1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    31 May '13 22:11
    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html

    With this new theory they show at the 'center' of black holes, information is not lost and it does not compress to infinity but starts another universe.
  2. Standard memberlemon lime
    ook ook ahchoo
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    01 Jun '13 06:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html

    With this new theory they show at the 'center' of black holes, information is not lost and it does not compress to infinity but starts another universe.
    Would it be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little universe? My understanding of black holes is that information isn't actually 'lost'. It just gets swallowed up and thoroughly ground up, so that even if it could be 'seen' it would be completely unrecognizable.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Jun '13 21:53
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Would it be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little universe? My understanding of black holes is that information isn't actually 'lost'. It just gets swallowed up and thoroughly ground up, so that even if it could be 'seen' it would be completely unrecognizable.
    That would depend on the dimensionality of the new universe. There is some deep connection with the very small and the very large and it might be that the inside of a black hole, if we could view it, could be filled with stars and planets and life but still be the size of a proton in our universe.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    09 Jun '13 23:43
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html

    With this new theory they show at the 'center' of black holes, information is not lost and it does not compress to infinity but starts another universe.
    How is this science? I think it belongs under the science-fiction category.

    The instructor
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    09 Jun '13 23:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That would depend on the dimensionality of the new universe. There is some deep connection with the very small and the very large and it might be that the inside of a black hole, if we could view it, could be filled with stars and planets and life but still be the size of a proton in our universe.
    You say, "it might be" ..... Science fiction?

    The Instructor
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    10 Jun '13 01:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You say, [b]"it might be" ..... Science fiction?

    The Instructor[/b]
    To you, computers are science fiction. Should never have been invented, using that evil science. Put the genie back in the bottle, we don't need no stinking science.
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78628
    11 Jun '13 11:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    To you, computers are science fiction. Should never have been invented, using that evil science. Put the genie back in the bottle, we don't need no stinking science.
    RJ's got a point on this one, theories of quantum gravity are speculative, essentially because there is no feasible way of doing an experiment. As far as I know no-one's ever directly detected a gravitational wave. Observation of the orbital decay of binary neutron stars provide the only evidence they exist. So the only reason to even think trying to quantize gravity is the right thing to do is quantum theory's success in describing the other forces. Although given the behaviour of 2-D gravity (where baby universes proliferate), and as one would expect the singularity from the classical theory to be smeared out at the plank scale their result's more than reasonable.

    One question springs to mind - if every black hole is the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    11 Jun '13 11:571 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    RJ's got a point on this one, theories of quantum gravity are speculative, essentially because there is no feasible way of doing an experiment. As far as I know no-one's ever directly detected a gravitational wave. Observation of the orbital decay of binary neutron stars provide the only evidence they exist. So the only reason to even think trying to s the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
    Or for that matter, when a baby black hole evaporates. They are getting closer to the sensitivity needed to detect gravity waves, maybe in 5 years they will make their first detect. Then it's a new ball game.

    RJ: The thing about scientific speculation, even if it is wrong, it makes other people think and sometimes side issues turns into real usable physics. So any work like this, even if it is a dead end can lead to new discoveries.
  9. Standard memberlemon lime
    ook ook ahchoo
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    14 Jun '13 02:18
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    One question springs to mind - if every black hole is the gateway to a baby universe, what happens to the baby universes when black holes merge?
    It could mean those two gateways might become one gateway into two baby universes. Or it could mean both gateways become closed. Two doors leading into one room makes sense, but one door leading into two rooms? Maybe those baby universes merge as well.

    When baby universes grow up and have little black holes of their own, they can become parents of the next generation of little baby universes.
  10. Standard memberlemon lime
    ook ook ahchoo
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    14 Jun '13 02:32
    Maybe the gateway only exists long enough to birth a baby universe. After that it's no longer a gateway... for birthing.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    15 Jun '13 02:09
    More on Quantum physics

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Jun '13 13:524 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    More on Quantum physics

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI

    The Instructor
    I think he misread the title to Mcluhan's book "the medium is the message'. He Gerold says the medium is the massage.🙂

    The basic gist of his argument is the idea our universe is extremely fine tuned to allow life. This is a fact. The only thing he want to show is that makes our universe something special, only could have been made by some intelligence, deliberate so we could exist.

    The answer to that is the idea there are many universes. The many universe idea says our universe came about because of luck basically. Other universes may exist where the speed of light is one mile an hour. So some universes, our kind of matter, the whole ball of wax of our universe, including dark matter, dark energy, the expansion speed up 5 billion years ago, that whole deal, is just luck because in the multiverse theory (readily admitted to be theory). He mentions the mulitverse idea but doesn't believe it.

    BTW, he talks about time spans of millions of years so he does not believe the universe is 10,000 years old. You picked the wrong horse in your insane desire to destroy evolution.

    He understands full well how matter came into being and it does not include being made in 10,000 years. He is a scientist, no doubt, and you have to respect that. Scientists still have agenda's and his is to reconcile religion with science. He talks about Scientific American as THE most respected science journal in the world but that is not so. It might be the most respected POPULIZER of science but they are basically reporters of science and I love that rag but the new stuff is in rags like Nature and others, the magazines where each article is peer reviewed for some accepted view of some science. Scientific American is in the business of selling magazines, unlike Nature which charges an arm and a leg where the subscribers pay the bills. Advertisers pay the bills for Scientific American.

    His timeline of the Cambrian explosion is not quite accurate. The Cambrian explosion came about because of the biggest extinction in the history of Earth. When old life forms die off and only 10% lives, it opens up the possibility of new life evolving to fill that former niche of older life and there WAS multicellular life forms before the Cambrian explosion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

    His final statement just shows he believes a god made the universe and therefore other universes cannot exist, that god made THIS universe and this universe only.

    That of course is another case that cannot be falsified and is therefore not science but religious based believe. The guy is smart no doubt about that but even smart people get deceived all the time. He is no different on that score. The fact he wears a kippah shows his religious conviction in spite of his real world scientific credentials. He has cognitive dissonance big time.

    His only real statement about religion is to say god deliberately made our universe and time started 14 billion years ago just like we have shown and he has no problem with that, just the origin of the universe was made by a god.

    That by definition, is religion, not science. He explains the science behind the universe rather well, except the part where he thinks only single cell life forms existed before the Cambrian explosion. He may well have made that video before newer data came out about multicellular life before the Cambrian.

    You still picked the wrong horse, he KNOWS the universe is 14 odd billion years old not 14 thousand years old. A mere difference of a million to one.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    17 Jun '13 06:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think he misread the title to Mcluhan's book "the medium is the message'. He Gerold says the medium is the massage.🙂

    The basic gist of his argument is the idea our universe is extremely fine tuned to allow life. This is a fact. The only thing he want to show is that makes our universe something special, only could have been made by some intelligence, ...[text shortened]... 14 odd billion years old not 14 thousand years old. A mere difference of a million to one.
    He just happens be wrong on the age of the universe. But that is a side issue that I have addressed before.

    The Instructor
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    17 Jun '13 10:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    He just happens be wrong on the age of the universe. But that is a side issue that I have addressed before.

    The Instructor
    50 million scientists wrong and one religious dude right. Sure.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    17 Jun '13 14:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    50 million scientists wrong and one religious dude right. Sure.
    Only the evilution scientist and the ones that take their word for the truth are wrong for sure. So some of the scientists may be right, like those that believe in creationism.

    The Instructor
Back to Top