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

[Conjurer]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.)

Quantum mechanics describes particles that are traveling or traveling close to the speed of light without coming anywhere close to resulting in infinity.  Then it doesn't come close to having the same problems you would have from trying to describe those particles with a relativistic theory.  

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

That is why I mentioned it.  I believe it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks there is right now in theoretical physics.  I felt it was important to mention it, so other people would know about it.  Most of the books at my local library have been removed that I use to read about it.  The theoretical physics section was cut down and moved to another isle.  Then I am fairly certain that was a thing in theoretical physics.  That is how I even knew about the Pauli Exclusion principal to begin with.  They had problem describing massive objects with it. 

I just remember this as common knowledge, because I thought it was funny that his first name was Wolfgang.  Then he got ganged up by wolves to try to disprove his principal in cosmology. 

Now that SMBH have actually been discovered to have densities close to one.  There shouldn't be a strong reason why its exclusion should still remain a theoretical possibility when there is experimental evidence that it can still hold true in SMBH.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

"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.

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

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Quantum mechanics describes particles that are traveling or traveling close to the speed of light without coming anywhere close to resulting in infinity.   Then it doesn't come close to having the same problems you would have from trying to describe those particles with a relativistic theory.  

If it isn't a relativistic theory, then it does not accurately describe things moving at speeds approaching the speed of light.

(Also, I don't believe this is an accurate characterisation of quantum mechanics. Based on your other statements, I should probably assume it is wrong.)

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then he got ganged up by wolves to try to disprove his principal in cosmology. 

What on Earth is the connection between the Pauli exclusion principle and cosmology?

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Now that SMBH have actually been discovered to have densities close to one. 

What?

The density of a black hole is easy to calculate so I don't know what has "been discovered". (The concept of density is pretty meaningless, though.) 

And close to one what?

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

There shouldn't be a strong reason why its exclusion should still remain a theoretical possibility when there is experimental evidence that it can still hold true in SMBH.

Where is the evidence for what happens inside a black hole?

It is very frustrating that you keep throwing more and more fantastic, and increasingly irrelevant, claims into the discussion but are unwilling/unable to provide any support for any of them.

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

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

We know what it is. We are just trying to decipher your incomprehensible comments about it.

Why not actually answer the questions asked.

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Quantum mechanics describes particles that are traveling or traveling close to the speed of light without coming anywhere close to resulting in infinity.  Then it doesn't come close to having the same problems you would have from trying to describe those particles with a relativistic theory.  

Oh my. Quantum field theory is famous for its infinities and how it deals with them (Renormalization).  

 

28 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is why I mentioned it.  I believe it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks there is right now in theoretical physics. 

You will forgive me if I do not take your word on this, owing to your track record thus far.

28 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

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

Did you not understand the question, or are you just being obtuse?

[Conjurer]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it isn't a relativistic theory, then it does not accurately describe things moving at speeds approaching the speed of light.

The reason is that quantum mechanics is more of a statistical theory.  It doesn't care about how much time or length the particles are experiencing.  It just gives the most probable location it is at any time.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

What on Earth is the connection between the Pauli exclusion principle and cosmology?

I am sure there has been a lot of work done about it, since I learned about it.  Originally, there was a debate about neutron stars and quasars and what they were actually made of.  They were unable to describe them accurately around that time.  It was one of the loop holes in order to attempt to describe them more accurately from observations, because they were just not sure if quantum mechanics behaved the same under such intense situations.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

The density of a black hole is easy to calculate so I don't know what has "been discovered". (The concept of density is pretty meaningless, though.) 

And close to one what?

  They discovered a SMBH at the center of the Milky Way.  They have also actually have taken a picture of a black hole since then.  The theoretical physics created to describe a SMBH assumed that the Pauli exclusion principal would still be in play, and that is the main thing that separated it from the theoretical physics that described black holes before those predictions were made.  This is what separates black hole physics from SMBH physics.

Water has a density close to one, and the reason why it does is because the molecules are mostly influenced by the repulsion of electrons.  The nucleus of the atoms of water are not involved that much in its behavior.  Then a sea of electrons would act in much of the same way as water, even though those nucleus's are not present.  Then SMBH never recieved much attention before their discovery, because it was too unbelievable that this could impact the size or density of a SMBH.  It makes them end up being about the size of our solar system, and most people were unable to see how this could happen with relativity.  If this didn't take place, then a black hole would be about the size of our planet.  Then that would be a normal black hole that doesn't consider the Pauli Exclusion principal.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Where is the evidence for what happens inside a black hole?

