Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Science] A thread of good guesses, bad guesses and telling the difference.

1616264666779

Posts

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    And also, as again the whole point of the article, is not even close to being reality. Like more than a decade away. According to the 'best' of the companies in the field.

    Not on the horizon.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    camo_sig.png
    AbsoluteZero
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    I expect there to be very few privately owned autonomous vehicles, not for the first couple of generations at least.

    The expense is all in the software, Google's going to want to get back the billions they spent developing it. If they sell them to 3rd parties at all, they're gonna be priced with the assumption that the buyer will be running it 24/7 for business, making a profit.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    DoodmannkimeDedwrekkaMvrckMegaMek
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited January 9
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    If you ran a cab company where the drivers are actual employees it would be stupid if you didn't buy driverless cars when the price is "1 Year Salary of Worker" + Driverless Software, assuming the cost of the software is somewhere in the realm of possible to make the money back. If they operate on the "Lease Cars to independent contractors who keep all the money raised through fares" model it'd also be stupid not to buy the cars since, presumably, the drivers did make more money than the cost of the lease agreements so you should cut them out and take all of that money.

    Oddly, I think the "Drivers are independent contractors that own their own vehicles and we split the fares" model that Uber uses is actually the only model of cab company that makes trying to have your own fleet of driverless cars a stupid business decision.

    Veevee on
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    Really? Because the video from that accident sure looks a hell of a lot like the safety driver was dicking around with her phone instead of paying attention to the road when the car plowed into that pedestrian. Which, you know, would happen whether the car was self driving or not as evidenced by the texting and driving epidemic.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    Rchanen
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited January 9
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    Really? Because the video from that accident sure looks a hell of a lot like the safety driver was dicking around with her phone instead of paying attention to the road when the car plowed into that pedestrian. Which, you know, would happen whether the car was self driving or not as evidenced by the texting and driving epidemic.

    While that person was negligent, Uber put that person in a position where that was inevitable.

    You try and sit with perfect attention for hours without actually doing anything but sitting and paying attention. I guarantee you will look at your phone or do something that makes you completely stop paying attention at some point, and unfortunately this time it was at the worst time they could have done it.

    Veevee on
    ElvenshaeRchanendiscriderJoolanderkimeKetarMvrckMoridin889
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    Really? Because the video from that accident sure looks a hell of a lot like the safety driver was dicking around with her phone instead of paying attention to the road when the car plowed into that pedestrian. Which, you know, would happen whether the car was self driving or not as evidenced by the texting and driving epidemic.

    They also disengaged a number of safety features to make the ride look smoother. The car had emergency auto-brake capability but they disabled it, for example...because they were trying to rush and their system was getting confused.

    ElvenshaeRchanenBurtletoyTofystedethkimeDedwrekkaKetarMvrckMoridin889
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited January 9
    Again, in the article we are talking about, Uber drivers had to disengage the auto drive feature every 13 miles, compared to waymo which was like, 5000 or something.

    And guess what probably happens to drivers if they only have to drive for 1 minute every 5000 miles? (They probably aren't paying attention) This is another reason driverless cars are further away than people think. Because if they only do an okay job, they aren't helping make things safer.

    Although, yes, Uber did fuck up way more than that. They had an emergency braking system that they turned off because they didn't want the car to come to sudden stops. So instead it killed someone.

    Burtletoy on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Reading about that is really funny as a game dev who has done and seen serious hack jobs for presentations, yet horrifying because it is a deadly chunk of metal in real life instead of a game.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    It's not really worse than medical equipment screwing up and killing people, is it? That's happened before, yet we still have automated medical equipment.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    furlion wrote: »
    As cool as self driving cars are they are going to end up being one more wedge between those of us in the lower class and the rest of you. If one person can spend an extra hour on the way into work getting stuff done, but you can't, it is going to be hard to compete. Or school or college or whatever. Plus where do all the taxi, semi truck, and other drivers go? Eventually the price will probably come down but who knows how long that will be and how much damage will be done in the interim.

