• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light

qubit

Overclocked quantum bit
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
17,865 (2.98/day)
Location
Quantum Well UK
System Name Quantumville™
Processor Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz)
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible)
Case Cooler Master HAF 922
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe
Power Supply Corsair AX1600i
Mouse Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow
Keyboard Yes
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
He doesn't need to prove that. It is an understood part of physics. What needs to be proven is the idea that luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel(which BTW is utter nonsense).
No, you're falling into the same trap. It's not possible to prove that light speed doesn't vary by direction as the video explains in several ways. While it's extremely likely that it's the same, to the point that there's no real doubt, that's still not rigorous proof.

The situation is similar to one of those mathematical conjectures, such as the Riemann hypothesis. While it's extremely likely that it's true from all the testing that's been done on it, it still hasn't been proved and that makes all the difference.

There's loads of these, too. Here's a Wikipedia article on them, out of interest:

 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)
Andy

Once again this requires a long answer but I'll leave you with this thought:

Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases in large systems over significant periods of time. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a clock in these conditions.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero. The increase in the EH to accommodate the introduced former matter as well as the change in spacetime encapsulating the black hole partly deals with the information problem. I am going to fall into the trap of commenting without properly thinking. But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse. I get back to this.

Tardian
It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.
Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. However, those experiments cannot directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light since it has been shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus, are equally conventional.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5]
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.47/day)
It's not possible to prove that light speed doesn't vary by direction as the video explains in several ways.
It's also not possible to prove that it does. However trying to prove luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel is not the same as proving the actual speed of luminal particles. Additionally, known laws of physics can not explain any reason why particles would travel at differing speeds based on direction of travel. It is total nonsense.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
4,403 (3.89/day)
Location
Colorado, U.S.A.
System Name HP Compaq 8000 Elite CMT
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Motherboard Hewlett-Packard 3647h
Memory 16GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Asus NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB GDDR5 (fan-less)
Storage 2TB Micron SATA SSD; 2TB Seagate Firecuda 3.5" HDD
Display(s) Dell P2416D (2560 x 1440)
Power Supply 12V HP proprietary
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse. I get back to this.

Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.47/day)
Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.
Let's assume that principle is sound(which is very doubtful): The process would be the same in reverse, IE any divided particle on the outside would have an equal chance to recombine on the inside of the event horizon. The principle works equally in both directions. However it should be noted that a Black Hole absorbs much more than it could ever be expected to theoretically lose through the Hawking principle.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
That's an incredible inertia to reverse. Extremely unlikely.

That is not how a Big Bang event works. The ultra massive Black Hole object that once contained all the mass of the Universe no longer exists. When the Big Bang event took place all of the mass in the Universe was ejected in all directions more or less in a uniform manner. There is nothing left in the central region of the Universe to counter-act all of momentum of the mass of the Universe expanding outward from that point. The only thing that will continue to happen is what we have already observed, the mass of the Universe expanding and accelerating as it does so.

Try to remember, most of academia refer to the Big Bang as an event that happened in the past, is over and what we see is the result. This incorrect. While the Big Bang took place in the past, it never ended and is still an ongoing event. We are along for the ride. This process will not end until the outgoing blast of the Big Bang meets with the collapsing event horizon of the Black Hole object our Universe once was. We have no way of knowing when that will happen, yet.


Again, that is flawed theory and contradicts known physics. The Event Horizon of a Black Hole doesn't magically transform matter, it simply compresses it to a point where subatomic particles are in physical contact with no empty space between them. It is part of the reason why both Einstein and Hawking could never complete their mutual theories.

