h a l f b a k e r yGo ahead. Stick a fork in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
basically stephen hawking describes that gravitational singularities turn to high energy photons as they evaporate. To do this these high energy photons pass through or cross the event horizon or have twins beyond it
quantum linked photon imaging works with stochastic coincidence photons from thermal
sources Thus the photons zipping around (if thats what they do) on the far side of the gravitational singularity are quantum linked to the emitted high energy photons that make up Hawking radiation
because quantum linked photon ghost photography works even with noncoherent thermal sources the structure of matter at a gravitational singularity is visible with quantum linked photons highly similar to this diagram of orbital quantum linked imaging (link) just swap gravitational singularity with earth and replace the sun with the evaporative noncoherent radiation from the gravitational singularity
the thing is that you might have a mirror to reflect the emissions from the singularity to the optical midpoint You could be light years from the "dangerous" gravitational event horizon yet still look past it
Quantum linked photons provide a reply to the information theory aspect of gravitational singularities as well
people were wondering about where does order go at an event horizon the energy represented caused much publication; create a new gravitational singularity then permit a blob of information to visit when the gravitational singularity evaporates as high energy photons the information blob structure would affect the synchrony of the quantum linked photons that emanate; it might also affect other things yet the quantum linked photons would definitely carry information its kind of a macroscope or 4d amplifier 4D as quantum linked photon imaging is defined with synchrony
Orbital quantum linked photon imaging
http://bboyneko.liv...nal.com/301452.html
[beanangel, May 05 2010]
The physics of quantum linked photon imaging Yanhua Shih
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1166
[beanangel, May 05 2010]
Word salad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
"a mixture of randomly chosen words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance." [BunsenHoneydew, May 08 2010]
"The large scale structure of space-time" By Stephen W. Hawking
http://books.google...v=onepage&q&f=false
Excellent. [8th of 7, May 09 2010]
Quantum Potatoes
http://www.newscien...quantum-potato.html
New Scientist article on this marvel of vegetable science. [pocmloc, May 09 2010]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
How about "viewing beyond the event horizon of gravitational singularities with quantum linked potatoes" instead? |
|
| |
How about we lock Beanie and his emmanantizing photons in
a sealed box? Then, the box will contain all (and yet also no)
variations on the same theme, until/unless we actually open
it. |
|
| |
Also, Stephen Hawking never says anything basically. His
dumb cousin Steven, on the other hand... |
|
| |
new n improved [MB] you just are urging me to write about something immediately beneficial to human being like desalinating water with droplets that have layered opposite rotation flow so they evaporate at different rates using less energy |
|
| |
Well, no, actually I was urging you to shut up. But that's just
me being grumpy. They do say that white noise contains all
possible information. Carry on. |
|
| |
you'd need 3 to get a superimposed front/back image from the plane... 4 would give you directional differentiation... of course you'd have no way of knowing where in the black hole they are. |
|
| |
I had always thought that the purpose of language was to communicate. Apparently I was wrong. |
|
| |
Look, it's not that hard. Subject - verb - object, with some prepositional phrases in. Capital letter at the beginning, period at the end. Finish one thought. Then start the next. Wash, rinse, and repeat. I have no more patience to decipher this anymore. |
|
| |
Would work fine "in spacetime dimensions higher than four;
in the presence of non-abelian Yang-Mills fields, non-abelian
Proca fields, some non-minimally coupled scalar fields, or
skyrmions; or in some theories of gravity other than
Einstein’s general relativity." |
|
| |
In other words, not anywhere around here. |
|
| |
[RayfordSteele]: your proposed method of communication presupposes the existence of a coherent thought [link]. |
|
| |
Those first two links blow me away. |
|
| |
The last link makes me think of George Bush's speeches. |
|
| |
// I had always thought that the purpose of language was to communicate. // |
|
| |
