Technion scientist: I proved the existence of Hawking radiation
Black holes are one of the strangest phenomena in the universe. In fact, it is not a guy at all, but on the contrary - a highly compressed material. A black hole is formed at the end of the life of a star, i.e. a sun, much larger than our sun. Under the appropriate physical conditions, the star collapses in on itself, and the enormous mass is compressed into a very tiny space: a star ten times larger than our sun, will turn into a black hole several kilometers in diameter. This material is so dense that one teaspoon of its soil (if it could be collected in a spoon, of course) weighs tens of billions of tons. Such an entity also has tremendous gravity - so strong that nothing can escape it, not even light. That's why we can't see black holes - they absorb any light that passes by them and don't emit anything. almost.
Light succumbs to gravity
The idea of a star so heavy that it swallows even light was born already at the end of the 18th century in the minds of some scientists. However, he received the general recognition of its possibility thanks to the general theory of relativity published by Albert Einstein in 1915. Einstein showed, among other things, that gravity also bends light waves, and solutions of the equations he published revealed that indeed, under suitable conditions, bodies so heavy and compressed can be formed, until they swallow everything. In the following decades, physicists continued to investigate the theoretical aspects of such bodies (one of the most prominent researchers in the field was Robert Oppenheimer, better known as the father of the American nuclear bomb) and gradually the researchers realized that such entities can actually exist in practice, and are not just a theoretical concept, as Einstein believed at the time . In 1967, John Wheeler (Wheeler) coined the term "black hole", which quickly caught on - even though, as mentioned, they are not holes at all.
double split
For many years, scientists believed that indeed nothing could be ejected from a black hole. However, in 1974, the famous physicist Stephen Hawking (Hawking) surprised with a prediction that a black hole should emit radiation. More precisely, Hawking believed that pairs of particles are created spontaneously - out of nowhere - at the limit of the event horizon: this is the limit of the black hole's influence - that is, the place beyond which nothing can escape the terrible gravity. These pairs, according to Hawking's prediction, should split. One particle will be absorbed into the hole, and the other will be emitted from it in the form of weak radiation, like radio waves. Hawking based this prediction on the work of an Israeli scientist, Prof. Jacob Bekenstein. In his doctoral thesis at Princeton University (with the same John Wheeler we mentioned earlier), Bekenstein dealt with the entropy paradox of black holes. Entropy is a disorder that exists in every system in nature. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy in the universe can never decrease, only increase. However, when a black hole swallows something - a star for example - it also swallows its entropy and it should disappear. In other words - disorder in the world is expected to decrease while violating such a basic law in science. Beckenstein proved that, contrary to what was thought until then, a black hole also has its own entropy, and the addition of entropy is expressed in a certain increase in the area of the event horizon. This revolutionary discovery (also known today as Beckenstein-Hawking entropy), laid the foundations for Hawking's determination two years later, that a black hole should indeed emit a little radiation, named after him: Hawking radiation. However, until now the existence of Hawking radiation has never been proven, because it is so weak that we have no possibility to measure it in a real black hole.
A quantum alternative
The fact that it is impossible to measure Hawking radiation, does not loosen the hands of some scientists, who seek to prove its existence in other ways. One of them is Prof. Jeff Steinhauer from the Technion. In 2009, Steinhauer managed to develop in the laboratory a device that simulates the activity of a black hole, on a much smaller scale. His black hole is based on a quantum phenomenon, which occurs at a temperature very close to absolute zero (273.15 degrees below zero). When refrigerators are sealed to such a temperature, only a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, they go through a kind of collapse into an elementary state, that is, they behave like light waves, or like a liquid with special properties. In Steinhauer's facility, there are two such groups of rubidium atoms, and the tiny space between them allows the atoms to move quickly from one group to another. Under these conditions, sound waves are created due to the quantum phenomena, but they are much slower than light, and cannot slip out. This is how the scientists demonstrated the existence of an event horizon in this device - an area beyond which sound waves are absorbed and cannot be extracted.
Similar equations
In the five years that have passed since then, Steinhauer and his students worked hard on perfecting the system, trying to capture the most elusive find of all: Hawking radiation. Recently, they finally succeeded, and saw that just like in the prediction forty years ago, pairs of sound waves were formed in their event horizon, one of them was swallowed in the direction of the hole, and the other escaped from it. The findings were recently published by Steinauer in the journal Nature Physics. According to him, the equations describing the behavior of sound waves are very similar to those describing light waves or other types of electromagnetic radiation, so his experiment proves with certainty that Hawking radiation does exist. Some scientists claim that it has not yet been proven that the sonic black hole does adequately simulate the events in a real black hole, but other scientists say that despite the natural limitations of the experimental system, Steinhauer's findings come as close as possible to the detection of Hawking radiation.
New physics
If it turns out that Steinhauer was able to prove the existence of Hawking radiation, the findings will have far-reaching consequences. First, this will be another proof of the greatness of the paralyzed and award-winning scientist, and perhaps it will provide the impetus for him to win almost the only award he has not yet won - the Nobel Prize (and there is no reason why Beckenstein should not be a partner in this award as well). But beyond Hawking's honor and ego, the researchers hope that a better understanding of black holes will make it possible to solve some of the fundamental problems of physics. The main problem is the lack of a unified theory, which includes both the quantum equations underlying the sonic black hole, and the general theory of relativity, which was the principle basis for the discovery of black holes. Combining the theory of relativity with the quantum theory will perhaps finally make it possible to understand how gravity reacts with other physical forces, and advance the physicists towards the development of a single theory that explains all the phenomena in the universe, at least the ones we know.
Another problem that may be solved with the help of an understanding of Hawking radiation is known as the "information paradox": according to quantum theory, every quantum particle (for example a light particle) carries with it certain information: its speed, momentum, direction of self-rotation, etc. This information should not disappear. When such a particle is swallowed inside a black hole, we can assume that the information is stored inside it. However, since the emission of Hawking radiation causes the black hole to lose a tiny amount of mass, the black hole actually decays, slowly. Although, this decay is so slow that even the time needed for the smallest black hole to disappear is billions of years (much longer than the age of the universe, which is a total of 13.8 billion years old), but if the black hole disappears, the information it swallowed will also disappear with it, and this contradicts The basic laws of quantum theory. One of the possible ways to resolve the paradox is to prove that Hawking radiation carries with it quantum information, something that until now was not possible, without tangible proof that this radiation actually exists. Proving the existence of Hawking radiation could pave the way to solving the paradox - a way that might lead us to completely new horizons in physics.
To the article on the website of Network B with the possibility of listening
The research article in the journal Nature Physics
More of the topic in Hayadan:
214 תגובות
Last for today.. there was no need to do complicated studies to prove the radiation. It would be enough for them to run a water pipe near a convoy of ants walking in pairs to see how from a certain border they are washed away and beyond it - they are not.
Yehuda - You said in one of the answers that "that's why all the particles that collided on the way lost their information about gravitation because after the collision they became random. "
How can there be any randomness? Every situation is caused by something that caused it and sometimes the combinations of forces are too complex for us to keep track of so we call it randomness.
Why is this referred to as radiation? It is about a pair of particles created out of nowhere on the edge of the event horizon and one of them is attracted to the black hole while the other is not. It is not about radiation emitted from the hole but about an effect around it.
A similar effect can be created wherever there is an effect on the pair of particles. Suppose microwave radiation affects them in some way, I would expect that at the limit of the effect of microwave radiation there would be a change on one of the particle pairs and this would be reflected somehow. It might be hard to measure that unless they form and appear in the same location together, which would knock the whole theory down.
Yehuda
I didn't say proof...just interesting in my opinion.
for miracles
I did enter the link. There is no proof of anything here. It was said there that the GPS may be able to investigate and possibly discover the phenomenon. I am unfortunately one of the skeptics. But I will be one of the first to salute the discoverers
Successfully!
Yehuda
Israel + Judah
Something for you: http://phys.org/news/2014-11-elusive-dark-gps-satellites.html
albenzato,
I have a question related to the gravitational force exerted by a black hole in the quantum aspect.
The main question: does a black hole "very much interfere" with itself to produce attraction?
The motivation for the question comes from the fact that the hole prevents light from leaving then and in the same way it prevents gravitons from leaving and the explanation for attraction goes through virtual particles. Is the intensity of the blanket therefore less than we would expect from a body of similar mass that is not a black hole?
I guess the answer is absolutely negative, but there are no stupid questions, there are only people...
Albanzo, in short:
Where did I ever tell you that you were wrong?
Where have I ever presented my theory at all, and impolitely in particular?
What information have you shown me that contradicts my idea? What is my idea anyway?
What is Judah's idea? Have you read his "Theory of the Simple Universe"?
When did I say that I agree with Judah's theory or that it explains the rotation curve? Here is what I wrote:
"Not that I agree with her, but she is quite consistent with the rotation anomaly in galaxies."
Is Pushing Gravity - plus a necessary change that I tried to propose to Yehuda without success inconsistent with the rotation anomaly? Are you familiar with Lesage's theory, of which Yehuda's theory is an extension?
Regarding weaving:
To be precise - we never came to a discussion on the issue of transferring the information.
If you don't want to discuss the issue, that's your right. But if you do - and I believe we will all be happy if you do - the first question that needs to be answered is the question of the coins: if two coins in separate rooms always fall on the same side, and there are no hidden variables, that is, the state of the coins was not determined when they were separated but determined at the time of the fall, how Can it be said that no information was passed between the rooms?
Regarding the relationship:
You say: "If from the point of the big bang until now someone with a watch sat quietly and held a watch, he would have seen about 14 billion years pass. This does not mean that this is the time that an observer moving at relative speeds would measure."
My point is that if we reverse the creation, and that observer moving at relative speed is at rest relative to the background radiation, then the observer sitting quietly with the clock shows a time higher than his own, i.e. higher than the age of the background radiation, i.e. higher than the age of the universe.
But that viewer is also part of the same universe, so his age cannot exceed the age of the universe.
Regarding dark mass:
I don't know the subject well enough, and as always, I find that our way of questions, responses, a bit like Sah, is an excellent way to study the subject in an interesting way.
For proof: the article you brought.
To Israel
Our hopes are not lost yet
The hope is two thousand years old...
All the best and have a good day
Yehuda
Israel,
The comment regarding the fact that you only see what is convenient for you referred to the fact that you wrote (several times) that Yehuda's idea actually explains the rotation curves in the galaxy. This is a misrepresentation of the subject, because you ignored that it *doesn't* explain all the evidence, but a tiny percentage of it.
Regarding your questions, here are answers (albeit short):
1. To accurately predict the distribution of dark matter we need to know its full properties, which will determine which interactions it performs with itself and with the rest of the baryonic matter. I've told you this several times already. Since we don't know this, there are two things we can do to estimate the distribution: the first is to consider statistical considerations, which may be wrong if the dark matter interactions are extreme one way or the other. These considerations, simply because of the size of the galaxy, show that the chance of there being a large cluster of dark matter right next to us (at a distance of several astronomical units, more than that we will have difficulty seeing its effects on measurable orbits) is almost 0. The second consideration is gravitational - we can ask "What would the distribution of dark matter look like, the existence of which would correct the anomalies in the Milky Way galaxy?", and the answer to this question is found in the literature. It is about the distribution of a halo that is mostly concentrated at the edge of the galaxy (you can find the detailed distribution even on Wikipedia). That is, if it is really dark matter that causes deviations then it is very likely that we will not find it in large quantities in our solar system.
2. Sorry, not going into it again. You are asking the exact same question that I have already tried to answer you 10 times in an exploded argument. At the time I trusted you with analogies and examples and none convinced you (legitimate). If you want an answer that is not ambiguous, learn how information is defined in information theory and how to calculate common information for two systems (or the passing of information in interaction). I will remind you that I specifically showed you that if I have a spin that is intertwined with a second spin, which you have - there is no way to convey a message between me and you unless this process is accompanied by classical communication. But I'm really not going into all that again.
3. I don't understand what the problem is, maybe focus the question. In principle, it is possible to define a coordinate system for space (which is of course not a unit - all measurable quantities are defined independently of the coordinates). This system includes a time coordinate. In the matrix of the Big Bang model, and in its standard coordinate system, you can see how much time has passed since the Big Bang until today. The time coordinate is not necessarily the time that some observer measures! In the specific model of the big bang it can be seen that the standard coordinate aligns with the time measured by a stationary observer. That is, if from the point of the big bang until today someone with a watch sat quietly and held a watch, he would have seen about 14 billion years pass. This does not mean that this is the time that an observer moving at relative speeds would measure.
And now I have a question for you: if you are aware that you and Yehuda are not up to date on modern physics, do not know the evidence and measurements in their entirety, and as you say - "it is very difficult to change or study seriously", don't you think that maybe you should accompany your theories with a little humility? A little self-awareness? I'm not telling you to accept everything I say as Sinaitic Torah, but if I refer you to information that I claim contradicts your ideas and that you don't know (such as the evidence for the existence of dark matter that does not depend on the approximation of a weak field in the case of Judah, or the non-transmission of the information between two interlaced spins in your case) – don't you think you need to study it and address it before you can tell me I'm wrong?
It's okay to disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, prove me wrong. I showed you and Judah that you are wrong. Closing your eyes and ears, and refusing to understand the reasons why you are wrong does not mean you are right.
And if we are already starting then due to the movement backwards and forwards in time many times statistically a particle comes out of a black hole, and it depends on its dimension
Something that may have to do with space and movement backwards in time that may affect the "attraction" - space is made of nothing and the particles know their relation to the other particles from moving backwards and forwards in time many times
It won't help, he admits.
A small way - big friction.
A big way - a small pull.
Jabotinsky Road - traffic jams.
Through Burma - armored.
Maybe you should look for another way?
safe trip.
Best -
To Israel
It is indeed possible that the free way is much smaller, I told you that I am not closed on the free way.
I'm also not convinced that friction should interfere because particles are constantly arriving in the system. For example, a sailing ship, even though it has friction with the environment, still moves at a constant speed and it also knows how to move against the direction of the wind.
I have some experiments that should test the issue and it is also necessary to check if there is a deviation from Newton in double stars (not just relative deviations) and try to reach the possible free path. A good candidate is the double epsilon lira ADS11635.
There is more to check, but I wouldn't rush to throw out La Sage and the simple universe.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
If it is the order of magnitude of a light year, then in the order of magnitude of the solar system we do not have a gaseous system.
How then do you explain the problem of friction in the moon's orbit around the earth? After all, if there is no gas system, there are no hurricanes, right?
Error - there should be about 100 thousand astronomical units, which is about 1.6 light years.
Israel
In one of the calculations I did I got that the average free path of my La Sage particles should be about 100 thousand light years which is about 1.6 light years. But that's just an order of magnitude. And not sure of the result.
Others may have figured it out. I will go to Wikipedia
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoda
meters? millimeters? kilometers? light years?
To Israel
You asked: "What is the average free path between the particles (in meters) so that you get gravity even at short distances?" End quote.
Answer The distance between the particles should be very small relative to the mean free path in order for an attraction to be obtained according to Newton's gravitation formula. In the solar system it happens, on the surface of the earth it happens, in the vastness of the galaxies it does not happen.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I didn't say God - I said an intelligent creator. two different things.
I only gave an example to illustrate what I think is your error.
for miracles
I do not understand you. God always explains everything, so you should always take God?
I take a scientific theory only and it is certainly not God.
Good night
Yehuda
"At the greater distances we are not the same because I insert the average free path of the particle until it collides with another particle".
Beauty. We got to the root of the problem.
What is the mean free path between the particles (in meters) so that you get gravity even in short distances?
Yehuda
If there are two theories, one explains x phenomena and one explains y phenomena, and if x>>y does it not seem right to you to choose the one that explains x phenomena?
I agree with you that it sucks that you need a deep mathematical education to understand the phenomena in group x. But that doesn't justify dismissing a theory just because it doesn't make sense to you.
Let's take an example that we both don't like - the existence of an intelligent creator (not God...). The theory of evolution does not know how to explain the formation of life, so according to your method:
1) You have to stop looking for the way life started
2) An intelligent creator solves your problem of the formation of life, therefore it is necessarily true.
Miracles A theory is scientific if it can show a way to disprove my theory showed many ways to disprove it and that is what is needed. You'll be surprised, but she doesn't need to know about de Sitter and parallel universes, etc.
Good night
Yehuda
Israel
Yehuda insists that a theory should be scientific. If so, it should explain all the existing findings, which the existing theories know how to explain.
So how is Yehuda's theory scientific if he doesn't know the findings at all?
And Yehuda - I didn't say you don't know infinity, but do you know the difference between an anti-de-Sitter space and a Minkowski space, or between a tensor and a versor, or between a Riemannian manifold and a Lorentzian manifold (without Wikipedia....)? Don't you think it is necessary to understand them in order to understand the existing findings and theories? I'm just asking 🙂
To Israel
I will tell you the difference between La Sage and Pushing Gravity and the simple universe
First of all, in the entire first part where particles create the gravitation according to the square of the distance and according to the product of the masses, just like with Newton, we are the same, at the larger distances we are not the same because I insert the mean free path of the particle until it collides with another particle. La Sage did not include this, so there is a deviation. La Saz continues to be like Newton and in the simple universe the gravitation at great distances disappears at a greater rate. One of my calculations was that the average free path of the particle is about a light year and a half, therefore all the particles that collided along the way lost their information about gravitation because after the collision they became random. What will remain of the gravitation is 1 divided by e (the natural number), which means that after a few tens of light years, the gravitation almost no longer exists. But at these distances the gaseous nature of La Sage particles begins to play a role because they are particles that move from place to place like in a gas with everything that follows: temperature, pressure. Pressure differences and therefore winds and eddies. If you want, go on alone. Another thing that should be clear is that it is easier for particles to collide with a large body like an atom than with another particle.
Have a pleasant sleep in the distant exile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoda
indeed friction.
However, I cannot accept your solution, for the simple reason that I do not accept your interpretation of Lesage.
You talk about winds and eddies. Read Lesage Original. There are no spirits there and no demons either.
The reason for the circular or elliptical motion of the planets according to Lesage is the centrifugal force resulting from the pressure difference of the particles that do not collide with each other, and are therefore not a gaseous system. You have collisions between the particles, and the system is gaseous.
But if she is gassy, why would there be an attraction?
You say: large distances that the particles travel before they collide.
Sathaiin, but then how is there an attraction between small masses at short distances?
And until you solve those problems, you will not be able to access the next level of hurricanes, typhoons and all the winds.
Please respond without subtlety, especially since I'm going to sleep soon.
Albanzo
I can't guarantee, but I have a feeling that if you're still commenting on the site in a few years, you won't be able to believe that you've ever been so angry at Yehuda, me or anyone here in general.
Mario says that Lord Calvin believed so much in his theory of the low age of the earth, that he did not let any contradictory fact confuse his mind, cognitive dissonance elk. So what do you want from Yehuda, dear grandfather around 70 (?), and I'm not far from 60 either. It is very difficult to change or learn seriously at our age.
I only see what is convenient for me? where? I am completely neutral on the dark mass question, and as a general rule, I tend to accept the opinion of the experts on what I don't feel I understand. So if the mainstream believes in dark mass, or global warming, then that's what it is.
But, I only have questions, and lots of them. And the answers also help, and a lot.
That's how I learned from you that there are 4 polarization states - which I didn't know and I don't believe any of the commenters here knew, and I don't remember it appearing in Stanford's online weaving course. But once the point was made clear, the questions ended. This is how we all learned about the cosmic background radiation system, the shape of the universe and more.
But not all questions were answered satisfactorily for me.
Example in this article: Where is the dark mass in our galaxy? It has to be internal because of Gauss's law, doesn't it? So how come it doesn't affect the orbits of the planets like Pluto does on Neptune?
Or a question from your field: how can it be said that information does not pass between entangled particles if they are always in the same state, or vice versa, and there are no hidden variables?
Or my constant question: How can we talk about self-time for each measurer if we all share an absolute age, the time that has passed since the big bang, and no system can exceed this age?
If you could try to answer seriously we would be very grateful. But the fact that we ask does not mean that we will automatically receive any answer, I guess the reason is that we probably did not understand and need more explanations and therefore more questions will come.
Israel Shapira my friend
You said and spoke well.
Is the fatal flaw you talked about the friction?
Did you get the solution explanation? I think you said no.
Yom Tov Israel
Yehuda
Israel,
What I've been trying to explain to Yehuda for months and he ignores (and I see that you also go hard for the part of seeing only what is convenient for you), is that explaining the rotation curves of one or another galaxy is nice, but it is only a tiny sliver of the evidence for the existence of dark matter. If you want to argue that dark matter doesn't exist, like Yehuda does on every possible roof and square, you have to explain *all* the evidence in a different way. A Torah that explains one evidence and leaves twenty unanswered is worth nothing.
And Yehuda, who now counts me among his friends, so maybe he will do me the favor - read my response and respond to the points I present,
1. As I wrote a moment ago to Israel, an alternative theory should explain all the evidence. Can you show (explicitly) how your ideas explain the unique structure of the power spectrum in the cosmic background radiation for each radiation multipole? Specifically, the holes in the spectrum? If you can explain this (and all the other evidence), great - we got rid of dark matter. If not, your theory is not good.
2. I noticed that in your last comment, *again*, you inserted words that I never said and with great impudence you decided to report to the whole forum what I think (even though it is in complete contradiction to what I said before). And that brings me to two questions that I would be very happy if you would answer as directly as possible: First, do you admit that when you wrote that I claim the existence of "conclusive proof of dark matter" in the article I linked, you attributed things to me that I never said? Do you admit that you inserted words according to and distorted my views (whether accidentally or maliciously)? I won't ask you to apologize, but it seems to me that admitting it is the least possible.
The second question - if we continue our argument, do you think you will be able to continue talking without distorting my views and using me as a tool in your arguments? When I got so angry that you quoted me falsely and put words in my mouth, your response was to quote me falsely and put words in my mouth. To write that I don't believe in dark matter when I absolutely do *yes* believe in dark matter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all the many times you write my opinion in my name (which is already quite despicable in itself) and another write an opinion that is completely contrary to my true opinions, all stemmed from a lack of understanding. If this is the case, the only way to solve the problem is if you realize that you do not understand my opinions and therefore you have no right to write them in my name. This includes not writing that I claim the existence of dark matter has been "conclusively proven" or writing that I "don't believe in dark matter". Just don't write anything in my name. Is that so much to ask? We are not talking now about science or physics at all, but about the basis of human relations. It has happened several times that you simply claimed that I said things that I never said. Don't you think you should stop doing that? I honestly do not understand why you do not address the issue. Do you realize you were wrong? Did you see the quotes I posted and realize that what you write that I say is exactly the *opposite* of what I really say?
Yoda, what happened to you this morning that you become a songbird? poisoned? Besiktas!
Miracles, Shaw doesn't match expectations? Do any of you know what Yehuda is even talking about? It is about a theory of gravity (forgive me Yoda) that has been tested by everyone, including Newton Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Feynman, and apart from one fatal flaw (and solvable) and secondary flaws, gives a quantitative and intuitive explanation to the question of the origin of gravity. In a certain incarnation, it can also shed light on the question of the rotation speed anomaly in galaxies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
Good morning to all my friends!
I just woke up from a nap last night, and lo and behold-
The sun is shining, the method is blooming,
So let us decide that today we will not slaughter each other
This is both science and a fun site!
So let's put out the fires
It's enough that we have an Intefada out there.
Well
First of all, I want to thank those who guard my freedom of speech when I myself ended my sleep:
First of all, my old friend Israel Shapira, dear! You will always be a source of pride for the expatriates of the Turkish people for generations!!!
I would also like to thank my surprising friend Instanzo, who just arrived on the site and is already in the whirlwind of scientific fire and conducting a braking battle. My heart is with you, soldier!
And to my friends Nissim (this morning they will all be my friends) who fight for the honor of science and scientists and put words in my mouth such as I don't know differential (wrong) The second of the barrage but still fighting a fair fight!
And here I came to the last last, one and only, science fighter and pride for all the dark mass believers, my friend (yes, yes, my friend) Allellallalvanzo !!
You won't believe it, but maybe in the end me and him think more or less the same thing.
Because now I see that my friend also doesn't exactly believe in the dark mass (like me), but in his opinion the end will be that at the end of the dark mass you will blossom and be like a tree planted on streams of water whose fruit will give in its time and on which there will be no harvest! Whereas in my opinion the end will be that the particles of the simple universe will blossom and be like a tree growing on streams of water whose shafts,,,, blah blah blah.
Pay attention to the striking resemblance between me and my dear and learned friend Albanzo.
So I won't add because everyone who adds detracts and let's try to keep a good spirit in our debates today!
So cheeky!
And in appreciation to all of you
your friend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
I explained what bothers me - on the one hand, other people's theories are not scientific, on the other hand, Yehuda's theory is scientific, even though a physicist explains to us that it does not correspond to observations.
Not pretty …. I also do not accept that the same physicist gets so angry 🙂
I don't understand how anyone can be upset about our Yoda.
Did you know that in Turkish Sabdarmish means one who is loved?
Has anyone bothered to read and understand his "simple universe theory"?
Not that I agree with her, but she is pretty consistent with the rotation anomaly in galaxies.
Steinzo
The trick is to see who understands what he's talking about and listen to him. Yehuda is entitled to invent his own theory, but he cannot say that all physicists are talking nonsense.
Of course there are greedy scientists and of course there is a lot of politics. How does this relate to the topic?
And to remind you, regarding Zenon, I think that Albenzo is completely wrong. The solution cannot be an exercise in infinity. But he knows physics. And Yehuda didn't (at least that's what he says, you might think differently....).
What did I say that annoys you so much?
And if you are so proud of the fact that you don't hide the fact that you haven't read the article, and that you don't even have the ability to read it, how can you claim that there is no evidence for the existence of dark matter that is not at all related to the rotation curves of spiral galaxies? You are so honest and so right to admit that you do not read the evidence and you cannot read it. Shouldn't you refrain from announcing at every corner and at every opportunity what the testimonies are if you admit to yourself that you don't read them and you're not able to understand them at all?
Yehuda,
Question: Did you attribute to me citations of things that I never claimed, and in fact I explicitly said that I did not claim them?
Did you say "...a firm conclusion reached by our genius friend from Albanz about conclusive proof of the existence of the "dark mass"", when I said black and white just a few moments before "No one said that the article proves the existence of dark matter. It was only said that he listed the evidence for its existence."?
Have you no shame at all? You can't even admit out loud that you put words in? And that she actually lied?
Well, my friend, I'm retiring
Good night and tomorrow morning I hope that in Tsaran they will announce that they discovered the dark particle and come to Zion Goel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Besides miracles, you probably don't know but I will tell you: even in science there is politics.
And scientists are human and scientists can be greedy too.
Miracles
You wrote: "Forgive me" - God will forgive you...:) You messed up. I forgive you.
"Then Yehuda came, and Shomer Ishabno Shtizovsky (or whatever you want to call yourself), and offered a theory that did not match all the observations." - Did I propose a theory? you daydream
"But only Albenzo knows the material."... hmm.. good. When your tongue is out of our ass - we will be happy if you respond to the matter. Even if you have no idea what you are talking about.
to Albenzo
I really don't understand why you are so angry, after all BSA is a science, everyone reacts and has fun
Why do you think I am obliged to read 25 pages of high level science?, I am not an Albanzo who can do this easily even the last chapter of the article I read for over an hour and did not quite understand. I did not deny that I had not read the article and solemnly declared it and was proud of the fact that I only went to the end to the conclusions and I swear to you that if it had been written there that these were the definitive proofs of the existence of dark matter I would have delved into it all. And if it were true, I would declare it and not be ashamed and apologize to you!
Of course, I was happy to come across the bargain in which the author himself claims that there is still a lot of work to be done. And I realized that this article does not close anything.
But you had to add some tongue twisters:
"Judas the liar",
"The man is simply a fool of the first class and a wretched liar in addition.",
"You are a stupid man", "ignorant", "arrogant and a liar".
"I'm seriously considering the possibility that you're just mentally unstable"
And a few other tongue twisters that I left out.
I won't ask you to apologize because I understand that it won't help, but it seems to me that you are just causing a murky atmosphere.
And it's a shame. It's a cute site where we common people have fun and try to convince with our nonsense and occasionally tell jokes. They don't take the business too seriously.
I suggested preparation, change your name and join as a new person the atmosphere of the other commenters without arguing and try to enjoy.
Come on think about it. And have a good day to you and the other commenters
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I just read your comment. It is incorrect to say that the purpose of the LHC is to search for dark matter. And I don't think any scientist thinks of getting rich from this business. Those who want to make money are much better off studying medicine.
Schitzovsky
Forgive me (as if I care, but for the sake of politeness) - you, like Yehuda, distort what is happening here. There are observations that want to explain them. Dark matter is an idea that very many, I guess almost all, physicists think is a good explanation for observations. Smart and educated people invest efforts to understand the explanation, and as the degree of science, try to disprove the explanation and look for other explanations.
Then Yehuda comes, and Shomer Ishabno Shtitzovsky (or whatever you want to call yourself), and offers a theory that does not match all the observations. Yehuda firmly claims that his explanation does match the observations, and in the same sentence admits that he did not bother to check what these observations were. And this is after calling scientists greedy ….. and their theories not “scientific”.
There is a physicist here who understands what he is talking about - anyone can babble as much as they want - but only Albenzo knows the material.
Are you unable to learn anything?
Yehuda
God willing (and with a little help from others) you will receive a Nobel Prize.
But I don't think it will be about Pushing Gravity. As far as I remember MR already refuted it at the time.
Do you have new theoretical insights?
And of course, Yehuda ignores.
Does not refer to the fact that he was presented with an article with evidence and he refused to read it.
Does not address the fact that the bottom line he quoted clearly says that he must explain many pieces of evidence unrelated to any Newtonian formula if he wants to get rid of dark matter.
And most importantly - it does not refer to the fact that I provided full quotes that show in the most explicit way that he simply lied, made up words and claimed that I said things that I never said.
Because - who needs to learn, listen or respect the truth when it is just as easy to ignore and lie?
Leshtizovsky
You said: Yehuda, in fact Wikipedia also agrees with you. It is written there explicitly that the opinions about dark matter are still in dispute. End quote.
Answer: I know.
You said: "What have I done wrong to you that you compare me to miracles?" End quote.
Answer: What's wrong with miracles in my life that it seems fine to me!
You said: "In any case, as I said, if there is no evidence other than observation, how can Albanzo claim conclusive evidence for the existence of dark matter?" End quote.
Answer: I don't know, ask him. But preferably tomorrow because now he is angry.
You said: Either you are right or he is so humble that he is not interested in the Nobel Prize... end of quote.
Answer: You're wrong Schitzovsky, what about a Nobel Prize for me?
Good night
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Albanzo
According to my understanding, Yehuda, like everyone else, claims that there is an anomaly.
Only you are sure that the explanation is dark matter and Yehuda thinks it is something else.
That's the difference between you.
And a final note - this time without profanity, so everyone is welcome to read (especially Yehuda).
Let's look a little more closely at the conclusions Yehuda selectively cited without reading the article. What is the sentence about there remains much to be done? We will read the lines that precede this sentence... Ah! Amazingly. What the author of the article says, and forgive me for the Hebrew translation (for the benefit of those who do not have a complete command of English),
"Theories that try to explain dark matter without new particles, with the help of new interactions or changing the theory of gravitation, have the burden of proving all the gravitational effects we have described here. Therefore, there is still a lot of work to be done.”
That is, the sentence refers directly to you, Yehuda Sabdarmish! He is trying to explain to you what I have been trying to explain to you for months: you claim that you changed the Newtonian formula (weak field approximation) and solved the dark matter problem? Okay, show specifically how this also explains the evidence described in the article (which you didn't read) that appears in the cosmic background radiation, dusting effects, the creation of structures in the early universe, etc., etc. There's a pretty big list of things you need to explicitly show that your idea solves.
And by the way, everyone please pay attention. Below is a quote from Yehuda the liar:
"...I went to the last chapter, chapter 15, page 23
15. Comments and conclusions
And I looked at the conclusions reached by the author of the article himself. I'm sure he did his job faithfully. Let's see what conclusions he reached."
That is, even when he receives a scientific paper that lists evidence for the existence of dark matter, he does not bother to read the paper. The man is simply stupid of the first class and a wretched liar as well.
Below is a quote from a response I wrote to you a few hours ago:
"No one said that the article proves the existence of dark matter. It is only said that he enumerates the evidence for its existence. ".
A quote from a comment I wrote to Nisim a few hours ago:
"...link to a scientific article that contains eight pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter, and a considerable part of them are not at all related to any galaxy or rotation of gravitation formulas."
And a quote from the original response where I put the link:
"Attached below is a very superficial article eight pieces of evidence for dark matter."
At every point all I said in this article is evidence for the existence of dark matter. I did not claim proof, knowledge of its nature or properties, and I never claimed that this evidence could not be explained in another way. In fact, here is a quote (one of many) in which I specifically say that in the future you may find an alternative theory to gravitation where we don't need dark matter:
"If one day you find an alternative theory that does not include dark matter, it will have to explain all the evidence."
Yehuda
Actually even Wikipedia agrees with you.
It is written there explicitly that the opinions about dark matter are still controversial.
Yehuda
What have I done wrong to you that you compare me to miracles?
In any case, as I said, if there is no evidence other than observation, how can Albanzo claim conclusive evidence for the existence of dark matter? Either you are right or he is so humble that he is not interested in the Nobel Prize..
Yehuda,
My response has two parts. Let's start with the part you will be least angry to hear.
1. If you really meant only that the scientists receive huge sums that are all directed to research, then why did you even mention it? If the money doesn't reach my pocket personally, then why is it even relevant? You specifically mentioned this as a reason that the scientific community would not be happy to hear opinions against dark matter. But if we don't profit from it, your whole point has gone to waste.
And now for the less pleasant part...
Who do you think you are, you brat? Where did you get the phenomenal combination of audacity and stupidity that brings you to a situation where you feel free to say that "...a firm conclusion was reached by our genius friend from Albanz for conclusive proof of the existence of the "dark mass""? You are a fraud and a liar and your place is not in the scientific community, but with the bottom of our society. I have been explaining to you for months that there is evidence for the existence of dark matter and that no one - including me - still knows what it is. I've specifically mentioned a *large* number of times people like Milgrom and Bekenstein who oppose dark matter as non-bryonic matter and try to find alternative theories of gravity. I even defended Milgrom's ideas against the stupid "criticism" you tried to slap on him!
You are a stupid, ignorant, arrogant and lying man. In my opinion - you also know that. I expect that in a few hours the forum will be flooded with comments against me for the language I use, but at the same time there won't be a single person here with a minimum of intellectual honesty who won't scroll back and see that you consistently lie with a determined forehead, put words in mouth and claim that I said things that I didn't say. I'm seriously considering the possibility that you're just mentally unstable.
And you still have the audacity to tell me to apologize when I say things you don't like! You piece of liar.
Miracles
You claim that I am Yehuda Sabdarmish said emphatically that everyone who searches for the dark matter does so out of the desire to make easy money.
Well, I checked what I said in a response a few days ago in my response to Maya on November 8.11.2014, XNUMX and I quote:
Take an example: thousands of scientists are researching in the particle accelerator at Czern and looking for the dark mass particles. They receive huge payments for this. Imagine that I go to Ceran and say that in my opinion there is no dark mass. What would they do to me? I promise you that they would answer me at least in the same way that Albanzo answers me." End quote.
When I said that they receive huge payments for this purpose, I meant for the purpose of the research and not for the purpose of the salary.
