# Thread: My problems with infinity, the multi-verse & current scientific understanding.

1. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
but is it really "time reversal" or just a different pattern of movement?
The question is valid, and I will not claim that I have a final, authoritative answer to it. The way I understand the mathematics is that "past" and "future" trade places - when a particle falls through the event horizon into a black hole, then there is a singularity in its future, regardless of how it adjusts its spacial trajectory. When it emerges from the white hole, the singularity will always remain in its past, regardless of how it tries to move in space; it simply can never re-enter the white hole. So in that sense, it is an actual reversal.
Seems a lot like an open system to me, you can go in the black hole on one side but cannot enter the white hole on the other side. Can a packet of energy enter a black hole and come out the other side to expand internally?

2. Originally Posted by YangYin
Seems a lot like an open system to me, you can go in the black hole on one side but cannot enter the white hole on the other side. Can a packet of energy enter a black hole and come out the other side to expand internally?
To the best of my knowledge, Einstein-Rosen Bridges of this type are not traversable, so the answer would need to be no.

3. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
Seems a lot like an open system to me, you can go in the black hole on one side but cannot enter the white hole on the other side. Can a packet of energy enter a black hole and come out the other side to expand internally?
To the best of my knowledge, Einstein-Rosen Bridges of this type are not traversable, so the answer would need to be no.
If time stops at the event horizon of a black hole what does time do on the event horizon of a white hole?

5. Originally Posted by YangYin
If time stops at the event horizon of a black hole what does time do on the event horizon of a white hole?
Time does not stop on the event horizon; if you were to fall into a black hole, you would cross the horizon in a finite, well defined amount of proper time as measured by your own wrist watch.

6. Originally Posted by dan hunter
MODERATOR NOTE : I disabled this link because it pointed to a site which, upon loading, attempted to install a plug-in that contains malware. Be careful out there on the big bad Interwebz, people !!

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
If time stops at the event horizon of a black hole what does time do on the event horizon of a white hole?
Time does not stop on the event horizon; if you were to fall into a black hole, you would cross the horizon in a finite, well defined amount of proper time as measured by your own wrist watch.
What if you don't fall and stay at the event horizon does your personal clock slow down?

8. Originally Posted by YangYin
What if you don't fall and stay at the event horizon does your personal clock slow down?
Yes, it slows down as compared to a reference clock far away outside the black hole, but it does not stop.

9. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
What if you don't fall and stay at the event horizon does your personal clock slow down?
Yes, it slows down as compared to a reference clock far away outside the black hole, but it does not stop.
If light cannot escape from a black hole how slow does your personal clock slowdown on the event horizon of a black hole? On the event horizon with a slower personal clock is a different universe observed?

10. Originally Posted by Lestrange217
Please forgive me and my grammar as I am very new to any sort of forum discussions.

I think the issue with infinity is that in some ways (in my understanding) is that yes its a stand-in for "idk" but it also means that there are an infinite amount of possibilities in the universe. Seeing as how we are so tiny comparatively to what we have discovered is the universe, im not sure that we have the ability to perceive and understand certain things right now.

However, the way I have tried to think about its is that there is a possibility that the only way that infinity is able to exist is in a loop. If everything is infinitely small it can also be infinitely huge at the same time. As for the multi-verse maybe the things we do not know for sure about black holes, worm holes and such hold the key the answer to that question. More research dedicated to the singularity and the exploration beyond the event horizon is needed.
Rudy Rucker wrote a book about this. It is called Infinity and the Mind. Infinity and the Mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of you might find it an interesting read. He does present the idea of the ininite and the infinitesimal forming a kind of a loop and being in some way equivalent.
He also has quite a bit to say about the foundations of set theory and the creation of the real number system.
Rucker was a professor of computer sciences at San José State University for 18 years

Edit:
Another description of the book by Princeton Press.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5656.html

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by dan hunter
MODERATOR NOTE : I disabled this link because it pointed to a site which, upon loading, attempted to install a plug-in that contains malware. Be careful out there on the big bad Interwebz, people !!
Thank you. It looked harmless when I tried it, but they all carry risks. Sorry I missed whatever malware it was.
The link was an SWF showing a gravitational system over time as it expands to fill a universe.

