Black holes may not exist!

[brucep]

Just checking my understanding of The KS diagram.
Noting the infaller’s light cone sides are 45 degrees from vertical on diagram. So, would this mean any timelike separation would need to be within 45degrees of vertical on diagram.
In other words …the infaller’s timelike path can’t miss the event horizon?
View attachment 6859

For the spherically symmetric non rotating solutions all paths are the shortest path to r=0 [after crossing coordinates associated with the event horizon]. Then comes discussion about the 'white hole'. The Kerr geometry has an inner ring singularity. I'll link this page that has some Kerr diagrams and Penrose diagrams. Love pictures.
Ring singularity
http://www.google.com/search?q=ring...luk.com%2Fcetinbal%2Fsingularites.htm;426;323

 

[paddoboy]

For the spherically symmetric non rotating solutions all paths are the shortest path to r=0 [after crossing coordinates associated with the event horizon]. Then comes discussion about the 'white hole'. The Kerr geometry has an inner ring singularity. I'll link this page that has some Kerr diagrams and Penrose diagrams. Love pictures.
Ring singularity

Ahhh, ring singularities and Kerr BH's!
Now if we were to pass through the polar regions of a Kerr BH, say directly centrally above the ring singularity, and approach that singularity dead center, one would feel the equal effects of gravity pulling both sides, and cancelling each other out...is that the correct term?
So one would not [may not] be spaghettified and torn to shreds, but be able to pass through the ring to where???
The mind boggles!!!

 

[Trapped]

Ahhh, ring singularities and Kerr BH's!
Now if we were to pass through the polar regions of a Kerr BH, say directly centrally above the ring singularity, and approach that singularity dead center, one would feel the equal effects of gravity pulling both sides, and cancelling each other out...is that the correct term?
So one would not [may not] be spaghettified and torn to shreds, but be able to pass through the ring to where???
The mind boggles!!!

I think some believe given a large enough black hole (numbers I do not know of) could support a successful travel through the horizon... but I think this is largely speculation.

It's simply an idea that floated about because gravity gets weaker at really large scales, but since we cannot even test that theory, it is hard to speculate whether something made of matter could successfully pass over what could be considered as a highly warped spacetime.


Maybe my cynicism however is largely based on my ignorance of the subject. At least considering a real physical picture of what is being proposed.

 

[brucep]

Ahhh, ring singularities and Kerr BH's!
Now if we were to pass through the polar regions of a Kerr BH, say directly centrally above the ring singularity, and approach that singularity dead center, one would feel the equal effects of gravity pulling both sides, and cancelling each other out...is that the correct term?
So one would not [may not] be spaghettified and torn to shreds, but be able to pass through the ring to where???
The mind boggles!!!

That Penrose guy is pretty darn smart. I like the diagrams because the mathematics he used to chart these [GR] predicted paths gives me a headache. I enjoy esoteric stuff. LOL. Like the guy who wrote the paper about possible life existing inside a black hole. All he's doing is evaluating the spacetime with the metric to find out if there's a stable orbit in there somewhere. Part of what's fun about GR.

 

[Trooper]

Did you guys watch this?

[video=youtube_share;RXTGInIbD_Q]http://youtu.be/RXTGInIbD_Q[/video]

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Did you guys watch this?

[video=youtube_share;RXTGInIbD_Q]http://youtu.be/RXTGInIbD_Q[/video]

he states "at the end of the day, you really have a weak gravitational field at the event horizon", which is nonsense. Further, it is nonsense to show one virtual particle drifting away, and the other falling in. Black holes have huge gravitational distortions near to them, and i don't believe the gravitational field at the event horizon would allow one of the particles for the spontaneously created particles-pairs to simply 'wander away' allowing for 'evaporation'. occam's razor shows that the easy way around the conundrum is for 'Hawking radiation' to be non-existent, though there are a lot of people who have staked their careers around it who wish to 'save face'. and no, 'Hawking radiation' is not known to exist and has never been observed, even though 'analogs' might exist.

 

[Trooper]

he states "at the end of the day, you really have a weak gravitational field at the event horizon", which is nonsense. Further, it is nonsense to show one virtual particle drifting away, and the other falling in. Black holes have huge gravitational distortions near to them, and i don't believe the gravitational field at the event horizon would allow one of the particles for the spontaneously created particles-pairs to simply 'wander away' allowing for 'evaporation'. occam's razor shows that the easy way around the conundrum is for 'Hawking radiation' to be non-existent, though there are a lot of people who have staked their careers around it who wish to 'save face'. and no, 'Hawking radiation' is not known to exist and has never been observed, even though 'analogs' might exist.

Ya, that was Susskind’s, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity

I don’t know, I'm getting a brain freeze, and it’s certainly none of my business, but it is annoying. Does Hawking even have proof that they evaporate? If not, then maybe they should just stick with GR with all of the shit remaining inside.

 

[Trapped]

Ya, that was Susskind’s, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity

I don’t know, I'm getting a brain freeze, and it’s certainly none of my business, but it is annoying. Does Hawking even have proof that they evaporate? If not, then maybe they should just stick with GR with all of the shit remaining inside.

There is indirect evidence, such as analogous Hawking Radiation, which can be observed from sonic black holes. We suspect then, from this, it should probably hold true for the black hole case.

 

[brucep]

Ya, that was Susskind’s, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity

I don’t know, I'm getting a brain freeze, and it’s certainly none of my business, but it is annoying. Does Hawking even have proof that they evaporate? If not, then maybe they should just stick with GR with all of the shit remaining inside.

Hawking radiation is a theoretical prediction. How would somebody have proof black holes evaporate? This is what William Unruh has to say about it.

Has Hawking radiation been measured?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6612

This is another analog experiment.
Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4634

This is why Professor Unruh doesn't believe this experiment is measuring an analog of Hawking radiation.
Hawking radiation from "phase horizons" in laser filaments?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6492

So folks are working on finding experimental evidence for an extremely 'difficult detect'. The prediction is an important discovery since it was the beginning of the search for quantum gravity.

 

[Farsight]

If I had the clock on my person, I would certainly cross the EH in my FoR.....

No you wouldn't. It's like Zeno's paradox in reverse.

No,once again, it is not a fairy story.

It is.

And your dismissive rant of mainstream science, is quite similar to the same dismissive rants from other anti mainstreamers, conspiracy pushers, and pseudoscience adherents in general. I also totally dismiss the quackery like claim of yours about going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once.

I'm not ranting. And it's not me who has made up the thing about going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once. Go and read The Formation and Growth of Black Holes and The Elephant and the Event Horizon.

GR along with gravitational and cosmological time dilation [which are responsible for the different observations from different FoR] have been validated many times.

Yes of course it has. But note the Schwarzschild metric. Einstein believed the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was physical. He didn't believe infalling observers went to the end of time and back and were in two places at once. That's a myth promoted by quacks peddling an ersatz corruption of GR.

Again, if you are confident that you [and you alone] have seen the light so to speak [another characteristic of pseudoscience and conspiracy pushers] than get it peer reviewed.

Again, the quacks are in charge of the circus.

 

[Farsight]

False. I pointed out that your argument is based on a false premise. Put simply, you are attributing more significance to the Schwarzschild coordinates than you can actually justify. I haven't dismissed you. It's you who is ignoring concerns people raised with the Schwarzschild coordinates 90 years ago!

I'm doing no such thing. I can justify the Schwarzschild coordinates, and as ever I'm in line with Einstein. When I challenge Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates you have no counter. Oh and look at this re Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates: "They are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington [1] and David Finkelstein [2] even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. They seem to have been given this name by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in their book Gravitation".

Because, if you work the situation out according to GR, you arrive at the following prediction: once the body reaches a certain critical density, gravitational collapse and the eventual formation of a future gravitational singularity become inevitable. In the simplest case typically studied in textbooks...

Textbooks? You mean MTW, your "bible". The self-same textbook that shows the infalling observer going to the end of time and back and in two places at once. And gilds that with the schoolboy error of KS coordinates. You know, the one where a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally. Woo!

