A decades-old paradox has returned and raised its head
In early 2014, Stephen Hawking was quoted as saying: "There are no black holes." But he wasn't really talking about black holes. At least not on black holes as you and I imagine them: astrophysical objects that suck everything into them, even light. Holes of this type, everyone agrees, are as black as ever.
Credit: Courtesy of Jay Schnittman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Jay Krulik, Johns Hopkins University, and S. Noble, Rochester Institute of Technology.
Hawking was aiming his defiant remark at black holes in a very theoretical sense. Like many other theorists, Hawking is trying to understand a paradox that lies at the heart of physics. The meaning of the paradox, often referred to as the "Black Hole Firewall Paradox," may force physicists to abandon (or profoundly change) quantum mechanics, or Einstein's theory of general relativity, or both.
The firewall problem is related to the paradox raised by Hawking in the 70s of the 20th century, and he deals with this question: "What will happen to information that falls into a black hole?" The laws of quantum mechanics state that information can never disappear. Even burning a book does not destroy the information it contains. She just mixes it up. But black holes, it seems, do destroy information when they suck it beyond the event horizon, meaning beyond the point of no return.
The black hole information paradox has troubled physicists for twenty years. In the late 90s, researchers seemed to have solved it when they concluded that information could leak out of the black hole in the form of Hawking radiation. Then, in 2012, physicists at the University of California, Santa Barbara found flaws in the previous solutions. They concluded that the event horizon is not a normal place as they thought before. They determined that it acts as a firewall that prevents outside Hawking radiation from becoming entangled at the quantum level with the matter inside.
Hawking's latest work tries to offer an alternative solution. He suggests that the black hole has an "apparent" horizon in addition to its event horizon. These two horizons are almost always the same. Information can rise out of the black hole and reach the apparent horizon. At this point, quantum effects can blur the boundary between the apparent horizon and the event horizon, and sometimes allow information to leak. This means that holes are not completely black, provided you have trillions of years to watch them. Ultimately, the real meaning of Hawking's paper is that there is something very fundamental about black holes that we still don't understand.
The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel
43 תגובות
God, I followed some of the comments. Since my understanding of physics is very limited (in all the physics studied in a computer science bachelor's degree is not that serious).
But I understood the question, and I'm interested in its solution, although apparently I won't understand it.
It could be that elbentzo, is very busy this period and does not have time. Or he just didn't visit here... too bad, he made an impression of a nice guy 😉
MouthHole
Elbentzo doesn't seem interested in answering, but thanks for the effort.
I don't know if you followed the development of the "twin paradox" on the various blogs, including here. Many answers to the paradox were given, also from physics professors and doctors. Each answer was different.
The only answer that is consistent with relativity is the answer of Prof. Yonatan Granot, which Nissim also pointed out: when two ships accelerate simultaneously in system A, they move away from each other in their own system, because of the simultaneous relativity. This phenomenon also appears in "Paradox Bell", to which he referred to miracles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox
It is difficult for me to see how this strange explanation solves the problem, as can be seen in the question I addressed to Prof. Granot:
"Does this mean that there is general agreement on the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation for bodies in motion? Probably not, as can be learned from the Wikipedia entry:
in their opinion, length contraction has no "physical reality", but is merely the result of a Lorentz transformation, ie a rotation in four-dimensional space which by itself can never cause any stress at all.
And is this interpretation intuitive or self-evident? Absolutely not, as you can read in the link:
To attempt to resolve the dispute, an informal and non-systematic survey of opinion at CERN was held. According to Bell, there was a "clear consensus" which asserted, incorrectly, that the string would not break.
And what is more related to our issues, I myself do not understand why two ships that accelerate simultaneously in system A, move away from each other in their own system.
Because here the question arises: when they stopped accelerating, are they at rest relative to each other as they are at the same constant speed relative to system A, or does their system have a speed between them (is there another possibility?)
Option A, the Newtonian, is not reasonable in relation (?). My opinion is that option B is not either.
The reason is this: in system A, the distance between them always remains constant after they have finished accelerating.
If there was a speed between them in their system, then the distance between them would continue to grow steadily, while in system A it is constant, which is impossible.
So how does it work out?
Thanks,
Israel".
In the meantime, almost a month has passed and there is no reply from Prof. Granot. Anyone willing and able to answer the question?
