elfmotat

I have some clues but no evidence. This post is to encourage the insiders to disclose evidence privy to them.

 

You caught us! How did you find out? Did someone tip you off? I've already informed my Illuminati bosses of the existence of this thread, so I hope you went through at least seven proxies!

That does not correspond with wiki...

"The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole.

It seems the wiki is wrong, or at least poorly worded. If you compress a mass to its Schwarzschild radius it certainly will collapse, but that is not at all its defining characteristic. As I've said, collapse will become inevitable before it is compressed to its Schwarzschild radius.

 

Somebody should probably fix that.

 

EDIT: Upon re-reading, the wiki is not really wrong. The article does not actually mention gravitational collapse, it just says that a mass smaller than its Schwarzschild radius will have an event horizon, which is true. I still think it's a bit badly worded though.

Thanks for that, but im still working on establshing that the EH and schwartzchild radius are not the same for a black hole...and I have all the info I need to do that...

 

Except that they are (for a black hole with no angular momentum or charge), by the definition of the Schwarzschild radius.

This is what I have stated about the subject since the beginning...

 

"The schwartsman radius defines at what volume mass needs to be compressed to create the effects of a BH....the actual event horizon of that black hole does NOT correspond to this size..."

 

You have it reversed. The Schwarzschild radius does not define at what radius something will become a black hole. That may vary depending on the specifics of the star/mass/whatever that's undergoing collapse. The radius at which you are guaranteed collapse is at 9/8 its Schwarzschild radius. For a BH with zero angular momentum the event horizon does correspond to its Schwarzschild radius.

 

Gravitational collapse means event horizon in that example, correct?

 

No. It means the matter will collapse in on itself due to its own gravity to form a black hole. A "horizon" means "point of no return." As ajb previously mentioned, the specifics involving the formation of horizons are still not completely known.

I have no intuitive knowledge of what may happen inside a black hole...

 

My intuitive knowledge says that I could never get close enough to an event horizon without being physically destroyed by forces created by the black hole...I myself have never imagined the inside of a black hole...i figured that the forces of the universe change inside it...it my thoery and how i have envisioned it before, spacetime itself is totally interupted at the event horizon which makes passing through it impossible from either direction...i suppose i always envissioned everything which makes contact with the event horizon is suspended in animation, physicaly smashed on the surface of it...

 

as far as I know the only way to increase my fall into the center would be to add energies in the direction to the center...and to slow it would be adding energies away from center...Adding orbital energies would have little effect on free fall towards the center...

 

This is why it's important to learn the math. Intuition is not a good guide for physical matters.

 

Falling into a supermassive black hole would be better. The tidal forces at the horizon would be negligible, and you would pass right through without noticing a thing. Nothing special happens there, it's just a point of no return.

 

As for how to maximize your time of survival: do precisely nothing. Geodesics are paths of maximal proper time. Trying to fight your way out will only make you die faster.

 

IS anything in math a "thing" anymore? mass, volume, energy? isnt it all just existance of values in math?

 

Angular momentum...like my golf ball example...im with you...

 

Mass, volume, and energy are all observables. I.e. you can measure them. You can't measure a vector. There are different types of vectors, and some of them have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics.

 

Why is the schwartzchikd radius a defined as the radius at which a BH occurs if its actually 9/8ths? I dont get that at all...was schwarctzcgild wrong is his original math? I have not seen 9/8ths anywhere in reference to schwartzchild, now that im reading about it..so, the only source of this info is you and im wondering if youre still confused about it..

 

Do you still think the schwartzchild radius defines the beginning of an EH? cuz it does not...

 

The point at which gravitational collapse becomes inevitable is at 9/8 the Schwarzschild radius. This is known as Buchdahl's Theorem -- Schutz's textbook has a section on it. After the mass has collapsed into a black hole, its event horizon will be located at its Schwarzschild radius (assuming it has no angular momentum).

A vector is a mathematical object. It is not a "thing" that exists. I recommend picking up an introductory Newtonian physics textbook.

 

For a black hole with zero angular momentum (called a "Schwarzschild black hole") the event horizon is at [math]R_{EH}=R_S=2GM/c^2[/math]. This radius is called the "Schwarzschild radius."

