Off-topic Discussion Split from: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Conjurer]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Actually infinities generally point to the failure of the theory and why are generally abhorred in physics. The BB of course only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

No, the General Theory of Relativity is not abhorred in physics.  It is exactly the opposite.  Even every "bloke" (as Strange likes to put it) that writes a pop-physics book normally states that the General Theory of Relativity, being wrong due to it blowing up into infinity at the first moments of the big bang, is most likely the last reason for them having this problem or it being wrong, among other problems like dark energy and dark matter.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

A quantum fluctuation is governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The StnDev(E) * StnDev(t) >= hbar/2 , where StnDev is standard deviation, E is energy, t is time and h is Planck's constant, tells us that for brief periods of time , energy can vary according to this relation. This energy is 'borrowed' and must be 'repaid' after this time has elapsed. Whether this energy leads to virtual pair creation, or real pair creation, is simply dependent on the amount of energy. 

I don't know where you come under the impression that, the loose, term of a quantum fluctuation is only referring to the affects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  In most cases, this would make absolutely no sense in almost every context of the word where it is used, like when referring to it causing the Big Bang.  Loosely, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is only referred to as just quantum uncertainty. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

The Pauli Exclusion Principle DOES play a role in mitigating collapse of astronomical objects.

Then why does the laws of physics break down into points of infinite energy when describing the Big Bang and Black Holes?  Where and why does the Pauli Exclusion principle no longer take hold in physics in these regimes, when it alone should prevent this from ever occurring in nature?  If two fermions cannot possibly occupy the same space, then points of infinite energy should be impossible in any situation.   

[MigL]

You previously said...
"I never studied or read about how energy can be borrowed from a false-zero energy state, so I have no clue what any of that means or where it comes from."
Yet you presume to school others about their knowledge of Quantum Fluctuations ?

Don't just quote the first line of my post about the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
I explained how it works in white dwarf stars and neutron stars, and how it FAILS for stars with masses greater than a certain limit,
Go back and re-read my post.
Better yet, take my advice and read a good textbook.

[swansont]

23 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 Infinities are inevitable in Big Bang Cosmology, long before someone would get to the Planck Scale. 

How does that happen, exactly? You get infinities by dividing by a number, typically a distance, which is approaching zero, but before you get there you have to get to the Planck length. Where does these other infinities arise?

16 hours ago, Conjurer said:

No, the General Theory of Relativity is not abhorred in physics.

Thank you for rebutting a claim that nobody has made. That's very useful.

 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

No, the General Theory of Relativity is not abhorred in physics. 

You need to read more carefully, that isn't what was said.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Even every "bloke" (as Strange likes to put it)

Have I ever used the word "bloke"? News to me.

Oh yes, I see I did. How very unusual...

Edited May 4, 2019 by Strange
bloke

[beecee]

16 hours ago, Conjurer said:

No, the General Theory of Relativity is not abhorred in physics.   

Your interpretation in what I said is vastly astray.... I said that GR breaks down at the quantum/Planck level and as such the infinities inferred are rejected and abhorred. Any singularity existing is only a singularity as defined by the non applicability or failure of GR and the laws of physics at the quantum/Planck level. Cosmologists and scientists generally reject any "physical singularity" of infinite spacetime curvature and density.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

You need to read more carefully, that isn't what was said.

Have I ever used the word "bloke"? News to me.

Oh yes, I see I did. How very unusual...

Aussie slang is catching! 

Edited May 4, 2019 by beecee

[Conjurer]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

I explained how it works in white dwarf stars and neutron stars, and how it FAILS for stars with masses greater than a certain limit,

I saw no such thing.  You might have gotten too caught up in how un-knowledgeable I am about the subject and forgot to actually post it.  I may have gotten too distracted by it, that I didn't care to read it.  You should definitely try to develop better writing strategies, because frankly, I don't see how anyone would want to care to read anything you post from talking that way about them. 

As far as I know, false zero energy states are pseudoscience.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

How does that happen, exactly? You get infinities by dividing by a number, typically a distance, which is approaching zero, but before you get there you have to get to the Planck length. Where does these other infinities arise?

They come from the Lorentz transformation, because spacetime dilation becomes so intense.

[MigL]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed you can use Google or simple word association.