The problem as I see it is in the same physically elusive concept of length shortening, as you can read in the link I brought from Wikipedia:
"Length contraction has no "physical reality
I have asked here and in other places the following question: If we photograph Mars from a ship passing by Earth when the gamma factor is equal to 10 at the moment of switching to a sharp resolution camera, will its diameter in the photograph be 10 times larger than a photograph from the same camera from Earth as required by the laws of optics for photographing a body the distance to which is smaller than 10? After all, the length shortening is only in the direction of movement, not in the vertical direction.
For the purpose of the question, Mars will be considered a two-dimensional disk.
Because if the answer is negative, and I believe the laws of optics show that the answer is negative, then what is the physical aspect of the length shortening?
As far as I know, there is no experimental evidence for the shortening of the length, as opposed to the lengthening of the times.
Israel Saba (elderly).
Hi Albantezzo, we have some kind of fiscal paradox brought up by the elderly Israel that none of us knowledgeable responders have yet been able to solve. A seemingly simple question, perhaps as a PhD in theoretical physics, you can finally put an end to it.
If you're already here, could you please give her a review?
(Sorry I'm a bit pushy Ysharel, I'm under stress :))
Yehuda, I respect that you are tired and you don't want to continue. Only the son that at no point did I compare you to a 16-year-old boy - I quoted the book you presented, which explicitly states that the information found in it has been simplified to suit high school students who do not possess the tools of general relativity and quantum mechanics. If this offends you in any way, then you should turn to Netzer holidays or simply change your reading material. I had no intention of insulting you, comparing you to a child, belittling you or hurting you. Just to clarify that even the authors of the book claim that the information in it is not suitable for a serious discussion of the physical phenomena, but is an attempt to present a simple picture to high school students.
Hello Benjamin,
You are confusing dark matter with dark energy, two very different things. Dark matter, which is about a quarter of the energy in the universe, is matter. Just as baryonic matter (non-dark matter) tends to stick and arrange itself in structures as a result of gravity, and therefore most of the matter is arranged in galaxies, gas clouds, etc. (and not isotropically distributed in space), so also dark matter performs a gravitational interaction and therefore does not fill the empty space to the same extent that it found in structures such as galaxies.
If you have questions regarding observations of dark matter, I'm really not the person to ask because, as I wrote in one of the previous posts, my field is theoretical physics of high energies. That's why I'm not that well versed in observations (theoretical physics) and certainly not in astronomical observations (I deal in the field of gravity from the perspective of elementary particle physics, string theory, etc.).
Anyway, what makes up 68.3% of the energy in the universe is dark energy, which is something very different from dark matter. Dark energy is a characteristic of space. It can be looked at as a cosmological constant in Einstein's equations, or as the energy of a vacuum in field theory, but in any case the meaning is the same: it is the energy stored in space itself that presses it to expand. It is not a substance and is not found in different places, but a characteristic of space-time and therefore exerts constant and isotropic pressure at every point.
Regarding Ockham, then this is only advice if only because there is no "proof". I mean, what I meant to say is that the principle is an idea of a person who formulated it and anyone can choose whether to act according to the principle or not. This is in contrast, for example, to a proven mathematical theorem that cannot be "given up" and acted against, or a physical observation of our world that cannot be denied. I also gave an explicit example of cases in which physicists do not act in accordance with the principle. You are right that if we had stuck to the principle the site idea would probably have fallen sooner, but also many important discoveries would not have been discovered. For example (if we've already talked about it), the cosmological constant! It was discovered by Einstein when he asked how the formulas could be "complicated" as much as possible but still have them be correct, and discovered that the term of the cosmological constant could be added. Today, of course, we know how to explain it in several different ways, and we even gave a Nobel Prize to physicists who proved by observation that our universe is indeed expanding as a result of its pressure.
Albanzo
I'm tired
I will try to see the comparison to a 16-year-old boy as a compliment. (I am 68 years old)
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Albenzo
Two small things:
According to Wikipedia, dark matter makes up 68.3 of the amount of matter in the universe,
So why has its gravitational effect only been detected in observations of galaxies?
Because the laws of physics apply everywhere?
In my view, Ockham's razor, which disapproves of adding unnecessary factors, is not
"Just a piece of advice" if they took him seriously, maybe the site theory
was increasingly less popular.
Yoda,
By the way, I looked at the book you talked about. Come on… I don't know if I would even call it a popular science book. In the introduction, it is explicitly written that the book is adapted to the level of physics students as part of the high school matriculation exam, and that a true understanding of all the phenomena described in the book requires familiarity with general relativity and quantum mechanics.