12. Originally Posted by YangYin
If light cannot escape from a black hole how slow does your personal clock slowdown on the event horizon of a black hole? On the event horizon with a slower personal clock is a different universe observed?
This is tricky to answer, since you cannot meaningfully compare two clocks that are distant and at points of different gravitational potential. Instead, it is better to consider two bodies - one stationary very far away from the black hole, and another one in free fall, and describing one orbit which takes it very close to the event horizon and back out. Suppose both bodies start off at rest very close to each other, and, after the free-fall bodies has described one orbit around the black hole, meet again at rest close together. You can now compare the total recorded times ( as opposed to instantaneous time dilation ) on the clocks of these bodies, and you will find that they are different - for a typical solar-mass black hole and a typical elliptical orbit, you would find a difference on the order of perhaps 20-30% or so, but this can be much more or much less depending on initial conditions. See here for an explicit calculation : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.5611.pdf

13. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Thank you. It looked harmless when I tried it, but they all carry risks. Sorry I missed whatever malware it was.
The link was an SWF showing a gravitational system over time as it expands to fill a universe.
Flash files are notoriously dangerous; I am on a Mac with all the latest security software, and it picked up the Malware straight away when navigating to that link. If you had the page open on your PC, I would recommend you run a complete systems check, especially if you are on a Windows-based machine.

14. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by dan hunter
Thank you. It looked harmless when I tried it, but they all carry risks. Sorry I missed whatever malware it was.
The link was an SWF showing a gravitational system over time as it expands to fill a universe.
Flash files are notoriously dangerous; I am on a Mac with all the latest security software, and it picked up the Malware straight away when navigating to that link. If you had the page open on your PC, I would recommend you run a complete systems check, especially if you are on a Windows-based machine.
Linux based. But you are right, I should have ran clam on the flash before posting it.

15. Originally Posted by YangYin
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
What if you don't fall and stay at the event horizon does your personal clock slow down?
Yes, it slows down as compared to a reference clock far away outside the black hole, but it does not stop.
If light cannot escape from a black hole how slow does your personal clock slowdown on the event horizon of a black hole? On the event horizon with a slower personal clock is a different universe observed?
This is of course, a hypothetical since if you are at the event horizon you are already dead. and your clock is likely destroyed beyond repair or reconnection.

however, just taking light & time dilation into the equation, It will vary. Assuming you never actually crossed over & simply remained at the very edge(magical barrier) it could be up to 50%

16. Also, from your perspective, if you are the one holding the clock at the event horizon. Time will be passing normally for you and it will appear as if the entire universe is speeding up (or atleast any actions you can see)

17. Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
if you are at the event horizon you are already dead. and your clock is likely destroyed beyond repair or reconnection.
Not necessarily. If the mass of the black hole is very large, then tidal forces at the event horizon are small.

18. Eh. I agree with a supermassive black hole you wont likely die due to spaghettification, however the immense gravity well would still crush you like a bug.

Although you could die from extreme G as you are being sling shot around the event horizon, assuming you take an orbital path instead of a crash course.

There is also a strong possibility of an accretion disk accompanying your blackhole and flying through super heated gas is never wise.

Plus there are x-rays & other radiation to worry about. Even hawking radiation, even though it is considered to be a weak radiation, the effects upon the human body are unknown.

Just saying, piloting towards any blackhole, is probably not a good idea

19. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
if you are at the event horizon you are already dead. and your clock is likely destroyed beyond repair or reconnection.
Not necessarily. If the mass of the black hole is very large, then tidal forces at the event horizon are small.
Is density is the predominate factor of a black hole?

20. Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
the immense gravity well would still crush you like a bug
Not if you are in free fall.

Just saying, piloting towards any blackhole, is probably not a good idea
I agree, it wouldn't be a smart idea. The most likely cause of your demise, as you have correctly pointed out, would be either the accretion disk itself, of the radiation eminating from it. In either case, you would be toast - literally.

21. Originally Posted by YangYin
Is density is the predominate factor of a black hole?
No, not really. A black hole is uniquely determined by three quantities - total mass, angular momentum, and net electric charge.

22. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
Is density is the predominate factor of a black hole?
No, not really. A black hole is uniquely determined by three quantities - total mass, angular momentum, and net electric charge.
What does the net electric charge have to be?

23. Originally Posted by YangYin
What does the net electric charge have to be?
For physically real black holes we would expect the net charge to be zero; it is just one of the three parameters that determine the geometry of a BH.

24. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
What does the net electric charge have to be?
For physically real black holes we would expect the net charge to be zero; it is just one of the three parameters that determine the geometry of a BH.
Is it true the mass of matter in most galaxies is equal to the mass of its black hole?

25. Originally Posted by YangYin
Is it true the mass of matter in most galaxies is equal to the mass of its black hole?
No, the black hole is a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy.

26. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
the immense gravity well would still crush you like a bug
Not if you are in free fall.

Just saying, piloting towards any blackhole, is probably not a good idea
I agree, it wouldn't be a smart idea. The most likely cause of your demise, as you have correctly pointed out, would be either the accretion disk itself, of the radiation eminating from it. In either case, you would be toast - literally.
Of course, if the blackhole has already consumed all local matter & no longer had an accretion disk, that wouldn't madder. Not sure if there would still be radiation if the BH was inactive.

Also, im fairly sure even in a free fall the gravity would crush you like it does anything else. I mean, just our sun for example. If you just factor in the gravity it would have enough gravity to start nuclear fusion within your own body at the core.

Maybe im missing something though.

27. Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
Not sure if there would still be radiation if the BH was inactive.
There would still be Hawking radiation, but unless the BH is very small the associated energy flux would probably be negligible.

Also, im fairly sure even in a free fall the gravity would crush you like it does anything else.
Assuming that the freely falling body is small ( such as a rocket ), it would not feel any forces at all; an accelerometer placed inside the free-fall frame will read exactly zero. It is only when the free-fall frame is large and the black hole is small that tidal forces become important - and it is those tidal forces that do the "crushing" ( perpendicular to radial direction ) and "stretching" ( along radial direction ). For small black holes these tidal forces become potentially large enough to cause real damage even far outside the event horizon.

Maybe im missing something though.
It's basically a matter of size. So long as the free-fall frame is small enough so that we can consider it "inertial", nothing will happen to it.

28. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by YangYin
Is it true the mass of matter in most galaxies is equal to the mass of its black hole?
No, the black hole is a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy.
Is the mass of the galaxy holding the galaxy together or the tiny fraction of mass in the black hole?

29. Originally Posted by YangYin
Is the mass of the galaxy holding the galaxy together or the tiny fraction of mass in the black hole?
It is the total mass of the galaxy, which is made up of dark matter, stars, gas, dust, planets, black hole(s), etc.

I think the central supermassive black hole typically makes up about 0.2% of the central bulge. The central bulge only makes up a small proportion of the overall galaxy (1/10th maybe?)

30. [QUOTE=Strange;523932]
Originally Posted by YangYin
Is the mass of the galaxy holding the galaxy together or the tiny fraction of mass in the black hole?
It is the total mass of the galaxy, which is made up of dark matter, stars, gas, dust, planets, black hole(s), etc.

I think the central supermassive black hole typically makes up about 0.2% of the central bulge. The central bulge only makes up a small proportion of the overall galaxy (1/10th maybe?)[/QUOTE]This must be the same for our solar system in that the total mass holds our solar system together the difference being our sun contains most of the mass. Would a white hole have more mass than its surroundings or less?

