Conjurer

I ran into a coin flip problem where flipping 4 coins has a 6/16 or 3/8 probability of landing 2 heads and 2 tails. I expected this value to be 1/2, because you have a 50% chance of getting heads or tails. Then that is only 6 of the possible 16 outcomes, instead of 8. Then I realized that the number of possible outcomes where there is an even number of heads and tails actually decreases, compared to the total possible outcomes, the more times you flip the coin. I was wondering if someone could, please, troll me about the reason why this doesn't disprove the mathematics of probabilities, since the outcome of flipping more and more coins in a row approaches closer and closer to half of the coins being heads or tails.

It is already proven by radar, just like satellites corrections prove the theory of relativity. Radars exist and are functional in this reality! Electrons are able to choose what path they go down faster than the speed of light according to if it would be a half or full wavelength. It is a proven aspect of current technology.

That is radar theory. The particle knows if the waveguide is a half wavelength or a full-wavelength, so it chooses the path that is a full wavelength. That is why the particle is said to have a precognition with an action at a distance. It will not choose the half wave path, and it will always follow the full wave path through a waveguide.

If you wanted to look into it into further detail, I would recommend that you study quantum eraser experiments. I believe particle precognition is the underlying reason of why these quantum mechanical experiments defy common sense. They may have some mention about it.

It is only because I actually science.

Something has to be defined mathematically in order to become a scientific theory. If Einstein himself was unable to define particle precognition, then I don't see why you would expect me to. I am not claiming to be smarter than Einstein!

Than teach me, or does this forum not do that anymore? My semester has ended, and I would be willing to learn how the values of observed black holes have actually verified the theory of black holes. I have the time.

Then I support you ending this thread from your repeated nonsense.

Prove it, and maybe you could finally end this nonsense of separate black hole and SMBH physics! That he did, but that does not include particle precognition! Obviously, among a vast majority of other physics principals you have never heard of. I am sorry that it was never mathematically defined, so it never became a popular physics theory. The Higgs Boson doesn't have a charge. I don't know why you think it ever would.

Last time I checked, the universities that published this experiment were never accepted among the scientific community. I don't believe the mathematics for it would be that simple, and I don't think you would get the same answer. You shouldn't get this confused with quantum entanglement. Those are two completely different things. Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with this type of particle precognition with an action at a distance. Although, information is thought of to travel FTL in quantum entanglement as well. It has nothing to do with the spin of the particles. That is not what I meant at all. I was thinking about the same thing that happens in radioactive decay. I do believe that conservation of charge may not actually be fundamental. It could be an emergent property. To get back on topic, Nothing Has No Charge.

It is a part of radar theory. I use to be an electronics technician in the navy, and now I am working on my teaching degree in mathematics, for a second one. In the transceiver of a radar, wave-guides are used that are at half wave lengths and full wavelengths, so the transmitter does not burn out the transceiver. It does this by making wave-guides a half wavelength to the receiver. Then the only waves that enter the receiver are the ones that are reflected from outside of the antenna. Then the same piece of wave-guide can be used while only using one single antenna. This effect was known by Einstein, and he called it a spooky action at a distance. He didn't like it, because it violated his special theory of relativity principal of the speed of light limit. Personally, I don't believe that it actually does violate SR. That would be getting into a whole other subject of what I believe are the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. It really seems like you should know more about particle physics for being a mod. A neutron experiences decay where it ejects an electron and becomes a proton. That is the definition of radioactive decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay I don't know how conservation of charge is maintained in that situation. In this case, technology has surpassed the laws of physics. That would make it a difficult problem to solve. Einstein himself was unable to give an answer to that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

It isn't going to break down into quarks or at least for not very long, since quarks have an extremely low half life. Then it would result in an expulsion of energy and electrons, since that is the most basic atomic particle that it could be crushed into with no half life. It is starting to sound like you don't even know how the conservation laws are even applied across physics. It is an effect that has been proven in experiment. Mass and energy are conserved through E=mc^2, although that equation is not really used in the physics behind making predictions about it. The wavelengths have to be in sync, because of particle precognition with an action at a distance. That is a known effect in physics that has not yet been mathematically described. In principal, if the waves didn't match up they would cancel each other out and momentarily lose their energy, so it wouldn't be able to achieve the necessary energy which would be equivalent to the mass of an electron, which would be conserved from E=mc^2.

