Black holes may not exist!

RJ: don't pay any attention to this. It's smoke and mirrors. Kruskal Szekeres coordinates are nonsense. Imagine I had a clock that was going slower and slower and slower. Then imagine I "defined" some new time coordinate such that one second was one tick of that clock. That's effectively what Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates do. Guys like pryzk end up thinking you can put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock, and the observer sees it ticking as normal. Then he'll throw a load of equations at you and try to blind you with maths. Look at his first line: For points inside the event horizon. There are no points inside the event horizon. It takes forever to cross the event horizon. We've been through this before. See the diagram on the left. The infalling observer goes to the end of time and back, and is in two places at once. It's garbage. It is total tosh.

But don't let this persuade you that black holes don't exist. They do. They just aren't like what people say they're like.

That choice of coordinates is nonsense? If you think Kruskal Szekeres Coordinates [metric] is nonsense then you think the Field Equations are nonsense. You're nonsense and you couldn't figure how metric equations work if your life depended on it. You don't have a clue yet you think you do. Intellectual dishonest farsight.

Guys like pryzk know what they're talking about. You don't.
 
Last edited:
Hawking posted a preprint of the paper the quote came from, it was mentioned and linked in the OP Nature Article link.

Here is a direct link, http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761. It is a short response to the earlier "firewall" concept, not so much a response to the paper itself, which is also referenced in the OP Nature link.

Thanks for linking that for me. Much appreciated.

That was a great analysis. He showed at least three different ways that the 'firewall' can't represent real natural phenomena. He's always so easy to read and understand. Hawking leads the way once again.
 
Last edited:
Then he'll throw a load of equations at you and try to blind you with maths.

Um...

As far as you're concerned, przyk, I appreciate that you give me what are probably the most reasonable and informed responses on this site and particular subject. That being said, I'd like to see the math behind a finite spacelike separation between an outside observer and portions of the causal present singularity. This isn't trolling - I really want to see it - because I have a problem with the idea that we share a causal present with ANY portion beyond an event horizon, let alone the singularity...
 

He already did that. The metric he chose is a local proper frame metric [like the rain metric]. The tick rate is measured on a clock in the local proper frame of the spacetime event [falling into the black hole] distance measurements the same. Both are invariant local proper frame measurements. Proper time and proper length.
 
He already did that. The metric he chose is a local proper frame metric [like the rain metric]. The tick rate is measured on a clock in the local proper frame of the spacetime event [falling into the black hole] distance measurements the same. Both are invariant local proper frame measurements. Proper time and proper length.

I blew it by linking to przyk post #44. Sorry przyk and RJBerry. I was responding to RJ's post.
 
Hawking posted a preprint of the paper the quote came from, it was mentioned and linked in the OP Nature Article link.

Here is a direct link, http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761. It is a short response to the earlier "firewall" concept, not so much a response to the paper itself, which is also referenced in the OP Nature link.

There is also another Thread on this. I posted a Link to the .pdf of the full Paper, in that Thread, so I guess I could also Post in this one.

The full Paper can be viewed in .pdf format at : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf
 
RJ: don't pay any attention to this. It's smoke and mirrors. Kruskal Szekeres coordinates are nonsense. Imagine I had a clock that was going slower and slower and slower. Then imagine I "defined" some new time coordinate such that one second was one tick of that clock. That's effectively what Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates do. Guys like pryzk end up thinking you can put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock, and the observer sees it ticking as normal. Then he'll throw a load of equations at you and try to blind you with maths. Look at his first line: For points inside the event horizon. There are no points inside the event horizon. It takes forever to cross the event horizon. We've been through this before. See the diagram on the left. The infalling observer goes to the end of time and back, and is in two places at once. It's garbage. It is total tosh.

But don't let this persuade you that black holes don't exist. They do. They just aren't like what people say they're like.

This is proof farsight thinks the 'only frames are' remote frame dependent coordinates. That's why he thinks the speed of light is variable. Pretty interesting how you cited Peter Browns paper claiming Einstein proved the speed of light is frame dependent. LOL.
 
