Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

[Kaylia]

Let's stick to spherical symmetry, fuck these equations.

If this is an exact solution, it is fascinating, but it isn't QUITE like Kaylia is saying about GR needing to be totally thrown away or some shit, GR is still a workable approximation to reality to some degree, just as Newtonian Mechanics is for low energy levels

Of course it was exaggeration. It's not like we got ride of Newton's mechanics once we found relativity.

My point is, relativity (unless the problem lies entirely in quantum mechanics) isn't working that well to describe the universe at the moment. It works locally , but that's about it. We have to use a ton of theoretical bandaid to fix it (dark energy, dark matter, a bunch of constant), meaning it's probably time to find a new model.

[Max™]

Dark Matter arises because Relativity doesn't actually say what matter is, and only shows up as a surprise because we calculated motion based only on visible mass of galaxies. When you calculate the motion with the correct amounts of mass, you get answers that line up with observations, it isn't a bandaid, that is disingenuous.

If you couldn't make it fit with any type of dark matter, it would require a bandaid, as would Newtonian mechanics, which would have to be tossed as well.

In this case it is a failing of our theories of what matter is, not how it behaves.



Dark Energy is an observation which has not yet been fitted into a model, but is required if GR is to be salvaged. Einstein actually posed a version of it originally, if you recall, though his was trying to explain a static Universe which his equations denied.

If there is no dark energy, and the Universe is merely expanding at an ever increasing rate with no driving force, then we need to discard GR.

[Kaylia]

Or because our gravitation theory isn't correct.


All I can say is that we know nothing. If we make something work, it's going to break somewhere else. We could try to explain everything with missing mass, maybe it will works, but there is a good chance it's the model that is falling apart.

[Max™]

Which means we need to discard everything down to Newton, and start from scratch... though those theories worked fine for lots of other stuff.

[Kaylia]

If I could give you an answer, I would be writting my nobel prize speech atm.


It doesn't have to be gravity itself, but it could be our notion of space (and the implied notion of distance) that is incorrect. Relativity changed it, but maybe it didn't change it to the best definition.

[Max™]

It changed it to one that works to explain more phenomena than the previous theory though... so discarding GR and SR would imply that much of what we know about anything (including relativistic models of quantum mechanics) has to be chucked.

How unfortunate.

[Kaylia]

I don't understand what you're saying. You have to discard a model to use a new one. You have to discard Newton's mechanics to use Einstein's relativity, and you will have to discard relavity to uses whatever come up next.

They are still useful approximation, but they are discarded nonetheless.

[Max™]

No, Relativity reduces to Newtonian Mechanics at low velocities/masses.

[Kaylia]

But it never is newtonian physics. One is a straight line, the other has an asymptote on the straight line, it's 2 different mathematical entities.

[Kaylia]

And what make you think for a second that the new model would be any differents? Everything will always converge toward previous model. Changing our definition of space for example would still require 1m of space to be 1m where we live.

[Max™]

>.<

Newtonian physics produces workable results in the low energy/velocity limit... as you increase the resolution of your calculations, moving to higher speeds, or smaller objects/higher energies, you progress to relativistic models.

Ideally you would produce a model at the extreme energy scales beyond where GR works, say, a quantum theory of gravity... which would reduce to GR, and NM at the appropriate scales.

Instead of having to throw away all of the prior theories, even where they were applicable.

[Kaylia]

Whatever, you're just ignoring my post and repeating the same shit I said.

Instead of having to throw away all of the prior theories, even where they were applicable.

Newton's theory =/= Einstein's theory. They are different. Space is different, time is different, the metric is different. They produce the same mathematical result under certain circumstance, but they are not the same.

Don't tell me the concept of distance hasnt changed between Newton and Einstein because it did

[Max™]

Chillax yo, I'm saying what I've been saying the whole time, as shown by my first post in this thread:

If this is an exact solution, it is fascinating, but it isn't QUITE like Kaylia is saying about GR needing to be totally thrown away or some shit, GR is still a workable approximation to reality to some degree, just as Newtonian Mechanics is for low energy levels.

[Woozie]

You're both practically saying the same thing. I'm having trouble following what's going on. What exactly is the difference between your viewpoints?

Also:

It's not a new theory, it's a new valid solution for the Einstein Field Equations.


http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...n.field.sm.gif

That's the simple, symmetric, basic as shit form, matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells matter how to move.

If you want to model an actual spacetime, you need more dimensions, and thus less symmetry is possible.

Spoiler: show

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...ages/eqn_1.jpg
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...ages/eqn_3.jpg
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...ages/eqn_5.jpg

That is the EFE's for 2 dimensions, going up to 3 or 4 winds up with thousands of terms, and is something which is ridiculously hard to find a solution for.

You can set programs running on supercomputers that scan for valid solutions, like trying to solve algebra problems by plugging numbers til one fits. If x-5=0, the computer goes x = 1? x = 2? x = 3? x = 4? x = 5, stop!

Now imagine going through thousands of values per line, thousands of lines per equation, etc.

If this is an exact solution, it is fascinating, but it isn't QUITE like Kaylia is saying about GR needing to be totally thrown away or some shit, GR is still a workable approximation to reality to some degree, just as Newtonian Mechanics is for low energy levels.

Why do you always post equations and such in these topics? The only people who can understand them are the people who already know them. And the people who think you don't know what you're talking about aren't going to change our minds just because you posted equations and tried to talk fancy. In fact, this is one of the things that bothers us the most about you.

[Max™]

I was demonstrating how ridiculously complex these EFE's are, and thus how hard it is to find an exact solution to these equations, by showing a sample of the less complex 2D forms.

Kaylia and I have been arguing the same point, just as you said.

I'm not really worried about "those who think I don't know what I'm talking about", I've already seen that "they're" just bitching for the sake of bitching, ignoring any points I may or may not actually make regarding my understanding of this shit.

I've got nothing to prove, just posting about a subject I found interesting, don't read so much into things.

[Kaludneisucks]

Dark matter is easy, drops off Morbol menace.
dunno why science hasnt found this out yet...
also
Universe came from universe elsewhere so where did thast one come from question ANSWERED! Begotten not Made.
Science and religion should be friends, they have lots to learn from each other, pity that their followers cannot be friends, they have lots to learn from each other..

[Kaylia]

What exactly is the difference between your viewpoints?

This is what bother me with his viewpoint

"Which means we need to discard everything down to Newton, and start from scratch... though those theories worked fine for lots of other stuff. "

Just because the approximation works doesn't mean the theory are right and can't be reformulated. I also fail to see how it is any different than what relativity did to newton's physics.

[Sylvrdragon]

Max is saying that GR is an addendum to Newtonian. Kaylia is saying that GR replaced Newtonian altogether.

I'm inclined to agree with Kaylia on this one. GR is backwards-compatible with Newtonian. Think of it as comparing a PS2 and PS1. PS2 does everything PS1 could do and more, but it isn't just an add-on, it's a completely new system that just does more.

[Kaylia]

The exemple you gave is exactly what would be considered an "addendum".

If you said, "it plays ps1 game but slightly better than ps1", you would have a better analogy.

[Sylvrdragon]

Mixed up my terms. You know what I mean though.