A black hole is a much abused (as usual, by the media) solution of the Einstein field equation, under very simplified conditions (zero electrical charge and angular momentum).
The Schwarzschild solution presupposes also a zero cosmological constant.
This solution appears to have singularities at R=0 and R=Rs (the Schwartzschild radius).
No, at r=Rs there is no singularity, it can be avoided with a change of coordinates.
To the extend that I am aware of, other more general solutions of the Einstein field equation are not known.
According to Birkhoff's theorem, the Schwarzschild metric is the only spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein field equations in vacuum.
As a generalization of Birkhoff's theorem, the Reissner–Nordström metric is the only spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein field equations with an electromagnetic field as source.
The Schwarzschild metric is a particular case (Q→0) of the Reissner–Nordström metric, and then we have a more general solution of the Einstein field equations.
Therefore, we can't predict the properties or even the existence of such general black holes.
We can't predict the properties of a Schwarzschild black hole, but other people can, see e.g.
Regge T. and Wheeler J. A. Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity Phys. Rev.108,1063,(1957).
Einstein general relativity and QM are incompatible for a few very fundamental reasons.
Fortunately physicists use both, as Bigun suggested.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I guess it doesn't and no, I'm not even sure I understand your question, but measurement destroys entanglement or superposition.
Is it true that measurement destroys entanglement?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Destroy perhaps isn't the right word, but it collapses the superposition.
Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles decohere through interaction with the environment; for example, when a measurement is made.
Destroy perhaps isn't the right word, but it collapses the superposition.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
That's what I thought.Destroy perhaps isn't the right word, but it collapses the superposition.
What's wrong with destroy? I find collapse... way more objectionable.Destroy perhaps isn't the right word, but it collapses the superposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherenceWhy does it destroy the entanglement ?
What's wrong with destroy? I find collapse... way more objectionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
They are just different words for something we really do not understand.
Last edited:
It really does come down to semantics, and, honestly, I attribute "destroy" to annihilation (e.g. positron-electron) more than anything else. As Vacuphile puts it, that may well be my own interpretive limitation!
And back to Rosie Huntington, as I beleive Waly and I are of similar age! 😀
And back to Rosie Huntington, as I beleive Waly and I are of similar age! 😀
In case of entanglement with Rosie Huntington, I would prefer for the superposition to collapse, rather than it being destroyed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Quantum entanglement?