Black Holes? The Collapse of Physics?

[Iwonderaboutthings]

It is a pretty lengthy video, and has me pondering on things.. BLACK HOLES - WHAT ARE THEY? (Documentary) Science/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at19-lv4Cpw

 

 

 

From what I understand the issue is How Does Quantum Mechanics and Gravity live together??

 

I ask why do they need to??

What would it prove?

 

On another note, how on earth did Albert Einstein in his time know about these??

 

Could he have not known he was that smart?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Mordred]

the essential problem between classical gravity and quantum gravity is fairly straight forward. Classical gravity works great on the macroscopic scale, however it does little good in quantifying gravity on the microscopic scale.

 

Gravity is such a weak interaction in the microscopic scale. that it is extremely difficult to quantify from a particle physics view point its a major problem in quantizing gravity, we can quantize the three other forces extremely well and describe how they relate to the standard model of particle physics, but gravity is the last ingredient towards a working theory of everything (though we are also working out all the dynamics of the Higg's boson as well) the quantum regime has done an excellent job in understanding the other 3 forces, however its met with extreme difficulty when it comes to gravity.

 

some of the other problems are as follows (cut and paste from the first article posted)

 

"We have so far not been able to directly detect gravitational radiation, much less the gravita-tional radiation from a quantum transition, or the even subtler shift due toquantized gravitons. The gravitational effects which hold the solar system together derive from the constrained part of metric. There is only indirect evidence that gravitational radiation exists and there is no evidence at all for its quantization"

 

"The only difference between classical physics and quantum physics is what they represent. In classical physics the initial values are
just numbers and each of them can take any value, whereas in quantum physics they are non-
commuting operators which must obey the Uncertainty Principle."

 

the last part is important, in a few ways, one in quantum gravity the minimal size is the planck length. however in GR the singularity is infinitely small ie much smaller than the planck length. Loop quantum gravity avoids this issue in the Planck stars paper (essentially bounces the singularity with a time dilation) see the second last article, so in this case there is no singularity.

 

now the other question is the singularity point like, or is it solid ie a neutron star with an EH? we still don't know, neutron stars can have an event horizon the same as a BH. The difference comes down to in the BH case the collapse ends up to an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small point. however this is based in GR predictions, there is some disagreement on this with QM. in terms of the planck units.

In the last article there is a proposed method the test via the accretion disk measurements whether a BH is solid or singular beyond the EH

section 12.2 page 64/94

 

 

 

How Far Are We from the Quantum Theory of Gravity?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4238v1.pdf

 

loop quantum gravity review

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2008-5&page=articlese4.html

 

 

Planck stars
Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. section 12.2 page 64/94

 

please note this does not necessarily imply the graviton is necessary to quantize gravity, the graviton is only one possibility. The first article discusses some of the other methodologies

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mordred

[Iwonderaboutthings]

the essential problem between classical gravity and quantum gravity is fairly straight forward. Classical gravity works great on the macroscopic scale, however it does little good in quantifying gravity on the microscopic scale.

 

Gravity is such a weak interaction in the microscopic scale. that it is extremely difficult to quantify from a particle physics view point its a major problem in quantizing gravity, we can quantize the three other forces extremely well and describe how they relate to the standard model of particle physics, but gravity is the last ingredient towards a working theory of everything (though we are also working out all the dynamics of the Higg's boson as well) the quantum regime has done an excellent job in understanding the other 3 forces, however its met with extreme difficulty when it comes to gravity.

 

some of the other problems are as follows (cut and paste from the first article posted)

 

"We have so far not been able to directly detect gravitational radiation, much less the gravita-tional radiation from a quantum transition, or the even subtler shift due toquantized gravitons. The gravitational effects which hold the solar system together derive from the constrained part of metric. There is only indirect evidence that gravitational radiation exists and there is no evidence at all for its quantization"

 

"The only difference between classical physics and quantum physics is what they represent. In classical physics the initial values are

just numbers and each of them can take any value, whereas in quantum physics they are non-

commuting operators which must obey the Uncertainty Principle."

 

the last part is important, in a few ways, one in quantum gravity the minimal size is the planck length. however in GR the singularity is infinitely small ie much smaller than the planck length. Loop quantum gravity avoids this issue in the Planck stars paper (essentially bounces the singularity with a time dilation) see the second last article, so in this case there is no singularity.

 

now the other question is the singularity point like, or is it solid ie a neutron star with an EH? we still don't know, neutron stars can have an event horizon the same as a BH. The difference comes down to in the BH case the collapse ends up to an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small point. however this is based in GR predictions, there is some disagreement on this with QM. in terms of the planck units.

