MigL

Any process involves an exchange or transformation of energy. In a two particle collision you can account for all energies and they are conserved. When you start dealing with statistically large systems of particles, processes become irreversible. Energy is still conserved but a small amount is no longer available to the system. Consider a divided box with gas at high temp on one side and lo temp on the other. you can extract work out of this system by taking advantage of this temperature difference. when you remove the partition the gases mingle and the temperature reaches an equilibrium at medium temp. All the energy can still be accounted for ( theoretically ) but it is not available to do work anymore. The entropy of the system has increased. I did mention in my first post that this was a simplistic explanation so I didn't think I should mention increases or decreases in degrees of freedom.

The use of a suitable operator with the wave function will provide a probability distribution of the observable ( energy levels, momentum, spin, position, etc. ) related to said operator. See the previously posted electron orbital probability distributions.

No, I'm implying that any change in energy ( from one form to another ) involves a release of unuseable energy into the universe. This is for example seen as heat in a generator ( from friction of the bearings ) or in an internal combustion engine. The fact that total entropy of the system ( or universe as we can' t really have an isolated system ) must always increase is a valid argument for the non-existence of perpetual motion machines. This is of course not valid for systems composed of a few particles as processes are then reversible, but it applies to any system ofstatistically significant number of particles ( irreversible ). This is part of the three laws of thermodynamics that are in gambling terms... You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game

The asymmetrical collapse of various interacting masses to form a symmetrical black hole was addressed in the 60s by people like Wheeler , Thorne and Zel'dovich ( who called them 'frozen stars' as Wheeler's term , black hole, has vulgar connotations in Russian ). And no I can't quote references, do a search If you're interested. But you won't, your mind is made up, no sense peeking around the blinders! Is your intent to re-do the past 50 yrs of high energy gravitational physics and cosmology ( as these theories apply to the very early universe as well )? If so, you should give it a rest as I really don't think you're at the same level as the three named gentlemen, plus Oppenheimer, Novikov, Penrose and Hawking. You may well have been drunk when you started this thread.

To put it extremely simple, if you released any heat during the manufacture of this car, you may have decreased the entropy of the car by making it more ordered, but you increased the entropy of the 'surroundings' by an amount much greater than the car's decreased entropy. This increased entropy of the 'surroundings' is proportional to the heat lost to the surroundings which can no longer be used to do work.

Don't put words in my mouth decraig. I did not mention Newton and I understand the math of GR quite well. I also like to believe I understand some Physics. All Relativity does is tell us how the same event 'looks' to different observers or frames. The fact that gravitational collapse 'seems' to not happen in a non-local frame does not mean it doesn't happen in a local frame. The local observer does pass through the mathematical point of no return ( event horizon ) and on to the singularity. Now I would claim that this singularity is non-physical but you having faith in the math of GR, must consider it real.

The event horizon, no matter what co-oedinate system is used, is a strictly mathematical construct. THERE IS NOTHING ACTUALLY THERE ! Decraig, you need to consider the physicality of the situation not just the mathematics. You say you have 30 yrs experience with the mathematics describing the situation and I say that there is no force or mechanism that can stop the collapse of a massive star once gravity overcomes nuclear radiation pressure and electron and neutron degeneracy. So again I ask you, not for mathematical proof, which may or may not be valid ( we have estabilished that GR is only valid within certain limits, have we not ? ), but for physical options.

Well decraig, we can agree that neutron degeneracy prevents the further collapse of spent stars up to a certain size limit. As you don't believe black holes are a physical possibility, tell us your mechanism for for preventing the collapse of spent stars of mass higher than said limit. And since you brought up Star Trek, as Spock says, 'once you've eliminated all possibilities, you must consider the impossible'.

Not to be picky Jdaniel343, but if you were on a planet 2 million years away you wouldn't see dinosaurs. You'd have to be at least 65 million years away to see them.

The event horizon, the point where not even light can escape, is only 18 km.

Electromagnetic and strong force have been quantized in the last 50 yrs through QED and QCD, where a somewhat dubious process called re-normalization disposes of the infinities caused by virtual particles. Any attempt at quantising gravity so far, has proved to be infested with infinities and not re-normalizable. Re-normalization is apparently related to spin of carrier bosons and higher spin bosons , like gravitons of spin 2, are extremely hard, if not impossible to re-normalize. AJB would probably be able to explain better as I am out of my depth here.

