Starship Asterisk*

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:26 pm

The Code wrote:(Time Frame) A quantifiable Segment of time that can be measured To a degree where different segments measure time in different aspects according to how close we get to the event horizon.

Sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me. In all likelihood, this is a concept that would need to be defined symbolically.

If time changes at all, (which they say it does)

It doesn't. All that changes is the relative measurement of time between non-inertial frames.

How extreme does this go, past the event horizon ?

Our existing theories are not valid past the event horizon, so the question cannot be answered scientifically.

If your virtual particle is headed that way it could be deemed as going back in time ?

Many particles, virtual or otherwise, can be treated as traveling backwards in time. There is nothing mysterious about this. It comes down to how time is treated in the mathematics describing the theory.

(Breaks Laws) By this i mean GR-SR.

Again, you can't break a natural law. If our theory is incorrect, we may find cases where it doesn't apply, or in extreme examples, completely replace an old theory with a new one. But no natural law can be broken, or it wouldn't be a law.

It been known to not be explained by them or any understanding of the extreme things we see and can not be explained by using these laws.

We have no observations that contradict either GR or SR. There are a large number of independent observations that support their validity. It is certainly possible- even likely-that GR is an incomplete theory.

by **The Code** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
The Code wrote:A : Are not black Holes stuck in a time frame that move differently to ours, yet its effect over reaches all of Time . Can Those things been devoured, be considered leaping backwards ? After all they Maybe break all the known laws.
The "known laws" are called that for a reason. Unless you can propose some new, testable law (and in this case, it would need to define what it even means to move backward in time), the question is scientifically meaningless. Under current theory there is no such thing as a "time frame", so you would need to define that, as well.

When you say something breaks known laws, what you are really saying is that it is operating in a realm where known laws don't apply. You can't break a natural law. There are two ways that you can reasonably make this proposition: by looking at where theory breaks down (which is how people try to understand what might be going on inside a black hole), or by making an actual observation of something that can't be explained by known laws (I don't know of any example of this related to black holes).

(Time Frame) A quantifiable Segment of time that can be measured To a degree where different segments measure time in different aspects according to how close we get to the event horizon. If time changes at all, (which they say it does) How extreme does this go, past the event horizon ? If your virtual particle is headed that way it could be deemed as going back in time ? If its ten years for us and only 5 years at the event horizon, Then maybe past that, The theoretical (NOW) For a black hole is 6 billion years ago. That's if the whole of space time was created at the BB. The Start and The End of time.

(Breaks Laws) By this i mean GR-SR. It been known to not be explained by them or any understanding of the extreme things we see and can not be explained by using these laws. By this, things have been observed where by the math does not add up, where theoretically they should. This tells me there's a whole new somethings else going on. But never the less, interesting stuff.

tc

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:31 pm

The Code wrote:A : Are not black Holes stuck in a time frame that move differently to ours, yet its effect over reaches all of Time . Can Those things been devoured, be considered leaping backwards ? After all they Maybe break all the known laws.

The "known laws" are called that for a reason. Unless you can propose some new, testable law (and in this case, it would need to define what it even means to move backward in time), the question is scientifically meaningless. Under current theory there is no such thing as a "time frame", so you would need to define that, as well.

When you say something breaks known laws, what you are really saying is that it is operating in a realm where known laws don't apply. You can't break a natural law. There are two ways that you can reasonably make this proposition: by looking at where theory breaks down (which is how people try to understand what might be going on inside a black hole), or by making an actual observation of something that can't be explained by known laws (I don't know of any example of this related to black holes).

by **The Code** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:55 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:
Aescens wrote:What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?
what would be the difference?
The "movie definition" suggests something physically traveling backwards in time, carrying information. No particle does that, virtual or otherwise. But in quantum mechanics it is convenient to consider that particles can travel either forward or backward in time. They need not be virtual- positrons are typically treated as moving backwards in time. This does not violate relativity or causality, however, since no information is transported backwards in time.

I,m Hooked on Time travel in every way shape & form.

A : Are not black Holes stuck in a time frame that move differently to ours, yet its effect over reaches all of Time . Can Those things been devoured, be considered leaping backwards ? After all they Maybe break all the known laws.

tc

by **rstevenson** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:03 pm

outlaw wrote:
rstevenson wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).
I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.
cmon im trying to be serious.

Really? You asked...

- do virtual particles time travel?
- so they do time travel backwards?
- So virtual particles don't time travel backwards?
- On this article, [...] it says they do travel backwards in time.
- [...] if something were to travel faster than light in one frame it will travel backwards in time?
- I think this is the article that says virtual particles travel faster than light and even backwards in time.
- Do we know of anything that travels back in time?

So the way I see it, if you are serious you need to do some serious background reading, since you're only fussing about something you don't yet grasp. You seem to want simple answers to complex questions, and when you don't understand (or accept) the answers you get, you just rephrase the question. Better to do the background reading first, then come back with more specific questions based on a more complete understanding of the distinction, as Chris has been trying to tell you, between the math and reality.

Rob

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:24 am

rstevenson wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).
I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.

Rob

cmon im trying to be serious.

by **rstevenson** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:58 am

Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).

I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.

Rob

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:24 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:I think this is the article that says virtual particles travel faster than light and even backwards in time. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physic ... icles.html
I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).

Do we know of anything that travels back in time?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:22 am

outlaw wrote:I think this is the article that says virtual particles travel faster than light and even backwards in time. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physic ... icles.html

I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:17 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:if im reading relativity correct,please correct me if im wrong,if something were to travel faster than light in one frame it will travel backwards in time?
If pigs could fly. The "if" in this case is physically meaningless. Since nothing physical can travel faster than c with respect to another physical thing in the same frame, nothing can travel backwards in time by that mechanism. Just because the math leads to that conclusion (i.e. if you plug in v>c you get -t) that doesn't mean there is any physical meaning to it. All sorts of theories are described by math that can lead to unphysical conclusions if you fail to take into considerations the conditions of validity for those theories. And one of those conditions in the case of relativity is that v<=c. Outside that boundary condition, the math that describes the theory is not valid.

I think this is the article that says virtual particles travel faster than light and even backwards in time. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physic ... icles.html

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:05 am

outlaw wrote:if im reading relativity correct,please correct me if im wrong,if something were to travel faster than light in one frame it will travel backwards in time?

If pigs could fly. The "if" in this case is physically meaningless. Since nothing physical can travel faster than c with respect to another physical thing in the same frame, nothing can travel backwards in time by that mechanism. Just because the math leads to that conclusion (i.e. if you plug in v>c you get -t) that doesn't mean there is any physical meaning to it. All sorts of theories are described by math that can lead to unphysical conclusions if you fail to take into considerations the conditions of validity for those theories. And one of those conditions in the case of relativity is that v<=c. Outside that boundary condition, the math that describes the theory is not valid.

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:57 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:On this article,maybe i reading it wrong if you scroll down to "faster than light?" it says they do travel backwards in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator
You are reading it wrong. You are failing to distinguish between a mathematical (or even physical) equivalency to going faster than light or going backward in time, and what this means when stated in English (which is very imprecise for ideas like this).

If you want to envision some particles going backwards in time, do so. But since there is no information being conveyed in that direction, it's hard to see what difference it makes.

if im reading relativity correct,please correct me if im wrong,if something were to travel faster than light in one frame it will travel backwards in time?

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:35 pm

outlaw wrote:On this article,maybe i reading it wrong if you scroll down to "faster than light?" it says they do travel backwards in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator

You are reading it wrong. You are failing to distinguish between a mathematical (or even physical) equivalency to going faster than light or going backward in time, and what this means when stated in English (which is very imprecise for ideas like this).

If you want to envision some particles going backwards in time, do so. But since there is no information being conveyed in that direction, it's hard to see what difference it makes.

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:So virtual particles don't time travel backwards?
In the way you seem to intuit the meaning of traveling backwards in time, no, they don't. No particles travel backwards in time, although it is sometimes convenient to treat them that way mathematically, within the framework of current theory.

On this article,maybe i reading it wrong if you scroll down to "faster than light?" it says they do travel backwards in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:22 pm

outlaw wrote:So virtual particles don't time travel backwards?

In the way you seem to intuit the meaning of traveling backwards in time, no, they don't. No particles travel backwards in time, although it is sometimes convenient to treat them that way mathematically, within the framework of current theory.

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:
Aescens wrote:What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?
what would be the difference?
The "movie definition" suggests something physically traveling backwards in time, carrying information. No particle does that, virtual or otherwise. But in quantum mechanics it is convenient to consider that particles can travel either forward or backward in time. They need not be virtual- positrons are typically treated as moving backwards in time. This does not violate relativity or causality, however, since no information is transported backwards in time.

So virtual particles don't time travel backwards?

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:45 pm

outlaw wrote:
Aescens wrote:What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?
what would be the difference?

The "movie definition" suggests something physically traveling backwards in time, carrying information. No particle does that, virtual or otherwise. But in quantum mechanics it is convenient to consider that particles can travel either forward or backward in time. They need not be virtual- positrons are typically treated as moving backwards in time. This does not violate relativity or causality, however, since no information is transported backwards in time.

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:27 am

Aescens wrote:
outlaw wrote:do virtual particles time travel?
What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?

what would be the difference?

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:37 am

neufer wrote:
outlaw wrote:
do virtual particles time travel?

You have no idea

[url=http://www.realmagick.com/path-integral-example/]Path Integral Example of a virtual outlaw[/url] :wink:

so they do time travel backwards?

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:42 am

outlaw wrote:
do virtual particles time travel?

You have no idea

: [url=http://www.realmagick.com/path-integral-example/]Path Integral Example of a virtual outlaw[/url] :wink:

by **Aescens** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:16 am

outlaw wrote:do virtual particles time travel?

What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?

by **outlaw** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:04 am

do virtual particles time travel?

by **neufer** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:52 pm

outlaw wrote:
neufer wrote:
outlaw wrote:
can hawking radiation be explained without virtual particles?
Of course.

The main advantage of virtual particles is in providing for simplified explanations.
how come all the information i get is connecting virtual particles with hawking radiation?

Probably because you wouldn't understand alternative explanations
(which are mathematically equivalent to virtual particle explanations anyway.)

by **outlaw** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:27 pm

neufer wrote:
outlaw wrote:
can hawking radiation be explained without virtual particles?
Of course.

The main advantage of virtual particles is in providing for simplified explanations.

how come all the information i get is connecting virtual particles with hawking radiation?

by **neufer** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:09 pm

outlaw wrote:
can hawking radiation be explained without virtual particles?

Of course.

The main advantage of virtual particles is in providing for simplified explanations.

Starship Asterisk*

Hawking radiation evidence

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence

Re: Hawking radiation evidence