Lorentz Jr

A ruler is an example of a stick with little lines and numbers etched into it. If one can argue that a ruler is an example of distance, I would argue that angels can dance on the head of a pin. I would also argue that rulers may not even measure distance properly when they're length contracted, but I certainly wouldn't argue that physical objects are identical to whatever physical quantities they possess and/or measure, because objects are just objects, not properties.

A long time ago, I thought of a programming problem I wanted to work on. I coded 16 hours a day for two weeks, got some results, and then didn't do any significant amount of programming for at least a year. Then the same thing happened with another problem sometime later. 16 hours a day for two weeks, some results, and then no significant amount of programming for a long time. More recently, I spent several months programming pretty intensively on various projects. Paced myself, started with small exercises, didn't overdo it, but the last project got a little hairy, so I was a bit burned out by the end. I haven't done any significant amount of programming since then. Getting back into physics now, because that's what I've always loved, but no sign of interest in programming coming back to me. I even had a similar experience in my job history. Several years in software development back in the tech boom, but I was never really passionate about it, and I haven't worked in that field at all since then. I find it hard to focus on technical work when there's a lot of political tension in the news. Not that my experiences necessarily apply to you, but the lesson for me was that I'm not really cut out for full-time technical work. I like to dabble, it's a great hobby for me, but if I procrastinate on something, it may mean that I like the idea of getting the benefits of having finished the project but not enough to justify all the work involved. Or, maybe for you it's just a matter of pacing yourself. As people love to say, life is a marathon, not a sprint. 🙂

Come on, Sensei. You know about corner cases. They're what testing is all about! 😎

Because I'm just an ignorant beginner and I could easily be wrong! 😲

Yes, I just now figured out what you were saying. Sorry about being so slow. Anyway, what really interest me are the relativistic and quantum-mechanical aspects of the problem. Is the charge really invisible to the outside world? And how can it evaporate through charge-neutral radiation? By "affecting the creation", I meant whether it would change the minimum density requirement.

Right, but how would that affect creation of a BH and its behavior, e.g. the rate of Hawking radiation? It almost seems like the extra energy would make creation of the BH easier by adding to the mass, even though that seems counterintuitive. And it looks like it's possible with electrons as long as there's not too much rotation. And here's another one for ya: How can charge-neutral Hawking radiation be emitted by a BH full of electrons? What would be left over, with the same amount of charge but less mass/energy? 🤔

The Lorentzian view would be that the particle never falls in (i.e. observers on the outside are "right"), but if it were a person falling into the BH they wouldn't know it, because everything about the person slows down and comes to a stop, including their consciousness and all the atomic and subatomic processes in their body. The relativistic view is that neither observer is "right", but neither metaphysical interpretation of the events has been proved or disproved.

Perfect. From the black-hole section, the limit is [math]2r_q = r_s[/math]. [math]4 r_q^2 = r_s^2[/math] [math]Q^2 G / \pi \epsilon_0 = 4 G^2 M^2[/math] [math]Q^2/M^2 = 4 G \pi \epsilon_0[/math] [math]Q/M = 2 \sqrt{\pi G \epsilon_0} = 2 \sqrt{\pi (6.67*10^{-11} N m^2/kg^2) (8.85*10^{-12} C^2/N m^2)}[/math] [math]Q/M = 8.6*10^{-11} C/kg[/math] For the electron: [math]\displaystyle{q/m = \frac{1.6*10^{-19} C}{9.1*10^{-31} kg} = 1.76*10^{-11} C/kg}[/math] So it looks like electrons are well within the limit. Which is strange, because what has a higher charge/mass ratio than electrons? Does the electrostatic energy somehow decrease the effective mass? You'd think it would make it harder to create the BH one way or another. What effect does that have? Right, because it would be really weird if the charge just disappeared. 🤔

[math]2r_q = r_s[/math] [math]4 r_q^2 = r_s^2[/math] [math]Q^2 G / \pi \epsilon_0 = 4 G^2 M^2[/math] [math]Q^2/M^2 = 4 G \pi \epsilon_0[/math] [math]Q/M = 2 \sqrt{\pi G \epsilon_0} = 2 \sqrt{\pi (6.67*10^{-11} N m^2/kg^2) (8.85*10^{-12} C^2/N m^2)}[/math] [math]Q/M = 8.6*10^{-11} C/kg[/math] electron: [math]q/m = 1.6*10^{-19} C / 9.1*10^{-31} kg = 1.76*10^{-11} C/kg[/math]

0.017

That's why I like this problem! I don't think the charge can even be visible outside the black hole, since it acts through light. That's why the accelerators have to force the electrons together by shooting them at each other at high energies.

