QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[nimbus]

Dear readers.

When I first started following this thread, I thought that user Farsight was genuinely interested in GR, and was was being unfairly maligned by those who knew rather less of the subject that he does.

I have changed my mind. He is clearly an uncorrectable - ah no, incorrigible - fool and I am out of here before I lose more self-respect

Did you know he has a self published book? Christmas is coming order early paddoboy

 

[Dr_Toad]

Read the reviews at Amazon first:

Most Helpful Customer Reviews:


9 of 10 people found the following review helpful
✭ Inaccurate, out-dated
By ctamblyn on June 21, 2013
Format: Paperback
WARNING: This book contains a lot of personal theories about space, time and matter, and doesn't bother to highlight for the reader what is established physics and what is not. Parts of it flatly contradict what modern theoretical and experimental physics have discovered.

In addition, a lot of what is claimed here was written long before the recent important discoveries at the LHC, and has been rendered obsolete as a result.

If you'd like to learn actual physics, even at a basic level, I recommend getting a book by an actual physicist instead.


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
✭ Pure imagination
By BigDumbWeirdo on March 7, 2014
Format: Paperback
This is a work of pure imagination. The author has come up with an imaginative idea (that does NOT meet the criterion for being considered a theory) about what comprises the universe we live in. This book claims that matter, energy and space are the same thing, with the particles we observe being 'knots' of space.
Unfortunately, his ideas simply don't work. When one creates even the most rudimentary mathematical model of his theories, one finds predictions that contradict what we know about the universe. Even without doing any math, it is possible to find errors and false predictions in his ideas based on simply finding the logical conclusions of his claims.
This book is self-published, after having been rejected by a number of publishers. I find it quite telling that even a company that would publish works by Deepak Chopra would turn down this author.
Duffield has been shopping this theory around the internet for several years now. In that time, he's been banned from numerous science forums for various reasons, including refusing to accept correction, presenting his ideas as established science, and even attempting to intimidate others by describing his claimed prowess at boxing and willingness to travel.
In short, this book is a waste of time, for the author as well as any reader. I would recommend that anyone wishing to learn more about physics purchase a book by an actual physicist. If one is determined to read this work, it was available on the web in HTML format as of 2008. An archival search would likely provide a free copy, which would be a far more appropriate price than what is listed.

 

[krash661]

(according to Google translate, these are the same words in German)

no, recheck from a different source.
they are not the same word at all.
die geschwindigkeit = velocity
die schnelligkeit = speed
or das speed

 

[krash661]

Read the reviews at Amazon first:

hilarious.

 

[tashja]

I like to think I understand gravity, tashja, because I've read the original material. Einstein thought of a gravitational field as "a state of space". And not some Chicken-Little sky-falling-in state of space. He also said a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. With that in mind, there's only one answer to the gedankenexperiment that's in line with Einstein.

I think the differences in the responses are interesting. To summarise, Moore gave what I thought was the right answer, S Shapiro didn't answer the question, Baez gave what I thought was the right answer, Olum's answer started off OK but then turned into the waterfall analogy, which I think is junk, and Begelman's answer seemed partially correct. Obviously they can't all be correct.

Here are two more replies for the tally which should be the last ones unless I get a delayed response. Cheers!

Prof. Ott:

I think the best way to understand this is by considering gravitational redshift. Clocks far away from a massive object tick faster than clocks near massive objects. So the number of wave cycles of light that an observer counts per tick far away from a source on the surface of a massive object is fewer than when counted on the surface. So the frequency is lower (or the light is redder in physics parlance). In a black hole, gravity is so strong that the light gets infinitely redshifted and can't be seen by an outside observer.

I hope this helps.
- Christian Ott

Sent from my phone

.

Prof. Bousso:

Like in most apparent paradoxes, there are implicit assumptions built into the formulation, which are not valid. You can certainly arrange for light to go radially outward from a spherically symmetric matter distribution in a spherically symmetric spacetime, so if that’s what you mean by “straight up”, that’s not the problem. But you have not provided a sharp definition for what it means for the light to “slow down” or not. Locally, light moves at a fixed velocity. Globally, there is indeed a sense in which light takes “longer” to escape from regions with strong gravity, but this notion can be made sharp only in a static setting. However, the limit you are taking is incompatible with a static setting. Once the planet is sufficiently dense, nothing can stabilize it (and more importantly, the surrounding spacetime) against collapse. Then all spheres dynamically contract to zero size, taking along the laser light that’s doing its best to get out.

Best,
Raphael

 

[Farsight]

Dear readers. When I first started following this thread, I thought that user Farsight was genuinely interested in GR, and was was being unfairly maligned by those who knew rather less of the subject that he does. I have changed my mind. He is clearly an uncorrectable - ah no, incorrigible - fool and I am out of here before I lose more self-respect

What you mean is that you will not admit that you have conflated spacetime and space, and you cannot explain why your pencil falls down.

Well actually they are all correct. Because they have all basically said the same thing

Er, no they haven't.

geschwindigkeit = velocity

No, it means either speed of velocity. And like Don Koks said, Einstein meant speed.

Read the reviews at Amazon first

ctamblyn is malicious and dishonest. Read some of the other reviews. Like this one:

RELATIVITY+ THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING by John Duffield is a romp. It is not for everyone. It is intended for the non-technical, but interested, reader. On the other hand, the professional physicist, who is interested in looking beyond what is "taught," would benefit from the ideas presented (both in the concepts and in the manner conveyed). Many of the ideas should be taught at the high school level. Even at the graduate physics level, some of them would greatly help students and should now be taught there.

RELATIVITY+ is not mathematical (although it uses the concepts, such as knot theory). It is phrased in a manner that you can grasp. It generally starts at the beginning (both in the history and development of the concepts). The use of illustrations (and illusions, to point out how things are often not what they seem) is important. Most of the time, the author remembers his audience and defines terms adequately. Being a physicist myself, I probably overlooked many places where we both assumed that "everybody knows that." There are times that he gets too deep too fast for most readers. Don't worry about it, go with the flow. You'll come back on line later. You can always go back to areas of interest...

But it's academic anyway, the book dates from 2009, and it isn't actively on sale. There a few used copies with prices up to £101.89, but no new copies.

 

[PhysBang]

None of these replies do anything to support your own dishonest position, Farsight. You are continuing to fail to show us that you can use your bizarre theories to describe something as simple as the fall of a pencil (an example you chose).

 

[Farsight]

They aren't my bizarre theories, Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, and Moore and others concur that light doesn't get out of a black hole because it's stopped. The notion that space falls down in a gravitational field is the bizarre theory.

Here are two more replies for the tally which should be the last ones unless I get a delayed response. Cheers!

Thanks tashja. It's a bit of a mixed bag isn't it? I thought Bousso was going to agree with Moore when he started talking about light slowing down, but then he wound up saying "space falls down". And Ott's response is different again. There's no mention of light slowing down or space falling down, instead he refers to infinite redshift. That makes me want to ask another gedankenquestion. If you're game, I'd be grateful if you could set them this innocuous little poser:

You're an observer situated in a safe place at a great distance from a black hole. You send a 511keV photon into this black hole.
1) What by your reckoning is the resultant increase in the black hole mass?
2) So by how much did the E=hf photon energy increase?
3) So did the photon frequency increase?
4) If we play the scenario in reverse and say the black hole emitted a 511keV photon which you then detect, did the frequency decrease?

 

[PhysBang]

If a pencil is in free fall in an inhomogeneous space, what is its trajectory? (Please feel free to set the exact parameters of the pencil and the inhomogeneous space, just show how they interact in order to create the trajectory.)

Alternatively, stop pretending to do physics.

 

[Dr_Toad]

There a few used copies with prices up to £101.89, but no new copies.

I have a new copy, only because I haven't run out of toilet paper.

 

[krash661]

No, it means either speed of velocity. And like Don Koks said, Einstein meant speed.

do you speak and understand original german language ?
as obvious as it is, the answer is NO. you have no clue of the language.
once again you have no clue of what you are attempting to talk about.

 

[krash661]

But it's academic anyway, the book dates from 2009, and it isn't actively on sale. There a few used copies with prices up to £101.89, but no new copies.

View attachment 40

i'm stuck on wondering why there are so many used copies.

 

[Farsight]

If a pencil is in free fall in an inhomogeneous space, what is its trajectory? (Please feel free to set the exact parameters of the pencil and the inhomogeneous space, just show how they interact in order to create the trajectory.) Alternatively, stop pretending to do physics.

Its trajectory depends on its initial forward motion. If it doesn't have any, its trajectory is straight down at 9.8m/s². And I've told you umpteen times how they interact. Light curves because the speed of light varies with position, like Einstein said, because a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of a planet "conditions" the surrounding space, rendering it inhomogeneous, this effect diminishing with distance. See Gravity Works Like This where I then refer to the wave nature of matter. You can make an electron along with a positron out of light waves in pair production. And you can diffract an electron. Plus in atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves. So just think of an electron as light going round and round. Then simplify it to light going round a square path, then draw it with the horizontals curving down.



The electron falls down, ditto for protons and neutrons and the pencil as a whole. And because only the horizontals are affected you can see intuitively why the Newtonian deflection of matter is half the deflection of light. Hopefully you can also see that gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy, and the force of gravity at some location depends on the local gradient in the "coordinate" speed of light. Note that Albrecht Geise gives a similar explanation, though there are some things he says that I'm not fond of.

 

[PhysBang]

This seems to be a cut and paste of your last pathetic attempt mixed in with Farsight's Greatest Hits (or rather, Greatest Misses). You could pick the mass of the pencil, you could pick the initial forward motion (whatever you imagine that is). Yet you fail to give us an example with any details. Where is the inhomogensous space in your post that is actually determining values in a physics problem?

You again prove that you just can't do physics, either with or without your own "interpretation". Thank you for the demonstration.

I once again urge you to learn physics. If you stick to it like you have so far stuck to your dogma, you couldreally contribute.

 

[Farsight]

This seems to be a cut and paste of...

Bah, you never do any physics, or point to any flaws in the physics I provide, because you're just a naysayer troll intent on spoiling discussions and trashing threads. It's back on ignore for you.

Farsight, you often like to cite Don Koks as agreeing with you, but he doesn't.

He agrees with me about the speed of light varying with position, like Einstein said and optical clocks demonstrate.

See the following from Don koks book ‘Explorations in Mathematical-Physics: The Concepts behind an Elegant Language’. On page 501, he describes how using Schwarzschild spacetime coordinates brings about the slowing of a clock to zero at the horizon. He then asks…

what can be done to ascertain what is happening here?

He goes on to say…

In 1960 there were discovered more suitable coordinates for describing Schwarzschild spacetime, called Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates… …Although the metric does break down at r = 0, the more serious problem at r = 2M has vanished.

On page 506, Don Koks goes on…

if we did not have a good set of coordinates ( such as Kruskal-Szekeres ) how could we tell if the horizon was real or not?

To this end, Don Koks continues with a couple of pages of equations to end on page 508 with…

So with this time-space swap incorporated, the normalised Riemann components don’t diverge at r = 2M, and we know for certain that spacetime is perfectly well behaved there.

My underline in above quotes. Farsight, he doesn't agree with you about time stopping for all frames at the event horizon, because he says 'we know for certain that spacetime is perfectly well behaved there'. And Mr Koks reckons the Kruskal-Szekeres are 'a good set of coordinates'.

The book dates from 2006. If you were to ask him now, maybe he'd have a different view. Tell you what, why don't you email him? Refer him to page 501 where he says light slows to zero as it approaches r=2M, and tell him that I said Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates contain a schoolboy error: a stopped observer allegedly sees a stopped clock ticking normally. No he doesn't. The clock is stopped, and he's stopped too. He sees nothing.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What you mean is that you will not admit that you have conflated spacetime and space, and you cannot explain why your pencil falls down.

I could have done what Einstein accomplished if I had been privy to Maxwell from the start. And I would have replaced the word "space" with "sunny-muffin".(I also invented the internet.) [video]

Your nit pick with words and lambasting of mathematics... Wait... You just said:

Bah, you never do any physics, or point to any flaws in the physics I provide, because you're just a naysayer troll intent on spoiling discussions and trashing threads. It's back on ignore for you.

You yourself haven't done any physics! All you do is try to ride Einstein's coat tails -that's all you've ever done! Point out a paper you've published, something peer reviewed of course.

I'd like to see the paper "A pencil falls down".

 

[PhysBang]

Farsight, usually nobody can point to flaws in your physics because, like you just did, you don't produce physics. You gave a b.s. excuse, a useless jpeg, and no details. Stop pretending.

 

[OnlyMe]

Bah, you never do any physics, or point to any flaws in the physics I provide, ...

Farsight, I don't remember seeing you do any physics, in any of these discussions. At best you provide speculations based on how you imagine some one other than yourself has explained some bit of physics they did. Even then you cherry pick so often that it is hard to accept your misinterpretation of the physics as anything more than the result of having told yourself the same thing, over and over for so long that you have come to believe it.

Imagination is perhaps (as human beings), one of our greatest assets... That does not mean that everything we can imagine is real. I have said in the past, knowing the difference between what we know and what we think we know is an important distinction. Usually I have intended that as a reference to the difference between theory and proven reality, but it applies equally, to the difference between pure imagination and what is proven to be real.

You don't seem to see the line that separates the two.

So you don't take me wrongly here, I have offered no science myself, other than by reference in any discussion here. And even where reference is made, my posts have been about my interpretation and speculations... But at least I believe I know difference between the reference and speculations. You seem to have slipped too far down your own well of imagination, to see anything but what you think you know.

You have slid down the rabbit hole... and there seems no way to drag you back out.

 

[Farsight]

You seem to have slipped too far down your own well of imagination, to see anything but what you think you know.
You have slid down the rabbit hole... and there seems no way to drag you back out.

No I haven't. I'm the one who refers to Einstein, who said the speed of light varies with position. R J Beery and I say the light doesn't get out of the black hole because it's stopped, and a majority of the professional physicists who responded to tashja agree. It isn't me who's slid down the rabbit hole, it's you.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Do you have a paper published explaining why a pencil falls down or not? Can I assume you've had more than five years to write one? Do you explain it in your book, and if so, why hasn't the physics community caught on yet?

If you can't address these questions, why should anyone believe anything you say. (The previous sentiment has probably been expressed to Farsight countless times within the last decade.)