Black holes and the relativity of simultaneity

[The God]

The coordinates are solutions to field equations.

Illiterate nonsense..

???? Not in GR with Minkowski spacetime interpretation. There you can use arbitrary coordinates x'(x) and transform any solution in any other coordinates x into a solution in new coordinates x'. The only thing which is fixed are rules to transform a solution in one set of coordinates into a solution in any other set. The coordinates may by arbitrary (ok, they have to be smooth, but that's all).

I was objecting to "The coordinates are solutions to field equations.". But this would be true in my ether interpretation for the preferred coordinates, which would be harmonic, so, solutions of field equations. So, to avoid confusion, I have added to "GR" the specification that this holds in its standard interpretation, which is the Minkowski spacetime interpretation. Which Minkowski invented for SR, but has been used in GR too.

Metric equations are defined in a coordinate system and solution is found out, the coordinate systems are not the solution of any metric equation. Its not correct that harmonic coordinates (cartesian in case of minkowski) are not used in GR, they are, even to transform Kerr Metric. In your ether theory, since its ether wave, so harmonic coordinates may be preferred.

 

[RJBeery]

To talk about frames in a GR context makes no sense.

Why would you say that? Observational frames deviating from geodesics are simply accelerated, right?
Also, I read your ARXIV paper and now I'm confused, because in it you are suggesting an alternative mathematical model to the traditional black hole which avoids the problems associated with the singularity and event horizon (i.e. information loss). Let me ask you, do you think that event horizons are physical? Perhaps you're playing Devil's Advocate here?

But there are points behind the horizon which are space-like separated from points outside.

Please explain this because, with respect, I don't believe it. I don't know what you do but, at the very least, your ARXIV paper shows that Physics is a larger part of your life than for most people here. Do you believe there are points behind the event horizon which are spacelike separated from us? Because my objection to the event horizon is based on nothing but the logical framework of Causality and Relativity.

 

[krash661]

RJBeary seems to be one, but his mode of "proof" is eccentric, to say the least.

actually his " proof " is only a flawed thought of being this science genius without any qualifications and experience--but pure want-to-be-intellect-ism-- nothing more.
(shakes head)

So, can anyone direct me to a reference about the jets that is the mainstream view?

If the jets are not sourced from inside, how can black holes be said to evaporate in cosmological time? Or is this also not a mainstream view?

some of the best reads i have come across on black holes are in astronomy magazine articles from 2012-2014-ish.

 

[Schmelzer]

Its not correct that harmonic coordinates (cartesian in case of minkowski) are not used in GR, they are, even to transform Kerr Metric. In your ether theory, since its ether wave, so harmonic coordinates may be preferred.

Of course, they are used - as some nice additional conditions, which simplify the Einstein equations themself, and are, therefore, helpful to find solutions of the Einstein equations. But they are not physical equations in standard GR, and in no way obligatory.

So to say, in Newtonian theory, formulated in a covariant way, people would also have preferred cartesian coordinates because of their simplicity, without any preference for Newtonian space and time concepts.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why would you say that? Observational frames deviating from geodesics are simply accelerated, right?

I don't know about such an animal named observational frame.

Also, I read your ARXIV paper and now I'm confused, because in it you are suggesting an alternative mathematical model to the traditional black hole which avoids the problems associated with the singularity and event horizon (i.e. information loss). Let me ask you, do you think that event horizons are physical? Perhaps you're playing Devil's Advocate here?

In GR (that means, if GR would be true) they would exist in reality. There are some subtleties in their definition (the definition of a horizon depends on the global solution, not on what exists now), and there is no known quantization of GR, while it is known that gravity has to be quantized. But in classial GR, such horizons exist.

If I write about GR, I correctly describe the point of view of GR. Feel free to name this "devils advocate", but Einstein was anyway a clever guy and a great scientist and not a devil. Moreover, any scientist should IMHO try to describe the position of his opponents as accurate as possible.

Do you believe there are points behind the event horizon which are spacelike separated from us?

This is nothing I believe (because I don't believe in GR) but something I know - as a fact about what GR claims.

But this means nothing. If there is a meaningful global notion of "now", it requires more than defined by GR, because it requires some global contemporaneity. The "now" one light-year away should be only a "now", even a whole second would be too long for a "now", while "spacelike separates" would define there only a whole two years long history instead of a "now".

 

[danshawen]

actually his " proof " is only a flawed thought of being this science genius without any qualifications and experience--but pure want-to-be-intellect-ism-- nothing more.
(shakes head)

some of the best reads i have come across on black holes are in astronomy magazine articles from 2012-2014-ish.

Yes, that's where I think I got some of my information as well.

