Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all the big discoveries (and personalities) of the 20th century, physics has seemed to be relatively quiet lately. So people are eager for the next big and dramatic change to our understanding. And that's what George Chapline is offering the pop sci press.
If what LIGO achieved is not loud enough for the 21st century, then we are probably doomed. It is a NEW kind of telescope that has not even been utilized for 1% of its potential. PS: I'm not arguing with your statement, you have all the right to think that way. Maybe even people who lived during Einstein's earlier times thought the same for their previous century.
Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
41–50 of 129 posts
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question if you don't mind. This "information being destroyed" thing. What do they mean by information? Isn't information a human construct? How is the universe supposed to know what information is?
A fun way to imagine it is with Maxwell's Demon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon That is an example of one way in which information can be exchanged for work.
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#43We have people like string theorists thinking about higher dimensions in space. It occurred to me the other day when the dark matter article hit the front page that our equation for gravity works with three dimensions but those dimensions are uniform. I can turn an object with very little effort (literally without doing work) and it’s the same size from our perspective. How would it work if matter has more dimensions…
Yea that's a part of the string theoretic calculation, that some of these higher dimensions are different than the three we're accustomed to. They're curved and swirled and weird. It's pretty unclear that they're real, but it's an interesting idea
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#44I've seen a couple of articles about this guy recently and they both struck me as weirdly credulous given the apparently complete lack of evidence supporting his theory and the fact that approximately no other scientists seem to find it credible.
> The idea has found no support in the astrophysical community They put it pretty bluntly in the article.
To this article's credit, though, it is more measured than others. Just as a whole it seems weird to me how much attention such a seemingly insignificant hypothesis is getting.
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
PBS Space Time did a recent episode on higher spacial dimensions and gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HYw6vPR9qU
The delivery on this program is extremely annoying and slow paced (and rushed on points that ought be slow). :(
then it sounds like normal speech.
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#46Found an interesting technical summary/critique of these ideas https://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont...
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside observers never see the material cross the horizon, ever. That's why it's called a horizon, you'll never reach it (from the pov of an outside observer). Growth-wise, you have to keep in mind that the black hole doesn't grow when matter crosses the horizon, but when the matter gets close enough to the horizon that mass of black hole + mass of new matter creates a blackhole of a larger radius that encompasses t…
How would you ever observe black hole to grow/accreate matter then?
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that one of the reasons why physics news has been quiet is because the state of the field has moved beyond a lay person's understanding at more than a high level.
If you can't explain your idead to your janitor, you don't really grasp them yourself.
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#49We have people like string theorists thinking about higher dimensions in space. It occurred to me the other day when the dark matter article hit the front page that our equation for gravity works with three dimensions but those dimensions are uniform. I can turn an object with very little effort (literally without doing work) and it’s the same size from our perspective. How would it work if matter has more dimensions…
> I can turn an object with very little effort (literally without doing work) and it’s the same size from our perspective. I can't reproduce your experiment... I tried turning a piece of paper. At first it looked, say, about as large as a cantaloupe, but when I turned it got smaller and smaller until it practically disappeared, and it becomes very tiny... basically nothing more than a thin line in space. At certain a…
Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Infalling matter or radiation becomes ‘simply’ infinitely red-shifted (on account of the slowed time), and hence undetectable to an external observer — and is hence indistinguishable from the bulk of the prior-existing “black hole proper”.
Conversely, a particle on the surface of an object compressed to near its Schwarzschild radius should experience an extreme blue shift and time contraction. Imagine absorbing in one instant a billion years of microwave background radiation blue shifted to gamma and beyond. How could the near-black-hole hang onto it?