 

For a black hole with angular momentum (called a "Kerr black hole") the event horizon is not at its Schwarzschild radius. Instead, it is found at:

 

[math]R_{EH} = \frac{GM}{c^2}+ \sqrt{\left ( \frac{GM}{c^2} \right )^2 - \left (\frac{J}{Mc} \right )^2} = \frac{R_S}{2}+ \sqrt{\left ( \frac{R_S}{2} \right )^2 - \left ( \frac{J}{Mc} \right )^2}[/math]

 

If you take a ball of mass M and compress it down to a radius of less than [math]R=9GM/4c^2 = 9 R_S / 8[/math], the internal pressure required to counteract gravity and prevent collapse into a black hole becomes infinite. In other words, if you compress a mass down to less than 9/8 its Schwarzschild radius, it has no choice but to become a black hole.

 

I believe that probably answers most of your questions.

Not entirely true.

When (charge neutral) photon passes through region with strong magnetic field, its polarization is rotating.

From not polarized light, we can have linear polarized light on demand (when current flows through electromagnet and creates external magnetic field).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_rotator

 

I wouldn't exactly call that an "interaction" by any usual definition of the word. Superposition is not an interaction.

 

 

Compare differences between Hydrogen and Deuterium spectral lines.. and then with Tritium.

The only difference between them is mass in nucleus, caused by additional neutrons.

 

I didn't say "mass and gravity don't exist," I said you can treat the gravitational interaction as being zero if the masses involved are sufficiently small. Which you can.

Gravity is different from the other three forces in a number of important ways:

• It is described by a rank-2 tensor field. The other three forces are described by rank-1 tensor fields, AKA vector fields. This translates into photons, gluons, and the weak bosons having spin-1, while the theoretical graviton is predicted to have spin-2.
• It couples to all other fields/matter. Anything with energy-momentum will generate a gravitational field. Electromagnetism only couples to fields/matter with charge. The weak force only couples to fields/matter with weak charge, and the strong force only couples to fields/matter with color charge. If there's a particle, you can bet it's effected by gravity.
• Gravity is incompatible with modern Quantum Field Theory, the basis of the Standard Model. The other three forces have descriptions in terms of quantum fields. In particular, General Relativity has been proven to be non-renormalizable. A successful quantum field theory of gravity has yet to be developed, though there are a number of well-known approaches to solve this problem -- String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity being the most recognizable.
• Gravity is a geometric force. The other three forces are described in terms of fields on a background spacetime. With gravity, the field is spacetime itself. This property gives rise to the equivalence principle, which is why heavy objects and light objects will fall at the same rate. This may in fact turn out to be less of a distinction than you might think. Kaluza-Klein type theories can also describe the other forces/matter in terms of geometry, though they require extra spatial dimensions. For example, gravity + adding a fourth spatial dimension in a particular way gives rise to electromagnetism, with electric charge being the conserved momentum through the extra dimension.
• Gravity is much much much weaker than the other three forces. I've heard this example used before: a tiny fridge magnet is strong enough to overcome the force of the entire Earth pulling down on it. You too; you can walk around the surface of the planet with relative ease, lift objects, etc. Ever tried to pull apart two strong magnets?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "absolute lower limit." I'm not aware of any such thing in QFT. If two masses are sufficiently small, you can indeed treat the gravitational interaction between them as zero. This is what is done in quantum theory -- the masses involved are so small and gravity is so weak that it is completely negligible.

Sir...you also have misunderstandings and have posted false conclusions...

 

Im not interested in hearing how I know things you dont know because I am wrong though...Who's pride is being effected here? Im done

 

That's not very fair. I put my time and effort into giving you informative responses, and I'd like to think I've been very patient. I can't help if you aren't willing to learn.

You are not correct about "anyone can learn" the math...IQ of 70? And maybe not everyone can use their imagination to see certain effects as real...ever tried discussing an issue of visualization with a "dumb" person? Its just as hard as talking math...is there a better word for low IQ than dumb? sorry....

 

Anyone without a mental handicap.**

 

Ha...I was that student...

 

So did you learn from your mistake? Did you realize that having the right answer doesn't make you right? The process by which you get to the answer is often more important than the answer itself.

 

and earlier in this post I describe the inverse square law to a T...without using or knowing the equation of inversed squares...

 

That's cool, I guess. I just don't know why you're making it a matter of pride that you don't understand that math. Why anyone would be proud of their ignorance is beyond me. Are you just trying to give us the impression that you have overwhelming levels of raw intelligence?

 

I myself have not been convinced that there is any experimental type proof of black holes being formed by supernova...I will surely go rad what you posted

 

Please do.

 

I was only concerned that there IS a radius, at which point, a certain mass can take on BH properties...its the way I think...you can tell, im much less concened about all those vectors involved in figuring things out...I go right for the tensor...and it has proved to work for my understandings...this post is the first discussion ive ever had with anyone who had actually studied GR and has math info...But i have listened to 1000s of hours of youtube lectures over 10 years...so the math as you know it has been well described to me...the effects and how it all works together...just not how it works as math...and I know this means I will never be able to make a true model of my own...But I can hold a discussion about GR, cant i? I think im doing OK

 

To be honest, no, you're not really doing OK. Your posts are riddled with misconceptions and strange leaps of logic, all of which are quite tedious to correct. That's why I suggested picking up a textbook -- to avoid what's happening right now.

 

If schwartzchild is right, or there is ANY radius, that a certain mass, when reduced to it, will create a black hole...then its very easy to say that the mass of my finger has a radius, at which point, when compressed down to that radius will make a black hole...thats straight up easy logic for beginners...will it go through the effecst of gravity? yes...fusion...all of it...

 

Okay.

 

If you read the bit about the pitcher and such, i may not need to answer this...

 

I don't understand how you're getting from "some of the BH's energy is stored in its angular momentum" to "therefore its event horizon is smaller." The two seem utterly disconnected.

 

If energy exists, can it exist without a vector? I dont think so...look to the definition of vectors...every energy has a directional component called a vector

 

This is absolutely 100% false. Energy is not a vector. Energy is a scalar quantity. It has magnitude and no direction. This is why it's important not to use terminology you do not understand.

 

Why does spin create the need for the radius to be shrunk in order to create a BH?

 

I don't know that there's an intuitive explanation. It comes from the Kerr solution to the Einstein Field Equations, which describes the geometry of spacetime around a black hole with angular momentum. I don't think it's possible to reach such a conclusion based solely on energy considerations.

 

Cuz the spin takes energy away from gravity...that radius is really a point at which you have given mass more energy, to effect gravity more and more until you get a black hole...and it all does come with a "direction" or vectoral component...Its about the collective "angles" of the vectors...they can create spin, or gravity, not both at the same time...

 

The energy of the gravitational field is not well-defined in general relativity, so this argument truly makes no sense.

 

You should note that when you shrink the volume of any mass, its takes energy...the common term is called compressive energy...thats what it apparently takes to shrink any volume...In our example, we have been trying to shrink the volume of a mass without adding pressure....

 

Gravity is an attractive force. It takes more energy to hold two objects apart than to bring them together.

 

How does nature pull this off? It adds more mass...how? fusion...turning light little matter into heavy friggin matter in the same relative volume...

 

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

I have a posting called "math as a waveform science"...it implies that math was never meant to count digits or to account for them...it implies that math digitizes waveforms in order to understand them...but is that the only way to interpret the knowledge of waveforms?

Waveforms complete math as they combine and interact...no digitizing needed in that process

 

Are you talking about Fourier analysis? I fail to see how that's relevant to the conversation.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus

 

Trust me. Watch through a few of those videos and you'll do fine.

What is happening in the scwarthchild problem? If you shrink the volume with the same mass to a certain point, it becomes a black hole...

 

Agreed.

 

Just as the math makes nosense to me, but still works...

 

Except that the math can make sense to anyone if they put the time into learning it. I'm trying very hard to understand what you're saying, but there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between any of your arguments and your conclusion.

 

If supernove sometimes maybe lead to the formation of black holes, we can say that supernova maybe a spurious correlation to the effect

 

This also makes no sense to me. Do you agree that supernovae can create BH's or not?

 

The worst logici ever heard is knowing that my results are right and claiming my process of getting there is wrong...

Gosh....I just got lucky again, eh?