    It may surprise you to learn that the majority of truck drivers own their own rigs. Logistics companies act as middlemen to connect these independent drivers to companies that need goods transported. The people who are buying the automated taxis, by and large will be operating them as a small business. The drivers won't lose their jobs, they will just steadily easier and easier until they get to stay at home and the car does the rest of the work. The prices of these services will steadily decrease with the efficiency of hauling. By that time a single independent trucker could operate small fleets of fully autonomous hauling units, each specialized for their cargo. "Trucker" orgs have a lot of political power. It's a very well protected profession.

    The taxi thing is just flat out wrong. You really think companies are going to pay a liveable wage to someone who just sits in the car and maybe touches the wheel every now and then? Who are the small business owners who can afford the kind of prices these cars will have? And once they start being offered for the moving of freight, how are the current owners of semis going to offload their laughably obsolete trucks to buy the new more expensive versions? Once they get to the point where they no longer need a safety driver what do these literally millions of men and women do that will pay them as much as they make now? These things are either going to fail miserably as the middle and lower class in the country realize they are going to ruin their lives or crush millions of people.

    No, I'm quite correct about the taxi thing. In New York City for example, Uber and Lyft outnumber yellow cabs 4:1. Hauling vehicles of any sort are already quite expensive. Adding automation to a $90k taxi or a $300k big rig isn't going to add all that much to the price. The general trend is going to be downward is cost as electrification and computerization removes a lot of the undead weight and complexity from these vehicles. It's going to be a slow transition. As people's trucks and transports break down and die people will buy self-driving electric vehicles instead. You seem to think this is a 0 sum game. Where it's all automated or it it's not. There's going to be a lot of overlap as new technologies take hold. The truckers who are better off will see the most immediate benefits but that Uber driver will eventually get there.

    The reason Uber killed that lady in Arizona is because they were rushing to beat unrealistic timelines so they could replace all their driver owned cars with Uber owned self driving cars quicker.

    So

    Really? Because the video from that accident sure looks a hell of a lot like the safety driver was dicking around with her phone instead of paying attention to the road when the car plowed into that pedestrian. Which, you know, would happen whether the car was self driving or not as evidenced by the texting and driving epidemic.

    Iirc she wasnt on her phone; she was using the diagnostic software as a part of her job.

    wbBv3fj.png
    tynicDisruptedCapitalistDoodmannNoughtJoolanderHappylilElfHefflingkimeKayne Red RobeMoridin889
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited January 9
    jothki wrote: »
    It's not really worse than medical equipment screwing up and killing people, is it? That's happened before, yet we still have automated medical equipment.

    Life saving medical equipment is the same as a car.

    I'm not saying don't develope it. Don't work on it. I fucking hate driving. And a year ago I was all on board the hype Express for driverless cars. But the more I learn, the less likely they seem to be. And it's probably gonna be more lane assist and braking assist than it is driverless cars, for a while.

    Burtletoy on
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    It's not really worse than medical equipment screwing up and killing people, is it? That's happened before, yet we still have automated medical equipment.

    Well yes, but we put the physical safety locks back into the machines after they killed a patient.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    Elvenshae
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Of course the whole issue with self-driving cars is that, just like with most Silicon Valley 'disruptions' it's trying to do a tech fix for a societal problem. Societal problems require social/political solutions; adding an extra layer of tech doesn't change it.

    Like, there's this tweet going around



    The text, in larger image form for easier reading:
    DwYveeBWoAIRolM.jpg:large

    But that doesn't tell the whole story. Uber and Lyft came back to Austin later when the Texas legislature overruled the local Austin laws (people who claim to want local rule and freedom only ever want the freedom to be oppressive locally) that blocked them. RideAustin has been struggling since as they lack the name recognition.

    The solution wasn't "self-driving cars" but basically "seizing the means of production" but then further societal issues (right-wingers wanting to own the libs) causing further issues.

