lakmilis

swansont...That is exactly what the thread kind of asks about...if it is spatial or energy...if energy, by definition we say no energy can exist as such between the quantum levels, yet we conceptualise a factual spatial existence between these shells. If that is the case, the 0 K question I guess had more to do with vacuum energy density yes. If ,as someone called it, it is a forbidden zone of energy , then this zone must have 0 energy density, thus 0 K. But then as someone else implicitly spoke about, things like the Casimir effect gets fuzzy. And Infinitus, funny I use a similar nick myself many places and I agree perfectly with your deductions. However as you say, it gets problematic..was just looking for any clear replies. lak ps. Infinitus, nice signature but you need to add 'to' between 'has' and 'be' and intellectual has a typo

ye but that would involve just picking up a calculus book containing it, and she could reproduce the proof. ok bladdi bla about it a little bit...but a 4000 word extended essay on it?? don't know

because then it is literally constituent elements of something real. You don't as such ask that mass exists only because we perceive it. The point more consisely I was indicating was that the hardlink between information is that it is embedded in a dimension, just like mass is. Now it is your turn to still see information as abstract. I am just thinking that perhaps in the future we will have symmetrical theories of higher than 4-vectors lets say which includes lol lets say curvature of mind if that would help. But enough of that, like Grifter said this is a metaphysical topic (I mean that which Im rambling on about) and not physics. zips his mouth

oh and stebbins, the falling indefinitely is the same as when I used to tell young peeps that no circles have centres...leading into all objects converge into a obcect-dimensionality+1 aka the 4th dimension. Like all finite objects converge into infinity etc just to whop out an idea hihi

Then why do you not just read Wiki instead of writing on a forum full of strangers The Schw. solution would be long gone if one can't find reasons for it to be reasonable. I reiterate, There is nothing wrong with it mathematically. I just think with physics involved, the Kerr hole is the viable one (i.e. a black hole which is not artificially created) will most likely have angular momentum. I mean hey, do you know any other celestial object with no angular momentum? It is the fallacy of , like you say most of us people, who don't really know GR to get all caught up in the Schwarzchild, but just for technicality , I prefer thinking of EH's through Kerrs way thats all. If the metric was not well defined on the radius itself is predicting, it kinda would be shooting itself in the foot, don't you think? May I also point out that the S. metric is *not* equivalent to GR, but a solution of the Einstein tensor where the boundary of GR goes. Thus within it, GR breaks down I believe. This is why I say GR does not hold within the EH and I am pretty sure it is a known fact that GR predicts its own break down in these areas lak

Oh and I strongly recommend the more general Kerr solution than Schw. The S.R. is so popular cos it brings around the concept of the black hole itself in simpler terms. Although I do not thing black holes exist which are not Kerr holes.

Ye, good point. Tell me Alber.The way you work with things. How would an idea of a black hole (no wait), take away the black hole and generalize the celestial object to be rotating at c? (of course if anything , it would have to be(come) a black hole) What obvious limitations would you put on that idea and still , do you think that could be so?

Sorry Alber, dont misunderstand, don't think you approach things in a silly way at all But the electron might be a hole thing is not new and is not really viable. Mathematically perhaps, not physically. Like you mentioned earlier a set of mathematical solutions, which physics answers. I do think from many of your comments though you are heading into some important deductions in that which you are working with. However , not so sure if it still would yield ya a break-through photon position operator (device? or a mathematical entity ?) if I understand it correctly to be áccurate' beyond Heisenbergs certain uncertainty If so and it does, I guess you won't need to tell me, I will find out x

good stuff. Was worried the next thing which came up was that a black hole is a macroscopic electron

ya , thats right (for the sun, although thats according to the Schwarz. radius, dont trust it, so a black hole could easily have in reality half of that, 0.75km), but nvm. For the neutron star however, I get this Alber according to the trivial 2piR/t: assumed radius : 5 km , freq : 1122 so I get v = 1122 x 10000x pi m/s , dont you? In which case would be problematic and not ~ 0.1c oh sigh, what is the matter with me( I managed to mix up km/m so a order of magnitude of 3...thats what happens when you work with other things then pplug in the simplest ratios in the world :/), ye sure it is, just forget the whole thing and yup, 0.1 c is still far too low.... I guess the possibility of non rotating black holes exists. I just can't seem to convince myself of it.... mathematically sure thing, they are both valid but I just can not see how a black hole comes about without angular momentum sigh. Guess I will never live to see an object reported to be spinning at ~0.6 c... This would require a frequency of almost 5 kHz for a celestial object (in this case a 10 km neutron star) . I just got reminded why I abandoned GR several years ago... lak

