# Scientists detect the ringing of a newborn black hole for the first time

If Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity holds true, then a black hole, born from the cosmically quaking collisions of two massive black holes, should itself "ring" in the aftermath, producing gravitational waves much like a struck bell reverbates sound waves. Einstein predicted that the particular pitch and decay of these gravitational waves should be a direct signature of the newly formed black hole's mass and spin.

Now, physicists from MIT and elsewhere have "heard" the ringing of an infant black hole for the first time, and found that the pattern of this ringing does, in fact, predict the black hole's mass and spin—more evidence that Einstein was right all along.

The findings, published today in *Physical Review Letters*, also favor the idea that black holes lack any sort of "hair"—a metaphor referring to the idea that black holes, according to Einstein's theory, should exhibit just three observable properties: mass, spin, and electric charge. All other characteristics, which the physicist John Wheeler termed "hair," should be swallowed up by the black hole itself, and would therefore be unobservable.

The team's findings today support the idea that black holes are, in fact, hairless. The researchers were able to identify the pattern of a black hole's ringing, and, using Einstein's equations, calculated the mass and spin that the black hole should have, given its ringing pattern. These calculations matched measurements of the black hole's mass and spin made previously by others.

If the team's calculations deviated significantly from the measurements, it would have suggested that the black hole's ringing encodes properties other than mass, spin, and electric charge—tantalizing evidence of physics beyond what Einstein's theory can explain. But as it turns out, the black hole's ringing pattern is a direct signature of its mass and spin, giving support to the notion that black holes are bald-faced giants, lacking any extraneous, hair-like properties.

"We all expect general relativity to be correct, but this is the first time we have confirmed it in this way," says the study's lead author, Maximiliano Isi, a NASA Einstein Fellow in MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "This is the first experimental measurement that succeeds in directly testing the no-hair theorem. It doesn't mean black holes couldn't have hair. It means the picture of black holes with no hair lives for one more day."

**A chirp, decoded**

On Sept. 9, 2015, scientists made the first-ever detection of gravitational waves—infinitesimal ripples in space-time, emanating from distant, violent cosmic phenomena. The detection, named GW150914, was made by LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory. Once scientists cleared away the noise and zoomed in on the signal, they observed a waveform that quickly crescendoed before fading away. When they translated the signal into sound, they heard something resembling a "chirp."

Scientists determined that the gravitational waves were set off by the rapid inspiraling of two massive black holes. The peak of the signal—the loudest part of the chirp—linked to the very moment when the black holes collided, merging into a single, new black hole. While this infant black hole likely gave off gravitational waves of its own, its signature ringing, physicists assumed, would be too faint to decipher amid the clamor of the initial collision.

Isi and his colleagues, however, found a way to extract the black hole's reverberation from the moments immediately after the signal's peak. In previous work led by Isi's co-author, Matthew Giesler, the team showed through simulations that such a signal, and particularly the portion right after the peak, contains "overtones"—a family of loud, short-lived tones. When they reanalyzed the signal, taking overtones into account, the researchers discovered that they could successfully isolate a ringing pattern that was specific to a newly formed black hole.

In the team's new paper, the researchers applied this technique to actual data from the GW150914 detection, concentrating on the last few milliseconds of the signal, immediately following the chirp's peak. Taking into account the signal's overtones, they were able to discern a ringing coming from the new, infant black hole. Specifically, they identified two distinct tones, each with a pitch and decay rate that they were able to measure.

"We detect an overall gravitational wave signal that's made up of multiple frequencies, which fade away at different rates, like the different pitches that make up a sound," Isi says. "Each frequency or tone corresponds to a vibrational frequency of the new black hole."

**Listening beyond Einstein**

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that the pitch and decay of a black hole's gravitational waves should be a direct product of its mass and spin. That is, a black hole of a given mass and spin can only produce tones of a certain pitch and decay. As a test of Einstein's theory, the team used the equations of general relativity to calculate the newly formed black hole's mass and spin, given the pitch and decay of the two tones they detected.

They found their calculations matched with measurements of the black hole's mass and spin previously made by others. Isi says the results demonstrate that researchers can, in fact, use the very loudest, most detectable parts of a gravitational wave signal to discern a new black hole's ringing, where before, scientists assumed that this ringing could only be detected within the much fainter end of the gravitational wave signal, and only with much more sensitive instruments than what currently exist.

