Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 18:05	brigadecommander I enjoy your posts. Please don't be unfair, I don't think anyone is referring to you.
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 18:06	brigadecommander P.S. I actually wish you would post more often. You post some amazing stuff.
bobspringett 07-Jun-25, 18:14	Patz 17:47 It's implicit in Mo's post 10:22 <Creatures in an atom size universe... Something doesn't make sense here.> Mo is correct. In an 'atom-sized universe, with the same values for Planck's Constant and other 'universal constants', there would not be sufficient space for atoms to form and therefore for living creatures in anything like to form we know. All photons with a wavelength comparable to the diameter of a hydrogen atom would be ionising radiation, etc. Even as a boy, I was amused by shows like 'World of Giants' with humans shrunk to the size of ants, and 'Incredible Voyage' with an entire submarine reduced to a size small enough to fit through capillaries. Are they making the atoms themselves smaller? Or are they reducing the number of atoms? Either way, it creates huge problems.
vanessashane 07-Jun-25, 18:23	apatzer 17:59 According to current theory of black holes (basically, general relativity) neither matter nor energy escapes black holes. Gravity affects light as well as matter. The only known "escape" from a black hole is spontaneous pair production near the event horizon (illustrative paper at physics.aps.org).
lord_shiva 07-Jun-25, 19:23	Gravity Affects Light has no mass. So gravity, which acts on mass, cannot affect light. So how does light bend in a gravity well? Excellent question. It is questions like these that propel science forward and inspire generations of young minds. Next question! Just kidding—this isn’t politics. Gravity warps spacetime. Light always travels at the same speed, in a straight line, but the path it takes appears bent from flatter space. Vanessa isn’t wrong, but the language benefits from greater elaboration, maybe. She is also destroying me in chess. As usual. Be interesting to see a game between her and BC.
lord_shiva 07-Jun-25, 19:24	Apatzer I need to watch the video before commenting, but the notion each black hole is associate$ with another universe is interesting. What happens when they merge?
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 20:58	vanessashane Yes, that is Hawking radiation. It can over a vast period of time evaporate an entire black hole. Although it would take 10 to the power of 148 years to accomplish. But then there are black hole jets, where the magnetic field twists incredibly at the poles and energy is transported away like a death ray. I wonder how that escapes the vicinity.
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 21:00	Lord Shiva Light does carry energy and momentum. The question of what happens when two Black holes collide is fascinating. I would imagine it would be similar to galactic mergers.
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 21:07	bobspringett 18:14 Yes that is absolutely true, however we are thinking in this universe. When another universe is created it is like a complete reset. All the limits and laws of physics are constrained and relative inside the gravity field of the black hole. It becomes a partitioned off universe. Nothing gets in other than energy (in it's most pure and basic form, vacuum energy) and nothing can ever get out. It's like cloning one hard drive to another hardrive. Or a better analogy is, people in a ship orbiting a back hole thier time would slow way down compared to people on earth. Yet to them nothing has changed and their wrist watches would still be keeping track of time in a rate they were use to. Nothing would seem out of the ordinary unless the two tried to communicate.
vanessashane 07-Jun-25, 21:20	apatzer 20:58 Escaping the vicinity of a black hole isn't that difficult, relatively speaking. Crossing the event horizon is where the problem lies. Black holes aren't an irresistible source of gravity, it's just that at the event horizon, the escape velocity of equal to the speed of light. Just away from that, the escape velocity is < c, and light can escape -- although the gravitational redshift would be something fierce.
vanessashane 07-Jun-25, 21:21	Shiva 19:23 Yeah, your description is certainly more accurate. sorry about that.
vanessashane 07-Jun-25, 21:24	Also Shiva 19:23 I checked out brigadecommander's rating. I think the game would be interesting in the "How quickly can Vanessa be destroyed?" way.
bobspringett 07-Jun-25, 21:25	Patz 21:07 <When another universe is created it is like a complete reset. All the limits and laws of physics are constrained and relative inside the gravity field of the black hole.> That was precisely my point. The laws of physics would be different. But moving on from that point... 1. If the laws would be different, then that implies that there is nothing to prevent OUR laws from changing. 2. If the laws can change, then what prevents them from changing abruptly, arbitrarily, catastrophically? The speculation in my post to Athena was that all physical constants are somehow interlinked, with time since the Big Bang being one factor. This would ensure such changes occur smoothly and (in our epoch) over a very long time. Perhaps these might interact to form a dimensionless "fundamental universal constant", like the fine structure constant is the dimensionless product of the elementary charge, Planck's constant, the speed of light and the electric constant.
