Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat  It was Einstein himself who attempted to unify gravity with EMR. Recently with string theory it appears EMR may have been caused by gravity in the big bang ( negative gravity causing repulsion when everything gets compressed to the size of strings ) Quasars may be caused by black hole negative gravity. Additionally black hole radiation is caused by black holes.
From Dr. Strominger of Harvard University:
But the contradiction between gravity and electromagnetism has complicated any discourse on black holes for years now. As Stephen Hawking showed in the early 1970s, when you throw quantum mechanics into the equation, particles and light can "boil off" the surface of the black hole. This continues until the hole itself actually disappears, leaving no trace of what was inside. This concept, Strominger says, was "extremely disturbing" to physicists who believe in the principle of determinism - the idea that the laws of physics allow scientists to work backwards and reconstruct the past. Could string theory help explain away this problem?
Best to all,
Pat |
----------------------------------
Hello, All,
I just wanted to jump in here with a couple of thoughts.
One, I don't know why Stephen Hawking and others assume that information is necessarily shredded and "destroyed" upon entering a black hole. Why isn't it just as possible that it all (the matter/energy/information/images/patterns etc) is neatly laid down in very dense film-like layers on the outer surface of the spinning mass just inside the event horizon and maintains its integrity by the same Newtonian geometric relationships of vectors interacting and conservation of momentum with relativity considerations from the point of view of the "particles" themselves taken into account? Similar to the way that data is stored on your hard drive.
My second point is about negative gravity.
What do you think solar winds are? Aren't they forces leaving a central mass with a reverse--inverse square law effect of getting weaker and weaker with the square of the radius from the source. No one has yet really identified this "force" of solar winds as another basic force, even though it is so obviously similar to the opposite side of gravity in strength and in directional orientation as gravity's inverse--going out from a central "mass" instead of concentrating into a mass point in a balanced way going into a central mass point.
If you read my hypothesis on gravity, it (Gravity)could easily be the geometric result of where solar winds meet each other in any balanced configuration of opposing directions.
One other point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general.
Respectfully submitted, Aaron