Playstation 3 Consoles Tackle Black Hole Vibrations

If it's not used for video games, at least it can be used as a cheap supercomputer. Better than being converted into a Goerge Foreman grill.

I completely agree with what this guy said. Below *v*V*v*

FrankEReed wrote:
holdthebs, you wrote:
"I have trouble accepting that black holes are point masses."

First, you're not alone in that. Physics in the subatomic vicinity of the singularity is very likely to be different from the predictions of general relativity. Is it a point? Perhaps some "stringy" entity? We don't know, and we don't have a working model that gives any good idea what it would be. Everyone keeps hoping that some future "quantum gravity" will provide an answer, but so far, nothing definite. More importantly perhaps, the nature of the singularity as a "point" has no observable consequences, so far as we know right now. Point being, you can ignore the point.

But I have a question for you: if you're bothered that the central singularity of a black hole is a "point", are you also bothered by the thought of electrons as "point particles"? What I am asking you is what part of this exactly concerns you -- a point in general, or a point in general relativity? ...if you see my point. :-)

You also wrote:
"There is a flaw in the theory of relativity that leads me to this conclusion. When we accelerate protons to near the speed of light their mass is supposed to approach infinity, and clearly, it doesn't."

Hmmm. I have a feeling I know where you're going here, but could you elaborate on this before I try to explain. When you say 'clearly it doesn't' what do you mean? Clearly it doesn't do what? Also you might want to read up on "relativistic mass". It may interest you to know that the very idea that an object's MASS increases as it approaches the speed of light is an optional point of view in relativistic physics. It all depends on how we group things together in the equations. We can just as easily do the same physics by saying that an object's KINETIC ENERGY (rather than its mass) increases without limit as its relative speed approaches the speed of light.

And you wrote:
"and observations on the galactic scale do not support the theory at all- hence the need to invent dark matter."

But don't forget that astronomers have been "inventing" dark matter for centuries. Whenever there is an unexplained acceleration, it is likely that there is matter that is unaccounted for. The planet Neptune was "dark matter" before it was found. The nearest white dwarf star, Sirius B, was detected as "dark matter". The present dark matter quest does not end until we determine what this stuff actually is and can observe its properties directly. The fact that it hasn't been found and directly observed yet does not mean that there is something wrong with the prediction.

And you concluded:
"So looking for the error would seem to start here: What are quarks made of?"

And what if they're "made of" nothing? At some point, we have to reach the bottom rung on the ladder. Quarks (and electrons and neutrinos) may well be that bottom rung: fundamental particles with a handful of fixed properties that cannot be explained in terms of other smaller entities. Or maybe not... But I don't see anyway that finding out what quarks are "made of" would help us understand gravity. They're not related.

Hope that helps! :-)

I didn't buy my PS3 for that--I bought it for gaming and movies. Why can't Sony focus on that? :)feryl06

If it's not used for video games, at least it can be used as a cheap supercomputer. Better than being converted into a Goerge Foreman grill.

I completely agree with what this guy said. Below *v*V*v*

FrankEReed wrote:
holdthebs, you wrote:
"I have trouble accepting that black holes are point masses."

First, you're not alone in that. Physics in the subatomic vicinity of the singularity is very likely to be different from the predictions of general relativity. Is it a point? Perhaps some "stringy" entity? We don't know, and we don't have a working model that gives any good idea what it would be. Everyone keeps hoping that some future "quantum gravity" will provide an answer, but so far, nothing definite. More importantly perhaps, the nature of the singularity as a "point" has no observable consequences, so far as we know right now. Point being, you can ignore the point.

But I have a question for you: if you're bothered that the central singularity of a black hole is a "point", are you also bothered by the thought of electrons as "point particles"? What I am asking you is what part of this exactly concerns you -- a point in general, or a point in general relativity? ...if you see my point. :-)

You also wrote:
"There is a flaw in the theory of relativity that leads me to this conclusion. When we accelerate protons to near the speed of light their mass is supposed to approach infinity, and clearly, it doesn't."

Hmmm. I have a feeling I know where you're going here, but could you elaborate on this before I try to explain. When you say 'clearly it doesn't' what do you mean? Clearly it doesn't do what? Also you might want to read up on "relativistic mass". It may interest you to know that the very idea that an object's MASS increases as it approaches the speed of light is an optional point of view in relativistic physics. It all depends on how we group things together in the equations. We can just as easily do the same physics by saying that an object's KINETIC ENERGY (rather than its mass) increases without limit as its relative speed approaches the speed of light.

And you wrote:
"and observations on the galactic scale do not support the theory at all- hence the need to invent dark matter."

