Re: Do you believe in black holes?

Dear George Dishman:

On Oct 1, 8:40 am, George Dishman <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30 Sep, 21:10, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"GeorgeDishman" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q9-dnZsbjeIXkGDbnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"dlzc" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1190838331.936256.48420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 26, 8:37 am, GeorgeDishman<geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 26 Sep, 14:34, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"GeorgeDishman" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:1190792960.351724.200810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 25 Sep, 18:14,dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

... we are going pretty far afield ...

I think some of this, particulary what is meant by
"information", is fundamental to our understanding
of the paper.

...
Unless I am mistaken, the photons in thermal
radiation carry no information.

"Black body radiation" is information.

Not in the QM sense AFAIK, the emission is
random and does not carry information about
the source.

Heat transfer is to a body at its temperature. A
real body is or is not black, as far as absorption /
emission. Is temperature "information"?

No, in this context "information" is the quantum
numbers of the particles that entered the black
hole to provide it with its mass.

And how is it any different if the mass is located in
the "Coal Sack", speaking from QM? QM does not
care about "spacetime geometry", so I don't see
how being "within an event horizon" is any different.

I am losing why you think that is relevant to what
we are discussing. You said "'Black body radiation'
is information." but it does not contain information
in the QM sense regardless of the source of the
radiation.

OK. Let's forget the "black body" stuff.
How is mass located in the Coal Sack different from mass located in a
black hole, from any distance of 100 ly or more? We can't see
anything inside the Coal Sack either (barring improvement in
technology). Yes we can go there (eventually), but does quantum
mechanics "care" about either situation.

Whether the stuff from which it is emitted is
ordered or not makes no difference to the
radiation, thus thermal radiation from a
black but highly ordered crystal is
indistiguishable from thermal radiation from
any other source.

You will have a characteristic emission when a
particular bond is formed. Note that diamond only
emits at a handful of wavelengths, so would be
quite distinguishable.

No, thermal black body radiation is described by
Planck's Law and is independent of the material.

Sorry, no.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4630(19361202)157%3A892%3C579%3...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5883388.html

Diamond also only emits light near its bond energies.

Yes, the paper describes the spectra spcific to the
material which is nothing to do with black body
radiation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Read it again carefully. Diamond *can only initiate
photons near its bond energies*. Its emission is a
far cry from anything approaching a classical black
body curve.

Yes, and since we are discussing Hawking radiation
which _is_ black body, I pointed out that your
reference to diamond which is _not_ black body is
not IMHO relevant. Why do you want to bring diamond
into the conversation?

Because you made this statement, which I took exception to.
No, thermal black body radiation is described by
Planck's Law and is independent of the material.
.... and as you point out, it is now a moot point.

Hawking radiation is black body and AIUI that
means it is generated randomly and doesn't
carry any information in the quantum sense.

It is not worth discussing further, since
"temperature" =/= "information", at least as far as
keeping a mass from forming into a BH.

The standard "information loss problem" AIUI is that
mass falls into the hole carrying with it information.
The hole evaporates giving off only Hawking Radiation
which has a purely thermal spectrum thus carries _no_
information and hence the information is lost. That
is the background to the discussion.

The particles of which Hawking radiation is comprised is *not* limited
to photons. The "thermal energy" emission is inclusive of charged
(anti)particles, and collections of photons that are travelling non-
parallel have non-zero rest mass. From time-of-formation to time-of-
complete-evaporation, over that whole "event", I don't see that
information is lost.

GR starts with spacetime issuing
from mass/energy, and inertia being a property
of the Universe and expressed at each bit of
mass, but loses any sense of that in its
derivation. You apparently take that as meaning
that such has been disproven. What it really
means is that GR is entirely transparent to that
question.

GR says the metric is distorted by stress/energy,
not that it "issues from" it, but your are right
about inertia.

How are "the field" and "the Universe" different, in
your opinion George? Einstein said "the field"
was responsible for curvature.

I would have to see the context to see which "field"
he meant, I don't know the quote. It may be just a
question of terminology, I might be using "metric"
or perhaps the means the "field equations".

"Relativity. The Special and the General Theory",
Albert Einstein, translation by John Lawson,
copyright 1961. Appendix Five "Relativity and the
Problem of Space", the subsection "The Concept
of Space in the General Theory of Relativity", last
paragraph.
<QUOTE>
Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth
when he believe he must exclude the existence
of an empty space. The notion indeed appears
absurd, as long a physical reality is seen
exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the
idea of the field as the representative of reality,
in combination with the general principle of
relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes'
idea; there exists no space "empty of field".
<END QUOTE... any typos are mine>
Same appendix, subsection "The Field", 4th
paragraph
<QUOTE>
... In accordance with the historical
development of the field concept, where no
matter was available there could exist no
field. But in the first quarter of the nineteenth
it was shown the that phenomena of the
interference and motion of light could be
explained with astonishing clearness when
light was regarded as a wave-field,
completely analogous to the mechanical
vibration field in an elastic solid body. It was
thus felt necessary to intoduce a field, that
could also exist in "empty space" in the
absence of ponderable matter.
<END QUOTE... any typos are mine>
... further in this subsection, he mentions
"modifiers" to (or flavors of) the field theory...
Maxwell, aether.

Based on the balance of the text, I think the
field equations are descriptors of "the field".
But it is clear to me, "the field" is
fundamentally bonded to the "ponderable
matter" necessary to, for example, produce
diffraction.