It is In the center of the Milky Way.  They were able to make calculations about it from the stars orbiting around it.  Then those stars orbits allowed them to determine some of its properties.  It was announced that it was a SMBH and not just a black hole...

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did you not understand the question, or are you just being obtuse?

I already explained this.  The square root of 1-v^2/c^2 is in the denominator.  The numerator is 1.  Is this a bot?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The reason is that quantum mechanics is more of a statistical theory.  It doesn't care about how much time or length the particles are experiencing.  It just gives the most probable location it is at any time.

So it doesn't say anything about things moving near the speed of light?

But you still haven't explained how this is relevant to black holes.

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am sure there has been a lot of work done about it, since I learned about it.  Originally, there was a debate about neutron stars and quasars and what they were actually made of.  They were unable to describe them accurately around that time.  It was one of the loop holes in order to attempt to describe them more accurately from observations, because they were just not sure if quantum mechanics behaved the same under such intense situations.

You are still just making stuff up. 

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

They discovered a SMBH at the center of the Milky Way. 

That was nearly 50 years ago.

How is this relevant to "SMBH have actually been discovered to have densities close to one"?

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The theoretical physics created to describe a SMBH assumed that the Pauli exclusion principal would still be in play, and that is the main thing that separated it from the theoretical physics that described black holes before those predictions were made.  This is what separates black hole physics from SMBH physics.

The Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum theory in general, has absolutely nothing to do with current theories of black holes.

And there is no difference between "black hole physics" and "SMBH physics". They are just black holes of different sizes.

Quote

Then SMBH never recieved much attention before their discovery, because it was too unbelievable that this could impact the size or density of a SMBH.

The only thing that affects the size of a black hole is its mass: the radius is directly proportional to the mass.

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then SMBH never recieved much attention before their discovery, because it was too unbelievable that this could impact the size or density of a SMBH.  It makes them end up being about the size of our solar system, and most people were unable to see how this could happen with relativity.  If this didn't take place, then a black hole would be about the size of our planet.  Then that would be a normal black hole that doesn't consider the Pauli Exclusion principal.

This is just nonsense. 

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It is In the center of the Milky Way.  They were able to make calculations about it from the stars orbiting around it.  Then those stars orbits allowed them to determine some of its properties.  It was announced that it was a SMBH and not just a black hole..

This does not tell us anything about the INSIDE of the black hole.

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I already explained this.  The square root of 1-v^2/c^2 is in the denominator.  The numerator is 1.  Is this a bot?

Did you not even look at the questions asked? This does not answer them at all.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

 I already explained this.  The square root of 1-v^2/c^2 is in the denominator.  The numerator is 1.  Is this a bot?

That wasn't the question that I asked. Are you going to address the one that I did?

You said (emphasis added):
"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."

I want to know in what equation(s) you end up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and thus end up dividing by zero. It's not gravitational time dilation.

[Conjurer]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

That wasn't the question that I asked. Are you going to address the one that I did?

I am not sure where the Lorentz factor comes into play in the General Theory of Relativity, because every book I have read about it says that it would be too complex for anyone to even care about it.  I do know that gravitational time dilation can be directly derived from Einsteins elevator thought experiment where it assumes that light would follow a curved path if it was accelerating.  That is how the theory started out.  Then gravitational tensors where added to it, which ended up making it very complex.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only thing that affects the size of a black hole is its mass: the radius is directly proportional to the mass.

  That is true for black holes, but SMBH which have been directly observed with experimental evidence are not considered to be black holes.  THEY ARE SMBH!

 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

So it doesn't say anything about things moving near the speed of light?

Light is considered to be in every possible location it could have ended up being in, but Feynman was able to cancel out a lot of these possibilities in the same way you could consider something like that happening for any probabilistic event.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

That was nearly 50 years ago.

Reference?

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am not sure where the Lorentz factor comes into play in the General Theory of Relativity, because every book I have read about it says that it would be too complex for anyone to even care about it.  I do know that gravitational time dilation can be directly derived from Einsteins elevator thought experiment where it assumes that light would follow a curved path if it was accelerating.  That is how the theory started out.  Then gravitational tensors where added to it, which ended up making it very complex.

And the upshot of this is that an elevator that is stationary in a gravitational field is in an accelerating frame of reference, and the location in the field (the gravitational potential) is what dictates time dilation. IOW, v=0, and the Lorentz factor is absent from the problem. And besides, as you stated, the curvature of the light depends on acceleration ... not velocity. So for a vehicle away from any gravitational field, it would still not be a function of the Lorentz factor.