Swansont gets the main points there Although I don't think there is anything wrong if people link. But for the record, how can you ask what happens if particles in some medium travel faster than light? These particles will either be A) as of now, still imaginary particles (tachyon principle) and so asking what happens with such particles is a little mind guessing.. or B) particles which due to size and lack of charge perhaps generally dont interact with that medium on a more macroscopic level (Do neutrinos still maintain a constant speed in water?) In which case I will stand ignorantly corrected *clicks on the link* EDIT: ( stands corrected )

haha to the last comment. sure, just pointing out to you that Schw. holes probably don't exist in nature so you asking if I agree, back to what I said about educated guesses then Yes, I know the theory about the supermassive black holes, but again like I said, thats assuming a supermassive black hole is a Schwar. hole, something I will go along with as long as we say its a Kerr hole, in that case, a supermassive hole will provide framedragging of such proportions that we are back to the complex situation of having great problems being near to an EH And to your first comment, GR doesnt break down beyond EH?? well, I guess I couldn't disagree with you more lak but hey, lets not complicate it too much eh

1st reply, yup nvm 2nd reply, yup, I agree 3rd reply. Yup, I see the Kerr metric as the viable one for existing black holes, not the Schw. metric

ajb, I studied at Warwick in the past, there is exactly 2 months between us in age. Completely useless fact but hey, I'm a personal kind of guy ;p

Ok, read the whole thing, one thing stebbins, read the forum rules. Not all are Native English speakers. And sure, semantically things get messed up with people assuming others know what this term and that term means. Perhaps that is due to someone having read other posts from yourself and assumes a certain understanding in some field, who knows. In any case, if someone is unclear, one just needs to state it, you dont have to go on about pigs, and f****....and 'dude', lol what a word. You sounded English for a good while at least ^^

and read some more, and just can't help myself. No matter how much I work in science, no matter how much in neural computing, neurology etc, we learn about the relations of the brain and thoughts, I just will never (well sure, if its proven , yet in my lifetime I do not think I will ever change belief, as I dont think this is true) EQUATE brain and mind why? simply because like I said in previous post, I think mind is literally a substance with qualities of +3D and therefore can not be the brain. That the body/brain and mind are all part of one object of N dimensions, sure thats a different ballgame. I know this is a mix of physics/maths/biology/chemistry/information theory/philosophy but hey the topic was here. lak PS> haha, just saw you stebbins mentioning the reading the whole thread, in fact just above my post, hihi. sorry I fell into that category right now. I normally try to but you touched something which was my brainchild so long ago :x

SOrry havent read all the posts, but dstebbins for the love of God, you touch exactly what I (being more a metaphysicist, epistemological philosopher) is or was rather concerned with (gave up everything with an awful predicition of neutron stars should be spinning faster than they do). Anyway, your notion is entirely right with respect to the information indeed exists in our minds or the mind of the observer. So, I would rather ask, what is the mind.. (and just completely disregard the so confused department of psychology). Obviously don't look at the relation of atp molecules and brain to mind , mind to brain relations as that goes back to what you said about putting into a computer something and out it spits a result, the black box. But just like space-time is invisible (and so we associated space with nothingness), through mathematics we saw properties of this manifold and indirectly have seen its effects, the same way I query if mind is a substance of some dimension which directly is therefore invisible as such (exceeds the 3 dimensions like space[-time] itself) but has indirect results (hey, we can think, hey we can manipulate the matter in our body, hey we create a relation between us and that which is observed , etc). In another post once I used the term epistemological physics. hehe. I know I'll get pun for this so won't at all go into this but will say I believe we will be able to make a cohesive model where such things as mind/emotions? etc will be part of a super-symmetrical manifold, which also will predict why information then becomes more real as such lak