...the gravitational singularity is (loosely speaking) something that happens at a certain time

And that time is always in the future. So it never actually happens.

...extended across a whole region of space. This means that there soon comes a point where it's too late for anything limited by the speed of light to escape the singularity before it forms. The light beam still goes up. It's just that, because you believe GR and you've worked out what's going to happen, you know that it's going to land on the singularity within the region of space that the singularity is going to form in.

Space isn't collapsing. That vertical light beam isn't going to "land" on any singularity. Where do you get this abject nonsense from? The coordinate speed of light is zero at the event horizon. It can't go any lower than that. There is no more collapse. The light doesn't get out because the coordinate speed of light is zero.

That the singularity is really something that happens at a certain time, by the way, is also the reason the Schwarzschild coordinate system breaks down the way it does. If a whole region of space is going to become singular at a certain time, you obviously can't have a time coordinate that goes from $$t \,=\, -\infty$$ to $$t \,=\, +\infty$$ everywhere. The Schwarzschild coordinate system tries to insist on having one anyway, with a pathological result: the $$t$$ and $$r$$ coordinates are forced into switching their usual roles inside the event horizon.

Think it through man! The coordinate system ends at the event horizon. No more events. No more ticking. So no more coordinates! And you can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it. That's pathological.

$$t$$ actually becomes a measure of spatial distance and $$r$$ becomes a measure of time there. That's why we keep telling you that the Schwarzschild coordinate singularity on the event horizon doesn't represent anything physical. It's simply the result of the coordinate system (and only the coordinate system) being badly twisted there.

You need to appreciate what t actually is przyk. It's a cumulative measure of local motion. No more. Clocks don't literally measure the "flow of time".

(This also means that the pop-culture picture of a black hole, with a singularity at the centre and a spherical event horizon a bit further out, is really a popular misconception. $$r \,=\, 0$$, despite what the name would suggest, is not a point in space. It's better thought of as representing a certain time.)

The MTW picture of a black hole is the misconception. And here's the rub:

So is Hawking radiation. Black holes exist. But Hawking radiation doesn't.

 

[Trooper]

So folks are working on finding experimental evidence for an extremely 'difficult detect'. The prediction is an important discovery since it was the beginning of the search for quantum gravity.

Thanks for the answer, Bruce.

The MTW picture of a black hole is the misconception. And here's the rub:

So is Hawking radiation. Black holes exist. But Hawking radiation doesn't.

Who knows? Is Hawking’s wife still around? Maybe we should ask her what she thinks.

So-anyway...and more importantly, do I owe RJ an apology?

 

[przyk]

I'm doing no such thing. I can justify the Schwarzschild coordinates, and as ever I'm in line with Einstein. When I challenge Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates you have no counter.

You don't understand Schwarzschild coordinates, the Einstein quote-mine you pulled up says nothing about the infinite Schwarzschild time being physical (so you're incompetent even as a quote-miner), and you challenge Kruskal-Szekeres based on a strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with how it or Schwarzschild coordinates are derived. You've done nothing but make up a story, pass it off as fact, and call everyone who disagrees with you names.

Oh and look at this re Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates: "They are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington [1] and David Finkelstein [2] even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. They seem to have been given this name by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in their book Gravitation".

So? Surely it's how these coordinates are derived that matters, and not what they're called, right? Or is understanding a derivation and reaching an informed judgement about it too much for you?

Textbooks? You mean MTW, your "bible".

Dismissal and baseless ad hominem (for insinuating I treat physics textbooks like bibles when I don't). I said nothing about expecting you to treat any textbook as a bible, or said textbook having to be MTW. The only perfectly reasonable thing I expect from you is that you actually study the contents of such a textbook before you judge it. Otherwise, your opinion is worthless prejudice.

I've also previously told you I didn't originally learn GR from MTW anyway, so you're clearly just making whatever shit up now. I suppose you'll accuse me of eating babies next.

The self-same textbook that shows the infalling observer going to the end of time and back and in two places at once. And gilds that with the schoolboy error of KS coordinates. You know, the one where a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally. Woo!

