imatfaal

To clarify the clarification An electron volt is the energy change when a particle with the charge of an electron moves across a potential difference of one volt

Sensei - the idea is quantum woo but just to explain what I have seen before; the idea is that you can get heavy protons which have a strange instead of a down or a charm instead of an up etc. It is completely unempirical and hypothetical but just so you can spot it in future - know your enemy etc.. Also in generational terms up pairs with down, strange pairs with charm, and top pairs with bottom - but these are not pairs in particles just in terms of the standard model and its generations.

Thanks zapatos. These results come from the work of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking - Penrose published (about infinite curvature aka time-like singularity) in 1965 and Hawking published (about Space-like singularity and Big Bang Singularity) in 1973. Both of these were well after Einstein died in 1955 - 10 years is probably long enough that no discussions would have even made their way to Einstein; this would especially be the case as both were young mathematical physicists at the time of their papers rather than the well respected professors (which they both became) who might have dropped a line to Einstein with their ideas Maximum density, infinite density, ultimate density - doesn't matter what you call it. We are certain that the structure DOES breakdown - because atomic nature of material is lost in neutron stars and thus we cannot see why it wouldn't be in black holes. The counteraction to gravity is due to the quantum mechanic idea of fermionic exclusion - you cannot get fermions too close together. But whatever it is named we do not know Remember to post any ideas in Speculations - and be aware if it is anything to do with the interior of a black hole then you are gonna need tonnes of maths; there is no empirical experimentation. At present our ideas are based on interlocking and internally referential maths - that's why the singularity provides such a worry - and any change would need to engage with this maths

Not sure what you are getting at there Miguel. What feature of the radiation? A black holes temperature is the temperature of the black body which would emit Hawking radiation of that spectrum [latex]T = \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{\hbar c^3}{8G \pi k}[/latex] The temperature of the black body / black hole is inversely proportional to the Mass. The size (radius) of the black hole is obvious linearly proportional to the mass [latex]r=M \cdot \frac{2G}{c^2}[/latex]

The fact that you can think that is pretty much proof that we are not damned; our ability to introspect and learn is amazing and will keep us going. Chin up; we have a true global society to create!

There is no Nobel Prize for Numerological Nonsense. and by the way Bingo!

A. I would lose the idea of infinite density / singularity as the thing which is inside a black hole. Something is inside the Event Horizon and at present we don't know. It has a density which means that its radius is lower than its schwartzchild radius and that's about all we can say B. Yep - another good reason to avoid singularities and infinities C. Yep - that doesn't work either. There is no figure that is the highest - you can always add one; and infinity is always way off in the distance. It is not a normal number OK - the maths of general relativity tells us that at the centre of a black hole is a singularity; a place where space is infinitely curved or where matter is compressed to a point. For lots of reasons - some of which you have touched upon - we do not believe this is correct; it is generally felt that general relativity is beyond its realm of application. You have to use other tools to get your head round this problem; unfortunately we don't know what these other tools are yet! We do know the tool-box is based upon quantum physics. This is something we just don't know! Lots of pop-science rubbish will tell you we know - but we do not.

We get the same here with Brexit - saddening, maddening, and all too common. When your lot is bad, or you keep on being told it is, then you seek around for someone to strike out at.

That's the "Yeah - but Magic..." defence. Science is what we can experiment on and theorize about - if your friend is gonna make up nonsense he should have the good grace not to try to camouflage it with sciencey buzzwords; the practice of making shit up and giving a completely false veneer of science is not only wrong it is deceitful. Scientists know they don't know all of the answers, we know we don't even know most of the questions - but when it comes to this sort of bunkum we know one very good question "Will you show me the objective evidence please?" And finally: if you can replace a (pseudo-science or other) explanation with "pink unicorns make this happen" without any loss of credibility because the available evidence supports both equally then you know you should search for more empirical data.

It's rubbish. Any comment that start that science is the truth should be immediately distrusted. Science is the search for knowledge in the humble understanding that we can never know the truth - just make theories and models which help explain small portions of it The bit about matter misses out the electron which is also fundamental and also in lots of the matter in the universe (well everything which has up and down quarks at least). The majority of matter in the universe probably does not have up down or electrons because it is the non-baryonic dark matter. On the idea of strange / up quarks - there is the idea of strange matter which might exists in the heart of neutron stars; but that is not gonna be in living organisms

Wouldn't that be the phase variation? [latex]e^{-i \omega t}[/latex] is used to generate a sinusoidal evolution in time - an addition to the exponent [latex]e^{-i (\omega t +k)}[/latex]phase shifts the wave whilst leaving the frequency/wavelength untouched (they depend on t and omega). Have you tried reading the original Papadopoulos and Esposito paper referred to ?

