quote:

---

Dr. Vorbis had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
You are expecting Black Holes to obey the laws of physics. Frankly, physics has shit its pants just looking at those monster sized loop holes and isn't going to go evangelist on them. Black Holes and Quantum shtuff is all very scary to physics.

---

While physics breaks down at the singularity--that's why it's called that--it still applies elsewhere.

And quantum mechanics is part of modern physics. Not an exception to it, though some of its implications are rather interesting and counter-intuitive.

Further, black holes seem to obey the laws of physics in most respects, so there's no reason to suppose they violate them in others.

Though I still can't quite figure how the event horizon can shrink without shooting off a laser tangent to its old boundary.

Or how the event horizon could remain after said shift, since, by definition, anything inside the original event horizon is on an inward spiral toward collision with the singularity.

If only I had the math to work the equations myself--NOT!

Also, I'm not sure "laser" would be quite the right term for the light; even though all the photons would be going in the same direction, there wouldn't be any reason for them to all be the same wavelength; after all, they originally came from unfocused starlight. Your main point, though, that some kind of beam would be emitted, seems likely.

Since the shrinkage is constant, this would probably be a near permanent disc of photons, caught and released. However, since the edges of all currently detectable black holes are covered in incoming gas, (and are expanding, not shrinking, because of the incoming gas) this would likely be impossible to detect. Ah well, one more interesting idea that may never be confirmed.

As for how the event horizon remains, realize that it is a mathematical point, nothing more. It is the point where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Therefore, it can not "cease to remain", any more than the earth could suddenly stop having a point above it where the escape velocity is 1 mile per second. As for how everthing inside this point could be forced to remain, as we are constantly told is true of things inside the event horizon, realize that a black hole shrinks very slowly. Anything inside the event horizon is virtually garunteed to be heading for the sigularity at some ridiculous speed; I doubt the very, very slow shrinkage of the event horizon will be outrunning those particles any time soon.

Thinking about this, though, brings up and interesting question. What would happen with a sudden, large shrinkage, like from a huge influx of negative energy particles? I believe that yes, at that point, it might be possible to shrink the black hole faster than in ingoing particle, retrieve it, and save the particle from it's apparently inevitable destruction. I think in that kind of situation, we've gone beyond the point where the axiom of inevitable destruction was meant to apply.

Remember, assured destruction isn't the definition of the event horizon; it's a corallary, a property seemingly assured by the faster-than light escape velocity. Therefore, perhaps it it possible to constuct a situation where it could be done. Similarly, if there was something inside the event horizon of a very small black hole at the instant the black hole evaporated, that thing would also escape, albiet very battered by the escaping energy.

However, these are very, very, very extreme situations, far outside the realm usually thought of, perhaps even beyond the realm of possibility. In any kind of black hole we've ever encountered or imaginied, the rate of shrinkage could never exceed the speed on ingoing particles.

One quick disclaimer: these ideas have no source other than my own mind and the mental models I've created from the ideas I've read and been told. I've never heard any of these ideas I've mentioned other than in my own mind. Don't take them as truth, only as one possible answer to the question, an answer, that, at least for me, seems to fit in with everything I've been told.

You guys hear about how they slowed the speed of light down here on Earth a while back? was in one of my Popular Sciences. I'll see if I can find the article; was pretty cool.

As for Hawking poo-pooing the idea of time travel, he actually conceded time travel is most likely possible (but in such a way that he didn't concede FTL travel is possible)

Man I'm enjoying this thread.

But the 3D notion is interesting. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of a sphere with all parallel photons. I wonder what determines their orientation.

I remember hearing about the experiment that stopped a photon, but I can't remember the details.

Another thing I found interesting about Hawking was his confidence that we were on the verge of unifying general relativity and quantum theory--literally about to unlock all of the secrets of the universe. Seemed an odd way to end the book, since so much of the beginning was the endless parade of others throughout history who thought they'd figured it out.

While he had reasons for suspecting that, it smacked as much of wishful thinking as it did of reasoning.

Although I do agree with his point that philosophers have almost completely abandoned the sciences to focus upon linguistics. Hawking lays the blame on the extremely technical and diverse nature of modern science, saying that no one could possibly keep up with it all.

I think it's the scientist's fault, because they value specialization so much that they don't deign to publish except in technical journals. Hawking is one of only a few who bother. And then only sporadically.

What we need are scientists who take time out now and again to publish in their field in normal English. Leave the mathematical proofs to an appendix or footnote, if they can't bear to part with them entirely.

Because--trust me on this--the last person you want figuring out the implications of his work is a scientist.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
Because--trust me on this--the last person you want figuring out the implications of his work is a scientist.

---

HEY I RESENT THAT! LYTA WASN'T MY FAULT
(humor disclaimer)

Actually I don't mind the idea of a scientist working out the implications of their work. True, nuclear physicists seem to have been naive, thinking that their final products wouldn't be used as weapons, but since then it's sort of a given.

Geneticists, Physicists, Chemists, Biologists; any and all scientists are both the ones most likely to get giddily passionate over their subject and also the ones most likely to understand exactly what the door they just opened leads into.

*wanders off to take asprin*

Sheesh!

While I would agree, 'Deth, that scientists of whatever stripe are well-placed to realize and explore many of the applications of their work, I think they're ill-suited to explore the implications.

It goes beyond questions like, "Can this widget be used as a weapon?"

Scientists, who have dedicated their lives to technical things, tend to prefer technical solutions to problems. Looking beyond the technical to see the social, practical, or ethical considerations is time-consuming and not rewarded.

And, in instances where you see scientists on a particular ethical bandwagon, it tends to be colored by a particular species of "ivory tower syndrome." They tend to ignore the everyday realities in favor either of assuming or attempting to force a particular vision of the way things ought to be.

Look at DOE here in the US, for example. It's rife with poor security practices, the union throws a fit over prosecuting potential traitors because they violated a written rather than an oral oath, and a recent inspection called it one of the worst-run organizations in the government. Yet they're in charge of the US nuclear program!

While there are exceptions, it's generally accurate to say that, in the main, scientists just don't get it. Real life, that is.

It'd be nice if we lived in a happy-joy-joy world where the free flow of information was not only safe, but standard. It'd be worderful if people could be trusted to act in the best interests of humanity as a whole, rather than struggling for dominance. It'd be nice if all the nations of the world got together to help each other feed, clothe, and educate the poor.

But none of that is human nature.

i feel smart now

i understand most of this stuff