I am the first in the world

[tensordyne]

Reading the original post all I can say is read about Doubly Special Relativity.

 

[alfa1]

My project:
I want a competition for wise people to know who is the wisest.
At the Olympic Games we are testing our abilities as apes.
We have to test our level of evolution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

When properly made, chicken casserole can be absolutely delicious.

 

[Daylightstar]

My project:
I want a competition for wise people to know who is the wisest.
At the Olympic Games we are testing our abilities as apes.
We have to test our level of evolution.

So, your project is, wanting something.
That's not a project.

 

[alfa1]

Rushton and Jensen (2010) argue that the brain is metabolically demanding. In rats, cats, and dogs it uses about 5% of the body's energy. In primates, 10%. In humans, 20%. Larger brain are also expensive evolutionary since they take time to grow and requires larger bodies to produce and sustain them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_size

 

[dogjones]

I like boobies.

 

[alfa1]

For example all the Romanian presidents have very small heads and Romania is in the last place in Europe...

 

[Dr.Sid]

I declare you AI, you failed the Turing test, sir.

 

[alfa1]

“Ignorants, brainless people can reverse your evolution” Adrian Ferent
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/evolution-reversed-0511.html

 

[tensordyne]

hmmm....

Einstein field equations - singularity inside a black hole
A full theory of quantum gravity will rule out singularities in our universe.
Michio Kaku on Science channel is talking about singularity inside a black hole, in solutions of the Einstein field equations.
He explains how to travel in another universe trough black hole singularity.
Einstein field equations - spacetime is assumed to be smooth and continuous.
At quantum level spacetime is not continuous, Einstein field equations breaks down at quantum level, this means we can not have a singularity as a solution for this equations.
In my view there are not singularities inside the black holes because the density inside a black hole can not be bigger than the Planck density.
What do you think about it?

Interesting points. I myself have solved the Einstein Field Equations for the case of spherically symmetric system and having a stress-energy tensor of

T = diag (p, -p, -p, -p) for radius inside of some sphere.
T = diag (0, 0, 0, 0) for radius outside of some sphere.

The solution was two part and showed some interesting things to me. The first was that the overall solution had no singularities or event horizons. The solution of the metric (which is what you are supposed to find when solving the Einstein Field Equations) for the inside of the sphere had what would be a singularity and event horizon, but both were located outside of the sphere, thus no problems there because that is where the other metric takes over and at those points it was nice and smooth. The solution for metric outside of the sphere (which was the same as the form of Schwarzschild Solution) had the well known event horizons and singularity, but both were located inside the sphere, where the other metric takes over, thus also causing no problems.

I also came up with a coordinate mapping between the radius and the coordinate conventionally called r, but that I called rho. I noticed that like Stephen Crothers has said, the variable conventionally called r (my rho) is, at least for the outside solution of the metric, actually not the radius but the Gaussian Sectional Curvature of a 2-sphere. Unlike him though I have a formula relating r to rho (that is the main thing in my estimation he is correct about, the rest of his critiques are rather crackpotish unfortunately).

Oh yeah, I also found that rho (that is r in Schwarzschild's solution), should not be thought of as a coordinate, it is really what I would call a geordinate. The difference is that a geordinate, like a coordinate, can be used to determine a unique point in whatever space you are considering, but a geordinate, unlike a coordinate, depends on some aspect of the geometry. In the case I solved, the aspect of the geometry that was important was spherical symmetry. Using rho in a non-spherically symmetric geometry could cause problems in uniquely identifying a point (in the case of rho you might have a geometry where rho is constant for instance, thus causing several points to be given the same set of numbers).

Since one of the aspects of Blackholes theorized existence is that they are a prediction of GR, and in the solution I found the event horizons and singularities are trapped, I no longer think Blackholes are a prediction of GR and therefore seriously doubt the existence of Blackholes.

That said, whether Blackholes exist or not (scientists are now also questioning the existence of blackholes on various other grounds), Quantum Gravity is probably going to be one tough nut to crack. From what I have been able to gather, my thoughts on QG are that some kind of hitherto unthought of Fractal Theory will be what untangles the Gordian Knot of QM, QFT, Standard Model and GR.

Why I say that is that I have a feeling that renormalization will turn out in the QG models of the future to mean something very different then it does to Particle Physicists right now (who look at it as if it is a necessary but evil math trick to do). The formula for the Renormalization Group (RG) reminds me of a formula to find the Fractal Dimension of some set. Not surprising I guess, since it is even described that way using similar terms. Right now though the formula is set to 0 dimensions if one where to interpret it that way. I wonder if it should be set to something else in a more QG setting, but that is pure wild-eyed conjecture (Quantized Fractal Dimensions sounds very scifi-like to me).

It is not just that GR and Quantum based theories are different in terms of discrete versus continuous (it is a common misconception too that Quantum Mechanics only has discrete elements in it, it has plenty of continuous elements as well), the math is really different between the two. QM uses Hamiltonians, while GR is formulated with Lagrangians (for the experts, yes, QM can be formulated using Lagrangians as well using the Path Integral Approach). This could probably be overcome to make a nice new QG theory of our dreams, but the next problem is even harder, time is treated as special in QM but not so in GR. This is the one that gets me stumped the most when thinking about how to combine GR with the Standard Model, even in conceptual outline form. What though about wavefunctions, commutation relations, etc. etc.? Yep, tough problem.

Personally, I doubt String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity as well for various reasons. Never trust that a physicist is telling you the whole truth until you see 10 papers with graphs that match and have error bars. String Theory and LQG are nowhere near that point experimentally.

Hopefully this might raise the level of discussion.

 

[catsmate]

“Ignorants, brainless people can reverse your evolution” Adrian Ferent
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/evolution-reversed-0511.html

Quoting yourself again?

 

[Vorpal]

T = diag (p, -p, -p, -p) for radius inside of some sphere.
T = diag (0, 0, 0, 0) for radius outside of some sphere.

Constant with respect to radius, I assume.

The solution was two part and showed some interesting things to me. The first was that the overall solution had no singularities or event horizons. The solution of the metric (which is what you are supposed to find when solving the Einstein Field Equations) for the inside of the sphere had what would be a singularity and event horizon, but both were located outside of the sphere, thus no problems there because that is where the other metric takes over and at those points it was nice and smooth.

For spherical symmetry, the exterior must be Schwarzschild because of Birkhoff's theorem. A hypothetical star of uniform density has the interior of a closed FRW universe; it is well-known that this can be smoothly joined to a Schwarzschild exterior. For this to be static, it is necessary for the scale factor a to not change, in particular ä = 0, so that
[latex]$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = -\frac{4\pi}{3}(\rho + 3p) = 0$[/latex]
from the Friedmann equations, so that we must have p = -ρ/3 rather than p = -ρ as you have (here, ρ is density rather than your radius). And even then, that's not sufficient for it to be static and it will be still be unstable.

The solution for metric outside of the sphere (which was the same as the form of Schwarzschild Solution) had the well known event horizons and singularity, but both were located inside the sphere, where the other metric takes over, thus also causing no problems.

Well, sure, but that doesn't pertain to the the non-existence of black holes much. The interior can still collapse; the real question is can and must it collapse? There are singularity theorems (Penrose, Hawking, et. al) that address this in a very general context, without even assuming nice geometrical properties like spherical symmetry.

I also came up with a coordinate mapping between the radius and the coordinate conventionally called r, but that I called rho. I noticed that like Stephen Crothers has said, the variable conventionally called r (my rho) is, at least for the outside solution of the metric, actually not the radius but the Gaussian Sectional Curvature of a 2-sphere.

That's virtually how the Scwarzschild coordinate is defined in the first place, so I don't understand the significance. By definition, the surface of Schwarzschild radius r = R has an area of 4πR² in any slice of constant Schwarzschild time. Since this is the same as that of an ordinary Euclidean 2-sphere of radius R, it's very natural to expect that curvature to be the same. And indeed, it is such a 2-sphere, as is obvious from Schwarzschild metric.

P.S. Who is Crothers?

Since one of the aspects of Blackholes theorized existence is that they are a prediction of GR, and in the solution I found the event horizons and singularities are trapped, I no longer think Blackholes are a prediction of GR and therefore seriously doubt the existence of Blackholes.

I don't think you found such a thing. A collapsing star of uniform density has the interior of a closed FRW universe, and that has a singularity in its future. Before the singularity theorems of Penrose, Hawking, et al., it was hoped that formation of singularities was an artifict of exact geometrical conditions (spherical symmetry) that could otherwise be dismissed as nonphysical. Those theorems proved that wrong.

And in general, I don't understand your basic logic either--how does the exhibition of a single solution, no matter how well-behaved it actually is, support the non-existence of a whole class of very general phenomena (black holes)?

 

[Weak Kitten]

I declare you AI, you failed the Turing test, sir.

Huh, it really does fail the Turing Test doesn't it?

I wonder, can the Turing Test be used to tell the difference between AIs and Trolls?

 

[alfa1]

My project:
I want a competition for wise people to know who is the wisest.
At the Olympic Games we are testing our abilities as apes.
We have to test our level of evolution.

For example people working for IBM, Siemens, Toyota, your professors... are professionals but are not wise.

 

[AdMan]

Who killed Laura Palmer?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Huh, it really does fail the Turing Test doesn't it?

I wonder, can the Turing Test be used to tell the difference between AIs and Trolls?

Oh, easily. One of them responds only based on simple algorithms, or repeatedly to the same stimulus. At best, it may give particular responses based on certain detected key words and phrases.

The other is a computer.

 

[dafydd]

“Ignorants, brainless people can reverse your evolution” Adrian Ferent
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/evolution-reversed-0511.html

This Adrian Ferent appears to be a real nutcase. Do you know him?

 

[dafydd]

My project:
I want a competition for wise people to know who is the wisest.
At the Olympic Games we are testing our abilities as apes.
We have to test our level of evolution.

For example people working for IBM, Siemens, Toyota, your professors... are professionals but are not wise.

Do you consider yourself wise?

 

[Raze]

In my opinion there should be a new rule that if someone claims to have some new physics theory that flies in the face of the mainstream, they should be forced to solve a difficult but standard upper division or graduate level physics or math problem or face instant banishment.

 

[dafydd]

In my opinion there should be a new rule that if someone claims to have some new physics theory that flies in the face of the mainstream, they should be forced to solve a difficult but standard upper division or graduate level physics or math problem or face instant banishment.

And stop all our fun!