QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[RJBeery]

Sorry, that first bold quote should say: If you want to CLAIM that the standard interpetation of GR is wrong, you must explain WHY.

I did, Russ. The golf ball scenario, in my opinion, exposes a contradiction in the standard interpretation of GR. The resolution was also given, which represents what I believe the correct interpretation of GR to be. I don't claim that GR does not predict the mathematical structure of black holes, but in order for them to physically "exist" they must be eternal. My conclusion is that traditional black holes do not exist in the universe.

 

[RJBeery]

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/not-black-holes-do-not-exist

My first inclination upon reading this was “total bullshit”. Now that I’ve calmed down and read as much as I can on this I’m now actually thinking, “total and utter bullshit”.
...
Stayed tuned for my next post to see why I and many others think she is completely wrong about this and why the evidence is overwhelming that black holes, or something very much like black holes, most likely really really exists.

rpenner, do you agree the description I gave of "black hole regions" constitutes "something very much like black holes"? They would largely appear the same from a distance and exhibit the same gravitational effects, and that's really all we know about them currently.

 

[RJBeery]

Now, starting at time T, run the clock backwards to T_past until R_past = R/2. What does the scene look like? Do golf balls with numbers less than 1.0 * 10^32 appear?

Under currently accepted theory, yes -- and based on your setup, yes (you stated in the setup that only those stamped 1.0x10^32 and greater are external, which means older ones are internal).

If they do then there is a time T_crossover such that T_past < T_crossover < T where we would have witnessed the event horizon expand due to matter crossing it.

Agreed, again, under currently accepted theory.

OK, Russ, I stepped back and reread your response. I see the confusion. Under currently accepted theory no mass is ever observed to pass the event horizon. That means golf ball # 1.0*10^32 will never pass through the EH from time T to T_infinitefuture. If you can accept this, then you must also accept that golf balls with lesser numbers must also not have crossed the EH in the past. You are claiming that currently accepted theory states that they would have crossed the event horizon in the past, causing R to grow, but this is not what the theory says. It is a contradiction.

 

[Russ_Watters]

OK, Russ, I stepped back and reread your response. I see the confusion. Under currently accepted theory no mass is ever observed to pass the event horizon.

So you mis-stated your scenario. The part where you say "...such that the current golf ball external to the event horizon is 1.0 * 10^32" should be omitted, right?

You could replace that with "all of the golf balls ever dropped are visible, frozen, at the event horizon" or something like that, but it also works if you just end the sentence there.

If we change your scenario to say that they are all visible, frozen at the event horizon, then my answer changes to say no, I don't agree that that's the currently accepted understanding of what happens.

That means golf ball # 1.0*10^32 will never pass through the EH from time T to T_infinitefuture. If you can accept this, then you must also accept that golf balls with lesser numbers must also not have crossed the EH in the past. You are claiming that currently accepted theory states that they would have crossed the event horizon in the past, causing R to grow, but this is not what the theory says. It is a contradiction.

Ehem, if it isn't what the theory says, then it can't be a contradiction in the theory, it can only be a contradiction between what the theory says and what you believe. I see what you are getting at though. You are trying to say that the current mainstream explanation simultaneously holds that:

1. Outside observers never see objects cross the event horizon.
2. Outside observers see objects cross the event horizon.

Obviously, that would be a contradiction. So, the resolution? #1 is wrong and #2 is what scientists actually think. How can this be when #1 is written in the wiki and appears in a lot of places? It's an oversimplification. It doesn't account for the fact that if mass is piling-up at the event horizon, it must grow. Similar simplifications are given for the benefit of laypeople often in science. For example:

If you drop a feather and a bowling ball toward Earth, in a vacuum, from the same height, which hits the Earth first? They hit the Earth at the same time, right? Wrong. The bowling ball hits first. Do you know why?