Not always semantically, however. The words themselves don't have to be ones you recognise. For instance, if i use long words i might prefer others not to know what they mean because the message i'm trying to get across is "I'm so much cleverer and better educated (or other measure of superiority) than you." There can be nicer messages communicated in the same way, such as putting people at their ease, but i find the sound of my own voice to be so much more soothing than the act of listening to other people. |
|
| |
I don't think [beanangel] ever does this, partly because i don't think computer programs have those sorts of issues, but it needn't be semantic communication someone is after. |
|
| |
It probably looks like a singuarity.An infinitely dense
infinitely small point of energy in space. Probably
looks like a really bright lightbulb... No, it probably
looks like hell i really think tho |
|
| |
Sorry, forgot to mention that the idea's good. What would happen if you pushed a video camera towards a black hole at close to the speed of light? |
|
| |
The question is ill-posed: the answer depends on your
choice of a frame of reference. (e.g. do you mean from
the camera's point of view? From the point of view of a
spaceship,
receiving the camera's transmissions, and having a zero
velocity relative to the black hole? In what frame of
reference is the camera's velocity supposed to be close to
the speed of light? and so on.) |
|
| |
Specify that, and General Relativity can give you an answer
('though I can't). I don't think Quantum Mechanics can
*except* that, per Wikipedia, current consensus apparently
is that a black hole in QM looks *almost* the same as it
does in GR with respect to hairlessness. |
|
| |
Sorry, that was a bit dashed off. Signals wouldn't get out of the event horizon unless the signalling system somehow also involved quantum entanglement or something. |
|
| |
Is there some way of exploiting the ergosphere? Could virtual particles being swallowed interact with real particles (not photons) being transmitted from there? That would be information leaking out of the black hole though, wouldn't it? |
|
| |
Bell's Theorem won't hold because of the structural discontinuity at the Event Horizon. Those of us who were fortunate enough to here the Man's famous lectures on "The breakdown of physics in the vicinity of space time singularities" have some small inkling of what is involved. The rest of you will have to make do with the book. <link> |
|
| |
I'm really not sure that anything is happening inside a black hole. Conclusively if black holes break down wave states (do we know this?) Then images taken using photon entanglement should show the photon falling into a high density mass. Beyond that point entanglement as we understand reveals nothing more. No more wave state no more information. |
|
| |
So we can see in, and they... can see out. |
|
| |
Ian - I think not. What's needed here is Cole's Law. |
|
| |
Well Ian, maybe if no-one actually watched the video it would be really interesting for similar reasons. |
|
| |
A new definition of Beanie: zero point; energy. |
|
| |
[Ian_Tindale]'s "record" button of a video camera is, actually,
a decent metaphor for a black hole: it absorbs one bit of
information, then sits there, sullenly refusing to give any
clue as to its internal state. ([IT] forgive me if you were
being subtle and I've en-coarsened your idea.) |
|
| |
I have no idea what any of this means. I feel like some genius/lunatic has grazed my mind with a sliver of knowledge whilst stabbing me in the back with a knife crafted from the bones of an idiot. |
|
| |
Most HBers feel the pain somewhat lower down. |
|
| |
[marked-for-tagline] // zero point; energy. // |
|
| |
// video camera // Any macroscopic object approaching a black hole will be torn into constituent particles by tidal forces long before reaching the event horizon. Much the same effect seems to happen to [beanangel]'s ideas, long before they reach the keyboard. |
|
| |
[MB] // white noise contains all possible information. // Well, yes, but, if I recall my information theory correctly, what makes signal signal, and not noise, is its non-randomness; in that it requires a smaller-than-infinite search to extract it from background noise. If your source contains all possible signals, how do you know you are extracting the desired signal and not one of the other, infinitely many, irrelevant ones? Shakespeare's infinite monkeys would have also typed up a whole lot of pointless shopping lists. |
|
| |
Of course, a pseudo-random signal may appear random to an observer without the correct key to extract it, as in the case of FHSS or UWB. |
|
| |
Or, for the humanists in the audience, s/white noise/Library
of Babel/ |
|
| |
[marked-for-tagline] //like some genius/lunatic has grazed my mind with a sliver of knowledge whilst stabbing me in the back with a knife crafted from the bones of an idiot// |
|
| |
Yes! Yes, that's it exactly. |
|
| |