Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #896866 > unrolled thread

Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-15 14:51 +0000
    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-19 17:15 +0000
      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-09-19 20:19 +0000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:12 +1000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:11 +0200
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-21 17:13 +1000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-22 00:40 +1000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-21 21:00 +0000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-21 14:51 -0700
            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-26 13:30 +0000
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 11:15 -0500
                Horizons (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 18:29 +0000
                  Re: Horizons Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-28 10:10 -0700
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 19:09 -0700
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:20 +1000
      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-19 17:19 -0700
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:21 +1000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-20 12:59 -0700
            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:25 +0200
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Trevor <shut.up@once.invalid> - 2026-09-20 23:48 -0700
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-21 17:21 +1000
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-21 15:07 +0200
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-22 13:52 -0700
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-23 16:23 +1000
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 16:36 -0700
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:44 +0200
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:46 +1000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:13 -0700
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:28 -0700
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 06:52 +0200
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 15:58 +1000
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 12:10 -0700
                              mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-25 20:11 +0000
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:40 +0200
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 22:24 -0700
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:53 +1000
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:31 +0200
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:49 -0700
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 16:14 +1000
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 13:19 -0700
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 10:24 -0700
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 12:25 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 20:27 -0700
                                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 22:29 -0700
                                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:34 +1000
                                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-28 12:14 -0700
                                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-29 17:06 +1000
                                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 11:11 -0700
                                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@htigct.com> - 2026-09-29 14:35 -0700
                                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:11 +1000
                                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-30 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:16 +1000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 07:11 +0200
                    mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 16:37 +0000
                      Re: mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:10 +0200
                      Re: mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 16:25 +1000
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-25 07:43 -0700
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 03:09 +1000
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-25 20:47 +0200
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 15:36 +1000
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-26 10:10 +0200
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 21:01 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 11:03 -0500
                                Hawking Radiation (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 17:20 +0000
                                  Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 17:51 +0000
                                  Re: Hawking Radiation John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 13:22 -0500
                                    Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 20:23 +0000
                                      Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-27 09:18 +0000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-25 11:36 -0500
                        mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-25 18:09 +0000
                          Re: mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:19 +0200
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:24 +0200
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 14:54 -0400
                    Spacelike Correlations (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 19:08 +0000
                      Re: Spacelike Correlations ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 19:31 +0000
                        Re: Spacelike Correlations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:01 +0200
                      Re: Spacelike Correlations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:59 +0200
                    Veritasium (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:27 +0200
                      Re: Veritasium William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 16:04 -0400

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#896994

On 26/09/2026 4:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around 
>>>>>> exists.
>>>>
>>>>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of 
>>>>> spacetime
>>>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
>>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. 
>>>> All
>>>> immediate and simultaneous.
>>>
>>> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > 
>>> spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
>>> in all directions.
>>>
>>> Fun.
>>
>> Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the 
>> uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
>>
>> The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar 
>> masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of 
>> energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
> spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
> should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
> its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
> within a single event horizon.

The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in 
Hawking radiation - does get out. When the two black holes fused quite a 
lot of energy got out as gravitational waves, despite having been 
enclosed by two event horizons before the fusion, and one after it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896996

On 9/26/26 07:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 26/09/2026 4:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around 
>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of 
>>>>>> spacetime
>>>>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
>>>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
>>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into 
>>>>> existence. All
>>>>> immediate and simultaneous.
>>>>
>>>> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > 
>>>> spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
>>>> in all directions.
>>>>
>>>> Fun.
>>>
>>> Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the 
>>> uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
>>>
>>> The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar 
>>> masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of 
>>> energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
>> spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
>> should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
>> its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
>> within a single event horizon.
> 
> The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in 
> Hawking radiation - does get out. When the two black holes fused quite a 
> lot of energy got out as gravitational waves, despite having been 
> enclosed by two event horizons before the fusion, and one after it.
> 

The event horizon, if it exists, is thought of as the limit from
which *nothing* can get out, neither mass, nor radiation.
Evidently, about three solar masses of energy did get radiated
away. Either the source of that radiation was not actually
inside the event horizon, or there is no such thing as an event
horizon.

As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
energy, which have never been observed yet.

