Dubstepforum.com

alphacat wrote:^ You mean something like the Electric Universe theory?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

The Theoretical Minimum is a series of Stanford Continuing Studies courses taught by world renowned physicist Leonard Susskind. These courses collectively teach everything required to gain a basic understanding of each area of modern physics including all of the fundamental mathematics.

The sequence begins with the modern formulations of classical mechanics discovered by Lagrange and Hamilton in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and then moves on to the radical new theories of relativity and quantum mechanics introduced by Albert Einstein and others in the early 20th century. The sequence concludes with a study of modern cosmology including the physics of black holes.

Each area is covered with just enough theoretical and mathematical rigor to form a complete introduction to the subject. Although the courses stand alone, when taken in sequence they build upon each other to lay the foundation for an understanding of the most advanced theories in modern physics.

In Professor Susskind's own words...
"A number of years ago I became aware of the large number of physics enthusiasts out there who have no venue to learn modern physics and cosmology. Fat advanced textbooks are not suitable to people who have no teacher to ask questions of, and the popular literature does not go deeply enough to satisfy these curious people. So I started a series of courses on modern physics at Stanford University where I am a professor of physics. The courses are specifically aimed at people who know, or once knew, a bit of algebra and calculus, but are more or less beginners."

Phigure wrote:well, the schroedinger equation in this form is an example of an eigenfunction



the operator (in this case the hamiltonian Ĥ) acts on the eigenfunction Ψ, and it returns the same eigenfunction, except that now it's being multiplied by the scalar E, which is the eigenvalue

if you do it in bra-ket notation then it just looks something like this



"eigen" means "self" in german

newscientist.com wrote:
Wormhole entanglement solves black hole paradox



WORMHOLES – tunnels through space-time that connect black holes – may be a consequence of the bizarre quantum property called entanglement. The redefinition would resolve a pressing paradox that you might be burned instead of crushed, should you fall into a black hole.

Knowing which hazard sign to erect outside a black hole isn't exactly an everyday problem. For theoretical physicists, though, it reveals an inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Solving this conundrum might lead to the sought-after quantum theory of gravity.

Relativity says if you fall into a black hole, you would die via "spaghettification" – a gradual stretching by ever-more intense gravitational forces. But last year, when Joseph Polchinski at the University of California in Santa Barbara and colleagues explored the quantum implications of black holes, they hit a problem. Black holes emit photons via something called Hawking radiation, and these are "entangled" with the interior of the black hole and also with each other. This breaks a quantum rule that particles can't be entangled with two things at once.

To preserve quantum monogamy, Polchinski suggested last year that the black hole-photon entanglement breaks down. That causes a wall of energy at the black hole's event horizon that wrecks relativity because anyone falling in would burn up rather turn to spaghetti. Welcome to the black hole firewall paradox.

Possible solutions abound but now two physics heavyweights, Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advance Study in Princeton, and [url=https:/physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty/leonard-susskind]Leonard Susskind[/url] of Stanford University, California, have come up with the most audacious one yet: a new kind of wormhole that means the entanglement needn't be broken in the first place.

First, the pair showed that these space-time tunnels, usually described by the maths of general relativity, also emerge from quantum theory, if two black holes are entangled. It's as if the wormhole is the physical manifestation of entanglement.

The pair then extended this idea to a single black hole and its Hawking radiation, resulting in a new kind of wormhole (see diagram). Crucially, they suggest that this wormhole, which links a black hole and its Hawking radiation, may not be a problem for quantum monogamy in the way that normal entanglement is. As a result, the firewall needn't appear, preserving relativity (arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533).

Patrick Hayden of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, finds the idea of wormholes from entangled black hole pairs convincing, but says more work is needed for the case of the black hole and a photon. Polchinski, meanwhile, is cautiously optimistic: "It certainly injects new ideas. But there is a lot that still needs to be filled in."

There is still room for firewalls in the new wormhole definition. Maldacena and Susskind also outline how an observer outside the black hole could manipulate the Hawking radiation, creating a shock wave that travels down the wormhole and appears as a firewall. This may not screw up relativity because the firewall is optional, not intrinsic to the black hole. Maldacena hopes mulling these options will teach us about quantum gravity.

hugh wrote:kinda hard to read cos of all the duff url failures, but it seems pretty left of field. The more I learn about black holes and the physics surrounding it, the more I realise that physicists really don't have a clue about them

alphacat wrote:assume that what they don't know/perceive doesn't exist.