I have no suspicion that your deception is intentional - I am convinced that it was done in good faith - but come on, at least check your sources if you bring references... So, as I suspected in my previous response, it is clear that this is an abstraction that aims to give intuition within a physics framework that even a 16-year-old can understand without a scientific education. These are not the right considerations for adding dark matter to our physical models.
Yehuda,
First of all, you updated me with Bekenstein's explanation. I have never heard of looking at dark matter in this way. However, unfortunately this does not change anything - Newtonian gravity is wrong and therefore any conclusion you draw from it, unless it is limited to the approximation of a weak field (which, as we have already said, this is not the case if only because the mass of distant galaxies is measured with the help of gravitational damping) - is wrong conclusion. Therefore, even if a calculation within the Newtonian theory gives a missing mass, this is definitely not the catalyst for dark matter. Analogy - in the framework of Newtonian gravity it is possible to calculate the mass density of a body whose escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. This is supposedly an argument that shows the existence of a black hole within the framework of classical physics, but it is not a valid argument because the considerations on which it is based are wrong. Real evidence for the existence of black holes comes from proper handling in the framework of general relativity.
Regarding the book by the guys from Tel Aviv, I didn't look at it. Maybe I will soon. In any case, I have the feeling that this is an abstraction intended to convey the idea to people who do not have the background or the ability to perform the calculation properly within the framework of general relativity. Regarding Bekenstein, then I already explained why I think he is wrong. By the way, also MOND - the theory he is talking about, is wrong and does not receive actual reference as an acceptable gravitational theory (and all this does not diminish the respect of one of the giants of Israeli physics).
My education is a PhD in theoretical physics, in the field of gravity. Unlike the people you mentioned from Tel Aviv, who are astronomers and astrophysicists (that is, those who study celestial objects), I am involved in the field of high energies, so my research on gravity is from a completely different direction: I am not looking at the dynamics of galaxies or the absorption disks of a black hole, but at its nature of the gravitational interaction as a model in quantum particle physics (specifically, mainly within the framework of string theory). This is probably also why my point of view is different from the one presented in the reference you presented.
An interview with Professor Yaakov Bekstein, winner of the Israel Prize who received the prize for his research on dark mass
http://sciam.co.il/archives/2453
And he was asked:
What are you researching today?
Today I am trying to change the theory of relativity, still within the framework of the principles established by Einstein, such as the principle of equivalence, or the theory's independence from different reference systems, to adapt to relatively new astronomical phenomena, such as the problem of dark mass or missing matter. When analyzing the motions within the galaxies with the help of Newton's theory, which for this purpose is a good approximation to the theory of relativity, it turns out that we do not see all the mass that causes the motion. Following this, the existence of "dark mass" was proposed, an explanation that is widely accepted today. But there are certain difficulties in this view. There is another way to try to explain the observations and that is to say that the accepted theory of gravity does not work well on the large scales of galaxies and above, and a theory is needed. End quote. He also points out that Newton's formulas are enough, and he is a professor and even an Israel Prize laureate, and even on the subject of dark mass, and is not (almost) as uneducated in science as I am.
I think that is enough. It's late and it's better to go to sleep already.
If I still haven't convinced you then I fell short of succeeding
good night mr albanzo
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Albanzo
In the book The Universe - Foundations of Astrophysics, written by Professor Meir Midev, Dr. Noah Brosh and Professor Hagai Netzer from Tel Aviv University, the existence of the dark mass is explained according to Newton's gravitation formula. Chapter 3.5 The mass of the galaxy (page 60) and Newton's gravitation formula is formula 3-13 on page 61. And they are doctors and professors of astrophysics, they are not without scientific knowledge like me,
I'm afraid, Mr. Albanzo, that you have mistaken your requirement for the need for relativity to discover dark mass. Newton is definitely enough. I will try to find several more places on the internet to prove my innocence.
By the way, if it's not a secret, what is your scientific education?