"This is exciting for the community because it shows these kinds of studies are possible now, not in 20 years," Isi says.

As LIGO improves its resolution, and more sensitive instruments come online in the future, researchers will be able to use the group's methods to "hear" the ringing of other newly born black holes. And if they happen to pick up tones that don't quite match up with Einstein's predictions, that could be an even more exciting prospect.

"In the future, we'll have better detectors on Earth and in space, and will be able to see not just two, but tens of modes, and pin down their properties precisely," Isi says. "If these are not black holes as Einstein predicts, if they are more exotic objects like wormholes or boson stars, they may not ring in the same way, and we'll have a chance of seeing them."

Explore further

**More information:**Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914, arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc] arxiv.org/abs/1905.00869

**Citation**: Scientists detect the ringing of a newborn black hole for the first time (2019, September 11) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-scientists-newborn-black-hole.html

## User comments

ShootistRNPThis is a must-read paper; https://arxiv.org...0869.pdf .

Castrogiovannihttps://media1.te...=5550772

BenniWhydening GyreThe operative being "predicts"...

scar_scit_scorejimmybobberIt's a solution to Einstein's field equations. So that solutions predicts...

You cant figure that out?

scar_scit_score(P1) What is this text all about?

Hi,

The article indirectly suggests that somebody does very frighteningly talk about Einstein.. lurking in the darks antagonizing the idol stance of him about to get it iddled down. That is the whole duality in-of the blackhole fact and the audio fact.

Audio as by frequency and as a result in resolution factor has nothing to do with blackholes or stars. They literally by technique are talking about tapes/audio recordings of speeches. What prediction is there over there and what hinting or preconfiguring are there over there in dictionaries.

If the matter in the theory that Einstein asserts is that the speed of photons only patternize and execute mass to turn into energy (..?.. just by speeding it up!!??).. there had to be only one type of energy at all!

..

Some say/think: conspire to aspire as conscience is collective in lectures by Scientology..

Good bye.

scar_scit_score(P2) A specification mostly ommited about light:

Radiation is an event of radial movements of subatomic particles and these movements are considered and accepted as types of light(s). How will you re-speed something already in the light speed of its own.. again into it's own light speed.. moving it all away.. though.. there is no linear movement of particles of light(s) but the particularly being mentioned speed of a photon is about it's linear movement speed.. and.. in radial and radiation reality of its own already has no particular or constant speed at all.. even it be linearly considered or helesonically.

antigoracleetherairThe General Relativity field equations are fairly complex, rarely are they computed to an exact solution because of this complexity.

The relevant equation dealing with black holes was the first equation to actually be solved, being one of the simpler ones, so to speak.

And indeed the solution predicted many things, the ringdown frequencies being one of them.

So far, all tested observations have proved themselves perfectly in line with the field equations.

As a side note, gravitational waves do travel at lightspeed, but they are a completely different type of massless particle and do not behave as photons, not at all. They are modeled as linear with the same charge at each end. What they actually consist of is unknown, but the math is consistent with a monopole, unlike electric charge or magnets.

antigoracleOr, it is hairless, being a newborn.

valeriy_polulyakhBenniAlbert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

In Einstein's conclusions he states:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

jimmybobberWe know General Relativity isn't a complete description of reality. It does not factor in quantum mechanics.

Most logical people realize there is no such singularity.

Why are you so hung up on it?

Da SchneibBenniHey, we know you would NEVER deny the Schwarzschild Radii, therefore you believe SINGULARITIES exist in spite of:

https://pdfs.sema...d089.pdf

......but you don't believe a word or an equation of this.

Da SchneibjimmybobberTime for bed dude.

You are the one fixated on the "singularity"

etherairInfinity is not a number, therefore the math is incorrect when it concludes a singularity. Einstein stated this plainly, singularities do not represent reality.

Black Holes are not singularities and the event horizons are not only real, they can be measured.

The confusion is semantics. The math leads to an unreal singularity, but describes very real black holes and event horizons along the way to the singularity.

.

The math for electrons is the same, it concludes electrons are infinitely dense singularities.

They are not but we use the math as it is correct right up to the point it goes infinite.

Electrons are just as real as black holes and the math is equal.

antigoracleWhat does jimmybobber and the singularity, have in common?

Both are infinitely dense.

CastrogiovanniPot. Kettle. Black.

jimmybobberInfinity is not a number, therefore the math is incorrect when it concludes a singularity. Einstein stated this plainly, singularities do not represent reality.

