Palum
what Suineg set it to
Schroedinger's cat pictureWhatever we do, we must not send a cat picture into a black hole.
Schroedinger's cat pictureWhatever we do, we must not send a cat picture into a black hole.
Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHere's a question. I remember one of the big wtf's about black holes (it's all wtf, sure, but this was an even bigger wtf) is that anything beyond the radius becomes null information, and you are allowed to do a whole lot of shit to information in the universe, but deleting it outright is not one of those things. And I remember that they were talking about how if you consider this, and accept that it may be true, the event horizon of a black hole would have to be a critically dense area of pure information itself no matter what else might lay beyond that horizon.
So maybe that's where the "near perfect hologram" comes in? Because otherwise it sounds really quite dumb. A black hole is like a giant xerox machine!
Or maybe you are allowed to just selectively delete parts of the universe. Or maybe this is a thing that I barely remember having read years ago and I'm remembering it wrong.
Disclaimer: The following is complete drivel a made up pseudo science BSDoes the holographic principle apply to all shapes, or only regular. And I thought it worked because the correlation between volume and surface area.
I don't really see why that creates an issue with black holes. We don't know if the information is nullified, or transformed, right?
Got a hypothetical for the real nerds here, if you were able to turn off the higgs field for an object, completely, what would that do? Phase the object?, give it a mass of zero?, would the ability to manipulate the Higgs fieldn allow exploration of black holes? FTL drives?
Mass in regards to particle physics usually refers to rest mass (the mass of a theoretically immobile particle). So only particles have rest mass, and not even all of them. You can ask, what is the energy density of an area of empty space though and you get:Does space have mass?
Light and all forms of radiation have momentum, so it actually pushes against you when it shines on you. It isn't enough to explain dark energy though.Light (specifically, visible light) does not generate any form of force beyond thermal
The Higgs field is what gives bosons mass (rest mass). The great majority of your matter is made up of Fermions, quarks (which make up protons and neutrons) and electrons . Bosons are what mediate the forces however, and their mass greatly determines their range. For example the gluon's in the nucleus of atoms are extremely massive, if their mass all of a sudden dropped to zero they would have the same range as photons. And I can let you imagine what would happen then.Higgs field
If you're talking about theEMDrive, it doesn't use propulsion from light from the sun. It uses microwaves and magic and is super exciting.Light (specifically, visible light) does not generate any form of force beyond thermal, so it is extremely inefficient as a propulsion mechanism, especially in a (near) vacuum. Like most forms of energy, it diffuses over distance, so getting a piggy back on solar luminosity from Sol is going to be much more dramatic than trying to do the same from even out closes galactic neighbor. I confess that I am not as well read on that new star drive idea as I might be, though.
Do you have any peer reviewed articles with proof that it is super exciting? All I've seen so far is testing and data, nothing concrete about how pumped one should be for it yet.If you're talking about theEMDrive, it doesn't use propulsion from light from the sun. It uses microwaves and magic and is super exciting.
Nasa isn't exactly an italian scam artist as far as science goes.Do you have any peer reviewed articles with proof that it is super exciting? All I've seen so far is testing and data, nothing concrete about how pumped one should be for it yet.
Nope. To my knowledge there are zero peer reviewed papers on it. The guy who came up with the idea back in 2000 allegedly has a paper in the peer review process. No idea of which journal or what the timeline is other than expected publication in 2015. I don't know what the typical peer review process is for theoretical physics or if the typical process is even relevant with a device and theory like this. I feel like even if this isn't some garbage paper full of bullshit that is used to just generate press and get more funding it'll be a much longer review process than normal, especially if the journal is prestigious.Do you have any peer reviewed articles with proof that it is super exciting? All I've seen so far is testing and data, nothing concrete about how pumped one should be for it yet.