@ACuriousMind I'm not convinced that the formalisms most commonly used are necessarily optimal. That's the computer side of me: I know how arbitrarily the human mind can make subtle presentation decisions even within precise and fully correct mathematical formulations. Intuition and formalism don't always match.
@TerryBollinger The whole teaching of the Lorentz group and spinors is so messed up because physicists think they can do group theory when they...can't :P
@ACuriousMind Dirac! His intuition on that... hard won over I think a couple of winter months, wasn't it? "Acrobatic" indeed. Everything since, e.g. sadly twistors, I think has gotten off the mark a bit from that amazing start...
It is widely accepted that the singularity of the Schwarzschild metric at the event horizon is purely an artifact of the coordinates and no physical singularity exists at the horizon. However, as Karlhede had shown in 1982, the
Karlhede's scalar $R^{ijkl;m}R_{ijkl;m}$ (the square of the covariant...
@JohnRennie first thought: that question should totally be ours ;-) nah, but seriously it would be well on topic here and a very good question for this site
@JohnDuffield I have this inherent disposition to think of as living in a spin 1 space, whatever that means (and Lisi Garrett seems to have such an idea). The 1/2 spin particles just don't quite fit into it, and "gear down" to half speed in order to fit. Nothing but images, but they stick in my mind and do seem to help a bit.
You (@JohnRennie) do kind of dodge the question, but in a useful way because the scalar isn't actually important to resolving the apparent inconsistency
@TerryBollinger : I have more mundane views, wherein an electron is just an electromagnetic wave displacing its own path into a closed twisting turning spin ½ path. In atomic orbitals "electrons exist as standing waves". Standing wave, standing field.
@Danu I'd expect that on a mathematical site, one is normally looking for more mathematical intuition. But sometimes the answer to a question is simply a physical one.
@DavidZ I think that "one of us" could give a good answer to the part that asks about intuition about black hole horizons, but I'm not sure about that scalar
I did mean event horizon, some of the Kip Thorne discussion e.g.
Eh??
Giant humongous black hole, almost flat... is that event horizon sharper than a razor or fuzzed out and ambiguous? I feel stupid even asking, surely its sharp, yet...
@TerryBollinger Though be careful about horizons. Remember that a true horizon is defined only by consdiering the entire spacetime out to infinity. In the real universe true horizons probably don't exist.
@DavidZ Really it's the distance and flatness that bothers me greatly, not the quantum. It just seems like a sharpness that doesn't have the right physical parameters of mass and energy around it to justify such a precise position. Not so small ones, where curvature implies sharpness.
Recently, I read in the journal Nature that Stephen Hawking wrote a paper claiming that black holes do not exist. How is this possible? Please explain it to me because I didn't understand what he said.
References:
Article in Nature News: Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' (Zeeya Mera...
@JohnRennie So, if a photon launches perfectly vertically from... well, whatever is in a black hole... is it stopped, or does it eventually exit? That is, does the apparent closure of the horizon never quite close at the top? Call it classical Hawking radiation, no quantum needed...
In general relativity (ignoring Hawking radiation), why is a black hole black? Why nothing, not even light, can escape from inside a black hole? To make the question simpler, say, why is a Schwarzschild black hole black?
@JohnRennie So, a simple straightforward "no"... though of course that seems to be the very point that Hawking has backtracked from. No matter how I read his sort-of paper, I keep coming back to exactly that image: The apparent horizon never quite closes up, and remains slightly open at perfect vertical. I can't come up with any other geometry that matches what Hawking seems to be asserting.
In general relativity, an apparent horizon is a surface that is the boundary between light rays that are directed outwards and moving outwards, and those directed outward but moving inward.
Apparent horizons are not invariant properties of a spacetime. They are observer-dependent, and in particular they are distinct from absolute horizons.
See, however, the articles on ergosphere, Cauchy horizon, the Reissner–Nordström solution, photon sphere, Killing horizon and naked singularity; the notion of a horizon in general relativity is subtle, and depends on fine distinctions.
== Definition ==
The notion...
@Danu : yes, more mundane. My view of physics is that there is no magic, no mysticism, no spookiness, and nothing that "isn't classical and surpasseth all human understanding".
@TerryBollinger : the speed of the upward photon is zero. That's why the light doesn't get out. Shine a laser beam straight up from the surface of the Earth, and the speed of the upward photon increases as it ascends.
yeah, my professors says it is very easy to lose track of reality if always think of doign problems by just solvign the general case and baingnign through algebra
my friends often solve problems A LOT EFFICIENT than me because they know how to take shortcuts while I am very bad a things I cannto derive formo first principles
@Secret taking shortcuts i mostly a matter of experience. Unless you're Ed Witten most of us spot shortcuts because we've seen something like it before. It's just a matter of experience.