sorry about that ajb, I merely used the most banal example, I know the definition, but in maths we do set the undefined as either boundary conditions or express them as well as infinites. Alas, in physics we have never found infinites? yes, singularities...hehe yes I know what you mean...But I just still am not willing to accept this inductive step that since we know not of infinites within the universe, that singularities are not either. I have a notion of black holes spinning at the speed of light... this would entail infinite curvature....or conversely, if there is an infinite curvature, they must spin at the speed of light... (just a notion, not stating this as fact...just want to show why I say I do not yet wanna reject the idea ) (oh , hehe and this is gonna might frustrate ya because I know this is just a metaphysical statement until provable?, but lets say I claimed a/the 4th dimension is actually a/the physical infinity) But ye last part is not really a part of the topic, sorry

Yup, that sums up the notion of the topology of GR. WE as in Earth? and yes, the Solar system is heliocentric. Kepler's laws still hold. The straight path following curves is basically the same notion which explains the centrifugal pseudoforce. An orbiting object due to inertia will travel in a straight line unless some force (centripetal for example) affects its path. The straight path analogy of curved space simply says that instead of hmm assigning an inherent gravitational force of mass in Newtonian mechanics, GR is saying that mass has the inherent ability to curve space.. in that case the same effect happens as Newtons force, and one can say that an object is travelling in a straight line in curved space. This intuitively makes perfect sense. If you magically removed the Earth instantenously, the moon would then keep moving but now in a straight line in flat space (disregarding the gravity curvature from other masses like the planets and the sun). Same thing as if you kept spinning a ball on a rope around you and cut the rope weeeeeeeee, ball flies off in a straight line (well, a trajectory but if we again disregard other masses, in this case the earth + drag, it would be a straight line). It is merely a geometrical interpretation of forces, in this case the Newtonian law of gravitation. About the 'Everything'. The answer is a lenient yes. Yes, because as far as we know, with regards to normal matter and light, this should follow the laws of physics , and all forms of energy are affected by the curvature of which it is embedded in. Yup, that includes light. However, why the leniency? Well, you get things such as virtual particles, quantum tunnelling, dark matter, etc which hmm does say, exceptions might exist. But for example, dark matter I think is said to neither emit, absorb or reflect light. This is the definition of matter per se (as in at a metaphysical, not necessarily scientific level). But this violates E = Mc^2 ; what happens if a photon hits dark matter??? completely bizarre to think about. But it is part of current cosmology and experimental physics. So the former yes must be given a lenient rather than strict connotation. WHAT the curvatures are.... This for various people in the scientific world (and on this forum) will entice many different opinions. But what most I would say agree on on a fundamental level, is that the curvatures is a geometrical understanding from differential geometry(topology) defined by Riemann, Einstein, Minkowski, bunch of others but the exact relation is probably the more specific Einstein tensor. What the opinions which are deduced though from this is where I say many vary on the interpretation....i.e. the quality of the continuum, which is the 'what' you are asking. If you want to get an idea, get popular non mathematical books like Hawkings, or Einsteins book relativity, hmm I have two good books I read when younger , Eric Damm (Norwegian astrophysicist but it is in Norwegian only I guess), and hmm whats his name again....Kaiko? hypercube something something dunno :X You see the what question relates a bit to the fact the continuum expands into something, which in the past was intuitively the universe...now we say the universe in contained in this continuum which curves... the question is then , is is inherently different from the hmm space it expands into or is that where it expands something we just can not imagine...or total nothingness? Will this imply if the space curves, and is not the same as nothingness, given virtual particles, it must necessarily be non zero Kelvin and have an energy density of positive semi-definite form or so there, something to work from, and probably others again rebounding some of what I said, saying no no no , that is not a correct interpretation hope this helps lak