Black Holes are not singularities and the event horizons are not only real, they can be measured.

The confusion is semantics. The math leads to an unreal singularity, but describes very real black holes and event horizons along the way to the singularity.

.

The math for electrons is the same, it concludes electrons are infinitely dense singularities.

They are not but we use the math as it is correct right up to the point it goes infinite.

Electrons are just as real as black holes and the math is equal."

Thank you etherair. Well said.

Bennihttps://en.wikipe...ack_hole

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[89] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

Castrogiovannihttps://www.askam...-nature/

jimmybobberhat1208may lie a gravitational singularity,

The key word in this sentence is, "may". Obtuse much?

jimmybobberIt would do you good to actually understand what the definition of "singularity" is.

https://en.wikipe...ematics)

The function y = 1/x has a singularity at x=0. The function is undefined there.

Coulomb's Law at r = 0 is undefined as well. Where r is the scalar distance between the two charges. I don't see you complaining about the "infinite" force between two charges. Why is that?

It's as simple as that Benni.

MrBojanglesJohn_C_yPiWhat is the mathematic proof of general relativity? A sound wave is not gravity in itself. There is also an issue of Time in the universe atomic seconds are not a measurement of time while general relativity always requires an algebra method of removing Pi to move from theory not experimentation to confirm general results.

"If Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity holds true, then a black hole, born from the cosmically quaking collisions of two massive black holes, should itself "ring" in the aftermath, producing gravitational waves much like a struck bell reverbates sound waves."

Mass is not a constant in this experiment and is also unknown for the two black holes.

A black hold does not bend time it displaces a trajectory across the universe. Einstein's theory is mathematically doomed to forever be generally correct. Almost good enough, almost science law.

BennijimmybobberWhat does 1/0 equal?

etherairSo, by extension, 14 divided by zero equals infinity?? Zero times infinity equals zero, not fourteen.

That is exactly the problem when math creates a singularity, they do not exist, period.

The math works just fine right up until zero becomes the divisor, distance, energies, charges, these are all correctly depicted until the zero shows up.

Quantum mechanics puts all energy and charges in discrete units that do not merge with infinity. The equations have multiples of one for all units, keeping zero out of the equation.

The operations are the same except the measured units are never less than one, this is a method of keeping it real and not dividing by zero.

The "gravitron" particle is needed, a discrete particle that would eliminate dividing by zero and would give accurate predictions rather than an infinitely dense pretend body.

antigoracleThe lower limit of jimmybobber's stupidity.

BenniMrBojanglesCastrogiovanniAccording to a scientifically illiterate janitor.

John_C_yPitorbjorn_b_g_larssonIn any case they will see improvements with more of these analyses, so I hope they will jump at it!

Yes, that is the reason they could do the observation. I am not too surprised, an analysis of the black hole image had the linearized GR solution being similarly decent right up to the "photon ring".

torbjorn_b_g_larssonSo let's be careful here. The distant wave can be modeled classically, and its source behaves as a quadrupole - it is the smallest n-pole source a classical general relativistic field can have. It is when the field is quantized that gravitons appear, and they are as elementary (isolated) charges in general monopoles.

torbjorn_b_g_larssonWell, we do, but physicists tend to dislike that fact. There is nothing wrong with simply quantizing gravity, in fact the theory is the best quantum field theory in the sense that the other fields break down before Planck energies. (Either known as for electroweak force and so standard particles, or suspected as for strong force and inflation.) The problem for physicists is that it is boring, it does not predict parameter values or spacetime - hence the quest for "[another, "complete"] quantum gravity". But it works, as far as can be seen, and pass peer review [ https://golem.ph....639.html ; http://www.schola...d_theory ].

torbjorn_b_g_larssonWhat happens with the unfulfilled quest for [more] quantum gravity theories sort of happens with "singularities" . They are often mentioned despite being physically meaningless. The hope was that they would pin parameters to "complete" spacetime - the old idea of a "Theory Of Everything".

The singularities of particles are (arguably) handled by quantum field theory. The electron is a somewhat delocalized ripple in the electron field. Conversely the field shields the force potential from going to infinity by having virtual electron field fluctuations appear as another charge try to get close to the electron. (But the electron field couples to the EM field, so it is even more ripples/particles, fluctuations/virtual "particles" involved than in the not-so-naive field picture I described. I hear.)

jimmybobberWhat?