Good night
And only with a smile
It's a science in the USA
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I've just read a number of older comments and found one more thing I'd like to comment on. Sabdarmish Yehuda claims that adding dark matter to our models is part of "changing nature" to fit the formulas and is therefore wrong. What about the Higgs particle? Here, too, there was a theoretical problem, the solution to which was to change the mathematical model to include an additional field (an additional particle). Here, too, according to your opinion, it is about "matching nature to the formulas", but it is known to everyone that last year we found the particle as predicted by Higgs and Enlager, and were even awarded a Nobel Prize for it. A similar phenomenon has repeated itself more than once throughout history - a certain problem was solved in an elegant way by adding a certain element to the mathematical model (a new particle, a new force, etc.) and then in the laboratory the new element was indeed proven. These works, which include the theory of general relativity, positrons, the Higgs particle, Yuval Neman symmetry and many more, are among the greatest scientific achievements we have reached in the world of physics. Would it be correct to say that each of these things is a mistake in your eyes, since he chose the path of "changing nature" and not changing the formulas?
In theoretical physics we don't have the privilege to take a certain term in a formula, delete it and write something else. Each term in each formula stems from a certain source, such as one or another symmetry, the existence of one or another field, etc. Therefore, in order to change a formula and make it describe nature more correctly, you need to find a reason - something that will generate a new organ or change an old organ. Sometimes this means that we need to "change" nature, and sometimes (not always) we discover that the change we introduced to nature is completely justified, as in the many cases I listed above.
Yehuda, dark matter is a completely relativistic phenomenon. Note that this is not a private relationship but a general relationship. It has nothing to do with relative speeds or not - it has to do with the nature of gravity. Whether it is the gravitational dynamics of the bullet cluster or whether it is the cosmological analysis that I mentioned in my response to miracles, the calculation is in the framework of general relativity and not in the framework of Newtonian gravity, which has been known for about 100 years to be wrong. Also the evidence concerning what you called "the gravitational force of the galaxy itself" derives from gravitational repulsion, which is of course a relativistic phenomenon. Again, I repeat and emphasize - no one (and I would be very happy if you find a scientific article that proves me wrong) uses Newton's gravity formula to calculate the gravity of heavy objects (in very empty systems the approximation of a weak field is valid and we have already discussed that), and your claim that someone took Collapsing a galaxy and calculating the force as 1/r^2 is wrong.
If I'm not gentle enough for you it's because I don't understand your attempt to find holes in modern science by sticking to tools that were proven wrong 100 years ago. Also, I will admit wholeheartedly that although I do not intend to belittle you, it is difficult for me to take you very seriously when you talk about dark matter without knowing what general relativity is for example (he relies on Newton's gravity formula and claims that "the theory of relativity will only change the calculation by a few percent "Mainly because the rotation speed of the galaxy is expressed in several hundreds of kilometers per second - a speed that is completely non-relativistic", when general relativity has nothing to do with the speed of one or another object).
foul
I'm always here.
Yoda
There is no problem in terms of the diet to gain a few kilos, as long as they are dark. Because by their very nature they are invisible, so who cares?
elbentzo
Joins the voices of praise, also on the subject of eloquent Hebrew.
Would it be possible to ask you some simple questions about relationships that I can't find an adequate answer to?
Thanks.
Yehuda
The reason doesn't matter, I'm talking about the content of his words - Copernicus offers a calculation method and leaves it at that. I think that's what you do too (although I'm sure you're not afraid of the church...)
You wrote, "You also claimed that dark matter offers an explanation for something I said. I regret to point out that this is not the case, because I do not believe in the existence of dark matter."
The fact that you don't believe in something is not a valid argument 🙂 I don't believe there is a God - does that mean there is no God?
What I'm trying to say is that you are proposing a formula, and dark matter is a proposal to explain the formula. that's it.
Miracles
Osiander wrote what he wrote in the introduction to the book of Copernicus because he was afraid that the church would burn him like it used to do with the heretics of all kinds. I'm not sure it was his opinion that the book is just a convenient calculation method.
You also claimed that dark matter offers an explanation for something I said. I am sorry to point out that this is not the case because I do not believe in the existence of dark matter.
An embarrassed teacher
To go and declare that only the words of scientists are valuable in science, surely Albenzo is right in his words and I'm not?,,,,, it doesn't seem to me. According to your system, we common people are not allowed to vote and vote in the elections because we have not completed a degree in economics? So Lorenzo's honor is in his place and he has a high degree in science and I only in industrial management, but what does that belong to? Conventional science has a disturbing problem and you have to check the explanation of things and accept or not accept things based only on the explanation. To cancel outright because of Hoar would be a mistake. I believe that the science website has proven itself to date with an abundance of very interesting and original responses.
