That's a switch! All this time I've been contemplating entering a black hole and flying in towards the core while being stretched like chewing gum. Your perspective is logical sense, but is it correct? I say YES.
I read somewhere (was it 'Ask Ethan'?) that if you went over the EH in a supermassive BH, say like one at the centre of some galaxies that are 10x the diameter of our solar system, you would traverse the distance to the centre in about 1 day. It would be ok for the first few hours, but very weird obviously, and you'd eventually face spaghettification sometime during the last 4 or 5 hours.
One of the great imponderables.
One of the great imponderables.
I wonder what Newton would have made of black holes?
Attachments
Okay, so what are you actually saying? Please elaborate further than "no".You say yes, I say no, you say stop, and I say go, go, go.
Watching a video on work at CERN this year. It described what we call a particle as a disturbance in a quantum field. This makes far more sense to me. It would also allow the collapse dimensionally in a black hole.
Now, I am almost visualizing how this would explain the two-slit wave behavior and still be discrete particles. I think I was gathering what they were saying as space-time is actually more like full of "ether", but that the "stuff" is not matter as was thought a few hundred years ago, but a set of quantum fields for each force filling all space-time. I could easily of misinterpreted this as I am a very visual thinker and nature plays by her rules, not my ability to visualize them.
So if gravity actually is a force, not an effect, then it would have a quantum field? It would have a lepton and boson? If we go back to Einstein, then is space-time that field? Gravity being exceedingly weak, do we only detect waves in the field and not the particles yet? Just as it is easy to detect the electro-magnetic wave, we can detect a gravitational wave. Detecting a photon was a lot harder and so maybe detecting a graviton is harder still?
Watching these videos, I am actually more amazed not how the universe works, but how incorrect all the classes in college were. Heck, in 74, our chem prof was talking about cloud theory as something new, which became obsolete in the early 20's. They still teach the Bohr model in tech schools. They still were teaching electrons being both a particle and wave, not explaining as simply as Feynman described. It is a lot less confusing to be told "that is how nature works" rather than to leave an ambiguous experiment result unexplained. Of course, I learned a long time ago, if someone explains something to you and you don't understand it, neither do they.
Now, I am almost visualizing how this would explain the two-slit wave behavior and still be discrete particles. I think I was gathering what they were saying as space-time is actually more like full of "ether", but that the "stuff" is not matter as was thought a few hundred years ago, but a set of quantum fields for each force filling all space-time. I could easily of misinterpreted this as I am a very visual thinker and nature plays by her rules, not my ability to visualize them.
So if gravity actually is a force, not an effect, then it would have a quantum field? It would have a lepton and boson? If we go back to Einstein, then is space-time that field? Gravity being exceedingly weak, do we only detect waves in the field and not the particles yet? Just as it is easy to detect the electro-magnetic wave, we can detect a gravitational wave. Detecting a photon was a lot harder and so maybe detecting a graviton is harder still?
Watching these videos, I am actually more amazed not how the universe works, but how incorrect all the classes in college were. Heck, in 74, our chem prof was talking about cloud theory as something new, which became obsolete in the early 20's. They still teach the Bohr model in tech schools. They still were teaching electrons being both a particle and wave, not explaining as simply as Feynman described. It is a lot less confusing to be told "that is how nature works" rather than to leave an ambiguous experiment result unexplained. Of course, I learned a long time ago, if someone explains something to you and you don't understand it, neither do they.
You being a visual thinker, like me, it's perhaps easier to relate to: we have been able to understand the cause and effects of waves in water for thousands of years, but it's not until just recently that we have been able to see that water is h2o. Digging (or perhaps diving) deeper into the matter
we noticed that the individual atoms are composed of yet smaller particles.So with gravity it's like: we have seen the effects of a wave, but we do not fully encompass how to describe the ocean.
A large percentage of the atom's mass is concentrated in its tiny nucleus, but that does not imply that the rest of the atom is empty.
Elementary-level science books give the false, but easy to imagine, picture of electrons as being ball-like.
Advanced-level science books give the more exact, but more difficult to imagine, picture of electrons as three-dimensional probability density waves that spread out to fill the entire atom.
To put it simply, atoms are not empty, but are filled completely with spread-out electrons!
An analogy I saw on the interweb was that of the blades in a cooling fan.
When the blades are stationary, you can insert your fingers into the empty spaces between them (cf electron ball model).
When the fan is on, you can insert your fingers (ouch!) to find that the blades now occupy the entire space in the fan (cf electron probability density model).
So, the electrons surrounding a nucleus are analagous to the rotating blades in a fan, as they occupy all the space in the atom.
When the blades are stationary, you can insert your fingers into the empty spaces between them (cf electron ball model).
When the fan is on, you can insert your fingers (ouch!) to find that the blades now occupy the entire space in the fan (cf electron probability density model).
So, the electrons surrounding a nucleus are analagous to the rotating blades in a fan, as they occupy all the space in the atom.
So it's like Sonic the hedgehog then. I've seen some pendulums in those games, but not a whole lot of string.
I still think it's less like a fan and more like strings and random movement though. Could be that's why molecules can orient themselves differently under specific conditions. Resonance between the amount of electrons in combination with pressure and temperature.
I still think it's less like a fan and more like strings and random movement though. Could be that's why molecules can orient themselves differently under specific conditions. Resonance between the amount of electrons in combination with pressure and temperature.
So how does a single electron occupy the entire space of a Hydrogen atom? Is it because the electrons determine size and hence there is simply no room left? How do you visualize this? We went from the classic criss cross orbital representation to the planar position to ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.