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is true for black holes, but SMBH which have been directly observed with experimental evidence are not considered to be black holes.  THEY ARE SMBH!

The BH in SMBH LITERALLY stands for "black hole"

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

 Light is considered to be in every possible location it could have ended up being in, but Feynman was able to cancel out a lot of these possibilities in the same way you could consider something like that happening for any probabilistic event.

What does this have to do with massive objects moving near c? 

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

And the upshot of this is that an elevator that is stationary in a gravitational field is in an accelerating frame of reference, and the location in the field (the gravitational potential) is what dictates time dilation. IOW, v=0, and the Lorentz factor is absent from the problem. And besides, as you stated, the curvature of the light depends on acceleration ... not velocity. So for a vehicle away from any gravitational field, it would still not be a function of the Lorentz factor.

I don't know how I could imagine an object being still next to such an immense forces of gravity.  From it's own frame of reference, it would observe itself falling in close to the speed of light.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

The BH in SMBH LITERALLY stands for "black hole"

Then the announcement that SMBH have been discovered would be fake news, in my opinion.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does this have to do with massive objects moving near c? 

Massive objects traveling close to c would have less of a probability of being in more locations, and it would not be considered to possibly be in any location from its current path, like light.  The amount of uncertainty is related to its relative velocity, instead of spacetime dilation in relativity.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am not sure where the Lorentz factor comes into play in the General Theory of Relativity

Then why did you introduce it?

16 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is true for black holes, but SMBH which have been directly observed with experimental evidence are not considered to be black holes.  THEY ARE SMBH!

You know what SMBH stands for? SuperMassive Black Hole. So please provide a reference that SMBH are "not considered to be black holes".

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Light is considered to be in every possible location it could have ended up being in, but Feynman was able to cancel out a lot of these possibilities in the same way you could consider something like that happening for any probabilistic event

Which still says nothing about particles travelling "near the speed of light".

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Reference?

Says the guy who posts a lot of unreferenced nonsense. 

Luckily, because I am posting facts, it is easy to provide a reference: "Sgr A* was discovered on February 13 and 15, 1974, by astronomers Bruce Balick and Robert Brown using the baseline interferometer of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.^[19][20]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*)

Although, to be fair, it wasn't confirmed to be a black hole until the early 2000s.

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then the announcement that SMBH have been discovered would be fake news, in my opinion.

Why?

Here, as you are obviously unable to provide a reference that says an SMBH is not a black hole, here is one that says it is: "A supermassive black hole (SMBH or sometimes SBH) is the largest type of black hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole)

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Massive objects traveling close to c would have less of a probability of being in more locations, and it would not be considered to possibly be in any location from its current path, like light.  The amount of uncertainty is related to its relative velocity, instead of spacetime dilation in relativity.

Gibberish.

[Conjurer]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Here, as you are obviously unable to provide a reference that says an SMBH is not a black hole, here is one that says it is: "A supermassive black hole (SMBH or sometimes SBH) is the largest type of black hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole)

The wiki in your reference you provided has absolutely nothing about the equations of a SMBH. 

I believe that the physics of it was developed shortly after the first discovery of the possibility of black holes existing at the center of galaxies.  I am not sure if this was developed by someone else or the people who first discovered that.  I do remember that being mentioned as the basis for the research.

In every context I have read about SMBH, they are defined to have these differences in properties to black holes.  I think the problem here is that you guys are getting fundamental physics confused with theoretical physics. 

It is a lot deeper and more complex than just throwing out some basic principals about it and generalizing the entire field solely based on that.  I am just willing to take their word for it, even though it may be too difficult for me to do myself.     

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

The wiki in your reference you provided has absolutely nothing about the equations of a SMBH. 

That wasn't the reason for posting it. It was purely to show that a SMBH is a type of black hole.

If you want the math (although why you would, when you have just been making stuff up so far) you would just have to follow the link to the black hole page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole (after all, SMBHs are just a type of black hole).

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I believe that the physics of it was developed shortly after the first discovery of the possibility of black holes existing at the center of galaxies.

No. It goes back to 1915. (See the History section of the black hole page)

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In every context I have read about SMBH, they are defined to have these differences in properties to black holes.

And yet you are not able to say what these differences are or provide a reference to them.