Thanks for the detail. I read it in the opposite sense,
it says:

"It was thus felt necessary to intoduce a field, that
could also exist in "empty space" in the absence of
ponderable matter."

However, the references are primarily to the electric
and magnetic fields of Maxwell's equations.

It was stated as being the field equations of general relativity, in a
book about relativity, with a passing mention of Maxwell. Look at the
original quote in section 5, where he applies "field" to "space".

You asked me "How are 'the field' and 'the Universe'
different, in your opinion George?". If I put my hand
in front of a CRT, the hairs on the back of my hand
stand up due to the electric field. The universe is
everything to the limits of observability and beyond.

If the Sun is charged, will the hairs on your hand stand up *not at
all*? Likewise, for the Andromeda galaxy, or any distant point?
Because we have "difficulty" measuring a variance, does that mean
there isn't a connection?

You also said "Einstein said 'the field' was
responsible for curvature.". The equations say the
stress/energy tensor causes curvature but the
electric field is one possible source of energy.

.... and I am asking what is the source of "that which is curved". The
equations map their own "solution space", a connection we have crafted
to mimic reality. What is the name of that which the stress/energy
tensor models?

And we will continue to disagree. And it
cannot be experimentally disproven, since
there is no stretch of space that does not
have two bits of matter / energy either
propagating through it, or "staring" at each
other across it. Only in "models" is such
"pure" spacetime availaable.

The GR model is quite clear on the matter though,
ripples can progress through the metric without
the need for matter other than the source:

There you go again... "without the need". Maybe
English is just too imprecise.

I think it is quite precise, a single accelerating
mass can generate gravitational waves, a single test
mass at some distance will respond to those and there
is no _need_ for any other masses in between to
propagate the wave.

Is there a Universe that contains those two
masses-of-interest?

There is space, and IMHO "universe" is a term denoting
all of space and its contents of all forms.

So the interaction is couched in terms of "The Universe", and any
separation between "space" or "spacetime" and "contents" is purely
arbitrary... and cannot be experimentally disproven either way. So
"without the need" only applies to a single philosophy.

Just because we do not include them in our analyses,
"the field" contributions from every bit of matter in the
Universe are still present.

The electric field is an attribute of space, it is
not generated by mass. It can have it's value altered
by charge which we usually associate with mass since
the only massless particles, photons, carry no charge.

Do you think that (charge :. mass) is mere coincidence?

....
http://lisa.nasa.gov/WHATIS/grav-wave.html

If LISA detects the waves then the model is as
well proven as you get in science, the ISM is
particles at a very low density so there is a
lot of empty space between them that those waves
must have crossed.

The volume is not empty. The volume only contains
little if any matter.

The waves would propagate equally well if it
contained no matter whatsoever.

The volume is still framed by a Universe, which has a
field that "supports" or "underlies" this volume.
Otherwise, we could not establish a size.

I see no connection between the existence of a field
and the ability to measure distance.

Distance = c * time
Redshift = Hubble constant * time
Intensity = 1 / (c * time)^2
.... are you so sure of your lack of connection?

....
... is devoid of mention of the matter/energy that
the curvature issued from. As if *your
interpretation* were the only one that survives. I
don't agree, and I apologize for bringing it up.

GR is a set of equations, "interpretation" doesn't
come into it IMHO. It should be possible to look at
the model of a BH and say where an external
influence at some time originated, near but outside
the horizon or inside. My point is that the result of
that is only valid within GR, and GR only gives one
answer.

It give two different answers, apparently.One in
terms of its "founding principles", and (at least)
one in terms of the formalisms adopted to
produce quantifiable predictions.

First I heard of that, what are these "two different
answers" and what was the question? AFAIK
only the equations make any predictions.

Two different answers:
1) matter does it,
2) curvature does it.

Does what? Matter causes curvature, curvature
causes .... gravity?

Your side of the discussion has concentrated on the mathematics, and
what the mathematics says. Before you said the "stress/energy tensor"
caused curvature. If A causes B, and B causes C, does A cause C? It
seems to me it must. It seems to me that it comes down to a
difference of opinion. You feel that the field is separate from
matter/energy, and I don't. Since I am arguing from the position of a
Lorentz aetherist (in an entirely different argument), I will concede
that we cannot know. Will you also so concede (that the field may or
may not be separate from matter/energy)? I don't expect agreement...

David A. Smith

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you believe in black holes?
    ... And how is it any different if the mass is located in the "Coal ... You said "'Black body radiation' ... was responsible for curvature. ... absence of ponderable matter. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • THE BASIC PARTICLE OF THE UNIVERSE
    ... mass, this creates a curvilinear force, which is known as magnetism. ... establish that radiation has mass. ... Where f is that of the electron, ... radiation and matter. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • BASIC PARTICLE OF THE UNIVERSE
    ... mass, this creates a curvilinear force, which is known as magnetism. ... establish that radiation has mass. ... Where f is that of the electron, ... radiation and matter. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: wands of light + vampires (was Re: gremlins)
    ... just a matter of how much is the question: ... > radiation curve is a bell curve. ... Black body radiation has an upper limit on the frequency. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.nethack)
  • Re: What is bondi mass?
    ... Are you sure you don't mean ADM mass? ... gravitating system can lose energy via gravitational radiation. ... curvature tensor, the Coulomb terms familiar from Newtonian gravitation ...
    (sci.physics.research)