Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#2I've never heard of "gravity's rainbow". It seems that it's what happens when one derives general relativity using "doubly special relativity" instead of normal special relativity. I hadn't heard of "doubly special relativity" either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly_special_relativity
It seems to have been around for at least ten years but perhaps never gained much traction. In short, this seems like it may be an interesting result that only applies in a fringe variation of accepted modern theory. Perhaps someone with actual training in physics can comment in more detail.
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#3 "In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval"
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#4"In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval" Does this imply that neither space nor time can go below the given threshold independently? I.e.: could a situation be imagined where time remains above the minimal interval, but space is below? Also, would those answers be different depending on the observer's time / position?
I had never head of anything like this. Does that mean that space and time are somehow discrete instead of continuous?
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#5Would this imply hawking radiation doesn't exist? Can we no longer use black holes as a potential energy source?
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#6"In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval" Does this imply that neither space nor time can go below the given threshold independently? I.e.: could a situation be imagined where time remains above the minimal interval, but space is below? Also, would those answers be different depending on the observer's time / position?
I had never head of anything like this. Does that mean that space and time are somehow discrete instead of continuous?
This idea kind of ties into the idea of a 'computable' universe: I'm no expert but this article gives some ideas[1].
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#7"In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval" Does this imply that neither space nor time can go below the given threshold independently? I.e.: could a situation be imagined where time remains above the minimal interval, but space is below? Also, would those answers be different depending on the observer's time / position?
I'm definitely not an expert, but I was under the impression that both space and time are already thought to be discrete and have minimum quanta, Planck length (10^-36 m) and Planck time (10^-44 s). I guess this new theorem suggests that not only do they have minimum values, they don't exist between these points. Sort of like how pixels aren't really sized objects, but they sort of fill the space between them -- this might be a terrible analogy.
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#8"In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval" Does this imply that neither space nor time can go below the given threshold independently? I.e.: could a situation be imagined where time remains above the minimal interval, but space is below? Also, would those answers be different depending on the observer's time / position?
I had never head of anything like this. Does that mean that space and time are somehow discrete instead of continuous?
For all practical purposes, they kind of appear to be:
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#9Would this imply hawking radiation doesn't exist? Can we no longer use black holes as a potential energy source?
Hawking radiation is fake
Re: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory
#10Would this imply hawking radiation doesn't exist? Can we no longer use black holes as a potential energy source?
For using black holes as a potential energy source, we have to find it first. There are a lot of potential candidates for black holes (binary stars, center of our galaxy), but we still haven't seen any direct evidence of their existence.