Post the abstract so we can tell which is the most recent version. Read citations. To get the pdf all you do is click on PDF on the abstract page.

Brucep, I believe this is what you requested. It seems to be dated : 22 Jan 2014 - seems real similar to what I read a few months back.
- from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1 said:
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black
Holes
S. W. Hawking1
1DAMTP, University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract
It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black
holes is that the holes are surrounded by rewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy
any infalling observer. Such rewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem
to be ruled out on other grounds. A dierent resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that
gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is
lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible
with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the
boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will
eectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity.
Talk given at the fuzz or re workshop, The Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, August
2013
1 arXiv:1401.5761v1 [
hep-th] 22 Jan 2014
Some time ago [2] I wrote a paper that started a controversy that has lasted until the
present day. In the paper I pointed out that if there were an event horizon, the outgoing
state would be mixed. If the black hole evaporated completely without leaving a remnant,
as most people believe and would be required by CPT, one would have a transition from
an initial pure state to a mixed nal state and a loss of unitarity. On the other hand, the
ADS-CFT correspondence indicates that the 7evaporating black hole is dual to a unitary
conformal eld theory on the boundary of ADS. This is the information paradox.
Recently there has been renewed interest in the information paradox [1]. The authors
of [1] suggested that the most conservative resolution of the information paradox would be
that an infalling observer would encounter a rewall of outgoing radiation at the horizon.
There are several objections to the rewall proposal. First, if the rewall were located
at the event horizon, the position of the event horizon is not locally determined but is a
function of the future of the spacetime.
Another objection is that calculations of the regularized energy momentum tensor of
matter elds are regular on the extended Schwarzschild background in the Hartle-Hawking
state [3, 4]. The outgoing radiating Unruh state diers from the Hartle-Hawking state
in that it has no incoming radiation at innity. To get the energy momentum tensor in
the Unruh state one therefore has to subtract the energy momentum tensor of the ingoing
radiation from the energy momentum in the Hartle-Hawking state. The energy momentum
tensor of the ingoing radiation is singular on the past horizon but is regular on the future
horizon. Thus the energy momentum tensor is regular on the horizon in the Unruh state.
So no rewalls.
For a third objection to rewalls I shall assume that if rewalls form around black holes
in asymptotically
at space, then they should also form around black holes in asymptotically
anti deSitter space for very small lambda. One would expect that quantum gravity should
be CPT invariant. Consider a gedanken experiment in which Lorentzian asymptotically anti
deSitter space has matter elds excited in certain modes. This is like the old discussions
of a black hole in a box [5]. Non-linearities in the coupled matter and gravitational eld
equations will lead to the formation of a black hole [6]. If the mass of the asymptotically anti
deSitter space is above the Hawking-Page mass [7], a black hole with radiation will be the
most common conguration. If the space is below that mass the most likely conguration
is pure radiation.
2
Whether or not the mass of the anti deSitter space is above the Hawking-Page mass
the space will occasionally change to the other conguration, that is the black hole above
the Hawking-Page mass will occasionally evaporate to pure radiation, or pure radiation will
condense into a black hole. By CPT the time reverse will be the CP conjugate. This shows
that, in this situation, the evaporation of a black hole is the time reverse of its formation
(modulo CP), though the conventional descriptions are very dierent. Thus if one assume
quantum gravity is CPT invariant, one rules out remnants, event horizons, and rewalls.
Further evidence against rewalls comes from considering asymptotically anti deSitter to
the metrics that t in an S1 cross S2 boundary at innity. There are two such metrics: pe-
riodically identied anti deSitter space, and Schwarzschild anti deSitter. Only periodically
identied anti deSitter space contributes to the boundary to boundary correlation func-
tions because the correlation functions from the Schwarzschild anti deSitter metric decay
exponentially with real time [8, 9]. I take this as indicating that the topologically trivial
periodically identied anti deSitter metric is the metric that interpolates between collapse
to a black hole and evaporation. There would be no event horizons and no rewalls.
The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes
from which light can't escape to innity. There are however apparent horizons which persist
for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redened as metastable bound
states of the gravitational eld. It will also mean that the CFT on the boundary of anti
deSitter space will be dual to the whole anti deSitter space, and not merely the region
outside the horizon.
The no hair theorems imply that in a gravitational collapse the space outside the event
horizon will approach the metric of a Kerr solution. However inside the event horizon, the
metric and matter elds will be classically chaotic. It is the approximation of this chaotic
metric by a smooth Kerr metric that is responsible for the information loss in gravitational
collapse. The chaotic collapsed object will radiate deterministically but chaotically. It will
be like weather forecasting on Earth. That is unitary, but chaotic, so there is eective
information loss. One can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance.
3
[1] A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,
J. High Energy Phys. 2, 062 (2013)
[2] S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of Predicatability in Gravitational Collapse, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460
(1976)
[3] M. S. Fawcett, The Energy-Momentum Tensor near a Black Hole Commun. Math. Phys. 89,
103-115 (1983)
[4] K. W. Howard, P. Candelas, Quantum Stress Tensor in Schwarzschild Space-Time, Physical
Review Letters 53, 5 (1984)
[5] S. W. Hawking, Black holes and Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2 (1976)
[6] P. Bizon, A. Rostworowski, Weakly Turbulent Instability of Anti-de Sitter Space, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 107, 031102 (2011)
[7] S. W. Hawking, D. N. Page, Thermodynamics of Black Holes in Anti-de Sitter Space, Commun.
Math. Phys. 87, 577-588 (1983)
[8] J. Maldacena, Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 21 (2003)
[9] S. W. Hawking, Information Loss in Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D 72, 084013 (2005)

The ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

Is that what you requested?
 
Brucep, I believe this is what you requested. It seems to be dated : 22 Jan 2014 - seems real similar to what I read a few months back.
- from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf



The ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

Is that what you requested?

I was informing you of the best way to link the paper. The abstract introduces the subject of the paper and creates links to the PDF, cite base, provides information about versions,......... etc.... You just linked the PDF. That's why I pointed it out to you. The cite base will be very interesting once the analysis has been scrutinized and how it may apply to others research.

For example: He shot down, with multiple bullets, the 'firewall' hypothesis. Somebody may respond to that and you can generally find those papers in the cite base. Your link was excellent and I'm a nitpicker.

This is the abstract for the PDF you linked. Look around. There's no citation because they haven't had time to respond. But the cite base tells you something about how important the science is. No citations doesn't look good [in my amateur estimation].

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

The following is an important paper about an important experiment to directly detect dark matter. Look at the cite base. If I remember right you'll get the first 250.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/cits/astro-ph/0608407

An interesting side to the Hawking paper is how easy it is to read.
 
I was informing you of the best way to link the paper. The abstract introduces the subject of the paper and creates links to the PDF, cite base, provides information about versions,......... etc.... You just linked the PDF. That's why I pointed it out to you. The cite base will be very interesting once the analysis has been scrutinized and how it may apply to others research.

For example: He shot down, with multiple bullets, the 'firewall' hypothesis. Somebody may respond to that and you can generally find those papers in the cite base. Your link was excellent and I'm a nitpicker.

brucep, I am still fairly new to on-line Forums, so I might not get all of the nomenclature correct for "the virtual world".

I am somewhat left in a quandary however - that is all from the same link that that I Posted in my Post #47. If you would have "Clicked On" the link in my Post #47 - that is what gets displayed on the Page. I thought that that was the best way to Post a Link.?! - On the other hand, in your second paragraph, your final statement :
Your link was excellent and I'm a nitpicker.
Well...I...don't hear...that, much...from any of the...Posters...that "reply with quotes" to...my, dmoe, Posts...so...?!
 
For points inside the event horizon, with the exception of the singularity itself, it's actually very easy to see without doing any intensive math. For any spacelike curve $$x^{\mu}(\lambda)$$ expressed in terms of some parameter $$\lambda$$ starting at $$\lambda_{0}$$ and ending at $$\lambda_{1}$$, the spacetime distance is just the integral

$$s \,=\, \int_{\lambda = \lambda_{0}}^{\lambda = \lambda_{1}} \mathrm{d}s \,=\, \int_{\lambda_{0}}^{\lambda_{1}} \mathrm{d} \lambda \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} \frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda} \frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\nu}}{\mathrm{d} \lambda}} \,.$$​

A simple example you could consider is just to draw a horizontal line on a Kruskal diagram starting at some Kruskal (spacelike) coordinate $$u_{0}$$ inside the event horizon and ending at some Kruskal coordinate $$u_{1}$$ outside the event horizon, at some fixed Kruskal time coordinate $$v \,>\, 0$$. If you use the Kruskal coordinate $$u$$ itself as the line parameter, then $$\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}u} \,=\, 0$$ and $$\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}u} \,=\, 1$$, and the spacetime distance just becomes

$$
\begin{eqnarray}
s &=& \int_{u_{0}}^{u_{1}} \mathrm{d}u \sqrt{g_{vv} \Bigl( \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}u} \Bigr)^{2} \,+\, g_{uu} \Bigl( \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}u} \Bigr)^{2}} \\
&=& \int_{u_{0}}^{u_{1}} \mathrm{d}u \sqrt{g_{uu}} \,.
\end{eqnarray}$$​

At this point, you could crack open a textbook or consult Wikipedia to find out exactly what $$g_{uu}$$ is for the black hole metric in Kruskal coordinates (NB: it's a function of $$v$$ and $$u$$), substitute it in, and try to calculate the integral to get an exact value. In the case of an eternal black hole, Wikipedia says it's

$$g_{uu} \,=\, \frac{32 G^{3} M^{3}}{r} e^{- r / 2GM}$$​

with $$r \,=\, r(v,\, u)$$ defined implicitly by $$v^{2} \,-\, u^{2} \,=\, ( 1 \,-\, r/2GM ) e^{r/2GM}$$. But for our purposes this is more detail than we need. The only thing you need to notice about $$g_{uu}$$ is that it is finite everywhere except on the singularity (where $$r \,=\, 0$$). Consequently, the spacetime interval is the integral of a finite function over a finite domain (unless you somehow managed to draw an infinitely long line on a piece of paper, $$u_{1} \,-\, u_{0}$$ is finite), which will obviously produce a finite value.
I will attempt this again, as I have done in the past. I'd like to point out, however, that I was asking about space-like separation rather than spacetime interval separation. Space-like separation is what I was proposing to use when defining the term "now", which is essential to defining that something "exists now".

Also...when you said (about a year ago, FYI)
przyk said:
Like I said, black holes, including the singularity itself, can overlap with our causal present. I don't know where you're getting this "infinite future" stuff from.
...I have a problem with this. If black holes overlap with our causal present then there should be a frame in which they exist in our past. This is not the case, therefore black holes, in their entirety, exist in our future and always will. Do you disagree with this?
 
I will attempt this again, as I have done in the past. I'd like to point out, however, that I was asking about space-like separation rather than spacetime interval separation.

Same difference. I referred to the Kruskal chart because it is designed to be very easy to see which events are space- and timelike separated from one another. Basically, any line you draw on a Kruskal chart that is always inclined at less than $$\pm 45$$ degrees (for example, a horizontal line) is a spacelike curve, and any two events connected by it are spacelike separated. As to the separation being finite, the only invariant length you can associate with a spacelike curve is the integrated spacetime interval. Since the metric components in Kruskal coordinates are finite everywhere except the singularity itself, the length of any spacelike curve, including one that crosses the event horizon, will be finite.

In case you're not familiar with the spacetime interval, you can understand it this way: in special relativity, if two events are spacelike separated, then as you know you can always find an inertial "rest" frame in which those two events occur simultaneously. In that rest frame, the spacetime interval is the same thing as the spatial distance between the events as measured in that frame.

