Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The resilience of matter's fundamental components
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 46 (211615)
05-26-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tony650
05-26-2005 9:38 PM


zero size?
Just to be sure of what you're saying, does the math actually show a singularity to be of zero size, or just something vanishingly small?
As I understand it you can not say zero size. General relativity fails to make mathematical sense if you try to have zero size. However, it alone suggests zero size. This is a point where QM and GR have to be merged and until that is done the answer to this is: "Dunno".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tony650, posted 05-26-2005 9:38 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tony650, posted 05-26-2005 9:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 32 of 46 (211621)
05-26-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by sidelined
05-25-2005 9:43 PM


Re: What is energy?
Thanks, sidelined. I'll take a look at that, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by sidelined, posted 05-25-2005 9:43 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 33 of 46 (211623)
05-26-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NosyNed
05-26-2005 9:42 PM


Re: zero size?
Ned writes:
This is a point where QM and GR have to be merged and until that is done the answer to this is: "Dunno".
Damn! That's what I was afraid of. Well, in the meantime I'll just keep reading and see what else I can learn. It's not like I'm in any danger of exhausting my avenues of ignorance in these subjects.
Thanks, Ned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2005 9:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 05-27-2005 12:30 AM Tony650 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 34 of 46 (211675)
05-27-2005 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tony650
05-26-2005 9:55 PM


Re: zero size?
The only way I can think of it is this. Mass and energy are interchangeable. E=MC^2 If within (if you can be within something that has zero volume ) the singularity all mass has been converted to energy I can see it having zero volume.
Would it be possible then that because the gravitational forces would be so strong that the entire energy within the black hole would be concentrated in the singularity, with all the mass at max entropy surrounding it as far as the event horizon.
Like I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tony650, posted 05-26-2005 9:55 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tony650, posted 05-27-2005 2:37 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 35 of 46 (211694)
05-27-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
05-27-2005 12:30 AM


Re: zero size?
Hi GDR.
GDR writes:
If within (if you can be within something that has zero volume ) the singularity...
Indeed. That's something else I have trouble with; how can we speak of a volumeless singularity's "inside"? Does it even have an inside? Does it have an outside, for that matter? Come to think of it, how can it "have" anything if it has no size of its own? And in any case, what exactly is the "it" in the last three sentences? Confusing stuff.
GDR writes:
...all mass has been converted to energy I can see it having zero volume.
I think I see where you're coming from but does it actually work that way? If all the mass had converted to energy that wouldn't necessitate a total lack of volume, would it? It would mean that it was massless but massless doesn't necessarily equal infinitesimal size. For example, photons are massless but they have non-zero size.
But I really don't know enough about this to say. This is just my layman's opinion. I wouldn't want to give you the wrong information. If one of the real physicists here tells you that all mass converting to energy does necessitate a total lack of volume then listen to them, not me.
GDR writes:
Like I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Heh, maybe that's my problem. That's pretty much what I have; a little knowledge. I want to turn it into a lot of knowledge.
Eh, but I'm becoming incoherent. I'm way too tired to still be here typing. I need some sleep.
Thanks for your input so far, GDR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 05-27-2005 12:30 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by 1.61803, posted 05-27-2005 11:35 AM Tony650 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 36 of 46 (211780)
05-27-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tony650
05-27-2005 2:37 AM


Re: zero size?
A singularity is a point not an object. Sorry but that is just the way it is. But trying to understand how space can be bent to that extreme by infinte density is difficult to conceive. I still have trouble understanding time dilation and quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling. Thinking in terms of size suggest it is an object. That is not the case. Matter itself when you get down to it is just probabilities. So thinking in the quantum world requires you first forget everything you have ever known or thought about the physical intuitive world. I think it was Heisenburg who said:" If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you dont."
***edit to add link, If your interested in the math here http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part3.html#eqadef2
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 05-27-2005 12:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tony650, posted 05-27-2005 2:37 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 05-27-2005 8:59 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 38 by Tony650, posted 05-27-2005 11:23 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 37 of 46 (212001)
05-27-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by 1.61803
05-27-2005 11:35 AM


Re: zero size?
The whole thing just boggles my mind. Absolutely nothing is what it appears in this universe, in fact it seems to me that it is all just an illusion. Everything is nothing or literally no thing.
To go back to the 3 choices however, I do have to say that with the little bit I know of QM, I can't see how anyone can maintain that there is no design in all of this. I gotta also add that the designer is certainly anything but unintelligent and actually must be one heck of a scientist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by 1.61803, posted 05-27-2005 11:35 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tony650, posted 05-27-2005 11:35 PM GDR has replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 38 of 46 (212020)
05-27-2005 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by 1.61803
05-27-2005 11:35 AM


