not reliable to tell us what a BH (or any other trans-horizon-hidden singularity of the EFE) is telling us about. QM has to play a big role in it. Rupture of space-time, as if ST were some kind of elastic medium is clearly not the ticket. Every direction I know in which people are thinking has to do with generalising QFT to the appropriate degrees of freedom accounting for gravitation or proposing a unifying principle (EPR = ER) that achieves the concept-bridging between GR and QFT that everybody dreams of.

There must be a reason why entropy has to be included in the mix, and it's almost a certainty that the reason has to do with QM.

PD: From what I know, @Genady is right, and the singularity is a time rather than a spatial point. Assuming BHs are not better represented by other solutions that haven't been found yet and nobody knows anything about. Such is the plight of the non-linear physicist.  But you're right. You shift to the E, t HUP and your point is still valid --at this point I don't know whether the pun is intended or not!!  

Sorry for the acronym shower.

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

I didn't notice a question in the OP ...

And who the f**k builds looms ?
( are you now in Pennsylvania, Dim 😄 )

Interestingly though, it has spawned a few questions:

10 hours ago, joigus said:

Klaus Schwab? Is that you?

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

The Man Who Haunted Himself? 

8 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Why not simply work together as equals?

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Would you have these qualms about the loom you built?

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

And who the f**k builds looms ?

5, and counting...

9 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Regarding the nature of time, its treatment in quantum mechanics presents a complex picture. Time in the quantum realm doesn't always conform to our everyday understanding. The role of the observer, a fundamental aspect of quantum theory, adds another layer of complexity to how we perceive time in these scenarios. 

This is an outdated package of ideas otherwise known as Copenhagen's school. Decoherence is the key, not the observation, whatever that means.

14 minutes ago, ovidiu t said:

Additionally, the concept of matter decaying over time, a well-established phenomenon, prompts a thought: could this be an example of an interaction between matter and time?

I don't think that makes much sense. Decay is already understood as an interaction, but not between matter and time, but mediated by W and Z bosons.

What would interaction between matter and time even mean? Interactions, as we understand the concept, require a position representation.

Besides the more specific criticism you're getting, what part does QFT play in all this?

It's extremely unlikely that any insight about big-bang, singularities, etc, would be obtained from classical GR alone without QFT playing any part in it.

Klaus Schwab? Is that you?

From what I've read, neuronal migration, glial growth, etc are perhaps the identifiable biological factors at work when the frontal cortex is developing (up until about 25 yo in most individuals) that are very much affected by the environment. Nurture and nature are both part of Nature because, as George Carlin once pointed out, Nature includes everything, including the oft-misused and abused figure of speech involved in the dichotomy nature/nurture. Developmental processes don't occur in a Petri dish.

So I agree with most people's observation here, if I understood correctly: Remove the nurture factor and the genius disappears. 

I hadn't read the last paragraph by OP.

Well spotted, @exchemist.

Fractals, GR, QM, knots, quantum computing. Space itself is moving. My BS detector went through the roof.

Maybe something to do with topological insulators? Any context I know where the word "topological" has anything to do with  conductivity.

It's some kind of interphase between conductors and insulator. It was worth a Nobel Prize relatively recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator

Cyberspace is not a concept related to quantum mechanics.

What if "dead" was actually alive, and "alive" was actually dead?

You know, as long as this is in "Sculptures made of Almonds"...

As to technical matters...

Amplifying the coherent signal to enough qbits would be essential for quantum supremacy. Also, it would be nice to make them work at room temperatures.

Last time I looked we were nowhere near that becoming a reality --let alone a household reality-- although I've been able to catch pieces of hopeful news about the first goal here and there. 

And the "calculus" of it would be...?

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

He can, because he’s in free fall. Visualise it like this (though it’s not really correct) - a photon emitted radially outwards very close to the horizon has a very slow radial (!) velocity wrt to the event horizon. On the other hand though, Pinocchio falls through the horizon at nearly the speed of light (wrt some outside reference), and thus meets the photon on the way. So it’s not like the photon necessarily propagates to his eyes, but rather that his eyes fall right to where the photon is. It’s kind of like jumping upwards in an elevator - you can put relative motion between yourself and the elevator floor, but both you and the elevator continue to move down regardless (maybe a stupid example, but you get my drift hopefully).

Note that the situation is different if you’re not in free-fall. If Pinocchio, after the tip of his nose crosses the horizon, somehow fires magical thrusters that arrest his fall before he reaches the EH, then his nose will visually disappear for him (and get ripped away).

Yes, your argument sounds right. I'll have to think about it over the weekend. Big workload now.

Depending on how much Pinoccio has been lying, tidal forces would come into effect though.

Thanks for the careful explanation. +1

Ok. If everything boils down to "there cannot be a backward photon" I think we all agree. But I have no time to think about it now.

I still think Pinoccio cannot see the tip of his nose if he's facing towards the horizon, but he can if he's facing the other way, which is what didn't seem to me compatible with what Genady said in an extremely cursory way.

