Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained

Does Giddings ever get around to explaining the 'strong force' as anything other then a mysterious 'force' that counteracts the known repulsion parameters of like sign electrostatic charge? Now they find 'pentaquarks' so the quants probably need to invent another spin characteristic (I imagine they're pretty much all out of Charm) and to prevent any chance of a causality from showing its ugly face, it should be sufficiently ambiguous - how about "empathy"? like between an Up quark and a Down quark? they already had three quarks and now five so they'd need another additive plus=minus arbitrary value. Problem solved. jrc

Addendum;

If a Down quark has more empathy for an Up quark, like Browns fans have empathy for Jimmy Haslam where Haslam has NONE for working folk, that empathy has to be conserved in the cumulative spin that quants put on a particle. What ever they need it to be...a whole value or a half value. That's how the subatomic realm is governed by spin.

hhiihhihi :) n1sini=n2sinr

Tom,

at least you're doing better than me. I haven't even gotten a nibble and I've got my light-weight tackle of symmetrical spin axial of precession all rigged with a selection of Mr. Wiggly baits, fan casting the orthogonal intersection of three complex planes... and nothin' from the school of Sheephead bottom feeding on QM's prediction of pentaquarks without a rationale of what actually adding the spin characteristics of two additional quarks onto which planes will cause the precession to do. It will get wobbly again. o,o,o,o,@S^0 jrc

Desperate Einsteinians (like Steve Giddings):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It's+likely+that+times+are+changing%3A+a+century+ago,+mathematician...-a0185331159

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/happy-birthday-einstein-1_b_8219432.html

Sten Odenwald: "It all comes down to one thing: If we don't know what spacetime really is as a physical agency, how can we possibly understand gravity or try to manipulate it artificially to, among other things, create 'warp drive'? Now THAT is a mind-numbing question. When general relativity turns 200, we may well find its answer....or not!"

Pentcho Valev

Valev,

If you quote an excerpt from Giddings then give an http it should be for the article you quote from, not some other which doesn't mention Giddings. In science that is violation of rules of citation, and grounds for disbarment. Cut & Paste is childsplay not science.

there it is...in another thread, not the fqxi or newscientist hypertext transport protocols P.V. lists in this one. Hence the rules of proper citation protocols. But calling Giddings a 'desperate Einsteinian' is not how Giddings presents himself. Rather he presents a knowledge of both disciplines with respect for both. jrc

Steve Giddings does present himself as desperate here:

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857

Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

And John Cox, please give moral lessons to somebody else, not to me.

Pentcho Valev

That's your desperation, Gidding's creative curiousity.

Happy new year Steve Dufourny.

@ Tom, you will make a good politician. "The times are relative", relative to what?

Let me repeat the question: (As seen by an observer/ experimenter), Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion (say 100m/s) does the special theory require to work more slowly?

@ Pentcho, before you accuse me falsely concerning, "there is no such thing as a false postulate", what is the meaning of 'postulate'? Postulate is a mere statement not requiring contradiction directly. Its contradiction or falsity can only be indirect by finding that its predictions are untrue. In that sense, constant speed of light is a postulate, it is its predictions that can be used to attack it not the statement itself which remains what it is, an assumption.

Anyway, I don't want to get embroiled in how words are used.

Regards,

Akinbo

The speed of light

Akinbo,

While Pentcho struggles to explain the theory of optics without a speed of light constant, let me revive a post of mine from 2013, in this thread:

I find interesting:

"One proposal being studied describes black holes and their environments as a network of Hilbert spaces (a Hilbert space for any quantum mechanical system defines all possible states that the system can be in). In the conventional picture of a black hole, locality prevents the Hilbert space of the interior of the black hole from influencing the Hilbert space of the exterior of the black hole."

For good reason. The quantum configuration space according to Bell's result cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. Therefore, quantum configuration space in the Hilbert space behind the event horizon is assumed simply connected and local, while the Hilbert space outside the event horizon has to be assumed multiply connected and nonlocal. If it seems paradoxical that simply connected space adjoining multiply connected space is not itself multiply connected -- that's because it *is* a paradox. Either the interior quantum configuration space maps nonlocally to the exterior space -- or the exterior space outside the event horizon is simply connected, not multiply conected, and all the space inside and outside the black hole horizon is simply connected.

Giddings chooses nonlocality to resolve the paradox. Does he have to? If one accepts the Hilbert space model of quantum configuration space, there is no way out; the choice is singular and correct.

In the continuous functions of quantum field theory, though, locality is everywhere. The Hilbert space doesn't work to preserve locality except as Giddings has described it: constrained by the boundary of a black hole event horizon. Giddings thinks he has found a way out. The article continues:

"In Giddings' model, however, the Hilbert spaces can exchange information. This allows a black hole to slowly evaporate, but not before it has dumped the information contained within into the environment."

Problem is, this does not resolve the paradox -- "the environment," the space outside the event horizon, is nonlocal. So the mathematical model is accurate; the quantum configuration space of the black hole interior maps onto physical space with a nonlocal model, consistent with Bell's result. There's a catch:

A physical observer sufficiently far from the event horizon has no concept of "fast" or "slow" information leakage. All she sees is on the 2-dimension surface of the event horizon, and those events are suspended in time, not dynamic, with no exchange of information between events inside and outside the horizon.

The article continues:

"The idea is that local quantum field theory can be derived as an approximation of this more fundamental underlying structure, in the same way that non-relativistic Newtonian physics can be derived from relativistic Einsteinian physics."

