-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hawking cracks black hole paradox
- Thread starter deadhorse32
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
String theory, hmmmmmm.
JOHN TITOR!
Event Horizon taught me that black holes, hell, any kind of space holes should just be left alone really.
JOHN TITOR!
Event Horizon taught me that black holes, hell, any kind of space holes should just be left alone really.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Oh, there was this really good special about string theory on PBS a few months ago. Very interesting stuff that special covered lots of Modern Physics in general. Modern Physics was too hard for me when I was in the damn class, 2 years of High School Physics and I remember maybe 5% of the stuff I "learned". Now something like this comes out and I can't even grasp on to it. 
The Shadow
Member
Grizzlyjin said:
You're probably refering to The Elegant Universe. It was based on the book by the same name. If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend reading that book.
Mermandala
Member
I respect Hawkings an awful lot but this flies in the face of the time-tested wisdom that "once you go Black, you can never go back".
This sounds more like Hee Hawkings -- "Ya'll come back now, Ya Hear!"
This sounds more like Hee Hawkings -- "Ya'll come back now, Ya Hear!"
Chopin Trusty Balls
First casualty in the war on idioticy.
Everytime i hear black hole i think about Event Horizont,and every time i think i think of Event Horizont,i shudder.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Event horizons = Worm holes, irrc.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
The event horizon isn't really a thing. It's like the border past which even light can't escape.Buggy Loop said:
Spike Spiegel
Member
To this day, I have trouble watching that movie. Freaks me out something fierce.
Nope. To understand what an event horizon is, consider the problem of putting a satellite into orbit around the Earth. The satellite is put into orbit with a rocket which attains a certain peak velocity. The satellite settles into an orbit at an altitude where its rotational velocity is balanced by the gravitational attraction of the Earth, which decreases as you get farther away. There is a certain value for initial velocity -- called "escape velocity" -- which will cause the satellite to escape Earth's gravity entirely and fly off into space, rather than settling into an orbit.Buggy Loop said:
You can think of a black hole as being like a planet...only IMMENSELY massive and dense. There is a distance from the black hole where a satellite would have to be going at the speed of light in order to maintain its orbital altitude. That distance -- more properly, the spherical shell around the black hole at that radius -- is called the "event horizon." Inside the event horizon, a hypothetical satellite would have to be going FASTER than the speed of light to maintain orbit...and since that is impossible, anything passing the event horizon will quickly fall into the black hole and be crushed.
However, in the case of the black hole, we are not launching a satellite UP from the surface of the black hole -- we are concerned about outside "stuff" falling INTO the black hole. Once it crosses the event horizon, an object is "lost" as far as the rest of the universe is concerned -- it cannot escape.
Spike Spiegel
Member
Put... the pipe... down.Phoenix said:
Event Horizon's great! It's like a "haunted house" movie, only it's set in space so there's an added level of anxiety brought on by that feeling of isolation, and fear of the unknown that lurks beyond the stars.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
Fleming said:
I have to ask why you added a "t" twice.
and this is very interesting. I remember reading his first book and kind of understanding it. I should read it again.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
I wasnt talking about the definition of "event horizon" per say, just the method the ship travelled from point A to B, which are worm holes irrc. But thanks for the explanation of what an event horizon is.
string theory, i presume string theory to be the new physics of the upcoming decades. it'll create all new frontiers and solve many previously unsolved problems. just like quantum mechanics did in the last century.
we need another explosion of great mathematicians and physicists like einstein, bose, heisenberg, feinman, fermi etc.
we need another explosion of great mathematicians and physicists like einstein, bose, heisenberg, feinman, fermi etc.
Quantum and astrophysics = science fiction.
Sorry, the engineer in me cannot accept these theories. I took one semester's worth of quantum physics, and it was one semester too much. Besides being confused as hell by relativity, I just couldn't wrap my head around the difference in mechanics at a subatomic level. It's one thing to be able to observe experiments before your eyes. You can directly see cause and effect. But with these two fields, you can't. Much of it is grounded in theory. Now I know they produce results in line with the theories in particle accelerators, but...I don't know. Suffice to say, I fully expect there to be a new model of the atom in another 20 years, which will throw off lots of data we're accumulating now. *shrug* Show me the money. LOL!
I look at quantum physicists and astrophysicists as the philosophers of the science world. They sit around and bullshit most of the day and produce lots of inconclusive, yet intriguing bits of data. And nothing is ever accomplished.
Oh yeah, props to the PBS people who also saw the Elegant Universe special. I had it on tape for a while before it got destroyed. I watched that thing a few times and multiple dimensions still sound like sci-fi fluff to me. PEACE.