It seems I misunderstood. I'll get back to it probably tomorrow.

On 1/15/2024 at 11:15 PM, Genady said:

On 1/15/2024 at 10:13 PM, geordief said:

if two objects follow each other through the event horizon of a  very large BH ,does the second  object see the first  object as it passes the EH?

Yes.

IMO, this would be a "no", and I think @MigL's objection,

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't see how an observer would be able to see anything ahead of himself upon passing through the Event Horizon, as there are no geodesics for light to follow in the outwards direction.

still stands. Never mind your diagram. Frequency of backward-sent photon being zero. How do you detect a zero-frequency photon?

Mind you, I might be obfuscated by ungodly-late hour at place of present statement. 😆

15 hours ago, swansont said:

to add to this: measuring one photon doesn’t even tell you it’s entangled 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

It could possibly rule out entanglement, since the correlation could come out wrong. But that’s it

Absolutely agree with the first point. About the second point, I was thinking... How can you tell it's not noise? But then, if it's environmental noise that made them correlate the wrong way, there you go. They're definitely not entangled.

I think you're trying too big a bite there. Carbon gives rise to a very rich biochemistry, wich gives rise to homeostatic complex systems and approximate, but not exact replication thereof, which gives rise to a workable process of "improvement" (evolution), which gives rise to the possibility of projecting the external world in internal impressions of varying degree of permanence in cognitive tissue (as a great evolutionary advantage), which give rise to...[?]

Call me reductionist, but that's how it works, I think.

The chemistry of carbon is particularly suitable probably because 3D spatial arrangements with C-C covalent bonds afford much that other molecules wouldn't. Stability of the C-C bond being an obvious bonus. Carbon gives rise to a tetrahedral pattern of chemical bonds. Silicon has been proposed from time to time as an alternative, but I'm sure being further up in atomic number makes it less plausible. The chemistry and biology experts will no doubt take over and correct/expand on what I've said.

Strictly speaking, in order to make sure that photons are entangled, you would need: 1) Infinitely many pairs of photons prepared in the same way 2) Perform infinitely many measurements here and in the Voyager or wherever the other place is 3) Talking infinitely many times with the other experimenter and confirming that the correlations are the ones that correspond to such entangled state. The last step is called "sending the classical data" in so-called quantum teleportation experiments. Mind you: Nothing is teleported. It might as well have been called "quantum woodoo" and the phenomenon would be what it is: No woodoo at all, and no teleportation at all.

In practice, the "infinitely many" can be substituted by "enough measurements"

Measuring just one photon doesn't tell you anything about entanglement.

Measuring just once on a pair of photons that are presumably entangled doesn't do anything either.

3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

If it must act as you say, then there is no theory as it becomes a proven fact and the theory vanishes.  Since no one knows for sure and there are no musts it remains theory.

This makes no sense. And in fact it's usually the other way: The theory determines what to measure. Einstein famously pointed it out. 

It is because we have a theory that we can tell deviations of rotational velocity of galaxies from expected behaviour betrays excess density (DM), and certain measurements on supernovas confirms accelerated expansion. Those are parameters in the theory. That's why we expect those patterns, and we find them.

Only rarely an experimental discovery comes completely from out of the blue. Although it does happen from time to time. An example from physics is the neutrino.

I really think at this point you should take some time out for reflection.

3 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

... and a lot of what he says (that gets quoted) is at the level of pop-sci, not formal papers.

Happens to many people who get involved in popular science. They're slowly but surely attracted to the whirlpool of fringe scientific ideas. 'Do we live in a simulation?' is one of them, IMO.

2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

There is no way to separate two things that have never been observed, so can you tell us how you know that they are not one in the same? 

How about, for example, one is a constant (it has to be) and the other clusters (it must).

So they are very very different.

In the quantum theory, one must correspond to the ground state of all the oscillators. The other must correspond to real states (non-virtual). Excited states of quantum field theory of something we don't know.

1 hour ago, Spring Theory said:

Hang in there, gentlemen. I didn't do any of this with motivated reasoning, I just started with these assumptions and everything just fell out of it. I'm confident you guys will have an aha moment when it all clicks. 

I'll probably hang in somewhere else. I already had my aha moment, but in a different direction than what you suggest.

One more tip: Lose the smugness.

15 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

theoretical physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that. 

Not that it's essential in any way, but Dr Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a theoretical physicist.

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

First I have to "declare" that my quest here in this thread is the issue of what time is. -Not how we count it or how it works. 

Then you should post in philosophy. Metaphysics is, only too obviously, not the concern of physics. The root "meta" gives us an unmistakable clue.

The thing, either contingent or "in itself", what "is"... But is it? What's the essence? Is it one thing, two perhaps?

Metaphysics, you know. That pesky thing that Kant disposed of.

Physics is mathematically precise models, connection to measurements (operationalism). IOW: Concepts, maths, and the pursuit of measureness.