In the last article there is a proposed method the test via the accretion disk measurements whether a BH is solid or singular beyond the EH

section 12.2 page 64/94

 

 

 

How Far Are We from the Quantum Theory of Gravity?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4238v1.pdf

 

loop quantum gravity review

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2008-5&page=articlese4.html

 

 

Planck stars

Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. section 12.2 page 64/94

 

please note this does not necessarily imply the graviton is necessary to quantize gravity, the graviton is only one possibility. The first article discusses some of the other methodologies

I went ahead and took the PDF, the other links I don't understand where to download from on " that page"

 

 

Here is something i read in your reply:

 

constrained part of metric, I think I wanna know what this is.

I will do a Google search on this..

 

why would a singularity be point like??

Edited June 8, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ajb]

why would a singularity be point like??

They don't need to be point-like, but for a standard Schwarzschild black hole the singularity is a point.

 

A singularity is loosely a region of space-time where the smooth structure of space-time is lost. This is usually due to the curvature (which I won't define carefully) becoming infinite. Physically it represents a part of space-time for which general relativity breaks down in the sense that it is no longer a good theory there.

 

You ask why we need a quantum theory of gravity.

 

In part this philosophy has come about as we have been so successful quantising the other forces of nature and so why should gravity be so different? One hope is that a quantum theory of gravity will regulate the singularities found in general relativity providing us with a description of gravity at all scales.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

They don't need to be point-like, but for a standard Schwarzschild black hole the singularity is a point.

 

A singularity is loosely a region of space-time where the smooth structure of space-time is lost. This is usually due to the curvature (which I won't define carefully) becoming infinite. Physically it represents a part of space-time for which general relativity breaks down in the sense that it is no longer a good theory there.

 

You ask why we need a quantum theory of gravity.

 

In part this philosophy has come about as we have been so successful quantising the other forces of nature and so why should gravity be so different? One hope is that a quantum theory of gravity will regulate the singularities found in general relativity providing us with a description of gravity at all scales.

How about the telescopes?

 

I read that resolution of far away galaxies and objects are still an issue?

 

I have read about the super lens and other inventions dealing with re-fractional indexes, has there been any progress for a better lens maker

Edited June 9, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ajb]

How about the telescopes?

 

I read that resolution of far away galaxies and objects are still an issue?

 

I have read about the super lens and other inventions dealing with re-fractional indexes, has there been any progress for a better lens maker

We have adaptive optics and computer programs to help with resolution. I don't know what the smallest angular resolution achieved is.

 

You thinking about looking for black holes with optical telescopes? There is a picture that maybe a black hole. One year a black patch appeared in one of the photos. I can't recall the team or the year, so google that yourself.

[Mordred]

for extremely long ranges we can also use gravitational lenses this can greatly increase our observation range

[Iwonderaboutthings]

for extremely long ranges we can also use gravitational lenses this can greatly increase our observation range

In regards of " range" how is it so that Albert Einstein's Field Equations is able to " describe a black" hole including entering one?? With such a " great range"

 

 

Does his equations work much like " optical focus" but in pure numerical form?

 

 

I saw a video in were black holes " kinda" alarmed physicist from their time, and had issues with the existence of them in that time I think it was early to mid 1800s not sure..

 

Now in our time, it is 100% confirmed that their is a black hole in the centers of Galaxies???

 

 

Galaxies orbit right??? What are they orbiting?

Edited June 11, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Endy0816]

The possible existence of black holes was reasoned out well before Einstein.

 

For the right Mass and radius combination, you end up with escape velocities faster than light. What they conceived of at the time as a "dark star".

 

At that point the entire concept was theoretical, but it forced them to ask the important questions concerning the nature of light and gravity. That was really the source of contention. Figuring out a system that made the information make sense again.

 

Eventually this led to Einstein's theories. Among other things this led to the prediction and subsequent discovery of gravitational lenses.

 

 

Einstein's Cross(just one example)

 

One galaxy there in the middle and one quasar. Four images of said quasar, kind of interesting and a vast savings on the cost of a traditional lens that size.

 

We are orbiting around the galactic center, though galaxies interact with other galaxies as well.

 

Black holes mostly just fall out of the equations, though there is plenty of additional evidence for their existence. The outside phenomenon is real enough. Interior, whether they are a hole or not, you'll have to wait on a theory of quantum gravity.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

The possible existence of black holes was reasoned out well before Einstein.

 

For the right Mass and radius combination, you end up with escape velocities faster than light. What they conceived of at the time as a "dark star".

 

At that point the entire concept was theoretical, but it forced them to ask the important questions concerning the nature of light and gravity. That was really the source of contention. Figuring out a system that made the information make sense again.

 

Eventually this led to Einstein's theories. Among other things this led to the prediction and subsequent discovery of gravitational lenses.

 

 

Einstein's Cross(just one example)

 

One galaxy there in the middle and one quasar. Four images of said quasar, kind of interesting and a vast savings on the cost of a traditional lens that size.

 

We are orbiting around the galactic center, though galaxies interact with other galaxies as well.