 

A young student is trying to simplify the fraction 16/64. He notices that there's a six in the numerator and denominator. He remembers from class that you can cancel numbers that appear in the numerator and denominator. This is how he solves the problem:

 

[math]\frac{16}{64} = \frac{1 \! \! \not{} \! 6}{\not{} \! 6 4} = \frac{1}{4}[/math]

 

This is the right answer, as you can check, but the logic the went into obtaining it was faulty. Right answer, wrong reason.

 

But all supernova do not lead to black holes..for you to make them the reason for black holes holds NO logic

 

I don't understand. All I said was that this is the way BH's usually form, by our current understanding.

 

All i need is the mass in my finger to create a black hole...

 

That's all you need? I'd be very curious to watch you create a black hole with your finger... from a safe distance of course. From Mars, maybe.

 

and the energy to reduce its volume...that logic is schwarwxchlld at work...

 

What energy to reduce its volume? You're jumping from one seemingly disconnected point to another.

 

Your logic doesn't hold up...you would have to show proof that supernova do create black holes...ill be waiting for links to proof

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Core_collapse

 

All the links you'll ever need can be found in the citations of that article.

 

Yknow what creates a black hole...when the volume of any given mass shrinks below the scwartzchild radius...

 

I thought I already explained that collapse becomes inevitable at 9/8 the Schwarzschild radius. I'm also not completely sure what point you're trying to make.

 

Because you cannot see what I see, theres no reason to get snippy

 

Thank you, o' chosen one, for gracing us commonfolk with your vast intellect.

 

Im not concerned with who was right about the radius or why...only that a radius does exist for a given amount of mass to now create a black hole...

 

Okay. I agree with you that such a radius does indeed exist.

 

if you can understand why a spinning curve ball will never be thrown as fast as a non spinning fastball, by the same pitcher, then you can understand that when a mass is spinning, it needs more energy to create the same gravity as a non spinning mass

 

Why would that automatically translate into a smaller event horizon? Explain how you're getting from A to B. I agree that the EH will be smaller, but I still don't see the logic here.

 

If you undersand GR, there is no difference between me throwing a ball, or gravity effecting a ball...its just energy that moves the ball

 

Energy doesn't "move" anything. Energy is a property, not a thing.

 

if you spend some of that energy on spinning it, you reduce the power behind the vector that induces motion...cuz you decide to spend some on the vector that creates spin....that should make good sense

 

Why does that translate into a smaller event horizon?

 

and there would be no difference in the energy it takes to account for spin, and the energy it takes to account for gravity...but the same energy cant do both tasks....it must be divided

 

This also makes little sense.

Ya..see the event horizon precisely as "nothing"...not a thing...

 

But we were talking about masses that become black holes...not the black hole after being made...in the case of masses that become black holes, if they are spinning, the radius that determines the volume of the black hole zone of volume needs to shrink...you allready agreed with that

How did i intuitively know the results?

 

I agree with the conclusion, not the logic that went into forming it. Your explanation still makes no sense to me.

Super nova do not create black holes on every occurence...therefore, I say, black holes are not a remnant of stars who supernova

 

A sometimes but not always creates B. Therefore A never creates B.

 

That's probably the worst logic I've ever heard.

I was being a bit sloppy with my language earlier when I called a Kerr BH a "rotating" BH. I should have been more precise and just called it "a BH with angular momentum." Unfortunately this isn't nearly as easy to explain as simply calling it "rotating," because the latter evokes nice (albeit probably misleading) imagery in the mind.

It doesnt matter how much energy you lose...if your energy can become compressed tight enough, you have a black hole...

 

Yes, but earlier you were saying that you must add energy to form a black hole, which is simply not true.

I have been using my imagination...lets just say that, when you throw a curve ball, it can never go as fast as your fast ball, because you must use a good amount of energy to create the spin and now that energy does not exist in forward energy to create speed...

 

With gravity, any offset in mass from a center point (non symetrical objects) would create a vector with spin...that mass can be inside the object itself, or not...in other words, an object can create its own spin, or can be effected to spin by another mass...but since considering all mass in any given volume of space to be "one mass", this should be intuitive...

 

If the vectors effecting any given mass, create spin, then we will need more energy to produce gravity...so, if the schawrtzchild object begins to spin, we know we need to effectively shrink the radius, requiring more energy to now create the BH...