When a neutron decays, it can become a proton and an electron. This is allowed, because neutrons are slightly heavier. Charge is conserved, because a positive cancels out a negative. Then a positive and negative particle can come form a neutral particle when it is absorbed. It is just a loose way of saying light with the absence of anything else. E=mc^2 If enough photons with the energy of a mass of an electron are in sync with each other, then they form an electron of that mass.

Remember? I am the one here that is not supposed to know anything about black holes. Why don't you show me how? I dare you too.

They must really know how to calculate SMBH's then. Even that is abnormally large of a radius for a black hole. I don't think you would be able to reach the same result from going off of a basic fundamental black hole equation.

It just comes from the problem of what a neutron star would break down into if it was to only consist of a more fundamental particle due to greater gravitational forces. Other particles were excluded, because they are not stable enough. The electron is just the most fundamental stable particle that it could collapse into which takes up space. If it collapsed into pure energy inside of a black hole, it would be possible for electrons to form and remain stable. Energy has an equal probability to exist everywhere in the black hole, but if it formed into an electron it would be subject to the Pauli Exclusion principal. The electron is basically the most energy a point can contain. If you have the energy of an electron at a certain point, an electron will form. Then it just cannot have infinite density. Then SMBH have larger radius's than what would be expected. The only thing that could possibly occupy the same space as something else in quantum mechanics is Schrodinger's Cat. Then one of the cats does/doesn't actually exist at the same time. Then that is dealing with things that are not fully into existence.

The supermassive black hole inside the core of the supergiant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 in the constellation Virgo. Its mass is several billion times that of the Sun, estimated at 7.22+0.34 −0.40×109 M☉.[1] It was the first black hole to be directly imaged by the Event Horizon Telescope(image released on 10 April 2019).[2][3] The ring has a diameter of some 700 AU, around ten times larger than the orbit of Neptune around the Sun. Its apparent diameter is 42±3 μas. The ring of the diameter is 700 AU, which would be 700 times the distance from the sun to the Earth. Then black hole physics would have to be wrong, because it should collapse to a smaller size.

The wiki in your reference you provided has absolutely nothing about the equations of a SMBH. I believe that the physics of it was developed shortly after the first discovery of the possibility of black holes existing at the center of galaxies. I am not sure if this was developed by someone else or the people who first discovered that. I do remember that being mentioned as the basis for the research. In every context I have read about SMBH, they are defined to have these differences in properties to black holes. I think the problem here is that you guys are getting fundamental physics confused with theoretical physics. It is a lot deeper and more complex than just throwing out some basic principals about it and generalizing the entire field solely based on that. I am just willing to take their word for it, even though it may be too difficult for me to do myself.

I don't know how I could imagine an object being still next to such an immense forces of gravity. From it's own frame of reference, it would observe itself falling in close to the speed of light. Then the announcement that SMBH have been discovered would be fake news, in my opinion. Massive objects traveling close to c would have less of a probability of being in more locations, and it would not be considered to possibly be in any location from its current path, like light. The amount of uncertainty is related to its relative velocity, instead of spacetime dilation in relativity.

I am not sure where the Lorentz factor comes into play in the General Theory of Relativity, because every book I have read about it says that it would be too complex for anyone to even care about it. I do know that gravitational time dilation can be directly derived from Einsteins elevator thought experiment where it assumes that light would follow a curved path if it was accelerating. That is how the theory started out. Then gravitational tensors where added to it, which ended up making it very complex. That is true for black holes, but SMBH which have been directly observed with experimental evidence are not considered to be black holes. THEY ARE SMBH! Light is considered to be in every possible location it could have ended up being in, but Feynman was able to cancel out a lot of these possibilities in the same way you could consider something like that happening for any probabilistic event. Reference?