Hmm, http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMPADBE8YE_index_0.html just saw that, to double-check something for me, could you(Alber? anyone?) tell me what you would say (if that data were to hold, for arguments sake) the rotatory velocity of that object is: diameter (seems to be assumed ) ~ 10 km frequency : 1122 Hz maybe one needs to predict a mass here (I used to use the relativistic equations for momentum for these things; however they were from SR so...) (Many years ago, the velocities of neutron stars just was too low to hold for where I was heading, so I kinda gave up on everything ) PS. Have also asked the same group which observed this object, to what angular velocity they attribute to the object.... I really need to see a ~ 0.6c

hehe, not an answer... typically something when people know the concepts involved in the problem but have on real insight of what might be the case.... if one did, the topic would of been far more discussed than just that But ye, on this topic I am ignorant. I am not sure if degenerate matter should be in the spectrum of extreme heat due tothe massive internal forces/pressures involved or if it is extreme cold and if a neutron star would be more isotropic or having a proportionality relation as one traverses radially, temperature-wise. I suspect they are extremely cold but damn if I'd know As I mentioned in a different post, I suspected neutron stars to have an angular momentum so great they would be spinning with ~ > 0.6c but nah, not at all :/

I agree mainly with all you say Lucaspa. And thanks about the probe (found the main site by now, was the frame dragging im interested in). Only one thing. You don't need to use analogys of space-time as driving and changing vector and without space-time continuum there is no universe. What I was trying to point out is this: Imagine framedragging so strong that curvature of space(-time) is even larger than purely by gravitational motion of mass.. In such an area c does not need be constant. As I saw in another post, someone was deducing something similar about radial and transverse photon velocity around a black hole I think. Anyway, why I stated it in this thread was due to since it had to do with the movement of space-time , then it caught my eye. Obviously the problem with lambda in cosmology contra QM, makes digressions like mine was, not surprising. Anyway, like I said , I still thought I saw the c change here, so I am somewhat confused about that; will continue postings on other threads as it seems like I trod on people's toes with this. ps. There is never a 'beyond' when one is discussing a closed frame

A note on the temperature things. Yes, this is an axiomatic claim, but I would definitely say no system whatsoever in this universe may be of 0 K (apart from one thing, follows). Temperature is a boundary condition of existence of energy like c is (vacuum wave propagation). i.e. no matter how much energy or heat you would add to a [closed] system of 0 K, the system would never increase its temperature from 0. Thus this infers only black holes may have 0 K, not a neutron star. Don't take this as a fact, (I'm more a metaphysicist in research), but this property came out as an 'seemingly' axiomatic property of the universe when I was working on these things. Going a little further would be to claim that this axiom would state that vacuum energy density > 0 as any [open] system of space having energy added with be reactive to it (virtual particles bla bla). Please note, this is not a scientific explanation but thought I would mention an axiom postulate I worked with which I think is worth mentioning when one talks about 0 K (metaphysics). ok, so on the neutron star....ye I also think QM (as Pauli's principle is of importance) is the best way forward to predict stability. Martin mentioned the way 'heat normally works' would make it hotter as one radially went inwards. Hmm, I am not so sure about that intuitively, but ya we unfortunately don't have a lot of these lovely celestial strangeities we could fly out n pick up a sample of and chuck into the good ol' testtube

I agree with what you say ajb, but I am not sure if I would say 'nobody' thinks we have infinite curvature.... why not? 1/0 is an infinity, but do we say division is meaningless...can we exctract any information about the special case n/0, sure. What is so factual conceptually with it not being able to be infinite? This layman popular way of everyone being space-time understanders of using D-1 dimensions in visualising curvature of space? I say I am happy to think the singularity is indeed an infinite curvature till theories meet each other enough to prove elsewise.

Norman, The whole point of Schwarzchilds weak metric solution is precisely indicating that physics inside and outside as such are not comparable. If it were , we (as in us humans) wouldn't be struggling with QM-relativity disparity, now would we In fact, I would say 'vacuum' is not even a good phrase too use as space-time outside EH, and within had a look at your papers, interesting. An alternative model on electrons or an augmentation of its wave and particle interpretation might happen, hope you not thinking an electron might be a small [black] hole? (Question was more on some other thread I was reading, but anyway) lak