um... the gravitational force is felt all the way out to infinity?

9/16/2009 11:45:39 AM

This is one of those topics where everyone can have a different opinion on what happens at Singularity, and assuming you have all the physics basics under your belt, no one can claim to be either right or wrong about their conclusion.

9/16/2009 12:03:54 PM

I'd like to stick it in a black hole... I've only done white ones... any difference? I think not.


NEXT

9/16/2009 12:15:04 PM

Quote :

"um... the gravitational force is felt all the way out to infinity?"

Then this isn't incorrect

Quote :

"Sure, if we're real physicists having a real physics discussion, but since this is chit chat, where amateurs will debate like experts over ANY subject matter, what I said was accurate enough for the discussion."

Maybe you're being a bit dense about this but there aren't any black holes that are pulling me into them at the moment that I should be concerned about.

9/16/2009 12:17:06 PM

for someone with little to no physics background this kind of nerd fight/discussion is so interesting to me

9/16/2009 12:18:27 PM

i'll be back in a few hours to respond, nick--got a few meetings to go to.

but i love all the astrophysics posturing going on in this thread. it's so tuff.

9/16/2009 12:18:29 PM

^^^ The one at the center of our galaxy is.

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM. Reason : *]

9/16/2009 12:19:09 PM

What if you surpass c?

9/16/2009 12:20:00 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you're being a bit dense about this but there aren't any black holes that are pulling me into them at the moment that I should be concerned about"

Well, only because you'll die long before the earth gets sucked into the one that we're currently being pulled into...

9/16/2009 12:36:55 PM

Quote :

"what do you use your math for Shadowrunner? (this is me making fun of you because I think you work on policy issues where math is a tool for the confusion)"

Sadly, I'm not using advanced math for much these days, but knowledge of it still comes in handy. I'd say it's most helpful if I'm working on any kind of complicated econometrics model; understanding some of the nuances of statistics can also help you read academic publications and policy reports more critically to poke holes in their logic or see which studies are actually pretty sound.

I did have one project recently though where I was able to come up with a pretty novel experimental design that involved Monte Carlo simulation to sample from the space of n-dimensional valid correlation matrices (i.e., positive semidefinite matrices). While I was working on it, I developed a small improvement on an algorithm to construct a "random" correlation matrix of arbitrary size, and I might be able to milk a publication or two out of that.

On a daily basis, though, my math background and programming experience just make me pretty in-demand here as a modeler. I've gotten to work on some pretty interesting topics as a result, even if they aren't terribly advanced mathematically.




But on the topic of this thread, I love the lack of credentials or references being cited. I've met with Stephen Hawking on more than one occasion, and I have a copy of A Briefer History of Time personally signed with his thumbprint, SO THROW MY HAT IN THE RING MOTHERFUCKERS.

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : OMFGRAMMAR]

9/16/2009 1:52:36 PM

If we could surpass C and enter hyperspace, we could navigate through a super massive rotating black hole, avoid singularity, and actually discover what really happens in a black hole, and perhaps discover a completely different universe, or our own universe in a different dimension. Hyperspace is the theoretical space between space and time, it's own dimension if you will. You already know what hyperspace is, from star wars and other sci-fi films, where the hyperdrive technology was used to outrun the star destroyers. The basic concept is, if you can go faster than light can travel, the normal boundaries of the universe, including time itself, no longer apply to you. If you can go faster than light, and also time, then going back in time is essentially the same thing as hitting the gas to surpass C, and turning left into last century. Therefore, in theory, if I enter hyperspace within a super massive rotating black hole and also manage to avoid singularity, then perhaps by going faster than the speed of light, I would have the ability to escape the limits of time and space itself, and leave the black hole at a Time and perhaps a Space of my choosing.

When discussing surpassing C, or going faster than the speed of light and entering hyperspace, it is important to mention theoretical tachyon particles (See Link Below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existent.[4] By that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible on both grounds: they are non-existent in the first place (by tachyon condensation)[4] and even if they existed they wouldn't be able to transmit information (by Feinberg's analysis).[3] Despite the theoretical arguments against the existence of tachyon particles, experimental searches have been conducted to test the assumption against their existence; however, no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found.[5]

Basically, we still don't know anything. However, if faster-than-the-speed-of-light particles even exist, they would be Tachyons, which are non-existent in the first place by definition, and even if they existed, they wouldn't be able to transmit any information anyway. So, even if these particles exist in our universe, they do not have the capability to harness information that could prove helpful in determining wtf is going on in our universe.

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2009 2:03:04 PM

As far as our understanding goes for now.

9/16/2009 2:10:33 PM

Quote :

"Basically, we still don't know anything"

9/16/2009 2:17:38 PM

I was more concerned with the tangent about tachyons than the black hole discussion.

