MigL

I like mine slit and roasted. With a glass of wine ...

What actually happens is that the light cone of the infalling object ( Light cone - Wikipedia ) tips towards the gravitational well, and would be on its side after passing through the Event Horizon, with resulting effects on time-like and space-like motion. Pop-sci sensationalizes this as space and time reversing, or, there is only one destination in your future.

You and Phi. And Happy New Year to 'you two'. ( hope the hangover has subsided )

It's a long slog, 25 oages, but I recommend reading this topic in Speculations It is fairly recent ( month ago ) so I really don't want to re-hash the whole discussion, but it is very informative, and brings up the same questions you are considering. Happy New Year.

It's either/or ...

Are you two the same guys who always claim prohibition doesn't work ? Or does that only apply to mood altering substances, but not cigarettes ?

We would give you advice, but it is still illegal in a lot of jurisdictions, and we don't advise on illegal activities 😄 . Best advice I can give is move to Canada.

You are so indecisive 😄 .

Personal preference. All are equally valid. How do you pick a favorite color ?

Can't say I agree with the video, or the conclusions drawn from his paper ( as little as I can understand it ). It seems just another 'interpretation to me, as I don't much care for non-locality or time travel. I am perfectly happy with the 'no local realism' interpretation, where all is probabilities, that, once 'fixed' by interaction/measurement/observation, emerge to what we perceive as 'real'. Maybe it's just personal preference as to what seems less absurd to myself, somewhat like I prefer the 'Copenhagen' interpretation to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation.

Me too. I posted an explanatory link of the blok universe model ( much to Studiot's displeasure, it seems ) only because another poster had misconceptions about where the model is applicable. As with all models, it is not applicable in all circumstances, and I, myself, am not overly fond of it. However, I'm even less fond of the misconceptions that get posted on this forum about it.

Actions can be made illegal, and many are. I, for one, don't wish to live in a world where thoughts and beliefs can be made illegal. Do you ?

Actions affect others; beliefs do not. I wouldn't want to confuse what we are discussing.

Mr W Heisenberg has some thoughts on that, and his principle says "no".

For some reason I could not get this to quote, but Markus' post, in the Crowded Quantum Information thread should be required reading for anyone confused about entanglement ... "Let’s look at this whole quantum entanglement business systematically, because I really don’t think it requires 22 pages of discussion and argument to understand this. It may be counter-intuitive, but it really isn’t that complicated. Suppose you have - to begin with - two completely separate particles, which aren’t part of a composite system; their states are thus entirely separate, and denoted by |A〉,|B〉 Don’t mind the precise meaning of this mathematical notation; it simply denotes two separate particles being in two separate states, where the outcome of measurements are probabilistic, and not in any way correlated at all. No mystery to this thus far. Now let’s take the next step - we combine the two particles into a composite system. The state function of that composite system is then the tensor product of the states of the individual particles, like so: |ψ〉=|A〉⊗|B〉≡|AB〉 Again, don’t mind the precise definition of these mathematical operations; the idea here is simply that our two particles A and B form a composite system. Let’s, for simplicity’s sake, assume that each particle can only have two states, ‘0’ and ‘1’ - the physical meaning of the tensor product above is then that it combines each possible state of one particle with each possible state of the other, so the overall combined system can have four possible states: |00〉,|01〉,|10〉,|11〉 Thus the overall combined state of the particle pair is (I will omit the coefficients here, as the precise probabilities aren’t important): |ψ〉=|00〉+|01〉+|10〉+|11〉 This is an example of a system that is not entangled - the combined state function can be separated into the individual states of the constituents, and all combinations are possible (though not necessarily with equal probability). Non-entangled states are separable into combinations of states of the individual constituent particles - they are tensor products of individual states - which means physically that there are no correlations between outcomes of measurements performed at the constituent particles. If you get state ‘0’ for a measurement on particle A, then you can get either state ‘0’ or state ‘1’ for a measurement on B, and these outcomes are statistically independent from each other. Mathematically, the tensor product makes no reference to the separation of the particles, ie it is not a function of their position, hence neither is the overall combined state. An entangled 2-particle state, on the other hand, looks like this: |ψ〉=12–√(|01〉+|10〉) Notice three things: 1. Compared to the non-entangled state, two of the possible measurement outcomes are missing; the set of possible outcomes is reduced 2. The combined state cannot be uniquely separated into tensor products of individual states; it is non-separable 3. The form of the combined state does not depend on the spatial (or temporal) position of the particles - it is purely a stochastic statement, not a function of spacetime coordinates. What does this physically mean? Because the set of possible measurement outcomes in the overall state is reduced as compared to the unentangled case, there is now a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes - with emphasis being on the term statistical. There are now only two possible combinations, as opposed to four in the unentangled case. This is the defining characteristic of entanglement - it restricts the pool of possible combinations of measurement outcomes, because the overall state cannot be separated, due to there being extra correlations that weren’t present in the unentangled case. This is purely due to the form of the combined wave function - the outcome of individual measurements on each of the constituents is still purely stochastic, and not (!!!) a function of distant coordinates. Because the outcome (statistical probability) of local measurements is not a function of coordinates or any distant states, it is completely meaningless to say that this situation is somehow non-local, or requires any kind of interaction, be it FTL or otherwise. The entire situation is fully about statistics and correlations, which is not the same as a causal interaction; in fact, any interaction between the constituents (including FTL ones) would change the combined wave function and preclude the possibility of there being a statistical correlation while at the same time maintaining the stochastic nature of the outcomes of individual measurements. This is evident in the fact that the entanglement property of the above state function isn’t encoded in any kind of coordinate dependence, but rather in a reduction of terms, ie in a reduced pool of possible outcomes. This hasn’t got anything to do with locality at all, but is purely a statistical phenomenon." Markus Hanke Nov 21 / 22