I explained how electron degeneracy and neutron degeneracy work in preventing gravitational collapse of white dwarf stars and neutron stars respectively.
Are you following so far ?
Quantum degeneracy is an emergent 'pressure' against further compression which arises when attempting to force quantum particles to occupy the same state ( in the case of electrons, two half spin particles ). This is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Still following ?
You can do a little more following at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure

This degeneracy pressure ceases to be a factor when the gravitationally collapsing star has a mass exceeding approx. 5 Solar masses.
In this case, collapse to a Black Hole with an Event Horizon is mandatory.
Now you are all caught up.
 

So, you are right.
I didn't consider how unknowledgeable you are, how you didn't care to read it, and how you saw no need to inform yourself by doing some basic research.
But I really don't think my 'writing strategies' are the problem.

Edited May 5, 2019 by MigL

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

They come from the Lorentz transformation, because spacetime dilation becomes so intense.

What is moving so close to c that this is an issue? Space expansion isn’t described by.the Lorentz transformations

[Conjurer]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

This degeneracy pressure ceases to be a factor when the gravitationally collapsing star has a mass exceeding approx. 5 Solar masses.
In this case, collapse to a Black Hole with an Event Horizon is mandatory.
Now you are all caught up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure

The Pauli exclusion principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. 

When the pressure due to this "Heisenberg motion" exceeds that of the pressure from the thermal motions of the electrons, the electrons are referred to as degenerate, and the material is termed degenerate matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

Degenerate matter^[1] is a highly dense state of fermionic matter in which particles must occupy high states of kinetic energy to satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle. 

Looking at this information, none of it seems to imply that the Pauli Exclusion Principle breaks down, so you still haven't explained how/why the Pauli Exclusion Principle should no longer take hold in these situations.  I have still not seen any examples of that from what you referenced.  I have put words in bold in your reference to try to help you learn how to read.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

What is moving so close to c that this is an issue? Space expansion isn’t described by.the Lorentz transformations

It does mostly just focus on time for simplicity sake.  Space would actually be contracted in the situation of a black hole or the big bang.  The gravitational pressure puts particles into high energy states while they are dilated in time due to gravitational forces.

What this all boils down to is that Wolfgang Pauli lost debates about rather or not the laws of particle physics stays the same inside of a black hole or such an intense situation, because big bang cosmology failed to be able to describe them without getting infinities or different laws of physics.  It was presumed that it was possible for different laws of physics to exist in these situations, and pop-physics was born (practically).  

Since black holes were never observed or proven to exist, it was unknown if black holes would be more like regular black holes or suppermassive black holes.  But, suppermassive black holes have been discovered to exist in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and most other galaxies.  Then, now we should know that suppermassive black holes are the type of black holes that are more common in the universe, instead of more traditional black holes. 

No one was able to prove if particles were actually still even particles, inside of a black hole, or what they are actually made of from them acting like a cosmic censor.  It was found that they have a density close to the approximations made of them being one, since that is close to the density of an electron soup.  Basically, focus should shift from the idea of traditional black holes into the physics of suppermassive black holes, where the Pauli Exclusion Principal still applies.  It could mean that the Pauli Exclusion Principal is more of law than just a principal.      

Edited May 5, 2019 by Conjurer

[MigL]

If you could be bothered to read further in that link...

Near the end of the section on electron degeneracy
"There is an upper limit to the mass of an electron-degenerate object, the Chandrasekhar limit, beyond which electron degeneracy pressure cannot support the object against collapse. The limit is approximately 1.44^[7]solar masses for objects with typical compositions expected for white dwarf stars"

In the section on neutron degeneracy
"There is an upper limit to the mass of a neutron-degenerate object, the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, which is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for electron-degenerate objects"

In the section on quark degeneracy
"Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars, depending on the equations of state of neutron-degenerate matter. It may also occur in hypothetical quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects"

And finally, in the section on singularities
"At densities greater than those supported by any degeneracy, gravity overwhelms all other forces. The stellar body collapses to form a black hole, though this is not well modeled by quantum mechanics"
 

Does one of us feel foolish now ???

[Eise]

I have a question here, maybe the answer is useful for Conjurer too.

First, what I think I understand a little: the transition of electron degenerate matter to neutrons. Electrons and protons can combine to form neutrons.