But I must point out that it sounds like the scientists are the ones getting the kickbacks, but that was not my intention. And I apologize to Zarn scientists. You will understand that the operation of the accelerator in Zern requires huge sums when most of the research is to find the dark particle. This operation also employs thousands of scientists who make a living from it. And the budgets and engineers could have been used for another purpose. I hope I understand and my apology is accepted.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Albanzo didn't say they found out what the dark matter was, he said there was plenty of evidence that there was something there.
This is also the conclusion you quoted.
You are the one who firmly stated that everyone who is looking for the dark matter is doing it out of the desire to make easy money.
Nissim and Schitzovsky
It seems to me that I am smarter than you (almost a genius)
I went to the last chapter, chapter 15, page 23
15. Comments and conclusions
And I looked at the conclusions reached by the author of the article himself. I'm sure he did his job faithfully. Let's see what conclusions he reached. So please:
15. Comments and conclusions
What we have termed "dark matter" is generic for observed gravitational effects on all scales:
galaxies, small and large galaxy groups, clusters and superclusters, CMB anisotropies over the
full horizon, baryonic oscillations over large scales, and cosmic shear in the large-scale matter
distribution. The correct explanation or nature of dark matter is not known, whether it implies
conventional matter, unconventional particles, or modifications to gravitational theory. but
gravitational effects prove its existence in some form.
Only a few percent of the total mass of the Universe is found in stars and hydrogen
clouds, and this amount of baryonic matter is well accounted for by nucleosynthesis. If there
there are particles which were very slow at time teq when galaxy formation started, they could be
candidates for cold dark matter. If dark matter were composed of such new particles, they
must have become non-relativistic much earlier than the leptons, and then decoupled from the
hot plasma.
Whenever laboratory searches discover a new particle, it must pass several tests in order
to be considered a viable DM candidate: it must be neutral, compatible with constraints
on self-interactions (essentially collisionless), consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and
match the appropriate relic density. It must be consistent with direct DM searches and
gamma-ray constraints, it must leave stellar evolution unchanged, and be compatible with
other astrophysical bounds.
Theories attempting to explain dark matter without new particles, with new interactions
or modified gravity, likewise have the burden to explain all the observed gravitational effects
described in here. Thus there remains much to be done.
So tell me, dear commenters, do you think the author reached the firm conclusion reached by our genius friend from Albanz about conclusive proof of the existence of the "dark mass"?
It seems to me that
there remains much to be done.
Yehuda
I'm sure if it was 200 pages in linear B supporting your opinion, then you would make the effort 🙂
Yehuda
If all we have are just observations that show an anomaly and nothing else - then how can we even start talking about quantum physics of dark matter? This does not seem like a scientific approach to the subject. It's like watching a galaxy anomaly and deciding that it's God spinning it on his finger. Where is the evidence for dark matter itself?
Say, what are you crazy?, 25 pages in English when I barely know Hebrew??
Well let's take a look
I found I found! Ahurika, Ahurika!
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0316v2.pdf
But, what a lovely night
Israel
Couldn't you be polite and bring the link?
From the article p. 22:
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter is furnished by observations of 1E0657-
558, a unique cluster merger [35]. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar Dark Matter: The evidence from astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology 23
component and the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. The gravitational
potential observed by weak and strong lensing does not trace the plasma distribution which is
the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of
galaxies, cf. fig. 17. The center of the total mass is offset from the center of the baryonic mass
peaks, proving that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen. In front of the smaller
'bullet' cluster which has traversed the larger one, a bow shock is evident in the X-rays.
Two other merging systems with similar characteristics have been seen, although with
lower spatial resolution and less clear-cut cluster geometry. In Fig.18 we show the post-merging
galaxy cluster MACS J0025.4-1222 [10].
Yehuda,
The link was posted here yesterday or the day before. If you haven't read it - your problem. If you don't have the ability to click on the "old comments" button and find it - your problem. The reality remains the reality - you talk about science, but at the end of the day you ignore the overwhelming majority of the evidence because if you don't ignore it, you will have to admit that your whole life's work, the crusade against dark matter is nothing more than an ignorant man's rant.
If one day you find an alternative theory that does not include dark matter, it will have to explain all the evidence. And not just the evidence that one small and lying person sees fit to refer to.
Albanzo
Miserable wishes like the article and like your behavior!
No one said the paper proves the existence of dark matter. It is only said that he enumerates the evidence for its existence. And since I already posted it a few comments ago, I think you can find it yourself. What happened? Have you gotten so used to me telling you everything 10 times that now I even have to post a link twice?
Can I get a link to the scientific "miracle" article that will prove to me the existence of the dark mass? Thank you very much.
A dark and wonderful night!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Go away, miracles.
If a link to a scientific article that contains eight pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter, and a considerable part of which is not related to any galaxy or rotation of gravitation formulas, did not help to get Judah out of Neverland (where the facts are only what fits the theory of a layman who never bothered to study the subject, and all A fact that doesn't agree with what he decided is right just evaporates and disappears) and back to the real world, I guess no verbal entreaties from you will help either.
Even from a layman's reading of Wikipedia, one can understand that the evidence for dark mass is not just some small problem in the gravity equation.
And the gravity correction given here does not provide any explanation! Why is the gravity equation wrong under certain conditions?
And what the hell bothers you about a question that people who understand the subject understand more than you?
Leshtinzowitz and others
Steinzowitz asks: "This invented material was invented only based on the observed anomaly? Does that mean there is no measurement and no equation that can be referred to?" End quote.
Answer: Indeed it is. Something didn't work out in the equations of motion of the galaxies in the clusters and in the spirality and in the distortion of the light, so they added a huge amount of mass just so that God forbid we don't have to throw away the holy gravitation formula. But maybe this is what needs to be done because just changing the observed data in cosmology with invisible matter is not "fair game" in my opinion.
And if we are talking about dark mass, I must mention that I have just returned from my cute dietician and she is happy to state that in the last month I have lost three whole kilograms of bully mass (not dark) and I now stand at a mass of 100 kg and seven hundred grams including all the clothes on me ( Because that's how it's appropriate to be weighed by the dietitian). I selfishly hope that at the next weigh-in in about a month I will pass to a double-digit mass without dark supplements to administer!! So you will understand that no Albanzo can bring down my mood now!
So I hope that in the following comments you will encourage me so that I continue with the holy task of casting a mass over my full body, and I promise that every cheerleader will receive priority for my special attention.
But, what a beautiful day!
(well, it's already night)
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please Eraf, you wrote "the main addition of the dark mass should be at the edges of the galaxies and beyond them".
I'm not supposed to conclude that "beyond them" refers to the mass that is beyond, ie outside the galaxy, like in the pictures on wiki?
(subtle enough?)
Yehuda
This invented material was invented just based on the observed anomaly? That is, there is no measurement and no equation that can be referred to?
Israel Shapira
It seems to me that you understood well!
The anomaly is that the rotation speeds are higher than what the equations predict regarding the gravity of the weighted center of mass in the galaxy, - so far so true.
And it is in the center of the galaxy, with the black hole, not outside it. This is also true!
What should be added is that the entire mass of the galaxy determines a speed of 250 km per second. In a place close to the center. The speed should decrease to 70 km per second as you move away to the edge of the galaxy, but what can be done if the speed continues to remain at the high level of 200=250 km per second, therefore they predicted that there is another (dark) mass that maintains the speed.
As I explained in my previous response!, did you understand Israel?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No, I didn't understand.
The anomaly is that the rotation speeds are higher than what the equations predict for the gravity of the weighted center of mass in the galaxy, and it is in the center of the galaxy, with the black hole, not outside it.
Good night.
To Israel
Answer your questions.
Question: "Yehuda says "the main addition of the dark mass should be at the edges of the galaxies and beyond them". End quote.
Answer: True.
Question: "Gauss's theorem states that a mass distributed uniformly in the shell of a spherical body has no gravitational effect on bodies inside the sphere." End quote.
Answer: True.
Question: "Therefore, an envelope of uniform dark mass beyond the edge of the galaxy should not affect bodies within the envelope." End quote.
Answer" is correct.
Let's explain it again:
That is, the dark mass located up to twenty thousand light years from the center affects all the bodies whose distance from the center is twenty thousand light years or more.
The dark mass located up to forty thousand light years away. Affects all bodies whose distance from the center is over forty thousand light years. etc etc etc
The dark mass found within the gas clouds located at a distance of 100 thousand light years to 150 thousand light years will not affect clouds that are less than 100 thousand light years away because it is outside them but will affect the speed of clouds at a distance of more than 150 thousand light years from the center because it is internal to them..
and so
Therefore, to maintain a large rotation speed, most of the dark mass should be in the distant parts of the galaxy and its gas clouds. Did you understand Mr. Shapira?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please respond gently
Yoda
You say "the main addition of the dark mass should be at the edges of the galaxies and beyond them".
Gauss's law (divergence elek) holds that a mass uniformly distributed in the shell of a spherical body has no gravitational effect on bodies inside the sphere.
Therefore, an envelope of uniform dark mass beyond the edge of the galaxy (right, not a sphere, a double spiral, DNA, please) should not affect bodies inside the envelope.
No?
to Israel and others
The dark matter must be concentrated at the edge of the galaxy because that is the only way it can increase the speed of the edge without also increasing the speed of the center of the galaxy. Therefore, there should not be much dark matter in the area of our solar system because we are quite close to the center = about 30,000 light years, but in the edges and in the gas clouds around the galaxy At a distance of 100,000 to even half a million light years, the extreme rotation speed of about 250 km per second is also maintained there, so there should be a dark mass there.
I will explain it differently. In our solar system, the Earth rotates at a speed of 30 km per second and Jupiter at a speed of 13 km per second. And this corresponds to the calculations of the baryonic mass of the Sun. Suppose we were to find out that Jupiter rotates at a speed of 30 km per second as well, well how do we solve the problem?, we will decide that we will do it with dark mass. But we cannot put it inside the sun because then it will also increase the speed of the earth, we will have to put it between the earth and Jupiter because then it will not affect the speed of rotation of the earth but it will affect the speed of rotation of Jupiter. Suppose now we see that the more distant Neptune also rotates at a speed of about thirty kilometers per second instead of the low speed it should rotate at such a distance from the Sun, we will again have to add a dark mass and this time between Jupiter and Neptune and so on.
This is how it is with the galaxies, the main addition of the dark mass is supposed to be at the edges of the galaxies and beyond them even the distances of hundreds of thousands of light years. So looking for the little bit of dark mass in our solar region when this dark mass is mostly found in interstellar space is something that has almost no chance of finding it.
I hope I explained the situation.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please respond gently
I'm the first to agree with you.
I'm also pretty sure there are good answers to my questions, they're pretty trivial.
The attraction between the dark matter particles and themselves cannot explain the rotation anomaly. In my understanding, the material must be inside the galaxy, not outside it, for us to get such an anomaly.
I was talking about attraction between dark matter particles and itself. Maybe it behaves differently? Maybe there is a phenomenon of something like Brownian motion that prevents coalescence?
And regardless - just because we don't know how to explain something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You ask good questions, but not knowing the answers is pretty meaningless.
Miracles
You write "It could be, perhaps, that the gravity between the dark matter particles behaves differently than we expect".
In my understanding, the gravitational effect of dark matter on baryonic matter is the same as the effect of baryonic matter on baryonic matter.
Oh, here's an argument to the point:
"It's definitely possible that our galaxy doesn't have a lot of dark matter."
That answers my question. But immediately raises another question:
If there is not much dark matter in our galaxy - then what about the anomaly of the rotation speed of the stars at the edge of our galaxy?
Well, why are you so hot?
I read your explanations - but they do not solve the problem I raised.
I'm not talking about the amount of dark matter. The amount of matter in the universe is zero - both baryonic and dark.
I'm talking about the dark matter/thug ratio.
Because we can do a lot of gravitational calculations in the solar system with the baryonic matter, but they cannot be accurate if we have huge concentrations of dark matter inside the solar system.
I – not you, I – call them ghost stars. Is there a problem with the nickname? Is he not successful?
Nissim, do you understand the argument? Is he also unsuccessful?
Israel
It could be, perhaps, that the gravity between the dark matter particles behaves differently than we expect. Normal matter doesn't always clump either - it's a fact that there are dust clouds in the galaxy, like the Horse's Head Nebula.
And by the way - no one said that in our galaxy there is 5 times more dark matter than baryonic matter. The amount of dark matter relative to baryons is a cosmological result and does not relate in any way to our galaxy. It is quite possible that our galaxy does not have much dark matter. Who said that every galaxy has to have the same amount of dark matter? Do you know how dark matter is distributed? Do you know what interactions it performs and what structures it creates as a result? No, no and no. So on what basis do you determine a priori that matter that you know nothing about must be found right here in our solar system, which is roughly one-tenth to the 24th power of the solar systems in the universe - and that's just solar systems (not including the medium).
How did you come to the point that I claim that "there are concentrations of dark matter, "ghost stars", in other solar systems in our galaxy but not in ours"? I wrote to you explaining that dark matter does not create structures similar to baryonic matter (and this is the part of the analogy that is inaccurate) and I even scolded you for attributing to me a statement that there are "dark matter planets". So what is your conclusion - to write that I claim there are dark matter ghost stars?!
Any random piece of space you take that is as tiny as our solar system will most likely contain only a very small amount of dark matter. I've written it many times already, and I don't know how to write it again. Do you want to believe that our solar system does not have a huge concentration of dark matter? ok, enjoy. We are all stupid and until now no one has figured out that if there is 4 times more dark matter than baryonic matter then there must be a huge mass of dark matter in the middle of our solar system!
I feel like I've exhausted the explanations. You understand - nice. I don't understand - that's fine too.
Good luck later.
Miracles
Nothing to do with the debate. I am trying to understand why if in our particular galaxy - the Milky Way - there is so much dark matter - 5 times more than baryonic matter - then why precisely in our system - the Sun - there is no such matter to the extent that it would affect the orbits of the planets.
Is that so much to ask?
Reason suggests that if he is not here, then he is concentrated in other solar systems for the Milky Way, or in the middle between the systems.
Do you see another option?
So according to you there are concentrations of dark matter, "ghost stars", in other solar systems in our galaxy but not in ours?
Israel
China … the manufacturing country of the world….
And regarding the dark matter - why exactly do I have to argue with Albenzo? I'm more likely to have dark matter in my coffee than come up with an idea that a professional physicist hasn't thought of before. No physicist may be able to answer your question. There are many open questions about the origin of life. So what? Does it follow that what we think today is necessarily wrong? I researched (and research) a little the subject of evolution, in the context of consciousness, and especially free will. Any lack of knowledge of something in the field invalidates the theory? Definately not.
Science is a tool in the hands of those who want to understand the world without prejudices. Yehuda, and his friends, express contempt for these people. No wonder that Albenzo is annoyed...
Let's try an analogy. Let's assume that the dark matter is arranged in structures similar to the baryonic matter (note that the modern models say not really. I also noticed that in your last comment you wrote that "we mentioned a dark matter planet", when the truth is that you are the only one who talked about such things. Please do not refer to me your statements that do not exist basis in the relevant research).
Now take all of space and begin to sprinkle it with the hundred billion baryon galaxies and the same order of magnitude of dark matter galaxies (if you want, you can take four hundred billion, but as I have already written several times - the assumption that the particle density is proportional to the energy density is nothing more than a wild guess and there is no No reason for this to necessarily be the case).
Ask yourself, "What is the probability that in seeding the galaxies and stars and clusters and nebulae, I happened to drop a structure of dark matter exactly where there is also a structure of baryonic matter?" The answer is, of course, very very very low. Now he asked, "Of all the very few times that it did happen by chance and yes I dropped a structure of dark matter on a structure of baryonic matter, what is the chance that our solar system, out of all the solar systems in the universe, is one of those rare cases that happen to share a large cluster of dark matter and matter A bully?". Again, the probability is minimal.
So like I said, this analogy doesn't really faithfully represent the physics. After all, all matter - dark and violent - tends to perpetuate itself and therefore the probability of common structures is not quite 0 as it would be if you performed the calculation I proposed in the analogy. But maybe it will help you understand that expecting a dark matter planet to live in our solar system is like expecting to lift your foot right now and find a diamond the size of your fist on the floor.
come on. Israel, I addressed this explicitly. I wrote that if there was a large concentration of dark matter within our solar system then we should have noticed it. But there is no reason in the world for this to happen! The density of dark matter, even though it is greater than the density of baryonic matter, is so small that the probability that a dark matter planet will suddenly sit inside our solar system is zero. And it is enough that the concentration of the first large dark matter is even a little outside the solar system, so that we will no longer have any ability to detect it from calculating orbits and have to use methods with extremely low efficiency, therefore creating a false impression that there is little dark matter.
I suggest that after you write your next comment, wait a second before you click "add comment", and re-read my last two or three comments. In the meantime, you are only asking things that I have already explicitly addressed.
Miracles
Let's really assume that there is 100 times more dark matter in our solar system, and that it is concentrated in clusters.
Do you think you could calculate something in the solar system with such ghost stars in all kinds of hidden corners?
I received the GPS with the external antenna today. Waiting for receivers for satellite communication - it takes time, they arrive from China.
We talked about the concentration of dark mass - because it tends to be concentrated in clusters - we even mentioned a concentration such as a planet.
According to you, such a concentration, a kind of another invisible planet, would not have completely distorted all the planetary tracks? Even tiny Pluto did this to a computable extent of 19th century technology, so huge concentrations of mass in our solar system are undetectable with today's technology?
It seems to me that for some reason you think that if there is an invisible object in space near us but which causes a gravitational field, then we can detect the gravitational field and know that the object is there. This is simply not true. We do not have such technology. All we can do is hope that the gravitational field happens to create a physical phenomenon such as the gravitational dimming of a known light source (that is, that gravity will indirectly affect light and that we will be able to detect this effect), and then conclude from the phenomenon that there is probably a gravitational object in the seemingly empty space. We depend not only on the conditions that will exactly allow the effects, and not only on the fact that it is very rare that we are in a position that allows us to discover the effect even when it exists, but in addition to all this the gravitational force is much weaker than the electromagnetic force, so overall these effects are very small.
I have no idea what makes you think that invisible objects can be detected based on their mass alone, but that's really, really, really not the case.
Israel,
My response is that it is not true and I explained why. Gravitation is not something you measure like light. We do not know how to measure the gravitational force as we measure the electromagnetic force. We depend on specific effects for which the conditions occur only rarely, and which are themselves very small effects in relation to electromagnetic effects.
I explained all this. Are you not reading my comments?
Israel
So let's assume there is 100 times more dark matter....
Miracles
If I remember correctly - a Mayman atom per cubic km, or something of similar size.
Albanzo.
I wrote "Even without electromagnetic interactions we should have had a serious distortion in gravitational measurements if there were so many wolves here, right?"
your reply?
Israel,
Bully stuff is easy to see. Just need a telescope. Dark matter has only one of two ways to see: either if it happens to be right next to you, which is just statistically almost impossible, or through gravitational effects. The gravitational effects can only be detected under very certain conditions - for example, if the dark matter is exactly between us and a light source that we know how to recognize and understand the path of its radiation. Or if the structure of the dark matter is so huge that it causes distortions in the bullion structures (like for example in the bullet cluster). It's quite possible that space is littered with dark matter just as it is littered with stars, but it can't be seen because gravitational effects are a billion times harder to detect than light. Only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the dark matter is in conditions that we can detect directly with the help of the relatively ineffective tool of gravitational effects, and of this fraction of a percentage - again, the probability that we will detect something right here on our planet tends to 0.
I don't mean to belittle or insult, but you seem to be missing the very essence of *dark* material. You keep repeating the question why we can't find him. So… *Apple*. It's like asking "if there is so much more nitrogen in the Earth than sand, why do we see lots of sand everywhere but nowhere do we see nitrogen?"...
Maybe you should read a bit about gravitational distillation to understand that it is a very reliable tool but its efficiency is zero compared to the efficiency of a telescope. That is, very specific conditions must be met in order for us to detect mass or energy using gravitational effects, while detecting mass or energy using light is a trivial matter that humanity has been doing for several thousand years with great success. That's why when you come across a material that the only method to discover is super inefficient, you get the impression that it doesn't make sense to have a lot of it. This impression is wrong.
Israel
Tell me, what is the mass concentration in the universe, on average?
Israel
The difference between Albenzo and Yehuda is that Albenzo knows that he does not know everything.
Albanzo
True, there are few wolves compared to the size of Europe.
But according to your example, there are 5 times more wolves than humans.
Therefore the probability of meeting a wolf is 5 times greater than meeting a person.
And my question: how is it that we see humans everywhere and not even one wolf?
And the analogy: how is it that we encounter baryonic matter everywhere in the solar system and not dark matter?
Even without electromagnetic interactions we would have to get a serious distortion in gravitational measurements if there were so many wolves here, wouldn't we?
Yoda
I answered you about the friction, by pudding graffiti.
And in short - no.
Yehuda,
Can you tell me (and the other people on the forum) how it feels to be deaf and blind? It's so rare to meet such Helen Keller-like people that you can ask them about their experiences, it's simply a waste not to tell us about the experience. The reason I assume that you are completely closed to any stimulus from the outside world is that it seemed to me that you wrote again "... the most important thing is that there is only one reason that he was created and that is that he came to save the gravitation formula from being thrown out because it really does not work in galaxies.", even though you know -B M-A-V-D that is simply a lie. a lie. Cheating, exaggeration, lying.
Israel,
As I wrote in my previous comments, we know that dark matter is about 4 times more massive than baryonic matter. But (I say again exactly what I said in the previous comment, maybe if I arrange it in points it will be clearer this time):
1. What determines the probability of encountering dark matter is the particle density and not the energy density. We don't know enough about dark matter to know what its particle density is. For example, if it is a million times heavier than baryonic matter, then its particle density will be 250 thousand times smaller. Ask yourself what is the probability of encountering a single electron while flying through empty space. Very very very low, right? Now divide that by 250k.
2. We do not know the composition of dark matter, so it is a mistake to say that it is not found in our solar system. For example, a possible candidate for dark matter in warm dark matter models is the neutrino, which we encounter more than once right here on Earth and in general in the solar system.
3. There is no meaning to the statement that there is more dark matter than bully and therefore it is not rare. The rarity of the phenomenon (that is, the inverse of the probability of encountering it) is determined by its frequency in the probability space. That is, the ratio between the amount of dark matter and the amount of space in which it is found. And there is nothing to do with the baryonic substance. Let's take an example of this idea: let's say we evacuate the continent of Europe completely. Now they put 100 people and 500 wolves in it. You and I, as part of a group of over 100 people, are walking in the forest and you ask me, "How is it that we don't encounter wolves?" After all, there are 5 times more wolves than humans in Europe!" Of course, the probability of encountering a wolf will be zero even though there are more wolves than humans, and this is because there are few wolves relative to the size of Europe.
4. The distribution of the dark matter, like the baryonic one, is expected to be a distribution that was homogeneous before inflation (in the early universe), then small defects in the homogeneity created large and small structures in it. It is simply not true to say that "his distribution is such that he is actually far from us". Its distribution, like that of baryonic matter, is such that it is concentrated in points, and the points are very, very far apart on average because of the size of space. The probability that a structure of dark matter sat precisely here in the solar system is minimal. Again, this is just like super novae, white dwarfs, etc. It is not that they are "divided so that they are actually far from us". They are simply rare events. Dark matter is also rare due to the size of space, and it is even possible that it is much rarer than what I described, given the structure of the matter itself.
In conclusion, and I hope it is clearer this time, the argument "there is more dark matter than bully and therefore we should encounter it" is without any basis. Even if you make wild assumptions about its composition (like, for example, that 4 times more energy density means 4 times more dark matter particles) the probability is still zero simply because of the relative occupancy of structures in empty space.
Attached below is a very superficial article eight evidences of dark matter. I am not responsible for the fact that every evidence we have discovered of the existence of dark matter appears in it, but it will at least give you an idea of how refutable Yehuda's claim is regarding "its entire existence is due to the inaccuracy of the gravitation formula". Note that a considerable part of the evidence, specifically the cosmological evidence and that resulting from reification, is not related in any way to any gravitation formula.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0316v2.pdf
Kinetic energy - a mistake. I meant dark energy
Israel Shapira
I'll help you
Dark matter explains the rapid rotational motion of spiral galaxies, the rapid motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters, and the Great Gamification, but it greatly interferes with the accelerated expansion of the universe. So to overcome that they invented the opposite, kinetic energy that helps the universe to expand which must be many times greater than the dark mass..
By the way, what do you think about canceling the friction problem I did in Pushing Gravity?
good week
Yehuda
Yoda
I'm all questions and wonders about dark matter, but a very small follower of conspiracy theories of sorts in science. Most likely, we simply don't know and understand enough, so it's worth asking.
On the other hand, what is interesting is that Lasage's theory with a small but logical and necessary change actually opens up an interesting direction for the anomaly of rotation speeds in galaxies.
Albanzo says that there are other reasons for the necessity of the dark matter, the background radiation and more, I must have missed it.
Albanzo, instead of going to study for 7 years - could you give us a brief overview of other phenomena that dark matter explains besides the galaxies?
Thanks.
Israel Shapira
When you get discouraged you will realize that there is no dark matter. point. The explanation must be different. Don't you realize that should be the conclusion when dark matter tries so hard not to be found? "It's big, it's small, it's frictionless, you can't see it, it's scattered in strange areas, for example, mostly far from the galaxy, and the most important thing is that there's only one reason it was created, and that's that it came to save the gravitation formula from throwing it away because it really doesn't work in galaxies."
That's what there is. But keep looking.
Good night
Yehuda
Albanzo
I just saw the song.. Sahtein.
For those who missed it due to the suspension, scroll back. Equal.
As for the evidence, if I remember correctly, there was an article in a scientist about the existence of dark matter in the vicinity of Kadaha or something like that... you have to search. If I find it I will give you a link.
Israel
True true.. but why are you challenging him? Can't you see he's in the swing? Look what songs he writes.. maybe in the end we will find out that he is actually a cook
I mean, if there is many times more dark matter than baryony, then why is its distribution such that it is rather far away from us?
Is there another example in the universe of such a common phenomenon that for some reason misses a system the size of the sun so comprehensively?
rare? Isn't it most of the matter in the universe?
First, dark matter is also a rare phenomenon. The rarity of the phenomenon should be measured in relation to the size of the universe. Although there is more dark matter than baryonic matter, the universe is still large enough that encountering dark matter is a rare phenomenon. Second, as I keep telling you, these questions are meaningless because we don't know what dark matter is. For example, there is an opinion that a considerable part of the dark matter is actually neutrinos (in the framework of theories called warm dark matter, in which part of the dark matter is relativistic and part is not relativistic). Neutrinos are something that is also here in DHA. And what if we find out that the dark matter particle is on average a million times heavier than baryonic matter? So although there is a total of about 4 times more dark matter than baryons, the number of dark matter particles will be 250 thousand times smaller. Therefore, in terms of particle density (which is what determines the probability of encountering dark matter just like that in space, not its energy density) it is rarer by a huge margin than baryonic matter.
There is no reason to think a priori that there should be dark matter specifically here on Earth. The universe is not built like that. You're just looking for something negative to say about the theory because you don't like it. It is likely that there should be at least a trace amount of dark matter in the space around us, which is why we invest energy in searching for it. But the mere fact that there is no huge mass of dark matter in the middle of Europe is not evidence of anything, and the treatment of this fact as if it were evidence against dark matter does not stem from scientific considerations at all but emotional considerations.
A white dwarf is a rare phenomenon, dark matter makes up most of the matter in the universe. In our galaxy, the Milky Way, there are concentrations of dark mass, aren't there?
Why not in our neighborhood?
Sorry, not important, the comment appears on the previous page.
Does anyone know why a comment I wrote is not published? I wrote quite a while ago and since then my other comments have been published.
What do you mean? Homogeneity is only true on large scales. Look at the solar system. Is the material distributed homogeneously? Definately not. Here is a planet, here is a sun, here is a moon. So is dark matter. Arranged in nebulae and clusters of all kinds. The universe is a very empty place, so to demand that right here in our particular solar system, which is one of about three hundred billion in the galaxy, which is one of about one hundred billion, is a really ridiculous expectation. Why is there no white dwarf here in our solar system? Why is there no black hole in my electrical cabinet? Why are all supernovae that explode always far away? Where is the homogeneity?
Albanzo
Dark matter tends to organize itself in clusters.
But why not for us in the system we changed? Why is it always far from us, in other systems? Where is the homogeneity?
So, as I've written about 30 times already, it's a bit funny trying to get an answer out of me about material I told you we still know almost nothing about. The fact that you can surround it is certain because it is only gravity, and dark matter does gravity. Can you cross it? I already wrote that it probably is, but to be sure we need to understand in what way, if at all, it makes weak interactions. In a dark matter model whose weak interactions are negligible, you can pass through it just as you can pass through a cloud of photons. If the cluster is a perfect sphere and you stand in its center, you will not feel its gravity.
Yoda
There is no need to fear dark mass maxims, because they do not have electromagnetic interactions and are therefore harmless.
Albanzo
Let's say that we have reached an area with a high concentration of dark mass. Dark star, elk.
Will our spaceship be able to circle the transparent zone like any other planet? Undertaking, isn't it?
Will she be able to fly through it? And when it is in the center all the gravitational effects will disappear because of Gauss' law?
Israel,
As I said in the previous response, when you touch something the force between your fingers and the material (the mechanical forces such as friction, normal force, etc.) is actually an electromagnetic force. As far as we know today, dark matter should not have any electromagnetic interaction at all and therefore you cannot perceive it. Similar to photons, for example.
As I said, right now all we have are mathematical models because we haven't found dark matter yet and we couldn't test the correctness of the models, but our models - which are built on the many evidences for the existence of dark matter resulting from the gravitation it creates - are a little different from each other. There are models in which the material interacts weakly, and there are those in which it does not. In short, we don't know enough about dark matter. Right now the only thing we know with a high degree of certainty is that it has to exist. That is, that within the framework of our current gravitation theories - which seem to be very correct at least approximately - dark matter must be added in order to get consistency with all the measurements in the universe.
So it will not have hardness, viscosity and such, because it does not perform electrical interactions and therefore not mechanical interactions either. Regarding the atomic number, it is a bit difficult to answer - atomic number is the result of the way in which a baryon substance binds to another baryon substance. Before we experimentally validate the models we have and make more measurements about dark matter, I cannot tell you exactly how it binds to other dark matter and therefore I cannot describe the structures it creates.
Israel Shapira
I didn't think about that, but what bothers me is that the hams won't make dark mass kasams and then our thuggish iron dome won't interact to take them down.
A problem that needs a solution!
Think about it
Yehuda
Yoda
Leave the money - have you thought about an entire squadron made up of stealthy planes made of dark mass?
And who will command her? Stealth Rabbi Dunedin of course!
to MouthHole
I must mention that you brought a big smile to my soul and also softened my nerves. Really, why should I be upset because Albanzo does what he does. Hope Albanzo finds a way to thank you.
And Maya
I took your words about Albanzo into consideration and it doesn't seem to me that I will devote unusual attention to it.
Have a good week everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Albanzo
If we reach an area where there is a dark mass - can we break a few pieces to put in a backpack and take home? Does dark matter have properties like baryonic matter such as atomic numbers, hardness, viscosity, etc.?
Israel Shapira
Let's do the math:-
The first particle of the dark mass is worth at least a million dollars - a Nobel Prize,
Am I right?
Now remind me how many particles are in a kilogram?
It is true that in the Yehud camp market you can get a dark mass cheaply, but we will still need the budget of the common European market!
Did you understand that, Israel?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And an important addition - there is nothing to do with dark energy or anti-matter.
Dark energy is energy and not matter. Therefore, in any case, you will not be able to buy a basket from her in the market. In fact, the leading candidate for dark energy is vacuum energy (see the Casimir energy entry), meaning - buying a basket of it means buying a basket of nothing. In any case, dark energy is a property of space and not a substance that can be held in the hand.
And as for anti-matter, you can definitely buy. Although it is very difficult to produce it, and it is unstable (I think the longest they managed to hold antimatter is two minutes or something like that), but it is definitely produced in laboratories around the world. There are also very, very good explanations for the question of why we do not find equal amounts of matter and antimatter around us, that is, why we need to produce antimatter in the laboratory and not pick it up off the floor. These answers are divided into 2: First, matter and antimatter will always tend to separate from each other, because when they get closer they annihilate energy. Therefore, where you find matter, it is guaranteed that there is not (much) anti-matter and vice versa. Second, there is an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. It's called CP violation and it's a very hot area but still being researched (ie don't expect a proven and tested explanation. We're still testing).
Israel,
I'm actually quite convinced that I answered your question.
First, dark mass - as its name is. darkness. That is, it does not perform electromagnetic interactions and therefore does not reflect light. You can't see her. The places where we measure its influence are places where we recognize gravitational anomalies - whether it's in galaxies that rotate unexpectedly, or in the cosmic background radiation that encodes the gravitational behavior of the early universe, and many other types of evidence.
But such effects of gravity can only be detected in places where there is *a lot* of dark matter. A little dark matter causes a very little gravity, so we will not be able to detect its gravitational effect (and see it with the eye or in standard experiments of lasers, etc. is impossible, because as we said - dark matter is dark). We definitely believe that there are small amounts of dark matter near us and even in the Earth, which is the reason why there are quite a few experiments and detectors here on Earth that aim to discover dark matter. If we thought it wasn't here, we wouldn't invest effort and money in the search.
Matter in general, and dark matter in particular, tends to arrange itself in clusters. This is because his gravity causes him to continue on himself. Space as a whole is a very, very empty place, so the statistical chance that there would be a cluster of dark matter sitting right there is terrifyingly low. In fact, if you could go to the market and buy dark matter it would be highly unlikely (kill me if I know how you would do it, given that it does not interact electromagnetically and is therefore transparent and cannot be touched. After all, mechanical forces are a derivative of force electromagnetic so something that doesn't interact electromagnetically at all will be transparent to the touch as well. It may have some effect through the weak force, but won't get into that right now).
mouthhole,
maybe one day soon
Maybe when you walk down the street,
Or maybe in the afternoon
Such lazy, sunny and good.
Maybe then you will find
Something that will stir your soul
Like a wonderful and good woman, or a man
We don't discriminate - a man is fine too.
Or maybe a spectacular piece of art
which was painted with a brush in a shaking stroke
or a piece of music whose sounds
They will accompany you every night when you lie in bed.
Either way, from that day
Your life will no longer be the same as yesterday.
And the moment you decide "That's it!
From now on I will dedicate my life to this dream!"
Get up in the morning, and cultivate
The dream that captured your heart.
Water it with water and sun
And put all your heart into it.
For years you will be together
And he is more precious to you than a diamond
Then Sabdarmish Yehuda will come
And screw you for the dream.
"All your life's work
all those years,
The only reason you worked
It is out of greed for cash.”
Then Judah will clarify
While defaming your dream on the site
that he has no idea what it is about
But surely the same dream in question
He is nonsense and stupidity and all your sweat
You sweated in vain. Why? So.
I apologize for the pomposity and melodrama. I'm not a poet, and what came out came out. The point - believe me I don't enjoy being angry. But it is very difficult to invest your life in something and then stand aside when a man comes who clearly does not understand everything and tries to explain to the whole world and his wife that your work is worth nothing and that you are acting out of dogmatism and will even increase and say that you are part of a conspiracy theory whose purpose is to steal public funds for the benefit of the fat pockets of the physicists.