The reason is that quantum mechanics is more of a statistical theory. It doesn't care about how much time or length the particles are experiencing. It just gives the most probable location it is at any time. I am sure there has been a lot of work done about it, since I learned about it. Originally, there was a debate about neutron stars and quasars and what they were actually made of. They were unable to describe them accurately around that time. It was one of the loop holes in order to attempt to describe them more accurately from observations, because they were just not sure if quantum mechanics behaved the same under such intense situations. They discovered a SMBH at the center of the Milky Way. They have also actually have taken a picture of a black hole since then. The theoretical physics created to describe a SMBH assumed that the Pauli exclusion principal would still be in play, and that is the main thing that separated it from the theoretical physics that described black holes before those predictions were made. This is what separates black hole physics from SMBH physics. Water has a density close to one, and the reason why it does is because the molecules are mostly influenced by the repulsion of electrons. The nucleus of the atoms of water are not involved that much in its behavior. Then a sea of electrons would act in much of the same way as water, even though those nucleus's are not present. Then SMBH never recieved much attention before their discovery, because it was too unbelievable that this could impact the size or density of a SMBH. It makes them end up being about the size of our solar system, and most people were unable to see how this could happen with relativity. If this didn't take place, then a black hole would be about the size of our planet. Then that would be a normal black hole that doesn't consider the Pauli Exclusion principal. It is In the center of the Milky Way. They were able to make calculations about it from the stars orbiting around it. Then those stars orbits allowed them to determine some of its properties. It was announced that it was a SMBH and not just a black hole... I already explained this. The square root of 1-v^2/c^2 is in the denominator. The numerator is 1. Is this a bot?

Quantum mechanics describes particles that are traveling or traveling close to the speed of light without coming anywhere close to resulting in infinity. Then it doesn't come close to having the same problems you would have from trying to describe those particles with a relativistic theory. That is why I mentioned it. I believe it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks there is right now in theoretical physics. I felt it was important to mention it, so other people would know about it. Most of the books at my local library have been removed that I use to read about it. The theoretical physics section was cut down and moved to another isle. Then I am fairly certain that was a thing in theoretical physics. That is how I even knew about the Pauli Exclusion principal to begin with. They had problem describing massive objects with it. I just remember this as common knowledge, because I thought it was funny that his first name was Wolfgang. Then he got ganged up by wolves to try to disprove his principal in cosmology. Now that SMBH have actually been discovered to have densities close to one. There shouldn't be a strong reason why its exclusion should still remain a theoretical possibility when there is experimental evidence that it can still hold true in SMBH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

If you checked the link I provided you, you would notice that the Lorentz factor has this denominator. Sometime I need to brush up on what text system you guys use to post equations. From what I have learned from the history of it, the Lorentz factor being undefined at the speed of light is one of the main things that prevented it from becoming law.

The Lorentz Factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor Whenever the velocity of an object is equal to the speed of light, V^2/c^2 becomes 1. Then you get 1-1=0 in the denominator under the square root. Then 1/0=infinity. It would also have to have no counter examples that could potentially disprove it. I don't know what other definition of a law you have.

The special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity were combined into one single theory, to try to make a more accurate description of what is going on in this case. The current trend is to just use quantum mechanics, because it avoids this problem. The special theory of relativity has not been unified with quantum mechanics, and it most likely is associated with it in hidden variables. Then it no longer has an influence on the equations, since they do not deal with it directly in any form. The Special Theory of Relativity is one of the most experimentally proven theories that exist. It should be called a law, considering how much it has been proven repeatedly which is a condition that has to be met for something to become a law. It just wouldn't sound right to call it the Special Law of Relativity or something; I guess. Yes, MigL claims to be one of those people. with the links he provided, but he doesn't seem to be aware that would end up making him a theoretical physicist and not just a physicist.