But what happens when a neutronstar is too heavy and becomes a black hole? Before the event horizon is bigger than the collapsing star, to what do neutrons combine? Wouldn't there be a transition phase before the complete collapse? What is happening in this transmission phase? Going from penta-quarks to 'septa-quarks' to 'nova-quarks' (nine-quarks) etc?

And what I also do not understand: how were Oppenheimer & Co able to calculate (estimate) their limit, without a full understanding of the strong force (already in the thirties)? And obviously because I do not understand it: why can the strong force be repulsive? 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It was presumed that it was possible for different laws of physics to exist in these situations, and pop-physics was born (practically).

I am fairly sure that popularisation of science go back several hundreds of years. 

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then, now we should know that suppermassive black holes are the type of black holes that are more common in the universe, instead of more traditional black holes. 

“More traditional black holes” ! What on Earth are they?

Also I would like to see a reference for SMBHs being more common than stellar mass black holes. 

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It was found that they have a density close to the approximations made of them being one, since that is close to the density of an electron soup. 

What?

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

the physics of suppermassive black holes, where the Pauli Exclusion Principal still applies. 

What is that based on?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 

It does mostly just focus on time for simplicity sake.  Space would actually be contracted in the situation of a black hole or the big bang.  The gravitational pressure puts particles into high energy states while they are dilated in time due to gravitational forces.

Time dilation would mean that an elapsed time tends toward zero, for that particle as measured from some other frame. How does this become a troublesome infinity?

11 hours ago, Conjurer said:

What this all boils down to is that Wolfgang Pauli lost debates about rather or not the laws of particle physics stays the same inside of a black hole or such an intense situation, because big bang cosmology failed to be able to describe them without getting infinities or different laws of physics.  It was presumed that it was possible for different laws of physics to exist in these situations, and pop-physics was born (practically).  

AFAIK, what happens inside of a BH has little to do with big bang cosmology.

11 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Since black holes were never observed or proven to exist, it was unknown if black holes would be more like regular black holes or suppermassive black holes.  But, suppermassive black holes have been discovered to exist in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and most other galaxies.  Then, now we should know that suppermassive black holes are the type of black holes that are more common in the universe, instead of more traditional black holes. 

No one was able to prove if particles were actually still even particles, inside of a black hole, or what they are actually made of from them acting like a cosmic censor.  It was found that they have a density close to the approximations made of them being one, since that is close to the density of an electron soup.  Basically, focus should shift from the idea of traditional black holes into the physics of suppermassive black holes, where the Pauli Exclusion Principal still applies.  It could mean that the Pauli Exclusion Principal is more of law than just a principal.      

You should learn what a law is in physics. It's not a rank in a heirarchy, as "more of law than just a principal" implies.

[MigL]

I can't answer your question, Eise. And don't know if anyone can.

The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit was calculated to be LESS than the Chandrasekhar limit at first, which made little sense.
It was only after a fuller understanding of the strong force that it was revised upward to its currently accepted value.

S Chandrasekhar crudely merged the relatively new field of quantum mechanics with special relativity in 1930, during his boat voyage to England to study under A Eddington ( who screwed him over; a very interesting story, if you ever have the chance to read it ).
Once the degenerate electron gas is set up in a white dwarf star, adding further mass to it increases pressure, and forces the electrons into tighter spaces. Using the HUP, Chandrasekhar resoned that as position of the electrons is tightened, their momentum ( and so, speed )  becomes more variable. The point where their speed becomes superluminal is non-physical  ( as pper SR ), and a mechanism must prevent that from happening.
At this Chandrasekhar limit, electrons merge with protons to form neutrons, a particle 2000 times heavier. That allows momentum ( mass x velocity ) to remain sensible as speeds of neutons can be 2000 times less.

This next part is pure speculation on my part, and should the admins feel the need, please move to Speculations.
It has been suggested that neutron stars which exceed a certain mass limit, would become degenerate quark stars, however, quarks are much lighter than neutrons. And since I would assume the laws of physics to hold except at the possible singularity ( edge of space-time ), then the HUP and SR would still require a more massive composite particle whose momentum remains sensible ( according to SR ), not a much lighter one such as single quarks.
Perhaps at such pressures and energies, composite particles composed of hundreds, thousands, billions or even of the totality of quarks composing the whole collapsed star, are stable. And one or more of these composite quantum particles are a replacement for the non-physical singularity. This would imply a possibly macroscopic quantum particle ( composite, not fundamental ) at the center of a Black Hole.

