Jump to content

Halc

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Halc

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • College Major/Degree
    Computer Engr
  • Favorite Area of Science
    relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Einstein did not beg his conclusions. He posited two lightning strikes, but posited neither their simultaneity nor the absolute motion of either observer. The simultaneity of the strikes was concluded only after the respective observers took measurements of the events in question. Neither observer measured the motion (absolute or relative) of any object in that particular though experiment.
  2. I am talking about universal time, and while I agree that there's no such thing, there seems to be no contradiction arising by postulating it. I'm proposing such a contradiction here. If the choice is relative to a particular observer, it's hardly objective. Another clock cannot be set to the universal time without agreeing on this privileged observer or privileged location in space. Points in space 50 billion light years away do not exist at all relative to a given observer, so his personal choice of coordinates do no in fact foliate all of spacetime. There is a choice that does foliate all points in an arbitrarily large scale, but as pointed out in this topic, it doesn't work for excessive local curvature such as black holes. There seems in fact to be no possible coordinate system that does, and that's the contradiction that arises from postulating universal (objective/absolute) time/space.
  3. I'm talking about interpretations that deny the principle of relativity. There seem not to be infinitely many possible foliation schemes. As a matter of fact there doesn't seem to be any that foliate all of spacetime. The typical one suggested is the curved (non inertial) comoving frame corresponding locally to the inertial frame in which the CMB appears isotropic, but any frame like that does not properly foliate local deviations from flat space like black holes. If they did, then rjbeery would have grounds to stand on when trying to objectively determine if event X inside a black hole occurs before or after event Y somewhere outside it, particularly after the BH has evaporated. An objective foliation scheme should not in any way depend on an observer. Any two observers, no matter how separated and unable to communicate, should be able to sync their clocks simply by setting said clock to the current objective time, and then I suppose having the clock running at some rate which depends on the speed of the clock and its current gravitational potential. The latter requires a standard 'zero', which also seems undefined. For example, what is the gravitational potential at the surface of Earth? Nobody publishes that. They only publish the potential if Earth was in an otherwise empty universe, which it obviously isn't. Anyway, point is, there is no viable objective foliation scheme that includes all spacetime events. The lack of a viable scheme means that time and motion cannot be objective. The principle of relativity cannot be denied. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  4. It seems that there is no coordinate system that foliates all of spacetime. This seems to be an interesting argument against any philosophy of time that posits an absolute coordinate system (a preferred frame of one sort or another). Presentism is only a subset of these philosophies. The inability to identify any coordinate system that can consistently map any pair of events as to which occurs first seems to me to be a fatal flaw in such a philosophy.
  5. You've not given any indication of what you've done or what your current understanding of these terms is, so I don't know where help is needed. If you don't know the difference between an interrupt and a subroutine call, it seems you have to re-read the chapter(s) preceding this question.
  6. Unclear how you might think so. Simple substitution yields 1-1/1 which is zero. Even if you ignore precedence rules and evaluate it as (1-A^2)/B^2 you still get zero. I can prove that 1 equals 2 using some sleight of hand, but not in the equation you present.
  7. I've seen it demonstrated with a Kruskal-Szekeres diagram that an infalling observer can only witness a finite future as measured by an outside observer. He cannot see the universe end.
  8. I never said any particular coordinate system wasn't meaningful. It isn't meaningful to compare the times of the two events you indicate. The Penrose diagram demonstrates the same thing in this case. An event within the black hole (an event that doesn't exist in the coordinate space discussed in my prior post, but does exist in the Penrose diagram) has no causal connection with the event after the evaporation. That makes it like any pair of events separated in a space-like manner: There is no objective comparison of their times. A-before-B is a relation dependent on the foliation of choice, because neither event is in the past or future light cone of the other.
  9. No, I do not. It is not meaningful to compare the time of an event to an event not in your coordinate space. Use different coordinates if you want to do this.
