''TIME'' - definitions.

[RJM]

Same for me. Let us wait till they find the answers to their questions and can describe it in a language intelligible to laymen.
Destroyed! No, never. Black-hole emissions are there. And have you heard of worm-holes or white-holes? As if black-holes were not enough! All because of Einstein and his collaborators.

"A wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge or Einstein–Rosen wormhole) is a speculative structure linking disparate points in spacetime, and is based on a special solution of the Einstein field equations. A wormhole can be visualized as a tunnel with two ends at separate points in spacetime.
Wormholes are consistent with the general theory of relativity, but whether wormholes actually exist remains to be seen. Many scientists postulate wormholes are merely a projection of the 4th dimension, analogous to how a 2D being could experience only part of a 3D object. A wormhole could connect extremely long distances such as a billion light years or more, short distances such as a few meters, in different universes, or different points in time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

"In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime and singularity which cannot be entered from the outside, although energy-matter and light can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can be entered only from the outside and from which energy-matter and light cannot escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past. However, some believe this region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, nor are there any known physical processes through which a white hole could be formed. Although information and evidence regarding white holes remains inconclusive, the 2006 GRB 060614 has been proposed as the first documented observance of a white hole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

I've checked out quite a lot of stuff. Susskind is good at explaining it relatively simply for non-mathematicians like myself. There's lots of Leonard Susskind talks on Ytube.

Yes, slow Hawking radiation leakage from black holes, over tens of billions of years, etc. White holes are just 'what if' imagination, so far? Nevertheless, at the singularity, 'stuff' disappears from the universe?
@Cino

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nevertheless, at the singularity, 'stuff' disappears from the universe?

Perhaps stuff goes into its other phase, non-existence. Like disappearing 'virtual particles'.
There is no end to the tricks of the universe.

 

[RJM]

I like Roger Penrose cyclic universe idea too.
I love the way this absent minded genius wears baggy old clothes and keeps losing his pages as he bumbles along with hand-drawn diagrams, helping ordinary folks like me understand a little bit about his cutting edge 21st century ideas ...

NB: The intro speeches here go on and on. Lecture starts at 6.26 min

 

[Cino]

Nevertheless, at the singularity, 'stuff' disappears from the universe?
@Cino

I'm way out of my depth as to what happens when stuff "reaches" the singularity.

Which, from the point of view of the stuff, never happens. The Singularity is always in the stuff's future.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Cino - or past.

Roger Penrose

 

[RJM]

The Singularity is always in the stuff's future.

Ok, I think I understand: the stuff just gets denser and denser, but never reaches infinite mass, because infinity is not reachable? The singularity is always receding? Something like that?

 

[Cino]

Yes, Penrose and Hawking did amazing work!

 

[RJM]

@Aupmanyav
@Thomas
@KnowSelf

Moving discussion away from taking @wil 'Denominations' thread further off topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-
CDM_model

"The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model ...

It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account ...

The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe ..."

And then there's inflation ...

 

[Cino]

Ok, I think I understand: the stuff just gets denser and denser, but never reaches infinite mass, because infinity is not reachable? The singularity is always receding? Something like that?

Yes, and stuff is also accelerating (and remember that acceleration and gravity are in this context the same thing), and space-time, i.e. the notion of what a straight, shortest path between two points means, has a very different feel compared to our everyday experience.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science is not hiding anything. Successes and problems have been clearly described. That is how science works, and that is why it is believable.
It does not say that properties of such and such thing are unknowable, so you better believe what we say, otherwise you know, hell waits for you.

 

[RJM]

Yes, and stuff is also accelerating (and remember that acceleration and gravity are in this context the same thing), and space-time, i.e. the notion of what a straight, shortest path between two points means, has a very different feel compared to our everyday experience.

Here's an answer I got from a quantum physisist on another website:

"Just because our calculations from an incomplete theory that we know is not a full description of the universe, goes to infinity at a point, doesn't mean that real stuff does the same. But I'd rather interpret the singularity as a breakdown of our understanding - it's as far as these mathematics can take us. Divide by zero is not calculable. It has no meaning.


I'd be willing to be bet that a real 'singularity' is in a new phase of matter or more probably a new phase of space-time, or whatever fundamental 'thing' that makes up the building blocks of the universe, that allows the black hole object to exist in some stasis that is not infinite. Until Hawking radiation evaporates it.

However I can't see a good way of actually experimentally figuring out what lies past the event horizon, as I can't see a way of getting results back 'out' back past that screen. So how could I ever know?

Perhaps if we came up with a better theory of everything we might have a different idea.

There are, of course, other ideas floating about, about black holes and what they contain. I recently read up a bit on Gravastars - essentially black holes - a few days back, where matter is compressed so much that it gets to the scale of 'superfluid space-time'.

At that point the mass at a deep level is instantaneously converted to energy and space-time there goes to a different phase of being because of the influx of energy (a bit like the phase change when ice turns into water.) This new space-time exerts a negative pressure, counteracting the postive pressure of the gravitational mass.

Further infalling matter from the shell of matter, after the initial set up, is converted to energy in the new space-time...which when expressed will, through the equivalence of mass and energy, produce some matter in the new space-time.

Furthermore at the boundry of the superfluid vortices form, vortices that can guide and 'trap' the masses being produced into random densities.

So you have an expansionary space-time (a.k.a there is your 'dark energy') with mass and energy set in a random density distribution....sounds a lot like a new universe!

Anyway, pinch of salt time - this theory is really only being pushed by a couple of people, so it's not 'mainstream'. Is space-time a superfluid? Could it exhibit phase-changes? Is dark energy actually real anyway, as a number of results have shed some doubt on it? If the universe inside a gravastar is a superfluid it should be rotating - as it has to conserve the angular momentum of the initial star, so is our universe rotating? Are we inside a Gravastar?

Loads of questions, I'm afraid, not so many answers!"

Science is not hiding anything. Successes and problems have been clearly described. That is how science works, and that is why it is believable.
It does not say that properties of such and such thing are unknowable, so you better believe what we say, otherwise you know, hell waits for you.

But I didn't say science is not open and believable, etc. I said science does not prove that God/spirit does not exist. There are a lot of people who 'believe in God' who are not literal fundamentalists.

 

[Cino]

Nice! Exploring such a hypothetical phase shift would call for new experimental set-ups. Bigger than LHC!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here's an answer .. inside a Gravastar?
Loads of questions, I'm afraid, not so many answers!"
I said science does not prove that God/spirit does not exist. There are a lot of people who 'believe in God' who are not literal fundamentalists.

Nice to read all that. How would answers come prior to their time? Perhaps it will take a century, perhaps 500 years. If you want answers now, they will not be correct. And 'Goddidit' is perhaps the worst answer. Does not explain anything.
How can science prove a negative? Yeah, there are a lot of people who believe so, everywhere. But that too dos not prove the existence of God and all the related paraphernalia.
My own guess is that existence and non-existence are phases of spacetime. There must be an 'absolute nothing', because anything other than that will require 'special pleading'.

 

[RJM]

There must be an 'absolute nothing'

How can there be an absolute nothing? Nothing is not a thing that can 'be'. Nothing isn't a state, or a condition, it just is not. Talk about special pleading, proving a negative.

Nothing comes from nothing. Any thing has to come from something.

For 'an absolute nothing' substitute spirit?

that too does not prove the existence of God

Sorry but it's not required. All that's required is to say that science does not disprove the existence of God.

Interesting discussion ...

 

[RJM]

We have five natural senses and all our wonderful science is built around them; and all the telescopes and colliders etc, are designed as extensions of our natural senses to detect and explore further into nature.

A person can deny the existence of anything beyond nature if s/he wants to. If we can't see it, touch it, smell it etc, if we cannot detect it by our natural senses or the devices we use -- then it cannot exist. If it's not contained by space and time it cannot be. Spirit cannot be.

That's fine. Good luck. That person is entitled to their own limited ideas. Mine are greater.

Spirit weaves nature. Nature a room bounded by time and space within a greater house (of spirit). There may be many other rooms/dimensions than our own dimension of nature. All sorts of dimensions. My Father's house has many mansions.

Spirit contains and surrounds and permeates nature. The greater wheel of spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature but is not turned by it.

IMO

I have no obligation to prove it scientifically to anyone. No more than anyone can show me what happens inside a black hole. I have no interest in converting anyone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How can there be an absolute nothing? All that's required is to say that science does not disprove the existence of God.

I too do not know anything about it*, that is why I said it was my guess (because any other theory will require special pleading). I leave it to future generations. I just have perhaps a few more years (I am 77). 'Absolute nothing' also is something. Who knows, we may get to know more!
True, science never came across anything which required the existence of a God.

* Other than what RigVeda says:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

[OrtaYol]

I too do not know anything about it*, that is why I said it was my guess (because any other theory will require special pleading).

Isn't saying "there must be an absolute nothing" also special pleading? Why must there be? Is there some scientific support for it?

I leave it to future generations. I just have perhaps a few more years (I am 77). 'Absolute nothing' also is something. Who knows, we may get to know more!

The future generations will probably conclude that "Goddidit".

True, science never came across anything which required the existence of a God.

I know what you mean. I've never microwaved an apple with my paint brush.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Isn't saying "there must be an absolute nothing" also special pleading? Why must there be? Is there some scientific support for it?
The future generations will probably conclude that "Goddidit".
I know what you mean. I've never microwaved an apple with my paint brush.

Before science accepts that, there will be experiments and only if there is evidence then science will accept it. However, 'virtual particles' appearing and disappearing are a fact. There are theories about the universe arising 'Ex-nihilo'.
Are you a 'najumi' or a prophet that you make predictions.
Whether it is creation or evolution, both are subjects of science.

 

[RJM]

... theories about the universe arising 'Ex-nihilo'.

Nothing can arise Ex-nihilo. Nothing can arise from nothing. There needs to be another word for it.

What you mean is the universe arising from some state 'outside' of the universe itself outside of time&space which equals 'nature' -- not from nothing, but from outside of nature. Which means of 'supernatural' origin?

 

[RJM]

virtual particles' appearing and disappearing are a fact.

Not really. I obviously understand very little but the fact they are virtual particles implies they are not 'real'. They appear to be a sort of mathematical thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

"The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.

Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate."