3 ms·
You can get this easy by reformulating gravity's effect on spacetime as slowing down the speed of light/causality and putting a natural bound that asymptoticall
by dnautics 1y ago
You can get this easy by reformulating gravity's effect on spacetime as slowing down the speed of light/causality and putting a natural bound that asymptotically approaches zero. It should agree with GR everywhere except at extremes like black holes.
Looking at gravity as a slowdown of c is appealing because it suggests a computational cost of massive particles. As stuff gets more dense, the clock of the universe must slow down.
- westurner 1y agoGR does not describe the interior topology of black holes, beyond predicting a singularity. Is there a hard boundary with no hair, or is there a [knotted or braided] fluidic attractor system with fluidic turbulence at the boundary? SQR Superfluid Quantum Relativity seems to suggest that there is no hard event horizon boundary. I don't understand how any model that lacks descriptions of phase states in BEC superfluids could sufficiently describe the magneto-hydro-thermo-gravito dynamics of a black hole system and things outside of it? It is unclear whether mass/energy/information is actually drawn into a supermassive or a microscopic black hole; couldn't it be that things are only ever captured into attractor paths that are outside of the event horizon? Does Hawking radiation disprove that black holes don't absorb mass/energy/information?
- ccozan 1y agoActually, behind the event horizon due to the limitation of light speed which is highest possible information transfer limit in universe, including the weak and strong field particles, these atomic forces that hold protons and neutrons together fail to work as outside so it a tangled mass of quarks and other barionic matter.