I appreciate your comments and guidance and accept that the premise was off and not respresentative of the intricacies of quantum mechanics. I made some bad assumptions without realizing it.
Thank you for referencing that book and your article. I learned of many interesting things like Buchdahl.
Thank you for the helpful feedback. You asked for a source for my N+1 particle claim. I don't have one. But your comment made it clear why that premise is too simplistic. Perhaps there exists a function P(collapses) = f(N) that describes this reality (sigmoid?). The "when" of the collapse is...
You've raised a very fair point, and I should have been clearer about the context for my claim. I'm not describing a realistic astrophysical event, but rather a highly idealized thought experiment designed to probe the nature of the boundary itself.
I was envisioning a purely theoretical...
Hello everyone,
I've been thinking about the standard physical picture of a neutron star reaching the TOV limit, and I've run into a conceptual question that I can't quite shake. I'd appreciate your perspective on it.
The textbook explanation is a beautiful balance of our two great theories...
Yes, I see the infalling observer's worldline is different from the null worldlines fo the hovering observers near the horizon. Time dilation depends on both the position AND the motion and the hovering observer would need to move at c just to stay in place. But an infalling observer never needs...
Yes, you make an excellent point. There would be no way to locally detect the approach nor passage through the horizon. I was fixated on this idea that the universe would "play out" completely before crossing. Now I see I was incorrectly applying observations to infalling observers that would...
I see - I may have confused two different scenarios. A sequence of hovering observers stationed at different distances from the horizon would see an increasingly accelerated universe evolution as they get closer. But an infalling observer is different because they're moving relative to these...
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. I'd like to clarify my argument and address the points raised:
Regarding the article's "first misconception" about infinite coordinate time - my argument is different. I'm not concerned with coordinate time versus proper time, nor am I questioning the...
The conventional picture
We often describe two perspectives of infalling matter:
Outside observers see the object asymptotically approach but never cross the horizon, with signals becoming increasingly redshifted
The infalling object supposedly experiences a finite proper time to cross the...
I cannot make sense of the question. Here is what I think, y is the "output" and x is the "input" and the relationship is supposed to be y(t) = 1 / x( t - k )
Note I have put the " - k " inside the function argument. This way it has y(t) depending on what x(t) was k seconds ago. This makes more...
Current is the flow of electrons, which we define as negative charge -- this the symbol " - ". Protons are positive charge " + ". In an atom of copper (neutral charge), the number of protons = number of electrons.
A circuit wire is made of of copper (or some other conducting medium). So the...
No, you will not necessarily see the same pressure rise. A given volume of a gas "A" does not necessarily cause the same increase in pressure as another volume of gas "B". This is because the average molecular mass of each gas species are different. This means that the average absolute momentum...
What causes the balloon to stick to the wall is the charges on the surface of the balloon to be attracted to the wall via an electric field. In the case of a charge current, the number of + and - are roughly equal, so there is no electric field (thus no attraction/repulsion).