 

Except the event horizon is not a "thing" that requires energy to move. It's a location in space. Black holes do not have extended volumes, so it doesn't really make sense to think of it as "spinning." It's probably more apt to just consider it an intrinsic property, much like spin in quantum physics. Nothing is "really" spinning, but the angular momentum is still there.

It we compress the volume of earth down to the schwartzchild radius, it will contribute enough added energy to create a black hole...not at all a small amount at all...

 

That's not how black holes form. They (usually) form when the core of a large star collapses in on itself due to its own gravity. There's no "added energy." If anything lots and lots of energy is lost because the outer layers of the star will (usually) explode in an event called a supernova.

 

Also, just to add to the conversation, the Schwarzschild radius is not the radius at which gravitational collapse is inevitable. That actually occurs at [math]R=9GM/4c^2 = 9 R_S / 8[/math], which is a bit larger than the Schwarzschild radius. At that radius the internal pressure required to prevent gravitational collapse becomes infinite.

Thanks for the correction and detail.

 

No problem

I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius...

 

I don't understand the logic that went into this, but you're correct. A black hole with angular momentum will have a smaller event horizon than a non-rotating black hole with equivalent mass.

 

The event horizon of a rotating black hole is given by:

 

[math]R_{EH} = \frac{GM}{c^2}+ \sqrt{\left ( \frac{GM}{c^2} \right )^2 - \left (\frac{J}{Mc} \right )^2}[/math]

 

where M is the BH's mass and J is its angular momentum. As you can see, adding angular momentum shrinks the event horizon. The maximum occurs at J=0, which is equivalent to a Schwarzschild BH with its event horizon given by the Schwarzschild radius.

 

I believe the radius of the event horizon for a Kerr black hole is the same as for a non-rotating one (but the black hole is no longer simply defined by the event horizon).

 

It's not quite that simple. The event horizon of a Kerr BH is no longer given by its Schwarzschild radius -- it is given by the equation above. In the case of Kerr BH's we also have a second, larger horizon to deal with called the ergosphere. Inside the ergosphere everything must rotate with the BH. Both the ergosphere and the event horizon shrink with increasing angular momentum.

Yes...feynman was my personal tutor on youtube and has been for years...along with some other fellas who won nobel peace prizes...

 

I love the part when he kinda scoffs and says "this is what newton dreamed up about gravity"...lol...dreaming got him really far

 

Are you watching the same video as me?

 

and believing that GR and QM in either of their current states will be the most correct answers in 200 years is really short sighted...if we lived that long, id put all my money on it...

 

When did anyone say otherwise? This seems very tangential.

 

If you dont want to take the time to ration out my words with interpretive communication skills, its ok...They have moved me to speculations, so, we can just talk openly..there is no thoery to prove any of it...yet

 

To prove any of what?

 

I know i need to keep it close to reality and real science, but asking which forces are complimentary forces and which are frame forces seems to be legit in QM if it will ever be figured out...it seems we can throw our own ideas around...thats what I did...I tried to keep them within the realm of QM, even though I posted in GR...but its really a piece about unifying them

 

I have no idea what you mean by "complimentary forces" and "frame forces." I've never encountered those terms before.

Mordred, I beileve it was you, urging to me that I did not need the gluon field to understand GR geometry...or the impetus of why...i had to really consider it all...and you were totally right...I think...

 

What Im trying to establish in my head is that mass effects spacetime, due to its own propeties (vector and energy), and from the vectors of other mass in its relative vicinity...

 

Its tied to another point that was discussed...If you brought a magnet into a room with no EMF, then the only EMF in the room would be sourced by the magnet...when you heat the magnet, it loses it's magnetic properties and the field IT created is now gone...If we couldnt get a room free of EMF, could we at least distinguish the EMF created by the magnet itself to run the same experiment?...I know heat would not disable the entire EMF from the room, but it would disable the EMF created by the magnet...

 

Replace EMF with space-time, and replace Magnet with mass...then youd replace heat with gravity...

 

If you brought a mass into a room with no space_time, then the only space-time in the room would be sourced by the mass...when you add gravity to the mass, it loses it's mass-like properties and the field (space-time) it created is now gone...If we couldnt get a room free of gravity, could we at least distinguish the gravity created by our mass from the rest of gravity created from other mass to run the same experiment?...I know gravity would not disable the entire space-time from the room, but it would disable the space-time created by the mass we entered with...

