FORUMS > Science & Technology Forum Rules

If frame dragging is proven in regard to black holes, doesn't that mean the laws of Physics as we know it is wrong?

  • rockinb Posts: 16
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
    Black holes drag space, time, and gravity. They defy the laws of physics. Doesn't this mean Physics is wrong and all of our assumptions about the Universe would have to be re-explained?

  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 5:34 PM GMT
    To my limited understanding, the laws of physics allow for stretching time, space, and gravity.
    Then again, I'm not a physicist, so that's only speculation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 5:35 PM GMT
    Just because a hammer can break a blender doesn't mean the blender isn't going to always blend when you put something in it and push the on button,
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 8:34 PM GMT
    General Relativity predicts that massive objects SHOULD drag spacetime ... so actually it satisfies and bolsters our understanding, instead of disproving it.
  • calibro Posts: 8888
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 8:40 PM GMT
    umm... the laws of physics are a very broad phrase. what laws exactly are broken by black holes? black holes are a function of gravity when hydrostatic equilibrium ceases to maintain itself under particular conditions... so i'm not quite sure how gravity defies gravity? in terms of time and space, gravity in general, whether it's from a black hole or a planet or anything really, bends the fabric of time and space. if anything, it seems you have no working knowledge of black holes, space, time, gravity, the laws of physics, or grammar (the laws of physics are plural, so your predicate should reflect that).
  • theantijock Posts: 8567
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/49265-our-universe-may-be-inside-a-black-hole-says-physicist

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Poplawski

  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 9:11 PM GMT
    theantijock saidhttp://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/49265-our-universe-may-be-inside-a-black-hole-says-physicist

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Poplawski

    Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite narrators.

    But having already watched that documentary, I can say that it does not answer the OP. It does shed some light on it, though...then again, shedding light on a black hole isn't gonna make it any more visible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 9:29 PM GMT
    It's always good to keep your ego in check by reading a thread where you have no idea what anyone is talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 9:45 PM GMT
    We have on RJ member who will hopefully weigh in. This is one area where his opinions are credible. But beware - he will most definitely have put downs for everyone who has contributed to the thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    Hopefully my PhD in astrophysics and research in cosmology makes my above statement credible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 10:55 PM GMT
    LeapHigher saidHopefully my PhD in astrophysics and research in cosmology makes my above statement credible.

    It should, hopefully. Our resident expert does put great value in your degree, especially in an applicable field. If your PhD were in a different field, or god forbid, if you'll pardon the expression, you only had a Master's in an applicable field, he would be holding his nose. I'm sure if he graces the thread with his presence, he won't put you down, but maybe point out a related topic that you omitted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 10:58 PM GMT
    Hold on, let me smoke a bunch of weed and I'll get back to you.
  • creature Posts: 5008
    QUOTE Apr 07, 2012 11:26 PM GMT
    There are two bitchy posts in this thread. Two of them of yours.
  • theantijock Posts: 8567
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 12:36 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidMorgan Freeman is one of my favorite narrators.

    But having already watched that documentary, I can say that it does not answer the OP. It does shed some light on it, though...then again, shedding light on a black hole isn't gonna make it any more visible.


    Yes, I saw that you've already booked him for your eulogy.

    Another great voice, of course, being James Earl Jones

    I'd only taken math as far as calculus and one or two terms of physics way back when so I make no pretense at trying to answer the OP's inquiry. I suggested looking at a black hole from the inside where parallel universes might exist according to the guy I referenced.

    He's featured on the vid at 32:40--"When I work out, I have some freshness in my mind and then I want to think about some problem"--where he discusses how we do not yet quite understand singularity.

    I thought the theory about our universe being inside a black hole relevant to the OP's OP because he seemed to be questioning whether physics understands how a black hole interacts with the universe outside itself but what I thought I remembered was others speculating that--regarding laws of physics--what science is not yet sure of is what happens on the inside.

    As a layman, I hope I was not too far off base in offering that up to the OP.
  • Larkin Posts: 3534
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 12:39 AM GMT
    It's difficult to "know" anything about black holes.

    Every decade or so Stephen Hawking (Pope of Science), makes a new decree ex cathedra about what black holes really are. I await the next one .
  • QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 1:00 AM GMT
    We're reasonably sure frame dragging does exist; Gravity Probe B's results were consistent with GR's predictions there, and with the geodetic effect.

    As I understand it (GR isn't my field), there are exact solutions to the GR equations which we term "black holes". Many of these are not physically realizable. There are also some big compact objects out there engaging in what we are almost certain is Black Hole Activity (TM), which means most astrophysicists are confident in their existence. Thus far physics hasn't collapsed, but what's really going on in physical black holes is partly a mystery.

    Now... there is some debate, I think, over what solutions to GR are compatible with QM, and which GR solutions are actually real-world black holes. Since GR is a nonlinear theory (and black holes involve the really bendy parts where linear approximations break down) finding exact solutions is tough. That's why the research is sketchy here. As I understand it, we're going to need some sort of account of quantum gravity to really reconcile things, or maybe some bigass numerical simulations, but the way forward isn't clear.

    Are the laws of physics wrong? Well that depends on whether you're an instrumentalist or not. QM is a theory that makes extraordinarily precise predictions over a specific domain and has great mathematical elegance, but is incomplete in domains we know exist (i.e. black holes). Does that mean reality *is* QM? Probably not. Does that mean reality behaves *according* to QM? Yes, so long as you recognize its limits. Could we find an extension to QM which is indistinguishible from reality? Maybe. We're pretty good, in physics, about extending or restructuring theories as new information comes to light. That's the fun of it. :-)
  • barriehomeboy Posts: 2468
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    That thing we called God was an anomallly that humans misinterpreted as an intelligent universe. It's all just dust motes colliding in a dustbeam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 1:35 AM GMT
    creature saidThere are two bitchy posts in this thread. Two of them of yours.

    If referring to me, you don't understand my humor. I did send a note to the person in question, so hopefully he will weigh in. Kidding aside, I think his input will be interesting and valuable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 2:01 AM GMT
    Timbales saidI don't see how science can prove anything.
  • rockinb Posts: 16
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 6:32 AM GMT
    LeapHigher saidGeneral Relativity predicts that massive objects SHOULD drag spacetime ... so actually it satisfies and bolsters our understanding, instead of disproving it.


    Massive objects bend the fabric of space, of course, but to a point of singularity in which there is no such thing as space, gravity, or time? How can that bolster general relativity when is seems as if it destroys the theory?

  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 6:47 AM GMT
    Coach_Mike saidIt's always good to keep your ego in check by reading a thread where you have no idea what anyone is talking about.


    dude, high five!!! the only thing I know about black holes is what they said in the last Star Trek movie

  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 6:53 AM GMT
    rockinb saidBlack holes drag space, time, and gravity. They defy the laws of physics. Doesn't this mean Physics is wrong and all of our assumptions about the Universe would have to be re-explained?



    Hmm... My understanding of black holes somehow conflicts with yours... But I was taught that being so massive, they actually CURVED the fabric of space-time and THAT is what MAKES its gravitational force... as shown in the diagram I found below...



    It doesn't drag time, it drags light if it gets close enough (since the direction of light moves along curvatures on the fabric of space-time). Black holes sucking in light alters/distorts our perception of time... Nothing really fails here...
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 7:10 AM GMT
    Please correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't time change the closer you get to the center of an object or blackhole due to its immense gravitational pull in correlation to an object farther from it? Its not space that is being dragged but everything else in space...
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 7:29 AM GMT
    sanjose470 saidPlease correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't time change the closer you get to the center of an object or blackhole due to its immense gravitational pull in correlation to an object farther from it? Its not space that is being dragged but everything else in space...


    You're right. I think it depends on the frame of reference though. Like if I were to push you through space towards a stationary black hole. From your perspective, you'd approach the black hole like everything else around you and accelerate (possibly spaghettify) as you went by the event horizon and inevitably hit the point of singularity. Though from my perspective, you would slow down indefinitely as your body approached the event horizon (considering that the light reflecting from your body for me to see you does not escape the event horizon). Almost like the concept of us looking at the sky and seeing stars that have actually died long ago (poor stars... )
  • Posted by a hidden member.Log in to view his profile
    QUOTE Apr 08, 2012 7:46 AM GMT
    I love physics. Its all theoretical so most of the stuff is based on so many other hypothesises. So as I enter the black hole all you see is the last image of my body at the event horizon? Didn't hawking say that all information, including light, cannot escape a black hole? Why would there be a reflection? Sorry for the digression