Starship Asterisk*

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Art can answer your science question, but it isn't at all the case that any laws of mathematics break down inside black holes. Math works just fine. The problem comes in reconciling the math with physical reality. Our physical laws appear to break down when we have things like singularities (which math handles without difficulty).

Thanks Chris .. I examined your answer through google, and at this stage I have a picture of a 'breakdown' being all possible answers leading to infinity .. so yes, reconciling infinity to physical reality is quite a task. If you think you could add to that picture, clarify it, whatever, please feel free to do so.

neufer wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote: Nearly forever for observers on the outside.

But... those observers on the outside should also note that time nearly stops for objects falling into the event horizon.

So... do those observers who fall into the BH get to observe the black hole evaporate (as a blinding firewall)

Neufer .. the known laws of mathematics are said to break down in the Black Hole or even at the event horizon .. what do you think of the thought that material beyond those points may be transformed into a reverse state .. that matter could become anti-matter, and through a wormhole or other mechanism enter Voids as the anti-matter/anti-gravity 'material' causing the Voids expansions?

• 1) I don't understand your question.
  2) I can't even answer my own question.

Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:
Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.

My question was, basically, could matter fall into a Black Hole and re-emerge in a Void as anti-matter. The voids are said to be expanding .. their content has to come from somewhere .. matter falling into a Black Hole has to go somewhere even if it's turned into energy .. perhaps there is no singularity in a Black Hole, but there is an escape into a Void.

• 1. Faster than light travel
  2. Wormholes
  3. Whiteholes
  4. Anti-gravity

BDanielMayfield wrote:
Things that are probably nothing more than wishful sci-fi fodder:

• 1. Faster than light travel
  2. Wormholes
  3. Whiteholes
  4. Anti-gravity

Please feel free to add to this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Characteristics wrote:
Science fiction elements include:

• A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.
  
  A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g. spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.
  
  Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots and other types of characters arising from a future human evolution.
  
  Futuristic or plausible technology such as ray guns, teleportation machines, and humanoid computers.
  
  Scientific principles that are new or that contradict accepted physical laws, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel or communication.
  
  New and different political or social systems, e.g. utopian, dystopian, post-scarcity, or post-apocalyptic.
  
  Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis (e.g. "The Force" in Star Wars.)
  
  Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.

neufer wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:
Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.

My question was, basically, could matter fall into a Black Hole and re-emerge in a Void as anti-matter. The voids are said to be expanding .. their content has to come from somewhere .. matter falling into a Black Hole has to go somewhere even if it's turned into energy .. perhaps there is no singularity in a Black Hole, but there is an escape into a Void.

It has been speculated that Black Holes might be connected to White Holes elsewhere by passable wormholes but I don't know why one would expect matter to transform into anti-matter in the process. (This would be especially problematic if those White Holes are in the same visible universe due to conservation of charge, baryon number, etc..) Voids have been expanding since the Big Bang but there are no conservation of space laws.

neufer wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:
Things that are probably nothing more than wishful sci-fi fodder:

• 1. Faster than light travel
  2. Wormholes
  3. Whiteholes
  4. Anti-gravity

Please feel free to add to this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Characteristics wrote:
Science fiction elements include:

• A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.
  
  A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g. spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.
  
  Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots and other types of characters arising from a future human evolution.
  
  Futuristic or plausible technology such as ray guns, teleportation machines, and humanoid computers.
  
  Scientific principles that are new or that contradict accepted physical laws, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel or communication.
  
  New and different political or social systems, e.g. utopian, dystopian, post-scarcity, or post-apocalyptic.
  
  Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis (e.g. "The Force" in Star Wars.)
  
  Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Even scientists can only make educated guesses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Future

Chris Peterson wrote: Certainly, that's true for some of the more extreme ideas out there. But they're still educated. And the sort of ideas I'm talking about- faster than light travel, wormholes, and much else is settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".

bystander wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Certainly, that's true for some of the more extreme ideas out there. But they're still educated. And the sort of ideas I'm talking about- faster than light travel, wormholes, and much else is settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".