 

Now just replace gravity with compression...

 

I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not going to get any direct meaningful responses to posts like these. It's so full of vague concepts and misconceptions that you're better off addressing what isn't wrong with it than what is. I think you need to start from scratch, ridding your brain of any popsci analogies/explanations you may have come across.

 

So basically, I believe black holes are examples of where intense gravity disables GR geometry and the grid it creates at the event horizon...no grid means no space and no time...

 

This again makes no sense. I don't know what you mean by "a grid," or "disables GR geometry." Such a terms are far too vague to be meaningful.

 

Plus, there is space and time at the event horizon. Who told you there isn't?

Sure...lets try it once...Thats exactly what I would expect..

I dont think math is the only way to predict something...

 

Math is the only way to unambiguously, quantitatively, numerically predict something. Math is the language of physics. Physics consists of mathematical models compared with experimental/observational data. Below is a video you may find informative. Pay close attention to the part at 5:00, where he discusses vague theories and why they are not scientific.

 

When youre paying people, wasting time is income...

 

Frustrating income

 

I have allready started in on two books,,,either strange or mordred reccomended them...

 

It turns out, most of the questions I have are the ones that dont have solutions or answers yet...

 

That's all well and good. It's good to be intrigued by the unknown. Unfortunately, knowing how to push the boundaries of the unknown takes years and years of learning and training.

 

I do understand that these foljks used GR to figure these solutions...the question` then becomes, could the circumstance of their presuppositions ever exist? Because a mathemathical solution is found doesnt really mean that it could happen...it means if it did happen, they can predict the outcome...that may be kinda shakey to some...

 

It's based on General Relativity, which is so far the best, most accurate theory of gravity we have. Extrapolating our theories to the unknown is part of physics. You take what's known, extrapolate, then compare to reality. A good approximation of empty space is intergalactic space, which is indeed approximately Minkowskian.

 

Is geometry the cause or effect...i say its an effect of something else, and in this case, not space foam.

 

This is what I meant by ill-defined nonsensical questions. I don't know how to answer because it's not really a meaningful question.

 

Even in GR ,it seems that the geometry is an effect of vectors...

 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean either. Geometry is geometry, not vectors. Vectors can be useful mathematical objects, but they certainly don't define the geometry of spacetime.

 

those vectors originate in mass and energy...

 

This also makes little sense to me.

 

to me, its like saying, without any motion of any sort from a mass, would spacetime be curved?

 

This doesn't make any sense either. At least, it's a poorly formed question. No motion according to who? Why would there need to be motion for curvature?

 

Are there vector without relative motions?

 

Vectors are mathematical objects. There are types of vectors that have absolutely nothing to do with motion, relativity, or even physics.

 

Maybe its more important to decide if it is possible before doing an equations...even if your equations could give you an answer...

 

I can't follow this either.

 

i suppose im ever stuck in a world of imagination...all these things I talk about seem to become questions of philosophy I guess....

 

That's kind of a problem if you ever want to actually learn any physics. Physics is not philosophy. Physics is mathematical models of reality, which can be falsified by experiment.

 

"I think his point really becomes that the geometry is created by the vectors and tensors of the particles that enter spacetime...they have motions and energies and the geometry created by THEM, is that which then effects THEM, is caused by THEIR influence...individually and as a group"

 

I don't really know if I like that description. It seems to imply that energy-momentum causes spacetime curvature, which is simply not true by any common understanding. Einsteinian curvature and energy-momentum are equivalent, i.e. if you have one you have the other. Asking which causes which is sort of nonsensical. They both cause and effect each other. The geometry effects the matter, and the matter effects the geometry.

I offer the money so that an expert would take the time to discuss things with me and not just send me links

 

 

I recommend purchasing an introductory GR textbook. Asking questions usually isn't the difficult part -- it's knowing which questions to ask that can be hard. A good textbook will do that for you. Otherwise you might end up wasting people's time by asking nonsensical or ill-defined questions.

 

Schutz and Hartle, together, are probably your best bet. Schutz focuses more on the underlying math, has a wonderful section at the beginning to go over special relativity, vectors, dual vectors, tensors, etc., for people who may not be familiar with differential geometry. The first half gives you a great intuition for the notation, the basics of differential geometry, and the ideas that led to the Einstein Field Equations. The second half is about solutions to the field equations, approximation methods like linearized gravity, gravitational waves, etc. Hartle focuses mostly on solutions to the EFE's, and how to extract meaning from different metrics.

 

My favorite book on GR is Carroll's, but it may be a bit beyond a first-time-learner's level if they aren't already somewhat familiar with the formalism. For reference texts, MTW and Wald are great. MTW goes over hundreds of topics in great detail, though it is admittedly a bit outdated. Wald is more up to date and has a very formal mathematical approach to things.

 

If you have any specific questions, this forum can often be very helpful. There are a number of people here who are familiar with GR. For very technical questions, I might redirect you to the physics stack exchange.

I also predicted that space and time did not exist...Did you see that in my post?

 

You didn't "predict" it, you just stated it. That's not the same thing. If you wanted me to, I could go through all the calculations in GR which actually predict (i.e. numerically, quantitatively, non-ambiguously) that spacetime converges to a singularity as t goes to zero. Can you do the same with your ideas?

 

 

I find it interesting that while in forums, folks dont really address what is being said...SO much of my post is just ignored...but there are points all through it I was hoping to discuss...

 

Unfortunately, this is because your "points" are rather vague and ill-defined. It's hard to address questions that don't really make much physical sense. If you had asked more concrete questions then I would have given concrete answers to those questions. Instead, your OP seems more like existential musings rendered into prose. I did the best I could with what you provided -- I gave concrete answers to the general sentiment of the post.

 

If you want me to go through line by line and address each point individually, my response will mostly consist of "please define X," or "X doesn't make sense," or "what do you mean by X?"

General Relativity says that energy-momentum and spacetime curvature are equivalent. Neither "creates" the other. The field equation of GR is:

 

[math]G_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} \, T_{\mu \nu}[/math]

 

the left hand side is spacetime curvature, T is energy-momentum density, and they are related by a constant.

 

As for quantum gravity, the straightforward approach you would expect to use for a quantum field theory of gravity simply does not work. For the other three forces + matter, you take the Lagrangian of the theory and plug it into the path integral. After some very clever and tedious calculations you will be able to use this to make numerical predictions about different types of interactions that might take place by using a process called renormalization. It was mathematically proven a number of years ago that GR simply is not renormalizable. I.e. QFT and GR are simply not compatible as-is. Either our theory of gravity needs to be reconsidered, or our approach to QFT, or both. There are a number of approaches which purport to solve this problem, String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity being the most well-known, though none has been completely successful.

 

That being said, we are not completely at a loss. There are a number of things we can do which we can be reasonably confident about. For example, semi-classical gravity, where the stress-energy tensor in the GR field equation is replaced by the expectation value of the stress-energy operator:

 

[math]G_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} \, \langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu} \rangle[/math]

 

This gives an approximation method for finding the gravitational field generated by a quantum field, though we are still considering spacetime as a classical object. We are also able to do QFT calculations on curved background spacetimes, giving us a good approximation of how quantum fields behave in the vicinity of, for example, a black hole. This is how things like Hawking radiation and black-hole entropy are rigorously analyzed.

 

I believe Strange answered your question regarding the Big Bang. GR predicts spacetime was a singularity at t=0. I.e. GR predicts that space and time simply did not exist "before" t=0. This obviously seems a bit unphysical. Until there's a successful quantum theory of gravity we probably won't know much about what was actually going on.

 

That's why 50 was better than 30, it gave us time to check up and see if someone is simply padding the count or not. I think the incentivizing aspect diminishes somewhat when the requirement is higher, too.

 

The Report function is better these days, too, and the membership has been very good about reporting spam and other rotten posts. I think we all could spot most of the newcomers who are trying to cut corners to reach 50.

 

Good point. It's hard to sneak 50 useless posts past everyone.

 

I recall we just wound up granting exceptions to anybody and everybody who requested early admittance so the threshold became little more than moot and needlessly irritating anyway.

 

That seems like a simple problem to fix though: no exceptions. Everyone needs to stick around until the quota is met. That would ensure two things: 1) that members aren't signing up only to start religious debates, and 2) that they actually have some knowledge or curiosity about science, which is, after all, the theme of the website.