BenniBenniYou still don't comprehend the obvious, that nothing of infinite value can exist on a finite stellar mass, that gravity & density are MASS DEPENDENT not fantasy dependent as found in your little convoluted narrative.

CastrogiovanniLol. It'd be easier to teach QM to a gerbil, than try to make Benni understand science!

jimmybobberDude you can't even conceptualize 1/0.

It is not defined. Has no solution. It's not a number.

BenniCastrogiovanniTranslation; "I'm crap at maths as well as science, so I haven't got a clue what you are talking about."

jimmybobberjimmybobberBenni responded ".....psycho-babble"

jimmybobberMrBojanglesThe equation 1/0 is not pop-cosmology, it's addressed in texts over 1000 years old. What a moron.

etherair1/0 is called infinity. Take that infinity and divide it by the number of particles in the known universe (about 10^160, ten followed by 160 zeros).

Now, what is the percentage of infinity that all the particles (protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc.) comprise?

Zero percent, infinity is not a number so no matter how big the real number the answer is still zero percent of infinity. A math concept only, on a par with Unicorns circling over virgin women, the virtue may be real but the Unicorn is not.

The analogy may be bad, but calling infinity a number is worse.

John_C_yPiYeah me...……..to.

My grievance with General relativity is its basic mathematics. Pi needs to be removed from both sides of the equation and it is not listed.

Another grievance is space-time is not a thing space like Earth has time zones. Time itself is multi-dimensional, a portion of time can be scaled up or down to fit in a space. It is that basic

None of this having anything to do with the importance of the observation and documentation of the colliding black holes.

John_C_yPiIn a learner time the mathematical argument would be resolved with an answer = 1. However, It is unclear mathematically when looking at a analog clock should a linear clock have a second before the minute and hour as dictated by the calculus and geometry that links time to space.

That's funny, I once spent 2 hours afterschool talking to my 7th grade math teacher about my answer to that question. Again. In basic language the zero is one position that is different in scale.

": For every two numbers which includes 1 zero there exists scale."

Captain Stumpy.

.

@etherair do ya mind providing links and references to some peer-reviewed sources for this?

thanks

Whydening GyreOne divided by zero is simply - One.

You've performed no operation.

By contrast, divide zero by one.

Zero... :-)

jimmybobberCan't believe I even have to suggest that.

Da SchneibSo, 1/0=? means, how many times must I multiply 0 to get 1? This also gets the right answer: it doesn't matter how many times I multiply 0, I will never get 1.

Math matters.

John_C_yPiThe calculus used to formulate time as distance can be used as an additional mathematic argument 1/0 =1 just like 0/1 =0. We use math to place the zero inside the number 1. The analog clock does not have a Zero it is presumed equal to the number one.

Again, the basic proof to formulate is.

For all two numbers which include a zero there exists scale. 1/0 is a physical mathematic position. Zero is the start between a series of equal numbers that describe two directions. All Negative numbers – Zero, plus Zero – All positive numbers.

It is a foundation for arguing on behalf of mathematic laws of motion, as gravity is a law of motion. It is a direction created by series of energy. Energy and mass are both placed in motion, that motion is labeled gravity.

Whydening GyreIn math, you can't multiply zero....

Da SchneibHyperfuzzyJohn_C_yPi@Whydening Gyre

Math matters.

In math, you can't multiply zero....

In math zero does not exist. Yet, it is labeled first as the end position of whole numbers making it a product of motion. Forever binding math with laws of motion.

John_C_yPiThe theory is not a numeric rational state so cannot make the transition from theory to mathematic law with a precision. Though nonsense, by this I would say handicapper by Einstein's obsession with Pi, it creates a relative constant state mathematically.

jimmybobber"Property of 0

Any number multiplied by 0 is 0. This is known as the zero property of multiplication:

x ⋅ 0 = 0"

"Inverse element

Every number x, except 0, has a multiplicative inverse, 1/x , such that x ⋅ ( 1 /x ) = 1"

@John_C_yPi

Please list your mathematical properties for the Zero Property and the Inverse Element.

You seem to use a different set of mathematical laws. In your mathematics zero doesn't exist.

Please enlighten us.

Captain StumpyLinks and references?

nowhere have I ever seen that zero = one, even in clockmaking and/or manufacturing

See also: @jimmybobber above

John_C_yPiAny number multiplied by zero is not multiplied at all.

In my math hardly, no in all math zero does not exist.

Nonlinear and linear functions use graphs of represented space that start as zero. Zero is equal to not counting, not dividing, not multiplying, adding and not subtracting at all. There is nothing that could be multiplied it does not exist there is no equation that is created when placing a non-real number numerical like zero as part of equation of multiplication it is like Pi. Any number multiplied by zero is not multiplied at all. It is not the fact it does not have an answer it is simply never done.

Wikipedia Multiplication along with other math cites place zero as a real number and it is not real. It is how math ties to law of motion only.

The first mathematical property of zero is ten the second property is hundred.

John_C_yPiThe unspoken statement of mathematics that Einstein made in General Relativity was. He favored Pi so much he had not going to ever set and run mathematic tests to remove it form algebra equations.

John_C_yPiYeah getting that a lot irrelevant and nonsensical.

Nowhere have you ever seen that zero = one even in clockmaking and/or manufacturing.

First Clock making is not the calculus behind time s clock is a display that is the simply the way show any results translated so they are easiest to share and use.

Second: Not understanding what you see in mathematical function does not mean it is not there in a complete equation. On all analog clocks there is/was a 12: then a 01, Whereas on the Theory of general relativity it is not till we look at the more complete field equation.

https://en.wikipe...quations

https://www.monte...nal.html

John_C_yPi@jimmybober

Another place to observe a manipulation of zero is in the magnetic compass in which it is replaced with the number one. Though an argument can be made that a position of zero is filled by the number three-hundred, sixty. Again, the calculus in time mathematic formulation use a 12, or 24.

I would also like to apologize for the earlier typing mistakes in both posts.

So back to focus on linear and nonlinear equations, there the number zero replaced in the equation by mathematic addition of describing the one place in an area of space. It is the one origin which maintains the principle of curve yet is not a requirement of the equations themselves.

Now we can both agree to simply overlook these results and say that zero does not equal one. In mathematics the agreement does not mean the result is not presented.

John_C_yPiDecimal numerals do not allow an exact representation for all real numbers, e.g. for the real number π. Nevertheless,

https://en.wikipe.../Decimal

I would like to tie this comment off to the video of the black holes merge by saying the mathematics in time zones created by this event are priceless in the establishment of space travel. I could not begin to explain but would start by saying the magnetic compass does not exist in the vast universe and black holes provide time without light present.

taxsaversteveWell...except there is no wave/particle duality.

John_C_yPiPlease list your mathematical properties for the Zero Property and the Inverse Element.

You seem to use a different set of mathematical laws. In your mathematics zero doesn't exist.

Please enlighten us.

Basically its easiest explained by just saying time does not have a zero.

John_C_yPiAre issue simply becomes algebra and calculous equation. Any citing becomes general physic extermination that can be shared. The reason for this is that a high expectation of cost can not be used to obstruct mathematical sense and reason. and it is not necessary as I agree in basics idea not as complete fact.

Zero is like Pi an irrational number. -1 is not natural.

Captain Stumpytry this: www.grammarly.com

actually, I am awaiting your explanation and references explaining this: while you're at it, explain this leaving out a digit isn't the same thing as manipulation of zero

How many times have you seen zero on a rule?

does it's exclusion mean there is no zero in distance measurement?

teach us all and include references so we can validate

thanks in advance

skondorAll other information about a black hole, like the properties of the objects that have fallen into it, is not observable from beyond the event horizon. This extra information is called "hair" and so the theorem is known as the no-hair theorem is known as the no-hair theorem.

https://skondor.c...ymptoms/

John_C_yPiThank you for responding. Yeah sorry I can be all over the place when writing.

First your all doomed I am a horrid teacher of mathematics. It is a was a necessary hobby. Its going to take a few days to put the info together on how a compass and clock or bound mathematically by sextant.

As for these questions:

How many times have you seen zero on a rule?

does it's exclusion mean there is no zero in distance measurement?

Have you see a 12?

Captain Stumpyconsidering I have a 36-inch rule and I've worked with both a longer and shorter rule, then I can honestly answer yes to this unless we're talking about a rule less than 12 inches

my micrometre, Digital and Dial callipers all have zero but not a 12 (inches) simply because they don't go to 12 (inches), so the nonexistence of 12 inches on any of the three types used in precision measurement doesn't in any way mean 12 inches doesn't exist

This is the primary reason I requested your answer to the "analog clock does not have a Zero" comment hence my suggestion to download Grammarly and request for reference material

John_C_yPiThe reason any analog clock has no zero is distance. It is the same reason zero is not a natural or rational number. That simple.