Ask yourself: How big would a hydrogen atom be if you remove all of the empty space between it's constituent parts?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.
The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundances of the light elements, the CMB, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law.[10] The theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The universality of physical laws is one of the underlying principles of the theory of relativity. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic—appearing the same in all directions regardless of location.[11]
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but later efforts were made to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine-structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[12] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.[13][14][notes 1]
The large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth. If it is indeed isotropic, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the temperature of the CMB. At the scale of the CMB horizon, the universe has been measured to be homogeneous with an upper bound on the order of 10% inhomogeneity, as of 1995.[15]
The expansion of the Universe was inferred from early twentieth century astronomical observations and is an essential ingredient of the Big Bang theory. Mathematically, general relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which determines the distances that separate nearby points. The points, which can be galaxies, stars, or other objects, are specified using a coordinate chart or "grid" that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles out the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric. This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the universe changes with time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only because of the expansion of the universe, remain at fixed points on the grid. While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) remains constant, the physical distance between two such co-moving points expands proportionally with the scale factor of the universe.[16]
The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.[4] Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy do not necessarily expand with the same speed as the whole Universe.[17]
Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Length contraction is only in the direction in which the body is travelling. For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer.
1629168074189.png


A neutron star has a mass of at least 1.1 solar masses (M☉). The upper limit of mass for a neutron star is called the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit and is generally held to be around 2.1 M☉,[22][23] but a recent estimate puts the upper limit at 2.16 M☉.[24] The maximum observed mass of neutron stars is about 2.14 M☉ for PSR J0740+6620 discovered in September, 2019.[25] Compact stars below the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.39 M☉ are generally white dwarfs whereas compact stars with a mass between 1.4 M☉ and 2.16 M☉ are expected to be neutron stars, but there is an interval of a few tenths of a solar mass where the masses of low-mass neutron stars and high-mass white dwarfs can overlap. It is thought that beyond 2.16 M☉ the stellar remnant will overcome the strong force repulsion and neutron degeneracy pressure so that gravitational collapse will occur to produce a black hole, but the smallest observed mass of a stellar black hole is about 5 M☉.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#cite_note-Black_Hole-28 Between 2.16 M☉ and 5 M☉, hypothetical intermediate-mass stars such as quark stars and electroweak stars have been proposed, but none have been shown to exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#cite_note-Black_Hole-28

Lex

I have the utmost respect for you but can't agree with your post. I would have replied earlier but I was helping someone apply for university.

Tardian
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.
How does the one is slightly above the horizon indeed escape? It would need to be traveling at c. Explain this using quantum physics.

We think hydrogen has a physical form, but from the book by Bohr that I read it has quantum field inducing properties - whereever it goes, the universe goes... I bet space, as we know it, is what we make of hydrogen that isn't interacting with surrounding matter(don't mind my stupid theories).
Chicken and egg argument. One can't have matter without timespace.

Although protons were originally considered fundamental or elementary particles, in the modern Standard Model of particle physics, protons are classified as hadrons, like neutrons, the other nucleon. Protons are composite particles composed of three valence quarks: two up quarks of charge +2/3e and one down quark of charge −1/3e. The rest masses of quarks contribute only about 1% of a proton's mass.[5] The remainder of a proton's mass is due to quantum chromodynamics binding energy, which includes the kinetic energy of the quarks and the energy of the gluon fields that bind the quarks together. Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m).[6][7] In 2019, two different studies, using different techniques, have found the radius of the proton to be 0.833 fm, with an uncertainty of ±0.010 fm.[8][9]
The spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed, and protons are therefore considered stable particles according to the Standard Model.
In quantum chromodynamics, the modern theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of protons and neutrons is explained by special relativity. The mass of a proton is about 80–100 times greater than the sum of the rest masses of its three valence quarks, while the gluons have zero rest mass. The extra energy of the quarks and gluons in a proton, as compared to the rest energy of the quarks alone in the QCD vacuum, accounts for almost 99% of the proton's mass. The rest mass of a proton is, thus, the invariant mass of the system of moving quarks and gluons that make up the particle, and, in such systems, even the energy of massless particles is still measured as part of the rest mass of the system.
Protons are spin-1/2 fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[12] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons.[13]:21–22 A modern perspective has a proton composed of the valence quarks (up, up, down), the gluons, and transitory pairs of sea quarks. Protons have a positive charge distribution which decays approximately exponentially, with a mean square radius of about 0.8 fm
.[14]
[/URL]