9/16/2009 2:18:38 PM

i agree with everything that has been said itt

9/16/2009 2:21:42 PM

So, my dong would be infinitely long but thin like spaghetti-thin in a black hole.

9/16/2009 2:29:10 PM

Steven Hawking will claim to be the last physicist to make a huge breakthrough in physics, specifically his work with dark matter. However, in my opinion, there hasn't been a true revolutionary in physics since Einstein, and there may not be another man like him for quite some time. Not to belittle hawking, but he really just expanded on Einstein and other physicists and has not forged completely original ideas like Einstein. Although, the concept of shadow people is pretty rad.

9/16/2009 2:30:35 PM

Quote :

"there hasn't been a true revolutionary in physics since Einstein"

that's complete nonsense

9/16/2009 3:01:19 PM

Let me clarify what I mean. To be fair, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, Einstein, and Fermi are the major pioneers from the early part of this century, but I doubt many of you recognize any of them, except for Albert.

There have been some experimental physics breakthroughs, but again, they built upon previous work:

Cornell, Wieman, Ketterle - making BECs
Stormer, Tsui, von Klitzing - discovering the Quantum Hall effects
Osheroff, Lee, Richardson - discovering fermionic superfluidity
Perl, Reines - detecting the tau lepton and neutrino
Bednorz & Muller - discovering Superconductivity
Ruska - inventing the electron microscope
Cockroft & Walton - nuclear transmutation
Lawrence - inventing the cyclotron

I don't think anyone can compare with Einstein, toe-for-toe, in regards to influence and a legitimate stab at the theory of everything.

IBTesla. He was a good engineer and a great showman, but nothing as a physicist. Einsteins's discoveries are in use every day, for example in the GPS gadgets we use now to track our locations, and his relativity theories continue to be the foundation of all kinds of physics. Not to mention his contributions to condensed matter physics - from an estimate of the Avogadro/Loschmidt Number to the laser equations, the phonon spectrum and heat capacity of insulators, the diffusion relations and mobilities of charge carriers in semiconductors, the statistics and condensation of bosons, and the photoelectric effect in metals, to name but a few. Einstein is still the King, and won't be eclipsed for quite some time.

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2009 3:11:15 PM

Who the hell doesn't know Bohr, Schrodinger and Fermi? The average probably wouldn't get Feynman...

Who am I kidding, average people are morons.

9/16/2009 3:18:31 PM

^^ you didn't even list the only guy who ever won TWO nobel prizes in physics

... no one does, despite him being a towering intellect who considerably helped push physics forward

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2009 3:57:58 PM

Quote :

"Sadly, I'm not using advanced math for much these days, but knowledge of it still comes in handy. I'd say it's most helpful if I'm working on any kind of complicated econometrics model; understanding some of the nuances of statistics can also help you read academic publications and policy reports more critically to poke holes in their logic or see which studies are actually pretty sound. I did have one project recently though where I was able to come up with a pretty novel experimental design that involved Monte Carlo simulation to sample from the space of n-dimensional valid correlation matrices (i.e., positive semidefinite matrices). While I was working on it, I developed a small improvement on an algorithm to construct a "random" correlation matrix of arbitrary size, and I might be able to milk a publication or two out of that. On a daily basis, though, my math background and programming experience just make me pretty in-demand here as a modeler. I've gotten to work on some pretty interesting topics as a result, even if they aren't terribly advanced mathematically. But on the topic of this thread, I love the lack of credentials or references being cited. I've met with Stephen Hawking on more than one occasion, and I have a copy of A Briefer History of Time personally signed with his thumbprint, SO THROW MY HAT IN THE RING MOTHERFUCKERS."

that sounds good

I love some monte carlo, but my immediate grasp of basic statistics is kind of lacking (I mean... not totally lacking, but I kind of freeze up when one talks of correlation matrices), in the sciences we put in +/- just so they won't call us complete liars...

also, despite what I said, applied mathematics is awesome

lol at the thumbprint

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2009 4:03:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen

Bardeen was a genius in his own right, but he was not Einstein. It can be argued that the invention of the transistor and superconductivity were both huge breakthroughs in this century, but it's simply not as big of a task as crafting a theory to explain everything.

9/16/2009 4:12:57 PM

Then sir, please apply relativity to consciousness. Please.

9/16/2009 4:14:47 PM

What was your google search term?


"Who are the Greatest Physicists in this century?"

9/16/2009 4:16:54 PM

This should stay on the front page a while longer. I'm sure we have some more TWW physics experts who log on in the evening. Regale me more with tales of your journeys into black holes.

9/16/2009 7:59:30 PM

^^^^

again, you just do not know what you are talking about

you're like OMG Einstein... OMG Relativity... OMG QUANTUM... peace bitches i'm out

physics is way more than just your clear headed interpretation of a stoner's dream

9/17/2009 1:08:09 AM