You sound like you could agree with the the fellow who stated : "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." - Albert Einstein
Black holes may not exist!
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
You sound like you could agree with the the fellow who stated : "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." - Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time:
Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed. With the proper technology, such as a very fast spaceship, one person is able to experience several days while another person simultaneously experiences only a few hours or minutes. The same two people can meet up again, one having experienced days or even years while the other has only experienced minutes. The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness. Einstein could hardly believe there were physicists who didn’t believe in timelessness, and yet the wisdom of Einstein's convictions had very little impact on cosmology or science in general. The majority of physicists have been slow to give up the ordinary assumptions we make about time.
The two most highly recognized physicists since Einstein made similar conclusions and even made dramatic advances toward a timeless perspective of the universe, yet they also were unable to change the temporal mentality ingrained in the mainstream of physics and society. Einstein was followed in history by the colorful and brilliant Richard Feynman. Feynman developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics that had yet been developed, known today as Sum over Histories.
more.....
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed. With the proper technology, such as a very fast spaceship, one person is able to experience several days while another person simultaneously experiences only a few hours or minutes. The same two people can meet up again, one having experienced days or even years while the other has only experienced minutes. The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness. Einstein could hardly believe there were physicists who didn’t believe in timelessness, and yet the wisdom of Einstein's convictions had very little impact on cosmology or science in general. The majority of physicists have been slow to give up the ordinary assumptions we make about time.
The two most highly recognized physicists since Einstein made similar conclusions and even made dramatic advances toward a timeless perspective of the universe, yet they also were unable to change the temporal mentality ingrained in the mainstream of physics and society. Einstein was followed in history by the colorful and brilliant Richard Feynman. Feynman developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics that had yet been developed, known today as Sum over Histories.
more.....
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
Huh? It's very easy to do that. Pick any point in region II and trace out a horizontal line toward the right. It'll soon cross over into region I. That will be a spacelike curve connecting an event in region II to an event in region I.
I'm at a conference this week.
The conclusion of the excerpt at the ^^above Link^^ : an Excerpt from Chapter One in The Book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness", is quoted below :
- the ^^above quted^^, from : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
Have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been proven as or accepted as "correct"?
Farsight,
On the Schwartzschild diagram, the infalling observer never reaches the event horizon according to a distant observer who uses the t coordinate. Thus, the worldline asymptotes at the event horizon. In these coordinates, the t coordinate is not continuous across the horizon, so it is incorrect to say that the infalling observer goes to end of time and back. Clearly, you haven't understood the diagram.
In fact, the r and t coordinates are quite different inside and outside the horizon. You can see that this is the case because the light cones turn over 90 degrees at the horizon. What does that suggest to you?
Notice also that the proper time (tau) is continuous and never decreases, even in the Schwartzschild coordinates. What does that tell you?
No. The KS coordinates simply present all the same information about the physical situation in a different way. They are only coordinates. It seems you are trying to give a physical interpretation to u and v, possibly relating them to time or space. In fact, each of those components has features of both time and space, as seen by somebody in the (r,t) reference frame.
I don't understand your point here. In fact, I suspect you don't understand the KS coordinates, which would follow from your misunderstanding of the Schwartzschild coordinates.
But maybe you can explain your point about stopped clocks etc. so I can understand it. Want to try? After all, it's a "schoolboy" error. So, please explain it to me like I'm a schoolboy, Farsight.
t=infinity is clearly marked on the KS diagram. There's no pretending that I can see. Notice how the proper time is continuous once again, though.
It seems to me that it's you who is lost in the maths. Or maybe you haven't actually understood the maths in the first place.
On the Schwartzschild diagram, the infalling observer never reaches the event horizon according to a distant observer who uses the t coordinate. Thus, the worldline asymptotes at the event horizon. In these coordinates, the t coordinate is not continuous across the horizon, so it is incorrect to say that the infalling observer goes to end of time and back. Clearly, you haven't understood the diagram.
In fact, the r and t coordinates are quite different inside and outside the horizon. You can see that this is the case because the light cones turn over 90 degrees at the horizon. What does that suggest to you?
Notice also that the proper time (tau) is continuous and never decreases, even in the Schwartzschild coordinates. What does that tell you?
No. The KS coordinates simply present all the same information about the physical situation in a different way. They are only coordinates. It seems you are trying to give a physical interpretation to u and v, possibly relating them to time or space. In fact, each of those components has features of both time and space, as seen by somebody in the (r,t) reference frame.
I don't understand your point here. In fact, I suspect you don't understand the KS coordinates, which would follow from your misunderstanding of the Schwartzschild coordinates.
But maybe you can explain your point about stopped clocks etc. so I can understand it. Want to try? After all, it's a "schoolboy" error. So, please explain it to me like I'm a schoolboy, Farsight.
t=infinity is clearly marked on the KS diagram. There's no pretending that I can see. Notice how the proper time is continuous once again, though.
It seems to me that it's you who is lost in the maths. Or maybe you haven't actually understood the maths in the first place.
No problem there. This is as per the original "frozen star" interpretation which Kevin Brown refers to in his Formation and growth of black holes. He doesn't favour it, but he does refer to it as a legitimate interpretation derived from GR.