I'm not sure it is as settled as you seem to think. (Note: Links are mine.)

edit: While these subjects might be unlikely, they, at least, seem theoretically possible.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Even scientists can only make educated guesses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Future

As it is, we aboard the Starship Asterisk* have our hands full just trying to follow & process those educated guesses.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.

Scientific history in the past 100 years if CHOCK full of brilliant scientists being proven wrong.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.

Scientific history in the past 100 years if CHOCK full of brilliant scientists being proven wrong.

Of course. I haven't suggested otherwise. That's how science works.

You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.

Chris, how long ago was it that science learned that Voids are not empty spaces (a few months?) .. not individual scientists but collective science had agreed for how many decades that Voids were totally vacant .. instead they are dynamic areas bursting with enough energy to push our local group of galaxies along at hundreds of millions of miles an hour, or per second, or whatever it is. This is solid scientific knowledge being proven dramatically wrong, as with many other cases once barriers to knowledge are reduced. Our fundamental knowledge of nature has merely peeled one layer from an onion, and a very thin skin at that.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.

Chris, how long ago was it that science learned that Voids are not empty spaces (a few months?) .. not individual scientists but collective science had agreed for how many decades that Voids were totally vacant .. instead they are dynamic areas bursting with enough energy to push our local group of galaxies along at hundreds of millions of miles an hour, or per second, or whatever it is. This is solid scientific knowledge being proven dramatically wrong, as with many other cases once barriers to knowledge are reduced. Our fundamental knowledge of nature has merely peeled one layer from an onion, and a very thin skin at that.

Voids? That's really trivial stuff. And our changing understanding of the structure of the Universe is incremental. We're not seeing established, consensus views being replaced, only fleshed out.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote: Chris, how long ago was it that science learned that Voids are not empty spaces (a few months?) .. not individual scientists but collective science had agreed for how many decades that Voids were totally vacant .. instead they are dynamic areas bursting with enough energy to push our local group of galaxies along at hundreds of millions of miles an hour, or per second, or whatever it is. This is solid scientific knowledge being proven dramatically wrong, as with many other cases once barriers to knowledge are reduced. Our fundamental knowledge of nature has merely peeled one layer from an onion, and a very thin skin at that.

Voids? That's really trivial stuff. And our changing understanding of the structure of the Universe is incremental. We're not seeing established, consensus views being replaced, only fleshed out.

A void pushing our local galaxy group along at a million miles an hour is trivial?

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Voids? That's really trivial stuff. And our changing understanding of the structure of the Universe is incremental. We're not seeing established, consensus views being replaced, only fleshed out.

A void pushing our local galaxy group along at a million miles an hour is trivial?

In the sense that it doesn't substantially change our understanding of cosmology, yes.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote: A void pushing our local galaxy group along at a million miles an hour is trivial?

In the sense that it doesn't substantially change our understanding of cosmology, yes.

So, what is said to be, at this time, 40% of the volume of the universe, and said at this time to contain perhaps 1/5 of all matter in the universe, and which are expanding, and as they compress, are squeezing galaxies together, that 40% thought only a very brief time ago to be empty space, are insignificant.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: In the sense that it doesn't substantially change our understanding of cosmology, yes.

So, what is said to be, at this time, 40% of the volume of the universe, and said at this time to contain perhaps 1/5 of all matter in the universe, and which are expanding, and as they compress, are squeezing galaxies together, that 40% thought only a very brief time ago to be empty space, are insignificant.

I did not say "insignificant". I said it isn't making any fundamental changes to our theories underlying cosmology.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:However .. no need for me to go any further about it.

douglas wrote:Remember this APOD, where Subr worked up his fantasy of an Intermediate Black Hole in the Trapezium?