    DoodmannBrodyMild ConfusionShadowendavidsdurionsAl_watSolarHefflingkimeDedwrekkaMoridin889tynic
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    Ok, I can’t sleep cause this question is eating at my sanity:

    How in the hell do black holes get larger?

    I mean, I “get” that black holes, no matter how large the event horizon, the singularity inside is still just an infinitely small point and the size of the event horizon is just an expression of all the mass inside it, but that’s the thing. How does it get there in the short amount of time (relatively speaking) the universe has existed?

    So I know time dialates more and more slowly to an outside observer as you approach any gravity well, but in a black hole, the extreme gravity slows time to outside observers to infinity. So if I were falling into a black hole and could magically survive the conditions up to the event horizon and I could see out into the universe, I would see the universe moving faster and faster through time, possibly all the way up to the end of the visible universe even though my frame of reference hasn’t changed and I’d rapidly pass through, while an outside observer would see me moving more and more slowly in time until I eventually “freeze” in time right above the event horizon.

    So now I’m trying to imagine the very first black hole and they very first thing that ever fell into it all those billions of years ago. Wouldn’t that thing, from our perspective, still not even have made it past the event horizon due to the extreme time dialation? Wouldn’t it still be falling into the singularity even now because of how slow time moves in such an extreme place? Yet, black holes still get larger from our frame of reference. They even combine and we can sense those gravity waves.

    How in the hell does that work?

    I’ve tried google and all I get is the information paradox and Hawking radiation, which isn’t what I’m pondering about.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    discrider on
    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    steam_sig.png
    Moridin889
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    Ok, I can’t sleep cause this question is eating at my sanity:

    How in the hell do black holes get larger?

    I mean, I “get” that black holes, no matter how large the event horizon, the singularity inside is still just an infinitely small point and the size of the event horizon is just an expression of all the mass inside it, but that’s the thing. How does it get there in the short amount of time (relatively speaking) the universe has existed?

    So I know time dialates more and more slowly to an outside observer as you approach any gravity well, but in a black hole, the extreme gravity slows time to outside observers to infinity. So if I were falling into a black hole and could magically survive the conditions up to the event horizon and I could see out into the universe, I would see the universe moving faster and faster through time, possibly all the way up to the end of the visible universe even though my frame of reference hasn’t changed and I’d rapidly pass through, while an outside observer would see me moving more and more slowly in time until I eventually “freeze” in time right above the event horizon.

    So now I’m trying to imagine the very first black hole and they very first thing that ever fell into it all those billions of years ago. Wouldn’t that thing, from our perspective, still not even have made it past the event horizon due to the extreme time dialation? Wouldn’t it still be falling into the singularity even now because of how slow time moves in such an extreme place? Yet, black holes still get larger from our frame of reference. They even combine and we can sense those gravity waves.

    How in the hell does that work?

    I’ve tried google and all I get is the information paradox and Hawking radiation, which isn’t what I’m pondering about.

    The event horizon of the black hole is observably expanding in the cases you're thinking of, so eventually the matter that appears frozen at the edge of the event horizon will be engulfed by it. The event horizon of a real world black hole is also not uniform and is rotating, so stuff at the edge of the event horizon is going to eventually intersect the non-uniform, rotating event horizon.

    If you were god and created a universe with a perfectly uniform black hole surrounded by a perfectly uniform spread of matter, I think eventually the perfect uniformity would be broken by quantum effects, and once the uniformity is broken, the black hole's event horizon will start to distort.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Cobalt60Cobalt60 Registered User regular
    In addition to the above points, as things fall into a black hole the light being emitted/bouncing off them becomes more and more red shifted over time. The light would get to the point where the wavelength is so long that it might as well be undetectable.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    I think that we don't know

    A physicist friend of mine often bemoans how gravity is so easily testable and yet we lack so much knowledge about it.

    ShadowenJoolanderMvrck
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    I think that we don't know

    A physicist friend of mine often bemoans how gravity is so easily testable and yet we lack so much knowledge about it.

    Well if it would stop being a jerk and be as strong as the other fundamental forces...

