Friday, March 21, 2008

The Continuum: The Interior of the Blackhole

The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get from any one point on this table to any other point by passing continuously from one point to a "neighboring" one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times, or, in other words, by going from point to point without executing "jumps." I am sure the reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by "neighbouring" and by "jumps" (if he is not too pedantic). We express this property of the surface by describing the latter as a continuum.Albert Einstein p. 83 of his Relativity: The Special and the General Theory


How is it that time could have been a emergent process knowing full well that the measure, and the continued "half measure" we loose perspective on that space. So given the nature of the blackhole, how is it we see such smoothness geometrically developing, as the temperature values increase, according to the nature of the gravitational collapse? An energy valuation according to this radius allows one to think that "somewhere in this creation" the relativistic nature of the fluidity is taken to a point of that "emergent process." One had to account for the developing nature of the dark energy.

Phil Warnell:
If time is an emergent entity, rather then fundamental, then is perplexing why the universe had a beginning. For if time is both infinite and eternal and the universe is neither, it might be of reason to be limited in magnitude and yet why the wait? This also must form to be part of the explanation.




String theory and it first Three Microseconds by it's very nature pushes back perspective beyond Steven Weinberg's First Three Minutes. Consider Before 1 Planck Time

Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.


The Foundations of Mathematics, Invented or Discovered?

Mathematical Problems
Lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900
By Professor David Hilbert


While insisting on rigor in the proof as a requirement for a perfect solution of a problem, I should like, on the other hand, to oppose the opinion that only the concepts of analysis, or even those of arithmetic alone, are susceptible of a fully rigorous treatment. This opinion, occasionally advocated by eminent men, I consider entirely erroneous. Such a one-sided interpretation of the requirement of rigor would soon lead to the ignoring of all concepts arising from geometry, mechanics and physics, to a stoppage of the flow of new material from the outside world, and finally, indeed, as a last consequence, to the rejection of the ideas of the continuum and of the irrational number. But what an important nerve, vital to mathematical science, would be cut by the extirpation of geometry and mathematical physics! On the contrary I think that wherever, from the side of the theory of knowledge or in geometry, or from the theories of natural or physical science, mathematical ideas come up, the problem arises for mathematical science to investigate the principles underlying these ideas and so to establish them upon a simple and complete system of axioms, that the exactness of the new ideas and their applicability to deduction shall be in no respect inferior to those of the old arithmetical concepts.
The original address "Mathematische Probleme" appeared in Göttinger Nachrichten, 1900, pp. 253-297, and in Archiv der Mathematik und Physik, (3) 1 (1901), 44-63 and 213-237. [A fuller title of the journal Göttinger Nachrichten is Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen.]

Phil Warnell:For if time is both infinite and eternal and the universe is neither

So current understanding has been pushed to consider that there is no geometry which can be seen inside the blackhole? If this is not possible, then the very nature of the geometry is existing at "another level" has to be part of an "emergent process" before it manifests from it's previous state?

So what is that previous state that this universe came from? This universe then, is part and parcel of an "existing universe." While you may consider time as eternal, then what would allow for such a space to emergent within that universe to create a new beginning and another offshoot of it?

See:
What is Happening at the Singularity?

A New Cosmological View?

3 comments:

  1. Hi Plato,
    There has always been two thoughts on mathematics as it relates to reality which I find best expressed in two quotes:

    “There are the sets, beautiful (at least to some) imperishable, multitudinous, intricately connected. They toil not, neither do they spin. Nor and this is the rub, do they interact with us in any way. So how are we suppose to epistemological access them. To answer ‘by intuition’, is hardly satisfactory. We need some account of how we can have knowledge of these beasties.”
    (Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam)

    This would seem to point to intuition as a fool’s illusion and yet it has been answered as follows:

    “Because of the fact that mathematical truths are necessary truths, no actual ‘information’, in the technical sense, passes to the discoverer. All information was there all the time. It was a matter of putting things together and ‘seeing’ the answer! This is very much in accordance with Plato’s own ideas that – discovering is just a form of remembering.”
    (Roger Penrose- Shadows of the mind)

    When you take the first as to be understood as true, then a black hole could not collapse to vanish out of existence, since as how that had existed leave and have nothing to show for itself to have first begun. However, if the second is taken as truth and all is remembering, then what can the force of gravity do to a memory that is not in any, yet of all? So if all were to collapse would the memory not persist, since it is not of what vanished. Strangely, Hawking proved it so and yet he still denies his mentor who advised not only that it would be so, yet why. For the cloak of time remains until all memory is returned not from within yet from without.

    I ask then, of what is the shadow and which is light, what we call reality or the memory of it?

    Best,

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phil:There has always been two thoughts on mathematics as it relates to reality which I find best expressed in two quotes:

    I am trying to take in as much as I can in what you present of the first thought for consideration. "Epistemological access them,"within the quote of the first thought, leads to much more to consider. Also with regards too,"Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam"

    I do identify with the second thought, though.

    “Because of the fact that mathematical truths are necessary truths, no actual ‘information’, in the technical sense, passes to the discoverer. All information was there all the time. It was a matter of putting things together and ‘seeing’ the answer! This is very much in accordance with Plato’s own ideas that – discovering is just a form of remembering.”
    (Roger Penrose- Shadows of the mind)

    ...but I would like to venture into the first thought as you have presented it.

    And then, I will try to answer as best I can your last question.

    Phil:I ask then, of what is the shadow and which is light, what we call reality or the memory of it?

    Your "points of view" allow me to construct further posts for consideration.

    "To answer ‘by intuition’, is hardly satisfactory."Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam

    "It was a matter of putting things together and ‘seeing’ the answer!" Roger Penrose- Shadows of the mind

    The thought occurred to me by what I mean by "intuition in the first place" and what you present of it in terms of the first thought, may be of similar content, when drawing the line of, "of seeing and putting things together."

    I have to think about this much deeper. To clarify what is "known of intuition" and what I present by way of acquiring what already exists "lie as some collective unconscious memory" to what had already been thought of, and what is discovered.

    Sorry if I sound all over the place. I am trying to work within the context of the thoughts as you have presented them.

    More later.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phil:However, if the second is taken as truth and all is remembering, then what can the force of gravity do to a memory that is not in any, yet of all? So if all were to collapse would the memory not persist, since it is not of what vanished. Strangely, Hawking proved it so and yet he still denies his mentor who advised not only that it would be so, yet why

    I did some research on Stephen Hawking's mentor and this will be the subject of a blog post entry later. Strangely, with "Larry King live" he denies he had a mentor too?

    It's not as if you can erase a Wheeler, while a Kip Thorne continues toward a future.

    I am looking for further clarification on "Hawking proved it so." I am basing my thoughts on a "assumption of a bet," but better to be sure here.

    ReplyDelete