31. Originally Posted by YangYin
This must be the same for our solar system in that the total mass holds our solar system together the difference being our sun contains most of the mass.
The difference is that the Sun is about 99.9% of the mass of the solar system, so all the mass is concentrated in the centre. However, in the galaxy, the mass is distributed more evenly.

Would a white hole have more mass than its surroundings or less?
As there is no evidence for such a thing ... who knows.

32. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by YangYin
This must be the same for our solar system in that the total mass holds our solar system together the difference being our sun contains most of the mass.
The difference is that the Sun is about 99.9% of the mass of the solar system, so all the mass is concentrated in the centre. However, in the galaxy, the mass is distributed more evenly.

Would a white hole have more mass than its surroundings or less?
As there is no evidence for such a thing ... who knows.
Does that mean in order for our sun to supernova and become a black hole it wouldneed to expel 99.7 of its mass to mimic the black hole in our galaxy or does the mass ejected become surrounding bodies of mass?

33. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
I learned that until you opened the box it was both. and if you never opened the box the cat would always exist in both realms.
Then you learned wrong.
That's not what Schrödinger said.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.
In fact he used the word "absurd" to describe the idea that it was both at the same time.
I want to chime in on this. Schrodinger proposed his cat in a box as an attempt to refute Quantum Mechanics by pointing out that this absurd situation would be an inevitable consequence if QM were a correct hypothesis.

QM survived, and is now one of the more strongly confirmed hypothesis out there. However, Schrodinger's logic has never been refuted.

Thus leading us to the inevitable conclusion that the absurd situation he proposed is in fact a reality.

34. [QUOTE=YangYin;523996]
Originally Posted by Strange
Does that mean in order for our sun to supernova and become a black hole it wouldneed to expel 99.7 of its mass to mimic the black hole in our galaxy or does the mass ejected become surrounding bodies of mass?
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. The galaxy wasn't created by the formation of a black hole. I don't know very much about the details of how supernova create black holes, but I think something like 80% of the mass of the star is blown away.

35. Originally Posted by kojax
Thus leading us to the inevitable conclusion that the absurd situation he proposed is in fact a reality.
Not at the scale of a cat it's not.

36. [QUOTE=Strange;524000]
Originally Posted by YangYin
Originally Posted by Strange
Does that mean in order for our sun to supernova and become a black hole it wouldneed to expel 99.7 of its mass to mimic the black hole in our galaxy or does the mass ejected become surrounding bodies of mass?
I'm not sure where you get that idea from. The galaxy wasn't created by the formation of a black hole. I don't know very much about the details of how supernova create black holes, but I think something like 80% of the mass of the star is blown away.
How is a galaxy created if the end result is a black hole in its center?

37. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by kojax
Thus leading us to the inevitable conclusion that the absurd situation he proposed is in fact a reality.
Not at the scale of a cat it's not.
That's because the box is impossible to create under laboratory conditions.

If we're talking about black holes, on the other hand, we might actually be able to achieve the necessary conditions.

38. Originally Posted by kojax
That's because the box is impossible to create under laboratory conditions.
Yeah.
You have no idea of the difficulties in producing a cat-sized box with a detector and a phial of poison: waaaay too technological for current labs.

39. Originally Posted by YangYin
How is a galaxy created if the end result is a black hole in its center?
There is a lot that isn't understood, but it is basically the collapse of a cloud of gas and dust until bits become dense enough to form stars.

As for the supermassive black hole, there is a lot that isn't understood about those as well! They are thought to be formed from early very large stars and then perhaps by the merging of black hole and the accretion of matter.

It isn't known if all galaxies have supermassive black holes at the centre.

40. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by YangYin
How is a galaxy created if the end result is a black hole in its center?
There is a lot that isn't understood, but it is basically the collapse of a cloud of gas and dust until bits become dense enough to form stars.

As for the supermassive black hole, there is a lot that isn't understood about those as well! They are thought to be formed from early very large stars and then perhaps by the merging of black hole and the accretion of matter.

It isn't known if all galaxies have supermassive black holes at the centre.
My problem is how small the mass of a black hole is compared to the mass of the galaxy and its location typically in the center. If a black hole formed on the outer edge of a galaxy would the galaxy then form around it? I can see the formation of suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets by the accumulation of gas and debris but not a black hole.

41. Originally Posted by YangYin
My problem is how small the mass of a black hole is compared to the mass of the galaxy and its location typically in the center.
The supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies are, well, supermassive. They have masses of millions or billions of stars. They are, presumably, mainly near the center of galaxies as that is the densest area where most stars form and so most material is available to feed into these really big black holes. But I don;t really know.

If a black hole formed on the outer edge of a galaxy would the galaxy then form around it?
It is not clear that galaxies form around black holes. The black holes are probably formed from stars in the galaxy. So the galaxy may have come first. On the other hand, the black hole might have "seeded" the creation of the galaxy. I don't know.

I can see the formation of suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets by the accumulation of gas and debris but not a black hole.
A black hole can't form that way (as far as I know). But it can grow by accumulating gas, debris, stars, planets, other black holes, etc.

42. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by YangYin
My problem is how small the mass of a black hole is compared to the mass of the galaxy and its location typically in the center.
The supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies are, well, supermassive. They have masses of millions or billions of stars. They are, presumably, mainly near the center of galaxies as that is the densest area where most stars form and so most material is available to feed into these really big black holes. But I don;t really know.

If a black hole formed on the outer edge of a galaxy would the galaxy then form around it?
It is not clear that galaxies form around black holes. The black holes are probably formed from stars in the galaxy. So the galaxy may have come first. On the other hand, the black hole might have "seeded" the creation of the galaxy. I don't know.

I can see the formation of suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets by the accumulation of gas and debris but not a black hole.
A black hole can't form that way (as far as I know). But it can grow by accumulating gas, debris, stars, planets, other black holes, etc.
Could the measurement of black holes be impaired and some of the percentage of dark matter resides in the black holes? Time slows down at the event horizon maybe events do too.

43. Originally Posted by YangYin
Could the measurement of black holes be impaired and some of the percentage of dark matter resides in the black holes?
It could be, but it is hardly going to be significant (as an explanation for dark matter). Black holes form a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy, while dark matter is over 80% of the mass.

Time slows down at the event horizon maybe events do too.
Not sure what you mean by events. But as events are things that happen in time then they will be equally slowed.

44. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
My over all point is that perhaps everything is infinite not having a starting or ending point.
I see two problems with this :

1. The existence of event horizons - once geodesics cross horizons, they effectively terminate there as the region beyond the horizon is not causally connected to the rest of the universe. So not everything is infinite.
2. Infinity does not imply that there is no starting or ending point. We can have a universe that starts with a Big Bang, and then expands forever
Is it expanding into infinity/ Then infinity would be the end point. I see infinity in all points, is that wrong thinking?

45. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by YangYin
Could the measurement of black holes be impaired and some of the percentage of dark matter resides in the black holes?
It could be, but it is hardly going to be significant (as an explanation for dark matter). Black holes form a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy, while dark matter is over 80% of the mass.

Time slows down at the event horizon maybe events do too.
Not sure what you mean by events. But as events are things that happen in time then they will be equally slowed.
How is the mass of a black hole measured?

46. Is it possible the mass of a galaxy created a blackhole itself? That much gravity, pushing upon the central core would form a supermassive blackhole?

Much how a star would form inside a nebula, matter condensing at one central point until fusion is born.

47. Originally Posted by GoldenRatio
Is it possible the mass of a galaxy created a blackhole itself? That much gravity, pushing upon the central core would form a supermassive blackhole?

Much how a star would form inside a nebula, matter condensing at one central point until fusion is born.
I just wanted to point out that the measurement of black holes mass could be flawed. My first guess on how black holes first formed would be super accelerated magnetic fields like sun spots in a huge mass of electrons.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement