# New Equivalence Principles?

206 replies to this topic

### #1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3377 posts

Posted 10 July 2018 - 05:54 AM

I decided this was such a new topic to write about it.

I stated in a post here of mine not long ago concerning the follow: I quote myself ~

..................................................................................

''Remember what I said about relative temperatures for the macro-black hole?

Section 1.

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler.

Above we have stated:

Section 2.

1. As a black hole gets larger, it becomes cooler

2. As a black hole gets smaller, it becomes hotter.

Is there a new equivalence principle here? Let me try and explain and see if anyone catches on: A black hole moving at relativistic speeds to an observer at rest will experience a lorentz contraction (and so appears smaller, which is part of postulate 2. of section 2) and in section 1. we have a black hole being hotter so long as it is smaller than one relative in size. An observer this time moving at relativistic speeds, will measure it to be cooler and extended in space, this is of course, in conjunction with postulate 1. of section 2.

Is this a coincidence? May be... may not be.''

.............................................................................

The next step is to try and describe this mathematically. Anyone is open to tackle this, I expect to have some kind of argument or solution within the next few days. If you can create the laws which describe this, it should not be difficult to unify them all in principle.

### #2 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:13 AM

no it isn't a new equivalence but follows from relativity and treated by effective particle number density by different observers. Under QFT a relativistic observer will note a different number density. Also the redshift accounts for the differences in temperature.

This under the Hawking radiation and Unruh treatments involve two classes of toy observers. The Minkowskii and the Rindler. The Rindler observer is under constant acceleration to maintain a stable orbit ie requires jet packs. However the differences arise under relativity and lorentz invariance between the two spacetimes.

Edited by Shustaire, 11 July 2018 - 06:21 AM.

• Super Polymath likes this

### #3 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

Creating

• Members
• 1528 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 01:14 PM

I decided this was such a new topic to write about it.

I stated in a post here of mine not long ago concerning the follow: I quote myself ~

..................................................................................

''Remember what I said about relative temperatures for the macro-black hole?

Section 1.

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler.

Above we have stated:

Section 2.

1. As a black hole gets larger, it becomes cooler

2. As a black hole gets smaller, it becomes hotter.

Is there a new equivalence principle here? Let me try and explain and see if anyone catches on: A black hole moving at relativistic speeds to an observer at rest will experience a lorentz contraction (and so appears smaller, which is part of postulate 2. of section 2) and in section 1. we have a black hole being hotter so long as it is smaller than one relative in size. An observer this time moving at relativistic speeds, will measure it to be cooler and extended in space, this is of course, in conjunction with postulate 1. of section 2.

Is this a coincidence? May be... may not be.''

.............................................................................

The next step is to try and describe this mathematically. Anyone is open to tackle this, I expect to have some kind of argument or solution within the next few days. If you can create the laws which describe this, it should not be difficult to unify them all in principle.

The only force of nature is the same event that causes the quantum (time being continuously deleted means it for an event to finish occurring this is time dilation)

"Black holes have actually a very rare structure that leads to one of only a few mathematical objects that are capable of encoding the information (which falls in) on the horizon itself and when it does, the information increases, translated itself to the black hole horizon becoming larger. An alternative interpretation which preserves this idea of information encoded on the horizon (as found in the holographic principle) but removes the issue of what happens in a black hole – In other words, the black hole interior may as well not exist and falling into a black hole would be like hitting a concrete wall."

-006

Eureka!

This IS gravitoelectronuclearmagnetism:

"Constantly delete a volume and every volume not deleted accelerates by the volume deleted"

-src

### #4 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

Creating

• Members
• 1528 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 01:43 PM

Describing the quantum eraser is to describe that out of which every force of nature born.

Reality is a cellular automaton between two deleting branes that have no boundary or horizon to speak. each deletion becomes a logical paradox as you can't define an absolute value of deletion when the volume medium in question is infinite

### #5 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

Creating

• Members
• 1528 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:12 PM

There is a sort of multiverse, two universes, a biverse, continuum 1 - continuum 2, really a bilateral-continuum, but the two have a reverse-temporal linearity. That's how William James Sidis predicted the existence of black holes. I wrote about this more here & here

er=/=epr

These aren't holes, they are walls.

WJS had a higher IQ than Einstein, Einstein  was a genius, Sidis was a polymath & a polygot

### #6 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

Creating

• Members
• 1528 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:49 PM

Here's how you visualize what I'm saying

From the perspective of our space-matter-energy time continuum, the universe is made entirely out of visible quasar disks and invisible black hole bubbles in the middle of each disk. The disks spiral into the bubbles to produce the fundamental motion from within the quantum world to without the cosmic horizon to produce an infinitely dynamic angular momentum.

From the perspective of the reverse space-matter-energy time continuum the universe is made entirely out of visible black hole disks and invisible quasar bubbles in the middle of each disk. The disks spiral into the bubbles to produce the fundamental motion from within the quantum world to without the cosmic horizon to produce an infinitely dynamic angular momentum.

