Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Scientific fact vrs. religious faith? [View all]Jim__
(15,280 posts)33. It looks like your friend, the physicist, knew what he was talking about.
An excerpt from an article in Nature:
...
According to the then-accepted account, he wouldnt feel anything special at first, even when his fall took him through the black holes event horizon: the invisible boundary beyond which nothing can escape. But eventually after hours, days or even weeks if the black hole was big enough he would begin to notice that gravity was tugging at his feet more strongly than at his head. As his plunge carried him inexorably downwards, the difference in forces would quickly increase and rip him apart, before finally crushing his remnants into the black holes infinitely dense core.
But Polchinskis calculations, carried out with two of his students Ahmed Almheiri and James Sully and fellow string theorist Donald Marolf at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), were telling a different story1. In their account, quantum effects would turn the event horizon into a seething maelstrom of particles. Anyone who fell into it would hit a wall of fire and be burned to a crisp in an instant.
The teams verdict, published in July 2012, shocked the physics community. Such firewalls would violate a foundational tenet of physics that was first articulated almost a century ago by Albert Einstein, who used it as the basis of general relativity, his theory of gravity. Known as the equivalence principle, it states in part that an observer falling in a gravitational field even the powerful one inside a black hole will see exactly the same phenomena as an observer floating in empty space. Without this principle, Einsteins framework crumbles.
...
The result has been a flurry of research papers about firewalls, all struggling to resolve the impasse, none succeeding to everyones satisfaction. Steve Giddings, a quantum physicist at the UCSB, describes the situation as a crisis in the foundations of physics that may need a revolution to resolve.
...
According to the then-accepted account, he wouldnt feel anything special at first, even when his fall took him through the black holes event horizon: the invisible boundary beyond which nothing can escape. But eventually after hours, days or even weeks if the black hole was big enough he would begin to notice that gravity was tugging at his feet more strongly than at his head. As his plunge carried him inexorably downwards, the difference in forces would quickly increase and rip him apart, before finally crushing his remnants into the black holes infinitely dense core.
But Polchinskis calculations, carried out with two of his students Ahmed Almheiri and James Sully and fellow string theorist Donald Marolf at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), were telling a different story1. In their account, quantum effects would turn the event horizon into a seething maelstrom of particles. Anyone who fell into it would hit a wall of fire and be burned to a crisp in an instant.
The teams verdict, published in July 2012, shocked the physics community. Such firewalls would violate a foundational tenet of physics that was first articulated almost a century ago by Albert Einstein, who used it as the basis of general relativity, his theory of gravity. Known as the equivalence principle, it states in part that an observer falling in a gravitational field even the powerful one inside a black hole will see exactly the same phenomena as an observer floating in empty space. Without this principle, Einsteins framework crumbles.
...
The result has been a flurry of research papers about firewalls, all struggling to resolve the impasse, none succeeding to everyones satisfaction. Steve Giddings, a quantum physicist at the UCSB, describes the situation as a crisis in the foundations of physics that may need a revolution to resolve.
...
Imagine that!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A scientist can generally tell you what facts would change their mind about a theory.
trotsky
Apr 2013
#1
No really it is. They are all in The Big Book of Unalterable Science Facts.
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2013
#17
Let me give you the best answer to another question your raise, one which may sound a little
dimbear
Apr 2013
#20