The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

[OnlyMe]

If light slows down it has an "effective mass". If you catch a photon in a mirror-box it's like it's been stopped, and the mass of the system is increased. If you actually stop light, all the photon energy is effective mass.

Since you rely so heavily on what Einstein says, where did he say anything that suggests the above is true?

What he described in,

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?,

has nothing to do with STOPPED light. It was very specifically about the quantifiable character of the photon and that only when ABSORBED or EMITTED, by an electron in an atom, the photon's addition to the electron's and thus atom's overall energy, add to its (the atom's) mass.

Beyond that you are back to using your imagination and the hypothetical light box/light clock as some kind of proof, of anything other than the fact the you like others (including myself) can imagine things real and unreal. During any time period that the trapped photon is moving between the mirrors in your mirror-box it is no different than any photon passing by outside the mirror box.

What Einstein described is theory. What you are doing with it is fantasy. Imagination is one of our greatest gifts, but it is only a hair's breadth from fantasy.

 

[Farsight]

The singularity only lies beyond "the end of time" as seen outside the black hole.

Quite right. But time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon, so it takes forever to cross it. The infalling observer will never see inside that black hole.

The usage of Kruskal coordinates shows that an observer falling into the black hole will register a finite amount of time on their clocks before hitting the central singularity, and any other choice of coordinates will automatically yield the same result because an observer's proper time is invariant under changes of coordinates.

It's more cargo-cult garbage that you haven't sat down and thought about even for a moment. Look at the OP. See that MTW image? The infalling observer goes up to the end of time and back down from the end of time. Imagine a horizontal line. The infalling observer intersects that line in two places - he's in two places at once. Adopting Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates attempts to overcome the infinite time dilation and get past this trip to the end of time and back by claiming that a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally. He doesn't. He is stopped. So is light. The coordinate speed of light is zero. He doesn't see anything. Ever. His proper time isn't finite. It's finished. You might want to take a look at Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates on Wikipedia and note this:

"They are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington[1] and David Finkelstein,[2] even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. They seem to have been given this name by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in their book Gravitation."

Unfortunately, since you were never taught and never attempted to learn the mathematical description of Schwarzschild black holes (or the countless things taught before you even get to that point), you're in no position to determine what is or isn't implied by the theory.

I am in that position because I read the original material and I think for myself. You're in the position of a Sunday School kid who has been spoon-fed all sorts of garbage. You cannot defend it against my evidence and references and logic, and you are forced to yield step by grudging step.

 

[CptBork]

Quite right. But time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon, so it takes forever to cross it. The infalling observer will never see inside that black hole.

Again, even though external observers see an astronaut's clocks and motion come to a complete stop at the event horizon, if the astronaut is localized near a single point, in their own reference frame time will continue ticking normally and they'll fall right into the singularity. That's a fairly straight-forward result in GR and it doesn't matter what coordinate system you use to describe the black hole's interior. Besides, you're not accounting for the astronaut's own gravitational field and how that would cause the event horizon to expand and eclipse them in a finite amount of time; it doesn't take two black holes infinitely long to merge.

I am in that position because I read the original material and I think for myself.

When it comes to GR, by your own admission you're mathematically illiterate. That would make it impossible for you to have "read" the original material.

 

[Farsight]

Since you rely so heavily on what Einstein says, where did he say anything that suggests the above is true?

Look at his paper. He said this: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". That's like when you let the photon out of the mirror-box. Catching it in the mirror-box is the reverse of this process.

What he described in, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? has nothing to do with STOPPED light...

I know. That's why I said it was like it's been stopped. The photon in the mirror-box isn't stopped, but overall it isn't moving in aggregate with respect to you, so it's like it's stopped.

It was very specifically about the quantifiable character of the photon and that only when ABSORBED or EMITTED, by an electron in an atom, the photon's addition to the electron's and thus atom's overall energy, add to its (the atom's) mass. Beyond that you are back to using your imagination and the hypothetical light box/light clock as some kind of proof, of anything other than the fact the you like others (including myself) can imagine things real and unreal. During any time period that the trapped photon is moving between the mirrors in your mirror-box it is no different than any photon passing by outside the mirror box. What Einstein described is theory. What you are doing with it is fantasy. Imagination is one of our greatest gifts, but it is only a hair's breadth from fantasy.

There's no fantasy in what I've told you. When a hot body emits photons it loses mass. When an atomic-orbital electron emits a photon and drops down an energy-level the atom loses mass. There is no fantasy to the wave nature of matter. Momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going linearly at c. If you contrive things so that the wave is trapped in a mirror-box or otherwise going round and round at c, it still offers resistance to change-in-motion. But now we don't call it momentum. We call it inertia. We call it mass.

 

[Farsight]

Again, even though external observers see an astronaut's clocks and motion come to a complete stop at the event horizon...

No problem with that.

if the astronaut is localized near a single point, in their own reference frame time will continue ticking normally...

Not so. Let's imagine we're the external observers, and OnlyMe is your astronaut. Let's wait a day. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a week. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a year. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a billion years. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. We never see his clock tick. He never sees his clock tick. He sees nothing. He sees just as much as the hypothetical SR observer travelling at the speed of light. Which is zip, zilch, zero. The notion that he sees his clock ticking normally is a total fantasy.

and they'll fall right into the singularity. That's a fairly straight-forward result in GR and it doesn't matter what coordinate system you use to describe the black hole's interior.

It's straightforward, and it's wrong. Just like the blueshifted photon gaining energy. And the moot point is this: the event horizon is where your coordinate system ends. Because the coordinate speed of light goes to zero. Because light stops. So you cannot measure distance or time. This is the significance of the frozen-star black hole. Like the gravastar it features "a void in the fabric of space and time". It's more of a hole than the point-singularity black hole.

Besides, you're not accounting for the astronaut's own gravitational field and how that would cause the event horizon to expand and eclipse them in a finite amount of time; it doesn't take two black holes infinitely long to merge.

What I'm not accounting for is gamma ray bursters. That infalling astronaut never makes it to the event horizon. Think about where the kinetic energy of the falling electron comes from.

When it comes to GR, by your own admission you're mathematically illiterate. That would make it impossible for you to have "read" the original material.

I'm not mathematically illiterate, and I have read it. You haven't. If you had it would be you pointing out the differences between MTW teaching and what Einstein said.

 

[OnlyMe]

Good man. Also see Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft. Not the Nobel Laureate 't Hooft, I think it's a guy at Philips Eindhoven.

I took a quick look at the paper you linked, Light is Heavy. In the first sentence of the second section,

"The inertial mass $$m_i$$ is a measure of persistence to stay in the same state of motion, or like a resistance to acceleration, expressed by Newton’s law, $$F=m_ia$$ ."​

, the authors seem to confuse the concept of inertia with inertial mass. If they were dealing with massive objects this could go unchallenged, as essentially interchangeable. However, for the relationship they imagine to have any validity, when discussing light and the photon, they would first have to define both inertia.., and mass, beyond the apparent assumptions, made in that one sentence.

Light or photons, do not accelerate as we understand acceleration when discussing massive objects, so the connection between resistance to acceleration and inertia cannot be applied to the photon. Neither does the velocity of light or a photon change with collision... Photons do not interact with atoms in classical collision mechanics. The energy of the photon is absorbed by an electron/atom. What happens within the atom after that initial interaction, is the result of the atom's ability to maintain the changed energy state... Thus the authors reference to measuring changes in velocity again has no meaning when dealing with light... The photon only exists while it is moving. There are no acceleration/collision events involving photons, in the classical sense they suggest.

There are some very high energy photon electron/atom/nuclear interactions that resemble collisions as an end result. But this is only a classical interpretation of the sequence of events involving the absorption/emission process. The photon/atom interaction still goes through an absorption/emission cycle. And yes this last is my own description of a theoretical interpretation.

Further if they were correct in their contention that photons possess inertial and gravitational mass, it would have to follow that photons interact gravitationally with each other. This is not consistent with current theoretical consensus and at present there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[Farsight]

... the authors seem to confuse the concept of inertia with inertial mass. If they were dealing with massive objects this could go unchallenged, as essentially interchangeable. However, for the relationship they imagine to have any validity, when discussing light and the photon, they would first have to define both inertia.., and mass, beyond the apparent assumptions, made in that one sentence.

Light or photons, do not accelerate as we understand acceleration when discussing massive objects, so the connection between resistance to acceleration and inertia cannot be applied to the photon.

The authors are not confused, you are. Look at the last line of Einstein's paper:

"If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies".

And look at Compton scattering. You can accelerate a photon. You can't make it go faster or slower because it's a wave, but you can accelerate it in the vector sense, and use it to make an electron go faster.

Neither does the velocity of light or a photon change with collision...

Would you like to like to take another look at that?

Image credit Rod Nave's Hyperphysics

Further if they were correct in their contention that photons possess inertial and gravitational mass...

They are. Any concentration of energy causes gravity.

 

[OnlyMe]

Not so. Let's imagine we're the external observers, and OnlyMe is your astronaut. Let's wait a day. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a week. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a year. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a billion years. Have we seen his clock tick yet? No. Has he seen his clock tick yet? No. We never see his clock tick. He never sees his clock tick. He sees nothing. He sees just as much as the hypothetical SR observer travelling at the speed of light. Which is zip, zilch, zero. The notion that he sees his clock ticking normally is a total fantasy.

Actually, if OnlyMe were your astronaut, the above again would be fantasy.., because it is OnlyMe's belief that long before he reached anything near the event horizon organic life would have become impossible, so he could not observe anything, and at least by the time the substance he was composed of reached the event horizon, his clock would no longer be a clock... Thus again there would be not only no one to observe it there would be no clock.

Perhaps it is my own interpretations, but it seems all to often that you fail to maintain a firm grasp on the line between what is known and real and what is theory and/or often even fantasy.

 

[OnlyMe]

The authors are not confused, you are. Look at the last line of Einstein's paper:

"If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies".

And look at Compton scattering. You can accelerate a photon. You can't make it go faster or slower because it's a wave, but you can accelerate it in the vector sense, and use it to make an electron go faster.

Would you like to like to take another look at that?

Image credit Rod Nave's Hyperphysics

They are. Any concentration of energy causes gravity.

Again keep a firm grip on the difference between what remains a theoretical interpretation/explanation and what is known as reality.

Though it may be reality that you believe many things, that belief does not raise the theoretical interpretations you cite to the level of proven reality.

And note in your own quote,

"If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies".​

Einstein qualified the above with the first part in black bold, "If the theory corresponds to the facts,.... That first would is very important!

Then pay attention to the second red bold portion, "radiation conveys inertia, where he uses the word inertia not inertial mass. The inertial energy of the photon only becomes mass as it is absorbed by an atom!

The authors of the paper you linked made the same mistake of not qualifying their belief with an IF and then confusing the concepts of inertia with inertial mass. Not a problem when dealing with massive objects, but a subtle distinction when dealing with EM radiation..., light!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Not really. It's a bit like falling asleep. Or freezing to death. You don't know about it.

Then it is an event without a cause and a violation of causality.

No, and none is needed. As gravitational time dilation goes infinite the speed of light goes to zero. You can't see that. Light has stopped.

No, it doesn't stop. That's why I was asking the question. You yourself acknowledge that the graph is undefined at the event horizon and the infalling observer is never observed to freeze by the distant observer; he just keeps going slower and slower, forever. Your description is self-contradictory.

 

[Undefined]

Further if they were correct in their contention that photons possess inertial and gravitational mass, it would have to follow that photons interact gravitationally with each other. This is not consistent with current theoretical consensus and at present there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

My bolding above.

OnlyMe, that is also the contention lately of CaptBork. So perhaps you two should agree on one 'story' to use in your attempted refutations of Farsight's observations? Just a suggestion.

And perhhaps the reason we do not observe SINGLE photons interact gravitationally is that their speed of propagation MATCHES that of their gravity effects?

So perhaps they have no 'gravity interacting dwell time' available before they pass each other with their gravitational well 'pattern' trailing behind them?

IIRC, mainstream scientists have discussed where a concentrated laser beam of maximum intensity possible would 'attracted towards each other gravitationally'? Since although the individual photons do not have time to dwell against any other 'passing' individual photon, if the photon STREAMS are parallel for long enough then the photons collective stream gravity linear profiles would interact over the length of the beams long enough to establish a feedback between the BEAM gravity effects collectively?

Just a point to consider.

Anyhow, I'll leave it to you and CaptBork to settle between you which 'story' you wish to use for your discussion with Farsight. Cheers!

Back in a few days to see.

 

[CptBork]

OnlyMe, that is also the contention lately of CaptBork. So perhaps you two should agree on one 'story' to use in your attempted refutations of Farsight's observations? Just a suggestion.

I really don't appreciate having my own arguments mistranslated and taken out of context. I said photons produce their own gravity just like matter does. Any energy contributions appearing in the stress-energy tensor will do that. I never said photons possess an inertial or gravitational mass.

 

[Write4U]

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?

While the photon has no (recognized) rest mass, it adds and subtracts from the mass of an atom during absorption and emission. Why would it be different for a black hole?

Because your question implies that photons keep moving (remain energetic) at SOL inside a BH. I doubt that very much.

What is the difference between photon and electron?

• Photon is a packet of energy while electron is a mass.

• The photon does not have a rest mass but an electron has a rest mass.

• The photon can go at the speed of light, but for an electron, it is theoretically impossible to obtain the speed of light.

• The photon displays more wave properties whereas the electron displays more particle properties.

Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-photon-and-vs-electron/#ixzz2wwOivzmW

As long as a photon is in motion it acts as if it has mass. But always (and only) at "c". If a photon can be made to slow down, it must lose (shed) kinetic energy, until at rest it no longer has any mass at all and has lost all its energy and becomes pure potential. (IMO, that would agree with the Bohm model)

But in a black hole nothing moves. I doubt that any light (photons) falling into a BH adds to its mass. They may add energy as long as they are in motion, perhaps the Hawking radiation is the result of photons losing (shedding) energy as they are slowed down inside the BH?

Just musing, but tying the inability of light to escape the gravity of a black hole to adding mass to the BH seems improbable to me.

 

[Undefined]

I really don't appreciate having my own arguments mistranslated and taken out of context. I said photons produce their own gravity just like matter does. Any energy contributions appearing in the stress-energy tensor will do that. I never said photons possess an inertial or gravitational mass.

That was the explicit implication from OnlyMe statement that:

their contention that photons possess inertial and gravitational mass, it would have to follow that photons interact gravitationally with each other.

Both of you can't have it both ways. Either 'inertial and gravitational mass' would mean they interact gravitationally with each other. Or they wouldn't because they have no 'inertial gravitational mass'.

Which is it about that that you two seem to agree/disagree about?

Can you two be more clear as to what you mean when you use these terms, so that there is no possibility for misunderstandings about usage/intent/terms?

Thanks.

 

[CptBork]

Just musing, but tying the inability of light to escape the gravity of a black hole to adding mass to the BH seems improbable to me.

Well this all comes down to the fact that matter and energy are two manifestations of the same quantity. The "mass" of an object is really just the energy it would be seen to possess in reference frames where it has zero net momentum, divided by the speed of light squared.

 

[CptBork]

That was the explicit implication from OnlyMe statement that:

Both of you can't have it both ways. Either 'inertial and gravitational mass' would mean they interact gravitationally with each other. Or they wouldn't because they have no 'inertial gravitational mass'.

I can't speak for OnlyMe, but I can tell you that photons have no inertial mass, nor is inertial mass required in order for something to gravitationally attract or be attracted. If photons couldn't attract things gravitationally, then a photon arcing around a star would violate momentum conservation.

 

[Undefined]

I can't speak for OnlyMe, but I can tell you that photons have no inertial mass, nor is inertial mass required in order for something to gravitationally attract or be attracted. If photons couldn't attract things gravitationally, then a photon arcing around a star would violate momentum conservation.

Thanks for your prompt clarification, CaptBork. I will catch up with OnlyMe's clarification when I return (unless he too is going to answer soon). Cheers!

 

[Write4U]

Well this all comes down to the fact that matter and energy are two manifestations of the same quantity. The "mass" of an object is really just the energy it would be seen to possess in reference frames where it has zero net momentum, divided by the speed of light squared.

I agree and that is what prompted my question. It is almost a circular (it is a duality) to say that mass, motion and energy are three aspects of the same phenomenon. When this system is disturbed, things happen. Losing momentum loses energy, losing mass loses energy, losing energy loses mass, losing mass loses momentum, and 'round we go. They are just different ways of measuring.
A photon at (forced) rest has no energy and therfore no mass. It has a lot of potential, but that is a meta-physical state. The photon itself ceases to exist and spreads out into the potential field.

E = Mc^2 is a potential. It is a property of everything, but things dont' just burst into energy (unless under the right circumstance) IMHO this is why at the singularity of a BH everything is converted back to a zero state of pure potential............waiting!

I believe it is already being proposed that 1 cubic cm of space contains an enormous amount of power. What is this black stuff that scientists talk about? Matter? Waves? Energy? Gravity? Are we at the edge of a cosmic BH unable to see forward enough in and unable to see backward far enough out?

 

[OnlyMe]

That was the explicit implication from OnlyMe statement that:



Both of you can't have it both ways. Either 'inertial and gravitational mass' would mean they interact gravitationally with each other. Or they wouldn't because they have no 'inertial gravitational mass'.

Which is it about that that you two seem to agree/disagree about?

Can you two be more clear as to what you mean when you use these terms, so that there is no possibility for misunderstandings about usage/intent/terms?

Thanks.

I try to quote every post I respond to. Follow the quotes back and you will find the paper I was referring to, Light is Heavy. The authors of that paper are the "they" I was referring to and specifically their conclusions. I believe it was Farsight who provided the original link.

Read the paper then re-read my comments.

 

[OnlyMe]

Because your question implies that photons keep moving (remain energetic) at SOL inside a BH. I doubt that very much.

How do you arrive at this interpretation or conclusion?

I was implying that a photon does not add to the mass of a black hole until it interacts at a quantum level.., at which time it is no longer moving!.... And is no longer a photon!

That is why I referenced, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?, where Einstein addressed the issue, of a photon's energy adding mass to a system, though he was not talking about black holes at the time.

It is current popular consensus that photons have no rest mass, but they do convey momentum... And that a photon's energy content contributes to the total energy content of an atom when it is absorbed.., which adds to the rest mass of the atom.

I did not imply anything about a photon moving inside a black hole. In a more literal sense I was saying that photons don't contribute to an object's rest mass, as photons. Only once their energy has been incorporated at a quantum level, as in absorbed, does it contribute to the object's rest and gravitational mass. And at that point it is no longer a photon.