The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Nothing in your quote says anything about a photon having a gravitational field or any active gravitational mass.
Do you understand what the word in bold above adds to the overall context of your statement? You seem to have some difficulty understanding the difference between what we believe to be and what we know to be.., between theory and reality.
I have no real issue with GR. I do understand it remains a theory.
It has been a while since I read that paper and when I looked it up in my own digital library, it is one of many that I lost notes and comments on, during a reinstall from backup a while back, so I will wait to make any associated comment.
When I was a bit younger I would have just remembered, because when I was younger I never forgot anything I read. But that is no longer the case. Sometimes I don't even remember what I read yesterday. But in the case of these discussions that may be more a comment on how important the discussions are.
Edit; delete "is", should read, "I do understand it remains a theory... And change "do" to "don't", should read, "Sometimes I don't even ...".
Last edited:
Reply to the OP:
No. According to this graph, if you fall from outside the event horizon, you never reach the horizon (in the (r,t) coordinates). You go to the "end of time" but not back. The thing is: t is a good coordinate for measuring time far from the event horizon, but a lousy one for measuring it at the horizon. If you look at the proper time of an infalling observer, they will hit r=0 in a finite amount of time.
This is all in Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, but you haven't read that, have you?
See the picture below?
Image credit: W H Freeman, publishers
My mate Jesse put it up on the internet. It’s a screenshot from Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, the “bible” of gravitation. It depicts Schwarzschild coordinates for a body falling into a black hole. See the dashed line up the middle? That’s the event horizon. See how to the right of it the curve goes up? Do you know where that’s headed? It’s headed to the end of time. Only it’s cut off vertically, and then it comes back down. Yes, according to MTW if you fall into a black hole, you go to the end of time and back in no time flat.
No. According to this graph, if you fall from outside the event horizon, you never reach the horizon (in the (r,t) coordinates). You go to the "end of time" but not back. The thing is: t is a good coordinate for measuring time far from the event horizon, but a lousy one for measuring it at the horizon. If you look at the proper time of an infalling observer, they will hit r=0 in a finite amount of time.
This is all in Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, but you haven't read that, have you?
Not sure I agree here, James. 't' is the remote time, and it's clear that t and r are not one-to-one in this graph. Technically, in these coordinates, the infaller can be at two places at once (in addition to travelling to the infinite future and back in the blink of an eye, just like Farsight suggested).
RJBeery
Both of these assertions are simply wrong, the trip into the infinite future of the outside Universe is one way, the Universe see's your time as being zero at the horizon, you go on a rapid trip to the end of time from your own perspective. You don't come back because your past no longer exists to come back to. No one knows or understands what happens within the EH, I suspect a wormhole to the Big Bang is in every BH, but that's just a guess.
Grumpy
Both of these assertions are simply wrong, the trip into the infinite future of the outside Universe is one way, the Universe see's your time as being zero at the horizon, you go on a rapid trip to the end of time from your own perspective. You don't come back because your past no longer exists to come back to. No one knows or understands what happens within the EH, I suspect a wormhole to the Big Bang is in every BH, but that's just a guess.
Grumpy
This boils down to FoR's and how each represents reality in that frame.
James put it more complicated then I would.
I say from an outside [distant] FoR, no infaller is ever seen to cross the EH, just gradually redshifted to infinity.
From the local frame, the infaller crosses the EH with no observable anomalies or discrepencies in his own FoR....Ignoring tidal gravitational effects whose criticality anyway depend on the size of the BH.
Yes it is. All FoR's are as valid as any other...FACT:
Clocks are not seen to stop in any FoR....From the local FoR, they tick as per normal...From a distant FoR, they slow, but are never quite seen to stop.
Yes, this is the position of Farsight and Farsight alone, it is Farsight-General-Relativity: Einstein was wrong and it turns out that only one set of coordinates is correct, the one that Farsight likes but can't use to do physics.
But when your clock is stopped and you are too, you don't have a frame of reference. You're a popsicle. Like the gedanken observer moving through space at c. He doesn't see everything around him as normal. He doesn't see anything. He can't because "in his frame" his light-clock doesn't tick, light from it does not move to his eye, and electrochemical signals do not move in his brain.
You fail logic. In the local FoR of the person and his clock falling in, the clock ticks as per normal, crosses the EH as per normal, and reaches the Singularity in a finite but small amount of time.
From a distant FoR, the clock falling in, is slowed and redshifted to infinity. Nothing is seen to cross and/or stop, including the clock, just redshifted to infinity.
If you have an alternative to the accepted view, take it to the proper forum for peer review by the forum.
The "No Drama" hypothesis, as I recall.
Sorry, but ideas that you have developed with your 'Wiki Degree' in physics does not trump physicist that recieved their degrees at universities.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It just occurred to me that if quantum itserlf stops inside BH we would end up with 1/2 phsical reality and 1/2 in a state of "becoming eality" (quantum suspension?), or in the case of falling into a BH, things become less real and slower in motion until we have a ghostlike conditions, filled with "potentials", made latent or "frozen" by the enormous gravitational forces (Bohm's Implicate]. E=Mc2 is a Universal Potential
Huh? It isn't my idea. You haven't even read the OP where I referred to http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm where Kevin Brown refers to the "frozen star" interpretation. That's what black holes were described as in Oppenheimer's time. So as ever, you show yourself up to be an ignorant naysayer troll who knows no physics.
As above. No wonder this forum is dying.origin said:
No kidding, can you believe that people here are more interested in real physics instead the psedo-science stuff made up by uneducated individuals with over inflated egos? Go figure...
Tut tut tut...Sticks and stones and all that.
Well let this lowly layman tell you something.
What you, claim re BH's is wrong...w-r-o-n-g, got it?
The frozen star/Dark star interpretation is not the accepted mainstream interpretation based on GR.
And if Kevin Brown is claiming absolute validity of the frozen start interpretation, he is also most probably wrong, w-r-o-n-g, got it?
With your inane remark about the forum dying, that's just more hogwash.
The problem with the forum is the actions of "would be's if they could be's" "self inflated egos" and those deluded enough to think they have a valid ToE, posting in P+M and the Cosmology sciences, to attempt to gain some respectability.
That mostly now, has been rectified, so I say to you my friend, if you are proposing anything other than mainstream accepted science, take it to the appropriate forum.
Proper time is the time measured between events that happen at the same location in a particular reference frame. Clearly, the proper time in this example is the time as measured by the infalling observer, measured by coordinate tau, not t.
Nobody's clock stops in this scenario.