The religious experience vs. the experience of reality

[_Blixa]

Or.....maybe you don't know what you are talking about.

This reminds me of that scene in A Serious Man, where Larry says, " You can't understand the physics without understanding the math, the stories I just give are fables.....even I don't understand the dead cat."

lol, starts at the 50 second mark

Thanks. I just lived this scene today. Minus the bribe.

[_TAO]

TAO,
Please don't lecture me about blackholes and quantum physics. This is something I actually have some understanding of while you only imagine that you do.

Tarski, please read "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne... I believe I've recommended it to you once before. It's by a top physicist... who has made several best with Stephen Hawking.

What does one call this?
Also, what do you mean by "imaginary particle"? Do you mean "virtual particle" or do you perhaps mean a particle whose mass is a multiple of the square root of -1?
(So called imaginary numbers)
Or is it both.

Perhaps it was "virtual particle"... it's been a few years since I last read the book... I'll see if I can find a pic of it. *checks* Yes, it would be "virtual particle". And yes, the only reason the 'virtual particles' become real is because one falls back into the event horizon, and thus, they are forced apart and become real.... but until that happens, they technically 'don't exist'. Also, these particles are based off of the black hole's mass, meaning that only have of the mass used to create the 'virtual particle pair' escapes.

Note however this is not the only way for a black hole to 'release energy' and become closer to evaporation.

[_mfbukowski]

That's actually my point. Certain things are unspeakable.

If you look back in the thread, I mentioned "picking the right word" and the experience of that.

How do we know when we get the right word? What are we comparing it to?

And yet picking the right word is what makes the difference between Shakespeare and me.

But we decided we can't talk about that- so there is nothing called a "problem" here.

Otherwise we would have something "pre-linguistic", wouldn't we?

The last thing I need tonight is mocking sophistry.

Uh, ok. I was serious.

[_JohnStuartMill]

TAO,
Please don't lecture me about blackholes and quantum physics. This is something I actually have some understanding of while you only imagine that you do.

Tarski, please read "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne... I believe I've recommended it to you once before. It's by a top physicist... who has made several best with Stephen Hawking.

What does one call this?
Also, what do you mean by "imaginary particle"? Do you mean "virtual particle" or do you perhaps mean a particle whose mass is a multiple of the square root of -1?
(So called imaginary numbers)
Or is it both.

Perhaps it was "virtual particle"... it's been a few years since I last read the book... I'll see if I can find a pic of it. *checks* Yes, it would be "virtual particle". And yes, the only reason the 'virtual particles' become real is because one falls back into the event horizon, and thus, they are forced apart and become real.... but until that happens, they technically 'don't exist'. Also, these particles are based off of the black hole's mass, meaning that only have of the mass used to create the 'virtual particle pair' escapes.

Note however this is not the only way for a black hole to 'release energy' and become closer to evaporation.

How sure are you that you know more about black hole physics than Tarski? As sure as you are that the Church is true?

[_mfbukowski]

Tao
I respect you tremendously for what you have done in your life, but unless you have a degree or two in math and physics, I would not challenge Tarski in these areas.

I don't think you have had enough years in your life to accomplish all of that yet.

[_asbestosman]

How sure are you that you know more about black hole physics than Tarski?

Good to see you JSM. Hope your studies are going well and I'm a bit jealous since I wish I went to an awesome school past a bachelor's instead of just a BS at BYU. Now I feel like I'm too old to go back.

To answer your question (though not directed to me), I would say that one can occasionally correct a person who knows more about a particular subject. See below.

Tao
I respect you tremendously for what you have done in your life, but unless you have a degree or two in math and physics, I would not challenge Tarski in these areas.

I don't think you have had enough years in your life to accomplish all of that yet.

Even experts make mistakes. I've corrected Tarski's arithmetic before, and I've also corrected my professors at school in their notes / tests. Sometimes it's easier to point out their mistake than at other times, but they will eventually admit the error. Why do I persist in pointing mistakes out to them? Because I may be in error and I need to know where I'm wrong if that's the case.

I don't think Tarski is likely to be in error here, but if TAO were to back up his assertions properly, perhaps it could work. Pointing to Kip Thorne is a good start (even if Kip is an exmormon ;) ), but TAO still needs to demonstrate that he has a sufficient grasp of what Kip Thorne was saying in this instance. I don't know enough about the technical use of what constitutes existence / nonexistence of virtual particle vs other particles so I could not say. If TAO explains this, then maybe Tarski would concede the point if indeed it turns out to be relevant.

[_mfbukowski]

I don't think Tarski is likely to be in error here, but if TAO were to back up his assertions properly, perhaps it could work. Pointing to Kip Thorne is a good start (even if Kip is an exmormon ;) ), but TAO still needs to demonstrate that he has a sufficient grasp of what Kip Thorne was saying in this instance. I don't know enough about the technical use of what constitutes existence / nonexistence of virtual particle vs other particles so I could not say. If TAO explains this, then maybe Tarski would concede the point if indeed it turns out to be relevant.

No question.

David whupped Goliath, but hubris is just hubris until one delivers the goods.

[Guest]

How sure are you that you know more about black hole physics than Tarski? As sure as you are that the Church is true?

Oh I don't know more than Tarski about the basics of it probably, but my brain jives into actions on the interesting things; the more obscure a fact, the better I will understand it and memorize it and explore it. If Tarski talks about theoretical 'brink' black hole physics, I will know probably about the same as him. If he talks about the basic stuff relating to math and physics and all that stuff, I won't know much about it.

Crazy, I know =P.

And I am WAAAYYY more sure the church is true, that I am.

[_TAO]

Tao
I respect you tremendously for what you have done in your life, but unless you have a degree or two in math and physics, I would not challenge Tarski in these areas.

I don't think you have had enough years in your life to accomplish all of that yet.

Lol, not out of high school, don't have a degree... my obsession with it when I was 13-14ish is how I know alot about it. It's pretty much the same as I am with volcanoes (although I tiny bit less extensive - there is only so much known about black holes compared to volcanoes).

[_TAO]

I don't think Tarski is likely to be in error here, but if TAO were to back up his assertions properly, perhaps it could work. Pointing to Kip Thorne is a good start (even if Kip is an exmormon ;) ), but TAO still needs to demonstrate that he has a sufficient grasp of what Kip Thorne was saying in this instance. I don't know enough about the technical use of what constitutes existence / nonexistence of virtual particle vs other particles so I could not say. If TAO explains this, then maybe Tarski would concede the point if indeed it turns out to be relevant.

Well I'll give a summary... it's on page 439-441 if you want to look at it yourself if you buy the book... basically it says:

-All ways to picture black hole evaporation use vacuum fluctuations
-Vacuum Fluctuations can be considered both a wave and a particle, for this instance, we use particle
-The particle aspect of vaccum waves is embodied in the concept of virtual particles (flash into existence in pairs, live on energy from nearby space, than annihilate and redistribute the energy)
-Virtual photons cannot seperate by more than one wavelength generally (if they aren't more than that distance, they aren't considered "real particles" by physicists)
-A black holes tidal gravity forces the particles apart (one of the few forces which can do so)
-Energy fed into one, feeds the whole system; as a pair forms on the horizon, one falls into the hole, giving the other the energy to escape.
-Once they distance, they become "real", and are not linked anymore, the one takes away some of the energy away from the black hole because of the tidal gravity. Thus, the black hole loses mass and shrinks.
-The distance the particles have to separate is 1/4 of the hole's circumference - the distance changes depending on the hole
-A black hole with mass 2X the sun has a circ. of about 35kms. The particles would be able to get 9km apart without becoming "real".
-Unless the photon escapes, there is no detection of this particle, thus why it is 'imaginary' and not 'real' - if it doesn't escape, we will never know it existed. Thus 'imaginary', and not 'real'. It has to escape the black hole in order to 'exist' in our eyes, because if it doesn't, there is no evidence it ever existed.
-Not all virtual particles escape, despite their companion falling into the hole.