The information paradox is a genuine problem in GR. I have never seen an explanation to resolve it that did not invoke some other theory such as QM. My explanation resolves the information paradox within the confines of GR.
The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
It isn't a GR problem RJ. Really. OK I'll spit it out: the information paradox is woo. See this from the Wikipedia article:
"Starting in the mid-1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein put forward theoretical arguments based on general relativity and quantum field theory that appeared to be inconsistent with information conservation. Specifically, Hawking's calculations[3] indicated that black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation does not preserve information. Today, many physicists believe that the holographic principle (specifically the AdS/CFT duality) demonstrates that Hawking's conclusion was incorrect, and that information is in fact preserved.[4] In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information".
Have you ever actually looked at the given explanation for Hawking radiation? It ignores time dilation and it demands negative-energy particles. It's woo. The holographic principle is woo too. And there are celebrity "physicists" who have wagers to promote themselves, and take full advantage of their media-darling status to evade criticism and peddle unfalsifiable unscientific hypotheses such as M-theory and the multiverse.
"Starting in the mid-1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein put forward theoretical arguments based on general relativity and quantum field theory that appeared to be inconsistent with information conservation. Specifically, Hawking's calculations[3] indicated that black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation does not preserve information. Today, many physicists believe that the holographic principle (specifically the AdS/CFT duality) demonstrates that Hawking's conclusion was incorrect, and that information is in fact preserved.[4] In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information".
Have you ever actually looked at the given explanation for Hawking radiation? It ignores time dilation and it demands negative-energy particles. It's woo. The holographic principle is woo too. And there are celebrity "physicists" who have wagers to promote themselves, and take full advantage of their media-darling status to evade criticism and peddle unfalsifiable unscientific hypotheses such as M-theory and the multiverse.
Hawking Radiation resides outside of GR, regardless of whether information is lost in the process. If your eternal star is "frozen" how would information be extracted from it in theory?
Yes, he would eventually crash into the mass of the black hole region...slowly getting crushed further and further...but the mass never reaches a critical density necessary for it to be within the Schwarzschild radius. This does not mean that there's some magic "shell" surrounding a black hole region; the mass is still solid to the core.
Russ_Watters said:
No, there isn't a barrier. I'm claiming that the barrier does not exist. I was hoping you'd be able to grasp the subtlety of my argument regarding past light cones. The EH cannot exist for the infaller (or anybody).
Russ_Watters said:
I don't believe that what I'm saying is not GR, but I don't really care what you call it. I also don't really care if you, Russ, or anyone else agrees with me. What I wouldn't mind is for a GR expert to convince me that it's wrong beyond pointing to "the millions of scientists and engineers" over the past 100 years...I mean, at least I'm using logic, physics and philosophy.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The Schwarzschild Radius:
Any mass can become a black hole if it collapses down to the Schwarzschild radius - but if a mass is over some critical value between 2 and 3 solar masses and has no fusion process to keep it from collapsing, then gravitational forces alone make the collapse to a black hole inevitable. Down past electron degeneracy, on past neutron degeneracy and then on past the Schwarzchild radius to collapse toward zero spatial extent - the singularity. The Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) just marks the radius of a sphere past which we can get no particles, no light, no information.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
If the mass never reaches the critical density to be within the Schwarzchild radius, a BH would not form.
You seem to want to pick and chose aspects of GR that align with your subjective hypothesis, and discard the rest?
From where I sit.., the breakfast I will eat tomorrow, "tomorrow's breakfast" surely does exist now and each and every bite and swallow can be found right now in my kitchen. I consciously decide to wait until the morning to consume it. Though it is always possible I might change my mind and go to IHOP, when the morrow arrives. Still I am fairly certain that anything I might order then, does in fact exist today!
This is a bad line of reason, for association with black holes and event horizons. While it is true that we have no direct observations of either black holes or an event horizon, we do have direct evidence of the orbits of stars that can only be easily explained by the existence of a black hole, at the focal point of their orbits.., though in truth should we ever actually find it possible to observe the source of the gravitational field responsible for the observed stellar orbits, we may at that time have need to reevaluate our descriptions and definitions of black holes and event horizon.
I am again, fairly certain that will be some undetermined time in the future.., if we manage to survive our own misdeeds....
No, I believe that we are misinterpreting the consequences of GR. The EH is formed as mass contracts beyond its Schwarzschild Radius, but this is calculated to occur in the infinite future. An EH of non-zero volume is required to have had mass collapse beyond its Schwazschild Radius in the past light cone of an outside frame of reference; therefore, I don't believe that the EH can form in finite time.
Only from an outside FoR.
But you believe what you like. Science/cosmology is about evidence, stable well supported theories and their predictions, and peer review.
Except the entirety of the Universe is an "outside FoR" before the EH has formed.
I think you forgot critical thinking. GR is a stable, well supported theory; I believe we are getting a particular prediction wrong. That's our fault, not Einstein's.paddoboy said:
Of course, so?
I forgot nothing. As a layman, I accept the well supported position, due to the evidence inline with that position, that all FoR's are valid. :shrug:
It isn't. Anything that goes into a black hole ain't coming out.
Perhaps you didn't quite catch my sentiment concerning "information" in a physics context? There are no fundamental particles of information. But there is a whole lot of pseudoscience garbage bandied around. For example take a look at Wikipedia:
Wikipedia said:
The alleged violation of energy conservation or causality is tripe. Discard that. So you're left with violates unitarity. Big deal. So it violates something some quantum physicist made up.
I'm the GR expert. Really. And it's my thread. So read the OP, including the essays I linked to about time, the speed of light, and gravity. Try to work out where I say anything that's incorrect, and when you can't, appreciate that there's two interpretations of GR as per the formation and growth of black holes. One gives you the point singularity, one gives you the frozen star. You will surely pick the latter. After that you ask yourself why doesn't the light get out? Because it's not moving. The "coordinate" speed of light is zero. There is no other reason. The vertical light beam doesn't curve round or slow down or fall back. That's it.
If you like you can then think about the gravastar. It isn't quite the same as the frozen-star black hole, but it's pretty close. And note this:
"This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time."
The frozen-star black hole also features this "void in the fabric of space and time". So it's more of a hole than the point-singularity black hole.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Wow! That statement just stirred my imagination. If what you say is true, would it theoretically be possible for all matter in the universe to coalesce into one single universal black hole, which would create a true static void, causal to the BB. I always visualized the BB as a result of infinite dynamic potential, not the absence of all potential.
Can a case be made that an absolute vacuum (void) can be causal to expansion? I can readily imagine a dynamic foundation for the beginning of spacetime and its expansion, but "absolutely nothing" does not feel right.
All the space needs to "coalesce" too. Don't forget it's quantum field theory. Matter is made out of field energy. And a field is a state of space. Or if you prefer, think about the wave nature of matter. Matter is made out of waves in space. And in a black hole, gravitational time dilation is infinite. So nothing is waving. So it's like it's frozen space. Like solid space. Which is like a void in space. Like no-space. Like null-space.
I think of potential as "compressed space". As if space is elastic. Only if it's frozen, it isn't elastic at all.Write4U said:
I don't know, Write4U. I don't know how you go from a solid frozen universe to an elastic expanding universe. And nor do I know how you get yourself a solid frozen universe to begin with.Write4U said:
And what you describe is the Newtonian edition of a BH, first theorised in the late 1700's by John Michel.
GR expert?
Yes. Who else can explain gravity to you?
What I described isn't Newtonian. Tsk, you still haven't read the formation and growth of black holes have you? And I quote:
There's two interpretations. One is right, the other one isn't. Kevin Brown and lots of other people say the "geometric interpretation" is right. I say the "field interpretation" is right. And I'm the expert. I'm right and they're all wrong. And by the way, Kevin Brown's article used to say Wheeler and Weinberg rather than Einstein and field theory. He changed it after I emailed Weinberg. He shouldn't be trying to claim Einstein's authority for the "geometric interpretation", because Einstein would never have agreed with the point-singularity black hole.
What I described isn't Newtonian. Tsk, you still haven't read the formation and growth of black holes have you? And I quote:
Kevin Brown said:
There's two interpretations. One is right, the other one isn't. Kevin Brown and lots of other people say the "geometric interpretation" is right. I say the "field interpretation" is right. And I'm the expert. I'm right and they're all wrong. And by the way, Kevin Brown's article used to say Wheeler and Weinberg rather than Einstein and field theory. He changed it after I emailed Weinberg. He shouldn't be trying to claim Einstein's authority for the "geometric interpretation", because Einstein would never have agreed with the point-singularity black hole.
Then you have an easy job: show the problem in the math.
So you won't mind going through the mathematics of the frozen star interpretation?
Or maybe you are simply lying about your expertise and you don't really know anything about GR and you simply pick positions based on whether you like them or not and then you pretend to be an expert?
The problem seems to be to determine where, if anywhere, you are correct. You refuse to make a single prediction with Farsight Relativity that can be compared to observations. That seems an awful lot like someone trying to deceive people into thinking he's an expert.
It seems that you are the one who hasn't read that citation, Farsight. As per usual, you seem unable to understand the very things that you try to use for support.
For example, the document you are using also says, "Admittedly it’s unorthodox to attribute any physical significance to the Schwarzschild time coordinate of a particle passing through the event horizon, and to some extent this is justified, because this coordinate is, after all, just a labeling of events. Moreover, as discussed in Section 6.4, the mapping of the Schwarzschild time coordinate from outside to inside the event horizon is formally arbitrary."
This, of course, is something that Farsight disagrees with. He thinks, one supposes, that one particular Schwarzschild metric is the one, true metric. Weird that he doesn't discuss black holes that are not centered on the origin of that one, true metric.
Additionally, the citation says, "Thus, barring any "new physics", there is nothing to prevent an event horizon from forming and expanding, and this implies that the value of m inside the horizon increases in finite coordinate time, which conflicts with the "frozen star" interpretation." This is not merely something that the author throws in on a whim, this is something that the author argues for.
So, as usual, the very citation Farsight provides undercuts his position.
Sure. it's ridiculously easy. Here's the Schwarzschild metric expression for gravitational time dilation:
$$t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}} $$
When r is equal to r[sub]0[/sub] you've got an zero result, and there's no getting past it. A stopped clock can't tick any slower.
Not me mate. Like I said, I'm the one who can explain how gravity works, and you can't fault it.
There's obviously no problem determining where I'm correct, because if there was you'd be able to point out the problems. And you can't. All you can do is carp. Please desist, and please try to contribute usefully to the discussion and the forum instead.