And an important note - I never had a bad word to say about miracles. We often agree, and as far as I know - every time we disagreed it was in a good spirit. Since I started commenting on the site a few months ago, I have only clashed with Judah, and once infamously with Israel as well.
A layman's question for which I have not yet received a proper answer:
If the dark mass makes up the majority of the mass in the universe - then why can't it be found here on earth? Why can't you buy 2 kilos of dark mass, a can of dark energy and a basket of antimatter in Mahane Yehuda?
I will not apologize: in fact, the one who should apologize is you for cutting my sentence in the middle and thus completely misrepresenting my words. I didn't say you don't know anything a 3 year old does. I made it clear that I was talking about one specific thing that every child knows and you still don't - that you can't understand something without learning it, and that without understanding you can't criticize the scientific theory of thousands of articles written by the world's greatest experts and that have been peer-reviewed.
How funny, in your partial quote you even left the semicolons in my original sentence, so that it would be clear to anyone reading your words that my sentence had a continuation that you simply chose to ignore. But why am I not surprised that you completely selectively choose to address only the facts that serve your agenda, and blatantly ignore any fact that does not.
And by the way - I don't care at all what number is written on your matriculation exam. You don't know physics. You see, unlike you, I actually relate to the content of the things that are said. I don't care how much you got where and in what course. It interests me that you absolutely do not understand a thing and a half in the areas you are talking about. Of course when a mirror is placed in front of your face (like the one where after a lot of Indian resistance you dismiss Milgrom's theory without learning anything about parallel universes), you just turn around and ignore.
Yehuda
I also got some kind of similar grade (which I don't remember what it is) in my physics matriculation. I also got a similar grade in physics in my first degree from the Technion where I studied biochemistry and mathematics (subjects a little closer to the field of engineering) and here I say that I am completely ignorant in the field. This is what I tried to explain to you. There is a difference between an amateur scientist and a professional scientist. A professional scientist studies the field (and by the way, receives a very meager salary in return). An amateur scientist usually knows the field as it is presented to the general public, it is broken on the subject.
I didn't tell you to take Albanzo's opinion above the opinion of other scientists in the field. I told you to ignore everyone's opinions, get to know the issues that Albanzo told you were important to know (this is the only point where I told you to refer to his opinion) in depth and then check if you still think the same. The exam I suggested you do is for you and you alone. You are a big boy and definitely capable of developing your own opinion. All I've suggested, in a friendly way, is that before you do that, make sure you have all the facts.
OK, Yehuda.
How do your ideas explain the evidence for the existence of dark matter (specifically, matter that performs gravitational interactions but is pressureless - that is, does not perform mechanical and in particular electromagnetic interactions with itself) in the cosmic background radiation? Specifically, please show the model that can explain the gaps in the power spectrum of radiation for all multipaths as measured over 5 years by WMAP (Planck's results are not yet open to the public).
When I feel down, and the world seems to be crying with every drop of rain.
When it seems that there is no way out, that we will forever want sex and bread in vain.
that even the bitter drop already chokes the throat.
And the drugs have long since dried up in the cupboard.
I will read Albanzo's answers
And immediately I will be filled with hope.
that I will always find someone worse than me.
And I will never be so terribly angry.
He cut off his answers to the elderly grandfather mercilessly.
He is also not there about the reactions of Nissim the wonderful.
He still answers only to Ish Kiryot
Although I swear again and again enough is enough.
He felt he was forgetting his vows
And on his keyboard he wears and slaps his nerves.
Albanzo you should come back.
You said in paragraph five: "I'm just wasting my time in a doomed attempt to explain to a completely ignorant person what every 3-year-old knows:"
So for your information, I graduated with a 90 in physics and the college where I studied industrial management I graduated with honors and scored over 90 in mathematics and physics. I think this proves that I am totally not "totally ignorant of what any 3 year old knows" so please excuse me.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yes
You answered nicely. I don't think even Einstein thought his theory explained all the existing observations….
I am very honored to correspond with you. Thank you very much 🙂
1. My knowledge was not volatile.
2. The fact that you are not interested in what the scientists in the field say, that is exactly the problem. Too bad you *still* don't get it.
3. All along, already dozens of times, I explained to you that the use of Newton's formulas is ridiculous. I'm not being pretentious - I'm explaining to you in the clearest possible terms that Newton's formulas are wrong. They are only good for a very specific case, and the problem of dark matter goes beyond this specific case by tens of meters. This is what I've been trying to explain to you for months. This is what I say in the most explicit way there is time and time and time and time again.
4. It's amazing how all the puzzle pieces fit together... I finally understand why you're so bad at physics. You just don't understand anything you read. At no point did I "accuse you of creativity". I said that the "criticism" is yours, and pay attention to the comments that indicate that your words are criticism only in appearance, because a real criticism requires a descent into the depth of the subject being criticized and you yourself admitted that you do not study or know the subjects we are talking about (general relativity, parallel universes, etc.) ), is the same type of civilized criticism that stems from ignorance as the name of the creationists' "criticism" of evolution. Counter-arguments do not come from an understanding that something is wrong with the theory, but from complete ignorance about it. Just as the creationist claims that evolution is wrong without studying it at all, because his claims come from a religious and non-scientific place, so your claims are not based at all on the relevant science, but only on your opposition to the idea of dark matter. You haven't pointed out a single problem with it, you haven't shown a single error in any paper, and your alternative theory by definition is unable to explain the vast majority of the evidence, because it only refers to a weak field approximation that is completely wrong in most of the universe. But that's okay, because anyway you only refer to the findings that suit you to refer to. You know who else does? You guessed it, creationists.
5. Learn the meaning of the expression "to climb a tree". I didn't climb any trees. I'm just wasting my time in a doomed attempt to explain to a completely ignorant person what every 3-year-old knows: to understand something, you have to learn it. And without understanding, it is impossible to declare that all the people who did study and do understand are stupid or wrong or that they are in general corrupt and do everything for the money that CERN pays them, which turns out that in your fantasy world it is not a scientific body but a conspiratorial management whose supreme goal is to lie to the public and make it believe in all kinds of mistakes Regarding the world of physics. And why all this? If I may quote his honor, "Why? So."
You said miracles:
"Yehuda
You like to be scientific. If so, your new theory should explain all the existing observations, at least as well as all the other theories that exist today. Are you convinced that this is indeed the case? Your answer in two letters please" end quote.
My answer: yes!
Have I answered now as you requested miracles? Your answer is two letters. (:))
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
You didn't answer my question at all...
for miracles
My answer is a little more than two letters (:))
A. A galaxy will be discovered that I call M94 minus, - one that cannot be explained or parts of it by Newton.
B. A movement of galaxies in space will be discovered that can only be explained by a pressure difference and not by a normal or dark mass source.
third. There should be a Magnus effect, for example in the movement of spiral galaxies revolving around the cosmos. They may be able to measure it.
These are methods for the possibility of rebuttal.
Hope I have satisfied the need for the possibility of rebuttal.
Good Day
Yehuda.
Albanzo
You and your fickle opinion really don't interest me anymore, and I don't care if you are in a weak, strong or a field of roses. You kept making fun of me for using Newton's formulas and now you're pissed off?
You rant about Wikipedia and sites like the Weizmann Institute and great textbooks you read to kids or high school students
Now I see that you also accused me of creativity in your last comment, where did you get that from??
Albanzo, do yourself a favor and stop, please climb another tree.
Nimas!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Are you convinced that this is indeed the case? Your answer in two letters please.
Yehuda
You like to be scientific. If so, your new theory should explain all the existing observations, at least as well as all the other theories that exist today.
Yehuda,
We understood you for the first time, a few months ago. You are the one who doesn't understand.
No one (to my knowledge) has said that the mismatch in spiral galaxies is not a problem. What they are trying to explain to you, that the dark matter problem manifests itself in a thousand and one places in the field of gravity, including the one place you keep coming back to (weak field approximation), and many more places where the weak field approximation is not valid. Like, for example, cosmological evidence. Therefore, a real treatment of the problem cannot be carried out within the framework of the weak field approximation. Even if you could find a way to modify the Newtonian formulas so that the problem is solved without the need for dark matter in spiral galaxies, it would not solve the many problems that appear in areas where the weak field approximation is not valid. In order to solve the problem in general, that is - to explain the totality of the evidence that supposedly supports dark matter and not just the one evidence you are obsessed with, it needs to be dealt with in general! That is, within the framework of a gravitation theory that is always correct and not only in a Newtonian approximation. And this is what I have been explaining to you for months - you are trying to solve a general relativity problem without knowing anything about general relativity. You focus on finding a solution that will give an alternative explanation (that does not include dark matter) for one single piece of evidence, and ignore that there is another mountain of evidence to which your alternative explanation cannot be relevant because Newtonian gravity is categorically wrong in most cases where there is strong evidence for the existence of dark matter.
I can't believe I really had to write this again... How many times have I given you the same explanation, almost word for word? Third? quarter?
to blowing water
Sometimes you should go to pagan sources.
Voltaire (in French: Voltaire) is the pen name of François-Marie Arouet (November 21, 1694 – May 30, 1778), a French philosopher and writer.
In her book on him from 1906, writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up Walter's support for freedom of speech in a particular case by saying (in Hall's words): "I do not agree with your words, but I will defend to the death your right to voice them." Many times the saying is attributed to Walter himself, and indeed Norbert Gutermann quotes in a book from 1963 a similar line written by Walter in a letter in 1770, "I do not accept your words, but I am ready to sacrifice my life so that you can say them".[8]
(From Wikipedia)
Well, blowing water, I do not agree with your words, but I will fight so that you can say them, and I will add that if you succeed in convincing me, I will not hesitate to change my mind. That's me!
Align power.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Excuse me, there are some who, because fifty percent are dirty, it's not nice to read everything they say, and in our eyes, Sabdarmish, don't be afraid of the slanders, I'll give the example again and as usual they'll start dirtying,, someone who discovers time reversals and time travel can easily project the continuation with simple progressions, and there Things like changing the force of gravity if time progresses differently and it is also possible to change the force of gravity that enter parallel universes due to the movement in time, and this is a small step, with respect
for everyone
I will go back to what I said about the dark mass and elaborate a little more.
To discover that there is a problem that requires a solution, it is enough to see it in the spiral galaxies with the close of Newton's gravitation formulas. First studied by Vera Rubin in the middle of the last century. I will add that this can also be seen in galaxy clusters in the movement of the galaxies within the cluster which are faster than required according to the apparent mass of the cluster, and again only according to Newton's formula - this was studied in the Kuma cluster by Fritz Tzviki in the twenties or thirties of the last century.
I agree that more accurate results or possible solutions will be obtained by relativity or quantum theory.
But again, for the purpose of discovering the problem close enough of Newton's gravitation formula as I explained!
I stand by my words. point. Any disparagement of these data by defining them as numbers for children in Kindergarten or high school students will not move me. And they are not relevant either. Any analysis of my personality against the majesty of others I again did not complain.
Any analysis that asks wait, what is your education?, again I am not interested, look at the explanation on its own merits and not on the one who stands behind it!.
If you understood then great. If not, then it really doesn't matter!
So far.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
When will you realize that it doesn't matter at all what you understand or what you think? Not important, not interesting, not relevant to anything. There is no symmetry between you and Albenzo or Milgrom or Beckenstein. You have no dispute with any of them. You can't have a disagreement with them just like a cat can't have a disagreement with a mathematician about the solution of a differential equation. Get out of the movie, man. There is nothing wrong with being just someone with a high school education in physics. You shouldn't try to jump over the navel and especially not over the navel of giants whose thumb you can barely see.
Yehuda,
A few more things.
1. As Nissim said, the very fact that you don't care about physics and you say that for a little money you would write what you are told to write, does not mean that this is how science works. Both the individual scientists and the CERN research body have only one interest - to advance science and our understanding of the world of physics. It's amazing, because you just sound one to one like creation. You have exactly the same arguments, and now you have reached the part where you say that there is a conspiracy in the world of science against evolution, and that if a biologist publishes an article that suggests problems in evolution then he will feel the comfort of the heads of the universities and the leaders of the world of science who will harass him for damaging their dear theory.
2. It is clear that if you go to CERN you will receive the same treatment as you received from me. This is because even at CERN the people understand what they are talking about and therefore when a person comes to them who has never studied the field, he will say incredible nonsense (this is usually what happens when you talk about a field of scientific research without studying it), and explain to them that all their work is not Worth nothing because that's how he decided, they won't encourage him and follow him back to the 17th century.
3. I apologize, I did not know that you are an engineer in the field of industrial management. Obviously, this training puts you in a position where you can do the work of the physicists much better than them without studying physics. I have a friend who studied engineering and it really gave him the ability to immediately recognize the mistakes of any professional in any field without ever learning the way of working in the field (the theories and mathematical models, which you have no idea what they are) or the body of information (the evidence, which you consistently ignores them and refers only to one dangerous evidence that can be understood in the approximation of a weak field).
4. The vast majority of physicists in the world are not employed by CERN. They are employed in academic institutions where if you have tenure, you can write whatever you want and no one has the right to fire you or deduct even a penny from your salary. Why aren't all of these rebelling against dark matter?
5. I wish for all of us that the salaries at CERN were high. They really aren't. All the money at CERN goes to building the research tools (accelerators) for discovering new phenomena. The big money is only in the conspiracy fantasies you invented to explain to yourself how it is that all the world's experts, who understand what they are talking about, are in the exact opposite position to you, who has never studied the field. Besides what we have already said - you have no moral backbone and that for a little money you would do false science, does not mean that we are all like that.
And of course, we didn't even have to wait 12 hours and here it comes. Another response in which Yehuda claims that Bekenstein and Hagi Netzer say that all the evidence is in the Newtonian approximation. Let's do an exercise - just tell me which part of the sentence you disagree with:
"Yaakov Bekenstein, in a non-scientific interview on the subject (and not in a scientific article), and Hagi Netzer, in a textbook dedicated to high school students, each said in turn that there is evidence of dark matter which can be seen in the approximation of a weak field in spiral galaxies. None of them said that this was the only evidence, and therefore none of them implied that solving the problem with the weak field approximation would provide a full explanation for all the evidence."
What part of the sentence do you disagree with?
Yehuda
I have an unpleasant feeling that you are projecting your lack of integrity onto thousands of other scientists whom you do not know at all.
No wonder Albenzo gets mad at you again and again.
to Maya
I read your comment carefully.
If I hear from Albanzo that only the high levels of quantum physics and relativity should be used to understand the essence of mass and dark energy, and on the other hand, he reads that the best scientists, starting with Israel Prize laureate Professor Yaakov Bekstein, Professor Hagi Netzer, Dr. Noah Brosh and many, many others state that the close of formulas Newton is certainly enough, why should I accept Albanzo's opinion rather than that of the scientists who speak logically and in my opinion?, maybe it is Albanzo who does not behave openly?, who is not willing to change his opinions and adapt to those of the respected professors whose opinion differs from his?
You, Maya, and I, have the advantage of an outsider, who is not financially and emotionally involved in the research. Someone asked me if I would say the same things if I were working in the search for dark mass particles in which I don't believe and getting paid for it?, a very difficult question! Maybe it's better to have a small head to keep quiet and get my salary at the end of the month?
Take an example: thousands of scientists are researching in the particle accelerator at Czern and looking for the dark mass particles. They receive huge payments for this. Imagine that I go to Ceran and say that in my opinion there is no dark mass. What would they do to me?, I promise you that they would have answered me at least in the same way that Albanzo answers me.
I am an engineer in industrial management with about 40 years of experience. Believe me, I know how to spot a system that is working incorrectly. The science that has been searching for the dark mass for eighty years without much success should also check other possibilities.
That's it, and I hope I've made myself clear.
Thanks for your response Maya.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I feel the need to write something here. I would like to try to explain to you Albanzo's point of view as I understand it. You are an amateur scientist and that is great and wonderful. Demonstration of interest in science by people who do not engage in science professionally is a welcome thing. I can tell you, as a person who does engage in science professionally, that there is a fundamental difference between a person being an amateur scientist and a person being a professional scientist and I know this because I am personally an amateur scientist in many areas that are not my research area (for example, in the specific area of this article) . Indeed, in the fields in which I am an amateur, I read definitions from Wikipedia, or read popular scientific literature, or articles and comments in science and most of the time I am content with that. As a result, there are many things that I don't understand, but more importantly, there are many things that I don't even know or understand that I don't understand. From what I see from the discussion, as an external user who is not related to this scientific field, it is clear that you have a great interest in the subject and an emotional investment, but it is also clear that you have not spent your entire adult life researching the field. Albanzo, who I also have some qualms about the way he expresses himself for the chapters, clearly devotes his whole life to researching the issues you are debating. I know that if an amateur scientist came and trampled under the palm of his hand all the work I've done in the last few years in a professional way, without giving any real references (and I'm sorry, but that's what you do) it would make me very angry and frustrated. This is a person who deals with these things in a professional way, this does not mean that you have to say Amen to everything he says, it is never true, but you do have to treat the content of his things with some respect. And if he tells you that the mathematical structures are important, and if he tells you that Newton's formulas are not relevant to the topics you are dealing with, but other structures, at the very least you can make an effort to study these topics, if you want the discussion to have some form. It's clear that he understands the latest advances in science well, not because he's smarter or more talented than you (I can't judge that) but simply because it's his profession (and he's clearly not the type of person to belittle their profession). It is also clear, even to a person outside the subject who understands very little about it, like me, that you understand much less. So if you have any interest in having a scientific discussion, repeating the same mantras over and over again will not help. Take this opportunity, learn a new subject (not necessarily from Albanzo but you will probably need something a little more from Wikipedia) and see if as a result you still think the same things. You're an amateur scientist, aren't you? Put yourself to a scientific test. This is my recommendation, you are welcome to do whatever you want with her of course (this is what people usually do). I was mainly hoping that maybe another perspective from a person who deals with science professionally could help here.