The charge is visible to the outside world, just as mass/energy and angular momentum are. These 'quantities' are stored in the configuration and size of the Event Horizon, and are conserved in the classical model of a BH that arises from the solutions provided by GR and the EFEs. Hawking radiation is a Quantum Mechanical result of the temperature of a BH ( all bodies at a temperature emit black body radiation ), and the BH's temperature is a result of its entropy. See Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which is a statistical thermodynamic treatment of micro-states, again encoded on the surface of the Event Horizon ( Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia ). Essentially, all a BH presents to the outside universe is made available only by the Event Horizon. I have found, that unless you are a 'Stephen Hawking.', it is best not to mix classical and quantum models

Science does not address 'spirituality'; nor do we on this Science Forum.

Sorry, my mistake. Max eccentricity is listed as 0.057 I rounded up to 0.06 , but forgot to add a zero. Maximum eccentricity and minimum vary over a period of 92000 years, and the minimum is 0.005. Your value is the current eccentricity.

Charge, along with mass/energy and angular momentum, is a classically conserved quantity in Black Hole formation. There are solutions to the EFE for a charged non-rotating Black Hole. See here Reissner–Nordström metric - Wikipedia

I tend to agree. We wouldn't get seasons as we now know them, but I wouldn't word it as strongly as you have. Earth's orbital eccentricity is 0.6; not that great, but enough to have some measurable effect

There are valid reasons why 'charged' Black Holes would not be plausable. They would tend to attract opposite charges much more strongly than gravitationally. Similarily, once you start to accumulate charge, it becomes more and more difficult to add additional charge, and gravity is certainly not strong enough to overcome the repulsion.

This may have worked for tribes and small groups, but the largest city in the world, nearly 5000 years ago, Uruk ( Uruk - Wikipedia ), in Sumer/Mesopotamia had 40000 dwellers. Many tribes had to co-habitate; a much more uncontrollable situation without societal structures imposing social mores. That is the 'so what' I am talking about. And for clarification, I fully agree with Sethoflagos, I am not religious myself, but I don't deny others the choice to live their lives according to their own beliefs. ( I omly 'bitch' about it when they try to impose those beliefs, whatever they may be, on me )

i offered as much evidence as you did. Ancient Sumerian societies did develop towns based on agriculture in the fertile crescent, but the town grew around temples. Most 'political' leaders were also religious leaders. "Sumer was divided into many independent city-states, which were divided by canals and boundary stones. Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor (ensi) or by a king (lugal) who was intimately tied to the city's religious rites." From Sumer - Wikipedia

Ok, I'm always interested in your view. Please elaborate.

I disagree. Religion imposed structures on early tribal societes.