Sorry Strange. I'm guilty of the same mistake that I've accused Alan of.

The data that Sir Arthur Eddington collected during the eclipse of 1919 ( I believe ) did not actually support the conclusions he drew from it. The data did not conclusively show that light bends the required amount around the sun; it was much too scattered. Whether he chose to publish because of his strong belief in relativity or other reasons is unknown. He may have been brilliant but I've disliked him since reading about his treatment of Sebrahim Chandrasekhar.

The name of the brilliant but pompous physicist/astronomer was Eddington, not Ellington, Alan. Space-time and its various non-Euclidian geometries are a mathematical model which does a damn good job of describing reality. It is very simple to describe a real kitchen table mathematically on a computer, and perform all sorts of operations on it such as rotations and translations, using Cartesian co-ordinates. This does not mean, in any way, that the geometric , cubic construct of X, Y and Z co-ordinates is real also. This is all GR and any other theory is doing, nothing more, nothing less.

What do you mean by 'gravity getting out of the black hole' or event horizon ? Why do you assume gravity has to 'travel' to a location to affect said location ? Gravity is the condition assumed by space-time in response to the presence of energy-momentum. The fact that a black hole is there means space-time in its vicinity is distorted from flat into a curvature which we call gravity. It certainly does not radiate from the centre or the event horizon outwards. And yes, from the definition, even gravity would gravitate. Are you proposing that there is another stable state at the Planck or string level so that we can avoid the singular state currently indicated by GR to be the final state of a collapsing large star ? In effect, there is no singularity at the centre of the event horizon, just extremely dense 'stringonium" ?

Relativity is ( and gives us ) a description of how the same event is measured by different observers ( in different frames ).

A fundamental particle, by definition, is not made up of anything, otherwise its components would be fundamental. So definitely NOT a possible model.

When you start talking about 'feelings' in a science forum, I start thinking ...crackpot ! And even if I can't prove that, I think you've provided plenty of proof.

As others have explained, it provides a common ( sometimes also used ) reference for signals and potentials, such that they are measured from the same point, ie. ground potential.

If you can't calculate or measure something, in effect prove it, then it is a faith not a science. It belongs in the Religion forum. Over here in the Physics forum we deal with thing which can be calculated, measured or proven or at least have a hope of being proven. Incidentally science can prove that there is no such thing as empty space that the 'universe expands into'. Like I said ...nonsense !

What Greene is alluding to is a family of theories known as Loop Quantum Gravity where space-time ( not just time ) is a quantized field with no background 'stage' upon which events are located. This idea is respectful of General Relativity.

So you think 'Quantum Physics' is the new catch-phrase to attract attention to your ideas and your book ?? Your post has nothing to do with the science of Quantum Physics. Merry Christmas.

1-Nothing ???? So as soon as you get to the most distant point ( from what ? ) and cross it you have a new most distant point ??? Nonsense. 2-Anyone on this forum can give you examples of unbounded lines, surfaces, volumes or higher dimensional topologies which are finite, You made the argument that in this case there is no difference; explain to us what is special about this case. The Greeks and Aristotle for all their mathematical advancements, were also very lacking in certain areas of math such as limiting values and infinitesimal changes ( the basis of calculus since the 1600s ( Newton and Liebnitz ). If you're familiar with Zeno's paradox, you'll realise that for them, theoretically at least, motion from point A to point B was impossible,; you would never get there. And for all their Euclidian geometry, they had no knowledge of curved geometries as developed in the 1700s and put on firm footing by Riemann and Poincare in the 1800s. These ideas are extremely important to modern Cosmology, as General Relativity tells us space-time curves under the influence of energy and momentum. I don't discredit their advancements, but I don't anyone bases current science on 2500 yr old ideas. Have a Merry Christmas.

I think your perception of gluons is mistaken. That's not how they bind nucleons or quarks.

Anyone who considers the universe BOUNDED as simong does when he asks what the furthest point is expanding into needs to do two things. 1-Explain what is on the other side of the boundary. 2-Learn the difference between bounded and finite. As for Aristotle and his Greek buddies, he may have been way ahead of his contemporaries and even a lot of followers until the Renaissance, but surely we're not going to base modern science on 2500 yr old ideas.