 

Black holes mostly just fall out of the equations, though there is plenty of additional evidence for their existence. The outside phenomenon is real enough. Interior, whether they are a hole or not, you'll have to wait on a theory of quantum gravity.

But scientist are not 100% Black Holes exist>>>??

 

 

 

Hymm, quantum gravity??? at the microscopic level?? I thought black holes were super big in outer space??

 

 

Could I ask something here,,,

 

what is the integrity of the equations that calculate these>>>?

 

I see Lorentz Transforms, Special Relativity then Minkowski Space Time all bundled up...

How on earth do scientist keep up with all those fundamental laws that " pop" up when you study>>>>???

 

 

It is difficult to stay with one book on the topic YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 13, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

But scientist are not 100% sure they exist>>>??

 

Scientists are not 100% sure of anything!

 

But there are good theoretical reasons to think that black holes exist. And things have been observed which are consistent with (and, perhaps, can only be explained by) black holes.

 

 

what is the integrity of the equations that calculate these>>>?

 

General relativity is extremely well tested in many different ways, for many different situations.

[Endy0816]

Hymm, quantum gravity??? at the microscopic level?? I thought black holes were super big in outer space??

 

They are always dense. They do not have to be large. The center of galaxy variety do have a large radius and are absolutely massive.

 

You can type a given body's name here:

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=15c7a7eb32c8610b005811b8640ebc1

 

and it'll find the Schwarzschild Radius for you. Keeping in mind the actual equation is not limited to any particular value of mass.

 

ie. c²/(2G) = M/r

 

The "interior" and the means by which the properties of in-falling matter are "stored", are where we need a better theory of what is happening at the lower level.

 

It'd be nice to have something that ties virtual particles, temperature of the Universe, expansion of said Universe and the life and death of black holes; into a nice little package.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

They are always dense. They do not have to be large. The center of galaxy variety do have a large radius and are absolutely massive.

 

You can type a given body's name here:

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=15c7a7eb32c8610b005811b8640ebc1

 

and it'll find the Schwarzschild Radius for you. Keeping in mind the actual equation is not limited to any particular value of mass.

 

ie. c²/(2G) = M/r

 

The "interior" and the means by which the properties of in-falling matter are "stored", are where we need a better theory of what is happening at the lower level.

 

It'd be nice to have something that ties virtual particles, temperature of the Universe, expansion of said Universe and the life and death of black holes; into a nice little package.

when you say "stored" do you mean as stored digital information???

 

I am thinking in terms of quantum membranes by the way.

 

you also say:

 

not limited to any particular value of mass.

 

​Is this because of a metric issue?? For instances I have heard about the issues at the sub-millimeter scale, but this looks like a "zero" issue meaning zero " needs to be defined or have its absolute decimal representation as a universal and alternative metric system at these scales. I hear that infinities at this level are basically going hay-wire in all directions..

 

 

On another note here.

How reliable is "computational calculations" dealing with round off errors?

 

I am aware that only approximations in the whole of science always guarantees some accuracy, but this can only be rectified if the cases in question are precise, therefore the uncertainty can be integrated correctly from these approximations so long as zero " is defined ..

 

 

Where do we start to get the absolute values of zero>>>??

 

Is it found with the electron charge?

The radius of " any mass"

The speed of light??

 

Is it relative to something?

Does it have a constant in between?

 

Just some ideas, no math advice please

 

Any ideas to work with??

Edited June 23, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Nicholas Kang]

You need maths to solve physics questions.

[nghia_dtvt5]

What is inside a black hole? You can watch its:

 

video link deleted

[Phi for All]

I saw a video in were black holes " kinda" alarmed physicist from their time, and had issues with the existence of them in that time I think it was early to mid 1800s not sure..

 

Now in our time, it is 100% confirmed that their is a black hole in the centers of Galaxies???

 

Observation: You "kinda" saw a video, you think you know when it was from but you're not sure. But your title suggests you think what you've learned about black holes spells the collapse of physics as we know it. I think this is creating a bit of cognitive dissonance that may be impeding your grasp on these subjects.

 

Also, you keep talking about proof, and 100% surety, and a lot of people have told you in a lot of threads, that's not what science is after. We look for evidence that supports, not proof. It's never 100%, we never want it to be, since we stop looking for answers when we think we have them.

[swansont]

What is inside a black hole? You can watch its:

 

video link deleted

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Posting an hour-long video with no supporting discussion is not consistent with our rules

 

from rule 7: Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

Please don't respond to the mod note in the thread.

[Endy0816]

when you say "stored" do you mean as stored digital information???

 

People like to use that analogy. There's no 1:1 equivalence though.

 

 

you also say:

 

not limited to any particular value of mass.

 

​Is this because of a metric issue??

 

I mean literally any amount of mass would work.

[Nicholas Kang]

No such thing for black holes now. It should be grey holes.