|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Religion - your beliefs?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 at 11:04:12 pm EDT (Viewed 667 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Religion - your beliefs?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 at 08:50:43 pm EDT (Viewed 610 times)
Quote:I didn't say they were the same, where did you get that from?
Quote:My claim was that it's unknown if singularities actually exist. I cited this as my supporting evidence.
Ah. Right. In your post above you only quoted the last sentence of that paragraph, which led me to believe you were equating the centre of black holes with the pre big bang universe. My bad.
Quote:"Gravitational singularities are mainly considered within general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the centre of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities."
Quote:And here's another one:
Quote:"Are these singularities real, or just vestiges of the gap between math and reality? Based on their experience with other systems, physicists suspect that the singularities in General Relativity are a warning, a tip-off that we need another theory to describe the physics in the extreme situations when gravity is very strong and its quantum effects are very large. Physicists still don’t know how to describe the quantum effects of gravity, but we hope that by doing so we will one day resolve the singularities."
Quote:"I suspect that what we call the singularity in black holes either doesn’t exist (there is some law/effect we don’t know about) or, if cosmic censorship is true, the nature of that singularity both doesn’t matter and can’t be known, since it can never interact with the rest of the universe. There are some theories (guesses) that would fix the whole “black hole singularity problem” (like spacetime can only get so stretched, or some form of “quantum fuzziness”), but in all likelihood this is just one of those questions that may never be completely resolved."
Yes, I fully understand all of the above. I know there's some debate on it. But - and this is important - no proof.
Until that proof is forthcoming, I don't see any reason to distrust general relativity, which has a very strong record on predicting spacetime events.
Quote:No, it doesn't. It's talking specifically about ring singularities, which ARE more complex events to form. And I don't agree with her assessment of it.
Quote:It does too.
Quote:"In a very specific mathematical case, the singularity in a spinning black hole becomes a ring, not a point. But that mathematical situation won’t exist in reality. Others say that the singularity is actually a whole surface inside the event horizon. We just don’t know. It could be that, in real black holes, singularities don’t even exist."
Yep, you're right. Sorry. Should have read the article again before replying.
Quote:And yet time and time again the articles I'm citing are clearly stating that it's unknown whether the math is just an abstract concept which doesn't occur in nature. I don't know what more I can possibly say to underscore that we don't know what's in a black hole other than the existence of your abstract math.
And again, you've shown me nothing to make me distrust the math that tells us that's what should be there. If at some point someone manages to sort out quantum gravity and prove that singularities don't exist, fair enough.
But even so, as I said earlier, what's the difference if the matter that falls into a black hole is crushed to a singularity, or nearly to a singularity?
Quote:Even www.askamathematician.com is guilty of sensationalism? Even so, these are people with pretty impressive pedigrees. I'm quite certain any sensationalism is rooted in truth.
Yes, it is. And they - and the journalists you cited - are quite right to point out the debate. But they don't point out that on the one side of the debate there's a solid, tried and experimentally tested model (general relativity), and on the other side there's some pretty big IF's: IF our current work on quantum gravity is right, and so on.
Quote:Do we know whether it leads to another universe or not?
Quote:Stephen Hawking: Black holes may offer a route to another universe
Quote:Source: Stephen Hawking, the god of black holes
On Stephen Hawking:
First, I just want you to know that I say this as someone who adored the man, and the immense contribution he made to science.
1) Hawking wasn't always right. He made bets on science with other physicists, some of which he lost. His work with another of my heroes, Roger Penrose, showed the existence of singularities, and that the universe had began as one. Was he right about both points? One? Or neither? He withdrew a paper in 1985 stating that under the 'no boundaries' condition, when the universe stops expanding and begins to collapse, time would run backwards. He had to withdraw because he was proven wrong by several other physicists. He bet that the Higgs boson would never be found. I could go on...
2) He was renowned for his sense of humour. He knew how to play the public, and he knew how to troll them too. I strongly suspect that a number of statements he made toward the end of his life were designed more for public reaction than because he actually believed them.
Wormholes are shortcuts between one part of spacetime and another. In normal space, I can see how they'd work. In a region of spece where the curvature of spacetime is infinite, I can't see how they possibly could! Or even if they did, your exit would be at the same point as your entrance. Which kind of defeats the object.
There's a remote possibility he's right, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for the proof.
Quote:So says Ann Druyan. Which I don't have reason to doubt. But she also said that "at this moment ... anyone would be forgiven for turning away the reality of our situation..." so that's a strange thing to say if she didn't believe it uncommon or unsurprising for atheists to have a deathbed conversion. Also, the thing about Carl is this: while he didn't have religion, his son Dorion criticized him for essentially substituting that need with his never ending efforts for extraterrestrial life and making contact.
I think Ann was right. Even I understand that there are atheists who have last-minute changes of heart, even if they're born of nothing but sheer panic and desperation. Not every atheist will remain solid until the end. But your assertion that ALL atheists break is simply untrue.
Hm. Yeah, I can see how Dorion might have had some issues with his father's work. Children of first marriages (Carl was married three times) don't typically get a lot of time with one parent or another, and if that parent is heavily involved with his work too...
Would he have been so critical if his father had been a dedicated, hard working priest, I wonder?
Of course he would. It's all about the loss of 'quality time', not the nature of the work.
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|