beecee

The Singularity [where our current laws and GR beak down] was a singularity "OF" space and time, as distinct from a singularity "IN" space and time as we know it. While it is reasonable to ask what did that singularity exist in? The best I would answer is space and time, in a unknown form, and probably the more correct answer, is as yet we do not know. Does "nothing" exist? What is nothing? ...Are two other probably, and far more philosophical questions that may then arise.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scientists-results-neutrino-mountain.html Scientists report first results from neutrino mountain experiment March 27, 2018 by Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This week, an international team of physicists, including researchers at MIT, is reporting the first results from an underground experiment designed to answer one of physics' most fundamental questions: Why is our universe made mostly of matter? According to theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter—the latter consisting of "antiparticles" that are essentially mirror images of matter, only bearing charges opposite to those of protons, electrons, neutrons, and other particle counterparts. And yet, we live in a decidedly material universe, made mostly of galaxies, stars, planets, and everything we see around us—and very little antimatter. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scientists-results-neutrino-mountain.html#jCp extract: There is a possibility that the neutrino may be its own antiparticle, meaning that it may have the ability to transform between a matter and antimatter version of itself. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scientists-results-neutrino-mountain.html#jCp the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.132501 First Results from CUORE: A Search for Lepton Number Violation via 0νββ Decay of 130Te ABSTRACT The CUORE experiment, a ton-scale cryogenic bolometer array, recently began operation at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso in Italy. The array represents a significant advancement in this technology, and in this work we apply it for the first time to a high-sensitivity search for a lepton-number-violating process: 130Te neutrinoless double-beta decay. Examining a total TeO2 exposure of 86.3 kg yr, characterized by an effective energy resolution of (7.7±0.5)  keV FWHM and a background in the region of interest of (0.014±0.002)  counts/(keV kg yr), we find no evidence for neutrinoless double-beta decay. Including systematic uncertainties, we place a lower limit on the decay half-life of T0ν1/2(130Te)>1.3×1025  yr (90% C.L.); the median statistical sensitivity of this search is 7.0×1024  yr. Combining this result with those of two earlier experiments, Cuoricino and CUORE-0, we find T0ν1/2(130Te)>1.5×1025  yr (90% C.L.), which is the most stringent limit to date on this decay. Interpreting this result as a limit on the effective Majorana neutrino mass, we find mββ<(110−520)  meV, where the range reflects the nuclear matrix element estimates employed.

Hmmm...OK, here's my 2 cents worth, as outlined to me long ago by an Astronomer. The most important point I see is that the BB theory tells us that the universe/space/time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state, at a point t+10-43 seconds. Noting the high lighted parts, it can therefor be seen that this [the BB] applies to the observable universe, as detailed here.......http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my own mind, and in a way I believe can be best understood, I see this incredible story line like this. Space and time, [as we know them] evolved with a tremendous impetus we have termed Inflation, in the first early incidents of time at around t+10-43 seconds. Since that time, and up until around 5 billion years ago, the gravity from the mass energy density of the universe [stars, quazars, BH's planets etc] acted to slow the expansion rate. Then gradually the constant impetus behind the actual expansion of spacetime, [that which we now term DE] is slowly over taking the effects that gravity was having in slowing this expansion rate, so that now, today, we actually see an acceleration in that expansion. [Remembering that this DE is consistent everywhere, and the density within the universe is lessening] Any errors, alterations, and/or corrections needed in that summary gladly welcome. But I believe it is put in a way [dumbed down if you like] that explains the BB/Inflationary model so that even I can understand it.

If you and Strange live a good clean wholesome life like I have, you may also reach such maturity.

While I agree with that in general, cosmologists and scientists do have a reasonable explanation, based on GR and the laws of physics in general as to what should happen. What I mean by that is that we can logically assume that further collapse is compulsory according to GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR fails us and which we refer to as the singularity.eg: If this compulsory collapse did not occur, we would not really have the GR type BH, rather a Newtonian Dark Star. And I believe this is supported [the compulsory collapse] by the "dying pulse train" http://www.messagetoeagle.com/dyingpulsetr.php

I'm not so sure actually. I'm 73: And often refer to myself as an old bastard, remembering that I and presumably you also, are there: the younger scallywags have to get there. *proud to be an old bastard*

Yeah but I'm not as old as you.

The properties of BH's entail more than just not letting photons escape: They swallow everything [including photons] that ventures past what is known as the "photon sphere" at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius all due to extreme gravity.

