Riogho

Are you more interested in Macrophysics (Astrophysics, Stars, black holes, etc) or are you more interested in the microphysics, (subatomic particles, QM, etc)

Go buy "Black Holes and Time Warps" By Kip S. Thorne, I read it in the 8th grade, and it explained relativity well enough that I understood it then. So you should be able to grasp it.

LQG is the best bet right now. String Theories are basically screwed as they agree completely with SR, and are background independent anyways. It'd be real nice to have a fresh new idea pop up sometime though. Start thinkin'!

Okay, I've been looking into this myself, and it seems this question has been asked before. And a theory has been presented that is called "Double Special Relativity, or Deformed Special Relativity" It seems to be pretty well accepted and make some real experimental predictions that we can actually prove it right or wrong.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-special_relativity

I got a quick question. In SR there are two postulates. That the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and that the speed of light is a constant. So basically, there are two types of objects, those that go the speed of light, and those that move slower. As you know, there is a length contraction for different reference frames. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction. My question is this. What about for objects of Planck Length. That is, the smallest possible length there is. If it was accelerating relative to me, SR tells me I would view it get smaller. But it is defined as the 'smallest possible length'. Obviously this is a breakdown of SR at the Planck Scale. Possibly I am missing something, or something has been done to correct this. Help plz.

Short distances in our own galaxy don't expand at all, or do they just expand so small it's irrelevent?

Without taking the measurement the information doesn't exist. That is why it is both red and blue, not red or blue.

But for person B, inside the event horizon he will know the handedness of both particles, whether person A realizes it or not. At that moment neither will be in Superposition. Two entities do not have to know the information, as long as it is evident for one.

Okay, I know the universe is expanding faster then the speed of light, so I have a few questions. Is it possible that there are galaxies out there that even when they emit light since they are traveling faster away from us then light is traveling toward us that we never see them. Also, is ALL of space expanding at this rate or just the edges? I really don't understand how that works either. And since space is expanding when we measure the distance from one place to another using light sources are we taking into account the expanding universe? Thanks, from a n00b.

Unfortunately, string theory was supposed to solve this, but the original string theory had these nasty little buggers called tachyons, that moved faster then the speed of light, and caused the theory to be unstable. However, the unification of supersymmetry and string theory, superstring theory, was a very nice, concept which also decreased the amount of dimensions from 26 to 10 or 11. The problem is however, there is an infinite amount of these theories (with a negative or 0 cosmological constant) however, recently we have found the universe to have a small, but positive cosmological constant, which ahs reduced the amount of theories to around 10^500. The only problem is every single one of those has either makes predictions that simply don't agree with what we see. Or, as what 99% of them do, they call for particles that have yet to be seen, and infinite range forces that have yet to be detected. Unfortunately we have nothing anywhere close to a theory of QG, string theory was our best bet, and it was 30 years of fruitless study. We need to take a step back to the standard model and need to take it in a new direction.

There isn't enough mass there to get the core hot enough to cause any amount of fusion comparable to the sun's.

If superstring theory is correct, which as time goes on, is looking more and more unlikely, then the electromagnetic impulses in your brain would be caused by strings, so intuitively they would have an affect.

11 Dimensional? Hold on here, I thought were were talking string theory, not superstring theory, here. If we are into superstrings we are talking slightly more complex, and more then WAY over my head

Except that in it's own reference frame, it isn't contracted at all.

My rebate check is 12 dollars and 40 cents. I think I might buy lunch.

The problem with the graviton theory is that gravity DOES interact with itself, meanign the gravitons will interact with other gravitons. This si why it is so much harder to analyze then something like the electromagnetic force where photons pretty much stay to themselves. However, we know to a very close approximation the fields of a graviatonal body add verym uch like the electromagnetic field. I.E. if you had one point charge, and the field it created was E1, and another charge a little farther off and it created E2, etc etc, The charge at any given point would be E = E1 + E2 + E3. . . It works the same way for the gravitational force. Mostly.

The smaller it is the faster it will evaporate, the interesting thing is the temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to it's mass, therefore the smaller it gets the faster it radiates, and these will be so small, it is inconceivable that they last long. Of course, that is the standing theory, we need a true theory of quantum gravity before we can make anything but assumptions.

I'm the smartest person in the world. I have a really hot girlfriend. Therefore I am very happy.

When you have a man that is running for President, You know the person who is supposed to unite the country under a common goal, that goes to and supports a church and a man, who thinks Blacks should have their own country, and that America sucks balls, we have a problem. I looooved Barack before, but this entire thing has me on edge.

, Yes, it is. Antimatter has been seen. No, black holes are merely a lot of mass in one area, with lots of gravity. Nice idea, except... Antimatter and matter attract each other. Dark matter doesn't make up black holes (at least not exclusively, I guess since it interacts via gravity, it would be in black holes). This leads me to an interesting thought, that hopefulyl someone can answer. If dark matter IS in a black hole, would it undergo Hawkign radiation? And if it did, would it radiate as darkmatter particle/anti-particle? >.< Hmmm

The chances of it stabilizing into the particles you want is tremendously low. We had to use HUGE amounts of more energy to find the truth quark. The energy will want to take form in much smaller particles before it coughs out the big ones. For example we have Tevatron Colliders now, but the Higgs Boson is only considered to weigh 100-120 GeV's, yet we havn't seen it.

I'm sorry, I thought you knew all about this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_field_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Uhh... Let me find my source.... I'll be right with you. From Lee Smolin's Book: The Trouble with Physics Pg 90-91 It is here talking about black hole temperature, and how if you put more energy in, you make the black hole actually cool off. "This mystery has since challenged every attempt to make a quantum theory of gravity. ... Bekenstein and Hawking treated the black hole as a classical fixed background within which quantum particles moved... They did not describe the black-hole as a quantum mechancial system ..." "Hawking found still another puzzle lurking.. Because a black hole has temp it will radiate. But the radiation carries energy away from the black hole. Given enough time, all the mass in the blak hole will turn into radiation. At the end of this process... shrunk down to planck mass, an d one needs a quantum theory of gravity to predict the final fate of the black hole." "During the life of a black hole, it will pull in huge amounts of matter, carrying huge amounts of intrinsic information. At the end, all that's left is a lot of hot radiation, which, being radnom, carries no information at all - and a tiny black hole. Did the information disappear?" "Hawking made a strong argument that a black hole evaporates away loses information. This appears to contradict quantumt heory, so he called this argument the black-hole information paradox. Any putative quantum theory of gravity needs to resolve it"

Don't ask me. Ask someone who knows what they are talking about. Google it.

Yea, what he said