The idea that multiplication and division cannot produce a result on a non-existing number is not the issue. A problem is there is nothing to be divided or multiplied, to ask to do so is not rational. Theoretical will always be a mathematic practice of linear motion. Always and forever.

First what is time.

Time is a sequence of numbers that are calculated with the use of magnetic compass, a sextant, a earth horizon real or artificial, and motion. Time.

https://www.merri.../sextant

Sextant - an instrument used to determine the position of a ship or airplane by measuring the positions of the stars and sun Noon specifically : 12 o'clock at midday

https://www.merri...ary/noon

What star is used the sun. What mathematic equivalent is used 90 degrees to a position on earth to be call 12: noon

jimmybobberWhat is 2(x-y) when x = 1 and y = 1

Better yet just solve 1-1 =

You are essentially saying the Additive Inverse Property you are using looks like this

for the set of all x, such that x is an element of the real numbers, x - x is not defined.

That's fine. You can invent any mathematical properties you wish. The question is whether they are useful in proving anything.

You are confusing mathematics with philosophy.

jimmybobberUsing your logic that

x - x = is not defined

then

x != x

which is absurd.

That's saying

1 != 1

Captain StumpySee for yourself:

https://www.harbo...6547.jpg

John_C_yPiYou are not using my logic, you are using a share logic that is wrong to attempt to prove a point made not reasonable.

My answer is: X - X = (< .1_) zero is not linear.

John_C_yPilol ………….The sextant does not need to have a zero so the relevance is pointless. A complete class on teaching using on a sextant is not necessary. The sextant is a tool that is used in conjunction with magnetic compass, natural or artificial horizon, time clock, and motion to measure a fixed distance pre determined. The clock stores the calculation of 90 degrees as the number 12:

Captain StumpyIt's your argument, so you're *literally* saying you're making a pointless argument to argue that zero doesn't exist 1- you can't actually argue that you're using logic, considering the above

2- his argument is not only correct, it's also continuously used in STEM

that makes his logic functional, reasonable, consistent and experimentally validated, whereas we've not actually seen any validation from you other than links to merriam-webster

an attitudinal statement, what you've brought, is not the same thing as a scientific argument from evidence, let alone a fact (this may help: http://wp.auburn....opinion/ )

jimmybobber"My answer is: X - X = (< .1_) zero is not linear."

OK then

X - X = (< .1_)

X - X + X = (<.1_) + X

X = (<.1_) + X

which is absurd

because it means

X != X

what does

1 - 1 =

2 - 2 =

2 - 1 =

3 - 1 =

3 - 2 =

3 - 3 =

Surveillance_Egg_UnitThe numeral '0' (zero) is merely the STARTING POINT, whether of Distance or an Event or Action or in mathematical equations. There are those who consider the numeral 0 as the equivalent of the numeral 1, but they are rare.

Also, there was no 'year zero' (year 0).

By the way, welcome to Phys.org. I hope you enjoy your stay. My advice is to never, ever give your personal or business information to anyone in this site, or they may use it against you.

RealityCheckThere's a crucial difference between abstract axiomatic mathematical constructs/arguments, and concrete directly confirmable axiomatic constructs using maths language to convey the real situation re hierarchy/location and superposed/transition states.

The latter is readily observed via circular geometric subdivision of a clock face into 'hour' segments; which effectively involves superposition of a START and END location for the full circular sweep around the dial which every 12 hours indicates BOTH the END of the sweep (12 O'clock position) AND SIMULTANEOUSLY the START of the sweep for next cycle.

Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).

Cheers. :)

RealityCheckAnyway, please be aware of, acquaint yourselves with, all the subtle nuances surrounding the 'zero' and 'nothing' and 'empty' etc concepts/labels as used in various contexts and constructs. Good luck and enjoy your further discussions. :)

ps: In my previous post: "...between ONE CYCLE..." should have been "...between ONE CYCLE AND THE NEXT...". Apologies for the typo. :)

jimmybobberYou could have just said:

zero is used as both a number and a digit.

RealityCheckjimmybobberWhat is your definition of a "transitional/superpositional indicator" ?