Degenerate matter[1] is a highly dense state of fermionic matter in which the Pauli exclusion principle exerts significant pressure in addition to, or in lieu of thermal pressure. The description applies to matter composed of electrons, protons, neutrons or other fermions. The term is mainly used in astrophysics to refer to dense stellar objects where gravitational pressure is so extreme that quantum mechanical effects are significant. This type of matter is naturally found in stars in their final evolutionary states, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars, where thermal pressure alone is not enough to avoid gravitational collapse.
Sufficiently dense matter containing protons experiences proton degeneracy pressure, in a manner similar to the electron degeneracy pressure in electron-degenerate matter: protons confined to a sufficiently small volume have a large uncertainty in their momentum due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, because protons are much more massive than electrons, the same momentum represents a much smaller velocity for protons than for electrons. As a result, in matter with approximately equal numbers of protons and electrons, proton degeneracy pressure is much smaller than electron degeneracy pressure, and proton degeneracy is usually modeled as a correction to the equations of state of electron-degenerate matter.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.47/day)
How does the one is slightly above the horizon indeed escape? It would need to be traveling at c. Explain this using quantum physics.
Actually I can explain that, but to do so I must reference an unpublished theory. A Black Hole has multiple event horizon levels. The outer boundary, baryonic matter can not escape regardless of velocity but energy, sub-atomic particles and exotic particles like neutrinos can. The next boundary, energy can not escape regardless of velocity(this is the event horizon stage we can "observe" the presence of directly) but sub-atomic and exotic particles can. The next boundary is the point were even sub-atomic particles can not escape even at luminal velocities. The final boundary is the primary event horizon. Nothing can escape this boundary, not even neutrinos. This level of the event horizon is unobservable to us because it is inside the level from which we can observe electromagnetic energy failing to escape.

The characteristics of how those boundaries interact depends on a number of factors including the mass of the Black Hole in question, it's rotational speed and axial vector and how compact the compressed matter inside has become. As matter continues to be compressed into the center, the characteristics change. This process takes a very long time relative to our observational position. Remember that time slows down the further you descend into a gravity well(any gravity well, even that of the Earth), so even though from the outside the even horizon we see a collapsed mass, inside the collapse is still ongoing and matter is still being progressively compressed. For example, in the center of said object 1 minute might be equal to millions or even 10s of millions of years here on Earth, depending on the mass of said Black Hole. This is why the event horizon exists. At that distance from the Black Hole object core the effect of gravity in combination with the deceleration of time prevents escape because the energy needed for escape velocity is greater than any one particle, or group of particles, can generate. This is the primary reason the Hawking Radiation Theory is false. All mass and matter, regardless of energy state, is subject to the effects of time and gravity.

timespace.
Key phrase.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.
I used to believe that and Hawking covers it in A Brief History of Time in Chapter 8. I now remain unconvinced that the Current Model explains the expansion of the Universe. Too much emphasis is put on the perceived Doppler shift of cosmic light.

Actually I can explain that, but to do so I must reference an unpublished theory. A Black Hole has multiple event horizon levels. The outer boundary, baryonic matter can not escape regardless of velocity but energy, sub-atomic particles and exotic particles like neutrinos can. The next boundary, energy can not escape regardless of velocity(this is the event horizon stage we can "observe" the presence of directly) but sub-atomic and exotic particles can. The next boundary is the point were even sub-atomic particles can not escape even at luminal velocities. The final boundary is the primary event horizon. Nothing can escape this boundary, not even neutrinos. This level of the event horizon is unobservable to us because it is inside the level from which we can observe electromagnetic energy failing to escape.