Re: zero size?
Hi 1.61803.
1.61803 writes:
A singularity is a point not an object. Sorry but that is just the way it is.
Heh, no need to apologize. I don't mean to give the impression that I disagree with anything that's been said. I'm just trying to understand why that's the way it is. Any time you see me write "I have a problem with [insert counter-intuitive scientific reality here]" please feel free to read it as "I have a problem understanding [insert counter-intuitive scientific reality here]."
1.61803 writes:
But trying to understand how space can be bent to that extreme by infinte density is difficult to conceive.
The infinite curvature of space I actually don't have as much of a problem with. I am comfortable visualizing that using the old analogy of a two-dimensional rubber sheet with, in this case, infinite warpage such that the curvature has no "bottom" or is curved back on itself. I realize this isn't the way it actually works in reality, but I have a love of dimensional concepts so I understand how the analogy applies.
The problem I have with (understanding) point-like concepts, be they particles, singularities or whatever, is that I can't picture a more intuitive "equivalent" to help me comprehend the reality.
Indeed, the concept of a volumeless singularity even seems to defeat the purpose of the "rubber sheet" analogy, as the curvature (at least from an intuitive perspective) would require a non-zero diameter to be truly bottomless. Otherwise you could say that its bottom is at the singularity.
Then I recall that this is where the laws of physics, as we know them, break down. But then I think...well...where? At that point? But it has no size! No matter how far "down" you go, it will never have any extension whatsoever in any direction. There is no space there within which our current physics break down. Where, then, is it happening?
Again, this is probably a limitation of using intuitive analogies to "understand" concepts that simply aren't intuitive. They can only ever get so close to describing the reality of such things. If the analogies were perfect descriptions we could do away with them and understand the realities themselves.
1.61803 writes:
I still have trouble understanding time dilation and quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling.
Kind of off-topic, but I think the best explanation I've ever read of time dilation was by Brian Greene who describes it with the analogy of racing cars across a set distance out on a large, flat desert plane.
He shows how, assuming a constant speed for each trip, you will measure one time when travelling in only one dimension, say, north/south, between the start and finish line, but another time when travelling simultaneously in two dimensions, say, north/south and east/west, between the start and finish line. The time measures differently because, in the first scenario, your speed is dedicated to travel in one dimension, while in the second scenario, it is shared between travel in two dimensions.
In this way, he showed how our travel through space and time can be seen as both drawing on the same unchanging "reserve" of velocity, which works out to the speed of light. He said that this shows how our travel through space affects our travel through time and is another reason we can never travel faster than light through space. To do so would require a greater overall velocity than we have at our disposal.
Again, as an analogy, this description is inherently imperfect. But I must say, it is easily the most satisfying explanation of time dilation that I've ever read. I've known for a long time what happens, but not until I read that did I finally get a handle on how it happens. I don't know how closely this analogy reflects the reality, but it gave me a great mechanism by which to visualize the process.
1.61803 writes:
Thinking in terms of size suggest it is an object. That is not the case. Matter itself when you get down to it is just probabilities.
Now this, I think, is one of my biggest hurdles. The only way to really show how many of these concepts work is mathematically. Popular science books can give you some reasonable "compromises" in the form of intuitive analogies, but if you want to understand their reality, really understand it, you need to understand the math.
Well, this is how it seems from my perspective anyway. I don't know how many times I've heard "Here are the equations describing..." but then, when asking what they actually mean, heard "Well, try thinking of it like this..." It can be so frustrating not understanding the math. These things can be shown with such precision on paper, yet we are cursed with these "intuitive" minds that recoil at the consequences of the math because it seems to contradict our familiar everyday surroundings.
1.61803 writes:
I think it was Heisenburg who said:" If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you dont."
Indeed. And if you think you don't understand it...you don't.
Thanks for the link, 1.61803. I'm curious about the math. I'll take a look but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. If it's anything like some of the other advanced math that I've seen I'll be lucky if I can recognize half of the symbols.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by 1.61803, posted 05-27-2005 11:35 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 39 of 46 (212021)
05-27-2005 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
05-27-2005 8:59 PM


