Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 140 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#52734 08/06/14 09:08 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Does time stop at an event horizon?

I think not, but I am open to persuasion.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Why do you think not, Bill?
I suppose the thing to do would be for us to go back in time to childhood and spend our lives learning how to find the answer through physics. On the other hand, we have the option to either choose our favorite theory from those who have spent their lives in that way, or else reject all those theories as Paul tends to do.
Whose theory have you chosen, Bill, and why?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Does time stop at an event horizon?

I think not, but I am open to persuasion.


Well, yes and no. If I understand it correctly as you travel through an even horizon YOU don't notice anything (except of course that you are torn apart). Time for you continues normally. But to observers outside of the horizon your time would appear to stop. It is pretty much the same as time contraction when traveling at relativistic speeds.

This of course is probably an approximation and the way it works is undoubtedly a matter for much thought among theoretical physicists.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
If time stops at the event horizon, even if only in the frame of reference of a distant observer, how would that effect gravity? The distant observer sees a scenario in which time has stopped at the event horizon, but still feels the "pull" of gravity resulting from the presence of the mass of the black hole which is on the other side of the event horizon.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I hadn't thought about it before, but I suspect that is one of the places where there might be some conflict between GR and QM. Obviously none of the particles described by QM can get out. But the graviton can. That is in the case of Quantum Gravity. Obviously GR doesn't have that problem. GR is all about the curvature of space created by mass.

The following is all off of the top of my head, so it is open to a lot of correction. In GR gravity can be considered as a distortion of a field. The field is not going to be subject to the same limitations as a quantum particle. That is, it is continuous across the event horizon. Particles moving in the gravitational field move in a "straight line", with respect to the field. So if the field is warped the line is warped to match the warp of the field. If the warp is too large the particles are held within a certain distance of the singularity* at the center of the event horizon because the warpage curves their trajectory so much that they cannot pass the horizon. However, the distortion in the field does not really have a trajectory, it just exists. However, when the distortion changes the change moves through the field at the universal speed limit C.

And that is my totally spur of the moment, top of the head analysis.

* In the context I recognize that there cannot, according to QM actually be a singularity, but for simplicity I will use the word. I expect that someday there will be a theory of quantum gravity that will more clearly tell us what is at the center.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
or else reject all those theories as Paul tends to do.


I don't reject all theories.

I don't pay any theory too much attention however.

in other words I don't simply allow any theory to control
the possibilities of the physical world.

I always like to perform the actual calculations using
actual ( not designer ) math , because actual math is
supposed to back up a good theory , so with me the calculations come first then later if there is a conflict
with a theory then I have to find where the theories went
wrong and of course its usually the theories that are wrong.

but its mostly the wording or assumptions taken in the theories.

also I only complain about theories that have designer math that is designed specifically to prove the theory itself to be right these days.

I used to complain about newtons laws until I found that
what I was complaining about was nothing more than translation errors.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Why do you think not, Bill?


I'm working on that, Rede.

Quote:
Whose theory have you chosen, Bill, and why?


I've not chosen a theory (yet). The idea that time might stop is one I have difficulty with, not just because I can find no scientific evidence that time moves, but also because I can see problems with the concept of stopping our motion through time, if that is what we are doing.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Paul.
I think I understand what you're saying, and I'd agree with most of that. The maths becomes deviant when the physics becomes deviant, i.e. when new physics is encountered, mathematical descriptions are introduced. An example of that would be Faraday's experiments > Maxwell's equations > Einstein's equations. Those new equations enter into physics from time to time and although, as non-mathematicians, we may not understand the whys and wherefores, we can witness their predictive power. It doesn't follow that the maths is necessarily 100% correct description of reality, Newton's being a case in point. The essential thing is that if the theory is consistently supported by observation then it has validity, even though it may later turn out to be less than 100% correct. If it disagrees with observation then it's wrong. The fact that the average Joe (you or me) has only the sketchiest knowledge of modern physics, and doesn't have a clue how to read the maths, is always going to leave us making probability judgements based on such information as we have. Such is life smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Bill S.
Do you concede that a given clock (cesium clock, if you like) will tick at a different rate (to that of the observer) if it has a different velocity and/or is situated in different spacial curvature?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Bill: 'Obviously none of the particles described by QM can get out.'
- Except by Hawking Radiation.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Rede
Bill S.
Do you concede that a given clock (cesium clock, if you like) will tick at a different rate (to that of the observer) if it has a different velocity and/or is situated in different spacial curvature?


Yes. I believe that has been experimentally established. What I'm doubtful about is that this makes any fundamental difference to time.

It might be seen as evidence that time is static and that we move through it. That is the only way in which I can see that it makes any sense.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Bill: 'Obviously none of the particles described by QM can get out.'
- Except by Hawking Radiation.

And that of course raises more questions. My understanding of Hawking Radiation is that when space manifests a pair of virtual particles they normally recombine and disappear within the time allowed by indeterminacy. However, if they manifest close to an event horizon one of them may pass into the horizon and the other be left free. The free particle is Hawking Radiation. Now comes the question. The particle that enters the horizon will probably meet another particle already in there and those 2 will annihilate, so that we still have the energy balance of the universe maintained. But, do we consider the particle that remains outside the horizon a new particle, or is it a reincarnation of the one that was annihilated inside the horizon? I don't think I have ever seen that discussed.

Of course I also recognize that my description of Hawking Radiation is a simplified version suitable for people who don't have the knowledge to adequately understand what is really happening. I suspect that it is probably much more complicate than that.

Bill Gll


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The particle that enters the horizon will probably meet another particle already in there and those 2 will annihilate, so that we still have the energy balance of the universe maintained.


would the virtual particle meet an actual particle
and that is why they annihilate each other?

2 particles just appear. ( virtual particles )
1 of them goes inside the event horizon.
it is destroyed.

and 1 virtual particle remains outside of the event horizon.

how does that maintain an energy balance?
you now have an extra virtual particle in the universe.
and you have caused the annihilation of a actual particle
in the universe.

the universe would be becoming virtual.

Quote:
But, do we consider the particle that remains outside the horizon a new particle, or is it a reincarnation of the one that was annihilated inside the horizon?


how about virtual reincarnation?

because unless the virtual particle somehow becomes a
physical particle it would still be a virtual particle.

but can a virtual particle become a actual particle and if so
how does it know when and why to convert itself into reality?

Im going to propose a new theory for this certainty.

The distance theory of virtual particles from event horizons.

when space manifest a pair of virtual particles , the
particles are only allowed to manifest near a event
horizon when the distance from the event horizon
satisfies this theories accompanying math , because
this theory dictates to nature and natural physical
occurrences what nature can and cannot accomplish on
its own with or without permission from science.

and heres the math to compliment the theory.

where tdfaehwsiatmapovpattlopdpsiwbtt: the distance from
an event horizon where space is allowed to manifest a pair
of virtual particles according to the laws of particle distance physics set in writing by this theory.

roteh : radius of the event horizon

tidbtpotpop : the initial distance between the particles
of the pair of particles

tdfaehwsiatmapovpattlopdpsiwbtt = 1/(roteh^4 - roteh^4)-tidbtpotpop^2

this should clear up any problems with space manifestation of
particles too close to an event horizon thereby maintaining
the energy balance in the universe.

simply because space cannot spawn a pair too close because
of the way the math is designed.

this theory has never been proven to be wrong , and never can be.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thatís my kind of maths, Paul; I can understand it (almost).

Hereís simpler formula:

AT + N = 0

Where

AT= any thread
N= Newton
0= oblivion


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
LOL , yes , such a simple formula that says so much.

and about my theory!
Quote:
Thatís my kind of maths, Paul; I can understand it (almost).


that's where the theory gets its stability within physics and
where science validates it through experimental data on a
daily basis now , if one can almost understand it , then its wide open for amendment when , if , and as needed in order to
give science a more firmer grip on what nature is allowed to
accomplish within the physical and yes even the virtual
universe.

there are rumors that are circulating that seem to confirm
that there will soon be a 1st amendment to the theory and
I would get in trouble if I reveal the full text of the amendment , however I can give you a hint , the 1st amendment
to the theory will focus on the paradoxical particle distance
measurement itself as being a virtual measurement that will be
confined within a time dilation when it is found that the
space manifested pair of particles appear inside a curvature of time.

so there , I will leave you and Bill to work out the details because you guys are still into GR




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill
But, do we consider the particle that remains outside the horizon a new particle, or is it a reincarnation of the one that was annihilated inside the horizon?

One could ask: Is the electron, in tunneling, the same electron, or is it a new electron that replaced the one that existed on the other side of the barrier? But since we are talking about the quantum scale, the question is misconceived. It's the same quantity of energy centered at new coordinates. It's meaningless to speak of that energy as being new or old, so long as the books remain balanced.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: redewenur
One could ask: Is the electron, in tunneling, the same electron, or is it a new electron that replaced the one that existed on the other side of the barrier? But since we are talking about the quantum scale, the question is misconceived. It's the same quantity of energy centered at new coordinates. It's meaningless to speak of that energy as being new or old, so long as the books remain balanced.

I think the tunneling electron and the Hawing Radiation are 2 different things. The electron tunnels because of the indeterminacy of its position. It might be on one side of the barrier, or it might be on the other side. But the virtual particles exist definitely on one side of the horizon or the other, not based on the indeterminacy of their position. Now whether one of the 2 virtual particles passes through the horizon might be a matter of tunneling, but once it has passed then it is inside, with no way back out.

Well, thinking about it, when a particle is still just inside the horizon it might be able to tunnel back out, but that is a statistical thing, so more of them would stay inside than tunnel back out. That would be when it was ready to meet an antiparticle and be destroyed.

But of course as I said, I really don't understand all there is to understand about Hawking Radiation and I am probably being way too simplistic.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
You're probably right, Bill.
BTW, much to my surprise...

"A black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvin (60 billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

...considering that one solar mass is reckoned to be insufficient to form a black hole, and the larger the black hole the lower temperature, it looks like in all cases where black holes have been formed from collapsing stars (not primordial), even when they receive no more matter they will continue to receive more energy than they radiate until the CMBR is extremely close to zero kelvin. It's going to be a very long time before they even begin to lose any weight. I empathize frown

Does anyone know of any estimates regarding the future decline of the CMBR temperature?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I couldn't right off hand find anything about the future of the CMBR temperature. But I did find this about the future of the universe. WIKI:Future of an expanding universe

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Black Hole Era

10^40 years to 10^100 years

After 10^40 years, black holes will dominate the universe. They will slowly evaporate via Hawking radiation. A black hole with a mass of around 1 solar mass will vanish in around 2◊10^66 years. As the lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass, more massive black holes take longer to decay. A supermassive black hole with a mass of 10^11 (100 billion) solar masses will evaporate in around 2◊10^99 years.


I'm not sure whether the CMBR is counted in that, but it does give an estimate of the future heat death of the universe.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Thanks for the link, Bill. Fascinating. I love big numbers!

Black holes will have all evaporated after 10^100 yrs?...that's about 730 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times the current age of the Big Bang universe. I wonder if some form of intelligent life could exist during that time, until thermodynamic equilibrium. I like to imagine so. It's life processes could well afford to be on the slow side.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Usok¬ĢĽ≠ĺW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5