May you be blessed with your work.
Can't begin to describe. I'm shocked.
1. Let's go really, really slow. What do you not understand in the sentence "there is still lots and lots of evidence for dark matter"?
2. Neither Hagai Netzer nor Beckenstein say what you claim. You're just lying. Both noted the discrepancy between Newtonian gravity and the centrifugal force, but neither said it was the only evidence for the existence of dark matter. And none of them claimed that correcting this classical equality by changing one of the formulas would relieve us of the need for dark matter. It's something only you say. If you don't believe me, I offer a suggestion: let's draft a letter together to one or both of them. I know both of them personally, and although they are both busy, I'm pretty sure if I gave them some time they would be happy to answer. Let's ask them - is the Newtonian inconsistency the only evidence for the existence of dark matter? Will an arbitrary correction of the Newtonian formulas eliminate the need for dark matter? Or is there a huge amount of evidence for its existence, and the only way to get rid of the need for it is by fundamentally replacing our entire theory of gravity with another theory (which is what Bekenstein has been trying to do for several decades)?
3. "Many scientists hold the same opinion as me." Reference please. Send me links to scientific articles by physicists who say that there are different laws of nature outside the horizon and inside it. Note that this is not about the horizon being a special point (the so-called firewall), which is a quantum gravity effect which I clearly clarified many times that I did not refer to, but rather the principle of equivalence - all laws of nature are covariant.
4. "...I'm talking about basic things and I don't have to learn about quantum theory and parallel universes to answer you." First of all, you think you are talking about basic things because you have no idea what you are talking about. If you studied even a little, you would realize that the things you are talking about are things that take years and years to learn. The only reason you think they are basic and that you don't need to learn them to talk about them, is that you haven't learned them. You are stuck in an endless loop of ignorance. Man is so ignorant that he is convinced that he has nothing to learn. Second, I'm very happy that you explicitly said that you "don't have to learn... about parallel universes", when most of our debate revolved around the topic of Milgrom's parallel universes. That is, you openly admit that you have been dismissing and mocking the physical Torah for several days without studying it, because you think you don't need to study the subject in order to criticize it or criticize it.
5. Yo, my God. I can die from you. Yes, there are galaxies where the weak field approximation is good. I never said no! How can you read so many times and not understand?! I'm shocked. I'll say it again, even though you won't understand this time either: put aside the spiral galaxies. There is other evidence. There is cosmological evidence. There is evidence of gravitational settling. The world is full of gravitational phenomena, the overwhelming majority of which are not well described by the weak field approximation, and most of which scream that dark matter exists! I've been trying to explain to you for weeks and you just shut your ears: there is more evidence. Even if you did solve the problem in the spiral galaxies, i.e. with the weak field approximation (suppose you found an alternative explanation that does not require dark matter), there are other mountains of evidence for which your solution will not be valid because the weak field approximation is not relevant. If in the most general way there is no such thing as a gravitation formula, then correcting the formula will not solve the problem in the most general way! It will only solve the problem in the weak field approximation. What is there not to understand?
6. I understand that you think dark matter and dark energy is a mistake. There are other people who think like you. But there is a difference between studying the theories about Burien and giving a real critique, while trying to find an alternative, and what you are doing: ignoring all the evidence except for one evidence which is not even the strongest evidence (not even close), twisting all the words of modern science, and dismissing theories without reading even one scientific article about them. Milgrom is a critic of dark matter. You are just someone with zero knowledge and a big mouth.
7. In the part with the speed of light you really killed me. The speed of light is measured in laboratories around the world on a daily basis. Not to mention that if it did change at the rate you say half of our electronic devices wouldn't work. All distance meters based on laser or radar would develop deviations (for accurate meters even deviations of hundreds of percent). Oh yes, and what about radio? If what you say was true, we would have noticed in the last hundred years that the ratio between the antennas we build and the frequencies we transmit on is changing.
There are theories that claim that the speed of light changes over time, and they are called variable light speed theories. But as usual, there will be a small difference between a scientist who studies a topic for years, understands the background and implications, knows the observations and data, and publishes a scientific work that undergoes peer review, and a person who thinks that for 100 years no one has measured the speed of light and that we are all sitting here and trusting the interferometer of Michelson and Morley. Why? So.
In my life I have never seen a man so immersed in delusions. I truly feel sorry for you.
Albanzo
I completely disagree with you!
I think that the approximation of Newton's gravitation formula is sufficient and we don't need the curvature of all space to prove the idea of dark mass. I showed you that great and important people like Professor Yaakov Bekstein, laureate of the Israel Prize on this subject, and Professor Hagi Netzer in his book for high school students say this. Newton's gravitation formula is absolutely sufficient. In addition, if Wikipedia's definition does not suit you, try to correct what is said in Wikipedia, they will thank you for it!.
I do not agree that the physical laws inside the black hole are known to be identical to those known outside it. And many scientists hold the same opinion as me. You say that I am commenting on things that I did not bother to learn, well I am talking about basic things and do not have to learn about quantum theory and parallel universes to answer you. Your explanations are not generally acceptable to me and I am not obliged to accept them even if you repeat them for 6 hours. I am not one of your students and I will not agree to be one of your students, so we agree on that. You shout that there has been no such thing as a gravitation formula for a century and ignore the fact that in our recent case Newton's gravitation formula is absolutely sufficient because at the aforementioned speeds it is a possible error of about half a percent and the measurements show a deviation of hundreds of percent.
I think Milgrom got the MOND theory wrong
I think the whole determination of mass and dark energies is a mistake that science has been carrying for eighty years. Poor correction of the measurements in the field so that they fit Newton's formulas or Einstein's formulas of relativity. As you wish.
I'm sorry this upsets you.
And you want to get angry a little more, so I say that the speed of light is actually not constant and changes by one cm per second per year, contrary to Mickelson Morley, to the theory of relativity for the ether and the meter and Albanzo, why, like that!
So far
Good night to all the people of Israel!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
1. The definition is not acceptable to me. The escape velocity is a completely classical concept and is not relevant to a black hole. In fact, for a photon it is not possible to define an escape velocity because the definition of an escape velocity comes from the approximation to a weak field (what you call Newton's gravitation formula), under which a photon does not interact gravitationally at all. That is, if we were to go by this definition, a black hole would not be black at all. The correct definition must be made within the framework of a gravitational model where light performs a gravitational interaction, and in this model (general relativity), Newton's formulas are not correct at all. Therefore the definition is as I gave earlier.
2. Even if we were to agree with your definition, your claim that "...there is a problem with Hawking's definition several years ago that a black hole has Hawking radiation. It is as if in contradiction to the definition", she claimed incorrectly. This is because escape velocity is defined over a specific surface (in this case, the event horizon). Hawking radiation is created immediately outside the event horizon, so if the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light across the event horizon, then the escape velocity at the place where the radiation is created is slightly less than the speed of light, and there is no problem with radiation escaping from there.
3. I'm sorry, but everything I write is true. You *really* write with absolute confidence about things you didn't bother to learn. I'm sorry if my saying this offends you. I didn't get up this morning and say "today I will insult Yehuda Sabdarmish". I have no interest in hurting you. But when you write about scientific theories that take years to learn and understand, dismiss them without even being able to say what they say other than a few quotes from Wikipedia or Weizmann's website, you don't expect me to tell you that you're right, do you? You will pat a creationist on the back who does not even know what evolution is but shouts loudly that it is wrong? I hope not.
4. "Perhaps this site is not suitable for you." My dear, maybe this site is not for you. First of all, where did you have the audacity to try to tell me which sites I can or cannot post on? Second, the problem (and it's really depressing that you still don't understand this), is not your ignorance. True, on this site there are very few scientists and a lot of lay people who love science. And that's really okay. Your problem (and don't try to transfer all the readers and commenters here to your camp, because you are one of the only ones here who are problematic) is not in ignorance, but in unwillingness to listen. You make a claim, they explain to you in detail why it is wrong, and 12 hours later you post the same comment word for word again. Or you establish delusional ideas while ignoring 90% of the physical data and evidence for theories you don't like, and when your attention is drawn to the evidence you ignore, then you... continue to ignore.
Don't forget that I am also a layman in most scientific fields. I read on this site articles about biology and chemistry, and topics that I don't understand more than anyone else. So don't make it a matter of "scientists versus laymen". The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand that I didn't bother to study. Unlike you, who do not know general relativity, and you do not know field theory, and you have never read Milgrom's articles, but you have been explaining to the whole world and his wife for several days that they are not scientific. Where does the audacity come from, where does the audacity come from, to say something that you do not understand at all is wrong? That's your problem.
4. Read the fourth paragraph in the introduction of the book you love so much. "The book is suitable at its level for students of astronomy and astrophysics as a study unit within the matriculation exams... and we hope that every high school graduate will be able to read it and understand its content."
5. You don't teach me. The trouble is, and this is what you don't understand, that you are not one of my disciples either. You absolutely refuse to learn. You flat out refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't eagerly swallow your ideas, which are flat out wrong because you never bothered to understand real physics. My goodness, you still cling to the idea that dark matter (and now dark energy) are the result of a discrepancy between two Newtonian formulas! How many times have I explained to you that this is simply not true? How many sources have I given you for evidence for the existence of dark matter that have nothing to do with the rotation of spiral galaxies? How many times have I explained to you that for 100 years there has not even been such a thing as a "gravitational formula" because Newton's model was abandoned 100 years ago and the model that replaced it, which for 100 years has passed all the most rigorous scientific tests, has no formula for gravitational force at all? Is there only an interaction between the energy in the space and its geometry? And in this model, which absolutely, and I cannot stress this enough, *does not assume any gravitation formula of any kind*, we still get the existence of dark matter (and even get this result from several different and independent directions). So what exactly are you? Teacher or student? If you are a teacher, what did you teach me? How to abandon all the studies and hard work I've put in since my first degree, go back to high school physics, and ignore the evidence? To criticize teachings whose articles I have not read even once? Or maybe you are a student. So what did you learn?
Albanzo
Is this definition of a black hole acceptable to you:
A black hole is a celestial body with such a strong gravitational field that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. (Wikipedia)
So there is a problem with Hawking's definition several years ago that a black hole has Hawking radiation. It seems to contradict the definition. that's what I said.
But Mr. Albanzo, you didn't hold back and added "but as usual, you don't study the physical theories you're talking about, so you make up definitions in your head that match the things you read on Wikipedia or in layman's literature." End quote. You have a problem Mr. Albanzo if you respond to people while belittling them.
So it's quite fed up with me, understand Mr. Albanzo that maybe this site is not for you. Because we, the common people, the science-seeking laymen, who draw information from Wikipedia, NASA and the book "The Universe" by Professor Hagi Netzer, which according to you is for high school students. (The book was published by the Open University Press) which does not correspond to the "upper sphere" in which you are.
You convinced me to go back and address your comments, why did you do that?
Maybe you'll start behaving according to the saying "Of all my teachers I have been educated and so have my students"
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Easy fix: When Hawking first discovered radiation, he didn't realize that all the information stored in the black hole could be read from it. This understanding came a little later, mainly through the work of Lenny Susskind.
Yehuda,
My response was directed at you. The one who I said is factually wrong is Jacob. I quoted you when you said that you think he is right, then I said "he is factually wrong". That's why it was meant for him.
You wrote "Hawking, in his analysis of the black hole, actually creates another body, a kind of gray hole that allows radiation, contrary to the definition of a black hole that swallows everything". This is simply a mistake - the definition of a black hole has absolutely nothing to do with what it swallows or how much or how. A black hole is a body that creates a gravitational event horizon around it - lightlike hyper surface generated by a Killing vector. But as usual, you don't study the physical theories you're talking about, so you make up definitions in your head that go along with the things you read on Wikipedia or in layman's literature.
And how can we get information from it - this is exactly Hawking's point and that is why radiation is so important. All the information stored inside the black hole is ejected out in the form of Hawking radiation. It won't help you no matter how hard you try - Hawking radiation is a completely measurable and dissectable quantity.
to Albenzo
It is difficult to understand from your response who you are referring to, whether to Jacob, whose response I am analyzing as a request for miracles, or to Hawking, therefore I will choose to answer Hawking. Because it seems to me that it is more important.
Hawking in his analysis of the black hole actually creates another body, a kind of gray hole that allows radiation, contrary to the definition of a black hole that swallows everything. There is a certain problem here. If we agree to the "gray" definition, then I agree that Hawking is probably right and of course it will be possible to measure the aforementioned radiation despite the great surrounding "noise". But the question still remains how we will recognize that the radiating body is really a black (or gray) hole because we cannot receive information from it. Again a problem. That's why I justified Jacob in his hesitation.
Food for thought.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
""What do you mean Hawking states that a black hole can indeed emit something, and he also says that it cannot be measured, it is very puzzling, after all a black hole is an unproven theory anyway," end quote. I think you're absolutely right."
Why do you think he is right? He is factually wrong. He writes "it cannot be measured" and that is simply not true. Hawking radiation can be measured, just not under the conditions of the black holes we have currently documented. Just as you can measure sound waves produced by the human throat, but if you look at a room where two people are talking in whispers and at the same time playing music from ten amplifiers with a power of 500 watts at maximum volvo, you will find that you are technically unable to make the measurement. Does this mean that sound waves produced by the throat are not a measurable thing?
for miracles
Indeed your question about 10,000 astronomical units is correct and I am happy to answer you. Well the Epsilon Lyra double star system (ADS11635) is a system of a pair of double stars orbiting around another pair of double stars. The distance between the two pairs is ten thousand astronomical units! According to Kepler's laws, you can know exactly what the mass of each pair of stars is. When we have the mass, we need to check if one pair rotates around the other according to Newton's laws. This is, for example, a way of trying to disprove Newton's formula, so Newton's formula is of course scientific. I checked "and unfortunately" Newton probably has a failure here. I wrote an article about it. Everyone is welcome to check.
Just food for thought.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Buchan = examiner (:))
For miracles, please:
I read Jacob's entire response:
"What do you mean that Hawking states that a black hole can indeed emit something, and he also says that it cannot be measured, it is very puzzling, after all, a black hole is an unproven theory anyway," end quote. I think you are absolutely right.
"So now in order to prove this theory, he throws us another theory, which cannot be proven? ” end quote. I think this is a very interesting question and requires thought. I agree with him. You may disagree.
"Friend, it's time we stop being ashamed to tell the truth: these people are delusional," end quote. In my opinion, I would prefer him to use the word wrong instead of delusional.
"And we are not interested in buying their nonsense! First of all, let them prove that the machine that translates the paralyzed Hawking actually works!!!" End quote. I think Hawking is a great scientist. He even withdrew from the conventions he had about black holes by "Hawking radiation" in addition, I think that the statement towards the paralyzed Hawking is unfair and not suitable for a scientific debate and I commented on that.
Does it provide you with miracles?
Good night
Yehuda.
Yehuda
10000 astronomical units is really close …… but scientific here? How exactly is it known? Not based on the fact that we assume that gravity does work at great distances? I think your argument is circular...
Please, stop hiding behind the term "scientific". You made 3 claims - they may or may not be true.
In 1859, the idea of evolution was not "scientific" - there was no way to disprove it (even today, in my opinion, there is none). So you are saying that the mechanism of heredity should not have been looked for?
Yehuda
Please quote me one sentence of Jacob's that is not nonsense.
I forgot to bring an example of a scientific idea
For example, the claim that gravitation does not work at a distance of 10,000 astronomical units or more. Is the idea scientific?, so here I propose an experiment to conduct a test between double stars whose mass is known and which are at least 10,000 astronomical units away and measure if they rotate. Hence this idea is scientific.
Question for the respondents: What do you think about the following ideas, are they scientific. A. The dark mass idea? B. The claim that the speed of light changes as a function of time? third. The claim that the weight of bodies changes as a function of time? Just food for thought.
good evening
Yehuda
For miracles and Jacob
not exactly. It is enough that you think of a way to disprove an idea, which will already make it scientific. Example: Suppose I say that God is the one who decides how fast the galaxy will spin. I will never be able to make an attempt to put this fact to the test, therefore the idea is unscientific. Suppose I claim that the world was only created in less than 6000 years because that is how God did it. Is this idea scientific?, suppose I show a person who believes this evidence that it is not so, the answer I received was that God puts evil to the test because he created the world as if it was created billions of years ago just to see if I continue to believe him. That is, again, this is an idea that cannot be disproved, therefore it is not scientific.
Finally
I respond to your responses with respect and appreciation. Maybe you will also be like that and not answer as you did. It is at least "impolite". The fact that Jacob answered Hawking in an insulting way does not mean that Nissim should continue on his way. Think about it. If I convinced then thank you.
good evening.
Yehuda
Jacob,
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll answer briefly anyway.
First, I don't know what "black hole is an unproven theory" is. A black hole is not a theory, it is a celestial object. The existence of black holes is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt - we see them in the sky. There are dozens if not hundreds of documented holes. If you study the subject you will see that even though the hole is black (that is, invisible) there are several indirect ways to measure it, as a result of the gravity it induces around it. You are welcome to search on Google and see for yourself the long list of documented black holes.
What we still don't fully understand is how to correctly describe a black hole mathematically. This is because we still do not have a verified model of quantum gravity. Hawking's work showed that from quantum considerations a black hole must emit radiation and it is certainly possible to measure this radiation. The reason we don't actually measure it relates to the conditions prevailing in the universe - the universe is full of radiation "noise", and all the black holes we know emit such weak radiation that it is swallowed up by the noise. But you have to understand that it's not that the radiation can't be measured, it's that the conditions don't allow its measurement. If, for example, we can control the conditions (by recreating a sonic black hole in the laboratory), we can certainly measure the radiation. If we are lucky and find a black hole close enough to the end of its life that its radiation is strong (the radiation intensity of a black hole increases as it evaporates), it will be larger than the noise and there will be no problem measuring it.