The characteristics of how those boundaries interact depends on a number of factors including the mass of the Black Hole in question, it's rotational speed and axial vector and how compact the compressed matter inside has become. As matter continues to be compressed into the center, the characteristics change. This process take a very long time relative to our observational position. Remember that time slows down the further you descend into a gravity well(any gravity well, even that of the Earth), so even though from the outside the even horizon we see a collapsed mass, inside the collapse is still ongoing and matter is still be progressively compressed. For example, in the center of said object 1 minute might be equal to millions or even 10s of millions of years here on Earth, depending on the mass of said Black Hole. This is why the event horizon exists. At that distance from the Black Hole object core the effect of gravity in combination with the deceleration of time prevents escape because the energy needed for escape velocity is greater than any one particle, or group of particles, can generate. This is the primary reason the Hawking Radiation Theory is false. All mass and matter, regardless of energy state, is subject to the effects of time and gravity.


Key phrase.
Neutrinos are created by various radioactive decays; the following list is not exhaustive, but includes some of those processes:
For each neutrino, there also exists a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino, which also has no electric charge and half-integer spin. They are distinguished from the neutrinos by having opposite signs of lepton number and opposite chirality (and consequently opposite-sign weak isospin). As of 2016, no evidence has been found for any other difference.
So far, despite extensive and continuing searches for exceptions, in all observed leptonic processes there has never been any change in total lepton number; for example, if the total lepton number is zero in the initial state, then the final state has only matched lepton + anti-lepton pairs: electron neutrinos appear in the final state together with only positrons (anti-electrons) or electron-antineutrinos, and electron antineutrinos with electrons or electron neutrinos.[10][11]
Antineutrinos are produced in nuclear beta decay together with a beta particle (in beta decay a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and antineutrino). All antineutrinos observed thus far had right-handed helicity (i.e. only one of the two possible spin states has ever been seen), while neutrinos were all left-handed.[c]
Antineutrinos were first detected as a result of their interaction with protons in a large tank of water. This was installed next to a nuclear reactor as a controllable source of the antineutrinos (See: Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment). Researchers around the world have begun to investigate the possibility of using antineutrinos for reactor monitoring in the context of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.[37][38][39]
Lex

Excuse my ignorance. Please provide a source for the spontaneous creation in timespace of neutrinos and antineutrinos.

The question of how neutrino masses arise has not been answered conclusively. In the Standard Model of particle physics, fermions only have mass because of interactions with the Higgs field (see Higgs boson). These interactions involve both left- and right-handed versions of the fermion (see chirality). However, only left-handed neutrinos have been observed so far.
Neutrinos may have another source of mass through the Majorana mass term. This type of mass applies for electrically neutral particles since otherwise it would allow particles to turn into anti-particles, which would violate conservation of electric charge.
The smallest modification to the Standard Model, which only has left-handed neutrinos, is to allow these left-handed neutrinos to have Majorana masses. The problem with this is that the neutrino masses are surprisingly smaller than the rest of the known particles (at least 500,000 times smaller than the mass of an electron), which, while it does not invalidate the theory, is widely regarded as unsatisfactory as this construction offers no insight into the origin of the neutrino mass scale.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
1,142 (0.84/day)
G&SR fails to predict what happens inside a black hole object. The math completely breaks down regardless of how the computations are structured. It fails to explain both how the Big Bang happened and why as well as why the Universe continues to expand and accelerate while expanding. We know the Big Bang theory is correct because when we model everything running in reverse, everything in the Universe contracts back into a single point.

Conclusion: G&SR is partly flawed or completely incorrect.


No, it does not...

..as you just stated.

IF G&SR were able to predict what a Black Hole object is, we would already understand what happens inside one. But we can not. Therefore G&SR is flawed or wrong.

And quantum physics break down at larger scales. They are flawed or wrong too?

And every single theory that provides some guess of what is past event horizon fails at explaining certain phenomena that are consistent with GR framework. So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
And quantum physics break down at larger scales. They are flawed or wrong too?

And every single theory that provides some guess of what is past event horizon fails at explaining certain phenomena that are consistent with GR framework. So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?
I one was to take a wild guess at what happens inside a black hole, one might find symmetry, conservation of mass, and energy ... in fact exactly like our universe (which I already suggested was a black hole).