In GR, globally inertial reference frames don't exist, but an analogous statement holds for infinitesimally separated events: if two events of coordinates $$x^{\mu}$$ and $$x^{\mu} \,+\, \mathrm{d}x^{\mu}$$ are spacelike separated, then there's a locally inertial reference frame in which 1) the two events occur simultaneously, and 2) the ruler distance between them coincides with the spacetime interval given by $$\mathrm{d}s^{2} \,=\, g_{\mu\nu} \mathrm{d}x^{\mu} \mathrm{d}x^{\nu}$$.


Also...when you said (about a year ago, FYI)

Like I said, black holes, including the singularity itself, can overlap with our causal present. I don't know where you're getting this "infinite future" stuff from.

...I have a problem with this. If black holes overlap with our causal present then there should be a frame in which they exist in our past.

This doesn't make sense: SR-type inertial reference frames generally don't exist in GR. This is practically the defining feature of a curved manifold.

The closest you can really do is consider the the point of view of a locally inertial (i.e. free-falling) observer somewhere outside a black hole event horizon, but close enough to it that they can define a locally inertial reference frame whose spatial plane crosses the event horizon. In that case, yes, such an observer would consider that parts of the interior of the event horizon were in their past, according to approximately the same definition of simultaneity that we use in SR.


This is not the case

Where, precisely, are you getting this impression from? As long as you keep making allusions like this without explaining the source of your information, my comment from a year ago stands: I really have no idea where you're getting this "infinite future" stuff from.
 
I've held that neither singularities nor event horizons exist...to considerable resistance.
But the title of the thread doesn't say that singularities nor event horizons exist, it says black holes don't exist. The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to many people and if you stated the latter out of the gate, you'd get less resistance. Your tack seems calculated to create controversy where none need exist.

That said, it is a popular tack: it appears to me that Nature of all publications is doing it too and even worse putting the statement in quotes when near as I can tell, Hawking didn't say it (can anyone verify?). That's really despicable to me.
Look at Trooper's response; it isn't atypical. A common rebuttal is to simply point at black splotches in the sky, NOT address any of my arguments directly.
You didn't make any arguments. If you're referring to previous threads, you're being disingenuous about the quality of the arguments made against you.
I agree it could be a contextual thing but...if we start redefining black holes so they don't contain an event horizon I call it a semantic dodge.
If we re-define gravity to be a curvature of space-time instead of a force, does that make it not exist?

The fact of the matter is that if our understanding of those black spots has changed over time, just as our understanding of most things changes. But regardless of their specific nature, those black spots exist and need and have a name. You may want to have that name changed every time the theory changes, but that just typically isn't how it works: it is too cumbersome linguistically. Now if you had stopped at that really irrelevant linguistic issue and we agreed to disagree, that would have been fine, but your arguments went much further.
 
Again, if GR BHs dont exist then I would like to see an explanation as to the observations put down to BHs.
BHs of sorts [called Dark Stars] were even theorised to exist in Newtonian mechanics, and way back in the late 1700's
In previous threads it has appeared to come down to that yes, he just wants the name changed. To what end, I don't know.
 
If the event horizon does not "exist" today in GR then it never will. That means that there is no event horizon to reach; it's just a region of asymptotically slowing time and increasing pressure/gravity.
Even if it exists just as an asymptote, it will still be a clearly defined surface and it should still have a concise name.

Similarly, no matter how long we track a spacecraft, it will never reach infinite distance from earth, but that doesn't mean we should discard the term "escape velocity" or shouldn't say it has escaped.

And national borders "exist" only as arbitrary lines we have drawn as well and need not have any physical form, but again that is good enough to say they "exist".
 
First of all, I disagree. If many posters claim that my arguments MUST be wrong because black holes DO exist...without addresses the arguments themselves...
The reason is that the arguments themselves are not in question and never have been, only the logical connection to the conclusion. Jeez, Hawking's own book has a chapter titled "Black Holes ain't so Black"! So there should never be any controversy here.

....anyone else feel like maybe Hawking gets a kick out of feeding trolls?
 
Back
Top