Of course it's incorrect to say that the infalling observer goes to the end of time and back. But Kevin Brown, who IMHO faithfully presents what you'd call the consensus view, says this: In other words, the object goes infinitely far into the "future" (of coordinate time), and then infinitely far back to the "present" (also in coordinate time). When I've said the infalling observer goes to the end of time and back, or does a hop skippety jump over the end of time, I'm flagging up how ridiculous it is to assert that the infalling object goes infinitely far into the future and back.James R said:
It suggests somebody hasn't paid enough attention to the infalling observer never reaches the event horizon according to a distant observer.James R said:
Nothing. Proper time is merely an abstract thing, little more than the count of the number of reflections on the infalling observer's parallel-mirror light clock. The coordinate speed of light goes to zero at the event horizon. So his clock stops. So no more proper time.James R said:
The clock stops, the light stops, no more proper time, no more coordinates.James R said:
You understand what I'm saying. You know I understand Schwarzschild coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. Don't get cute. Here's a bit more from Kevin Brown:James R said:
"...One possible objection to the physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinates is the fact that a single infalling object occupies two different places (one inside and one outside the event horizon) at the same coordinate time..."
The elephant is in two places at once. That's garbage James. Do not defend it, and do not defend it with facile jibes like you don't understand the math.
But, Farside you are the one giving 'physical significance' to the Schwarzschild time coordinates by saying ...
You draw the picture of a 'stopped' observer looking at a 'stopped' clock to make your point.
The frame dependent measurements/observations are real and subsequently exist. They're just not invariant. If they didn't tell us something about the universe [natural phenomena] then we wouldn't bother with remote frame dependent coordinates because the geometry of the manifold would be Euclidian. The Schwarzschild metric just doesn't tell us 'anything that RJBerry and Farsight think they do'. That's because RJBerry and Farsight don't understand the theoretical model so using it to do physics is out of the question. Intellectually honest students should be able to determine their present place in the pecking order. A prediction derived from the Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates is the 'dying pulse train'. An important theoretical prediction confirmed by the HST. A big part of learning GR is understanding experiments derived to test theoretical predictions of GR.
OK, wtf przyk. I said connect quadrant I to quadrant II, not the other way around. You'd need to "move" in the imaginary space direction in order to do what you're suggesting.
It maybe that this thread is affiliated with this: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html
Yet, halfway between cringing and thinking; "What?" I decided to post it.
Yet, halfway between cringing and thinking; "What?" I decided to post it.
I'm giving physical significance to the "singularity" at the event horizon. The current consensus is that this is merely a coordinate artefact.
Wow, just where did you pull that from? Imaginary space? Spacelike separation is always symmetric between events (if A is spacelike separated from B, then B is spacelike separated from A). It's never a one-way relation. In case it needs to be said explicitly, if you take a spacelike curve and "follow" it in the opposite direction, it's still a spacelike curve and its integrated length is exactly the same.
But God still abhors a naked singularity?
Right, Farsight??
Right, Farsight??
I'm not one for religion, Beer w/Straw.
Have a read of the history of the Schwarzschild metric.
See where it says major players in the field including Einstein believed the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was physical. I'm with Einstein. See this:
"In 1939 Howard Robertson showed that a free falling observer descending in the Schwarzschild metric would cross the r = r[sub]s[/sub] singularity in a finite amount of proper time even though this would take an infinite amount of time in terms of coordinate time t".
Imagine a free-falling observer started falling a billion years ago. He hasn't crossed the r[sub]s[/sub] singularity yet.
Have a read of the history of the Schwarzschild metric.
See where it says major players in the field including Einstein believed the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was physical. I'm with Einstein. See this:
"In 1939 Howard Robertson showed that a free falling observer descending in the Schwarzschild metric would cross the r = r[sub]s[/sub] singularity in a finite amount of proper time even though this would take an infinite amount of time in terms of coordinate time t".
Imagine a free-falling observer started falling a billion years ago. He hasn't crossed the r[sub]s[/sub] singularity yet.
Of course not. Nothing is proven in science.
But the belief that the past, present and future all exist does prevail based on the postulates and reality of SR/GR
"Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And that along with the reality of BH's and EH's all existing, is the cornerstone of GR and still stands firm, despite the weirdness of the quantum world.
Again, as I said in the other BH thread, it's amazing how quick some will immediatley grab a sensationalist headline and run with it...albeit into a wall.
In actual fact, whether Hawking's latest work is accepted or not, it makes no difference to the reality of BH's and EH's now and in the future [and the past of course]
And according to the paper in the other BH thread, Hawking is probably correct. The only BH model Hawking is invalidating is one with no quantum effects for an accelerated observer. That obviously includes the fact that the classical GR BH does not entail quantum effects in that description.
A ho hum sort of situation.
Nothing...is...proven...in...science...???!!!
Could you elaborate upon or clarify that statement?
So...have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been accepted as "correct"?
Mathematics is separate.
It's a mathematical fact. The consensus amongst folks who understand the metric IS coordinate singularity. It can be transformed away by changing coordinates. It's frame dependent. But that continues to be knowledge beyond your grasp. Good reason for you to put a cork in it.
Sure...Scientific theories, models etc all are open to falsification via the scientific method. Theories, models etc, grow in status, the more observations and experimentations that are made that support them. eg models such as SR/GR and the BB are all overwhelmingly supported within eaches zone of applicibility.....
Those are models, that in all likelyhood [not 100% certain, maybe 99.999% certain] will probably still be standing in a 1000 years, or 10,000 years....Some tinkering around the edges maybe required, but the foundation stone of the above mentioned theories will still be standing.
But they will always be open to falsification.
Certainly not, and they as yet do not have anywhere near the status of SR/GR and the BB. But they are the popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists and have arose from the realities of different FoR's in Relativity, and the fact that observations and experimentations show that time and space are not absolute