 

[Conjurer]

The supermassive black hole inside the core of the supergiant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 in the constellation Virgo. Its mass is several billion times that of the Sun, estimated at 7.22+0.34
−0.40×10⁹ M_☉.^[1] It was the first black hole to be directly imaged by the Event Horizon Telescope(image released on 10 April 2019).^[2][3] The ring has a diameter of some 700 AU, around ten times larger than the orbit of Neptune around the Sun. Its apparent diameter is 42±3 μas.

The ring of the diameter is 700 AU, which would be 700 times the distance from the sun to the Earth.  Then black hole physics would have to be wrong, because it should collapse to a smaller size. 

 

[MigL]

Didn't think I'd have to defend my posts a month later, and you would have educated yourself in the meantime.

"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."

I am certainly NOT a theoretical Physicist, my degree was in experimental, solid-state Physics, but I like to think I've learned a few things since then.

I did not discard the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but used it according to the circumstances to describe the degeneracy it sets up, like any good Physicist would.
You seem to think it only applies to electrons, but it applies to ALL fermions ( particles that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics ).

And as I've mentioned before, there is ample experimental evidence for pairings ( and larger groups ) of fermions to obey Bose-Einstein statistics ( ie act like bosons ), in superfluids, superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates.

You seem to think theoretical Physicist just make stuff up, and discard principles and laws to suit their fancy.
I assure you, that is NOT the case.
( if it was, it would make you a theoretical physicist )

 

As to your above post...
Why not do a little reading to find out what the imaged ring actually is ???
( before spouting nonsense )

Edited May 17, 2019 by MigL

[Conjurer]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I did not discard the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but used it according to the circumstances to describe the degeneracy it sets up, like any good Physicist would.
You seem to think it only applies to electrons, but it applies to ALL fermions ( particles that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics ).

It just comes from the problem of what a neutron star would break down into if it was to only consist of a more fundamental particle due to greater gravitational forces.  Other particles were excluded, because they are not stable enough.  The electron is just the most fundamental stable particle that it could collapse into which takes up space. 

If it collapsed into pure energy inside of a black hole, it would be possible for electrons to form and remain stable.  Energy has an equal probability to exist everywhere in the black hole, but if it formed into an electron it would be subject to the Pauli Exclusion principal. 

The electron is basically the most energy a point can contain.  If you have the energy of an electron at a certain point, an electron will form.  Then it just cannot have infinite density.  Then SMBH have larger radius's than what would be expected.

The only thing that could possibly occupy the same space as something else in quantum mechanics is Schrodinger's Cat.  Then one of the cats does/doesn't actually exist at the same time.  Then that is dealing with things that are not fully into existence.

   

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then black hole physics would have to be wrong, because it should collapse to a smaller size. 

It says the "ring" is 700AU, so that is the accretion disk, not the black hole.

The size of the black hole is about 38 billion km (254 AU), which corresponds to a mass of 6.5 billion solar masses. (Source: https://eventhorizontelescope.org) which is slightly less than had been estimated from previous observations.

 

[Conjurer]

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

It says the "ring" is 700AU, so that is the accretion disk, not the black hole.

The size of the black hole is about 38 billion km (254 AU), which corresponds to a mass of 6.5 billion solar masses. (Source: https://eventhorizontelescope.org) which is slightly less than had been estimated from previous observations.

 

They must really know how to calculate SMBH's then.  Even that is abnormally large of a radius for a black hole.  I don't think you would be able to reach the same result from going off of a basic fundamental black hole equation.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

They must really know how to calculate SMBH's then.

Yes, they do. What with them being black holes and the physics of black holes being known for over 100 years. You have a bit of catching up to do.

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Even that is abnormally large of a radius for a black hole. 

It is exactly as expected for a black hole of that mass.

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I don't think you would be able to reach the same result from going off of a basic fundamental black hole equation.

This is calculated using the equations for a black hole. Because it is a black hole.

The maths is very simple. Why don't you check it yourself.

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

The maths is very simple. Why don't you check it yourself.

Remember?  I am the one here that is not supposed to know anything about black holes.  Why don't you show me how?  I dare you too.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

It just comes from the problem of what a neutron star would break down into if it was to only consist of a more fundamental particle due to greater gravitational forces.  Other particles were excluded, because they are not stable enough.  The electron is just the most fundamental stable particle that it could collapse into which takes up space. 

A neutron star cannot collapse to electrons because that would violate conservation laws. For example, neutrons are neutral and electrons have charge.

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

If it collapsed into pure energy inside of a black hole, it would be possible for electrons to form and remain stable.

