Jump to content

Slinkey

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Slinkey

  • Rank
    Meson
  • Birthday 08/11/1966

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hertford, UK
  • Interests
    Science, golf, reading.
  • College Major/Degree
    Currently studying towards Physics Degree (first year).
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  1. Yes, I understand how interference is created. If you recall my thought experiment called for the entangled particles to be sent to separate double slit experiments one of which has a detector on one of the slits to see which slit the particle went through, and the other does not. As I understand it in the DS experiment, if we let a particle pass through the apparatus undetected we reveal its wave behaviour and an interference pattern will build up on the screen. If we detect which slit the particle went through then we don't get an interference pattern. This implies that we have destroyed
  2. I don't recall saying that it did. I am under the impression that when we measure some property of a particle we collapse its wavefunction. This explains why we don't get interference in the double slit experiment when we look to see which slit it went through. We've asked it to be a particle so we can see where it went, and the wave function collapses. Is this not correct? So if the wave function is describing an entangled state, when it collapses doesn't its collapse result in two particles?
  3. I was under the impression that entangled particles are described by the same wave equation. I always took this to mean that the wave equation describes both particles and that if one particle collapses the wave equation then the collapse happens for the other particle as well. Thus in experiment 2 where we have the detected particle collapsing the wave equation first it will destroy the wave nature of the other particle. But as you have asked if these states are entangled it's made me think I have misunderstood something basic about entanglement.
  4. Apologies if this has been asked before but as this thought experiment doesn't have a title that I'd know of it's hard to search for it to see if it has been asked. We have a pair of entangled particles. They fly apart toward a different experiment each. Particle A is flying towards the classic double slit experiment which reveals the wave nature of light and the classic interference pattern. Particle B is flying towards another double slit experiment but this one has a detector on one of the slits so we can see which slit the particle went through. There are three ways we can
  5. Thanks for the link. Interesting to read the remarks.
  6. Well, looking back on this thread I'm sad to see it fell into bickering. Apologies for my part in that bickering. I got a little frustrated at not getting my point across, and felt I was not being understood. I'd like to reignite this thread in a more congenial manner. We have fundamental disagreement on the existence of black holes, and looking above I could've used a different way of explaining myself to make my point clearer. First though I would like to hear thoughts on this article which made me come back to this thread. http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9187/20140925/ar
  7. Err, no. It's precisely because of the different reference frames that this argument comes about and even the part you quoted states it. In the reference frame outside the EH an infinite amount of time must pass before we see anyone cross the EH. The other reference frame - falling in - crosses the EH and is obliterated. As the BH evaporates in less than infinite time then the person outside will never see anyone cross the EH. You can argue all you like about the person claimed to be falling in but it can never be observed from outside the EH as Susskind clearly states. Now we have
  8. I always read the entire reply and choose what I see as the relevant statements. No, that's incorrect. According to Hawking the mass loss of the BH is due to negative energy crossing the EH. If positive energy crosses then it gains weight. In fact I can think of a way round this. The EH does not have a precise location. If it did it would defy Heisenberg Uncertainty. If a virtual particle-antiparticle pair is created within that region then one could appear beneath the horizon and the other above it. If the positive particle is above the horizon then the BH loses mass due to
  9. If you are asking do I have an alternative theory, then no I don't, but I do have a question about the article. It states "In fact, recent observations[15] indicate that the radius is no more than 6.25 light-hours, about the diameter of Uranus' orbit." I worked out the Schwarzchild radius for 4.1 million solar masses and it came out 12,109,072,691.52m, or 40.39 light seconds (feel free to check that), so if the mass is not confined within that radius it isn't a BH. Agreed? 6.25 light hours is substantially larger than 40.39 light seconds. So, you tell me. Are you sure there's
  10. You accept Hawking radiation, yes? You have already stated that you will never see Alice cross the EH due to the infinite time dilation. BHs evaporate due to HR. As you will never see Alice cross the EH, when the BH has evaporated, where is Alice? I'll have to re-listen to the audio book and find the part.
  11. Hawking radiation. He says it quite early on. I have the audio book so don't have a page number.
  12. Chris, I'm inclined to think they don't exist at all.
  13. The event of falling toward the EH is outside the EH and is in principle observable by anyone outside the EH. And you also accept that BHs evaporate, yes? So if you never see Alice cross the EH and the BH evaporates then on which side of the EH was/is Alice? It's not a fact. It's a conjecture that has never been evidenced except by math that is known to be incomplete. I suggest you read Leonard Susskind's "The Black Hole War" because he disagrees with you. In fact the only way he can reconcile it is by invoking "black hole complementarity" in the same vein as particl
  14. A zero frequency does not equal an infinite wavelength. Zero frequency equals zero energy and zero wavelength. So nothing passes the EH. As a photon moves toward an EH it's wavelength tends towards infinity. No, at infinite wavelength you have an undefined but non-zero frequency. At zero frequency you simply have nothing. Tunneling occurs when barriers get so small that their own wave properties come into play and aren't barriers in the classical sense. At quantum dimensions "barriers" is not a meaningful term. This is all moot anyway because you don't see photons unless
×
×
  • 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.