QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[OnlyMe]

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.

I really hate not being able to EDIT and as Bruce mentioned I sometimes have issues with the iPad's spelling correction.

In the above post it should have read, "discussed in this press release from 1999,"

 

[paddoboy]

Oh please, preach-on, Mr. Pot!

yeah, that made me actually want to vomit.

 

[tashja]

RJ, Prof. Andrew Hamilton's reply to your thought experiment:

RJBeery: Start with an existing black hole and an event horizon radius R at time T. Say the black hole is being "fed" an infinite series of golf balls, one after the other, which are all stamped numerically such that the current golf ball external to the event horizon is 1.0 * 10^32.

See linked img: http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/rjbeery/golfball_black_holes_zps339d1899.png

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? 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. This cannot happen. If the golf balls numbered 1 through (1.0 * 10^32 - 1) ever existed then we would theoretically be able to observe them, with perfect instrumentation, forever. But in this thought experiment the black hole is made of nothing but golf balls. This is a contradiction, therefore the event horizon cannot exist.


Prof. Hamilton: Yes they do. All golf balls ever thrown in remain on the horizon,
redshifting away ad infinitum, at least classically. The earlier the
ball, the higher the redshift. As more balls fall in, the horizon
expands, but it carries the images of earlier balls with it.
You can think of later balls as gravitationally lensing the underlying
black hole so that it appears to grow bigger.

There is an accurately ray-traced visualization of a shell collapsing
on to a pre-existing black hole at:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/collapse.html#shell

Quantum mechanics adds a glitch to this picture. Once the redshift
is such that emitted wavelengths exceed the horizon size, then
the images get lost against the Hawking quantum noise.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

 

[brucep]

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

Whoever said that is ignorant to a fault.

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.

They proved that 'on tv' during the Apollo project. You'd think they'd seen that during kindergarten class.

 

[brucep]

I will now be looking for a binary star system named "Cahuna A / Cahuna B".


This is a surprise to me. I always thought of him as a curious person. I never before noticed any antagonism.


I wonder . . . why bother if you're not actually interested in empirical data? Anyone remotely concerned about the subject matter would be elated to discover that new evidence has been found for black holes. They would be fist pumping and doing somersaults. They would probably have a couple of poster sized Hubble images mounted on the wall of the room they've converted into a little observatory. They would be eager to talk about all kinds of personal discoveries they've made, and what they learned from familiarizing themselves with some of the more unusual objects they've been following, like the ones known to be producing jets, that sort of thing, and what they've learned from the facts collected on these objects, whether by studying the catalogs or by following the press releases from NASA, ESA etc., and of course all the awesome probes, experiments and imaging vehicles that have been launched since Hubble proved to be well worth the fixes and upgrades.

That in my mind is the thinking of a person who wants to on top of the science. I can't imagine any other reason for wanting to be considered on top of the situation, for a person who isn't really interested in observation. None other than -- and I hate to sound like a broken record here, but -- a creationist?

You don't sound like a broken record. You sound a bit like Sherlock.

 

[brucep]

I really hate not being able to EDIT and as Bruce mentioned I sometimes have issues with the iPad's spelling correction.

In the above post it should have read, "discussed in this press release from 1999,"

It's frustrating. There should be a way to shut it off. For science topics it's a mess.

 

[brucep]

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.

Wow, and you want to talk about gravitation. LOL. You must be a juvenile delinquent having ditched high school so much.

 

[brucep]

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.

They did the experiment on the moon during the Apollo project. There's probably a YouTube video somewhere in Internet land. RJBerry must have flunked kindergarten for prospective 'natural philosophers'.

 

[paddoboy]

Whoever said that is ignorant to a fault.

They proved that 'on tv' during the Apollo project. You'd think they'd seen that during kindergarten class.

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.
.

Scott and Irwin were the two Astronauts, but I'm not sure which one dropped the hammer and feather.

 

[paddoboy]

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

So if you drop a bowling ball while weighing yourself the scale will read heavier, not lighter. At least until impact, and then you get lighter?

 

[RJBeery]

Not easy to write up a large post when I know I won't be able to edit it. Regardless, here it is...

 

[Dr_Toad]

 

[RJBeery]

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

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.

1. Of course not.

2. Depends on which model we're discussing. If we're talking about the "commonly accepted" model, the golf balls enter the event horizon which then grows.

3. Because the definition of the event horizon is such that anything outside of it can escape, in theory. If it can be seen then it can escape (in theory).

4. Again, depends on which model we're discussing. "Commonly accepted" model of GR says the EH grows as matter passes through it. I'm claiming this does not happen.

5. No in any way.

6. The contradiction, for the 10th time, is that the commonly explained description of the GR black hole grows as matter passes into it, yet GR also claims that matter never passes through the event horizon.

7. In MY model, yes, at the center of mass. The Schwarzschild "radius" is simply R=0. There is no contradiction here; matter is gradually "slowed" via time dilation as it approaches the center. It's not like matter all piles up in a giant 2-dimensional wall, even in the traditional explanation of GR.

 

[RJBeery]

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.

All golf balls ever thrown in remain on the horizon,
redshifting away ad infinitum, at least classically. The earlier the
ball, the higher the redshift. As more balls fall in, the horizon
expands, but it carries the images of earlier balls with it.
You can think of later balls as gravitationally lensing the underlying
black hole so that it appears to grow bigger.

Russ, you've already agreed with me that my description of the currently-accepted explanation of black holes in GR leads to a contradiction. As you can see, your resolution was incorrect, and that what I stated is true. I don't expect you to publicly recant, but I hope you can at the very least acknowledge to yourself that it makes it difficult to accept rationally.

 

[RJBeery]

RJ, Prof. Andrew Hamilton's reply to your thought experiment:

Prof. Hamilton: Yes they do. All golf balls ever thrown in remain on the horizon,
redshifting away ad infinitum, at least classically. The earlier the
ball, the higher the redshift. As more balls fall in, the horizon
expands, but it carries the images of earlier balls with it.
You can think of later balls as gravitationally lensing the underlying
black hole so that it appears to grow bigger.

There is an accurately ray-traced visualization of a shell collapsing
on to a pre-existing black hole at:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/collapse.html#shell

Quantum mechanics adds a glitch to this picture. Once the redshift
is such that emitted wavelengths exceed the horizon size, then
the images get lost against the Hawking quantum noise.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

Tashja, thanks so much for reaching out to some experts. Unfortunately, Professor Hamilton's explanation is not elucidating to me. The problem is that, in my experience, analyses of black holes always seem to start with their pre-existence. I've not found any literature on their genesis.

As Prof. Hamilton states, we can think of the golf balls as "gravitationally lensing the underlying black hole so that it appears to grow bigger", but you cannot magnify a point! Additionally, his ray-traced visualization link is certainly wonderful, but you will notice that, again, it begins with a pre-existing black hole.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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.

Sorry guys, I didn't mean/expect for that to lead us off track. It was just an example.

The math here is pretty straightforward, but what matters is accepting the concept. Newton's equation for gravitational force is:

f=GmM/r^2

Where:
f = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass 1
M = mass 2
r = radius (distance from center of object)

Deriving graviational acceleration goes like this:

f/m = GM/r^2

Substitute f=ma (a=f/m):

a = GM/r^2

So if you plug in the earth's radius and mass, you get 9.81 m/s^2. That's the part that everyone agrees with. For example, paddoby's explanation, above.

But you are missing the other half of the problem. Gravitational attraction is mutual so the same force acts on both objects. Earth pulls down on that bowling ball with a force of 16 lb, which means the bowling ball pulls up on the earth with a force of 16 lb. So the bowling ball (and the feather) also accelerates objects toward it. Yes, that force/acceleration is vanishingly small (and therefore impossible to prove experimentally for a bowling ball, feather and earth), but it still exists. For larger objects it matters a lot: it causes the objects to wobble when they orbit their common center of mass instead of the simplified explanation that considers the larger of the two objects to be stationary. The moon orbiting the Earth causes the earth to wobble by thousands of miles, for example. This principle is how many exoplanets are discovered.

 

[Russ_Watters]

They did the experiment on the moon during the Apollo project. There's probably a YouTube video somewhere in Internet land. RJBerry must have flunked kindergarten for prospective 'natural philosophers'.

Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed by you and others on this issue.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Not easy to write up a large post when I know I won't be able to edit it. Regardless, here it is...

I laughed because I thought you'd posted empty. I don't see the link in a different color from the surrounding text.

Still no independent assessment except for rpenner's confirmation of my assertion, so no apology.

 

[RJBeery]

I laughed because I thought you'd posted empty. I don't see the link in a different color from the surrounding text.

Still no independent assessment except for rpenner's confirmation of my assertion, so no apology.

Could you please link to your assertion? Because the wording of the "challenge" you issued to me was laid out pretty clearly in the other thread.