As I said, pure speculation, without much to back it up.
But if you ever have the chance to cross an Event Horizon, try to get to the library, and let me know what you find.
( hey, it worked for M McConaughey in Interstellar )

[Eise]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

It has been suggested that neutron stars which exceed a certain mass limit, would become degenerate quark stars, however, quarks are much lighter than neutrons.

Could that work anyway? First neutrons are already built up of quarks. Secondly, I understood that the greater part of the mass of protons and neutrons is caused by the binding energy of the quarks, i.e. by the gluons. And gluons have the advantage that they are bosons, so they can all be at the same place. And if quarks would combine to mesons, they would become bosonic too. (Great that we are here in speculations... Ups! I have no math here...)

20 hours ago, MigL said:

But if you ever have the chance to cross an Event Horizon, try to get to the library, and let me know what you find.

Finding the library will not be difficult. But to get out, that might be a problem.

And btw, now you mention Interstellar and a library: I realise only now that the 'library' in Interstellar might be derived from Jorge Luis Borges' library of Babel:

 

[MigL]

In a Bose-Einstein condensate, many identical particles act together as a single particle.
This is also evident in lepton pairings which act as bosons, in superconductors and superfluids.

Once large groups of quarks obey Bose-Einstein statistics, you can stack as many as you want in a single place.

I was afraid you might not understand the library/Interstellar reference, but now you have me interested in J L Borges' Library of Babel.
( or at least, its English translation )

[Conjurer]

On 5/6/2019 at 3:49 AM, swansont said:

Time dilation would mean that an elapsed time tends toward zero, for that particle as measured from some other frame. How does this become a troublesome infinity?

In the equations, they ended up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and at the event horizon of a black hole, time becomes zero from a frame of reference outside the black hole.  Then they end up dividing by zero.  The result is then infinity, from what I have read about it.

On 5/6/2019 at 3:49 AM, swansont said:

You should learn what a law is in physics. It's not a rank in a heirarchy, as "more of law than just a principal" implies.

I don't want to get this mixed up like it is some kind of evolutionary debate.  I know that even theories have experimental proof.  The problem is that even what happens in white dwarf stars or neutron stars is still in the realm of theoretical physics.  Theoretical physics doesn't always have experimental verification.  There are branches of theoretical physics that exist in this regime where the Pauli Exclusion principal was discarded.  I just don't think that it should be considered as even a theoretical possibility that there is a break down of the Pauli Exclusion principal.  I don't believe that any experimental evidence has been found to show that is the case.  I am aware that there has been theoretical physicist that do not keep this principal in their theories.  I don't know of any specific examples where this has changed from their existing some kind of experimental proof to show otherwise.  

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the equations, they ended up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and at the event horizon of a black hole, time becomes zero from a frame of reference outside the black hole.  Then they end up dividing by zero.  The result is then infinity, from what I have read about it.

The Lorentz factor doesn't apply in this situation. You need to use the equations of general relativity.

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I know that even theories have experimental proof. 

You mean: theories are supported by evidence. No "even". No "proof".

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

There are branches of theoretical physics that exist in this regime where the Pauli Exclusion principal was discarded.

Are there? Can you provide an example?

 

[Conjurer]

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

The Lorentz factor doesn't apply in this situation. You need to use the equations of general relativity.

The special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity were combined into one single theory, to try to make a more accurate description of what is going on in this case.  The current trend is to just use quantum mechanics, because it avoids this problem.  The special theory of relativity has not been unified with quantum mechanics, and it most likely is associated with it in hidden variables.  Then it no longer has an influence on the equations, since they do not deal with it directly in any form.

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

You mean: theories are supported by evidence. No "even". No "proof".

The Special Theory of Relativity is one of the most experimentally proven theories that exist.  It should be called a law, considering how much it has been proven repeatedly which is a condition that has to be met for something to become a law.  It just wouldn't sound right to call it the Special Law of Relativity or something; I guess.

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

Are there? Can you provide an example?

Yes, MigL claims to be one of those people. with the links he provided, but he doesn't seem to be aware that would end up making him a theoretical physicist and not just a physicist.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

In the equations, they ended up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and at the event horizon of a black hole, time becomes zero from a frame of reference outside the black hole.  Then they end up dividing by zero.  The result is then infinity, from what I have read about it.