I think Lex has fairly accurately explained the boundary conditions of an Event Horizon above. Small black holes contain degenerate matter until the Schwarzschild radius increases to the point where elementary particles (eg fermions) can form and with it timespace. A creation event. As more matter enters the black hole from the accretion disc the timespace and mass of the internal universe expands. At some point, intelligent life evolves, develops technology, and starts postulating theories on the internet about parallel universes whilst looking at Matryoshka dolls.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.50/day)
I one was to take a wild guess at what happens inside a black hole, one might find symmetry, conservation of mass, and energy ... in fact exactly like our universe (which I already suggested was a black hole).

I think Lex has fairly accurately explained the boundary conditions of an Event Horizon above. Small black holes contain degenerate matter until the Schwarzschild radius increases to the point where elementary particles (eg fermions) can form and with it timespace. A creation event. As more matter enters the black hole from the accretion disc the timespace and mass of the internal universe expands. At some point, intelligent life evolves, develops technology, and starts postulating theories on the internet about parallel universes whilst looking at Matryoshka dolls.
So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon, hence object relations between the outside and inside break and a new universe is formed inside the blackhole.

I couldn't figure how new matter populates the inside space, if the volume is filled with past matter excluded of time relations with the outside, how could new matter on the inside be integral with time? Seems like a glaring hole in your theory. Is time, integral to mass conservation? I didn't see the explanation.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon, hence object relations between the outside and inside break and a new universe is formed inside the blackhole.

I couldn't figure how new matter populates the inside space, if the volume is filled with past matter excluded of time relations with the outside, how could new matter on the inside be integral with time? Seems like a glaring hole in your theory. Is time, integral to mass conservation? I didn't see the explanation.
Matter is merely an expression of energy. E=mc^2 Matter consumed by a black hole causes the external curvature of timespace and the consequential gravitational effects are realized in the external reference point.

Energy and mass must be conserved. EMR ought also to be considered since light can't escape a black hole.

Once the increase of Schwarzschild radius allows the internal density of a black hole to allow the formation of timespace and elementary particles from degenerative matter then further matter absorbed by the black hole would appear as new matter in the internal universe. These are merely my unpublished (till now) views based on 42 years of research.

Like Sir Patrick Moore I do not hold a degree in cosmology although did study science at a respected university.

Tardian
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.50/day)
Matter is merely an expression of energy. E=mc^2 Matter consumed by a black hole causes the external curvature of timespace and the consequential gravitational effects are realized in the external reference point.

Energy and mass must be conserved. EMR ought also to be considered since light can't escape a black hole.

Once the increase of Schwarzschild radius allows the internal density of a black hole to allow the formation of timespace and elementary particles from degenerative matter then further matter absorbed by the black hole would appear as new matter in the internal universe. These are merely my unpublished (till now) views based on 42 years of research.

Like Sir Patrick Moore I do not hold a degree in cosmology although did study science at a respected university.

Tardian
Just saying there is an incontinuum in your idea. You are implying bigger blackholes have internal universes which generate timespace. Kind of contradict why regular matter in a blackhole stops compressing because it no longer has a time direction.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,944 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
Then link to an article from a reputable source that shows that the universe is curved, because I haven't seen any.
I've already posted it.
WMAP
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
671 (0.19/day)
System Name Work in progress
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus PRIME B350M-A
Cooling Wraith Stealth Cooler, 4x140mm Noctua NF-A14 FLX 1200RPM Case Fans
Memory Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) CMK16GX4M2A2400C14R DDR4 2400MHz Vengeance LPX DIMM
Video Card(s) GTX 1050 2GB (for now) 3060 12GB on order
Storage Samsung 860 EVO 500GB, Lots of HDD storage
Display(s) 32 inch 4K LG, 55 & 48 inch LG OLED, 40 inch Panasonic LED LCD
Case Cooler Master Silencio S400
Audio Device(s) Sound: LG Monitor Built-in speakers (currently), Mike: Marantz MaZ
Power Supply Corsair CS550M 550W ATX Power Supply, 80+ Gold Certified, Semi-Modular Design
Mouse Logitech M280
Keyboard Logitech Wireless Solar Keyboard K750R (works best in summer)
VR HMD none
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM, Captur 1 21
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R20: 3508 (WIP)
Just saying there is an incontinuum in your idea. You are implying bigger blackholes have internal universes which generate timespace. Kind of contradict why regular matter in a blackhole stops compressing because it no longer has a time direction.
Already had this conversation with Andy Shiekh. Which Arrow of Time are you referencing? The external or internal to the black hole. Which type:

Arrows of Time list:
  • Thermodynamic
  • Cosmological
  • Radiative
  • Causal
  • Particle physics (weak)
  • Quantum
  • Psychological/perceptual
What I am saying is the energy stored in matter once past the event horizon initially is expressed as degenerate matter until the "increase of Schwarzschild radius allows the internal density of a black hole to allow the formation of timespace and elementary particles". Externally, additional matter is conserved by an increase in the Schwarzschild radius, further curvature of timespace, and consequential gravitational effects. I see no reason why symmetry does not apply or why the interior of a black hole should have different laws to those of our black hole universe. I will not be discussing wormholes today.

Tardian
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.50/day)
why the interior of a black hole should have different laws to those of our black hole universe.
Yes, this is what I'm asking, too. I still am not in touch with your 'our blackhole universe' idea. What makes us think there can be matter that demonstrate different laws to those of past matter in the said blackhole. You are applying a time vector if you are discussion the past and present are different in a blackhole when it enlarges.
PS: we both reiterated our posts once. Let us not do it again. I'm stupid and you're an ivory tower theoretician.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.47/day)
Please provide a source for the spontaneous creation in timespace of neutrinos and antineutrinos.
I am not getting into that line of discussion.
So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?
Put simply? Yes.

A Black Hole is not some mysterious object that defies explanation. An event horizon is not a mechanical construct that changes the laws of physics. A Black Hole is an object of extremely compressed normal matter and the event horizon of same is simply a boundary passed which nothing can escape. It is as simple as that. All of the crazy theories that are based on G&SR and simultaneously fail to explain what they attempt to describe are flawed and because they are flawed, they are incorrect and worthless.
Matter is merely an expression of energy.
Almost. If you apply G&SR, yes but then the Universe defies explanation.

I still am not in touch with your 'our blackhole universe' idea.
What don't you understand? Our Universe started out as an ultra massive Black Hole. Then something started a process that resulted in the Big Bang.

So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon
No. Time NEVER stops. It is a force that can never be halted, canceled or destroyed. It can only be slowed by the presence of mass, which generates gravity.

BTW, for the Universe to work properly, the idea that space is "curved" has to be discarded. Matter does not create a curve in space. Gravity is a force.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
20,788 (3.41/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Aorus Elite X670 AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory 64GB (4x 16GB) G.Skill Flare X5 @ DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) XFX RX 7900 XTX Speedster Merc 310
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply FSP Hydro Ti Pro 850W
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed Wireless
Keyboard WASD Code v3 with Cherry Green keyswitches + PBT DS keycaps
Software Gentoo Linux x64
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.50/day)
What don't you understand? Our Universe started out as an ultra massive Black Hole. Then something started a process that resulted in the Big Bang.
That, oh. I thought it was one of the projected inside a blackhole faith leaps.
PS: sorry.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
2,540 (0.50/day)
Time NEVER stops.
Kinda disagree. Time can be stopped for the internal observer which has been the point put forth previously. Of course time flies by when hydrogen interactions continue in the rest of space.

Oh, I see what you mean. Don't think that's what he meant.
I don't want to box a physicist into a finite construct.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.47/day)
Kinda disagree. Time can be stopped for the internal observer which has been the point put forth previously. Of course time flies by when hydrogen interactions continue in the rest of space.
Matter has no connection to the force of time except to slow it down when there are large amounts of mass. The perceptions of the observer have no effect on the actual function of time.

I don't want to box a physicist into a finite construct.
Nice! :roll:
 
Top