Fred56

The thing I'm trying to get my head around is what “happens” at or to the singularity (in relativistic terms). Is a point of infinite spacetime density created? If it has infinite curvature then “where” is it and how did it “get” there? How satisfactory is it to say that it is a “point” “outside” of spacetime...?? There has to be both relativistic and quantum outcomes, but of course lots of people already know that. I think the problem just might have something to do with the deterministic flavour of GR. Matter is “remapped” somehow, but the parts haven't been swapped with some new kind of “spacetime stuff”. It's like a car that's been squished, or something, so it's not a car anymore but something more “basic”. Something that happens to spacetime, but doesn't make it something new, just maps it to a new (or more basic) topology.

Ok, someone on physicsforum's told me this: But the matter is "mapped" differently, right? I mean sure, it isn't eaten by some Laplace demon, but "a more complicated stucture" is more complicated by what "process"? How did it get more "complicated"?

How many parallels are there with what people have been doing for a lot longer (about perceived injustice)? Western law is the offspring of, ultimately Greek and Roman ideas of democracy and justice. I bet things like this probably happened back then, too.

As an "outsider", I would say that, sure it's not about America because there's China and India and Indonesia and Europe for starters, but it is about America being the most capable. That's what the issue is here, is the "best" country going to do it's "best"?

Just wanting to know if anyone can explain what it means. What resonance is it talking about? I did experimental phys., and I've measured the DeBroglie electron. But I was more asking about quantum field theories in general. Here he's talking about mass resonance or something? Cheers

My intention is to return and complete a grad. qual. I undestand things like a tensor and permittivity, some topology (I have read the SciAm article about fibre bundles over QS several times over and it still hasn't “gone in”). This is really about assessing my ability to understand any model, or what makes it tick. The math can come later. I'm not completely lost but not really at home either. Your'e going to have to go a bit slower for me. I need to understand some terminology a bit better, then there are other things like weekends. Frankly I was surprised I wasn't shot down about some obvious naïve error.

Norman, would these modelling in (1+1) be of any interest, or what?

There is certainly a large body of religious philosophical thought. Most early scientists (Newton, Leibniz, ...) were called philosophers. Philosophy of every stripe has has an impact on scientific thinking at some stage or other.

Not to mention all the Chinese living in cities.

A comment: My initial post was a speculation, nothing more. I wonder how "valid" a concept it is compared to all the others? So many questions. Let me rephrase that. How many other models "look" like this? In what way is a black hole an emergent property of the particular “structuring” of its “parts”?

“Einstein did not bring an open mind to the riddles of space and time. He was able to resist the allure of prevailing notions by adhering unswervingly to the preconceptions implicit in the equations of Clerk Maxwell, and these led to ideas that were startlingly different from those of nearly all his contemporaries. It was a bias of a rare and very special kind, that brought Einstein to new knowledge about the universe which, like Galileo's, seemed absurd in the light of ordinary observation and flew in the face of common sense. They were at odds with the established beliefs of the naked mind. As he became increasingly persuaded, of the importance of preexisting concepts in making his discoveries, Einstein joked about his transformation from a physicist into a “metaphysicist”. At the same time, he freely acknowledged his debt to Kant, whose “Copernican” revolution in theory of the mind was founded on the insight that we cannot observe the world as it really is, but can only interpret it by means of implicit mental structures that are not in themselves logical.” -Jeremy Campbell, The Improbable Machine

Sorry to "keep" you. Just catching some Zs. Here's a snippet from physicsforums: Here's me again: The singularity has "passed beyond all space and time", it can't “see” the radius, or beyond it. It has passed into some unknown or it is an infinite “distance” from reality? Can you explain what a "volume spectrum" is?

What do you think could be done (for example), about the Brazilian Govt's latest ploy to open up large areas of what are supposed to be rainforest reserves, ostensibly for the building of new townships for homeless people, but actually to allow loggers access, via the new roads? What about the large increases in the developed world of the use of nitrates to help depleted soils to support more crops - a lot of this ends up in rivers and then in the sea where large anoxic "dead zones" get created? What about China's near-exponential growth and its building of more and more coal-fired power stations? It's a pretty long list, these are just a handful... I'm not advocating just sitting back and throwing our hands up in the air, but these issues are things governments deal with. So can we pressure them, or elect the "right" guys for the job? Can we prevent China from creating a great big cloud of sulphates from all that coal (maybe by helping them to build alternatives like renewable energy sources)? The people Brazil is supposedly helping out (by building new towns for them) really have no political voice (but the loggers and cattle ranchers certainly do). So the pressure there would need to be on Brazil's leaders and on certain fairly rich and powerful businessmen. But you should expect arguments along the lines of: "the land is needed", "the wood is a valuable resource", and "the forest can grow back again".

I thought an observer wouldn't notice they had passed the horizon. It's like a fish getting too close to a waterfall, isn't it?

Do you understand the loop-quantum gravity model?

I've read some Bojowald, but it's hard to follow.

Black hole formation is like a gravitational collapse which creates a point of infinite density which “consumes” the matter within the (Scwarzchild) radius, or it forms an asymptotic distribution of some sort...? Could it be viewed as some kind of relaxation of a manifold (that undergoes a phase inversion, or somehow leads to a restriction of degrees of freedom)? Or have I got my Scwarzchild r's about phase altogether?

What surface are the charge and current density against?

Lots of people have something of a "fridge" mentality with Science. They think it's like opening the door and grabbing what you want. But Science is, by definition not a "complete product". They don't get that it's a never-ending process of refinement and revision. The whole thing is uncertain, in some sense. But there's way too much evidence for evolution to rationally deny the possibilty.

Well, are you saying that it isn't? A correlation implies, but does not, and cannot, be said to be causative. This is simply way too big of a simplification. This is what everyone's been trying to convince you of.

Isn't falling into a black hole a bit like Zeno's "paradox"? I mean the matter isn't supposed to be able to accelerate past c? But it does, or something.

Hawking is a pretty awesome dude. He was supposed to be "dead" by the '60s. How many people do you think have read his book? How many of them do you think understand it? How many times have any of you read it (and understand it)?

Maxwell's equations were derived from static field equations. The current I and charge q are defined as sources that allow the "computation" of the time-dependent fields. Any help?

I think Phil Collins produced a handful of good solo tunes, but wasn't anywhere near Genesis' popularity. He's sorta dead & buried now, anyway. Peter Gabriel was always my pick as the biggest influence on the original band (not to disparage Phil, or Mike). btw Killing Joke were a Brit group who formed in '79. Just discovered they have their own Wikipedia entry. They were a sort of hard rock/grunge band who IMO produced too few albums before they split.

Hmm. Looks Like Simply Red doesn't have a great fanbase. I like some of their stuff (Holdin' back the Years, e.g.), but mainly because it's easy to play (on a keyboard). If you've never heard of Brian Eno, he's the guy who has helped to produce more albums than the rest put together. With U2 for instance, to name just one.