Maybe a tiny bit from the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, but I don't think it would be noticeable. The tilt of Earth's axis is about 23 degrees. So, at 37 degrees latitude (the United States and Europe), the angle between a vertical on Earth's surface and the line to the sun is 14 degrees in Summer and 50 degrees in Winter (37-23 vs. 37+23). The cosines of those angles are .97 and .64 respectively, so the ground gets about 50 percent more sunlight in Summer than it does in Winter (.97/.64 = 1.5). Without that, no, there would be no seasons.

Imagine you build a sort of "Dyson sphere", except there's nothing inside it yet, and instead of solar panels, it's a dense array of powerful linear particle accelerators, which are pointed inward and supplied with humongous amounts of electrons. Now suppose the accelerators start shooting electrons into the center, slowly at first, then faster and faster, in such huge quantities and at such high energies that the electrons get compressed and form a black hole. My question is, what effect would the high charge-to-mass ratio of the electrons and their electrostatic pressure have on the Hawking radiation coming from the black hole, on any other properties, or I guess whether it's even possible to create the black hole in the first place?

If by "back to the gadget" you mean time travel, then you lost me. I'm sure "complex vector space" is very nice math, but it's not my idea of an underlying mechanism or ultimate explanation. So, as I see it, there are two possibilities: The universe is Newtonian (not Galilean), Lorentz was right, there's no such thing as particles, everything is waves, there's some legitimate reason the vacuum's state of motion hasn't been detected (because of some kind of dynamical principle (e.g. it minimizes some kind of action) that keeps it hidden), entanglement is superluminal communication, and Bell/EPR is a tempest in a teapot because it's based on fundamental misconceptions. The universe is relativistic, Einstein was right, space itself is some kind of illusion, we're all living in some kind of weird simulation, and Bell/EPR is a tempest in a teapot because how can you make sense of anything if the world is just the output of Universe.exe running on some superintelligent being's PC? 😧 In other words, it's either/or. Either completely Lorentzian or completely batshit, and by "batshit" I don't mean to suggest that it's not a viable answer to your questions. Because there's no law that says the universe has to conform to our intuitions or expectations. The only thing I believe with conviction is that 20th-century physics only scratches the surface of a very bizarre, complicated world, and there must be more to it than "it's all relative" and "it's inherently random". If you want a more scientific answer than that, you might read up on loop quantum gravity, but I know next to nothing about it except that it doesn't seem blatantly wrong to me the way string theory does.

As fast as the electrons can get out of their way! 😊

Well, I usually post real physics, and I manage to maintain a low rating through sheer obstinacy, so apparently the system still has a few kinks in it! 😁

Yes, that's the block universe theory. Einstein has been quoted* as calling the flow of time a "persistent illusion". * Or seen on video. Sorry, I don't remember the source.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think @joigus phrased that quite correctly. (I don't think he's a native English speaker.) I'm pretty sure he meant the first one, Newton's theory of gravity is a Galilean theory. "Galilean gravity" just means any theory that's based on Galilean relativity. It's not a specific theory of gravity that Galileo had, because he didn't have one for heavenly bodies in the sky. All he had was constant acceleration near Earth's surface. The difference between Newton and Galileo is that Newton believed there's such a thing as "absolute space" and Galileo didn't. With absolute space, gravity (and other influences) can propagate at some finite speed, but observers can tell how fast they're moving through space (and in what direction) by measuring the speed of gravity waves relative to them. That violates (Galilean) relativity though, because relativity requires that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, i.e. gravity should propagate at the same speed relative to all observers.

Just for the record, I can't imagine many things that are dumber than making science discussions a popularity contest. 🙄

Don't worry about it. 🙂

I corrected what you said, but I don't know whether you said the right thing incorrectly (verbal) or you said the wrong thing correctly (substantive). That would depend on what you thought you were saying. Anyway, I would just ask that you be a little more careful in the future, Mordred. Thanks for chatting.

Please don't misrepresent my comments, Mordred. It's extremely rude. I wasn't focusing on language, unless you literally don't know the difference between charge and electromagnetic fields.

Photons mediate electromagnetic interactions between charges, not "charge in interparticle interactions".

Per unit mass, swansont. I know electrons are small. 🙄 Charge is carried by electrons, and typical electron "flow rates" (i.e. drift speeds) are millimeters per second, as mentioned earlier. Feel free to explain your argument why you feel the flow of charge has a rate of c.

Please don't tell them charge flows at near the speed of light in ordinary circuits. That doesn't happen.