Sharapovaphan

The correct or incorrect prediction concerning the density of neutrons and protons around the big bag is so important to everything in this discussion. From how much Helium was present, all the way to the Hubble Constant. Everything points to the required density of baryons (neutrons & protons) being a very low percentage. This indicates that not all dark matter is baryonic.

At the top of the blackboard in my high school algebra class was a simple message: "Always go back to the definition." Probably the best advice ever.

I understand. It was mostly semantics with me. In some circles the definition of dark matter is that it is exclusively nonbaryonic. More recently dark matter is described as the vast majority being nonbaryonic. Thank you...

How can baryonic dark matter exist? Dark matter is nonbaryonic. Shouldn't baryonic dark matter be on the visible ("normal") matter side of the ledger thus subjected to a name change? Or at the very least be treated as something different than dark matter or visible matter. The name is driving me nuts!

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic2.html

There are no negative temperatures and faster than LS isn't obtainable... to date.

The LHC should help bring some of the theories and ideas behind "Supersymmetry" to the forefront...

Without a solid "quantum gravity" theory we seem lost in our quest to find the bridge between the banks of General Relativity and the banks of Quantum mechanics. That bridge is currently under construction and the contractor "String Theory Limited" is trying desperately to prove that the size of the bridge does or does not matter. Well, with what has already happened at CERN and the LHC near Geneva Switzerland, it seems that "Supersymmetry Unlimited" may have emerged as a major subcontractor for the all important bridge construction. Is it possible that they have concrete evidence that the particle with zero mass and 2 units of spin does exist?

Riemann: z= non-zero complex number z/0 = \infty Simple complex manifold... Shing-Tung Yau... Calabi Conjecture

Hawking Radiation?

Accelerating infinite mass does seem a silly concept. Considering that it would take an infinate amount of energy to accelerate it...

Ah... The reason I said we still "might" be able to talk about worm holes and The Einstein-Rosen Bridge."

For years physicists have been trying to solve the information loss mystery in black holes. A relatively new theory has been put forth that essentially states there's no information loss because nothing gets past the event horizon and into a black hole. The time it takes for Hawking Radiation to run it's course, is shorter than the time it would take for a particle to fall through the event horizon. That is to say that time is different at the event horizon than it is for all neutral observers. However, it still isn't known whether the event horizon of a black hole can actually be fully developed in finite time. But I guess I would say alas, scifi buffs, it's looking more and more like black holes will never be portals. However, we still might be able to talk about worm holes and The Einstein-Rosen Bridge"...

Does this relate to Rydberg?

Since anything could be in a black hole, and if the laws of physics allowed for it, anything could come out of it. It would then be impossible to predict what would come out of a black hole if it could. It's own little Breakdown of Predictability in a Gravitational Collapse kinda' thing. However, prediction would not be necessary if the event horizon retained the information serving as the keeper of the manifest, so to speak. Of course nothing can escape a black hole in the known universe, so as Hawking Radiation runs it's course, the all important manifest is seemingly in jeopardy. If it goes, the information goes with it, and a bunch of pretty smart theoretical physicists are left scratching their heads. We are now either at the mercy of infinite complimentary black holes in an infinite number of universes canceling each other out, or holograms containing the information as the black hole and the event horizon shrink from existence. Intuitively, however, it seems to me that even if the information is saved in a hologram, and it survives the loss of it's shrinking keeper, there could be a universe where it doesn't survive, thereby canceling it out. Ultimately, doesn't this make Hawking more plausible? Alas... there also could be a universe where the contents of a black hole can escape... and so on, and so on, and so on. We need a quantum gravity theory that we can sink our teeth into almost as bad as dear Stephen needs more time and energy. Speaking of time...

Define fast. Isn't the real problem that singularities exist in the first place? General Relativity predicts singularities but does it govern them? So how do we define fast?

What happens to time in a warp drive? I mean you can cheat space, we've been doing that forever. We call it a shortcut. Interestingly enough, one takes a shortcut to save time. However classical time (man made time) and the space you occupy on the planet are independent of one another. Quantum time (oxymoron on so many different levels, while simultaneously defining), on the other hand, is "stitched" into the "fabric" of everything (space). Theoretically, a warp drive allows you to reach your destination sooner than you could at the speed of light, and unlike FTL speed, you would be there when you get there. However, what happens to time? You can't cheat time. Doesn't this restrict warp drives to sub light effectiveness? Unless of course electron neutrinos, ghosts, turn out to be tachyon in nature...

"I am not sure how useful the interpretation of Hawking radiation in terms of pair production really is. I do not know how this relates well to the actual calculation." Whether it's the force behind a giant going super nova, or the force behind Hawking's belief that faster than light speed is happening because when in and around a black hole the pair separates before annihilation with one succumbing to the singularity and the other accelerating from that separation, beyond light speed and escaping. If Hawking had been/is correct, wouldn't that indicate time travel? Is the universe resorting to time travel in order to preserve the information? I know how broad this interpretation really is and the number of problems surrounding it, but speak to it if you will (humor me). Also, if it's happening there, in a black hole (the singularity at the center), was the first order of business taken up by the known universe time travel???

Does the event horizon survive an evaporated black hole? I couldn't decide if the question should be can, could, or does. Since the answer must be definitive, does, is the proper connotation. For 30 years, Stephen Hawking thought that the uncertainty principle allowed particles to, for short bursts, accelerate beyond light speed, thereby giving them the ability to escape the gravity of a black hole. Well, Sorry Gene Roddenberry, but the mythical tachyon particle just doesn't exist. The theory now is that the information for any particle passing through the event horizon is converted to light and then reassembled outside the black hole, in or around the event horizon, in holographic form... or is it? Here's where I get into trouble concerning this subject. I think what is really happening is that, it is actually take longer for some particles (not all) to progress past the event horizon and into the black hole than it would take for the black hole to evaporate. Hense the information never really progressed past the event horizon, and is therefore is not lost. Pummel me... I probably deserve it.

No thoughts?

It has long been known that the center of a black hole is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, in theoretical physics as it applies to special relativity. However, it's also the place where the rubber goes through the road, stands on it's head, and recites verses, verbatim, from Johnny Depp's diary kept during the filming of Alice in wonderland (affectionately dubbed, the shroom chronicles). The center of a black hole is where, Classical physics, Plane Euclidean Geometry (beautiful Euclidean Geometry as well), Simon Cowell, Neil Young, and Mother Teresa, are as relevant as a commodore 64 . However it makes me want to burn physics books when I see the sharpest of the sharpest minds in our field, mailing it in from the front lines. look, I'm pretty mainstream guys, when it comes to this stuff, however I'm afraid that the promise of a brave new world, and what that might ultimately mean, is upon us. The time has come to move on... What if Heisenberg is as relevant at the event horizon as it is in the ever so tiny world of quantum mechanics? Gravity is so extreme at the center of a black hole, it does not occupy space in the known universe. Everything we know, everything we've done, everything we've written about is meaningless at the center of a black hole because everything breaks down there. However, the thing that keeps coming back around and rearing it's ugly head while doing a great Godzilla impersonation, is the concept of singularity. What if the center of a black hole doesn't occupy space in the known universe because it isn't in the known Universe? What if the center of a black hole isn't just an everyday run of the mill singularity ( I know, I know), but a Big Bang Singularity, creating an infinite number of universes all around us? Maybe it's a portal to Lisa Randall's infinite dimension, sharing just enough of it's infinite gravity to keep our feet on the ground. Anyway I'd love to have your thoughts on this...