Jeroen Belleman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896999

On 26/09/2026 6:10 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 9/26/26 07:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 26/09/2026 4:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around 
>>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of 
>>>>>>> spacetime
>>>>>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops 
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
>>>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into 
>>>>>> existence. All
>>>>>> immediate and simultaneous.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > 
>>>>> spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
>>>>> in all directions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fun.
>>>>
>>>> Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the 
>>>> uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
>>>>
>>>> The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar 
>>>> masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form 
>>>> of energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
>>> spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
>>> should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
>>> its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
>>> within a single event horizon.
>>
>> The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as 
>> in Hawking radiation - does get out. When the two black holes fused 
>> quite a lot of energy got out as gravitational waves, despite having 
>> been enclosed by two event horizons before the fusion, and one after it.
>>
> 
> The event horizon, if it exists, is thought of as the limit from
> which *nothing* can get out, neither mass, nor radiation.
> Evidently, about three solar masses of energy did get radiated
> away. Either the source of that radiation was not actually
> inside the event horizon, or there is no such thing as an event
> horizon.
> 
> As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
> energy, which have never been observed yet.

And if they stay on the black hole side of the event horizon, they never 
will.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897001

Bill Sloman wrote:
> The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in
> Hawking radiation - does get out.

Hawking radiation does not originate inside the event horizon.

Jeroen Belleman writes:
> Either the source of that radiation was not actually inside the event
> horizon

Correct.

> As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
> energy,

It does not.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897002 — Hawking Radiation (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought)

John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>Bill Sloman wrote:
>>The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in
>>Hawking radiation - does get out.
>Hawking radiation does not originate inside the event horizon.

  Yes, but negative energy presumably falls in from outside the
  event horizon. At least in the classical work by Hawking.

|As the mass of the black hole decreased, the area of the
|event horizon would have to go down, thus violating the law
|that, classically, the area cannot decrease [7, 12]. This
|violation must, presumably, be caused by a flux of negative
|energy across the event horizon which balances the positive
|energy flux emitted to infinity.
|
Particle Creation by Black Holes (1975) - S. W. Hawking.

>>As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
>>energy,
>It does not.

  Hawking used the word "flux". He assumes that the mass of the
  black hole decreases. If we assume that the mass of the black
  hole is inside its horizon, then there must be some influence
  from the Hawking radiation going to what's inside the horizon.

  It's not fetched from very far when we say that negative energy
  falling in is like positive energy coming out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897003 — Re: Hawking Radiation

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>Hawking used the word "flux". He assumes that the mass of the
>black hole decreases. If we assume that the mass of the black
>hole is inside its horizon, then there must be some influence
>from the Hawking radiation going to what's inside the horizon.

|Heuristically, one can envisage the emergent quanta as
|"tunnelling" out through the event horizon (Hawking 1977b).
|
Section 8.2 of "Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetime" by N.D.
Birrell and P.C.W. Davies

  (See this section for a more stringent treatment.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897006 — Re: Hawking Radiation

Mass is a property, not a substance.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897007 — Re: Hawking Radiation

John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>Mass is a property, not a substance.

  In normal communication - and even in rigorous scientific communi-
  cation - the word "mass" is routinely used as a metonymy (a short-
  hand) for "the object or system that possesses that mass."

|The radius at which a mass has an escape velocity equal to
|the speed of light is called the Schwarzschild radius.
"Black Holes - Imagine the Universe! - NASA" - NASA web page

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897011 — Re: Hawking Radiation

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>>Mass is a property, not a substance.
. . .
>|The radius at which a mass has an escape velocity equal to
>|the speed of light is called the Schwarzschild radius.
>"Black Holes - Imagine the Universe! - NASA" - NASA web page

  What I don't like is when people call an AI system "an AI"
  because for me, "AI" is a field of research!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896984

john larkin writes"
> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...

Can't happen under GR.  Four momentum is conserved.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896985 — mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought)

John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>john larkin writes"
>>If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...
>Can't happen under GR.  Four momentum is conserved.

  And since

P^\mu P_\mu = + m^2 c^2,

  mass is also conserved (as I wrote here yesterday).

P            four-momentum
\mu          spacetime index, 0..3
P^\mu        contravariant component
P_\mu        covariant component
P^\mu P_\mu  squared four-momentum
m            mass
c            speed of light
+            might be "-", depending on the convention used

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896997 — Re: mass

Stefan Ram wrote:
> John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>> john larkin writes"
>>> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...
>> Can't happen under GR.  Four momentum is conserved.
> 
>   And since
> 
> P^\mu P_\mu = + m^2 c^2,

The standard notation is a lowercase letter for components of 4-vectors
or 4-vectors itself if the index notation makes that clear (as it does
here; in the latter case, I prefer to use bold style in LaTeX-generated
documents, and I have used an uppercase letter as substitute for that in
plain text).
>   mass is also conserved (as I wrote here yesterday).

Which is still a false conclusion.  You do not understand what
"conserved" means: if a quantity is conserved, it means that it does not
change _in a process_.  But the equation above only means that mass is
_frame-invariant_ (notably, as can be proved, not just
Lorentz-invariant); NOT that it would be conserved (the left-hand side
can be equal to zero and so is then the mass m).