What is "pure energy"? Energy is a property of things, not a thing that can exist independently.

And how are electrons going to form (without violating conservation of charge, mass, lepton number...)

The rest of that post is just your usual made-up nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Remember?  I am the one here that is not supposed to know anything about black holes.  Why don't you show me how?  I dare you too.

I was hoping you would take this as an opportunity to prove you are not trolling. 

The math was in the earlier black hole link, remember?

[math] r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2} [/math]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Physical_properties

It would be much more educational for you to work it out for yourself (I already did it when I checked the numbers while writing my reply earlier)

But if you are too lazy, you can get Wolfram to do it for you: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=radius+of+black+hole+6.5+billion+solar+mass

[Conjurer]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

A neutron star cannot collapse to electrons because that would violate conservation laws. For example, neutrons are neutral and electrons have charge.

When a neutron decays, it can become a proton and an electron.  This is allowed, because neutrons are slightly heavier.  Charge is conserved, because a positive cancels out a negative.  Then a positive and negative particle can come form a neutral particle when it is absorbed.  

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is "pure energy"? Energy is a property of things, not a thing that can exist independently.

It is just a loose way of saying light with the absence of anything else.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

And how are electrons going to form (without violating conservation of charge, mass, lepton number...)

E=mc^2

If enough photons with the energy of a mass of an electron are in sync with each other, then they form an electron of that mass.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Conjurer

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

When a neutron decays, it can become a proton and an electron.  This is allowed, because neutrons are slightly heavier.  Charge is conserved, because a positive cancels out a negative.  Then a positive and negative particle can come form a neutral particle when it is absorbed. 

This (amazingly) is correct.

However, once again, you have shown your unerring ablating to not answer the question. I did not ask about free neutron decay. I asked about your claim that a neutron star could "break down into electrons". 

7 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

E=mc^2

If enough photons with the energy of a mass of an electron are in sync with each other, then they form an electron of that mass.

Nope. Conservation laws.

(Ignoring the gibberish of "enough photons in sync")

 

 

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

However, once again, you have shown your unerring ablating to not answer the question. I did not ask about free neutron decay. I asked about your claim that a neutron star could "break down into electrons". 

It isn't going to break down into quarks or at least for not very long, since quarks have an extremely low half life.  Then it would result in an expulsion of energy and electrons, since that is the most basic atomic particle that it could be crushed into with no half life.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. Conservation laws.

(Ignoring the gibberish of "enough photons in sync")

It is starting to sound like you don't even know how the conservation laws are even applied across physics.  It is an effect that has been proven in experiment.  Mass and energy are conserved through E=mc^2, although that equation is not really used in the physics behind making predictions about it.  

The wavelengths have to be in sync, because of particle precognition with an action at a distance.  That is a known effect in physics that has not yet been mathematically described.  In principal, if the waves didn't match up they would cancel each other out and momentarily lose their energy, so it wouldn't be able to achieve the necessary energy which would be equivalent to the mass of an electron, which would be conserved from E=mc^2.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It isn't going to break down into quarks or at least for not very long, since quarks have an extremely low half life.  Then it would result in an expulsion of energy and electrons, since that is the most basic atomic particle that it could be crushed into with no half life.

That would violate conservation laws. How can neutrons turn into electrons?

Also, what is the "half life" of a quark?

Please provide a reference to support your claims.

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It is starting to sound like you don't even know how the conservation laws are even applied across physics.  It is an effect that has been proven in experiment.  Mass and energy are conserved through E=mc^2, although that equation is not really used in the physics behind making predictions about it.  

You are the one ignoring conservation: how can photons (no charge) turn into electrons (with charge)?

Please provide a reference to support your claim.

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The wavelengths have to be in sync, because of particle precognition with an action at a distance.

That is meaningless.

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is a known effect in physics that has not yet been mathematically described. 

How can it be "known" if it as not yet been described?

But, if it is "known" you should have no problem providing a reference to it. Please do so.

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In principal, if the waves didn't match up they would cancel each other out and momentarily lose their energy

Lose their energy? Those damn conservation laws again.

 

Well, this has been fun. But your level of trolling is not really up to standard so I shall request that this thread is closed now. 

[MigL]

More gibberish ???
Mass and energy are not the only conserved quantities.
What about charge ? And momentum ?

Yet you still assert that a photon ( in sync ??? ) can transform into an electron ?

 

And why not take a look at Zapatos' link for an "Incredible animation shows just how big supermassive Black Holes can get"

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-how-big-largest-universe-2019-5?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral