Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless I'm mistaken, it is possible to spoof IPs even for 2-way traffic, but it takes a lot of work and resources (bandwidth, server capacity, software). In effect you hijack the other computer's IP address, which is really only worthwhile if you're going for ... a bank or other really significant IP address. And of course, it's generally easier to hijack a domain, for lots of reasons.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As I understand it the Quantum theory (after strings) went into membranes. The touching of two branes is considered a strong possibility for the creationof the universe. It does not allow for the creation of matter/energy but it does allow for its entry into our universe from another. The allowance of matter/energy to enter and depart our realm of measurement forces all past answers using the "matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed" to need re-examination.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As I understand it the Quantum theory (after strings) went into membranes. The touching of two branes is considered a strong possibility for the creationof the universe. It does not allow for the creation of matter/energy but it does allow for its entry into our universe from another. The allowance of matter/energy to enter and depart our realm of measurement forces all past answers using the "matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed" to need re-examination. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I may be wrong here, but I think based upon what I've read, that at this moment the "string theory", as scintists understand it, is not really a single all-incorporating and explaining neat theory which is more or less universally accepted, but rather a collection of related theories based upon variations of "hyper string" concept, some of them being more admited by the scintific world than others.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

If you Subscribe to the hidden variable theory then even the supposedly probabalistic decay of an unstable nucleus is in fact determined by outside factors. In which case the scientist looking at the box only gives a probability because he can not observe the hidden factors.

Matter can be spontaneously created. This is why Black holes seem to emit matter. Large scale particle-antiparticle assymmetry is a problem when talking about the big bang though.

*bad pun alert*

If anyone has the GUTs to explain this all properly, there's probably a Nobel prize in if for them somewhere.

*end bad pun alert*

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">At subatomic level, matter-antimatter pair of virtual particles can flash in and out of existence spontaneously. The energy for the particle creation seemingly came from the vaccuum itself, as long as they annihilate and disappear in sufficiently short time such as to satisfy the uncertainty principle.

However, near the event horizon, occasionally, one of the pair particle is pulled into the black hole before annihilating with its counterpart, thus the freed particle can manifest as a particle emission. However, in doing so, the black hole loses its own internal energy to, in essence, make the lone virtual particle "real", so as to satisfy the energy uncertainty principle.

[Edited: misleading information about thermal radiation deleted]

However, neither of the above two are actually observed yet, as they are predicted to be extremely faint for astronomical black holes (so the theory can still be proven wrong if and when we acquire the ability to test these predictions). Currently detectable emissions from possible black hole candidates are from matter accretion processes instead, the mechanism that powers the bright Qusars.

As for the Hidden Variable Theory, well I personally believe it is more of a silly attempt at clinging to the familiar deterministic large-scale world we are used to. Since the hidden variables are in principle hidden and unobservable, the theory is in fact like a belief and doesn't qualify as a theory, as it is untestable and has no real predictive power, two important criteria for modern theories.

Just some random thoughts.

-Gateway103

[ May 27, 2004, 10:30: Message edited by: Gateway103 ]

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

Hmmm...black holes radiate thermally? I hadn't heard that before. Given that black holes don't let even EM waves out from behind the event horizon, how do they do that?

I myself don't Subscribe to the Hidden Variable Theory, but I think it is a theory. The variables just have to be currently unobservable, it's perfectly possible that we will observe them in the future, with more advanced techniques.

Schroedinger's cat would make the perfect pet. Discuss :-D

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">These strange things happens, as I understand it, ON the event horizon.

If I ever make a mod, it will be a spell, called, "On the (event) horizon". It will require A1E1W1F1N1B1D1A1 and cost 40 astral gems. The effect will be to destroy every single building (temple, castles and labs). And maybe all people too.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

Given that the thermal energy of the black hole would be associated with matter, and the matter of a black hole is contained within the event horizon any radiation would be contained within the event horizon.

The thermal emissions I learnt were associated with black holes are those from acceleration effects on matter. For instance a star/black hole orbitting each other, with the hole pulling matter from the star, which then spirals around the black hole until it dissapears into it. Radiating quite a lot as it does.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm inst that true of any theory? Generally scientists have no problem with the word theory. Its only the people outside the Sci world that want to declare things too soon as "fact". Even things that have the word theory in their name.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

Ultra strictly you can never proove a theory. Each time observations agree with the theories predictions you are more certain it is correct. As soon as one reliable observation disagrees, you know that it isn't.

Re: OT: An Existential Dilemma
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My apology, I was writing the post ~2AM, wasn't thinking straight. Black holes don't thermal radiate like your conventional matter actually.

I was thinking of Hawking Radiation instead, which is the virtual particle emission mentioned above. The reason I mentioned thermal emission is that historically, it was the nagging concern that if black holes do not radiate, it would be an entropy destroyer of the cosmos, something thermodynamics do not allow. So people think black hole must radiate somehow, and then Hawking Radiation was proposed to solve this.

My apology for the misleading information. I'll edit my previous post appropriately.

And Schroedinger's Cat may or may not be the perfect pet. It depends on what the first observation reveals http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

-Gateway103