There is no such thing as empty space or a true multiverse, even if time travel is possible the grandfather  paradox is somehow embraced. Yet the rest GR still applies to ALL motion, as does the principle of locality. Even in the quantum world.

This is at least my incomplete mathematical interpretation of reality. It still needs to be plotted.

### #7 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:19 PM

Please read the OP's request,

@006.

Start with two coordinate choices the at rest is the Minkowskii observer while the other is a Rindler observer

The next step is to try and describe this mathematically. Anyone is open to tackle this, I expect to have some kind of argument or solution within the next few days. If you can create the laws which describe this, it should not be difficult to unify them all in principle.

Edited by Shustaire, 11 July 2018 - 07:21 PM.

### #8 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1084 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 04:17 AM

I decided this was such a new topic to write about it.

I stated in a post here of mine not long ago concerning the follow: I quote myself ~

..................................................................................

''Remember what I said about relative temperatures for the macro-black hole?

Section 1.

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler.

Above we have stated:

Section 2.

1. As a black hole gets larger, it becomes cooler

2. As a black hole gets smaller, it becomes hotter.

Is there a new equivalence principle here? Let me try and explain and see if anyone catches on: A black hole moving at relativistic speeds to an observer at rest will experience a lorentz contraction (and so appears smaller, which is part of postulate 2. of section 2) and in section 1. we have a black hole being hotter so long as it is smaller than one relative in size. An observer this time moving at relativistic speeds, will measure it to be cooler and extended in space, this is of course, in conjunction with postulate 1. of section 2.

Is this a coincidence? May be... may not be.''

.............................................................................

The next step is to try and describe this mathematically. Anyone is open to tackle this, I expect to have some kind of argument or solution within the next few days. If you can create the laws which describe this, it should not be difficult to unify them all in principle.

You’ve been reading too many of Moronium’s threads

The whole point of relativity is that motion is RELATIVE.

What is the difference between 1) A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest, And 2) An observer moving at relativistic speeds (relative to the black hole at rest)?

### #9 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1084 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 04:22 AM

I decided this was such a new topic to write about it.

I stated in a post here of mine not long ago concerning the follow: I quote myself ~

..................................................................................

''Remember what I said about relative temperatures for the macro-black hole?

Section 1.

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler.

Above we have stated:

Section 2.

1. As a black hole gets larger, it becomes cooler

2. As a black hole gets smaller, it becomes hotter.

Is there a new equivalence principle here? Let me try and explain and see if anyone catches on: A black hole moving at relativistic speeds to an observer at rest will experience a lorentz contraction (and so appears smaller, which is part of postulate 2. of section 2) and in section 1. we have a black hole being hotter so long as it is smaller than one relative in size. An observer this time moving at relativistic speeds, will measure it to be cooler and extended in space, this is of course, in conjunction with postulate 1. of section 2.

Is this a coincidence? May be... may not be.''

.............................................................................

The next step is to try and describe this mathematically. Anyone is open to tackle this, I expect to have some kind of argument or solution within the next few days. If you can create the laws which describe this, it should not be difficult to unify them all in principle.

One other thing, the temperature of a black hole depends on the radius of the event horizon, right?

The Lorentz contraction that occurs due to motion is only along the direction of motion, so the black hole will be compressed in one direction only, the radius is not changed as if the black hole is getting smaller. I am not sure what effect this would have on temperature, if any.

### #10 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 05:30 PM

This is true. But I must keep it simple, For instance, the relativity of simultaneity may mean a black hole can appear to radiate away faster depending on the frame of reference, Even measuring things like a vacuum energy is relative. I deduce the laws of physics must mean that dilation must occur in one frame and so measure a black hole to be slightly cooler. So let's study the premise together, and I found a paper which talks about the relative thermal bath:

https://arxiv.org/pd...-qc/9505045.pdf

Continuing on, if we are right with bringing in the relativity of simultaneity, then we will learn that if when events happen depends on the frame of reference, then that difference can only be that one black hole was measured to be hotter in one frame and cooler in the other.Unfortunately, as much as I know that Lorentz contractions have been applied to temperature, I cannot find a wealth of information on the relativistic dependency's that they must have for two different frames of reference, It needs to be looked into with more depth.

The Unruh paper in your other thread provides part of the relevant formulas, The problem with blackbody temperature is that it involves a specific process of absorption. Take the thought experiment, send a frequency to the BH, the event horizon will reflect part of the signal the remainder is absorbed.

In Hawking radiation this is the positive frequency modes, the negative frequency modes are in the imaginary number region which is the tachyonic region of the lightcone.

In either case Unruh or Hawking, the blackbody is applied the same.

Later on I can get you the creation and annihilation operator connections under relativity.

The paper you linked above is a bit of a simplification however looks accurate.

Edited by Shustaire, 12 July 2018 - 06:03 PM.

### #11 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:44 PM

​"I assume v= 1 andRp&2M. I also assume the shell is rapidly collapsing with v& 1 —[4M/(R, +2M)]. This ensures that an inward-going light ray emitted just as collapse begins cannot bounce off r =0 and escape before the shell has passed through its Schwarzschild radius. These restrictions on the speed of infall of the shell are made for convenience of later mathematics only, and do not affect the conclusions."

here is the Rindler observer used to measure the speed of infall of the radius to R=0. see section 1.2

http://blogs.umass.e...evaporation.pdf

1.5 identifies inside and outside the shell.

1.18 is the reflection condition

then from there it covers the creation and annihilation operators. then correspond this to the different observers.

Edited by Shustaire, 12 July 2018 - 07:45 PM.

• Super Polymath likes this

### #12 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:30 PM

Now that i have read the paper properly, it also partially gives the answer as well.

''ich coincides with (9) . The results above suggest that a thermometer moving with respect to a background thermal bath would always ascribe a smaller temperature in comparison with another thermometer lying at rest in the bath. Nevertheless, we are not allowed to make such a general claim. In order to define uniquely an effective temperature in the moving frame S, we should be able first to express (5) in the black body form [see Eq. (6)]''

I think I am going to surf and see what else I can find.

Sounds like your on the right track now, you may gather some excellent detail by looking at the Fulling Rindler states as well. Here is an example paper

https://arxiv.org/pd...h/0504189v2.pdf

Key notes compare the Unruh detector using the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions.  (potential wells under QFT and String theory). The Unruh paper mentions the similarities to the Fulling Rindler.

This will help with black body temperatures.

http://astrowww.phys...ellatm/atm2.pdf

Edited by Shustaire, 12 July 2018 - 10:47 PM.

• Dubbelosix likes this

### #13 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1084 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:58 PM

And it seems I can answer Ocean properly now, it seems a moving sphere in relativity can appear smaller

''"The paper was build on a common misunderstanding within the special relativity: while it is true that fast objects get contracted, they are not perceived to be contracted. It is presumably the fault of Mr. Tompkins, but see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.4583.pdf for example (more classics: R. Penrose. The apparent shape of a relativistically moving sphere. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 55:137–139, 1959., J. Terrell. Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction. Phys. Rev. , 116:1041–1045, 1959).  The above paper demonstrates, that a sphere is always perceived as a sphere, even with very high speed, but the apparent size could be different."

https://www.research...ed_or_unchanged

It seems then it isn't squeezed in one direction but the apparent size may indeed shrink.

This is complicated!

Length contraction is an effect that literally makes things shorter in the direction of motion.  So if something whipped by you from left to right it would be thinner, but just as tall.

Now here is the complication: Although the spherical object is length contracted in one direction only, to an observer at rest it will still

LOOK like a sphere! This is because of the finite speed of light and the object sort of gets out of the way of light that is coming from the sides and that fills out the spherical shape to the observer.

As explained by another source:

Length contraction is a real phenomenon,

However to see something you need to have light emitted from the object reach your eye, and the light from different parts of the moving sphere takes different times to reach your eye. This distorts the image of the contracted object and has the apparently paradoxical effect of making it look spherical even though it is contracted.

So the moving sphere looks spherical even though it isn't spherical. The calculation of how light from the object reaches your eye is quite involved, and I'm afraid I don't know of a simple analogy to understand it.

I remember seeing the math in one of Giancoli's Physics books, but that was years ago.

My question is, if the object is Really length contracted, but we don't See it as length contracted, would the detected temperature be any different? If the appearance is caused by the finite speed of light, as the explanation says, then any detection apparatus should also be limited in a similar way and the T should be unchanged.  I think so. Maybe

• Dubbelosix likes this

### #14 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1084 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 05:18 AM

Ok I managed to find the first page of his paper:

https://www.cambridg...2B258C29037AC67

This answers one of my question because he seems to say, ''in particular, spheres... is always such to present a circular outline to any observer.''

Yes, that agrees with what I wrote earlier; that due to the finite speed of light, the sphere moves out of the way of the light coming from the trailing edge, which fills out the shape so that it remains a sphere.

Too bad we don't have the rest of his paper so we can see the math, but I did find this paper:

Visual appearance of wireframe objects in special relativity

May be of some interest to you. I haven’t delved into the mathematics, just scanned through it.

From the computer generated images (which I cannot post here) I get the impression that a sphere moving at relativistic velocity may actually appear to be larger than one at rest.

### #15 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 06:12 AM

Definitely an odd interpretation since we are accustomed to the moving object being contracted. So not sure how trustworthy the approach is.

mathematically the paper has good arguments from what I see so far

### #16 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

The Human Shadow

• Members
• 1896 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 07:40 AM

Ya, dubbel that relativistic temperature is neat apply it to the temperature of a Schwarzchild BH then a Kerr Type. Let's say .2 Kelvin then 1 Kelvin,

Edited by VictorMedvil, 13 July 2018 - 07:41 AM.

### #17 Shustaire

Shustaire

Understanding

• Members
• 457 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 03:42 PM

I'm very skeptical. The only time it makes sense in a relativistic picture, is if you were to measure it from your own frame while moving at relativistic speeds, in that sense something could appear larger. I haven't read it, just very skeptical as it doesn't make sense initially, to me anyway.

Makes sense I am always sceptical of any paper till I see the same principles applied I numerous other papers.