Better yet, what definition of superposition are you using to apply to your argument?

What's the definition of "duality" that you are using for zero?

In your clock example you are simply describing Modular Arithmetic.

On the number line zero is not in a state of negative or positive. It's neither.

Is "superpositional" even a word?

In all of your examples zero is either being used as a number or a digit.

Stop hiding in the word salad and come out and play.

And please stop pontificating and trying to win arguments through obfuscation.

RealityCheckI'm disappointed in you, mate. Semantic games are no substitute for honest comprehension of the contextual meaning. Superpositional, in that context, is just another form of superposition (like 'superposed' is in other contexts). And I used the 'superpositional' form advisedly; to distinguish it from the 'congruent' of the abstract Modulo Arithmetic construct. The point is that whatever abstract maths/arithmetic treatments of zero there are, the reality is that zero is also a 'superpositional' or transitional INDICATOR in real effective terms, and not just an abstract number/digit. I already gave you basic examples of why that abstract 'zero' treatment/definition etc is not sufficient to convey the reality involved in real contexts. The fact you still see 'word salad' is indicative of the fact you are fully immersed in abstractions while missing the reality import of the zero term. You are free to keep to abstractions; I prefer to extend mathematics to reality. :)

John_C_yPiThen why did you bring up the sextant and its use in measuring time?

Because it is needed to measure time, it is a tool of connection and alignment. Time is a distance around a compass in a direction other than magnetic North with South. In the simplest explanation. Galileo and Newton both loved astronomy and not just mathematics, math was a tool to log the stars and this work was outlast their mathematics.

https://en.wikipe..._Galilei

https://en.wikipe...c_Newton

(Can I argue I am using logic) no fixed equation to be blunt. This would direct the questions path to the mathematic proof used to fix the equation. Before I give that away however when reading jimmy bobbers linear equation. X != X the absurd is any goal to resolve X as anything but a number less than 1/10th. What I did was hold Zero in a numeric faction. 1/10th = 0.10 correct? I then can go on to write a mathematic proof using the way zero is hidden by its irrational state.

jimmybobberYou just tossed your word salad.

John_C_yPiHis argument is not only correct, it is also continuously used in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

@Jimmybobber

My mathematic grievance with you is summed up this easily.

1-1 =……, 2-2 = ,3-3 = , 4-4 =

I can write zero, make a 0, or not answer at all and they are correct.

jimmybobberYou realize if you refuse to answer what 1-1 = then you can't say 1 = 1

jimmybobberGood luck this Autumn apple picking. If you pick 10 apples but decide you don't want any. They may still charge you for (<.1) apples.

John_C_yPiThank you for the welcome.

I do not consider a year a form of time. I use it, I understand it. Its not time and therefore we are dependent on square law to expand on time zones.

By the way I'm just here doing time……………….lol

In math there are two kinds of people.

Those who put a hole in the boat and give you a cup. Those who are in a boat with a hole and hand you a cup. Neither type person takes well to just stepping on the hole and telling them to row faster.

https://www.thefr....com/row

There is nothing like algebra to make a person feel they are put on earth to move a ship with a oars. Thanks for the advice.

RealityCheckHowever, if you ever decide to come down to reality, you might consider this: the mathematical 'point' is defined as 'zero dimensional' by the current abstract-axiomatic mathematics. The trouble is that 'a zero dimensional point' is at root merely a PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION, and NOT a real meaningful 'thing' in concrete reality OR current abstract mathematical constructs. See where your 'jokes and insults' keep you unaware of that and many other facts about the zero term? Especially they keep you ignorant of the problems with current mathematical constructs/treatments which 'output' UNDEFINED and NONSENSE 'results'. Not good for anyone needing to complete the reality-based theory of the universal physics phenomena set, is it?

Jimmy, there are some matters which are so deep/subtle, and so crucial to advancing both the cosmological science and the mathematical constructs, that jokes/insults cannot elucidate. :)

jimmybobberNobody with any intelligence believes a zero dimensional point exists. It's a mathematical construct that is useful to make predictions. It doesn't represent reality.

So what's your point?

