[ExI] The Big Black Hole Question

[scerir]

Hi Stuart

There are papers online, https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3709 , but imo the best paper is D. M. Greenberger, contribution to Experimental Metaphysics (a Festschrift for A. Shimony), R. S. Cohen, et al (eds.), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1997



> Il 18/07/2025 09:03 CEST Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> ha scritto:
> 
>  
> On 2025-07-10 09:59, scerir via extropy-chat wrote:
> >> Regarding the astronomy use of the term, it is fun to think about.  
> >> Under
> >> sufficient pressure, gravity overpowers everything and electrons are 
> >> pushed
> >> into the protons, which form neutrons, kerBOOM, supernova, result, 
> >> huge ball
> >> of neutrons.  COOL!  But... what if that neutron star is so big, it 
> >> crushes
> >> the neutrons?  What do neutrons crush into?  We don't know.  Our 
> >> equations
> >> fail us.  It's all a big virtual reality, I tells ye.  Wicked, evil it 
> >> is.
> >> The devil invented the whole system.  Rage against it.
> >> 
> >> spike
> > 
> > Quark stars are possible.
> > 
> > But I remember that Daniel Greenberger wrote about an interesting 
> > uncertainty principle: delta m x delta tau > h, where m is mass and tau 
> > is proper time. In his theory, proper time and mass are physical 
> > quantities measured in a particular system of reference: the particle 
> > rest frame. Therefore, the proper time uncertainty delta tau expresses 
> > the standard deviation of measures from external frames of the reading 
> > an imaginary clock situated on the particle.
> > 
> > Interesting the deep connection between mass and (proper) time.
> 
> Very interesting. Thanks for bringing Daniel Greenberger to my 
> attention. The GHZ experiment absolutely destroys local realism without 
> any of the statistical loopholes of Bell inequality. I am trying to wrap 
> my head around the notion of there being wave functions and operators 
> for mass and proper time. Most notably because both rest mass and proper 
> time are Lorentz invariant so they are generally thought of as intrinsic 
> properties of a particle instead of dynamic variable that depends on 
> "when and where" you observe it.
> 
> Stuart LaForge