Except that quantum field theory is everywhere local, not bounded by anything except the speed of light, and nothing physical. It's also inaccurate that non-relativistic Newtonian physics derives from Einstein relativity -- Einstein's relativity is an extension of Newton's physics as Newton is an extension of Galilean relativity. There's no discontinuity, no gap where relativity doesn't apply.

Giddings seems aware of the conundrum, and is willing to eject spacetime from the physics canon: "Spacetime is doomed." If it is, Giddings' model doesn't do the job. The paradox created by the discontinuous dumping of information from the assumed local, simply connected quantum-configured black hole into the classical simply connected space outside the horizon, tells us at least three things:

1. There is no boundary between the quantum configuration space of the black hole, and "the environment." (All the space is simply connected.)

2. If the quantum configuration space cannot map onto the physical space without a nonlocal model, as Bell's result avers, the quantum configuration space behind the black hole event horizon is not local and not simply connected.

3. Nonlocality -- not spacetime -- is doomed.

Spacetime and quantum field theory nicely coexist with a continuum of Euclidean space, generalized to n-dimension topology. We simply don't need assumptions of Hilbert spaces and nonlocality.

Petr Horava's creative curiosity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

"As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move."??

Isn't such backdrop merely Newton's old scenario of God? My experience tells me that Leibniz was perhaps correct when he argued that it did restrict God too much.

In Shannon's, Popper's and my own words, the past is unchangeable while the future is open; nothing may move backward in time. Incidentally, Newton's big clock did not at all measure time but elapsed time.

This doesn't imply that space-time will not "be the loser". This idea of Poincaré in 1904 was perhaps silly enough as to worry and psycho-somatically kill Hermann Minkowski in 1908 because he wasn't aware that his lazy dog might be wrong.

++++

Tom,

I have read your post. Most of the concepts are preferred by the mathematically inclined like yourself. Concepts like nonlocality, spacetime, etc. The only statement that made most sense to me was where you said there can be no exchange of information between events inside and outside the horizon. This I agree with because based on the classical model, nothing can escape from a black hole. To me the Hawking process (whereby two particles are formed and one falls into the hole, while the other escapes) leading to black hole evaporation is flawed.

Concerning your answers to the questions I asked -

A: Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion does the special theory require to work more slowly? Do you have an answer to this?

T: The times are relative

A: "The times are relative", relative to what?

T: The speed of light

The impression this gives is that times of the two clocks are relative to the speed of light. That is, whether a clock works more slowly or faster than another is relative to the speed of light. That means, the speed of light affects the rate of clocks in different ways and is not the same to every clock. I thought the speed of light was absolute and the same to all observers according to SR?

In any case, your answer that the times are relative to the speed of light avoids telling us which of the two clocks runs more slowly.

Akinbo

Akinbo, this is so painful to explain to people like you and Pentcho who are convinced that something is amiss -- but where?

"In any case, your answer that the times are relative to the speed of light avoids telling us which of the two clocks runs more slowly."

All motion is relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is absolute. No observer frame is privileged.

Given these three facts, it should be obvious that each observer perceives the other's clock running slowly, so demonstrating that there no absolute time.

I'll issue you the same challenge as Pentcho. Try explaining refraction without a constant finite speed of light -- then extrapolate that result from Newtonian physics to relativity at the speed of light limit.

If a clock is a rest relative to an observer, it is the moving clock which runs more slowly (time dilation). Because all motion is relative, however, an observer in a moving frame of reference is entitled to say that the at-rest observer's clock runs more slowly.

Tom,

I should be focusing on personal responsibilities right now, but am also seeing better what you are wrapping up in the topological package of spherical v. cubical space. It may help Akinbo to recognize what Hamilton apparently had, That 4 equal axes do not have to intersect for three to be mutually perpendicular inside a cube and that as time and space both exist on each of the 4 then motion is that fourth axial choice of direction. Inside R3, all 4 must intersect, and wherein "Ding-Dong the which is dead." jrc

Akinbo,

In Topology the length of an axis goes from 0 to 1, in R3 and R4 the axis of the same lengths intersect making an origin of 0 and going out to o.5 or -.

In a topological sphere the 4 intersect at a mutual scalar value of o.5 and it is only initial choice of direction of which ends are 0. In R3, if the 4th axis is motion, then time exists outside the sphere and you will keep seeking which clock should move slower. In R4, the fourth axis is going to have the same dilemma seeking which direction is motion. In topological space, the 4 axes can define both a cube and a sphere because they can, but don't have to, intersect; where in R3 and R4 they must intersect and limited to light velocity only 3 orthogonal axis can and must intersect with the midpoints of the sides. Topologically; the initial choice of orthogonal direction is analogous to choice of 'right hand rule' of electromagnetic induction or its negative polar vector of 'left hand rule' which the Bell theorem mistakes for a simple polar vector. I really gotta stop dwelling on this but have reached a pleasing step on my learning curve, yet have to concentrate on necessities. Try looking at your world like the spacetime you experience IS 'mostly' flat, but dwell in that topological cube of non-intersecting axes. Your motion doesn't have to intersection with any absolutely defined mutually perpendicular axis. HNY - jrc

Hi Akinbo,

I hope this will be helpful. The observer observers the other's clock either by receipt of light, and so it is seen, or by receipt of a time signal send from the clock whether sent by radio or other kind of EM wave. It will travel to the recipient at the speed of light. It is a category error to assume the output of the signal IS the other's material clock.( It is unconventional to say so but it is self evident to me from considering this matter from the perspective of sensory perception.) Both observers are generating an 'idea' of the other's clock from the received signal and their 'ideas' will have reciprocal delay if they are stationary relative to each other or travelling so that they are not accelerating. Absolute time does not pertain to what is seen. You told me yourself that Newton was well aware of that fact.