Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Episode 18: Black Holes Big and Small

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169
    then how do we on the outside know accurately
    how much mass fell in??.... what you are saying does not explain how the black holes mass is kept... if all information was lost as you say then we could not measure how much had fallen in..which we can so even tho we are told everything you have been saying i stand by the fact that information about the mass must be retained in the singularity.... or a black holes mass would not relate to what the hole has inside it...

    dcl: Once a mass ihas fallen past the event horizon of a black hole, it falls all the way into the singularity, where it is compressed into a dimensionless point. Any information that it may have contained is destroyed by that final process.

    if this was the case you would not be able to measure the mass that has fallen in as that information would have been lost...which it is not is it?

    ?


  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169
    ie if you throw ten million tons into a black hole you can after measure the fact its mass has increased by ten million tons...

    is that not information?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    262
    Information theory is not one of my strong points, hut it's my understanding that mere AMOUNT of mass does not constitute "information" in the informationi theory sense, especially when that mass is indistinguishable from other any other mass that may constitute part of the contents of the single dimensionless point at the center of a black hole.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169
    i guess you could not store any bits in it but it is interesting that there must be some accounting system in there so it knows how massive it is...

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by dcl View Post
    Everything Fraser is quoted as having said is totally untrue. The following statements are true:
    No matter how fast you go, you will NOT turn into a black hole. Your mass WILL become infinite as seen by stationary observers as your speed approaches the speed of light. As seen by them, you will be moving very close to the speed of light, and your speed as seen by them will change negligibly whether you use energy trying to accelerate or to slow down. The concept of mass in special relativity is indeed confusing, bugt that does not eliminate need for it.
    It seems to me, that there might still be some sort of on-going debate about this relativistic mass thingy among the real physicists. I'm not a real physicist, but you certainly seem to be, so I'm very likely just to take it easy and just believe whatever you're saying...

    But moving too fast just won't turn you into a black hole, in any frame of reference ('cause if it did happen in one, it'd had to happen in all the others, too, right?), that was the key point I was making, I guess...

    Quote Originally Posted by dcl View Post
    If the links you cited support the above quoted statements, their contents, too, are nonsense. There are lot's of people whose favorite pasttimes seem to be trying to debunk Einstein. So far, Einstein's relativities, both special and general, have stood up under the most rigorous testing. Your response to llatpog regarding appearance of particles outside the event horizon is correct.
    I don't think debunking Einstein was the point in those links at all, more like on the contrary, I would say. I don't remember exactly what it used to say there, when I first linked the page, but currently it seems to be much more "pro-relativistic mass" than it was back then, in January of this year, I guess. Here's the same link again, though the contents of the page have now changed a bit:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

    Says there, that the concept of relativistic mass is still very "useful". OK by me then, I guess; let those who calculate these things for work, on a daily basis, use it if they want to...

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    262
    Don't believe everything even physicists say either. Even physicists, as godlike as they are, are known to make mistakes. The great Newton said light consisted of particles, not waves. Then it was found that they're waves. Then to really confuse the issue, it was found that they're particles on even days and waves on odd days (huh?). He said gravitational forces hold planets in orbit. Then Einstein said, "Not so. It's warping of space". There are many other examples throughout the history of science. Maybe 100 years from now we'll marvel at how naive Einstein's theories were.

Similar Threads

  1. Even Small Galaxies Can Have Big Black Holes
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-17, 05:39 PM
  2. Episode 213: Supermassive Black Holes
    By Fraser in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-13, 08:54 AM
  3. Can black holes ever collide if they are infinitely small?
    By skintigh in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-25, 03:32 AM
  4. Small Black Holes
    By TheNick in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-08, 05:22 PM
  5. Podcast: Black Holes Big and Small
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-08, 04:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •