s that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole."
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
Heh heh heh!
Peace
:)
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole."
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
Heh heh heh!
Peace
:)
Vastaukset 11
Vanhimmat
"Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense"
Heh heh heh!
Peace
:)
"mathematical nonsense"
Näinhän se työntyy!
Yritä yhdistää suhteellisuusteoria kvanttiteoroiden kanssa matemaattisesti ja saat lopputulokseksi matemaattista hölynpölyä heh heh!
Ei ole vaikea tietää miksi niin on heh heh!
Peace
:)
Niin käy vain silloin kun liikutaan molempien teorioiden pätevyysalueiden rajoilla.
Syksy Räsänen: "Kvanttikenttäteoria, jossa kvanttimekaniikka on yhdistetty suppeaan suhteellisuusteoriaan, toimii vielä paremmin. Itse asiassa se on tarkimmin testattu fysiikan teoria, eikä mitään poikkeamia siitä ole löydetty."
28.05. 2015 Kööpenhaminan takana
https://www.ursa.fi/blogi/kosmokseen-kirjoitettua/category/kosmokseen-kirjoitettua/
OSP taas on alusta loppuun pelkkää hölynpölyä.
"Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense"
Peace
:)
Juuri näin. Se on ollut tiedossa niin kauan kuin teorioita on yritetty yhdistää. Se ei kuitenkaan vaikuta lainkaan siihen, etteivät kyseiset teoriat toimisi varsin hyvin omilla pätevyysalueillaan, jotka ovat erittäin laajat.
Sinun OSP selittelysi ei valitettavasti toimi yhtään missään.
"Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense!"
Peace
:)
Et tainnut ymmärtää, mitä lainasit, vai etkö ymmärtänyt, mitä nimimerkki "agnoskepo" kirjoitti? Luultavasti et ymmärtänyt kumpaakaan.
Ei muuta kuin heittämään kupeskeikkaa Kuopion torille. Niitä sinulla onkin jo paljon rästissä.
"Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense!!"
Peace
:)
Taannuit sitten papukaijaksi.
"The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole."
Peace
:)
Mitä yrität selittää? Tämä on aivan hyväksyttyä fysiikkaa, joka ei tue OSP höpinääsi mitenkään. Tuo uusi asia eli M-H:n hypoteesi taas on täysin todistamaton ja vain yksi erikoinen väite monen muun joukossa. Mustia aukkoja on havaittu, joten M-H:n hypoteesissa täytyy olla jotain häikkää.
Se Hawkingin säteilykin syntyy Schwarzildin rajapinnassa, jos et olisi sattunut tietämään.
Et taida ymmärtää lukemaasi?
Lainaukset eivät ole keskustelua. Lisäksi lainauksiin pitää laittaa lähde.