But don't forget that astronomers have been "inventing" dark matter for centuries. Whenever there is an unexplained acceleration, it is likely that there is matter that is unaccounted for. The planet Neptune was "dark matter" before it was found. The nearest white dwarf star, Sirius B, was detected as "dark matter". The present dark matter quest does not end until we determine what this stuff actually is and can observe its properties directly. The fact that it hasn't been found and directly observed yet does not mean that there is something wrong with the prediction.

And you concluded:
"So looking for the error would seem to start here: What are quarks made of?"

And what if they're "made of" nothing? At some point, we have to reach the bottom rung on the ladder. Quarks (and electrons and neutrinos) may well be that bottom rung: fundamental particles with a handful of fixed properties that cannot be explained in terms of other smaller entities. Or maybe not... But I don't see anyway that finding out what quarks are "made of" would help us understand gravity. They're not related.

Hope that helps! :-)player_leo

It is waaaaaaaaaay to early in the morning to read and understand that right now. Wow. I am going back to sleep. Will read later.

I didn't buy my PS3 for that--I bought it for gaming and movies. Why can't Sony focus on that? :)feryl06

[QUOTE="feryl06"]I didn't buy my PS3 for that--I bought it for gaming and movies. Why can't Sony focus on that? :)Unassigned

Yea, so the USAF and Astronomers and other groups use/buy PS3's and cluster them up for thier work, so now Sony has 'lost thier focus'. I SEE!..:roll:

Sony never even thought that the ps3 would be used for anything other for home entertainment. Its those other organizations that want the ps3, Sony never advertises it for anything other than home entertainment.

[QUOTE="player_leo"]

If it's not used for video games, at least it can be used as a cheap supercomputer. Better than being converted into a Goerge Foreman grill.

I completely agree with what this guy said. Below *v*V*v*

FrankEReed wrote:
holdthebs, you wrote:
"I have trouble accepting that black holes are point masses."

First, you're not alone in that. Physics in the subatomic vicinity of the singularity is very likely to be different from the predictions of general relativity. Is it a point? Perhaps some "stringy" entity? We don't know, and we don't have a working model that gives any good idea what it would be. Everyone keeps hoping that some future "quantum gravity" will provide an answer, but so far, nothing definite. More importantly perhaps, the nature of the singularity as a "point" has no observable consequences, so far as we know right now. Point being, you can ignore the point.

But I have a question for you: if you're bothered that the central singularity of a black hole is a "point", are you also bothered by the thought of electrons as "point particles"? What I am asking you is what part of this exactly concerns you -- a point in general, or a point in general relativity? ...if you see my point. :-)

You also wrote:
"There is a flaw in the theory of relativity that leads me to this conclusion. When we accelerate protons to near the speed of light their mass is supposed to approach infinity, and clearly, it doesn't."

Hmmm. I have a feeling I know where you're going here, but could you elaborate on this before I try to explain. When you say 'clearly it doesn't' what do you mean? Clearly it doesn't do what? Also you might want to read up on "relativistic mass". It may interest you to know that the very idea that an object's MASS increases as it approaches the speed of light is an optional point of view in relativistic physics. It all depends on how we group things together in the equations. We can just as easily do the same physics by saying that an object's KINETIC ENERGY (rather than its mass) increases without limit as its relative speed approaches the speed of light.

And you wrote:
"and observations on the galactic scale do not support the theory at all- hence the need to invent dark matter."

But don't forget that astronomers have been "inventing" dark matter for centuries. Whenever there is an unexplained acceleration, it is likely that there is matter that is unaccounted for. The planet Neptune was "dark matter" before it was found. The nearest white dwarf star, Sirius B, was detected as "dark matter". The present dark matter quest does not end until we determine what this stuff actually is and can observe its properties directly. The fact that it hasn't been found and directly observed yet does not mean that there is something wrong with the prediction.

And you concluded:
"So looking for the error would seem to start here: What are quarks made of?"

And what if they're "made of" nothing? At some point, we have to reach the bottom rung on the ladder. Quarks (and electrons and neutrinos) may well be that bottom rung: fundamental particles with a handful of fixed properties that cannot be explained in terms of other smaller entities. Or maybe not... But I don't see anyway that finding out what quarks are "made of" would help us understand gravity. They're not related.

Hope that helps! :-)craftieman05

It is waaaaaaaaaay to early in the morning to read and understand that right now. Wow. I am going back to sleep. Will read later.

I read through it and my head exploded. I thought I might have been able to escape complicated in depth disccussions about science on a games forum. Guess not.

I didn't buy my PS3 for that--I bought it for gaming and movies. Why can't Sony focus on that? :)feryl06