This is baseless appeal to ridicule. And you're still making the same mistake I called you out on earlier: you have no basis whatsoever for calling $$t \,=\, \infty$$ "the end of time". $$t$$ isn't even a time coordinate at all inside the black hole. You could read that right off the Schwarzschild metric, if you understood how to do that.

And that time is always in the future.

No it isn't. It's well known that infalling trajectories generally reach the singularity in finite proper time. Work it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

That vertical light beam isn't going to "land" on any singularity. Where do you get this abject nonsense from?

I studied and understood a simple black hole collapse model and how it is implied by the Einstein field equation a few years ago in university. It is, as much as it can be, my own opinion.

I object to you dismissing a derivation that you have clearly never studied or understood.

Think it through man! The coordinate system ends at the event horizon. No more events. No more ticking. So no more coordinates! And you can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it. That's pathological.

You're giving me nothing to actually think about. Just a string of bald assertions that I don't recognise as having anything to do with GR or how coordinates are used in GR. If you can't establish that your story has a firm basis in GR, that is your fault, not mine.

Seriously, stop pretending you're all for people thinking for themselves. You're not. If you had things your way, you'd have everyone mindlessly repeating these stories you've been posting all over the internet these last ten years. I'm never going to do that. That's not what I got into physics for, and I'm sure thousands if not millions of physics graduates around the world would tell you the same.

You need to appreciate what t actually is przyk. It's a cumulative measure of local motion. No more. Clocks don't literally measure the "flow of time".

I do -- certainly unlike you, I'm already quite familiar with how the Schwarzschild and other coordinates are introduced and used in GR -- and that is not how the Schwarzschild $$t$$ coordinate is defined. So, simple and unsubtle strawman based on ignorance.

 

[paddoboy]

No you wouldn't. It's like Zeno's paradox in reverse.

Yes I would.
All FoR's are as valid as each other. From my own FoR, I would certainly cross the EH and reach the singularity and my doom in a finite amount of time.
You but at a safe distance away in another FoR, will never see me cross that EH. It's that simple. Let me illustrate it another way....You move to the Alpha Centauri system to live.....Due to some catastrophic scenario, the system blows up, with you along with it. It and you do not exist anymore. But guess what? From my perspective here back on this fart arse little blue orb, the Centauri system and you, will go on existing for another 4.5 years or so.
The counter Intuitive aspect of the realities of relativity, have long since been recognised as fact.

It is.

So you keep saying. I'll stick with the mainstream view thank you and the observational and experimental evidence supporting it.

I'm not ranting. And it's not me who has made up the thing about going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once. Go and read The Formation and Growth of Black Holes and The Elephant and the Event Horizon.

Yes of course it has. But note the Schwarzschild metric. Einstein believed the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was physical. He didn't believe infalling observers went to the end of time and back and were in two places at once. That's a myth promoted by quacks peddling an ersatz corruption of GR.

Wrong...But you argue that out with Kip Thorne, not me.
Suffice to say that there is no myth perpetrated by anyone, other than the usual who see the need to oppose/dismantle the accepted GR view so as to attain some level of notoriety.
FoR's exist....They can lead to what once was thought of as counter Intuitive results, but in fact are reality. It was our view of the world that needed changing, and Einstein changed that view with the realities that both time and space are not absolute [as once was thought] and effects such as time dilation and length contraction do occur, and that the speed of light is finite.

Again, the quacks are in charge of the circus.

That's what most conspiracy theorists, pseudoscience advocates, and anti mainstream nutters would have us all believe.

 

[Farsight]

...do I owe RJ an apology?

Nah. This guy below owes me an apology.

...You've done nothing but make up a story, pass it off as fact, and call everyone who disagrees with you names...

No I haven't. I've pointed out the issues. I've referred to The Formation and Growth of Black Holes by Kevin Brown. He refers to two interpretations of GR and sides with the currently-most-popularized interpretation. That's the one you side with. Only you don't even know there are two interpretations. And nor do you know that the interpretation you've been spoonfed comes with risible issues. And I quote:

"...the object goes infinitely far into the "future" (of coordinate time), and then infinitely far back to the "present"..."

