Strange

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that little snippet I think so

Yes. For simplicity? (And I had only just had coffee!) Changed from zero or reintroduced are about the same thing, I think

You have not yet provided any evidence (peer reviewed or otherwise) for this claimed violation of conservation. Please provide this evidence. It doesn't leave a trail of light. It leaves a trail of bubbles. Nonsense. Hawking radiation is science. It is discussed in both (peer reviewed) scientific papers and in popular science articles/books.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged You seem to be ignorant of both the science and the history here. Einstein cam up with the mathematics of General Relativity. Several people then looked at how this would apply to the universe. When Einstein first did this, he set the variable λ to the value required to make the universe static. Because there was no evidence that it was not. (The reason he later called this "his biggest mistake" is because he should have noticed that this is unstable; like trying to balance a pencil on its point.) When Lemaitre did this, he realised that the equations could imply that the universe was expanding (which could also imply that it had an origin, which fitted with his theology). He used the available red-shift data to develop an approximate value for λ - his value was, by modern standards "wrong". The value of λ was later adjusted based on the evidence available. For example, when Hubble published more red-shift data, the value of λ was adjusted. At one point, because of a lack of understanding of how stars work, it was thought that there were stars older than the universe. So the value of λ was adjusted again to make the universe older. So that value was wrong. But then a better understanding of stars was developed and the value was adjusted again. Then the accelerating expansion was discovered and the value of λ was changed again. There were many other people involved at different stages. And many other different measurements or estimates of λ. They were all "wrong". The current value is thought to be more accurate, but two different methods of measuring it, give different results so one or both of them must be "wrong". All scientists are "wrong" nearly all the time. So what is your point? (Apart from some incoherent grudge against science) Yes. This was proved by Newton who therefore concluded that the universe had to be infinite. Again, he was wrong. But that was based on the best information available at the time. You seem to want to criticise people for being wrong, based on what we know now. This is ahistorical and pretty insulting to people who were doing the best they could with the information they had. It is a bit like complaining the the Victorians didn't do laser eye surgery. Here you use the typical religious anti-science argument. You think that because all your opinions are based on religious belief, the same must be true about others. To be honest, scientists don't really care about Einstein when doing science. You won't find a scientific paper that says, "this must be true because Einsteing said so". You won't even find many pop-sci articles that say that (I would hope there are none at all). The only reason that people accept the equations that Einstein came up with is because they work. It doesn't matter that he was wrong about some things. All that matters is the science. And that is (as far as we can tell) correct. If you removed all knowledge of Einstein (the person) from the minds of everyone on Earth, it would make no difference to the science. And, of course he was wrong. But he wasn't "completely wrong." Scientists are always wrong. It's what they do. Although they are rarely completely wrong.

! Moderator Note Probably better to report the post to ensure it is seen - but done. With pleasure!

It doesn't say that. It says: "the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to elementary particles." In other words, it does not give mass to all particles. Says the guy who refuses to provide any support for his claims.

Read this: https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/ [x-posted with beecee] Good. Perhaps you will now admit you are wrong.

it is a little story about how misleading analogies are, particularly in quantum theory.

Do you realise that swansont is an actual working physicist who deals with this stuff every day? That is not a "known problem" at all. It is a problem you have invented to cover your ignorance. You seem to be projecting your ignorance on to scientists. The explanation is very well understood by other people. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. What are you talking about? Nonsense. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity.

Roughly speaking, yes. And it has been the accepted explanation for particles having mass since the mid-60s. So not pseudo-science. And it is still irrelevant to your comparison with gravitons (which are purely hypothetical and don't give things mass).

We are not talking about a change in sideways momentum. I am just trying to explain why there IS sideways momentum and therefore pressure. Because some of the molecules hit the sides.

OK. Let's take it step by step. I am at one and of the table. My cue is like the force of gravity: it is going to push one ball (the cue ball) directly towards the other end of the table (in this analogy, my cue ball only ever points directly along the length of the table - like gravity). Now, assume there is another ball between the cue ball and the other end of the table. Your description of how gravity and momentum works implies that the only possibility is that momentum can only be transferred in straight line from the cue to the opposite edge of table. But if my cue ball hits the other ball off-centre, then both the cue ball will fly off to the left and right (at 90º to one another because of conservation of momentum) and will hit the sides of the table. That is, they will exert pressure on the sides of the table. Even if you consider the (very unlikely) case of a molecule falling directly downward under gravity, it will at some point hit another molecule. At this point, both molecules will bounce off at an angle (like the snooker balls) and could hit the sides of the container, exerting sideways pressure on it. I'm sure you are genuinely struggling to understand. As my explanations are not working, hopefully someone else can do better. Good luck.

A good explanation of Hawking radiation here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-do-black-holes-actually-evaporate-1f195c289aa1 There is a link in there to a blog by Sabine Hossenfelder which explains a bit more: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

So you are saying that I can't make a snooker ball hit the side cushion, only the cushion at the far end of the table? OK. So the overall change is zero. Let's say we start with zero momentum to the left and the right. After some number of collisions there will be an equal number of particles heading towards the left and the right. As you say, momentum is a vector quantity so these will cancel out leaving zero net momentum to left and right but a pressure exerted on the left and right sides by the particles heading in each direction. There, momentum conserved. Everyone is happy.

As you say: angles. The momentum will eventually be "distributed" in all directions. So the pressure will be the same in all directions.

Well, I skimmed through that. One person suggests putting the computer in space and then you go near a black hole for a while. That would work. So you could come back a year later and the computer will have done 100 years of computation. That's OK except everyone you know will be dead. Another says you can put the computer near a black hole, which is just wrong. One talks about hyper computation using GR. I am not familiar with this as a concept but as he points out that the results would only be available to someone inside the black hole, it isn't very useful. He also says that this probably means that these solutions to GR are not realistic.

Of course. I didn't even think it needed saying. I'm not even sure why you would need to ask.

Can you post a link to that because it seems wrong. Time dilation means that we would see someone near a black hole age more slowly, their clock running more slowly and their computer executing instructions more slowly.

Ah, I missed the fact that was the wrong way round!

The best time dilation you can possibly achieve is insignificant, as has been explained twice.

Even if you put a computer in orbit, the difference in speed due to time dilation is insignificant. If we take the example of GPS satellites: "The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day" http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html You would also have trouble with power and heat dissipation.

Why would you conclude that? In fact, it is (as noted in another thread) conservation of momentum that defines the angles that the two balls will move: https://mechasco.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/billiard-balls-and-the-90-degree-rule/ On the other hand, you appeared to be saying that conservation of momentum means that forces can only be transmitted in a single direction. Which is obviously false, as snooker proves.

Yep. We can never know how antibiotic resistance evolved. It could have been caused by rap music. Or Catholicism. Or sunspots. Anything really. How could we ever know.

Really. Ouch! I missed that. Using that sort of physics would make it even harder to predict the lottery!

"Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory At some point, you need more accuracy that is available because of quantum effects and that is greater than can be computed.