That's my opinion
Good night
And continue interesting comments
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you and Albenzo cannot have different scientific opinions because Albenzo is a scientist and you are not. The difference between you in the scientific aspect is a difference that cannot be bridged by any means, heaven and earth. 99% of what Albenzo sees clearly is outside your event horizon, how can you even afford to make comparisons?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What you describe reminds me of Osiander's introduction to the book of Copernicus. To mention - Osiander wrote that Copernicus does not describe the world, he generally provided a more convenient computational framework.
You propose formulas that better describe the world, and dark matter offers an explanation for those formulas. Or am I missing something?
for miracles
You are looking for a reason for the behavior of formulas. Well, formulas describe the behavior of nature, and if nature does not behave according to the formulas, then the formulas need to be replaced, not the nature. What was done with the dark mass and dark energy is that they actually replaced nature with a "fatter" nature. The main thing is that it fits Newton's formula. (or relativity). Nature is sacred to me, not the formulas.
Please answer gently, I'm trying to do a diet now and an extreme reaction could break me. The dietician won't believe me that the weight I gained is a dark mass.
Good day and it's just science, all in good spirits
Sabdarmish Yehuda
elbentzo
The discovery of dark matter was made by comparing the centrifugal force in the spiral galaxy to the gravitational force emanating from the galaxy and it was concluded that there is a huge lack of gravitation and hence they decided to add the dark mass to the galaxies in an amount approximately ten times the mass of the galaxy itself. The theory of relativity will only change the above calculation by a few percent, mainly because the rotation speed of the galaxy is expressed in several hundreds of kilometers per second - a speed that is completely non-relativistic. That's why your statement that: "Your (Yehuda's) explanation that dark matter is related to the use of Newton's formula... when in reality it is not related to Newtonian gravity any more than it is related to horse racing or the movie "Reservoir Dogs", end of quote. A bit exaggerated, and it also has some scorn and also suffers from a slight lack of subtlety.
So please, please respond gently.. We in SSA have different scientific opinions.
Thanks
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Where is Israel when you need it? May he send him a dove..
Rabbi Israel, maybe elbentzo will be able to solve the problem of the twin paradox for you?
Hey miracles,
I am not very knowledgeable about the history of physics and where the initial idea came from. There are other evidences for the existence of dark matter, such as cosmological evidences that make it possible to predict the distribution of matter in the universe. What I meant to say is not something directly related to dark matter, but to the topic of the article - phenomena near the black hole. Even in the context of the discussion on dark matter, there is really no evidence of a problem with the formulas. This is exactly the point - given the existence of dark matter, the universe exactly fits our predictions. Of course, it is possible that there is no dark matter and our predictions are simply wrong, but at the moment we do not have any gravitational theory that explains the known phenomena accurately nor does it include dark matter.
elbentzo
My understanding is that dark matter was "invented" to explain the fact that galaxies rotate uniformly, and not as expected from the formulas. I am certainly not saying that there is no such material...
Hello miracles,
I have never claimed that rationalism alone is the correct method. I argued that empiricism alone is a sure recipe for bad science and that there is actual evidence of this over 100 years of experience in England. I also explicitly wrote that the reason for the wonderful achievements of modern science is the approach that combines experience and the rational. All of this was in response to Yehuda's approach, which holds that there is no room for generalizations derived from mathematical logical analysis - only what is directly tested is considered scientific truth. I did not address the failure of rationalism alone because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
And by the way - there is no reason to believe that the formulas do not correspond to reality. Where exactly do you see it? Today there is a lot of very interesting work in the world of physics to show that the firewall paradox can be solved (whether in the framework of string theory, loop quantum gravity, or even information theory).
elbentzo
First - thanks for the explanations!
I disagree on one thing, and that is your attitude to rationalism versus empiricism. Rationalism is much older than empiricism, and has been the basis of false science for many, many years. It was only when people became more humble and began to explore and experiment that modern science began to develop. Medicine is, in my opinion, the clearest example of this - see the story of Tsamalvis.
Of course, there is no debate about the need to combine the two things - you need to look and think, and you also need to think and look.
I think Yehuda is wrong for another reason. The judges say "there is something we don't know that causes the formulas to behave differently than we expected". Yehuda says "Let's change the formulas to match the observations".
My problem with Yehuda's approach is that I want to understand the reason for the error in the formulas. It reminds me of Ptolemy's differentials and epicyclics - piled upon piled upon piled.
Thanks for the compliments.
1. "My definition" was not blacks Blacks and dark mass are unimaginable heights (although they are part of it, and more on that later). What I said is that science in a format that combines empiricism and rationalism has brought us to unimaginable heights. Don't like dark stuff? No problem. What about planes? Internet? GPS? antibiotics? Genetic Engineering? Manned flights to space? Nano technology? Nuclear energy? The list is long before I start writing it here, and it is all the result of modern science based on the principles you are trying to deny, in particular the ability to make a generalization that arises from logical considerations. An empiricist science that holds that we only know something is true if we directly test it has dogged humanity and stuck it in place for about 100 years, until Newton came along.
2. I think I was pretty clear when I wrote in black and white that Newton's formula is wrong. You are the only one here who got hung up on it - I wrote in the interpretation that it is only the approximation of a weak field of general relativity. The sentence you wrote is a bit illegible and meaningless, but there are indeed gravitational phenomena that are not correctly described by a force that goes like r to the minus 2 power, and these are phenomena that are not found in weak fields. That's exactly what I wrote.
3. What you write is simply not true. Ockham's razor is not related to science, it is a philosophical principle that holds that complicating things unnecessarily is a mistake. As a scientist, I explain to you that this principle does not guide us and often a scientific theory is not the simplest theory that can be written. Many times we will complicate the mathematical model because it can give a more general description or include more physical phenomena that the minimalist description cannot. Ockham's Razor is just a piece of advice, nothing more. In physics we don't listen to this advice (and it's a good thing). An example for those interested, when writing an operation that describes a certain physical phenomenon, we will add all the possible terms to the mathematical expression that maintain the symmetries of the problem, even if it is possible to be satisfied with only one or two terms. This way we will get an idea of what other things can happen in the physical system as we understand it.
4. Your full right to think that certain ideas are delusional and of course your right to express your opinion in any open and free forum without being silenced or belittled as a person. However, it seems very likely that your criticism stems mainly from a lack of understanding of the matter (for example, your explanation that dark matter is related to the use of Newton's formula... when in reality it is no more related to Newtonian gravity than it is related to horse racing or the movie "Shepherds").
5. I recently discovered the knowledge site. If I see more articles here that interest me and I feel that I have something to contribute to the discussion, I will continue to comment here. However, I am not interested in giving away to correspond personally or meet with private individuals and discuss science.
to ELBENTZO
Nissim is indeed right and you are a breath of fresh air
I will respond to your comments briefly:
1. I don't see dark mass and energy and black guys as progress and unimaginable heights in science as you define it. I see them as a serious scientific error.
2. A quadratic formula is incorrect because it does not refer to the disturbance created by the medium to the movement of the physical phenomenon light, gravity, etc.
3. Ockham's razor defines how to choose one of all the infinite correct formulas that exist for a physical phenomenon. He says choose the simple, although the definition of the simple is not unambiguous and everyone can choose their own simple.
4. I apologize if it was understood in any place from my response that I despise scientists. God forbid I do that. But I think the use of the cosmological principle is incorrect and dark mass and energy are illusory.
5. My scientific education is a high school and self-taught scientific education, plus a graduate degree in industrial management, and I ran a business that dealt with factory optimization.
I would love to be in touch with you and even meet. I think that such a meeting can scientifically enrich both of us.
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles
You are very right and what is true for ten cm here in our inner solar system will most likely also be true for ten cm in the neighboring galaxy! But what can you do and everyone will tell you that Newton's formula also applies to spiral galaxies at distances of a hundred million times from the solar system and "accusers ” Thus the cosmological principle! Without this extreme use of the cosmological principle there is no reason to establish this delusional thing of the correctness of the gravitation formula for distances of a hundred million and even a hundred trillion times (the entire universe). It's like assuming that the force with which I'm tapping the keys in typing this response is the same kind that moves the moon around the earth. delusional If you understand this you will understand that there was no room to add dark mass in the galaxies and the universe based on Newton's law of gravitation and therefore I believe it is built on chicken's knees.
But what do I understand, and I admit that my opinion is a minority opinion.
That's what it is
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
elbentzo,
You are a breath of fresh air in the chaotic and suffocating sector of "Hidan".
Where it is written in the previous response "sub-plank curvature" should be "sub-plank scales". That is, even at curvatures that do not diverge, at distance scales smaller than the Planck length, general relativity fails and a better description is needed.
Hello everyone,
I will try to bring some order to the mess here, at least physically.