At least one idea that is bandied about this forum thread is the idea that the high energy fountains from black holes are Hawking radiation. Evidently, they are NOT, or at least, are not a direct result of the predicted energy spectrum of HR. Hawking radiation from black holes would be evidenced by "a faint glow of particles" on the outside of the event horizon, and a theoretical glow of "negative energy" particles on the inside of the EH. Thus far, this effect has been demonstrated only in the lab ("white holes" or Bose-Einstein condensates, or even with sound or phonons), and has not yet been directly observed in any celestial BH. This is probably fortunate for us, since in order to perform a direct measurement of HR would require lethal proximity to the EH of a BH.

The black hole jets have spectra which are substantially increased in energy by means of spiraling motions and interactions which take place in the presence of a very strong magnetic field:

http://www.space.com/5285-powerful-black-hole-jet-explained.html

And this is an effect not yet predicted by any model the way Hawking radiation is.

Time dilation is different everywhere. Why would we even care whether or not time proceeds ("even one tic") inside the EH of a BH or not? In this respect, the EH of the BH is no different from any other opaque box or container, is it really? Anything at all could be going on inside of the box, and no one on the outside would ever know it. Whether the opaque box has gravity or not, or whether anything is orbiting or not, is just completely beside the point, the way that RJEeary is arguing it. Whatever event goes on inside of a light cone for any point in this universe, there is no guarantee that everyone or anyone will be able to observe it in the past, present, or future from any other light cone. It cannot be successfully argued that because of this, the event never occurred. From the "point of view" of the energy of a photon no time proceeds, "even one tic", for as long as it takes for it to propagate from one end of the known universe to the other, so what difference does it really make to the passage of time if its trajectory is curved to propagate in a manner that orbits a black hole? Time still passes on the outside while all of this propagation is occurring.

And it is Hawking himself who predicted BHs will eventually evaporate:

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q10.html

But of course, he could be wrong. He often is. So what exactly is so "stupid and illiterate" about anything I have written? Are you saying that Hawking is illiterate?

 

[krash661]

no, i am simply saying that the best reads are in that magazine and also sky and telescope magazine(same time frames). i personally stopped listening to hawkins back in 2007/8-ish-- most of the colleagues i work with feel the same, including our superior and the higher ups(in a sense hawkins is now only a has-been). nowadays it appears hawkins is focused on selling books and continuing his fame-- nothing more.

 

[Schmelzer]

So what exactly is so "stupid and illiterate" about anything I have written? Are you saying that Hawking is illiterate?

Only that you have taken the very idea that jets may be somehow connected with Hawking radiation to serious that you write such a long post against it. Hawking radiation is many orders of magnitude lower than the background radiation and has nothing to do with anything visible like jets.

 

[RJBeery]

I don't know about such an animal named observational frame.

Perhaps the link wasn't obvious but I provided one in my comment. Here's the explicit URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity

In GR (that means, if GR would be true) they would exist in reality. There are some subtleties in their definition (the definition of a horizon depends on the global solution, not on what exists now), and there is no known quantization of GR, while it is known that gravity has to be quantized. But in classial GR, such horizons exist.

If I write about GR, I correctly describe the point of view of GR. Feel free to name this "devils advocate", but Einstein was anyway a clever guy and a great scientist and not a devil. Moreover, any scientist should IMHO try to describe the position of his opponents as accurate as possible.

This is nothing I believe (because I don't believe in GR) but something I know - as a fact about what GR claims.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that GR doesn't "predict" black holes mathematically. I'm saying it doesn't predict black holes to exist [today]. Do you believe Christmas Day 2100 "exists right now"? There is simply no valid mathematical argument to claim that it does. You seem to hold the impression that the ambiguity of simultaneity in Relativity throws Causality out the window. It can't do that.

But this means nothing. If there is a meaningful global notion of "now", it requires more than defined by GR, because it requires some global contemporaneity.

This is simply false. Relativity makes "now" ambiguous but not meaningless. Timelike separated events are not contemporaneous by definition (literally). This is why I'm asking you, simply, if you believe we as observers are spacelike separated from any point within the event horizon of any black hole, anywhere.

 

[danshawen]

Only that you have taken the very idea that jets may be somehow connected with Hawking radiation to serious that you write such a long post against it. Hawking radiation is many orders of magnitude lower than the background radiation and has nothing to do with anything visible like jets.

Very much agreed I don't think I suggested otherwise in posts I wrote.

i personally stopped listening to hawkins back in 2007/8-ish-- most of the colleagues i work with feel the same, including our superior and the higher ups(in a sense hawkins is now only a has-been). nowadays it appears hawkins is focused on selling books and continuing his fame-- nothing more.