And a question, in case you're serious. Don't you think it's a bit of a strange coincidence that everyone who bothered to study the theories and actually understands them doesn't think they're nonsense, and all the people who think they're nonsense are the laymen who have no knowledge of the subject, no mathematical training, no access to all the evidence? Do you think it is a coincidence that the division into "understanding" and "not understanding" is completely parallel to the division into "accepting the ideas" and "rejecting the ideas"? It is clear that there are also physicists who think that we have made mistakes and are looking for alternative solutions, but no one says that these are "hallucinations" or "nonsense".
Yehuda
Does the fact that I do not know how to disprove a theory mean that it is not scientific?
Jacob
Who are you to mock one of the greatest physicists who ever lived? The rest of your stupid comment is not worthy of a response.
Jacob
How right you are!
Popper said that an idea is scientific if you can think of a way to disprove it and thus put it to the test. (from Wikipedia) And you're right Jacob, these ideas are not scientific, you can't show a way to disprove them.
Now we are already at least two of the same opinion. Who joins?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What does it mean that Hawking states that a black hole can emit something, and he also says that it cannot be measured, this is very puzzling, after all, a black hole is an unproven theory anyway, so now in order to prove this theory, he throws us another theory, which is not provable? Friend, it's time we stop being ashamed to tell the truth: these people are delusional, and we're not interested in buying their bullshit! First of all, let them prove that the machine that translates the paralyzed Hawking actually works!!!
Eyal,
First, the quote you gave is also super general and not really clear. What stops working? Why? Secondly, this is just a quote from a reporter talking about Hawking, not the words of a scientist in the field and certainly not a scientific work (as we have already said - even as giant scientists talk, these are only talks. What counts is the work). Finally, we note that the quote does not refer to the black hole but only to the singular point in its center. The singular point is a point that is not well defined in space and we do not understand what we really see next to it. To describe it (and the environment at Planck distance from it) you need a theory of quantum gravity. The theory of relativity is constructed so that it is limited to certain scales of curvature that the singular point passes through. Note that this says nothing about the entire region that is not Planck distance from the singularity.
In conclusion, no point in space obeys different laws of nature than another point. The singularity in private is a point that is not well defined, and relativity does not have the tools to handle this specific point.
Eyal
You are confusing the point in the center of the hole with the volume inside the event horizon. I think no one pretends to understand what is going on there.
In any case - the laws of physics are laws... they are true everywhere and under any conditions and at any time. In practice there are approximations, such as Newton's laws, or Ohm's law, or Boyle's law, that can be used to simplify problems, because their accuracy is good enough under "normal" conditions.
Not so with relativity and quantum theory - we assume that they are really laws (Albanzeno, am I right? ).
Albanzo
You are of course absolutely right. I tried to say it, but the wording was not successful.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
Here for example:
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000161385
"When a black hole collapses to an infinite mass, a "singular point" is created, where the laws of physics of time and space stop working - as soon as infinity is introduced into the calculation, the equations are no longer solvable"
Eyal,
I cannot relate to your claim because it is too general. But I will explain in a few words about the physics inside black holes, and as usual - I will refer to classical physics at the moment because we still do not have a quantum theory of gravity (although, as I wrote about miracles earlier, it is hard to believe that it will change the laws).
The theory of relativity is based on a principle called "covariance". This principle dictates a formulation for any law of nature that does not depend on coordinates. Of course, within the framework of relativity we see that this principle is consistent and indeed we know how to write the physical laws, even of systems that are not related to gravity such as quantum field theory, statistical mechanics, etc., in covariant form.
What changes when we move from point to point in space is the geometry of the space, and consequently the behavior of the coordinates. Inside a black hole there are drastic changes in the behavior of the coordinates, for example - time and space change roles! Inside a black hole (theoretically of course, no one will jump on me) it is possible to move forward or backward in time, but we must move forward in space towards the singularity (in analogy to the fact that here we are free to move in all directions in space but the passage of time is dictated for us and we cannot to change its direction). In this sense, it can be said that the laws of nature have changed. But this is only as a result of looking at laws of nature that are not covariants. For example, Newton's laws are not covariances because they include time derivatives. That is, there is a dependence on the choice of the time coordinate. But of course these laws can also be formulated in a completely reasonable but covariant way, and then they also exist within a black hole.
In conclusion, many of the things that people outside the field call "laws of nature" are actually coordinate-dependent formulations of more general laws (simply because a correct covariant formulation of natural laws requires much more advanced mathematical knowledge that is usually not accessible to non-physicists or mathematicians). These "rules" will indeed look different because the coordinates behave differently. But if we write the laws in the correct coordinate-independent language, it appears that the laws of nature never change as a result of the geometry of the problem.
Yehuda,
You repeat and make it clear that you do not understand what I am saying in particular, and the work of science in general.
When we build a railroad, there is no reason to believe that the terrain route in the nearest 100 meters to us is in any way similar to the next 100 meters. As you said, it is possible that we are currently on sandy soil, and in another 100 meters we will suddenly be in the Mediterranean Sea. But in the matter of a black hole, there is every reason in the world to think that nothing changes beyond the horizon.
I'm sorry to resort to this argument, but you just don't know physics. I'm sorry, I don't want to offend - but this is the truth. If you study the theory of relativity, you will see (you can actually do calculations and check it yourself) that the laws of physics are the same at any point in space, and it doesn't matter if that point is close to a black hole or far from it. Of course relativity may be wrong. It's even pretty safe. Many people, including myself, work hard every day to find a better alternative. But right now we don't have any. Right now we only have Relativity, and it's producing fantastic results. She creates predictions that are verified with tremendous accuracy, she advanced us technologically, and she even predicted new phenomena that were not observed before her but later adapted.
I guess none of this is a coincidence, and if it works so well, there is a grain of truth in it. It is clear that it is not an absolute truth, it is clear that this "truth" may only be an approximation of reality - just as Newtonian mechanics is only approximately correct but absolutely wrong. But to assume that there is a kernel of truth in it and to work under the assumption that it describes black holes fairly accurately (to the extent of a quantum description that we have already expanded on in previous comments) is much, much, much more likely than deciding completely arbitrarily (so far you have not provided any reason) that a black hole Suddenly there are other laws of nature.
And some technical notes:
1. At no point did I talk about the simplest formula. I talked about the one that was tested and verified in the laboratory in countless cases and you decide without any valid argument that it is suddenly not true in a black hole because "that's how it is, it's a black hole, it's different".
2. Where does the current approach in science advance us? Look around you. Cure diseases, fly airplanes, communicate around the world in microseconds. All of this stems from the Newtonian approach to science, which is based on theoretical generalizations into laws (while testing them in the laboratory, of course), and is completely opposed to the approach of "if I haven't specifically tested it, I must not assume it is true".
3. Your book may be "wonderful" but it is for high school students. Nothing will help, anything in physics that is above a high school level (which is 99.99999999% of modern physics) is not explained in it or is explained in a neutered way, therefore inaccurate. Bringing one Bekenstein quote is all well and good, but first of all - quotes are not interesting, in science only what is done and not what is said is interesting. Second, Beckenstein didn't say it was the only evidence for dark matter. He pointed out that evidence, but you act like it's the only thing and if it's not true, everything collapses. which is nonsense. Beckenstein is not even close to saying what you said. In fact, he has spent more than a decade searching for an alternative theory of gravity that would not include dark matter. Why? Because he understands that within the framework of relativity there is endless evidence for the existence of dark matter, and therefore to get rid of dark matter you need nothing less than a new theory of gravity that will explain all the evidence in a different way. If it was simply a question of placing a Newtonian formula in a spiral galaxy, there would be no need to throw away all the progress of the last hundred years in the field of gravity and look for something completely new.
If a child comes to us tomorrow and asks us to explain to him how we know there is evolution, we probably won't explain to him about DNA. He is still small and will not understand. We will tell him that we found skeletons of a monkey, then a little more upright monkey with a bigger forehead and a bigger brain, then a little more and a little more until we got to man. So this child will grow up and argue with the whole world about the order of the skeletons while completely ignoring the DNA evidence. Why? That way, because he didn't bother to study. That's how it is, when 95% of the evidence is ignored it is very easy to find holes in the theory (so to speak).
3. If you don't want to argue about dark mass, why did you conjure up this topic?
4. “…I prefer my cautious approach rather than going in and building the track in an unknown area. Albanzo prefers to continue building the track beyond the house, where the main thing is to continue with the project." There are few things in the world that are as difficult as putting words in a person's mouth. You made a dumb analogy that shows you don't understand what science is, and then you take the liberty of using me as a figure in your analogy and deciding on my behalf what I would do and why. Maybe instead of building trains, sit down with a book and study physics. And no, I don't mean a high school book.
5. "Calling one of us a "frustrated person who doesn't understand science" is not appropriate in a scientific debate." It's sad that you think what's happening here is a scientific debate. No one so far, and in particular the person to whom the comment was directed, has brought any argument to his claims. You have arbitrarily determined that black is a different animal, and you are forcefully trying to drag us back nearly 400 years to a dark time where none of today's scientific achievements would have existed. The commenter to whom the comment was directed arbitrarily determines who is right and who is wrong, and again - does not feel the need to reason or provide evidence that your archaic approach is correct (or rather, to address the fact that your approach has been empirically proven to be incorrect by failing to bring any progress in science for 100 years, until replaced by an approach I support).
I'm tired of this discussion. There is a limit to how many times you can write the same thing. Keep believing what you want. Write that there is no dark matter and that if I haven't checked then maybe in Safed absolute zero is at 8 degrees Celsius and not -273.
Good luck later.
Hi elbentzo, I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject but I remember that in every article I read in the past on the subject they always emphasized that inside a black hole the laws of physics we know stop working, whatever it is.
Albanzo, your attitude is a bit annoying when you go personal.
Calling one of us a "frustrated person who doesn't understand science" is not appropriate in a scientific debate. We appreciate your knowledge but the comments here are not out of frustration on the part of any of us.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lainstanzo, Nissim and Albanzo
Instance:- You wrote in your response: "Although I agree with you, it is necessary to prove that the laws of physics in the event horizon are different from the laws of physics we are familiar with." End quote.
My answer: No, those who use the rules have to prove that they exist in the area they use because there are always, but always, endless other possibilities and it all stems from the fact that there is always uncertainty in the measurements we make to check the correctness of the formula so the formula can always be different - slightly different. From the infinity of formulas we choose the simplest, but to assume that the simplest is precisely the one that will fit in an area that I have not measured at all, is a casual and not a serious assumption, it is true that according to Albanzo's method we are "advancing" in science, but where?
I brought you an example. Let's say I took it upon myself to build a railroad from Haifa to the Golan Heights and I checked and I know all the road conditions and rules on how to build it up to Beit Shean. Behind the house I don't have any information on what the conditions of the area look like - "Horizon Events". I claim that we should stop here and there is no point in continuing to build the track, Albanzo claims that the track should be built according to the known conditions up to Beit Shan where the main thing is that the project progresses. It is interesting how he will build the track on the Kinneret or in the soil of the Hula swamp.
And Albenzo:- The examples I gave are a wonderful book for the students of the "Hikom" high school by Hagai Netzer, Midev, and Noh Barosh. But I also added and quoted quotes from Israel Prize winner Professor Yaakov Beckstein who claims the same thing as I claimed selfishly. But all these did not satisfy you. But I don't want to repeat the debate about mass and dark energy.
We all understand the differences in approaches between us and that is the main thing. I prefer my cautious approach and not go in and build the track in an unknown area. Albanzo prefers to continue building the track beyond the house where the main thing is to continue with the project. Everyone will choose their own path.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And many thanks to those who took the trouble to clarify what the correct method of doing science is. I personally thought that science is a method for separating probably-true claims from probably-false claims and therefore can only be measured by its success (a successful scientific method - yields many predictions that are verified, many technological developments that work, etc.). The very fact that my approach (I can't take credit, Newton was the first to support it) has brought humanity from dying of toothache and communicating with post-unicorns, to the current lifespan and the internet, says something to its credit. Compared to Judah's approach that stuck Europe in place for 100 years, as if it had returned to the Middle Ages in the middle of the Renaissance.
But if a frustrated person comes along who doesn't understand science and has never done science, and says that Judah's approach is right and the world of modern science is wrong, then I'd better stop, abandon all the articles I'm working on right now, and run to buy relevant experimental devices so that I can go all over the country and make sure that there is no point where momentum is not conserved or that particles strive for maximum energy instead of minimum. I'm sorry, I have to finish, I have a lot of ground to cover.
Yehuda,
If you understood my response, why did you write "you said black black is a little denser than water"? I didn't say anything like that. I said a black hole is denser than a star that is not a black hole and therefore we see different phenomena in them, without there being any difference in the laws.
You are right that either you are too careful or I am too less. And the answer - you are too much. As I explained and you ignored it, you make distinctions based on both. Every time you are asked why you differentiate, you return to the words, "because it's a black hole, it's different". I accept (and even wrote) that we may find out in the future that I'm wrong, but for now I'm doing science. You make lists. Science is conducted in such a way that 100 papers are written and 90 of them turn out to be wrong sooner or later. But the remaining ten are a window to the future, in the understanding of the universe and in technological developments.
And what about dark energy, dark matter, and other things? First, I don't "take them for granted", but I know the evidence that points to their existence. We talked about it more than once and you should already know. To remind you the last time we examined the evidence from each side of the fence, we finally reached the stage where you admit that you are relying on a book for high school students whose first page says that it presents a partial picture and makes simplifications to make it easier for students who are not familiar with real science. While ignoring all the physics that is done in the real world, you have developed a distorted picture in which dark matter, for example, is based on some placement of Newton's formula in a spiral galaxy (when, as I have told you dozens of times already, there are mountains of evidence for the existence of dark matter from cosmological measurements, from observations of gravitational waves , and so'). But I really don't intend to start a conspiracy discussion here again about all the things you simply don't understand and choose not to accept. You continue to adhere to the "black hole is different" mantra without providing any explanation, evidence or reasoning (or even without understanding the most basic principle of general relativity, the principle of equivalence, which is the only framework within which there is a consistent discussion of black holes).
Miracles,
First, I have written several times that I am not currently referring to quantum effects. We still do not know enough about the subject, and in fact - the very fact that "this limit has a certain importance in terms of quantum theory" is at the heart of a very sharp controversy nowadays. There are very, very smart people who claim that this is simply not true, but as I said - for now we don't have an answer and that's why I wrote several times that I don't discuss quantum implications. Beyond that, we predict that proper treatment of black holes will make them obey quantum mechanics at the same time as relativity (this is of course not proven but very likely to be assumed), so although this treatment will probably yield many interesting things, it is unlikely that it will break known laws of nature since quantum mechanics itself respects these laws. Quantization of a system, for example, allows fluctuations of energy and thus creation out of nothing of virtual particles, but cannot break conservation of energy. This is just an example that even from a quantum point of view, black black would likely obey the same laws but create different phenomena, such as the radiation in question which is a special quantum effect that relies on exactly the same laws as everything else. In fact, this is even demonstrated in the article - the very fact that we can simulate a sonic horizon (or an accelerated horizon, called the Rindler horizon) stems from the fact that there is nothing special in the laws of the black hole's horizon, but only in the set-up of the problem. We will reproduce the conditions, we will reproduce the phenomenon. And again, I'm ignoring here non-local theories such as string theory, which can allow slightly different things. But this is really not the time to get into that.
Yehuda
I don't think your approach is correct, and the main reason is that it is not consistent. The existence of a black hole is a prediction of the same science that you don't accept - so how can you talk about what's going on inside it? Who said that mass can even shrink beyond the Schwarzield radius? Each of us has learned that a solid is incompressible, so why are you willing to accept that it isn't? Only because of those physicists whose calculations come out differently?
Yehuda - the man and the Sabdarmish
Your approach to science is indeed correct (compared to the other commenters) but you still need to explain why for your approach within the event horizon of a black hole the physical laws do not correspond to the physics we know.
Although I agree with you, it needs to be proven that the laws of physics in the event horizon are different from the laws of physics we are familiar with.
Albanzo
I actually understood you, but I don't agree with you.
Either I'm being overly cautious or you're not being cautious at all. You think I'm just interrupting and I think that your approach which accepts the black holes and the dark mass and energy and singular points and even the speed of light as constant, of course is a wrong approach. I am sure that within a few years at least some of the above phenomena will be proven to be incorrect. It is the agreement about them that hinders the development of science.
So far.
I'm going to sleep
Good night
Yehuda
Albanzo
I think there is some justice in Yehuda's words. In terms of relativity, the event horizon of a black hole is not a problem. But, yes, this limit has a certain importance in terms of quantum theory.
Therefore, in my understanding, the laws of physics that we know should undergo a change following the existence of this situation.
Yehuda,
You did not understand my last response. I didn't say black black "a little denser than water". Why compare the density of a black hole and that of water? What does the water care about the hole and the hole from the water?
In the analogy there was a non-dense object (wood) and a denser object (stone). The non-dense bone floats on the surface of the water and the dense one sinks. That is, the two objects demonstrated different natural phenomena, but it is not because they obey different laws or because they are different in purpose. All that happened is that they have a different number that represents density. When you put the first one in the equations of motion, you get that the balance of forces points towards the surface area of the lake and therefore the tree floats, when you put the density of the second you get that the balance of forces points towards the bottom of the lake and therefore the stone sinks. The number is different, but there is no difference between the things.
A star that is not a black hole and a black hole are equivalent to a tree and a stone. They have different densities, and the great density of the black hole makes us see natural phenomena occurring in it that we do not notice in a normal star - but there is no physical difference between the objects. There is no reason to think that they obey different laws just as there is no reason to think that a (sinking) stone obeys different laws than a (floating) tree.