Basically, you keep tripping over yourself here because you're trying to have it both ways with this contradiction: Scientists should believe it because it is how GR works, but they don't believe it so they are wrong about how GR works and wrong to think there is no contradiction since the contradiction that doesn't exist does exist.

Yah, got it.

I did, Russ.

You most certainly didn't. In particular, you neglected to respond to the entire rest of my post where I discuss the problems with your claim! Starting with where I said "That [your] explanation is not self-consistent.

 

[RJBeery]

1. Outside observers never see objects cross the event horizon.
2. Outside observers see objects cross the event horizon.

Obviously, that would be a contradiction. So, the resolution? #1 is wrong and #2 is what scientists actually think. How can this be when #1 is written in the wiki and appears in a lot of places? It's an oversimplification. It doesn't account for the fact that if mass is piling-up at the event horizon, it must grow. Similar simplifications are given for the benefit of laypeople often in science. For example:

If you drop a feather and a bowling ball toward Earth, in a vacuum, from the same height, which hits the Earth first? They hit the Earth at the same time, right? Wrong. The bowling ball hits first. Do you know why?

So your resolution to the contradiction is that #1 is false. I'm acknowledging your resolution and I disagree that it's valid. Your reasoning seems to be the words in bold, but that presupposes the existence of black holes and therefore requires a bit of a forced explanation. Mass outside the event horizon has not met the critical mass density to expand the event horizon by definition of the term. I find it odd that you dismiss this as an oversimplification where there is no literature I've ever seen that claims otherwise. Perhaps you would have better luck?

Regarding the feather and the bowling ball, the feather is less aerodynamic. Even in a vacuum the bowling ball would hit the ground faster (if they were dropped at different times) because the bowling ball's greater mass would draw the Earth towards it more quickly.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Oh, dear.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So your resolution to the contradiction is that #1 is false. I'm acknowledging your resolution and I disagree that it's valid.

To put a bit of a finer point on it, there is no actual contradiction in the theory, the contradiction is between your understanding of the theory and what the mainstream/accepted version is. But yes, the resolution to your contradiction is that #1 is false.

Your reasoning seems to be the words in bold, but that presupposes the existence of black holes...

Yes, that's how thought experiments work. You have to follow them down their rabbit-hole to see where they lead. You're claiming a contradiction in the theory, so you must follow what the theory says and the theory predicts/claims that black holes exist.

Mass outside the event horizon has not met the critical mass density to expand the event horizon by definition of the term.

How do you know that? You're claiming that you are sending golf-balls at it, essentially, forever. Regardless of how far those golf-balls end-up away from the event horizon, eventually there will be a shell around the event horizon of sufficient density to have it's own event horizon.

Heck, your own alternate idea includes that feature. This makes it look like you haven't thought-through your alternative. Which is funny, because we have discussed it before and you tend to shut-down the discussion when it examines your alternative in too much detail. I think you recognize the flaw, at least sub-consciously. That is why you still haven't responded to this issue. Be clear: are you refusing to examine your own idea?

I find it odd that you dismiss this as an oversimplification where there is no literature I've ever seen that claims otherwise. Perhaps you would have better luck?

Indeed -- you are the one claiming to have a complete understanding of the mainstream explanation. Do you really think such an obvious/blatant contradiction would be overlooked if it existed? Do you think scientists are idiots? Yes, I have some links I'll provide when I get home tonight (I have them bookmarked on my home computer). But it isn't like you should need them: your own exlpanation that you are now evading includes an infinite number of event horizons!

Even in a vacuum the bowling ball would hit the ground faster (if they were dropped at different times) because the bowling ball's greater mass would draw the Earth towards it more quickly.

Correct! So is mainstream physics wrong or is that just a useful oversimplification that is used to teach laypeople?

 

[Dr_Toad]

Even in a vacuum the bowling ball would hit the ground faster (if they were dropped at different times) because the bowling ball's greater mass would draw the Earth towards it more quickly.

I would be very interested to see either of you prove that mathematically, rather than just calling bullshit.

 

[RJBeery]

I would be very interested to see either of you prove that mathematically, rather than just calling bullshit.

I'm confused, are you saying you don't believe it? If Galileo had dropped his items separately but from the same height he could have measured (with an impossibly accurate timepiece) that they do not in fact hit the ground in the same amount of time.

 

[RJBeery]

Russ, I feel our discussion is becoming convoluted. I'm going to assume you're being intellectually sincere, rather than obstructive, and answer any question you have. I would ask that you restate your question(s) in a simple manner and I'll do my best.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I'm confused, are you saying you don't believe it? If Galileo had dropped his items separately but from the same height he could have measured (with an impossibly accurate timepiece) that they do not in fact hit the ground in the same amount of time.

Why should I "believe" a fantasy? In air they hit at different times, but not in a vacuum. Like I said, show me the math, give a concise and cogent description, and prove it.

 

[RJBeery]

Why should I "believe" a fantasy? In air they hit at different times, but not in a vacuum. Like I said, show me the math, give a concise and cogent description, and prove it.

You need to be careful with your challenges. Do I have your word that you will publicly acknowledge that you're mistaken?

 

[Dr_Toad]

If I am, I will apologize.

 

[Dr_Toad]

One caveat: rpenner or Trippy should mediate if I question your maths.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I thought you were all over this, ready to go with proof.

What's the problem?

 

[OnlyMe]

I'm confused, are you saying you don't believe it? If Galileo had dropped his items separately but from the same height he could have measured (with an impossibly accurate timepiece) that they do not in fact hit the ground in the same amount of time.

I am not sure but I believe Dr_Toad's objection would be covered by experimental evidence like, that discussed in his press release from 1999, http://news.stanford.edu/pr/99/atomgravity990825.html.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ, I feel our discussion is becoming convoluted. I'm going to assume you're being intellectually sincere, rather than obstructive, and answer any question you have. I would ask that you restate your question(s) in a simple manner and I'll do my best.

Oy.

1. Does your dropping discussion of your claimed contradiction in GR mean you recognize that you were wrong to claim that black holes present a contradiction in GR?

2. Where does matter go (your golf balls) when sent toward a black hole?

3. How do you know a massive object plus a shell of mass just outside its Schwarzchild Radius is not dense/massive enough to have its own Schwarzchild radius?

4. You claimed the event horizon (or the Schwarzchild Radius) can't expand. Why not?

5. Do you acknowledge you misstated your golf-balls-into-a-black-hole scenario as per my previous description?

6. "But in this thought experiment the black hole is made of nothing but golf balls. This is a contradiction..." What is the contradiction?

7. "The collection would exhibit a graduated sphere of time dilation from edge, inward, asymptotically approaching a complete stop at the center of mass." At the center of mass? Not at the Schwarzchild Radius? And: How does each bit of matter stop in a different place if there is only one Schwarzchild radius? That is a contradiction in your idea.

 

[paddoboy]

Why should I "believe" a fantasy? In air they hit at different times, but not in a vacuum. Like I said, show me the math, give a concise and cogent description, and prove it.

I'm with Dr Toad on this.
In normal conditions on earth, air resistance plays a part and we see the hammer hitting the ground first.
In an airless environment, like on the Moon, and the results achieved with the NASA Apollo XV experiment, there is no air resistance to affect the results and they hit at the same time.
Although the hammer has more mass, it also has more inertia compared to the feather, and this extra mass and more inertia, cancels each other out, and they end up hitting at the same time.
That's the way I see it, but I'm willing to be shown different.

With BH's, there is far more evidnce to support them, then any theoretical quantum mathematical evidence invalidating them.
BH's exist, almost certainly...The only question is type and the nature of the Singularity and whether it does exist or not.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You need to be careful with your challenges. Do I have your word that you will publicly acknowledge that you're mistaken?

Oh please, preach-on, Mr. Pot!

 

[Dr_Toad]

He's taking quite a while to come to a boil...