6 ms·
>"Plumbing black holes for knowledge of quantum gravity originated with Stephen Hawking. In 1974, the British physicist calculated that quantum jitter at the su
by peter_d_sherman 6y ago
>"Plumbing black holes for knowledge of quantum gravity originated with Stephen Hawking. In 1974, the British physicist calculated that quantum jitter at the surfaces of black holes cause them to evaporate, slowly shrinking as they radiate heat."
If heat is related to a black hole shrinking, and a black hole shrinking is related to information, then perhaps heat is related to information, and vice-versa.
[...]
>"In that case, the universe of the far future will be littered with tiny, indestructible black hole remnants — the remains of any black holes that carry even a touch of charge..."
You mean like an atom? Perhaps atoms (and other particles, in fact, all other particles) are really just black holes! Perhaps curved space is a better way to look at it... perhaps all black holes (and all particles) are really just curved space... in fact, perhaps all waves are curved space too...
Which would mean that everything in the universe, all of its particles, all of its waves, all of its contents, including the universe itself... is basically curved space... in one form or another...
[...]
>"In a paper published in March in Physical Review Letters, [Garrett] Goon and Riccardo Penco broadened the lessons of the earlier work by proving a simple, universal formula relating energy and entropy. The newfound formula applies to a system such as a gas as well as a black hole."
If gases (particulate matter spread thinly in a thinner medium, i.e., space) can be related to black holes, then black holes can be related to the particles in the gases, which lends additional credence to the idea that all atoms are black holes, although, this being said, it's not a hard proof...
[...]
>"When they combine Einstein’s gravity equations and the equations of electromagnetism, they calculate that a black hole’s charge, Q, can never surpass its mass, M, when both are converted into the same fundamental units. Together, the black hole’s mass and charge determine its size — the radius of the event horizon. Meanwhile, the black hole’s charge also creates a second, “inner” horizon, hidden behind the event horizon."
Super weird idea here... if we thought about a black hole of whatever size holographically, as information, then what would be true if the inner, hidden part of the black hole actually contained a miniature replica, a miniature mirror-image -- of ALL of the information inside this universe, a universe-inside-of-a-universe? That's highly speculative of course, but I think it's an idea worth exploring...
[...]
">When a black hole hits this point, a simple option for further decay would be to split into two smaller black holes."
You mean like + and - on a battery terminal?
Let me go for "full crackpot theorist" <g>...
What if charge, as we know it, in electricity, is implemented by various clusters of small black holes, regions of curved space, that we have (up until this point in time) been calling by such names as "charge", "electron", "electricity", "potential", "potential difference", etc.
When, what you've got might be multiple black holes, split into pairs, where one is a complex conjugate, a mirror image of the other, and they basically want to unify and annihilate, producing various wavelengths (heat/information) in the process?
All physics should be solvable once the correct identities are established between apparently dissimilar phenomena...
- cjfd 6y agoSure, one can speculate that. There is quite a lot of devil in the details, though. One thing that is a bit unclear when it is 'all curved space' is how one would ever get spin 1/2 particles, i.e., non-integer spin particles. E.g., in string theory one has to invent a 'fermionic string' to get them otherwise one only gets integer spin particles. Also it is not clear how 'multiple black holes' are going to be a stable configuration together.
- peter_d_sherman 6y agoI'm not saying I'm right... I'm just saying "it may be worth exploring..." Nothing more, nothing less! <g>
- wrnr 6y agoI always thought that the non integer spin was more of an historic artefact, because they measured the photon first. Not my area of expertise, but does the half spin have any meaning?
- wnoise 6y agoWell, it acts quite a bit like an angular momentum of that amount, including obeying conservation laws jointly with regular ("orbital") angular momentum. I don't know of a good way of explaining the half-integral nature without diving into representation theory. The short story is: 1. Conservation laws and continuous symmetries are the same thing. The standard explanation of this is when we move or turn the system, the rules it obeys are the same. Or alternately change our view of the system by picking different origin and axes for our coördinate systems, the form of the rules (how to evolve, how to measure, how to predict) remains the same. This is Noether's theorem. 2. But symmetries don't mean our description of a system is unchanged. It means that our descriptions must change in a compatible way with our new point of view. 3. Cashing this out in math, symmetries are groups acting on states. Having the states transform compatibly means these actions must be "linear representations of groups". 4. A spin-one object has the wave function (normally considered the fundamental state) act like a vector under rotations, and because symmetry under rotation is angular momentum, this must be too. 5. When we do this quantum mechanically, all of our predictions come from the density matrix, where the wave function enters twice (as an outer product). A spin-1/2 object has the density matrix transform like a vector, and the wave-function itself transforms "like a spinor", which is to say, itself.