Mass obviously is NOT conserved when two protons, with a mass of ca.
938 MeV/c² each, manage to produce in their interaction a Standard-Model
Higgs boson with a mass of ca. 125 GeV/c² in the LHC.

It is NOT conserved when a positron emitted by a fluorine-18 nucleus of
a positron-emission tomography tracer interacts with an electron of an
atom of the surrounding tissue, both with a mass of ca. 511 keV/c² to
produce at least two photons, each with mass 0.

More simply even, it is NOT conserved in nuclear fusion and radioactive
decay which is how we can exist in the first place; and for those who
still depend on electricity generated by nuclear fission, is how they
can read and write here.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896998

John Hasler wrote:
> john larkin writes"
>> If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...
> 
> Can't happen under GR.

False.

> Four momentum is conserved.

/Non sequitur./

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896962

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH>
> 
> [The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind
> of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of
> information at a speed faster than c.  But I did not find the mentioned
> thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the
> context of GR).  Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
> I can add it to my playlist.]

Decades on the internet and in life have lead me to distrust anyone who 
uses "Veritas" as their pseudonym or organization name.  Hence I have 
never looked at a "Veritasium" video. And the clickbait title above 
didn't help the channel's credibility with me.

But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896963 — Spacelike Correlations (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought)

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?

  I don't know these videos, but I /can/ tell you than in quantum
  systems, some information /is/ transferred faster than light!

  It's not possible to explain the behavior of entangled systems in
  another way, because one part needs to correlate with something that
  becomes only known at an event that has a spacelike distance, i.e.,
  the information cannot be transferred with light or slower media.

  You just cannot modulate this transfer from the outside, i.e., you
  cannot use it to transfer any other information than the information
  necessary for the entanglement effects to happen. So you still
  cannot send information faster than light in the general case - with
  the exception of that internal information in entangled systems.

  Don't just take my word for it. You can read the renowned textbook
  author David J. Griffiths. He uses a terminology different from
  mine. What I call "information", he calls "ethereal influence":

|We are led, then, to distinguish two types of influence: 
|the "causal" variety, which produce actual changes in some
|physical property of the receiver, detectable by measurements
|on that subsystem alone, and an "ethereal" kind, which do not
|transmit energy or information, and for which the only
|evidence is a correlation in the data taken on the two
|separate subsystems - a correlation which by its nature cannot
|be detected by examining either list alone. Causal influences
|cannot propagate faster than light, but there is no compelling
|reason why ethereal ones should not. The influences associated
|with the collapse of the wave function are of the latter type,
|and the fact that they "travel" faster than light may be
|surprising, but it is not, after all, catastrophic.
"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" - David J. Griffiths.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896964 — Re: Spacelike Correlations

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>|We are led, then, to distinguish two types of influence: 
>|the "causal" variety, which produce actual changes in some
>|physical property of the receiver, detectable by measurements
>|on that subsystem alone, and an "ethereal" kind, which do not
>|transmit energy or information, and for which the only
>|evidence is a correlation in the data taken on the two
>|separate subsystems - a correlation which by its nature cannot
>|be detected by examining either list alone. Causal influences
>|cannot propagate faster than light, but there is no compelling
>|reason why ethereal ones should not. The influences associated
>|with the collapse of the wave function are of the latter type,
>|and the fact that they "travel" faster than light may be
>|surprising, but it is not, after all, catastrophic.
>"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" - David J. Griffiths.

  This can be found near the end of section 12.2 "Bell's Theorem" in
  the third edition of "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (2018).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896972 — Re: Spacelike Correlations

Stefan Ram wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>> |We are led, then, to distinguish two types of influence: 
>> |the "causal" variety, which produce actual changes in some
>> |physical property of the receiver, detectable by measurements
>> |on that subsystem alone, and an "ethereal" kind, which do not
>> |transmit energy or information, and for which the only
>> |evidence is a correlation in the data taken on the two
>> |separate subsystems - a correlation which by its nature cannot
>> |be detected by examining either list alone. Causal influences
>> |cannot propagate faster than light, but there is no compelling
>> |reason why ethereal ones should not. The influences associated
>> |with the collapse of the wave function are of the latter type,
>> |and the fact that they "travel" faster than light may be
>> |surprising, but it is not, after all, catastrophic.
>> "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" - David J. Griffiths.
> 
>   This can be found near the end of section 12.2 "Bell's Theorem" in
>   the third edition of "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (2018).

Griffiths wrote a lot of good stuff, but this is just esoteric nonsense.
 "ethereal influences"?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896970 — Re: Spacelike Correlations

Stefan Ram wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>> But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
> 
>   I don't know these videos,

Why don't you f*** watch it then, and actually /study/ the subject,
/before/ you add your unqualified Senf again, you stupid
Volkshochschule-educated wannabe? >:-(

*facepalm*

> but I /can/ tell you than in quantum systems, some information /is/
> transferred faster than light!
No.  The *no-communication _theorem_* explicitly _disproves_ this.
Can't you read?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem>
>   It's not possible to explain the behavior of entangled systems in
>   another way,

Yes it is.  The measurable states are _inherently_ correlated because
the components of the superposition state are.  For example, this is a
state of two spin-entangled electrons, let's call them particle 1 and 2:

  |χ〉 = 1/√2 [|↑₁〉 ⊗ |↓₂〉 + |↓₁〉 ⊗ |↑₂〉].

Now act on it with the spin projection operator for the particle here to
make a measurement; let that be particle 1.  There are only two
possibilities:

  S₃⁽¹⁾ |χ〉 = S₃⁽¹⁾ |↑₁〉 ⊗ |↓₂〉 = +ℏ/2 |↑₁〉 ⊗ |↓₂〉
  S₃⁽¹⁾ |χ〉 = S₃⁽¹⁾ |↓₁〉 ⊗ |↑₂〉 = −ℏ/2 |↓₁〉 ⊗ |↑₂〉.

So even though you have NOT measured the spin projection of the other
particle, particle 2, possibly very far away, you can *know* that if you
measured +ℏ/2 for particle 1, particle 2 had spin projection −ℏ/2, and
if you measured −ℏ/2 for the spin projection of particle 1, particle 2
had spin projection +ℏ/2.

>   because one part needs to correlate with something that
>   becomes only known at an event that has a spacelike distance, i.e.,
>   the information cannot be transferred with light or slower media.

The information is already part of the system's state space.  Our
knowledge about it is NOT a transfer of information within the system,
and so it there also NO superluminal transfer even if the spatial
separation of the entangled components is large enough.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896969 — Veritasium (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought)

William Hyde wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH>
>>
>> [The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind
>> of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of
>> information at a speed faster than c.  But I did not find the mentioned
>> thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the
                                     ^video

>> context of GR).  Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
>> I can add it to my playlist.]
> 
> Decades on the internet and in life have lead me to distrust anyone who 
> uses "Veritas" as their pseudonym or organization name.  Hence I have 
> never looked at a "Veritasium" video. And the clickbait title above 
> didn't help the channel's credibility with me.
> 
> But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
Definitely.  He (Derek Muller) has studied Physics [1], and frequently
given enlightening and even surprising explanations that, IMHO as a
senior Astrophysics student, were both sound and correct.  As in this
video, he frequently interviews scientists and educators in the field(s)
of the topic(s) of the video, and always cites the research to back up
his statements, and the resources that he used in making them if he did
not make them himself/or his team.  He also responds to criticism in his
videos, which is always a good sign.

As of this year (2026) he is no longer presenting the videos of his
channel.  To what extent he is still involved in their production I do
not know.

[1] He has a Bachelor of Applied Science in engineering physics from
    Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a PhD in
    physics education research from the University of Sydney, Australia.
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896991 — Re: Veritasium

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> William Hyde wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH>
>>>
>>> [The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind
>>> of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of
>>> information at a speed faster than c.  But I did not find the mentioned
>>> thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the
>                                       ^video
> 
>>> context of GR).  Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
>>> I can add it to my playlist.]
>>
>> Decades on the internet and in life have lead me to distrust anyone who
>> uses "Veritas" as their pseudonym or organization name.  Hence I have
>> never looked at a "Veritasium" video. And the clickbait title above
>> didn't help the channel's credibility with me.
>>
>> But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
> Definitely.  He (Derek Muller) has studied Physics [1], and frequently
> given enlightening and even surprising explanations that, IMHO as a
> senior Astrophysics student, were both sound and correct.  As in this
> video, he frequently interviews scientists and educators in the field(s)
> of the topic(s) of the video, and always cites the research to back up
> his statements, and the resources that he used in making them if he did
> not make them himself/or his team.  He also responds to criticism in his
> videos, which is always a good sign.

Excellent. I'll stop avoiding his videos.
> 
> As of this year (2026) he is no longer presenting the videos of his
> channel.  To what extent he is still involved in their production I do
> not know.
> 
> [1] He has a Bachelor of Applied Science in engineering physics from
>      Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a PhD in
>      physics education research from the University of Sydney, Australia.
>      <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller>

At this point I'm legally obligated to go off on a rant about Queens, as 
I went to a different Southern Ontario University, but I think I'll 
break the law.  Queens is a good school.

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web