"...a single infalling object occupies two different places (one inside and one outside the event horizon) at the same coordinate time..."

"...we can completely avoid the "paradox" of black hole formation by considering all particles of matter to already be black holes..."

You simply haven't dealt with these issues. Or the Kruskal-Szekeres schoolboy error wherein the stopped observer is claimed to see the stopped clock ticking normally.

So? Surely it's how these coordinates are derived that matters, and not what they're called, right? Or is understanding a derivation and reaching an informed judgement about it too much for you?

Understanding is what matters, and you're saying nothing.

Dismissal and baseless ad hominem (for insinuating I treat physics textbooks like bibles when I don't). I said nothing...

Yes, you said nothing. You are still saying nothing about the physics.

I've also previously told you I didn't originally learn GR from MTW anyway, so you're clearly just making whatever shit up now. I suppose you'll accuse me of eating babies next...

Still no physics.

This is baseless appeal to ridicule. And you're still making the same mistake I called you out on earlier: you have no basis whatsoever for calling $$t \,=\, \infty$$ "the end of time". $$t$$ isn't even a time coordinate at all inside the black hole.

See the Kevin Brown quote above. I do have a basis.

No it isn't. It's well known that infalling trajectories generally reach the singularity in finite proper time. Work it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have worked it out for myself. That's why I know that your "well known" fact is fiction. And that I'm in line with Einstein.

I studied and understood a simple black hole collapse model and how it is implied by the Einstein field equation a few years ago in university. It is, as much as it can be, my own opinion. I object to you dismissing a derivation that you have clearly never studied or understood. You're giving me nothing to actually think about. Just a string of bald assertions that I don't recognise as having anything to do with GR or how coordinates are used in GR. If you can't establish that your story has a firm basis in GR, that is your fault, not mine. Seriously, stop pretending you're all for people thinking for themselves. You're not. If you had things your way, you'd have everyone mindlessly repeating these stories you've been posting all over the internet these last ten years. That's not what I got into physics for. I do -- certainly unlike you, I'm already quite familiar with how the Schwarzschild and other coordinates are introduced and used in GR -- and that is not how the Schwarzschild $$t$$ coordinate is defined. So, simple and unsubtle strawman.

Still no physics.

Now come on man, think. Gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. So there are no more events. There are no more ticks. So there is no more coordinate system. And you can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it. You cannot "transform" coordinates to make a stopped clock tick. Oh, and I rather think you are deliberately evading the issue of why that vertical light beam doesn't get out. It doesn't bend round. It doesn't fall back. And it doesn't "land" on any singularity, now does it? And where does that leave Hawking radiation? With its virtual particles that aren't field quanta, but magical creations that "pop" into existence. And its negative energy particles. And the way it totally ignores gravitational time dilation. Have you even thought about that? Any of it? Or is the saying true?

You can lead a theoretical physicist to knowledge. But you can't make him think.

 

[paddoboy]

I have worked it out for myself. That's why I know that your "well known" fact is fiction. And that I'm in line with Einstein.

I havn't worked it out for myself.....I'm a layman and have accepted the most logical interpretation.
I also don't believe that was Einstein's view...again that is just your Interpretation of the situation.

Now come on man, think. Gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. So there are no more events. There are no more ticks. So there is no more coordinate system. And you can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it. You cannot "transform" coordinates to make a stopped clock tick.[/b]

You ignore FoR's and what they are telling you.
From an outside FoR, the clock is never seen to reach the EH, due to time dilation and redshift.
From the local FoR [THAT OF THE CLOCK] the clock reaches the EH, crosses it, and reaches the singularity in a finite amount of time.

 

[przyk]

I'm tired of this shit. Same old, Farsight.

And I quote

And that's always been your problem right there. As long as you act like physics debates can be won based on who can come up with what quotes, you will never really understand physics. You seem to have no capacity for presenting your own original logical arguments. Seriously, take all your beloved quotes away from you and you're nothing at all.