We most certainly as yet do not have any evidence [ other then we are here anyway] that Abiogenesis is a valid concept. But the main point is that scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the only posssible answer to the existence of universal life. Of course I'm ignoring all the many supernatural, paranormal, unscientific and mythical fabricated answers that pervade humanity. I accept that science can reasonably and logically explain how matter evolved, how the elements evolved, how stars and planets evolved, and since life is made up of those elements created at the BB and in Supernova explosions, how life arose from non-living matter. To quote the great Carl Sagan, we were all born in the belly of stars. And logically, no matter how slim the chances of Abiogenesis occurring are, how much more slimmer, and unbelievable is it to accept that some supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, magical being that has existed forever, but has never shown himself, as an alternative answer?

Exhausts? A BH has no exhaust at all: Once the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is reached, an EH is formed, where the escape velocity is "c". Even Hawking radiation if valid, does not entail any particle crossing from the inside of a BH to outside. The familiar polar jets we see apparently exiting the polar regions of BH,s are actually in spiraling matter that has spun around and twisted by the BH's spin and thrown out at the polar regions. It is not matter/plasma that has ever crossed the EH.

Oh brother! I was once pretty active on another forum, whose administrators made the mistake of preferring "quantity" over "quality" threads and posts, and let subject matters such as Earth being visited by Aliens and UFOs of Alien origins, the existence of Bigfoot, and a myriad of other supernatural and paranormal claims made as fact, and Idiotic claims by closeted IDers that GR was wrong, run for days, weeks and even years, some even in the sciences sections, but all obviously nothing more then opinionated gullible crap, just as this appears to be.

Here's another.....[more specifically on climate change though.. https://chasingice.com/

Bingo! "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski

This thread was initiated as a rage because other threads by the same member were closed down for a myriad of reasons, not the least being that the member was never prepared to accept any answer that interfered with his obvious blinkered agenda. Science is a discipline in continued progress, based on newer, further, and more technological viable data as it comes to hand. That is its greatest attribute. I'm not getting into the climate change debate here, other then to say at this time the evidence supports the view that we are contributing to climate change. I'm not sure if the initiator of this thread is a creationist or not, but it does seem so based on the evangelistic like crusade he appears to have been conducting. And again I believe your thinking is astray as for mildlessly accepting scientific pronouncements. And science is full of scepticism as is shown by its continued progress and modification and/or scrapping of theories as data demands, by those professional and learned in that particular discipline. Vaccines have been overwhelmingly shown to protect humanity. The crazy anti Vaxers have little or no convincing evidence to show it harms us or does not protect, and if allowed to stubbornly reject the overall consensus of science on vaccines and ignore requests to have particularly their children vaccintated, are then a threat to the community in general. In Australia we have taken some harsh actions involving non vaccinated children not being allowed to kindergarten and school, and the parents derived rightly of any potential governement childcare welfare. You read a story...you check out the scientific paper on the story's claim or discovery......you check on any opposing views/research/criticism. You make sure that criticism/research is from reputable scientists, not unsupported adhoc claims by any Tom, Dick or Harry with an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, on a public forum.

As I did allude to, I'm not 100% sure which is technically right, or even if that can be determined: The point though is that quantum fluctuations/Casimir effect are not observed in such situations. Quantum foam, string theory and such, are elegant and mathematically beautiful "theories" that "seem" to give reasonable explanations to the way the quantum world operates. And they have been formulated by professional, credentialed experts in the field. Still they do not align with the defined meaning of a "scientific theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Again, while even many scientists refer to "quantum foam theory" and "string theory" as theories, [ because of their superior explanations and beauty] and while such theories are elegant and mathematically beautiful, they are not scientific theories as defined. In essence scientists are being human and using "theory" as is used in every day speech.

I'm open for correction here, but I would say simply because the strong nuclear force, drowns out any observed effect attributed to the Casimir effect. A scientific theory is the best explanation/model, supported by available evidence that we have. Scientific theories grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational and experimental data and making valid predictions. Speculation is an idea or hypothesis that lacks any supportive evidence. I believe they do, but I refer you back to my first answer. [again I am open for correction]

Good point. The way I see it, is that there are many amateurs with an interest in science that like to believe they can after thinking for a while, come up with new theories and concepts, without giving much thought to the many hours weeks, and years of stringent learning and research that has gone into our incumbent models. As an amateur and one with a great interest in science, perhaps my "advanced years" gives me the necessary wisdom to be able to accept the fact that the great "quality" of optimism by amateurs and professionals alike, must be tempered by realism, the support of observational and/or experimental evidence, and the scientific methodology. Optimism and enthusiasm are great qualities and have certainly put science where it is today and put mankind on the Moon, but so to is the underlying realisation that hypothetical ideas and concepts are just that, and the enthusiasm and optimism shown by amateurs, for any of it to progress further then that, it must be professionally scrutinized and examined in the finest details....GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predictive powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits any person who would ever be able to falsify some accepted concept of GR!!! That's science, that's the scientific method.

It isn't a theory, simply a speculative concept. The Casimir effect concerns EMFs and quantum fluctuations. Atoms and quarks are dominated by the strong and weak nuclear forces.

it is you who are wrong...really! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

Of course I accept that. Basically what I'm trying to say is that while we may have many ideas and possibilities as to what goes on inside a BH, we also have no real reason to assume that the laws of physics and GR should not apply inside as they do outside, except of course at the quantum/Planck level.eg: assuming that tidal gravitation still applies as it did outside, and that in essence a BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass probably and unfortunately residing where our laws do knowingly break down.

The BB was not an explosion per se...rather it was an evolution/expansion of space and time, henceforth known as spacetime as we know them. Matter evolved later....It wasn't until 3 minutes after the BB that the first protons and neutrons combined to form basic atomic nuclei and another 380,000 years later before electrons were able to couple to those atomic nuclei to form out first elements of H and He. Being an evolution of spacetime itself, there was no center to this event, rather it happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was confined to within the volume of an atomic nucleus. The radiation we see and which we call the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.] pervades all of spacetime at a temperature of 2.7K and is the left over or relic heat from the BB itself. That though is only one element of evidence that supports the BB. The other of course is the observed expansion that we see. The BB model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime, is the most overwhelmingly supported model that we have. One other point...Scientific models such as the BB are not proven...nothing really is in science. Scientific models are simply the best explanation we have at this time, and are always open for modification, addition, or just plain old scrapping for any new improved model. By the same token, models such as the BB do grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational data and making valid predictions.

Deano and Goldie on dumb people: Deano doing what Deano does best!!

As others have said, while WHs are a possible solution in GR, they have never been observed. In fact I have heard from reasonable reputable sources, that they contravene the conservation law. Hypothetically, what would hold the WH and BH together is a wormhole and ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge. And of course most cosmologists do not believe a physical singularity exists anymore, rather only as a non solution of mathematics. A spinning singularity in a Kerr metric BH, would see what we know as a ring singularity. If one were to align his trajectory into a BH via the polar regions, so as to pass exactly through the middle of this singularity, one could do it without any tidal gravity effects, as the pull of gravity would be equalised on all sides. On passing through though and where one would end, we have no bloody idea!

Interested: If we are able to survive any potential cosmological mishap, and our own Earthly follies, say to possibly 100,000 years or more hence, in my opinion the possibility exists that we "may" be advanced enough to modify spacetime to our demands, similar to the alcubierre warp drive or similar: But just as our stone age ancestors would see a jumbo jet as magic, such possible technology from the future, is at this time also magic and totally out of our league. The difficulties though in achieving such technology, also apparently means discovering some type of exotic energy and/or matter. No scientist/cosmologist expects anyone to find any such stuff anytime soon, if it at all exists. And of course if wormholes exist at all! The only thing really in its favour other then "over the top optimism" [which I have been told I have] is that entities such as wormholes and ERB's are solutions of GR, which has a pretty good track record. What I'm trying to say is that pessimism must be tempered with realism. We do know a lot more about GR today then when Einstein first gave it to us in 1916, and part of that is that even GR has limitations, particularly at the quantum/Planck level. The same applies of course to string theory and its derivitives: Mathematically beautiful they have been described, but as yet we are just not smart enough to invent technology to observe at such quantum/Planck levels and lower, and further no idea how we would/could implement any of the predictions or properties at such levels. I don't believe Strange is saying its all bullshit, rather that at this time, it is like magic to us and we have as yet no idea how to achieve any thing of that sort, if it is at all achievable, or even allowable. The same applies to time travel. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed I would love to believe that all this can be achieved by human kind at some time, and I would further love to believe that it can be achievable in my own time, before I kick the bucket. It certainly won't on the latter, and actually we have no idea as to the former.

Can't we reasonably logically assume, that tidal gravitational effects would take place, considering we observe it with Earth/Moon system and also outside of BH EH's with regards to accretion disks and matter spiraling in.....eg: we also assume that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on limited observations.