Exactly what I was asking. I started to lose interest in Hawking about the time he lost a bet on the discovery of Higgs and was quoted as saying that this somehow made the universe boring.

Being confined to a wheelchair and unable to move, he would be a better judge of what is "boring" than any of us would.

 

[danshawen]

This is why I'm asking you, simply, if you believe we as observers are spacelike separated from any point within the event horizon of any black hole, anywhere.

This kind of questions is what happens when math is taken too literally. Reality dictates form and methods of the math, not the other way around.

Until or unless it becomes possible to bombard a BH with sufficient energy to break it into lots of smaller aggregate pieces, this question will never have a definitive answer, other than those provided by highly speculative math.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here's the explicit URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity

Nice to give a link to tetrades. But they are not really part of GR. There are theories based on tetrades. But they have, in comparison with GR, hidden variables. So, they are certainly not "observable frames".

A problem is, of course, that such hidden variables seem necessary, because tetrades are one way to include fermions into GR.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that GR doesn't "predict" black holes mathematically. I'm saying it doesn't predict black holes to exist [today].

That's fine, but, unfortunately, there is nothing in GR which tells us what exists today.

Do you believe Christmas Day 2100 "exists right now"? There is simply no valid mathematical argument to claim that it does.

This would not be a mathematical claim, but an interpretational. Or the interpretation includes some additional elements, like a preferred frame, with distinguishs what exists now from what will exist only in some future or what has existed only in the past. Or it does not, then there is no difference between these three things, and we have a fatalist world, where all the future already exists and all the past exists yet.

You seem to hold the impression that the ambiguity of simultaneity in Relativity throws Causality out the window. It can't do that.

A simple uncertainty cannot do that. An interpretational claim can do that.

This is simply false. Relativity makes "now" ambiguous but not meaningless. Timelike separated events are not contemporaneous by definition (literally). This is why I'm asking you, simply, if you believe we as observers are spacelike separated from any point within the event horizon of any black hole, anywhere.

Again, we are. And this is not a question of belief, but a mathematical fact. Because if two events are spacelike separated is well-defined in all metric theories of gravity, and in particular in GR, and does not depend on metaphysics about the meaning of "now", which depends on the interpretation.

 

[RJBeery]

That's fine, but, unfortunately, there is nothing in GR which tells us what exists today.

Agreed, but there is something which tells us what does not exist today, which was my point. Let me try a different tack: would you agree with me that two events are NOT contemporaneous (i.e. they cannot be said to coexist) if they are timelike separated? I assume the answer is yes...

 

[paddoboy]

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that GR doesn't "predict" black holes mathematically. I'm saying it doesn't predict black holes to exist [today]. Do you believe Christmas Day 2100 "exists right now"? There is simply no valid mathematical argument to claim that it does.

Let me be clear: Are you questioning the fact that all frames of references are as valid as each other?
Do you believe that when NASA on Earth received the data from the Mars orbiter, that Curiosity had just been released for its journey through the Martian atmosphere and landing, that in fact in another frame of reference, that it was already successfully on the ground and was already transmitting that the data that it had landed safely?
The situation in fact is basically the same in relation to the fact that we in our frame on Earth, will never see anything cross any EH of any BH albeit for slightly different aspects of GR.

 

[RJBeery]

I have to apologize, Schmelzer. I just reread your response.

This is why I'm asking you, simply, if you believe we as observers are spacelike separated from any point within the event horizon of any black hole, anywhere.

Again, we are. And this is not a question of belief, but a mathematical fact. Because if two events are spacelike separated is well-defined in all metric theories of gravity, and in particular in GR, and does not depend on metaphysics about the meaning of "now", which depends on the interpretation.

We are in complete agreement on definitions. We only disagree on whether or not we as external observers are spacelike separated from the interior regions of the black hole. That means that this problem can be easily resolved by looking objectively at what the math says. Please explain why you believe we are spacelike separated, because you are mistaken on this point.

 

[paddoboy]

No they don't and they cannot. What is cosmological time, say what any clock outside BH (This side of EH) would tick/measure. Now please refer to gravitational time dilation, as soon as EH is formed due to collapsing star, the BH is born (Rjbeery t = 0), now if there is a clock on the collapsing star then any infinitessimally small tick on it will be equal to eternity for cosmological clock. so a BH cannot evaporate in cosmological time. lets be fair to BH man, if the kid grow even by a tick, this side is vanished.

PS: requet please let us not clutter this thread by bringing in HR.




partly this is answered above. Growth (ageing) is meaningful in ones clock. Our age on a clock at collapsing star (inside its Rs) is not even a tiny fraction, and similarly a tiny fraction on a clock inside EH is eternity for us. So growth of BH is well..you know what. You grow only if you are there.