    V1m
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    So anything falling into a black hole, the combined gravity of the singularity and the object is what expands the size of the event horizon despite time dialation. But, technically, possibly nothing in the entire universe has yet to actually make it to the singularity because of how slow time moves there? And the event horizon just slightly grows around the falling information like a shadow?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    I think that we don't know

    A physicist friend of mine often bemoans how gravity is so easily testable and yet we lack so much knowledge about it.

    I think the expression is, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." Gravity is that curve, and figuring out how to warp the fabric of the universe is no joke.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    Time dilation isn't the same as time actually slowing down or stopping at the event horizon.

    It just gets stretched. For the observer on the outside watching the object fall inwards the object moves slower and slower until it appears to stop. For the object falling inwards, time remains the same from its perspective but looking outwards at, I dunno, a giant clock you would see it start going faster and faster, at least from your frame of reference.

    You can imagine the space around a blackhole as a valley and before any changes can be observed the light from the object needs to crawl up the valley and as you get closer and closer to the event horizon the valley gets steeper and steeper until eventually not even light can crawl up that cliff.


    edit: and for both observers time would not appear to change in their locality at all, even for the guy falling in towards the black hole, his clock wouldn't run faster or slower for him.

    Trace on
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    Isn't it the other way round? Your subjective time gets slower and slower as you approach the event horizon - but incoming light and energy behind you is still pouring in. As you approach the asymptote the rest of the universe speeds up.

    redxShadowenTrace
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    So anything falling into a black hole, the combined gravity of the singularity and the object is what expands the size of the event horizon despite time dialation. But, technically, possibly nothing in the entire universe has yet to actually make it to the singularity because of how slow time moves there? And the event horizon just slightly grows around the falling information like a shadow?

    We don't know what goes on inside a black hole. We know what general relativity and quantum physics imply, but since we can't observe anything in the event horizon to confirm, it is a true black box.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • InqInq Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    PBS Spacetime does some amazing physics videos, the one specifically about time and space inside the event horizon is here:



    It has links to several videos that provide the foundations for what they are talking about, that you may want to watch first.

    Inq on
    Seal
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Ok, I can’t sleep cause this question is eating at my sanity:

    How in the hell do black holes get larger?

    I mean, I “get” that black holes, no matter how large the event horizon, the singularity inside is still just an infinitely small point and the size of the event horizon is just an expression of all the mass inside it, but that’s the thing. How does it get there in the short amount of time (relatively speaking) the universe has existed?

    So I know time dialates more and more slowly to an outside observer as you approach any gravity well, but in a black hole, the extreme gravity slows time to outside observers to infinity. So if I were falling into a black hole and could magically survive the conditions up to the event horizon and I could see out into the universe, I would see the universe moving faster and faster through time, possibly all the way up to the end of the visible universe even though my frame of reference hasn’t changed and I’d rapidly pass through, while an outside observer would see me moving more and more slowly in time until I eventually “freeze” in time right above the event horizon.

    So now I’m trying to imagine the very first black hole and they very first thing that ever fell into it all those billions of years ago. Wouldn’t that thing, from our perspective, still not even have made it past the event horizon due to the extreme time dialation? Wouldn’t it still be falling into the singularity even now because of how slow time moves in such an extreme place? Yet, black holes still get larger from our frame of reference. They even combine and we can sense those gravity waves.

    How in the hell does that work?

    I’ve tried google and all I get is the information paradox and Hawking radiation, which isn’t what I’m pondering about.

    So much like matter around a black hole, you keep getting closer and closer to sleep, but the closer you get the slower times goes...

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Time dilation due to velocity is different from time dilation due to gravitational acceleration. Space near a black hole also isn't an inertial reference frame so special relativity (and normal, classical mechanics) doesn't necessarily apply. The general relativity solution for gravitational time dilation in a circular path around a massive object isn't quite the same as the SR time dilation formula. It varies with radius of the circle describing the path (or height if you just want to consider someone sitting a distance above a black hole), so the fact that you speed up as you approach the event horizon doesn't actually matter in terms of how fast you're going. It still doesn't describe what happens, time-dilation-wise, once you reach the event horizon, though.

    Gravitational time dilation is also different from velocity-based time dilation in that you can't interchange the observers.

    When you've got two guys in space ships blasting away from one another at some constant velocities you could consider either of them to be motionless with the other moving away at some great velocity and calculate time dilation as observer A would see B or as B would see A and they're equal. Gravitational acceleration, taking place as it does not in an inertial frame, isn't free that way. The person closer to the massive object is universally recognizable as having time pass more slowly for them than the person further away.

    I don't actually know what that would look like in the case of extreme gravity making human-scale time dilation effects but it'd be weird.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    Moridin889Trace
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    I think that we don't know

    A physicist friend of mine often bemoans how gravity is so easily testable and yet we lack so much knowledge about it.

    The classic joke:

    Biologist: "Evolution is true! It's as well-understood a scientific concept as gravity!"
    Physicist: "Whoa whoa whoa...are you saying we know nothing about evolution?"

    CptHamiltonPolaritieBlackDragon480V1mHefflingTofystedethJoolanderForarfurlionDuke 2.0BrodyGennenalyse RuebenElvenshaeSolarMvrckSoggybiscuitMoridin889RchanenDirtmuncherRhesus PositiveHappylilElfErlecBullheadboogedybooDedwrekkaDaenrisMarekBloodySloth
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Stuff just falls in.
    If anything it sees the rest of the universe slow down until it hits the sudden deceleration at the bottom of the well.

    What I want to know is how gravity escapes the event horizon.

    I always thought that the huge amount of mass in a single point bends spacetime in such a way that everything slides toward it, if you don't have enough velocity to escape it.

    Yeah, but light can't escape, and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, so how does the gravity escape?
    Is the event horizon basically an envelope of gravity information? How does that work?

    I think that we don't know

    A physicist friend of mine often bemoans how gravity is so easily testable and yet we lack so much knowledge about it.

    The classic joke:

    Biologist: "Evolution is true! It's as well-understood a scientific concept as gravity!"
    Physicist: "Whoa whoa whoa...are you saying we know nothing about evolution?"

    I have been using the fact we have a better understanding of evolution then of gravity to smack down creationists for years. Lately though we are learning so much more about gravity it does not written quite as well.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    No, the guy falling in would see everything move faster when he was looking out. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are slightly ahead in time compared to computers on Earth. It's an observable effect.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    No, the guy falling in would see everything move faster when he was looking out. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are slightly ahead in time compared to computers on Earth. It's an observable effect.

    GPS satellites are observable though.
    The guy falling into the black hole is not going to be able to be brought back to the Earth's frame of reference, so there's no reason why he needs to ever sync back up with now.

    So I think he sees the universe slow down, up until he hits the singularity, and then he sees everything revert to 1:1

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • InqInq Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    No, the guy falling in would see everything move faster when he was looking out. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are slightly ahead in time compared to computers on Earth. It's an observable effect.

    GPS satellites are observable though.
    The guy falling into the black hole is not going to be able to be brought back to the Earth's frame of reference, so there's no reason why he needs to ever sync back up with now.

    So I think he sees the universe slow down, up until he hits the singularity, and then he sees everything revert to 1:1

    What a person can see from inside is even more weird than that. A person could look both into the past and the future. Fortunately none of that future-knowledge can disrupt causality for people on the outside because nothing on the inside can ever get back to the outside.

    Time and space are effectively flipped. A person can no longer choose which direction to move in space as they are inevitably dragged towards the singularity. They can, however, choose to move whichever direction they want in time, towards the future or the past. However, any attempt to move in a direction will accelerate their motion through space and their inevitable destruction in the singularity.

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Ok, I can’t sleep cause this question is eating at my sanity:

    How in the hell do black holes get larger?

    I mean, I “get” that black holes, no matter how large the event horizon, the singularity inside is still just an infinitely small point and the size of the event horizon is just an expression of all the mass inside it, but that’s the thing. How does it get there in the short amount of time (relatively speaking) the universe has existed?

    So I know time dialates more and more slowly to an outside observer as you approach any gravity well, but in a black hole, the extreme gravity slows time to outside observers to infinity. So if I were falling into a black hole and could magically survive the conditions up to the event horizon and I could see out into the universe, I would see the universe moving faster and faster through time, possibly all the way up to the end of the visible universe even though my frame of reference hasn’t changed and I’d rapidly pass through, while an outside observer would see me moving more and more slowly in time until I eventually “freeze” in time right above the event horizon.

    So now I’m trying to imagine the very first black hole and they very first thing that ever fell into it all those billions of years ago. Wouldn’t that thing, from our perspective, still not even have made it past the event horizon due to the extreme time dialation? Wouldn’t it still be falling into the singularity even now because of how slow time moves in such an extreme place? Yet, black holes still get larger from our frame of reference. They even combine and we can sense those gravity waves.

    How in the hell does that work?

    I’ve tried google and all I get is the information paradox and Hawking radiation, which isn’t what I’m pondering about.

    The event horizon of the black hole is observably expanding in the cases you're thinking of, so eventually the matter that appears frozen at the edge of the event horizon will be engulfed by it. The event horizon of a real world black hole is also not uniform and is rotating, so stuff at the edge of the event horizon is going to eventually intersect the non-uniform, rotating event horizon.

    If you were god and created a universe with a perfectly uniform black hole surrounded by a perfectly uniform spread of matter, I think eventually the perfect uniformity would be broken by quantum effects, and once the uniformity is broken, the black hole's event horizon will start to distort.

    Yeah, the event horizon is not a physical object, it's just a demarcation point where gravity exceeds a certain value. So the event horizon essentially expands outward to engulf the infalling matter such that if we would for example calculate it takes infinite time to reach the "current" event horizon at r=1.0, in actuality, the matter "disappeared" from our view at say r=1.1 and thus from our perspective it does not take an infinite amount of time for a black hole to grow.


    MC, to expand on the question, you might read about the theory of "direct collapse" black hole formation that attempts to explain how supermassive black holes could grow so large so soon after the beginning of the universe when other known formation methods like accretion (optimal feeding rate for a black hole is called the Eddington rate) or supernova are not fast or large enough.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    JepheryDuke 2.0
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Guy falling into a black hole would see the rest of the universe slow down as he speeds up.
    Just because we see him slow down doesn't mean he sees us speed up.

    No, the guy falling in would see everything move faster when he was looking out. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are slightly ahead in time compared to computers on Earth. It's an observable effect.

    GPS satellites are observable though.
    The guy falling into the black hole is not going to be able to be brought back to the Earth's frame of reference, so there's no reason why he needs to ever sync back up with now.

    So I think he sees the universe slow down, up until he hits the singularity, and then he sees everything revert to 1:1

    It's not Earth's frame of reference, it's the GPS satellites clock frame of reference. Time doesn't change for you, only for what you observe.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/90-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/falling-into-a-black-hole/458-can-you-see-the-future-as-you-fall-into-a-black-hole-intermediate
    That depends what you mean by "see the future". It is true that if you watch the outside world as you are falling into a black hole then you will see time evolve faster there. Everyone's watches will appear to be running faster than yours, and they will appear to be moving as if someone had pressed the "fast-forward" button.

    This is a consequence of general relativity, which explains that the gravity of a massive object causes time to slow down near that object. Since your time is slowing down as you fall into the black hole, everyone else who's far away will seem to be evolving faster from your point of view. This doesn't just apply to black holes, by the way - in fact, the effect occurs at least a tiny bit for any massive object - but it can become quite extreme (and very noticeable!) near a black hole because the gravity there is so strong.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    I swear, there was a brief moment where I once managed to understand time dilation on an instinctual "EUREKA" moment level

    And then immediately fucking lost that grasp and now it's just this abstract bullshit that I just accept is the case.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    kimeV1m
Sign In or Register to comment.