Material has a volume, but if you look closely you find that it is just atoms - often with lots of gaps. Atoms have a volume but again most of it is gaps with a nucleus in the middle. Even the nucleus is not as compact as it could be. Gold is pretty dense - about 2 x 10^4 kg per cubic metre; if you placed it (or most other materials) under vast gravitational pressure then it would collapse. The protons of gold nuclei would be forced into great proximity with the electrons and eventually they would merge (a bit more complicated than this) to form neutrons - you then have a new form of matter composed of neutrons (the original from the gold nuclei and the new ones) in a lump. The density of this stuff - which is what a neutron star is - is around 10^17 kg per cubic metre. Do you see how much of the gold was gaps? There is even predicted a more dense state of matter when the neutrons start approaching each other too much and you get a similar breakdown to a quark matter. There are further wilder hypotheses about higher gravitational pressures - but we cannot find out as these matters (well they are crushed stars in reality) are so dense that they form black holes. Once they form black holes we cannot follow the story any longer. Planck length is a distance - like a yard or a cubit but a different system of measurements and a great great deal smaller. We hypothesise that at scales of interaction and measurement below the planck length then Quantum Mechanical influences are so large that they dominate gravity. We can work with this in some situations. But in a black hole the scale is so small that we need QM and the gravity is so large that we cannot ignore General Relativity. Singularities might be a thing - but it is highly highly unlikely and will require huge changes in the physics; even the physics which predicted the singularity in the centre of black hole. This is a bit of a contradiction so we hope and believe that quantum gravity will find a solution which does away for the predicted singularity

Unemployment is at a low in Seattle - down from 7 percent odd a few years back to below 4%. 14,000 private sector jobs added in September. Never let facts get in the way of a good soundbite eh?

that's better

That is not quite true. The singularity is a prediction of General Relativity - but its very nature (infinite curvature of spacetime) make most people believe it does not exist. Thus you need a melding of GR (high gravity) and QM (the very small) to make sense of the interior of a black hole - this is quantum gravity and the search is still on!

we just do not know anything about what is inside the event horizon of a black hole. We can find out the BH's mass, spin and charge - but nothing else. So you are free to hypothesise about what is interior to the event horizon as long as you don't say anything pops back out into local space. This is all not regarding the huge tidal gravity you will incur - this could be exterior or interior to the Event horizon

They will never both step out on the right foot together. At zero Big Man/Little Man steps they are both L. After Big Man has made two steps the small has made three so Big Man is L and Little Man is R and they are in sync. After two more steps Big man has made 4 steps and the small has made six to Big Man is L and Little Man is L and they are in sync. You are back to initial configuration - you will never get out of this loop - the only times they are in sync is either both L or Big Man L and Little Man R.

that's fifteen

No idea - ran through a few numbers in my head on my ride to work today. I cannot think of an analytical method - or any way other than sieve tbh

Shows how good Sagan was - I always assumed it was originanally either from Laplace from a Theory of Probilities or Hume from Concering Human Understanding both of which your link mentions; if you can be confused with those two it demonstrates how well you are doing your job of explaining stuff in an accessible manner. I would have loved to see Sagan in his latter years - he always struck me as so wise and gentle; I can imagine a frail sage-like (yoda-esque?) Carl in his eighties weighing in on the questions of the day with utmost humanity and humility

10 and 6

Good grief. In your "paper" you provide a calculation include Newtons Gravitational Constant which is known to about five parts in a hundred thousand and give the answer with multiple pages of decimal places. All but the first bit of the first line are complete and utter garbage - even if the equation is correct! Get this thread straight and start answering questions with meaningful answers or I will report and request closure.

Not quite sure what you are getting at but tbook Anti-Matter has mass (ie not negative mass) but it is equal and opposite (to continue your analogy) in other ways - the charge is opposite. They do annihilate when particle meets antiparticle - but not to nothing; when they annihilate radiation is given off which carries the energy, momentum etc of the two objects. They do not have negative mass, nor negative energy etc - and are not exotic matter in the usual sense of that term

Why don't you spell out the calculation you are attempting rather than just hint at it - it will be good practice and may well mean you find the error yourself

Excel 2013 gives 36 as does Google Sheets and a Google Search