 

[RJBeery]

So-anyway...and more importantly, do I owe RJ an apology?

I assumed my subscription to Penthouse had already been purchased...

 

[Undefined]

Hi everyone.

Sorry I have been (and still am) too busy to enter posts/discussions lately. I trust you are all keeping well as can be. I can't stay long, but am moved to make the following (brief as possible) comments now because I see the discussion between przyk and Farsight has reached the usual cross-purpose/misunderstandings stage where there is no common ground to be had IF the usual maths/abstract "space-TIME" constructs/equations and interpretations are involved on both sides. Here are my comments aimed at/suggesting the perceived sticking point and its removal in order to bring your discussion into the REALITY away from mere abstract constructs which will forever lead to such impasses as the one I observe now between you two. I can't say too much now because this impasse is eliminated in the complete and consistent context of my soon to be published ToE which also treats Gravity and Inertia and Energy and Space etc etc from go to whoa without any ad hoc 'fixes' necessary along the way.

Anyhow, for now, pryzk, Farsight, try this approach:

1. Remove the space-TIME abstraction and follow the REAL physical motional/locational DYNAMICS of ENERGY-space. Just as Maxila has tried to get you all to do for some time now. Then you can follow the real energy-space path/effects and avoid the present furfies of "space-like" and "time-like" meaningless abstractions which only introduce unnecessary imaginary overlays onto real simple and straightforward analysis of what is going on in this phenomenological context.

2. Once we look at the motional (Energy) component of the Energy-space QUANTUM LEVEL context in which the BH event horizon and the mass/energy features/perturbations are intimately involved, we can see that there are TWO motional/energy states/processes involved. One is the INTERNAL CYCLIC processes of the infalling feature (be it photon or clock); and the other EXTERNAL motional/energy state/propagation through the energy-space path from/across the BH horizon 'location'. Hence the confusion between the clock process 'stopping at the E H' and the through-energy-space translation 'continuing through the EH'. They are two different things to be considered in the REAL energy-space dynamics context (Note: NOT in the ABSTRACT time-space analytical/math construct).

3. Once 1. and 2. above are considered, we can see that the clock/local observer DOES STOP 'timing', BECAUSE all the energy-space DIRECTIONAL motion for internal processes of the photon/clock/local observer NOW has effectively ZERO degrees of freedom in any other direction except inwards to/through the EH; thus leaving ALL the external energy-space motional/translational process directed towards the ONLY degree of freedom available, ie, directed towards the EH.

4. Hence it should be obvious that 'time/timing' becomes irrelevant abstract analytical overlay which, if one persists with, can only confuses things at this juncture/situation. The fact that 'time' is not fundamental but only abstraction, then there is no problem in seeing what happens. All the usual "space-TIME" math abstractions/constructs do not explain or clearly depict what happens in such circumstances. Only the energy-space reality dynamics/construct does.

5. Conclusion: 'time and timing' is irrelevant because local clock processes stop when all INTERNAL energy/change/propagation degrees of freedom are closed off and only the through-energy-space PATH degrees of freedom to the EH is left. So, unless one invokes some 'universal clock' removed from all 'local situations' so that one can still 'compare' the interval of duration involved in 'crossing' the EH, then all one can say is that energy-space context continues through from outside to inside the BH EH, thus making the interior just another 'phase/motional state' set of degrees of freedom within that EH boundary condition.

I Haven't time to continue long discussions, so I will now leave you all to enjoy your discussions. Again, I cannot go into this further until I publish, but I hope the above observations may help to at least give you both (and everyone) some way of getting around your present impasse caused by the usual limitations of the "space-TIME" abstractions when dealing/explaining what actually happens at the quantum level in this and other 'extreme' scenarios. So it's back to read-only mode for me for now. Cheers!

 

[paddoboy]

Hi undefined....

I must honestly say you seem to have complicated the situation.
If you are saying that whether a clock and/or an observer crosses the EH or not, is dependant on FoR, and all FoR's are valid, then you have hit the nail square fair on the head! and are correct.