Re: zero size?
GDR writes:
The whole thing just boggles my mind.
I hear that!
GDR writes:
Absolutely nothing is what it appears in this universe, in fact it seems to me that it is all just an illusion. Everything is nothing or literally no thing.
Yes, this really gets me. If the quarks that ultimately comprise all nuclear matter are point-like then are they nothing more than locations in spacetime? Because that's all I can think of a point as being; nothing with an actual, tangible existence but an abstraction used to denote a location.
Is all matter, then, nothing more than a complex web of nuclear and sub-nuclear forces woven between spatial locations? And if these locations have no material substance occupying them then what exactly is left? When stripped down to its bare essentials is all matter actually nothing but a web of forces in empty space?
Ugh! Maddening!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 05-27-2005 8:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 05-28-2005 2:45 AM Tony650 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 40 of 46 (212058)
05-28-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tony650
05-27-2005 11:35 PM


Re: zero size?
I apologise for my last post. I got the threads confused and thought I was responding on another thread which is what the 3 choices thing was about.
tony650 writes:
Is all matter, then, nothing more than a complex web of nuclear and sub-nuclear forces woven between spatial locations? And if these locations have no material substance occupying them then what exactly is left? When stripped down to its bare essentials is all matter actually nothing but a web of forces in empty space?
That's pretty much how I see it. Things feel solid to us because of electromagnetic forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tony650, posted 05-27-2005 11:35 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tony650, posted 05-28-2005 10:24 PM GDR has replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 41 of 46 (212214)
05-28-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by GDR
05-28-2005 2:45 AM


Re: zero size?
GDR writes:
I apologise for my last post. I got the threads confused and thought I was responding on another thread which is what the 3 choices thing was about.
I noticed that. No hard feelings.
GDR writes:
That's pretty much how I see it. Things feel solid to us because of electromagnetic forces.
Yes, well I must admit the whole thing kind of threw me for a loop. I was already aware that, as you said, apparently solid matter actually isn't; that at the most fundamental level we never truly touch anything, we merely interact with it electromagnetically. But I never imagined that the very essence of matter itself (or more accurately, what I thought was the essence of matter itself) wasn't even there to be touched in the first place.
Actually this is an interesting topic in its own right. I used to wonder what would happen if these forces didn't exist. I knew that matter was mostly (entirely?) empty space so I imagined that, without these forces, solid objects would pass right through each other (assuming for the sake of discussion that matter didn't simply fall apart in their absence ).
But this latest revelation has me now thinking a step further. If the forces themselves are all that matter really is then, without them, is there actually anything left?
Of course, this is all assuming that I'm understanding this correctly and, frankly, I'm not sure that I am. I may be, but until one of the resident physicists confirms it for me I guess I'll just have to see what some more reading produces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 05-28-2005 2:45 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 05-28-2005 10:49 PM Tony650 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 42 of 46 (212228)
05-28-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tony650
05-28-2005 10:24 PM


Re: zero size?
Tony650 writes:
But this latest revelation has me now thinking a step further. If the forces themselves are all that matter really is then, without them, is there actually anything left?
It sounds like we're in the same leaky boat. We've read a few science books and now we're dangerous.
I recently finished Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". I really enjoyed and think I'll reread it.
I agree with your supposition. It appears to me from what I've read that seems to be the direction science is going. String theory has particles as little strings of energy, and others have gone beyond that and postulated that the basis of the energy is information.
This is all new to me and it has certainly changed how I look at things. Funny thig is, it still feels so real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tony650, posted 05-28-2005 10:24 PM Tony650 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2005 12:13 PM GDR has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 43 of 46 (212341)
05-29-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
05-28-2005 10:49 PM


Re: zero size?
I think String theory reach the end of its rope a few years ago.
I read an article, stating that some colleges actually cancelled any course in String from they're curriculum. Remember Greenes book is several years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 05-28-2005 10:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 05-29-2005 4:12 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 44 of 46 (212381)
05-29-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 1.61803
05-29-2005 12:13 PM


Re: zero size?
Sorry to hear that about string theory. I'll miss it. Does that do away with Branes as well? The book was written in 2003. Didn't take long to be out of date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2005 12:13 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 05-29-2005 4:39 PM GDR has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 46 (212386)
05-29-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
05-29-2005 4:12 PM


Re: zero size?
Knowledge today seems to have a half-life of Protactinium.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 05-29-2005 4:12 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024