1. The approach presented by Sabdarmish Yehuda is called "empiricism" and it passed away about four hundred years ago because it is clearly ineffective and in fact was proven in the laboratory (most ironically) as an approach that sticks science in place. Bacon's empiricism dominated English science for about a century until the arrival of Newton, and during this period England developed a huge lag behind the rest of Europe in terms of science, because it advocated the idea that everything should be tested directly and there is no place in science for generalizations derived from rationality. On the other hand, the method that combines theoretical science based on rational generalizations and testing them in the laboratory (Newton's great contribution to science is not gravitation but the approach that combines empiricism and rationalism), has been carrying science on its shoulders for about five hundred years and has brought us to unimaginable heights. So in the test of the result - the approach presented by Yehuda is bad science.
2. Now you can understand why the power in Newton's formula for gravity is 2 and not a number closer to 2 than our measurement resolution - this is because there are solid theoretical considerations that say the power should be 2, but there are no such considerations that say it should be 2 plus something. It is true that we cannot prove that it is really 2, but there is a lot of sense in taking it as 2 because it is consistent with our theoretical model.
Side note - Newton's formula is wrong. No one is based on it, neither in the Earth nor in distant galaxies. The evidence for the existence of dark matter, for example, is in the framework of models of general relativity, and these models have been tested with the help of observations more or less at all ends of the universe. General relativity is considered the most experimentally based theory in modern physics. Only in the approximation of a weak field does general relativity yield Newton's equations, and of course this approximation is true in some places in the galaxy and not in other places. The scientists can be given a little more credit. We're not a bunch of idiots after all.
3. Occam's razor plays no role here. As I said above, the guiding principle is to fit not only the data but also a consistent mathematical model. The model can be the simplest model (minimal model), but can certainly be more complicated. In fact, one of the most popular criticisms of modern physics (a misguided criticism, in my opinion) is that its mathematical models are overly complicated.
4. Your whole discussion is not entirely relevant, because physicists are certainly aware of the possibility that the reason our current models fit reality so nicely is because the reality we have studied so far is only a certain limit of the general reality (just as Newton thought his formulas worked because he only tested them at the limit of a weak field). In fact, finding a more general gravitational theory that gives in the limit of sub-Planck curvature the tested results of general relativity, is one of the most significant efforts of physicists in the last thirty-forty years. Today, the claimant to the crown is string theory, but as we know it has problems (it is very difficult to verify).
But there is something deeper here. We predict that even if there is a better theory to describe reality, it will give the known and tested results if we get far enough away from the black hole. In the original article from 2012 where the firewall paradox was first introduced, this topic was discussed and what changes should be made to our existing theories to resolve the paradox. I won't go into technical details (anyone interested is welcome to read the AMPS article) but the changes are drastic enough to believe that this is not the way (our current teachings give accurate enough results for us to believe that they are at least in the right direction, even if not perfect).
5. Finally, a note to Judah - if you want them to respond to you gently, I would advise you to refrain from calling physicists "stupid" (or saying that they make mistakes that lead them to "stupid conclusions", which is basically the same thing). If you want some respect, give some respect. Nissim claimed that you are a scientist - if you don't mind and without intruding on privacy, I would be happy to know what field you work in.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The principle I mentioned means one very precise thing - and I'm a little surprised that you, as a scientist, think otherwise. The principle basically means that the earth is another planet in the universe and it has no uniqueness. What is true here for a range of 10 cm, is true anywhere in the universe for a distance of 10 cm. You use this rule yourself 🙂 If laws were measured in a certain safe place of 10 cm - how do you assume that tomorrow the laws will also be correct? If the laws were measured in Tel Aviv, who said they are true in Herzliya?
With the help of the cosmological principle (the same principle that shows, among other things, that there is no justification for believing in God), we have reached the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn and we continue to progress. I'll say it again - you need a good reason to claim that the principle is wrong.
By the way, I have no opinion on dark matter/dark energy. This is far beyond my knowledge and understanding.
Miracles
Unfortunately, I don't believe in universal laws but in laws that have been tested to be correct within a certain range. If laws are measured and found to be correct from a range of cm to a range of 10 cm, I have no reason to assume that they will also operate correctly at a range of 12 cm, 20 cm, a hundred meters or in the entire universe (universal). They are true only where they are tested and found to be true, no cosmological principle - will not help here (one of the cornerstones of physics????, the greatest invention of Copernicus????) A cosmological principle comes to fill the souls of frustrated astronomers who are trying to get an idea of The behavior of the formulas where they have not been checked as correct. I advocate that only measurements can confirm physical formulas and not "principles". For example, Newton's gravitation formula, which was proven to be correct in the inner solar system at a distance of about 60 astronomical units, which is about a thousand light years, is also taken as correct without any justification (apart from the "cosmological principle") in spiral galaxies at distances of a hundred thousand light years (one hundred million times the proven) and within In order to do so, one reaches foolish conclusions of a huge lack of (dark) mass, which you Nisim defines as one of the cornerstones of physics. ridiculous!.
But I will admit that you are not alone in your cosmological opinion and in fact most cosmologists are in your opinion.
But luckily science is not democratic and the majority always decides...
Please answer gently
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Benjamin May
I'm not talking about the existence or non-existence of dark matter. One of the cornerstones of modern physics is the cosmological principle (in my eyes the greatest invention of Copernicus) which says that the universe looks the same everywhere.
It may well be that our laws of nature are incorrect near a black hole, but that has nothing to do with my (not great) understanding of dark matter or dark energy.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
There are two good reasons to believe that "the power is 2 because maybe it is actually 2.0000006".
The first is a principle that says that we always choose the simplest explanation for the phenomenon.
The second is that we have a physical explanation for why the power is 2.
I agree that it is certainly possible that the physical explanation is wrong, and I also agree that Ockham's Razor is not a scientific law and that it is only a heuristic tool.
I think the rule that a law is universal, until proven otherwise, is a useful rule.
for miracles
The fact that there is a law does not mean that it is universal (taking into account
all variables in all parts of the universe) or expresses all
The variables are just enough.
Example: the observations from which the scientists deduced the existence of
"Dark matter" - because they used laws
determined from observations from Earth on the neighboring planets
And they discovered that on a galactic scale "something is missing" to explain
the speed of the movement of the stars at the edges of the galaxies.
And here is the question: why is that "dark matter" "not present"
In smaller scale observations? There is no law
which determines for the dark matter "when to work".
Either the observations are not accurate enough, or the laws
do not express certain nuances (just like
that Newton's laws needed the theory of relativity as a complement)
Or there is another option, in any case, there is here
A big hole in understanding the physical reality around us.
Miracles
No physical law is wrong in the places where it has been measured and it has been found that the measurements correspond to what is obtained from the law. But, what about the places where the law is not measured? In the area where it was not measured, we know nothing about it. To think that even where he is not tested he will behave in the same way as where he is tested is a statement that can be contrary to reality. You've seen a thousand swans and they're all white, does that mean the next swan will also be white?, absolutely not!,
Therefore, since we do not know, for example, how the gravitation formula will behave near the black hole, then, we will not know how it will behave gravitationally.
Another thing. We determine the correctness of the physical formula with the help of measurements, but due to uncertainty in the measurements (which always exists for any measurement, ) we cannot be sure of the correctness of the formula we have chosen. In fact, there are endless other formulas that fit the measured measurements. For example, in gravity we cannot be sure that the power is 2 because maybe it is actually 2.0000006 and there can be an infinite number of other possibilities, the same goes for the gravitational constant and the same goes for every other term that appears in the formula. We choose the simplest according to Occam's razor - for example, premise 2, but it does not have to be the one that will be true later on. Just food for thought.
If not understood then no big deal, it took me a long time to understand it too.
Please respond gently,
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Your logic is a bit strange. We have no proof that the laws of physics work anywhere. We have many evidences that the laws work anywhere in the universe - this is one of the laws!!!
You make a very unusual claim, therefore you are the one who has to provide evidence that one of the most basic laws of nature is wrong.
skeptic
There is a great book by Leonard Susskind called "The Black Hole War". The book talks exactly about the problem of information loss.
And it could be that the black hole emits the information somewhere else in the universe or in another universe.
I see the main problem as different. We have no proof that the laws of physics work near the black hole the same way they do in the world far from the black hole. Therefore any statement based on the known laws of physics does not hold regarding the black hole. Therefore... it is possible that black holes do not exist with the power that comes from the known laws of physics. Just my opinion. Please respond gently.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
There was a debate in which Hawking claimed that the information disappeared and other scientists claimed otherwise,
One of their claims was that the particle theory cannot be used to explain physical behavior
But to ignore the information conservation part found in this theory,
When this theory was proven in countless experiments,
From this idea also came the idea that maybe the whole universe behaves like this, in this process Hawking simply changed his mind
and moved to a camp that has been thinking differently from him for years,
A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4