Let me put it differently, constancy of light speed is axiomatic, but it gives a nice relative motion based time dilation formula which has term SQRT(1-v^2/c^2), the maths go haywire if we try v > c in this formula...quite interesting...similarly the gravitational time dilation has a term Sqrt (1-Rs/r), here also maths go haywire if we try Rs > r. If v cannot be greater than c, then surely r also cannot be less than Rs. Allow that and all sort of bizzare nonsense appears. And BH is one such.

Illiterate nonsense as is most of your claims re 21st century cosmology.

 

[paddoboy]

I have to apologize, Schmelzer. I just reread your response.

As you may or may not realise, Schmelzer is a professional scientist.....one that is entirely independent, but professional none the less.
I have crossed swords with him a few times, mainly on the aspect of his beliefs and interpretations of an ether and his interpretations re time dilation and its effects. So as a professional he certainly bares listening to on many aspects, but as an independant with a paper on ether, I see that as somewhat of a drawback and him being burdened with an agenda...[his ether baby]
Many things he says are quite sensible and reflect what most other physicists believe and accept, based on evidence. Other things are questionable.[All imho of course.]
Just thought I would fill you in after being dormant for so long on this forum.

Your own views I have already commented on, and I will add at this time, that imho, they are too philosophically orientated.

From your friendly neighbourhood lay person.

 

[RJBeery]

As you may or may not realise, Schmelzer is a professional scientist.....one that is entirely independent, but professional none the less.
I have crossed swords with him a few times, mainly on the aspect of his beliefs and interpretations of an ether and his interpretations re time dilation and its effects. So as a professional he certainly bares listening to on many aspects, but as an independant with a paper on ether, I see that as somewhat of a drawback and him being burdened with an agenda...[his ether baby]
Many things he says are quite sensible and reflect what most other physicists believe and accept, based on evidence. Other things are questionable.
Just thought I would fill you in after being dormant for so long on this forum.

Your own views I have already commented on, and I will add at this time, that imho, they are too philosophically orientated.

From your friendly neighbourhood lay person.

I appreciate that. To be honest, paddoboy, I generally don't read or reply to posts made by a few people on here because it's like wrestling with a pig. I am willing to reiterate my argument for you, if you'd care to read it. It isn't philosophical nor interpretive. It's based on Causality and the math of Relativity.

 

[brucep]

Of course, they are used - as some nice additional conditions, which simplify the Einstein equations themself, and are, therefore, helpful to find solutions of the Einstein equations. But they are not physical equations in standard GR, and in no way obligatory.

So to say, in Newtonian theory, formulated in a covariant way, people would also have preferred cartesian coordinates because of their simplicity, without any preference for Newtonian space and time concepts.

To talk about frames in a GR context makes no sense. But there are points behind the horizon which are space-like separated from points outside.


I was objecting to "The coordinates are solutions to field equations.". But this would be true in my ether interpretation for the preferred coordinates, which would be harmonic, so, solutions of field equations. So, to avoid confusion, I have added to "GR" the specification that this holds in its standard interpretation, which is the Minkowski spacetime interpretation. Which Minkowski invented for SR, but has been used in GR too.

So you're objecting to my referring to metric solutions as coordinate solutions? Objection noted. I'm pretty familiar with the importance of SR, and subsequently Minkowski metric, to GR. It's the metric of boundary and generally the local proper frame. I know what Einstein's theory is. It's a local frame invariant, frame independent, coordinate independent theory of gravity. If the metric solutions of the field equations were unknown a person like me wouldn't have much of a chance to study GR. What I know about Newton's theory was mostly attained why'll I was doing weak field derivations while studying GR. So you won't see me say to much about how it works without using the metric. I had to learn calculus on my own. I've never had any formal training for physics yet I understand how important the formal training is. So I admire folks who have achieved that. Like you. I don't admire your politics but who really gives a crap. Are you working on stuff that isn't ether related? Just curious.

 

[RJBeery]

Let's start over because I started confusing things with spacelike separation references. I'm certain that Schmelzer and I (and I hope everyone else) agree that timelike separated events are well ordered and not up for interpretation. It's simply a mathematical fact that the creation and growth of a black hole exists in nobody's past light cones. This is true of all observers AND all observers making judgments about all other observers (which is why I confusingly brought in the spacelike separation issue). Look at the light cones of every point (i.e. potential observers) in this diagram. You can see, visually, that the past light cones tilt to perfectly coincide with the creation of the event horizon.

If a persistent object A, such as a black hole, is said to coexist with us as observers then we would expect a time to pass such that A's history comes into our past light cone. In other words, the event horizon exists for us today even less than Christmas Day 2100, because Christmas Day 2100 will enter our past light cones eventually.