  10. In the coordinate space defined by such an observer, the black hole doesn't exist and never (yet) existed. Any object tossed in (from the perspective of this specific observer) was still outside the event horizon, even a moment before the evaporation completes. There is no line of simultaneity reaching from any point on this observers worldline into the black hole. Said hyperplane of simultaneity always remains unbroken (no hole in it), clean to the other side. It's as if all events comprising that region of spacetime exist only entirely in the future of this observer, even when the black hole is evaporated.
  11. Edit doesn't work and all the quotes were nullified, so posting this again. Robert Wald: An asymptotically flat [and strongly asymptotically predictable] spacetime M is said to contain a black hole if not every point of M is contained in the causal past of future null infinity. The black hole region, B, of such a spacetime is defined to be the points of M not contained in the causal past of future null infinity. The boundary of B in M is called the event horizon. rjbeery: My issue is that this, and almost any, definition makes finite black holes a logical impossibility. I don't find it a logical impossibility. The definition puts us in a black hole actually, since any location in space beyond the visible universe at t=infinity (currently a location about 65 BLY away) is not in our future light cone, nor are we in its past light cone. As for the more classic black hole, yes, any event within it is not containied within the causal past of an event near where the black hole completed its evaporation yesterday. That makes it existing by that definition, not a logical impossibility at all. rjbeery: In other words, any process (e.g. Hawking radiation, which I generically refer to as "evaporation"') that eventually eliminates the event horizon has, by the definition of black holes, negated that black hole's existence for all time, including the past. Evaporation and event horizons are mutually exclusive ideas. For these to be mutually exclusive, I think you need to make some additional premises which are simply not axiomatic. For one, my personal destruction (death say) does not negate my existence for all time, I still exist in 2020. So not sure what you mean by those words. Sure, it doesn't exist at that future time, but that future time is not 'all time', despite your assertion otherwise. Perhaps if you state the contradiction formally. rjbeery: We come back the next morning and have equipment that recorded the MBH's existence. We can also verify that the MBH no longer exists. This clearly puts the entire history of this MBH in our causal past It does not put the interior events in our causal past, so this is not clear at all. The mathematics can be used to explore whether or not any of the events (I hate calling them points) of M inside said event horizon are in fact contained in the causal future of events outside the event horizon. It is after all just a mathematical singularity. A rock fall through a Rindler horizon (another mathematical singularity, not a physical one) effortlessly and without notice by the rock. But it is arguable that a similar rock cannot be dropped into a black hole, instead forming a dense timeless shell. I'm having a hard time finding links on this interpretation.
  12. Poorly worded, but I think enough clues are there to work out what you have in mind. Let me know if I get this wrong. In some frame, points A and B are stationary objects and nearly a light-month apart. "The rest of us" are stationary in that frame. For "themselves", we're referring to the people in the ship. The don't move at all in their own frame. The object B comes at them from nearly 10 light seconds away and takes 10 seconds to get to them. Now as for your question: No, to everyone else, they're moving at nearly light speed, taking a month to go nearly a light month. To themselves, by definition, they're not moving at all, which is slower than 'incredibly slowly'. It is A and B that takes a 10 second journey in that frame of reference, each moving at nearly light speed.
  13. One should also mention Everett's RSF interpretation, which posits pretty much what you said there, and no more. More precisely: "All isolated systems evolve according to the Schrodinger equation". That's it. No wave function collapse, and no metaphysical spawning of new worlds.
  14. Read my post again as well. MWI does not claim that the worlds split before the photon goes through the slits. So still one world, with interference. The split happens when it is measured: when the dot appears on the target. One world for each possible location for the dot, which is a lot more than 2 worlds. MWI does not claim that it passes through one slit in each of 2 worlds. Still the same world at that point.
  15. MWI (DeWitt) posits splitting of worlds at time of measurement, not photons going through different slits in different worlds. RSF (Everett) does not posit any ontological split at all. I do believe that there is a fatal flaw in the DeWitt version, but it isn't that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.