gravity

[BlameTheEx]

There are 2 characteristics of a gravitational field:

!) It attracts matter
2) It dilates time, or to look at it another way, It reduces the speed of light.

These are balancing effects. The forces involved must follow the conversation of mass/energy in just the same way as electromagnetic forces do.

So how does it work out? An object falling into a gravitational field gains energy as velocity. This kinetic energy is balanced by a loss of energy from its mass. That is calculated as E=MC2. The C is the speed of light. Inside a gravitational field C is lowered.

The best way to think of gravity is that mass/energy reduces the speed of light. The formula for this reduction is clear enough, in non-relativistic situations, but it would be brave to extrapolate it further without evidence.

It is more than possible that getting to infinite time dilation, that is C=0, is as possible as accelerating a mass to the speed of light. Personally I consider it almost a certainty. Black holes are paradoxes, and paradoxes are always caused by false underlying assumptions.

The evidence for black holes is not really there. I must remind all that nobody has seen a black hole. The are certainly stellar objects that are small and massive enough that, if black holes are valid, must be black holes. However if black holes are not valid, then we automatically create a cosmology where such objects are possible without being black holes.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
It is more than possible that getting to infinite time dilation, that is C=0, is as possible as accelerating a mass to the speed of light. Personally I consider it almost a certainty. Black holes are paradoxes, and paradoxes are always caused by false underlying assumptions.

Quantum Mechanics/ Uncertainty Principle is based on a paradox. That we can know either about the particle or we can know about it's motion. But not both.

So according to you, QM is based on "false underlying assumptions"/.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

It is more than possible that getting to infinite time dilation, that is C=0, is as possible as accelerating a mass to the speed of light. Personally I consider it almost a certainty. Black holes are paradoxes, and paradoxes are always caused by false underlying assumptions.

Quantum Black Holes are paradoxes.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

Nope. According to me there, is no paradox in Quantum Mechanics. The maths works well, and continues to work under all circumstances bar singularities. It is the underlying assumptions behind singularities (Black Holes) alone that I question. They are paradoxes for the simple reason that the maths that justifies them fails within them. That is in no way true for Quantum Mechanics.

GAHD

Best as I can figure it, ANY Black Hole is a paradox.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Freethinker.

Nope. According to me there, is no paradox in Quantum Mechanics.

Ya but ALSO "according to (you)"

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx paradoxes are always caused by false underlying assumptions

And there is no doubt that QM is based on the paradox.

"EPR paradox
The EPR paradox arises in a thought experiment which shows that quantum mechanics leads to very counter-intuitive and paradoxical consequences."
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
</a>

"The Schrödinger cat "paradox""
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/qedcav/english/rydberg/nonresonant/catparadox.html
">http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/qedc...atparadox.html
</a>

"The Quantum Zeno Effect
The phenomenon is called the quantum Zeno effect, because it resembles the famous paradox raised by the Greek philosopher Zeno, who denied the possibility of motion to an arrow in flight because it appears "frozen" at each instant of its flight. "
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/seedark.html
">http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines...6/seedark.html
</a>

So which is it?

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

I stand by my statement.

Quantum Mechanics works. It's just difficult to understand. "counter intuitive" is a valid criticism but "paradoxical" is not. It is very easy to create paradoxes by misusing Quantum Mechanics. Once you fully accept that particles, photons, elephants ect exist only as an infinite field of varying degrees of probability until an interaction defines their position, then there are no more paradoxes. Admittedly in the case of the elephant the probability is VERY high that it's just about where you expect it, but there is no question but that it might next appear on mars. A paradox is a breakdown of logic. There IS no breakdown here.

I am not surprised that a trawl through the net will find those who don't fully accept a theory that includes the possibility of a mars rover being stomped by dumbo, but Quantum Mechanics obeys all the rules of a good theory. It's simple, explains the evidence, and (outside singularities) creates no situations that disobey its own rules, or any more fundamental rules, such as conversation of mass/energy or momentum.

[TeleMad]

2) [A gravitational field] ... reduces the speed of light.

... That is calculated as E=MC2. The C is the speed of light. Inside a gravitational field C is lowered.

The best way to think of gravity is that mass/energy reduces the speed of light.

Isn't that relativistically repugnant?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Freethinker.

I stand by my statement.

Quantum Mechanics works. It's just difficult to understand. "counter intuitive" is a valid criticism but "paradoxical" is not.

I applaud your decision to stand by your statement.

It's not many people, especially amoung us here, that have a greater level of standing in the Scientific community regarding Quantum Mechnics than on-line ecyclopedias, David Joseph Bohm, Erwin Schrödinger, Baidyanath Misra, E. C. George Sudarshan, ....

They ALL and many others specifically use the term "PARADOX" when discussing how QM works.

We appreciate your allowing Hypography to become a leading edge peer reviewed journal for re-writing the texts on QM and eliminating the concept of Paradoxes involved with it.

Where should we send the Noble Prize?

[Bo]

I think that the point BlametheEx actually makes is that he has a problem with a theory with singularities (correct me if i'm wrong!) but then i must make a few remarks here :
First of all:the black hole horizan singularity is only a mathematiclal singularity, and not a physicical one (the singularity is in the metric; the mathematicla discription of space time. As soon as you calculate physical properties like the equations of motion the singularity dissapears). However at the exact centre of a black hole, or any other massive object, there is a sigularity. These same singularities also occur in quantum mechanics (well more exact: in quantum field theory; the relativistic version of QM). For the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces these singularities (that eventualy -both for QM as GR- have to do with the fact we're dealing with point particles) dissapear, only if QM tries to discribe gravity it goes wrong. As probably known: string theory disgards the use of point particles, and thus there are no singularities left.
The main point is that the singularities occur in each theory that uses point particles. Bo

[TeleMad]

BlameTheEx: The best way to think of gravity is that mass/energy reduces the speed of light.

No, that's the WORST way to think about gravity...it contradicts Einstein's special theory of relativity.

As has already been pointed out, the BEST way to think of gravity is as the curvature of spacetime, caused by the presence of mass/energy.