The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Will The Serious, Feb 7, 2023.

  1. Toril Toran

    Toril Toran Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2022
    <quote>Electrons have a magnetic dipole moment due to the quantum mechanical spin property and are therefore not monopolar</quote>

    Which is why I suggested a chain like this
    electron-neutron-electron
    electron-neutron-electron
    electron-neutron-electron
    electron-neutron-electron

    Etc etc

    the overall charge would be negative, and therefore monopolar. (Maybe???)
     
  2. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    Assuming you mean magnetic poles, a common example is the magnetic dipole moments that are lined up in ferromagnets.

    Not much I suspect - magnetic dipole strength falls off as the inverse cube of distance as the effects of the two poles tend to cancel each other out. At typical planetary distances, the forces due to dipole interaction would be tiny. The standard view is that electromagnetic forces tend to cancel out over large astronomical distances so even though electromagnetism is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, it is the latter that generally dominates as it can't be shielded. There are obvious exceptions such as in the heliosphere where the solar wind plasma maintains large voltage differences across the magnetic field of the heliosphere and the warped current sheet that divides it. Another example is the magnetic fields associated with the accretion discs of rotating black holes that are believed to drive axial jets. I suspect that magnetism has a lot more effect than is generally acknowledged on astronomical phenomena. However, I am not an electric universe adherent. I just haven't been interested enough to invest my time into researching such things. Here's a video that discusses the conventional view of the role of just magnetism.


    It wouldn't be geosynchronous over the poles, would it now. I think you mean geostationary. What you describe sounds like a new variety of statite. However, the Earth's magnetic poles don't correspond to its geographic poles. I guess magnetic station keeping might be possible if the statite could harvest enough solar energy to generate and modulate a magnetic field. The planet need not be rotating very fast. The statite could rotate if that would assist in maintaining position. A quick search doesn't reveal that anyone else has considered the feasibility of this suggestion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2024
    publiusr and Will The Serious like this.
  3. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    You seem to be mixing up electric charge and magnetic charge. I have no idea what the "chain" is that you propose. Neutrons are found in the nucleus (except for the hydrogen atom, of course). The probability of finding an electron in a nucleus is very small given the small size of nuclei compared to bound electron wave functions. I think it's fruitless for me to reply any further.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2024
  4. publiusr

    publiusr Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    publiusr
    Rusting down to monopoles?
    https://phys.org/news/2023-12-diamonds-rust-unveil-impossible-quasi-particles.amp
    As usual, a weird effect is only useful for computing…not transportation.

    MOND again
    https://phys.org/news/2024-01-wide-binary-stars-reveals-evidence.amp

    Now according to this, Newtonian effects break down “at a separation of 2,000 au with an acceleration of 1 nanometer per second squared…then there is a nearly constant boost of 40%-50% in acceleration or 20% boost in relative velocity at separation of 5,000 au or acceleration lower than 0.1 nanometer per second squared…up to the probed limit of 20,000 au or 0.01 nanometer per second squared.”

    Might there be implications in the use of probes with gentle acceleration like TFINER?
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60195.0

    Sometimes I wonder if there is a way to ride the coat-tails of an expanding universe if you travel at such and such speed…NSWR rockets might not do this, but maybe lighter fare?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2024
    Will The Serious likes this.
  5. Will The Serious

    Will The Serious Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2022
    Isn't that what we are already doing, and have been since the beginning?

    -Will
     
  6. publiusr

    publiusr Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    publiusr
    Perhaps there are “sweet spots” in physics…

    Deep time
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2024
    Will The Serious likes this.
  7. Will The Serious

    Will The Serious Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2022
    I first read about this in a nothing article that claimed, in the click bait title, that scientists were creating tiny black holes in fluid in the laboratory. After some searching, I found a better report about the use of fluids, specifically superfluid helium, to create an analog to black holes and the maths involved.
    The first decent write-up was in The Guardian {https://www.theguardian.com/science...htubs-vortex-simulating-nottingham-university}, but I found a more serious science-based publication (I hope).
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/she-turns-fluids-into-black-holes-and-inflating-universes-20221212/
    There is a compelling argument that aligns with my own sense of the Universe around the reflective nature of physics in different mediums.
    Of course, not everything that seems similar on the surface is a good analog, but according to the article, the math is the same and they even have examples of what could be Hawkins Radiation appearing in the waveforms they generate.

    I would like to point out, however, that a tub of frictionless fluid, a drain hole, gravity, and a surface medium are not analogous to 3-dimensional space in which black holes exist.
    A vortex created in the surface of water falling into a low pressure area is, for most mathematical models, a 2-D non-Euclidean geometry.

    I asked, in my Geometries class, what would 3-D non-Euclidean space actually look like, because all our models were of 2-dimensional surfaces taken from 3-dimensional Euclidean space. One advanced fellow student answered my question with a complicated suggestion that it would be like the 2-D N-E space only rotated on a 90° axis. So, completely theoretical with no real world examples to play with.

    Euclides developed his famous postulates and stopped short at his infamous parallel postulate, as though he somehow intuited non-Euclidean geometries and understood that the parallel postulate wouldn't hold under all cases. I don't think he intuited that, I think he understood ocean navigation. It doesn't take you very long sailing on the ocean before you realize that sailing the same course north from two different southern cities, will land you at two northern points that are closer together then the two cities from which you started (in the Northern hemisphere). Parallel courses, across a seemingly perfectly flat surface and your end points appear to be converging. We build malls and other such large construction projects today that demonstrate that four 90° corners don't create closing rectangular shapes when joined by straight and parallel walls on the surface of the Earth.

    I've wandered a little.
    This I believe is often the case and the Universe is filled with appropriate analogies for more obscured phenomenon, and also metaphors for less physical aspects of life.

    -Will
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2024
  8. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    All physical theories are analogies (or analogues) of reality that we construct using the information that is available to us. For example, check out Fisher information theory.

    Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification: Amazon.co.uk: Frieden, B. Roy: 9780521631679: Books

    B. Roy Frieden - Work on Fisher information in physics - Wikipedia

    However, Frieden's approach remains somewhat obscure and controversial. See, for example:

    Lost Causes in and beyond Physics eBook : Streater, R.F.: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
    Lost causes in physics, by R. F. Streater (archive.org) - Chapter VII

    I think there's a kernel of a good idea in Frieden's hypothesis, but I have the same reservations as Streater.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2024
    Will The Serious likes this.
  9. Will The Serious

    Will The Serious Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2022
    [​IMG]
    https://astrobites.org/2024/01/15/black_holes_collide/
    Correct me if I'm not getting this right, but it is my understanding that time slows near a massive gravity source and comes to a stop at the event horizon of a black hole. Would this not mean that two black holes can't actually carry through with a full collision? As each black hole enters the event horizon of the other black hole, they would become trapped in a place without time and never be able to make actual contact.

    Of course from the point of view of the black holes, they would not experience the never/forever; after all, time has stopped for them. They become the ultimate Zen masters, existing only in the moment.

    -Will
     
  10. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    You have it somewhat back to front. To a distant observer, time seems to stop for an object crossing the event horizon, so that it appears to freeze there, becoming red-shifted and dimmed to invisibility. In the reference frame of the object, time in the rest of the universe appears to pass much more rapidly. However, the calculation of time intervals within the horizon of a spinning black hole is tricky. As Roy Kerr recently pointed out, even people such as Penrose and Hawking used the incorrect interpretation of the metric. For colliding, rotating black holes, the mathematics is spectacularly tricky, but that the predicted gravitational wave "chirp" has been detected by LIGO and Virgo for over a hundred events suggests that the black holes do merge in a finite time. We have to use mathematics for such events. Intuition often leads to the wrong conclusion. Even using mathematics can lead one astray as one can resort to an incorrect natural language interpretation of equations in General Relativity.
     
    publiusr likes this.
  11. publiusr

    publiusr Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    publiusr
  12. Will The Serious

    Will The Serious Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2022
    That's what I was trying to say.
    No time stop from the black holes' point of view.

    However, if they, the black holes, look out at the rest of the Universe, they would see all of eternity flash by in an instant and then it ends. One with ALL the moments.

    I appreciate your point, but if we can't reduce the math to a natural language description, we can't understand what is happening, only describe it.
    For a simple example of what I mean, take Newton's formula for gravity: F=G(mM)/r^2. This formula describes what gravity does, but there is nothing here that tells us what gravity is, how it works or what causes it.
    If someone asks, "How does gravity work?" And the response is:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    First off, what the holy quaking duck?
    Second, has their question been satisfied? Is understanding imparted?

