Question about String Theory

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. As layman I do have a question.

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR13/Event/192920

Does that mean, in the reference system the energy becomes (is) a latent potential or is it restricted from activity or am I missing important information?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You aren't missing any important information from Winterberg. It's just a simple thing. Think of a 511keV photon. It's going at c. It isn't at rest. But trap it in a black hole, and it increases the mass of the black hole by 511keV/c². And that black hole is sitting there in front of you, so the energy isn't going at c any more. It's now "at rest".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aah yes, I understand now. The BH is the reference system. Thank you for reducing this to layman's terms.

 

But what you have and haven't read could be predicted with an omniscient understanding of physics, could it not? Objection overruled!!!

 

What would really cook your noodle is that General Relativity implies that the mass of the singularity of the center of the black hole would be infinite. Then you could have a velocity relative to a black hole, so then you would have something with infinite mass saying that it is traveling at a velocity! Then it would be impossible for the black hole to be at rest relative to everything else in the universe! Then no matter how massive something is it could still travel at a velocity! Then say something went the speed of light. Its mass would become infinite, and it would be like the singularity of the center of a black hole. Then it could accelerate colliding with another black hole.

 

It does no such thing, that's absurd. We can detect black holes flying around the universe being pulled and accelerated all the time, that would be impossible if they had infinite mass.

 

So then you deny that The General Theory of Relativity is the final complete theory of gravity or is true simply because it predicts infinite mass at the center of a black hole?

 

r=0 isn't in the GR domain of applicability. No predictions for natural phenomena at r=0. Layman should know it's the domain of quantum gravity.

 

Infinite density

 

It's final and complete for the GR domain of applicability. It's a tool to describe natural phenomena in it's domain of applicability. It doesn't make any predictions associated with quantum physics. It doesn't predict anything for the center of the black hole. You shouldn't have anything to say about whether GR is a complete theory or not since you don't know jack about it.

 

I wasn't saying that GR was correct or not, I was asking CptBork if "he" thought it meant it was not a valid theory because of it. Noodle officially cooked...

P.S. That is still the worst book ever about General Relativity. If all you know about it is in that book than you know nothing about it to be saying anything about it either. You could practically go in the science section of a library, close your eyes, spin around 3 times, and point then you will find a book that says that General Relativity predicts the mass of a singularity to be infinite, it is the definition of a singularity.

 

Not really.
A physical singularity is not actually infinite....but it "MAY" lead to infinite quantities such as space/time curvature and density. In any case the actual mass is finite in fact.

 

PS get a clue. The metric is valid to the limit r->0. It makes no predictions about natural phenomena for r=0. PS what books on GR have you read. None. It's obvious. Pathetically obvious.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

GR predicts that all paths [geodesics] end at r=0. It doesn't predict the black hole mass is 'infinite' at r=0.

 

I quite clearly stated that GR says and implies no such thing (infinite mass singularity). This is just another case where you're opening your yap about something well beyond your expertise, and then arguing with people who've done more than watch TV documentaries about it when they correct you.

 

My pleasure. There is something else I could mention. Have a look at the formation and growth of black holes by Kevin Brown, and you can see this:

You could say that this leads to the concept of "frozen" energy wherein it is "restricted from activity". Kevin Brown doesn't favour this interpretation, but I think it's right myself. Interestingly, this article used to refer to Wheeler and Weinberg for the two interpretations, not Einstein and QFT. Kevin Brown changed it after I asked Weinberg about his involvement. I don't know why Kevin Brown then put Einstein's name in there, because Einstein would never have concurred with the point singularity. That's a definite Wheelerism. I should tackle Kevin Brown about that I suppose. Mañana.

 

The point Singularity you speak of comes about due to the mathematical limitations of GR at the quantum/Planck level.
The physical aspect of the Singularity is not infinite in any sense, but "MAY" lead to infinite quantities.
In all likelyhood though, a valid QGT will push back or even eliminate the mathematical limitations and need of the Singularity.

The frozen star [Newtonian application] or Dark star first theorised by John Michell, but has long since been overthrown by the enormous successes of GR, despite your own archaic interpretation.

 

The frozen star interpretation is one of two GR interpretations. Read Kevin Brown's article.

 

You have no ammunition and everybody knows it. Attack. LOL.

 

The dark star was a Newtonian application.....
Whether Newtonian or GR, it is not the general mainstream model.
Who is Kevin Brown?

You seem pretty adapt at name dropping, but you have a great knack for misinterpreting and taking out of context.
Einstein in particular.