zouden said:

I was more referring to the 'holographic universe' theory. I can't see how that could be more valuable than understanding neutron stars and supernovae (or black holes).

---

Quote:

Quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot explain black holes.

---

Qubit said:

Then explain how black holes were predicted by GR long before they were observed.

---

Zanthius said:

zouden said:

I was more referring to the 'holographic universe' theory. I can't see how that could be more valuable than understanding neutron stars and supernovae (or black holes).

---

Well, the holographic principle is related to black holes and string theory.

---

Okay, I see it now. Thanks

Then it's nonsensical to say this is 'more valuable than understanding neutron stars and supernovas' because it's all part of the same greater theory.

Zanthius said:

Doesn't matter. General relativity and quantum mechanics give different answers about what is inside of a black hole, so they cannot both be true.

And there is even more proof for quantum mechanics than there is for general relativity.

---

What different answers do they give?

Honestly, I think you are talking out of your ass   "More proof for quantum mechanics than general relativity", what does that even mean?  They are just models that apply to different regimes.

(although I think we are able to make more precise measurements of quantum theory than relativity, if thats what you meant)

bradley said:

okay, so what is so valuable about "understanding neutron stars and supernovas"?

---

bradley said:

okay, so what is so valuable about "understanding neutron stars and supernovas"?

---

Qubit said:

bradley said:

okay, so what is so valuable about "understanding neutron stars and supernovas"?

---

People are always raggin on pure research on how the universe works.  "Whats the point" they often say... Yet, for some reason other endeavors with no 'point' are not scrutinized (art, music, etc.).  Why cant science be like art, where the value comes from the perspective and wisdom that comes out of it.

(to answer your question more directly, the 'value' in pure research is often reaped by future generation; just as we reap the benefit of previous research into things like electricity and chemistry that didnt seem to have much value back in the day.)

---

bradley said:

I wasn't dissing pure research, but zouden implied there was something especially valuable in understanding neutron stars and supernovas. Are you implying he was using "neutron stars and supernovas" as a synonym for pure research?

At that, what the hell is "pure"? Pure research my ass. You can bet there is a strong motive behind anything that uses billions of dollars. Maybe to solve silly theological questions.

---

Qubit said:

What different answers do they give?

---

Zanthius said:

while theories of quantum gravity predict black holes without singularities.

---

Qubit said:

Got any links for this?

---

Quote:

First, classical general relativity breaks down at singularities, and quantum mechanics becomes inconsistent with general relativity in the neighborhood of singularities

---

Quote:

In effect singularities are unphysical and indicate the breakdown of the theory.

---

Qubit said:

I still dont see any theory of quantum gravity that reconciles singularities in black holes.  I dont think such a thing/theory exists.  When and if it does get invented it will be a big deal.

---