Sorry, the engineer in me cannot accept these theories. I took one semester's worth of quantum physics, and it was one semester too much. Besides being confused as hell by relativity, I just couldn't wrap my head around the difference in mechanics at a subatomic level. It's one thing to be able to observe experiments before your eyes. You can directly see cause and effect. But with these two fields, you can't. Much of it is grounded in theory. Now I know they produce results in line with the theories in particle accelerators, but...I don't know. Suffice to say, I fully expect there to be a new model of the atom in another 20 years, which will throw off lots of data we're accumulating now. *shrug* Show me the money. LOL!
I look at quantum physicists and astrophysicists as the philosophers of the science world. They sit around and bullshit most of the day and produce lots of inconclusive, yet intriguing bits of data. And nothing is ever accomplished.
Oh yeah, props to the PBS people who also saw the Elegant Universe special. I had it on tape for a while before it got destroyed. I watched that thing a few times and multiple dimensions still sound like sci-fi fluff to me. PEACE.
ScientificNinja
Member
Phoenix said:
Man... Event Horizon is the one and only movie to genuinely scare the willies out of me in the last 15 years. I thought I'd blocked out all the eye-popping imagery and now, thanks to you, it's back. My day is just totally screwed up now
Pimpwerx said:Quantum and astrophysics = science fiction.
Sorry, the engineer in me cannot accept these theories. I took one semester's worth of quantum physics, and it was one semester too much. Besides being confused as hell by relativity, I just couldn't wrap my head around the difference in mechanics at a subatomic level. It's one thing to be able to observe experiments before your eyes. You can directly see cause and effect. But with these two fields, you can't. Much of it is grounded in theory. Now I know they produce results in line with the theories in particle accelerators, but...I don't know. Suffice to say, I fully expect there to be a new model of the atom in another 20 years, which will throw off lots of data we're accumulating now. *shrug* Show me the money. LOL!
I look at quantum physicists and astrophysicists as the philosophers of the science world. They sit around and bullshit most of the day and produce lots of inconclusive, yet intriguing bits of data. And nothing is ever accomplished.
Oh yeah, props to the PBS people who also saw the Elegant Universe special. I had it on tape for a while before it got destroyed. I watched that thing a few times and multiple dimensions still sound like sci-fi fluff to me. PEACE.
quantum mechanics isnt necessarily just theoretical. i studied it as well, and im an engineer as well. in fact one of my biggest accomplishments in my quantum mechanics course was to show that its possible for an electron to go through a barrier, in stark contrast to classical mechanics.
and it was all done by mathematics. there are many facets of quantum mechanics proven by experimental data, so...
The Shadow
Member
Pimpwerx said:
Uh...WTF?
Quantum has been proven time and time again not unlike Relativity. Concepts such as quantum entanglement have been observed and repeated in laboratories. This isn't just some idea out of a sci-fi book.
Don't get me wrong, they've written countless books on all of this. But haven't we already corrected the atomic model a few times last century? And aren't we always readjusting the physics models when some new theory comes around? Yes, experimental/observational data has corroborated a lot of it, but wasn't the atom once able to produce experimental results in line with predictions using the Thomson and Rutherford models too?
What I'm getting at is that the accuracy of these models and theories seems flakey to me when we have some serious limitations when it comes to observing these happenings. Random streaks and trails from a collision may prove one thing, but not another. I mean, isn't this the whole reason why we don't have a unified theory yet? Different models for different scales makes it seem very strange to me. But like I said, I don't like things I can't observe for myself. What calculus will prove over and over again may not be what's actually happening.
Sorry, I'm trying to play devil's advocate, and not doing such a good job. LOL! Did I mention I didn't do so well in that class? Got a "C" in it, and only just. But I'll always support people who research this stuff, and I'll always read it. and hopefully, in my lifetime, a bombproof unified model can be created, and I can be satisfied once and for all that my Physics prof wasn't just yanking my chain the whole time. PEACE.
What I'm getting at is that the accuracy of these models and theories seems flakey to me when we have some serious limitations when it comes to observing these happenings. Random streaks and trails from a collision may prove one thing, but not another. I mean, isn't this the whole reason why we don't have a unified theory yet? Different models for different scales makes it seem very strange to me. But like I said, I don't like things I can't observe for myself. What calculus will prove over and over again may not be what's actually happening.
Sorry, I'm trying to play devil's advocate, and not doing such a good job. LOL! Did I mention I didn't do so well in that class?
Got a "C" in it, and only just. But I'll always support people who research this stuff, and I'll always read it. and hopefully, in my lifetime, a bombproof unified model can be created, and I can be satisfied once and for all that my Physics prof wasn't just yanking my chain the whole time. PEACE.This is a VERY strange argument against science...especially for someone who studied engineering. Are you saying that you don't believe in ANYTHING which you can't experience through direct sensory perception?Pimpwerx said:
Science, by its very NATURE, will change over time. The scientific method is to put forth a hypothesis which explains the known set of data...but also allowing for the possibility that the hypothesis (or data) can be wrong. If it can't be proven to be wrong...then it isn't science.
jinx: I'm just playing devil's advocate. I understand quantum, or at least particle physics, have played a key role a number of areas. Nuke-u-ler science for one.
But the point I was trying to make there was the observational limitations. For astrophysics, it's all guesstimation based on celestial bodies on the order of thousands of times larger than our earth experiencing temperature extremes at both ends of the spectrum, and physical forces beyond our scope of comprehension, much less experimentation. For quantum physics, it's a problem that the smallest observable object is the electron, and only just. And I don't even think that lets us see much except maybe the biggest atoms. But visual reference isn't definitive proof. I mean, electron tunneling microscopes pretty much corroborate the tunneling theory, right? That's how they operate. So there's plenty of evidence that the theorized behavior matches the observed behavior. But with sub-subatomic particles like quarks, strings, leptons, etc... I don't know what to think. Some of it seems...circumstancial. Almost like some grad student needed to fill the hole in his thesis, so he fabricated something to explain it.
OK, now there are plenty of GAFers much better versed in quantum physics than I am, so I'm prepared to be totally owned on this topic. LOL! Again, I'm playing devil's advocate, and with my limited knowledge of the subject, I'm gonna miss the boat on some of this. I just really have some reservations about how some of this stuff is derived. When one model doesn't agree with another, color me skeptical. It means that one or both are wrong and that some of the results should be questioned. PEACE.
But the point I was trying to make there was the observational limitations. For astrophysics, it's all guesstimation based on celestial bodies on the order of thousands of times larger than our earth experiencing temperature extremes at both ends of the spectrum, and physical forces beyond our scope of comprehension, much less experimentation. For quantum physics, it's a problem that the smallest observable object is the electron, and only just. And I don't even think that lets us see much except maybe the biggest atoms. But visual reference isn't definitive proof. I mean, electron tunneling microscopes pretty much corroborate the tunneling theory, right? That's how they operate. So there's plenty of evidence that the theorized behavior matches the observed behavior. But with sub-subatomic particles like quarks, strings, leptons, etc... I don't know what to think. Some of it seems...circumstancial. Almost like some grad student needed to fill the hole in his thesis, so he fabricated something to explain it.
OK, now there are plenty of GAFers much better versed in quantum physics than I am, so I'm prepared to be totally owned on this topic. LOL! Again, I'm playing devil's advocate, and with my limited knowledge of the subject, I'm gonna miss the boat on some of this. I just really have some reservations about how some of this stuff is derived. When one model doesn't agree with another, color me skeptical. It means that one or both are wrong and that some of the results should be questioned. PEACE.
Phoenix
Member
Pimpwerx said:
Its science fiction because you couldn't understand? Quantum is not just theoretical ramblings. The problem is that to really observe the experiments you require equipment more specialized than most schools stock. I took Quantum and Physics 3 in college just because it was fascinating and I was able to come to terms with it. It made sense to me for some reason.
Phoenix
Member
ScientificNinja said:Man... Event Horizon is the one and only movie to genuinely scare the willies out of me in the last 15 years. I thought I'd blocked out all the eye-popping imagery and now, thanks to you, it's back. My day is just totally screwed up now
Sorry dude, when I saw that scene I bust out laughing in the theater. Steve (he's around here somewhere) was with me as well. It was the last time we let my wife pick a movie
FortNinety
Member
DarienA said:Hasn't Hawking ever watched Disney's Black Hole? We already know you can get through a black hole dammit!
IAWTP
McLesterolBeast
Member
We correct the models because we develop better tools to test the theories. Most of the models and formulas you take for granted now in engineering were once more primitive, it goes without saying. Because the technology has advanced so greatly, we have explanatory theories that are far superior to the old ones. As technology advances even more, we develop better tools to test theories in other fields. Because this particular field is still a work in progress doesn't mean it's "fiction". They're the best explanations we have given our technological constraints. I dont think hawking would ever go so far as to say that all of his theories are guarenteed to be true. The fact that he corrected his past error shows that he's willing to create a theory to fit the data, and not fuck with his data to fit his old theories.
I have a question for you physics nerds. So if black holes exist, which I've seen footage of none (where is my footage, bitches!), wouldn't the universe eventually get sucked up in one giant black hole and cease to exist?
Then what happens?
Do we go to heaven and play Madden on Xbox Live? Anything?
Then what happens?
Do we go to heaven and play Madden on Xbox Live? Anything?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked