131–140 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Light (read: any electromagnetic wave) cannot escape a black hole beyond the event horizon. Therefore this wouldn't work.
Just have Anne toss you DVDs of Game of Thrones from outside the event horizon.
I don't think this article is representative of current serious thought about black holes. I'm a bit out of date on this stuff, and I was never any sort of expert, but let's see: 1. This reality splitting thing sounds wrong. I've never heard of it. Ignoring quantum effects, if you fall into a black hole and survive crossing the horizon, Anne will see you get closer and closer to the horizon, but she won't see you get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
If you read comments to this article, it's hard to not notice that most commenters discuss angels dancing on the head of a pin.
I really don't understand this sentence: > So Anne takes her bit, A, and puts it through her handy entanglement-decoding machine, which spits out an answer: either B or C. (Note: I have a Ph.D. in Math and half a major in Physics that include a few quantum mechanics curses (for example, with the Sakurai book)) What is a entanglement-decoding machine? You cant use entanglement to send information. Just repeat after me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that the moment a black hole is formed, it would never become any larger? How have super-massive black holes formed in less than 14 billion years?
The answer is both simple and controversial: They have not. Black holes do not exist because they take an infinite amount of time to form. See the thread elsewhere on this page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read comments to this article, it's hard to not notice that most commenters discuss angels dancing on the head of a pin.
What's wrong with imagination, hypothesis and a simple analogy that can reach out to the masses? One might argue that your approach to science as only a set of facts based on formula is boring at best. One needs to ponder the meaning behind the formula and results. Yes, we got a number, but what is the implication of it? After all, doesn't science exist to satisfy our curiosity about the world in the first place?
But universe is made with inhumane ways, it's complex where it's not expected and it's simple where we expect more. It's never intuitive.
It's a blind alley. Doesn't help us find the exit from labyrinth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a line of reasoning for that? Models which take spacetime to be able to be warped, /to my understanding/, make what are currently the predictions which are most matched by experiment. I don't know why one would suppose that space and time do not exist, other than as some philosophical idea, but even if one does suppose that, it still appears to work well to model the universe as if they do exist. One woul…
The reasoning is very simple - If space does indeed exist, it must be somewhere, because everything that exists is somewhere, but space can't be anywhere, because if it's somewhere it must be contained in space. How can something be contained within itself? It can't.
I really don't understand this sentence: > So Anne takes her bit, A, and puts it through her handy entanglement-decoding machine, which spits out an answer: either B or C. (Note: I have a Ph.D. in Math and half a major in Physics that include a few quantum mechanics curses (for example, with the Sakurai book)) What is a entanglement-decoding machine? You cant use entanglement to send information. Just repeat after me…
The article doesn't say that information from B or C is useful. All it explains is only 2 particles can be entangled with each other. So either A is entangles with B or it is entangled with C, not both. Which means that either Anne's reality is correct, or yours. The whole thing about the decoding machine is just described to oversimplify it for the benefit of the masses.
> One clue might lie in Anne's decoding machine. Figuring out which other bit of information A is entangled with is an extraordinarily complicated problem. [...] In 2013 they calculated that, even given the fastest computer that the laws of physics would allow, it would take Anne an extraordinarily long time to decode the entanglement. By the time she had an answer, the black hole would have long evaporated, disappearing from the universe and taking with it the threat of a deadly firewall.
The "machine" is an oversimplification, but I don't understand the equivalent experiment that can distinguish between B and C.
Also, there are more complicated situations. You can entangle 3, 4, ... or more particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipartite_entanglement
Usually the discussions are only about entanglement of 2particles, because that is weird enough, but the math for more particles is just a little more complicated.