    Maybe they can, if they can do the math and understand it's application, get a satellite into orbit, but where is the knowledge?

    It seems to me that we can't truly teach understanding to one another until we can put our knowledge into terms we can think in and communicate in. Humans are capable of thinking in mathematics, but we primarily think and communicate in visual images and natural language. If we don't have the natural language to describe the logic of a mathematical formula, we should be able to adjust or add to that natural language until we do.

    -Will
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2024
  13. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    If you can't understand the mathematical language of tensors (shown in your graphic), I would stop trying to imagine that you can translate it into natural language. That's why we end up with nonsense like the rubber sheet analogy and incorrect descriptions of the origin of Hawking radiation. I know I don't understand enough to harbour the fantasy that I could ever contribute usefully to the subject. I know enough to realise just how much I don't know and how hard it would be to achieve expert competence given my innate ability, age and health problems. My brain probably had insufficient neurons anyway when I was younger and studies indicate that neuroplasticity declines with age along with total neuron count.

    By the way the first equation is the definition of the electromagnetic stress–energy tensor, the second is the Einstein–Maxwell field equation, and the third is the contravariant form of the metric tensor written in terms of the Einstein field equations. If someone really stated that in answer to your question, I'd assume they were bombarding you with irrelevant equations in the hope you'd go away. Those equations relate to the dynamics of the vacuum form of Maxwell's electromagnetic field equations in spacetime.

    As for how gravity works:

    Trouble With Gravity, The: Solving the Mystery Beneath Our Feet: Amazon.co.uk: Panek, Richard: 9780544526747: Books
    Book review of The Trouble with Gravity: Solving the Mystery Beneath Our Feet by Richard Panek - The Washington Post
     
  14. Verteron

    Verteron Lux in tenebris lucet Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    In layman's terms, if I remember this right:

    The key confusion here is thinking that event horizons are physical things. They are not - they are boundaries in spacetime that change over the apparent history of the black hole and themselves are not subject to physical time dilation in the same way that physical stuff (photons and baryons) would be.

    As an observer we do see the extreme time dilation and red shift occur for an object that is falling into the event horizon and indeed we won't actually see objects cross it (they will red shift away to the point of vanishing), but this doesn't prevent the event horizon from growing as the black hole's mass increases, we certainly do observe that.

    Indeed as the event horizon grows, if it grows big enough, it will at some point extend beyond where objects apparently vanished at earlier point's in the black hole's observed history.

    So when two Black Holes merge it is quite possible to observe the merger of the Event Horizons which are not restricted by time dilation. It's also possible to measure the resulting chirp of gravitational waves as gravitational waves are distortions in spacetime, not physical objects themselves or even a force in the same way that electromagnetism is.
     
  15. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    Yes, a horizon in physics is just a limit beyond which one cannot obtain information currently. Other examples are the Killing horizon, the Rindler horizon, the cosmological horizon, the particle horizon and the Hubble horizon. There seems to be quite a lot of theoretical activity currently around the properties of black holes possessing angular momentum and they seem to be much more interesting than the simple and probably non-existent case that has no angular momentum.
     
  16. Verteron

    Verteron Lux in tenebris lucet Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    Don't forget the firewall, that's my favourite theoretical black hole boundary
     
    Asbo Zaprudder likes this.
  17. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    Has that been explained away satisfactorily yet? I haven't been keeping up.
     
  18. Verteron

    Verteron Lux in tenebris lucet Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    I haven't studied physics in the classroom for a couple of decades!

    Though as I understand things, it's a credible hypothesis that may be proven or disproven by certain patterns in gravitational waves that we may be able to detect with LIGO or future instruments. So far we haven't detected any statistically significant result either way.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2024
  19. Santaman

    Santaman Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Tyre city
    Whot? Verteron in here as well? I don't need more guys to confuse me! :p
     
    BK613 and Asbo Zaprudder like this.
  20. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    Maybe yes:
    LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown | Nature
    Maybe no:
    Phys. Rev. D 97, 124037 (2018) - Low significance of evidence for black hole echoes in gravitational wave data (aps.org)

    I haven't heard of any new developments on this topic for a few years, but then I'm not in the field and I have no access to research journals, conference proceedings or academics actively researching the subject. Current research on realistic models of black holes with angular momenta might prove fruitful, perhaps.
     
    Verteron likes this.