BenniRealityCheckjimmybobberYour word salad:

"It's not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of a philosophical/metaphysical concept/term/definition 'zero dimensional point' being part of an abstract mathematical construct which along with all the other 'unreal' zero concepts/treatments output UNDEFINED and/or NONSENSE 'results' which make that mathematics incapable of modelling the actual UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL REALITY...hence the impasse with the mainstream ToE modelling/conceptual efforts using the incapable current mathematical abstractions based equations/arguments etc which 'blow up' into infinities and/or other undefined/nonsensical answers/descriptions/models. If you still fail to grasp the enormity of the problems posed by the current definition/treatments of zero via purely abstract-axiomatic mathematical constructs/argument then I will Ieave you to your jokes/insults. :)"

You need a time out.

RealityCheckDa SchneibYou ever gonna tell us how that BLUE CAR can do what it obviously can?

RealityCheckjimmybobbergood job.

RealityCheckjimmybobberA waste.

Captain Stumpyso what you're saying by your post is that you can't provide actual validatable evidence since you're not actually linking anything and you're still not making sense (or logic)

got it. thanks no, it is not needed to measure time

you can measure time with a tree in the day or just observing stars at night make a pointless argument that doesn't actually validate your claims where is this peer-reviewed proof and its subsequent validation?

links and references please nowhere in that link is any of your argument validated

an attitudinal statement, what you've made above, is not the same thing as a scientific argument from evidence, let alone a fact

you really should read this: http://wp.auburn....opinion/

RealityCheckjimmybobberHarmony dude.

You add dissonance.

RealityCheckjimmybobberI'm glad you admit it.

I appreciate that you admit that.

You do realize that all sounds can be described as infinite combinations of sin waves?

RealityCheckAnd what does that tell you? :)

jimmybobberYou win.

I can't compete against the person that says:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).

"

You win.

jimmybobberRealityCheckjimmybobberYou are correct.

I apologize for not "deep thinking" and "deep comprehension".

Btw where was the joke. All I did was quote you:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

RealityCheckYou were, and are still, 'the joke' in the context of our exchange so far, mate. Not good. See to it, asap. :)

jimmybobberAre you?

RealityCheckjimmybobber"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.

jimmybobberI'm actually fine being a joke. Make fun of me all you want.

We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.

RealityCheckYour making fun of yourself, mate. I'm just highlighting it for the readers. And the "cake" seems to have been self-administered to your face so far. Drop the cake and move on, mate. Good luck. :)

jimmybobberIs this not a quote from you?

Is it really out of context? Seriously?

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

jimmybobberYou are a fraud. Go ahead and publish

See how far that gets you.

Moron.

RealityCheckjimmybobberRealityCheckRealityCheckjimmybobberI look forward to:

"The Complete Realty-Based Theory of the Universal Physics which is already conceptually finalised and only awaiting my finalising the reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct with which to model the already completed theory"

I cannot wait to read it.

jimmybobberRealityCheckI believe you. G'night again, mate. :)

John_C_yPiMy weight in is simple, gravity is a law of motion. Spacetime is a word created by two synonyms. To simplify the mathematic argument for all of us. A timeclock is/was a nonmagnetic mechanical compass that runs vertical to the magnetic compasses horizontal plain of North & South.

jimmybobberI'm interested in your reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct for the simple reason it would be a really fun exercise to try to create theorems from your axioms.

I'm curious how you define these axioms of algebra:

Reflexive Axiom

Symmetric Axiom

Transitive Axiom

Additive Axiom

Multiplicative Axiom

Or even take a step back and just define axioms for the natural numbers (the Peano axioms) starting with:

1. 0 is a natural number. (@John dislikes this one)

2. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive. (@John This is where his logic breaks down because he doesn't define 0 as a number)

...

Captain Stumpyhave you not read rc's website?

http://earthlingclub.com

good luck and enjoy

John_C_yPiOkay first zero is said to be a whole number. Therefore, is not subject to rule of natural number I screw up enough of my own mathematics I don't need not take the blame for anyone else's when possible.

https://www.mathg.../numbers

John_C_yPi as a mathematic principle this means I treats zero as a fraction, logically this is what I would try to prove, it does not become natural number until fractions are included to all-natural numbers. Therefore is in basic a concept of motion in math, it is part of a much larger abstract of law of motion pertaining to numbers. Motion is not restricted to physics it is shared with mathematics.

Zero is a Known origin in linear mathematics. Algebra. This is only a realistic idea to which agreement can be made. Reason. When test with natural numbers by those who are qualified to do so should be performed in a way that is not fixed for its answer.

jimmybobberYou may want to look up the definitions of

Whole Number

Natural Number

Integer

Rational Number

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more