Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,753
- 34,582
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
Valishar
Molten Core Raider
- 766
- 424
Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The holographic principle is that the maximum total amount of information you can have in a system in the universe is proportional to the surface area, not its volume. So like how a hologram is a 3D image encoded on a 2D surface, the universe is similar. A lot of people confuse that with 'simulation theory' which isn't really a theory or a mathematical consequence of anything, it's more of a philosophical argument.
So when they're saying it's making a hologram of whatever falls inside, it's saying the information of that thing is being encoded on the surface of the black hole. Which isn't very interesting for a journalist so they spice it up and completely change the meaning.
- 17,781
- 25,896
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Does the holographic principle apply to all shapes, or only regular. And I thought it worked because the correlation between volume and surface area.
I don't really see why that creates an issue with black holes. We don't know if the information is nullified, or transformed, right?
Got a hypothetical for the real nerds here, if you were able to turn off the higgs field for an object, completely, what would that do? Phase the object?, give it a mass of zero?, would the ability to manipulate the Higgs fieldn allow exploration of black holes? FTL drives?
I don't really see why that creates an issue with black holes. We don't know if the information is nullified, or transformed, right?
Got a hypothetical for the real nerds here, if you were able to turn off the higgs field for an object, completely, what would that do? Phase the object?, give it a mass of zero?, would the ability to manipulate the Higgs fieldn allow exploration of black holes? FTL drives?
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
Disclaimer: The following is complete drivel a made up pseudo science BS
The higgs field is the force that actually anchors any mass into space(time)
Turning it off completely would get rid of inertia which would make it possible to reach FTL speeds with minimum expanded energy on propulsion.
and they lived happily ever after...
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,797
- 25,125
Did some quick and sloppy math on new horizons. Its currently moving approximately 45km/hour closer to pluto, and approximately 25 million kilometers from pluto. Pluto will double in size with what we see every time the distance halves. So in approximately 12 days, stuff will be twice as big. Then in 6 days double again, then in 3days ect.., In two and a half weeks time, expect the really cool pictures to start showing up, With a very short window for the absolute best pictures unfortunately. The satellite will be moving so fast that it will cover a distance equal to the diameter of pluto in a few minutes. Picture is new, showing the slow improvement from the previous one.
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,177
- 30,378
At LachiusTZ:
What you are hypothesizing really disconnects the object from all interaction with the rest of the universe. Gravity is one of those all pervasive things. I have read sci-fi books that have used similar concepts for how to get around the light speed barrier for story telling reasons, but they rarely get into the other implications such a technology might have.
Short answer seems to be that, yes you can cross event horizons if you can "unplug" from the higgs field as it interacts with the rest of the universe, but it would have to have its own self contained field or else it would disintegrate/outright cease to exist. Assuming this is possible, you remove time dilation as an issue and can walk through basically anything with mass, including event horizons. The issue then becomes how do physical laws work once past them and if you can survive said changes and/or the immense radiation present. For all we know, stuff past the event horizon may do something similar to what you are describing. There is also the question of if such a method of travel has any use for information gathering, because if you are unplugged from all the forces in the universe how do you gather any information about what is occurring outside of your closed self contained field without exposing yourself to potential harm that a singularity can cause? I think such a theoretical tech would do wonders for travel (assuming propulsion could still work normally), but I don't know how it would function in an information gathering capacity.
One thing about Hawking and event horizons: His famous quote was to modify Einstein's statement to say "God does play dice with the universe and sometimes throws them where you cannot see them." in direct reference to singularities. He is also the one who worked out that rotating black holes actually emit energy, which implies that the event horizon is something that can in fact be escaped. He was not exactly comfortable with either of these revelations and goes into a lot of detail about them in his books.
What you are hypothesizing really disconnects the object from all interaction with the rest of the universe. Gravity is one of those all pervasive things. I have read sci-fi books that have used similar concepts for how to get around the light speed barrier for story telling reasons, but they rarely get into the other implications such a technology might have.
Short answer seems to be that, yes you can cross event horizons if you can "unplug" from the higgs field as it interacts with the rest of the universe, but it would have to have its own self contained field or else it would disintegrate/outright cease to exist. Assuming this is possible, you remove time dilation as an issue and can walk through basically anything with mass, including event horizons. The issue then becomes how do physical laws work once past them and if you can survive said changes and/or the immense radiation present. For all we know, stuff past the event horizon may do something similar to what you are describing. There is also the question of if such a method of travel has any use for information gathering, because if you are unplugged from all the forces in the universe how do you gather any information about what is occurring outside of your closed self contained field without exposing yourself to potential harm that a singularity can cause? I think such a theoretical tech would do wonders for travel (assuming propulsion could still work normally), but I don't know how it would function in an information gathering capacity.
One thing about Hawking and event horizons: His famous quote was to modify Einstein's statement to say "God does play dice with the universe and sometimes throws them where you cannot see them." in direct reference to singularities. He is also the one who worked out that rotating black holes actually emit energy, which implies that the event horizon is something that can in fact be escaped. He was not exactly comfortable with either of these revelations and goes into a lot of detail about them in his books.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
You would have to assume there would be another set of laws that would operate within an anti Higgs field, maybe the same as we have outside it, maybe something completely alien. I dunno how you would create any force with out mass, to move in a direction, I dunno, it's interesting. it's something I've thought about since they found the particle and possibly? confirmed the field, "what if you turn it off?". Wonder if there are any types of energy that operate outside our without the Higgs field... If not then radiation doesn't matter... Even that strange as propulsion NASA is testing has to require mass of some type.
I don't think there is anything conventional that escapes an event horizon, only particles that become so excited on the fridge that they spin off and create a vortex, and we see a quasar. Nothing goes in, then back out, at least noto from our perspective.
Got another question, dark energy... Universe expanding, red shift etc... How much of that could be attributed to light? If a single nearby star can push a small ship to fractions of the speed of light, why couldn't billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, push everything away from each other Over billions of years?
Does space have mass?
I hope Lumi is ok, looks like he totaled his ship on Ceres.
I don't think there is anything conventional that escapes an event horizon, only particles that become so excited on the fridge that they spin off and create a vortex, and we see a quasar. Nothing goes in, then back out, at least noto from our perspective.
Got another question, dark energy... Universe expanding, red shift etc... How much of that could be attributed to light? If a single nearby star can push a small ship to fractions of the speed of light, why couldn't billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, push everything away from each other Over billions of years?
Does space have mass?
I hope Lumi is ok, looks like he totaled his ship on Ceres.
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,177
- 30,378
Hawking's book makes it pretty clear that he felt that energy was being shed from beyond the event horizon in black holes, though the concept of it made him uncomfortable with the ramifications.
The whole Dark Energy thing is just a place holder until they figure out why large scale motion in the universe is not conforming to known mathematical models. Basically, they are not sure what the hell it is but there is a shit ton of mass out there which we are not observing. In essence, by all we know and have observed of gravitational physics the current galactic structures should just be flying apart. Obviously this is not happening, ergo there is either a bunch of mass we cannot observe or some other force out there at work. Dark Energy is largely just a theoretical place holder until we have improved information to form a better hypothesis. It gives us something to work with to evaluate the effects while we try and figure out the cause.
Light (specifically, visible light) does not generate any form of force beyond thermal, so it is extremely inefficient as a propulsion mechanism, especially in a (near) vacuum. Like most forms of energy, it diffuses over distance, so getting a piggy back on solar luminosity from Sol is going to be much more dramatic than trying to do the same from even out closes galactic neighbor. I confess that I am not as well read on that new star drive idea as I might be, though.
Does space have mass? Up until the recent dark matter/energy issue, the accepted answer is no. The general belief was/is that most of space has some sort of matter in it, even if its just a thin amount of hydrogen. The whole idea of dark matter tosses a curve ball into these preconceived notions, however. I suggest reading up on it, if you are interested. Its brain melting on the level of Schrodinger's Wave Theorem, so I feel ill equipped to explain it beyond general analogies for the layman.
The whole Dark Energy thing is just a place holder until they figure out why large scale motion in the universe is not conforming to known mathematical models. Basically, they are not sure what the hell it is but there is a shit ton of mass out there which we are not observing. In essence, by all we know and have observed of gravitational physics the current galactic structures should just be flying apart. Obviously this is not happening, ergo there is either a bunch of mass we cannot observe or some other force out there at work. Dark Energy is largely just a theoretical place holder until we have improved information to form a better hypothesis. It gives us something to work with to evaluate the effects while we try and figure out the cause.
Light (specifically, visible light) does not generate any form of force beyond thermal, so it is extremely inefficient as a propulsion mechanism, especially in a (near) vacuum. Like most forms of energy, it diffuses over distance, so getting a piggy back on solar luminosity from Sol is going to be much more dramatic than trying to do the same from even out closes galactic neighbor. I confess that I am not as well read on that new star drive idea as I might be, though.
Does space have mass? Up until the recent dark matter/energy issue, the accepted answer is no. The general belief was/is that most of space has some sort of matter in it, even if its just a thin amount of hydrogen. The whole idea of dark matter tosses a curve ball into these preconceived notions, however. I suggest reading up on it, if you are interested. Its brain melting on the level of Schrodinger's Wave Theorem, so I feel ill equipped to explain it beyond general analogies for the layman.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
I am actually pretty well read on the subjects, for a layman anyway. I meant space, like, completely empty space having mass, not the materials with in. Seems like it almost would have to . . . if it doesnt, then light would have to, or gravity is just a way of interpreting something else completely (read a theory about that a while ago, that it was just our understanding of a greater electromagnetic force or someshit . . .)
Also, I thought dark energy was what they were using as a place holder because of the red shift, and that galaxies have now been observed to not only be moving away from each other, but accelerating as well. My thought was, why cant it be light? If it is able to move a ship from a single star in a few months (solar sails), then why would all the 100,000,000,000^2 stars in the observable universe not have enough push (in every direction, in an almost infinitely small amount) to create that acceleration after 14+ billion years? Seems much more simple than the mysterious energy (dark energy) or space being created between major galaxy clusters . . . forgot the reasoning for the latter.
I thought dark matter had been resolved to be mostly rogue planets / black holes / dark stars / unlit gas etc etc (astronomers had found a certain %, and were theorizing the remaining % was just unobserved etc?) . . . I regularly see things labeled as dark matter that have been caught by gravitational lensing?
Ill have to look that up, I havent really kept current on this stuff in a few years, and honestly even the thought of attempting to read Hawking's books is a bit daunting.
Just remembered reading an article where one guy thought that dark matter was creating dark energy between galaxy clusters causing them to accelerate apart etc . . . seemed a bit kooky.
Schrodinger's wave theorem? Is that where you can take a beam of light and shoot it through a hole, and it behaves like a particle, then use slats instead of a hole and get it to act like a wave? Fuk, I cant find it, but there is a group that showed how light particles would show both behaviors by vibrating mercury? and having water particles suspended on the surface, and the particles create a bow wave in front of the particle. Was a really neat read / watch, but cant remember wtf I saw it . . .
Also, I thought dark energy was what they were using as a place holder because of the red shift, and that galaxies have now been observed to not only be moving away from each other, but accelerating as well. My thought was, why cant it be light? If it is able to move a ship from a single star in a few months (solar sails), then why would all the 100,000,000,000^2 stars in the observable universe not have enough push (in every direction, in an almost infinitely small amount) to create that acceleration after 14+ billion years? Seems much more simple than the mysterious energy (dark energy) or space being created between major galaxy clusters . . . forgot the reasoning for the latter.
I thought dark matter had been resolved to be mostly rogue planets / black holes / dark stars / unlit gas etc etc (astronomers had found a certain %, and were theorizing the remaining % was just unobserved etc?) . . . I regularly see things labeled as dark matter that have been caught by gravitational lensing?
Ill have to look that up, I havent really kept current on this stuff in a few years, and honestly even the thought of attempting to read Hawking's books is a bit daunting.
Just remembered reading an article where one guy thought that dark matter was creating dark energy between galaxy clusters causing them to accelerate apart etc . . . seemed a bit kooky.
Schrodinger's wave theorem? Is that where you can take a beam of light and shoot it through a hole, and it behaves like a particle, then use slats instead of a hole and get it to act like a wave? Fuk, I cant find it, but there is a group that showed how light particles would show both behaviors by vibrating mercury? and having water particles suspended on the surface, and the particles create a bow wave in front of the particle. Was a really neat read / watch, but cant remember wtf I saw it . . .
Valishar
Molten Core Raider
- 766
- 424
On a phone so will be brief.
Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiation pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever is making the universe expand at an accelerating pace. Otherwise gravity should slow it down over time.
Schr?dinger's wave equation is literally a wave equation which describes quantum behaviour. Like you put an electron in a box the equation will tell you the probability of finding the electron at any point in that box, or even outside it. Given you know the initial conditions.
Mass in regards to particle physics usually refers to rest mass (the mass of a theoretically immobile particle). So only particles have rest mass, and not even all of them. You can ask, what is the energy density of an area of empty space though and you get:
Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Light and all forms of radiation have momentum, so it actually pushes against you when it shines on you. It isn't enough to explain dark energy though.
Radiation pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Higgs field is what gives bosons mass (rest mass). The great majority of your matter is made up of Fermions, quarks (which make up protons and neutrons) and electrons . Bosons are what mediate the forces however, and their mass greatly determines their range. For example the gluon's in the nucleus of atoms are extremely massive, if their mass all of a sudden dropped to zero they would have the same range as photons. And I can let you imagine what would happen then.
Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever is making the universe expand at an accelerating pace. Otherwise gravity should slow it down over time.
Schr?dinger's wave equation is literally a wave equation which describes quantum behaviour. Like you put an electron in a box the equation will tell you the probability of finding the electron at any point in that box, or even outside it. Given you know the initial conditions.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,537
- 73,623
If you're talking about theEMDrive, it doesn't use propulsion from light from the sun. It uses microwaves and magic and is super exciting.
The recent solar sail that's involved with Bill Nye does use that mechanic though. I don't know of any real aspirations to do much with it or any other solar drives.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,753
- 34,582
Do you have any peer reviewed articles with proof that it is super exciting? All I've seen so far is testing and data, nothing concrete about how pumped one should be for it yet.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,797
- 25,125
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,537
- 73,623
Nope. To my knowledge there are zero peer reviewed papers on it. The guy who came up with the idea back in 2000 allegedly has a paper in the peer review process. No idea of which journal or what the timeline is other than expected publication in 2015. I don't know what the typical peer review process is for theoretical physics or if the typical process is even relevant with a device and theory like this. I feel like even if this isn't some garbage paper full of bullshit that is used to just generate press and get more funding it'll be a much longer review process than normal, especially if the journal is prestigious.
What we do have is:
Results from a bunch of different experiments, including a NASA lab and a Chinese lab at NWPU:
Experimental Results - EM Drive
There's also hobbyists who are replicating the results in the garage whilst trying not to radiate or blow themselves up.
There's a thread on nasaspaceflight that is pretty interesting, but is way beyond me:
EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Nasa saying "This actually seems to work, and we have NO idea why. It shouldn't." is a form of peer review, and pretty exciting tbh.
Even if we don't get a warp drive out of it something is going on and it's something new which hasn't met with much academic scrutiny. But it's somethingnew.
And I guess empty space has mass depending on how you want to define mass. Just like "weight" can be an arbitrarily meaningless term, "mass" can as well in some contexts. So you have to define it. And if it is the energy within a volume, it does seem that areas empty of any physical particle still can contain energy.
I mean they'd have to or else the sun wouldn't work.
Aaand we're back to luminous aether.
Except not really, because it's not just an idea in natural philosophy. It's just reminiscent.
Even if we don't get a warp drive out of it something is going on and it's something new which hasn't met with much academic scrutiny. But it's somethingnew.
And I guess empty space has mass depending on how you want to define mass. Just like "weight" can be an arbitrarily meaningless term, "mass" can as well in some contexts. So you have to define it. And if it is the energy within a volume, it does seem that areas empty of any physical particle still can contain energy.
I mean they'd have to or else the sun wouldn't work.
Aaand we're back to luminous aether.
Except not really, because it's not just an idea in natural philosophy. It's just reminiscent.
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,177
- 30,378
Well, there is no known true total vacuum, at least that we have found or produced. There are always at least some sub atomic shit, if not hydrogen, kicking about that can transmit energy to some degree. In theory, if you could generate a sizable space (say a cubic foot) with absolutely nothing in it, not even light, it _should_ have absolutely no mass at all. There are some pretty brain hurting arguments about what the space between things actually is, however. Presently, I think the quantum model is the best working explanation on how all forms of EM work, not just light. Its far from perfect, which is part of how we end up with the Dark Energy situation, and that really is luminous aether all over again, at least conceptually.
Dark Energy is about more than just "why is the universe still expanding", while Dark Matter is about "where is all the hidden mass that is keeping shit from flying apart". The discussions on it are seriously complicated, which is why I made Wave Theorem as a comparison. Its not something that is easy to explain to people who are into this topic, let alone laymen, and all of the information/theories behind both can turn your brain to mush. Its mostly just theory at this point, but until the CERN stuff happened in 2012, the only tangible physical evidence we had were neutrinos. If this EM Drive stuff you guys linked is legit, then we are about to have another holy shit moment in physics on the level of when General Relativity first hit the scene.
Great stuff to discuss, btw.
Dark Energy is about more than just "why is the universe still expanding", while Dark Matter is about "where is all the hidden mass that is keeping shit from flying apart". The discussions on it are seriously complicated, which is why I made Wave Theorem as a comparison. Its not something that is easy to explain to people who are into this topic, let alone laymen, and all of the information/theories behind both can turn your brain to mush. Its mostly just theory at this point, but until the CERN stuff happened in 2012, the only tangible physical evidence we had were neutrinos. If this EM Drive stuff you guys linked is legit, then we are about to have another holy shit moment in physics on the level of when General Relativity first hit the scene.
Great stuff to discuss, btw.