359 reputation
419
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 29
visits member for 2 years, 5 months
seen yesterday

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


Jun
25
comment Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
In the case where pair formation happens within the event horizon and the escaping particle 'tunnels' out, then I can perhaps see some energy theft as it leaves the event horizon (though how it does so, I do not understand). However, pair formation could take place outside of the event horizon, in which case how does a particle not in the event horizon leaving take energy away from the black hole?
Jun
25
comment Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
Okay, so you have a real particle, with mass, leaving. By what mechanism does the virtual particle 'steal' energy or mass from the black hole by falling into it? Does it annihilate a particle without a release of energy? The outgoing particle can't balance its own creation energy, or even if it did how would that affect the black hole whatsoever?
Jun
25
comment Since when were Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and Einstein-Cartan (EC) theories experimentally proven?
"Fully compatible with observation" seems to mean, at minimum "no observations currently contradict it". This would, at least on the surface of it, apply to string theory.
Jun
25
comment Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
But then, if the in-falling particle is/becomes real, wouldn't that just add to the energy of the black hole? Wouldn't it need to have negative energy, or negative mass, to 'rob' from the black hole and balance the conservation of energy? (and lead to the disintegration of the black hole?)
Jun
25
comment Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
Would this summation be accurate: "In an instance in which one member of pair production is taken out of the negative energy well, the well converts itself into providing mass of the remaining particle"? It seems a bit bizarre to me that it somehow 'chose' which particle to provide mass to, why couldn't it provide mass to the in-falling particle instead?
Jun
25
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
"Which units are considered base units is a matter of choice. The base units of SI are actually not the smallest set possible. Smaller sets have been defined. For example, there are unit sets in which the electric and magnetic field have the same unit. This is based on physical laws that show that electric and magnetic field are actually different manifestations of the same phenomenon." - Wikipedia
Jun
25
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
Sure, but the SI unit choice was arbitrary to begin with. So you want 'the SI arbitrary choices, but different'? In the example I gave, I addressed this; we could make 'velocity' a fundamental base unit, which then along with whatever arbitrary 'time' unit we have, 'length' becomes a derived quantity. Or define velocity and length base units, and derive time. As in the quote above, some SI base units aren't fundamental at all (4/7 are really derived units; current is number of electrons per second, temperature up to a conversion factor).
Jun
25
comment Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
I did include Krauss's proposed 'universe from nothing' as well, but really what I'm asking is; does the transition from 'virtual' particles to 'real' particles in a situation where there isn't an obvious energy source to rob like a black hole (also note that Hawking Radiation is a proposed mechanism, and may not exist). What I really want to get at is: if the particles DID become real, would they leave some sort of 'negative energy well' in the QED Foam where they formed? Could such a thing exist?
Jun
25
asked Are there any other mechanisms that can make virtual particles 'real' other than Hawking Radiation and Universe Births?
Jun
24
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
Not all 'systems' are equal. Imagine if the SI were defined pre-electrical discovery? There would be no coulomb or ampere in that system, varying the number of fundamental quantities. It could even change the quantities themselves, for example the meter is now defined off the speed of light, but the meter used to be a 'fundamental unit' before the speed of light was known (or even known to be constant).
Jun
24
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
Note that it doesn't specify "the smallest set", perhaps you mean 'base units' to be the "smallest complete set of fundamental units"?
Jun
24
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
To cut to the root of your question, I'm fairly certain that a given civilization or unit systems choice of what are 'fundamental units' are completely arbitrary. "A set of fundamental units is a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated." (wikipedia)
Jun
24
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
Do you mean for the same system? One could postulate a civilization that is pre-relativity, and doesn't have $c$ defined. If you mean to also end up with the same result, I.E. express all of the SI system's units (and only those) then I think the answer is still yes. Could I not redefine length to use two 'arbitrary' new base units, like 'velocity of planet around main star(s)' and 'planetary rotation time'? What's your definition of 'base unit'?
Jun
24
comment To what extent are quantities fundamental?
That paper is great. Here's an illustrative quote from it: "The SI might be useful from the point of view of technology and metrology, but from the point of view of pure physics four out of its seven basic units are evidently derivative ones. Electric current is number of moving electrons per second. Temperature is up to a conversion factor"
Jun
24
answered To what extent are quantities fundamental?
May
28
awarded  Popular Question
May
14
awarded  Popular Question
Apr
23
awarded  Yearling
Jan
16
awarded  Tumbleweed
Jan
9
asked Is there an equation for the magnetic field of a conductor attached to a magnet?