apatzer 07-Jun-25, 21:42	bobspringett the laws aren't / wouldn't be different. The laws of physics are effectively encoded in the fabric of Spacetime it's self. Like the Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) the universe clones itself.
bobspringett 07-Jun-25, 22:30	Patz 21:42 <the laws aren't / wouldn't be different> Then I clearly don't understand what you mean by "When another universe is created it is like a complete reset. All the limits and laws of physics are constrained and relative inside the gravity field of the black hole. It becomes a partitioned off universe. (21:07)"
lord_shiva 08-Jun-25, 06:58	Partitioned Universes If spacetime doesn’t vary between universes and spacetime dictates the physical constants then the physical constants don’t change between universes. Universes with “bad” initial constants undergo Elon style rapid, unscheduled disassembly.
apatzer 08-Jun-25, 12:43	Lord Shiva That is correct, they don't change between universe's. They remain exactly the same contained within a gravity field. The problem comes when humans imagine other universes and do a comparison. Space time is compressed within a black hole, it faithfully reproduces a universe just like it did for our universe. Here is an exert from AI The question of whether our universe exists within a black hole is a speculative but intriguing hypothesis in theoretical physics. While no definitive probability can be assigned, current research and observations provide both supporting arguments and counterpoints: Key Supporting Evidence Mass and Radius Comparison: Estimates suggest the observable universe’s mass (~10⁵⁴ kg) corresponds to a Schwarzschild radius of ~156 billion light-years. Since the observable universe’s radius is ~46.5 billion light-years, it could theoretically fit within such a black hole. Galactic Rotation Anomalies: Recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations of 263 galaxies revealed ~66% rotate clockwise, deviating from the expected 50/50 split. This asymmetry aligns with theories proposing the universe inherited rotation from a parent black hole. Theoretical Frameworks: Schwarzschild Cosmology: Suggests our universe resides inside a black hole within a larger parent universe, with black holes acting as wormholes to other universes. Torsion-Based Models: Modifications to general relativity (e.g., Einstein-Cartan theory) propose black holes avoid singularities by bouncing into expanding “baby universes”. Counterarguments and Limitations Cosmic vs. Black Hole Horizons: The universe’s cosmological horizon differs fundamentally from a black hole’s event horizon. The former is a limit of observation due to expansion, while the latter traps matter irreversibly. Singularity Discrepancies: The Big Bang singularity represents a past moment, not a spatial point like a black hole’s singularity. Additionally, the universe expands rather than collapsing toward a center. Lack of Consensus: Most evidence remains theoretical or preliminary. For example, the JWST galaxy spin data could stem from observational bias, and torsion-based models are untested. Current Scientific Stance The hypothesis is considered a viable but unproven idea within niche cosmological models. While recent JWST findings and theoretical work lend tentative support, mainstream cosmology does not yet accept it due to unresolved contradictions. No peer-reviewed study quantifies its likelihood, but it remains an active area of research. In summary, the “percentage chance” is indeterminable with current data but represents a non-zero possibility worthy of further investigation.
apatzer 08-Jun-25, 12:53	bobspringett Think of Spacetime and the singularity as being a mustard seed. When it is planted in fertile soil. It reproduces a mustard bearing large shrub. When spacetime and energy collapse into a singularity it picks up a tremendous amount of energy going through a gravity well. When it compresses as far as it is allowed to by physics, it bounces forming a Universe, it goes through the same initial expansion called cosmic inflation. This period occurred about plank seconds after the Big Bang, during which the universes expanded exponentially in a tiny fraction of a second. Everything is faithfully re-created within the volume it exists in. Our volume, size, time etc are completely separate from the parent universe. No matter going into the black hole survives as matter. It is all converted into dark energy.
bobspringett 08-Jun-25, 16:27	Patz Thanks for the clarification. If I am to read Shiva's post in that context, it would imply that the various 'constants' of the original universe are inherited by the new 'baby' universe. Do I have that right? This puts into my mind the 'conclusion' of a Stephen Baxter book; I think it was titled 'Time'. I recall it being monumental in scope (all of Baxter's writings are full of meat!), but a bit clunky in execution. Still worth reading. But back to 'inheriting' the characteristics of our current space-time. Would this be so? Would there not be at least one 'phase change' in this process? And would the 'fabric' of space-time persist through these phase changes? It all seems a bit like melting an ice-cube, boiling it to steam, and then re-freezing it. What ensures it will re-freeze as an ice cube, not snow? Or if the process is done with Carbon, will it come back as graphite or a diamond? There are still questions.
apatzer 08-Jun-25, 17:05	bobspringett I could be wrong (of course) ... It is like a fractal, however you would like to describe it. No matter in any form +of a thing) survives it's journey to the singularity. Which actually doesn't exist as a singularity because the energy bounces. During its decent space can flow or bend as fast as it wants. The Matter that collapses inwards also picks up a tremendous amount of energy due to velocity. Mush of this is also released as heat and a shock wave or a gravitational wave bounce. Because singilaties shouldn't exist. Temperature reaches approximately 10 to the 32nd kelvin during this process. Which is roughly 180,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 °F . This resets everything, and the universe expanded extreamly rapidly (cosmic inflation) until it was past the point of a critical re collapse, then it kept expanding at a slower rate. As the universe expands to t forms (,or reforms) exactly as it has done a hundred septillion times before. Nothing gets in other than dark energy because matter falling into the black hole in the parent universe doesn't survive the process as matter. It is stripped down to its most fundamental energy, what we call dark energy. This energy enters onto and into the universe everywhere all at once. And that would mean that the rate of expansion of our universe could change at any time. Getting faster or slower depending on how much the black hole is feeding. But here is the kicker... We have no way of knowing the time rate passage of the parent universe compared to ours. One second there could be a thousand years here. And one atom there could be the size of a solar system if it survived as an atom after it enters. But it doesn't. There isn't any way currently of knowing the difference in time or size. Because it is all relative to the gravitational field our universe is in. I also would imagine that our universe is balanced between expansion and collapse similar to the way a star is. The pressure of the dark energy keeps expanding. But again we are constrained to our spotlight aka the observable Universe. However is this is true, and we break things down into language we can understand to describe this. Our universe that is expanding would be a basketball sitting in a spherical gravitational field of near perfection, that would be the size of the Milky way galaxy in comparison. No thing, gets in and no thing gets out
bobspringett 08-Jun-25, 18:10	Patz 17:05 Interesting speculation, and I'm a big fan of speculation. That's why I like sci-fi. But I don't see how any of it is testable. As you say, "We are constrained to our spotlight aka the observable Universe."
apatzer 08-Jun-25, 18:48	bobspringett There is some compelling circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence). The entire Universe (recently) was found to be rotating. To me that is a possible tell. Along with other things. I don't know how we could possibly test that. But since that hypothesis has recently been gaining traction. Hopefully a few dozen brilliant minds will come up with a way to test it.
bobspringett 08-Jun-25, 19:25	Patz "Compelling"? Drop that one word, and the rest of your post is an account of some reasonable speculation. From what I've read (and I admit to being light-years away from an expert!), any general overall angular momentum measured so far is less than possible observational error. There are reports of a preponderance of galactic rotations in one sense rather than the other (I presume this is relative to some fixed axis in the universe as a whole), but even that is not considered statistically insignificant, and individual galaxies provide only a tiny amount of angular momentum in terms of the universe as a whole. Comparable to the cyclists in a velodrome contributing to the Earth's rotation. But an interesting hypothesis and well worth testing if someone can figure out how to. Any nett angular momentum outside possible observational error would be difficult to reconcile with the Big Bang as currently accepted, and indicate some 'outside' influence.
apatzer 08-Jun-25, 19:31	Bob Yes, it currently is IMHO compelling but, thanks for your thoughtful input! You’re right that, traditionally, measurements of the universe’s overall angular momentum have been so small that they fall within observational errors. The idea that galaxies rotate more in one direction than the other has been considered statistically insignificant in most past studies, and individual galaxies do contribute only a tiny fraction of any total angular momentum. However, very recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope have found something quite surprising: in a sample of 263 distant galaxies, about two-thirds appear to rotate in the same direction. This is a much stronger asymmetry than we would expect by chance, which could suggest a preferred direction or rotation on a cosmic scale—or it might be due to some observational bias that we don’t fully understand yet. So while your point reflects the traditional consensus, these new findings are challenging that view and opening up exciting questions about whether the universe might have some overall rotation or large-scale structure we haven’t detected before. It’s definitely an area to watch as more data comes in and the science develops!
lord_shiva 08-Jun-25, 19:50	Black Holes It is to be remembered that black holes tear the very fabric of spacetime itself. I see no reason an all cotton universe can’t tear into a polyester form, or something else entirely. Iron mail. Maybe a Playtex girdle and camisole. Or a Mickey Mouse costume. It is just as easy to imagine the physical constants are independent from each other as that they are dependent on spacetime. We don’t have a GUT or TOE. And Apatzer’s idea isn’t widely accepted in the cosmology community. It is an idea, but black holes might easily lead nowhere as to budding baby universes.
lord_shiva 08-Jun-25, 20:01	Conservation of Angular Momentum It is fascinating to me AM isn’t balanced. The discrepancy is large enough to be disturbingly unnerving. Large enough to be hard to ascribe to observational error. And fascinating the entire universe could spin.
bobspringett 08-Jun-25, 20:56	Shiva 20:01 <Large enough to be hard to ascribe to observational error.> WOW!! That is a big call! When looking at proto-galaxies at the limit of the observable universe, even the most microscopic error in assessing their 'proper motions' would have a large effect on universal nett angular momentum. Then multiply that by the number of remote galaxies. And then there's the proto-galaxies we can't see, even further away, that would have an even greater influence. I have trouble imagining how any 'universal' measurement could be made. On the other hand, if some grand enterprise manages to determine that overall AM is in fact zero, how can we be confident that the frame of reference for that calculation is itself not rotating, even if at an imperceptibly slow rate? The usual tests for determining an inertial frame of reference all involve the scope for miniscule errors in measurement. I would be surprised if this question will be settled to any degree of confidence any time soon.
lord_shiva 09-Jun-25, 12:45	Bob 20:56 There’s no reason to believe AM is no more unevenly distributed than mass, which is quite uniform. If you flip a fair coin ten times, you could easily get eight heads, even nine heads. And if you flip a fair coin a thousand times, you should find ten flip sequences with eight heads, but what you WON’T find after a thousand flips is 60% heads. To be sure heads won’t be exactly 50%, but the deviation from a thousand flips isn’t going to be 10% off. Nor 5%. You’re unlikely to see a 1% deviation. How many galaxies are within a billion light years? Why would those galaxies reveal AM anomaly attributable to consistent measurement error? It is possible there is a flaw in the equipment—we have plenty of experience with that. But a discrepancy this large implies AM anisotropy. I doubt they were even attempting AM measurements on red dot galaxies. And AM discrepancy resolved in beyond visibility is still anomalous, given we should close in on zero deviation well inside a billion light years.
lord_shiva 09-Jun-25, 12:50	AM Anomaly Gemini: “Within a 1 billion light-year sphere around our Milky Way, there are thousands of galaxies, including those in the Local Supercluster. Estimates vary, but a 2018 paper in The Astrophysical Journal found a minimum of 60,000 brightest galaxies within this region, according to the Institute for Computational Cosmology. Researchers also discovered a large, spherical "bubble" of galaxies spanning 1 billion light-years, with thousands of galaxies aligned on its surface, according to Sky & Telescope.” The institute for Computational Cosmology is even better, 3 million large and 30 million dwarf galaxies within one billion light years. www.icc.dur.ac.uk
lord_shiva 09-Jun-25, 12:59	AM Anomaly II I’m by no means vested in Apatzer’s statement on AM anisotropy. I didn’t see the citation, only his remark. I’ve no reason to doubt that is right, outside the fact it conflicts with the accepted paradigm. I’ve always been big on the majority scientific view post the relativity revolution. Despite Galileo scientists prior to Einstein tended to be wedded to their own pet theory. While we still combat that, the QM world really upset the applecart. Someone posits something, it gets attacked from every conceivable angle—even by the researcher making the claim. Any decent paper concludes with what has been overlooked and avenues that could refute the stated findings. You got to love this. The method works. If AM is off this much that isn’t corrected by a discovery of flawed methodology, dramatic revisions are called for. This strikes me as bigger news than JWST’s impossibly distant red dot galaxies.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.