In what equations does this happen?

 

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity were combined into one single theory, to try to make a more accurate description of what is going on in this case. 

The general theory includes special relativity. It's a special case of the general theory..

 

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

 The Special Theory of Relativity is one of the most experimentally proven theories that exist.  It should be called a law, considering how much it has been proven repeatedly which is a condition that has to be met for something to become a law.  It just wouldn't sound right to call it the Special Law of Relativity or something; I guess.

In a word: no. That's not what a law is in physics.

 

12 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

 The special theory of relativity has not been unified with quantum mechanics, and it most likely is associated with it in hidden variables.  Then it no longer has an influence on the equations, since they do not deal with it directly in any form.

On the contrary, QM has incorporated special relativity. It is general relativity that has issues reconciling with QM, and the issue is at scales where gravity is very, very strong and distances are very, very small.

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

In what equations does this happen?

The Lorentz Factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

Whenever the velocity of an object is equal to the speed of light, V^2/c^2 becomes 1.  Then you get 1-1=0 in the denominator under the square root.  Then 1/0=infinity.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

In a word: no. That's not what a law is in physics.

It would also have to have no counter examples that could potentially disprove it.  I don't know what other definition of a law you have.  

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The Lorentz Factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

Whenever the velocity of an object is equal to the speed of light, V^2/c^2 becomes 1.  Then you get 1-1=0 in the denominator under the square root.  Then 1/0=infinity.

Velocity of a massive object never reaches c

The Lorentz factor does't show up in gravitational time dilation

The question was about the equation where you get an infinity, i.e. where does the Lorentz factor appear in a denominator?

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It would also have to have no counter examples that could potentially disprove it.  I don't know what other definition of a law you have.  

A law in physics/science is relationship that is (or can be) expressed mathematically, usually a reasonably simple relationship. It has nothing to do with the body of evidence, or any explanation of why the relationship holds. Laws are typically components (subsets) of theories

Use of "law" has fallen out of favor — we don't name things as laws much anymore in physics.

 

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The question was about the equation where you get an infinity, i.e. where does the Lorentz factor appear in a denominator?

If you checked the link I provided you, you would notice that the Lorentz factor has this denominator.  Sometime I need to brush up on what text system you guys use to post equations.  

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

A law in physics/science is relationship that is (or can be) expressed mathematically, usually a reasonably simple relationship. It has nothing to do with the body of evidence, or any explanation of why the relationship holds. Laws are typically components (subsets) of theories

Use of "law" has fallen out of favor — we don't name things as laws much anymore in physics.

From what I have learned from the history of it, the Lorentz factor being undefined at the speed of light is one of the main things that prevented it from becoming law.

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity were combined into one single theory, to try to make a more accurate description of what is going on in this case. 

No really. GR is a more general theory that effectively subsumes SR. But SR is still useful, in appropriate cases, as a much simpler model.

But black holes re not a case where you can use SR.

37 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The current trend is to just use quantum mechanics, because it avoids this problem. 

Quantum mechanics describes completely different phenomena than either SR or GR so I don't see how it can possibly be used instead. (And I don't know what "this problem" it is supposed to avoid.)

38 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The special theory of relativity has not been unified with quantum mechanics, and it most likely is associated with it in hidden variables. 

Yes it has: it is called quantum field theory: "In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory)

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The Special Theory of Relativity is one of the most experimentally proven theories that exist. 

True. (Apart from the word "proven".)

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It should be called a law, considering how much it has been proven repeatedly which is a condition that has to be met for something to become a law. 

That is not what a "law" means in science. (It doesn't really mean anything; but theories don't become laws just because they have more evidence.)

41 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, MigL claims to be one of those people.

I don't see anything that says that the "Pauli Exclusion principal was discarded". 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If you checked the link I provided you, you would notice that the Lorentz factor has this denominator.  Sometime I need to brush up on what text system you guys use to post equations.  

"the Lorentz factor has this denominator"? What does "this" refer to? I was asking what equations have the Lorentz factor in the denominator. The Lorentz factor equation does not have itself in the denominator.

And, as I pointed out, it never gets to infinity, and is not part of gravitational calculations.

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

From what I have learned from the history of it, the Lorentz factor being undefined at the speed of light is one of the main things that prevented it from becoming law.

You "learned" something that's baloney. But that description is not limited to this one instance