You think that your "cautiousness", the fact that you do not agree to make assumptions before testing in an experiment, is an advantage. You don't realize that this trait is exactly what separates you from real science. By creating separations between cases where there is no difference between them, and based on these separations you refuse to make generalizations - you gain nothing, only lose. You don't profit because you separated two cases that have no difference between them! True, it is possible that in the future we will discover a quantum theory of gravity that will teach us that something special really happens in black holes. True, I cannot prove to you right now that there is no difference between the laws of physics here and in a place with strong gravity (by the way, close to the event horizon, on both sides, gravity is not that strong at all). But there is no evidence - experimental or theoretical - that indicates there is a difference. Therefore, everything you do, the only thing - is to seriously damage your ability to generalize and understand the entire system. As I tried to explain to you before, science is based on the idea of generalization. If we only made lists of phenomena we would not progress anywhere. Progress and understanding comes from identifying the connecting thread, which includes all the phenomena under one umbrella. And you will never be able to do this if you insist on creating wedges and differentiating differences based on -
I don't know, it seems to me that a black guy is different.
You remind me of a driver who drives 30 km/h on Ayalon and thinks that his "caution" benefits him and the whole society. He does not understand that he is a nuisance and that he is dangerous. Of course, in your case you are disturbing and hurting only yourself, and your ability to understand science in general and the subject in particular. But still, too bad.
Albanzo
To your credit, I must admit that your knowledge of physics is greater than mine, so perhaps you can afford to introduce the known laws into the black hole. I unfortunately know a little less and therefore also a little more careful
Good night
Yehuda
Albanzo
Your explanation is beautiful and almost convincing.
You said black black is a little denser than water and provides an interesting phenomenon (analogous to the sinking of the stone). And I claim, doesn't it bother you that the density of the black hole is several billion times the density of water? If you were to say that about mercury, whose density is about 13 times that of water, I would agree with you that it is about the same laws, but in the black hole it is about a density of several billion times. I am not ready to accept this with absolute certainty. And that's what I'm saying. There is a limit to the differences in the environment in which I am willing to accept the correctness of the physical laws. Beyond them I will be careful and you continue to hold on to them. This is the difference between us.
Good day Albanzo
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Good. If you think there's a chance you'll change your mind, that is, if you're open to change, then let me recommend you take an interest in general relativity.
You will see that this theory has a geometric expression for gravity. All the laws and equations are completely fixed, and what changes is the shape of the space. Here, on the surface of the earth, there is a slightly different gravity than on the moon, and this is because the geometry of the space on the moon is a little "flatter" than here (and therefore the gravity there is a little weaker). A black hole is exactly the same as any other point in space, except that its geometry is slightly different. It is very interesting, but it has no magic, no other laws, nothing in it that is not in any other point in the universe. is just an interesting phenomenon of matter compressed enough so that light can be trapped around it.
If I throw a log on the water, it will float. If I throw a brick, it will sink. The whole difference is in the density of the material - there is no difference in the laws of physics. A black hole is a bit denser and provides an interesting phenomenon (analogous to the sinking of the stone) which does not exist on the Earth's surface, for example (analogous to the floating of the tree). If you take a look at the theory of relativity, I hope you will be convinced that there is nothing special about a black guy and to believe that the laws of physics are different in him is like believing that the laws of physics are different in my bedroom. All this while ignoring quantum theory, which, as I mentioned before, is necessary for a full treatment of black holes.
to Albenzo
Sorry
I still think that the rules of the game are different inside the black hole and there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are the same as your bedroom (or mine) Why?, maybe because it is a different environment than the bedroom or the laboratory at the Weizmann Institute
That's what it is!
So good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Can you tell why my last response, in which I say I agree with Nissim's last response, is waiting for confirmation? What is the big problem with agreeing with Nissim?
Yehuda
Nissim, I agree with all of your last comment!, but there is still an open question: what is a "very good reason" that requires the possibility of changing the laws of nature. Here we probably remain divided. For example, I claim that the event horizon of a black hole is a very good reason for the possibility of changing the laws, and you claim that it is not a good enough reason. Food for thought.
Lovely Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
At no point did I say that we don't need experiments. On the contrary, I even emphasized in my response the importance of the fact that we tested our theories (specifically, the theory of relativity) against reality and made sure that we were not just holding a mathematical model.
You are simply confusing between "experiments are needed to check if my theory is correct or if it is just ink on paper", which in a word is science, and "the only thing that is valid is what I tested in an experiment, therefore everything that has not been tried is not worth it".
Your approach, the empiricist approach, the extinct approach, is the one that claims there is *only* value in what has been tested experimentally. I never claimed that the attitude that says there is a point in experiments has disappeared - the emphasis is on the word only. That's what's wrong with empiricism, and that's what's wrong with your claims, and that's what's gone extinct. For about a century, in Europe (mainly in England, where the empressist system prevailed) they did science only based on experiments and for almost a century they failed to advance humanity. As soon as the paradigm was broken and they started working in a method where theoretical science is done while *testing* it through an experiment, then the golden age of science began, including tremendous revolutions in physics, chemistry, biology and even the industrial revolution. So your statement "woe to such scientific progress" is refuted by experiment, just as you like.
Finally, regarding the claims about my bedroom, etc. - so you didn't say anything. You wrote "thermodynamics in your room exists and operates according to the known laws, whereas a black guy doesn't know if it's the same equations", meaning - you arbitrarily state that a black guy doesn't know what the laws are because we haven't measured them, but in my room we do know what the laws are even though there We did not measure. Unless you snuck into my apartment with a heat bath when I wasn't there and performed experiments behind my back... the same goes for all the other things you said - you just determined completely arbitrarily when you do accept that it can be generalized and when you don't.
So like this - you present a principle according to which it is impossible to believe what we have not tested directly in an experiment, and then completely arbitrarily make concessions to yourself and ignore the principle (for example in my bedroom, that for some reason you are convinced that the same laws exist there even though no physical measurement has ever been performed there). If this is the case there are only two options:
1. If the principle is true, then you must give up all the holes you allow yourself to gape in so as not to come out delusional who declares that there may be a corner in the Knesset where the force of gravity creates repulsion instead of attraction and we do not know this simply because we did not perform an experiment at this exact point. You must admit that it is possible that outside the laboratory at the Weizmann Institute, suddenly there are completely different laws for electrodynamics, etc., etc. So at least we know who we are dealing with...
2. If you cannot bring yourself to give up the assumptions you make to yourself in order not to declare war on logic and sanity, then you must accept that the principle you adhere to is incorrect. It is also possible to make generalizations and assume the existence of certain principles even at a time and place where an experiment that tests these principles was not exactly carried out.
There is no difference between looking at the thermodynamic theory (which has been rigorously tested in thousands of forms and cases in the laboratory), seeing that its laws and equations do not depend on which city I am in or what time of day exactly, and concluding that the second law is probably also valid in my room, and looking at the theory of relativity (which has been tested rigorously in thousands of forms and cases in the laboratory), proof that its laws and equations do not depend on which point in space I am, outside a black hole, on the horizon, or even inside it, and an understanding that the same laws can be generalized even near very massive bodies.
Yehuda
I did not say that the world is simple, I said that the law of nature, according to the meaning of the words, applies everywhere and at any time in nature. We don't know what the laws are, but it is the basis of science, it is what allows us to understand the past and anticipate the future.
Empiricism talks about the fact that you only need observations, and rationalism says that you only need to think, that everything is known and is in the head. I don't think any of the commenters here think either approach is correct as it is. We all understand that observations, thinking and experiments must be combined.
The debate between us is this - I think that without a very good reason, it is correct to assume that there are laws of nature, as I described in the opening.
I understand that you say that such legality should not be assumed - great, why?
And of course this is my answer to miracles as well. (:))
to Albenzo
Your claim that as if scientific empiricism disappeared from the world about 350 years ago, and right after that we didn't need an experiment for proof is a gross error. Even in the twentieth century empiricism is alive and vibrant, even in the twentieth century the need for experimentation in the scientific context is a necessity. What you are suggesting is that for the sake of "scientific progress" we will ignore the experiment. Woe to such scientific progress.
I'm at least honest with myself and tell you that I don't know where the stamp is beyond it, I'll demand the experimental or observational proof in cosmology for example. I'm sure the laws of thermodynamics work inside a room in your sleep but I'm not sure they work inside a black hole according to the same equations. We choose the laws according to their simplicity and according to the accuracy of the measurements we make. As soon as we are accurate in the measurements, then it is very possible that we will have to switch to other laws. Otherwise we would never have been able to pass from Newton's laws to relativity and quantum theory. In general, as soon as Hawking published that there is radiation emitted from a black hole, it made it possible to test even the existence of the holes.
Let's see why I agree without measure and why I don't:
Thermodynamics in your room exists and operates according to the known laws, whereas a black guy doesn't know if it's the same equations. Will the laws of thermodynamics also work in a solar system in the Andromeda galaxy two million light years from here? I believe so. Does the star Proxima Centauri exist?, not necessarily, it exists 4 light years away from here and now I only know that it existed four years ago. I will ask another question is the speed of light in your bedroom 299,792,458 meters per second?, I believe it is. Is this also the speed in our entire solar system??, again I believe yes, is this the exact speed in a galaxy 10 billion light years away?, I am not sure. Is it possible that the speed of light in your bedroom was different a year ago?
I gave several examples of what I think about the scientific truth and I am honest enough with myself to say that there are things I do not know. I also don't know how to put all the data I just said into a rule and hence my reaction to miracles. I understand your world is simpler and you don't need data from the field to say what you have to say and with you everything is true in the entire universe. I don't!
This is my response to Eyal as well
Led. I don't relate.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
D.
I'm not sure who you're referring to.
The black hole at the center of the galaxy is nothing compared to the gaping black hole in some of the references here.
A person who strongly holds a certain opinion because that's what he learned in second grade and that's what his grandfather told him, and refuses to think that there might be a better opinion than that and it's worth learning to understand and be educated, about him it is said, "If you crush the devil with a pestle in the midst of the rifts above me, you will not remove his tent."
elbentzo I wanted to write a comment in a similar vein but you worded it perfectly, indeed.
The approach presented by Yehuda, which holds that we do not know something for sure until we have seen it in the laboratory with our own eyes, is called scientific empiricism and it disappeared from the world about 350 years ago (and very rightfully so). After all, in his view, it is not possible to say that the second law of thermodynamics exists in my bedroom, because we never did the relevant experiment there? And who knows, maybe in the middle of the sea gravity works upwards? And I heard that there is an alley in south Tel Aviv where two electric charges with opposite charges repel each other, but if their charge is the same then they attract.
Science is a method. Many, many years ago, our ancestors realized that we are not able to say more or less anything with certainty, if only because everything we know comes to us already through a mental filter. Therefore we will never be able to say anything about the outside world with absolute certainty. But with the help of the scientific method, we can separate claims that we are not sure about and are probably true from claims that we are not sure about and are probably wrong. We cannot know for sure that Earth is round (there may be some effect that causes pictures taken from space to bend and give the illusion of curvature, or that Earth is cyclical - when I walk 40000 km in a certain direction I think I have returned to the starting point but in fact I have arrived at a new place that is the same to the starting point, etc., etc.) just as we are not sure that it is flat. But the scientific method allows us to separate these two claims, to identify one as almost certainly true and the other as false.
As soon as we say "I don't know for sure because I haven't seen the phenomenon experimentally", we actually stop doing science. Such claims reject our ability to accept claims that are *probably* true and focus only on claims that have passed the eye test. What we are doing is just making lists upon lists of observed phenomena and we will never be able to understand *why* or how they happen, because answers to these questions always require the ability to generalize and understand systems in general, and not just a list of observations.
Black holes, the existence of their horizon, and the physics on either side of it, is dictated by the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity was tested and found to be accurate in dozens of different questions, including those concerning the outer part of a black hole (it correctly observed its existence and the behavior of matter and light near it). Therefore, until we find a better theory, we must assume that there is truth in the mathematical model (a must if we want to advance science - you are welcome not to assume this and remain stuck in place because you are waiting for measurements inside the black hole that will never arrive). The only catch concerns that the theory of relativity is not a quantum theory, but black holes are objects that are quantum in nature. Therefore, to describe them accurately, you need a theory of quantum gravity (and it is precisely to this field that Hawking's tremendous contribution is relevant, including the work on radiation).
Miracles
I must point out that your question is both good and difficult. In other words, how do we assume what we accept as true, perhaps even without measurement, and what we must not assume so.
I have to think about it.
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
I understand what you're saying, but running into a tough problem. We were not 6000 years ago. How can we assume that the biblical story of creation is not true? And who told us that Alpha Centauri is really a distant star?
Like George Lyell in his time - I think it is correct to assume that what is far away, even along the timeline, is no different from today. You need a good reason to think it isn't.
Miracles
The first three lines in your last comment are somewhat problematic. You wrote:-
"I am saying something very simple - the laws of physics do not change from place to place. This is the meaning of "law" in science. If, for example, F=MA is not true inside a black hole, then this law is not true. The law should be amended "F=MA exclusively outside the event horizon of a black hole blah, blah, blah...". end quote.
You claim that "the laws of physics do not change from place to place." And I claim that a physical law may only be true where it is measured and found to be true within the uncertainty of the measurement. If in another place if it is measured and found to be correct within the uncertainty of the measurement then it will be considered correct there as well. If it is not measured then nothing can be said about it. It can be true or false. Only measurement can determine the correctness of a physical law. And this is only temporarily because a more accurate measurement could negate the law and we would have to look for another law. That's why I always write "could be true" and not just "true". The laws of physics are not true beyond any doubt, they only "could be true"
Your statement "If, for example, F=MA is not true inside a black hole, then this law is not true." end of quote" is problematic because no one has tested this law or any other law within the event horizon of the black hole, and in my opinion, as long as we have not tested the situation within the black hole we do not know to what form the existing formula will move outside the event horizon.
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
I am saying something very simple - the laws of physics do not change from place to place. This is the meaning of "law" in science. If, for example, F=MA is not true inside a black hole, then this law is not true. The law should be amended "F=MA only outside the event horizon of a black hole blah blah blah...".
You are right that what we consider to be laws can turn out to be wrong inside a black hole. I think the laws of kinematics learned in high school are reversible, under ideal conditions. The laws, to my understanding, are not reversible inside a black hole. Is the reason because the conditions are not ideal? (I'm really asking….).
According to Wikipedia, the idea that there might exist in the universe a body so massive that even light could not escape from it was first proposed by the British geologist John Michell, who served at this time as a priest. He recorded the idea in a letter [1] sent in 1783 to his friend Henry Cavendish, (the one who discovered the gravitational constant.
for miracles
You stated that: "The laws of physics are not different on both sides of the event horizon." That's something you can never say. The laws of physics will be defined as "could be true" if they do not contradict measurements made in the measurement area. No one was on the other side of the event horizon and measured there. (Maybe he was, but he certainly didn't come back from there (:))) Therefore, your statement is too sweeping in my opinion. If it comforts you then I will add that in my humble opinion the theoretical basis on which the existence of the black hole is determined is based on laws that have never been proven in the range of enormous masses so that the very existence of the black holes may be in doubt.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sound waves are all well and good, but more experiments are needed,
in a more suitable environment and if the waves are faster
"Such an entity also has tremendous gravity - so strong that nothing can escape it"
It is worth clarifying something that I think is not clear to many people, and that is that the gravity of a black hole is exactly the same as that of the original sun before it collapsed into a black hole, the only difference is that now that it is much smaller objects that pass by it can get even closer to it and therefore they feel a stronger gravity than it which would have been felt on the surface of the sun before the collapse (if they had stood the heavy heat).
Levi Binyamini,
You are wrong and misleading. Beckenstein, to his credit (and he is from the Hebrew University and not from Weizmann), first treated black holes as thermodynamic objects and provided very intelligent and elegant arguments that they should have entropy. Hawking, who initially claimed that Bekenstein was wrong, tried to investigate the issue in order to prove Bekenstein wrong, and in the process not only discovered that Bekenstein was right but also managed to accurately calculate the entropy of a black hole (known as Bekenstein-Hawking entropy) and showed that the hole must release radiation.
The radiation is called "Hawking radiation" for a reason. The work in which he proved the existence of radiation is a landmark in the field of field theory in curved space and a pioneer in the field of quantum gravity. It is studied to this day by every researcher interested in the subject and with great right. Beckenstein turned the spotlight on the field and provided the first burst of creativity, but the work in the field itself was done brilliantly and almost exclusively by Stephen Hawking.
The bitter and shameful truth (- should shame Hawking) is that the radiation named after him was not discovered by him but by Bekenstein from the Weizmann Institute. How the fame and name and publicity was projected onto Hawking. I don't know why and why.
So if the Nobel Prize goes to two - then to Bekenstein and Steinhauer together.
There is a situation here that Steinhauer will win the Nobel Prize for this along with Hawking.
A. Ben Ner
A small correction, to my understanding - the laws of physics are not different on both sides of the "event horizon". That's why they are called laws... If a spacecraft penetrates the event horizon of a black star it will not feel an unusual change. As for an outside observer, it will indeed look different, but the rules have not changed.
A duck's wings provide lift only outside the water, but the rules are the same - and the identity of the rules is precisely the reason for the loss of lift while diving.
A note regarding the analogy between a black hole and the experimental system
The question is whether the analogy is indeed correct?
After all, the experimental system is not really a black hole, but only almost
It is not quite at absolute zero but only close to it
In terms of a black hole it is not really on the event horizon but a bit outside of it
And outside the event horizon the laws of physics are not the same as those on the event horizon
There is no doubt that Eti Nevo is a brilliant science writer.
It is a pleasure to read his concise and clear articles.
It is evident that he has a professional scientific education
It is good to understand and explain the subjects of his articles.
Thank you
Perhaps at first there is a confusion of concepts, between a neutron star and a black hole,
Because as far as we understand today what a black hole is, there is no earth there because the matter we know collapses into a singular point,
There is no existence for matter there as for example in a neutron star from where the analogy of the spoon may have been taken,
So the diameter of the black hole is not a few kilometers, it is a singular point,
What does lie miles away is its event horizon
and the effect of gravity that it reaches even further,