Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2

From: Eric Gisse (jowr.pi_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: 4 Feb 2005 21:38:20 -0800

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Eric,
> > > Schwarzchild, Einstein, Weinberg, Bergmann, Lottinger and
> > > me Tucker, find BH's impossible. If astronomers can explain
> > > why those theoreticians are all wrong why haven't they.
> > > I happen to understand GR, it's possible we made a common
> > > error, what was it?
> > > Ken
> >
> > Schwarzschild? No way I will believe that without a citation.
> > Especially considering the rather...short...period between his
> > publishing of his solution and his untimely death in the trenches
of
> > WW1.
>
> I mispelled, Lottinger should be LOINGER.
> He has posted a translation of Schwarzchild's
> original work in arXiv. I usually have the
> paper handy but my temp office is a mess.
> A search will turn it up, we can discuss that
> if you want, instead of Bergmann's text.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0402/0402088.pdf

This appears to be the crux of his argument:

"The HDW-form is physically valid only for r > 2m, because within the
spatial surface r = 2m (a singular locus) the time co-ordinate takes
the role of the radial co-ordinate, and vice versa (and therefore ds2
loses its essential property of physical appropriateness) and the
solution becomes non-static."

It appears that he is saying beyond r = 2m the Schwarzchild solution [I
never heard it called HDW until today...*shrug*] is a physical one and
thus acceptable. I have always understood this to mean the coordinates
outside the event-horizon are time-like - moving along a geodesic
outside of r = 2m doesn't mean you are destined for anywhere [least of
all a singularity].

But when r < 2m, he appears to think it is a non-physical solution
because there is a transition from time-like to space-like coordinates
[time and space swap roles - moving forward in time within r = 2m means
you are moving in space].

His entire argument seems to be "r > 2m is physical, r < 2m is not
because the metric does funky things!". He does not address what
happens to a neutron star of say, 2 solar masses.

If, according to him, a black hole can NOT form there must be something
preventing a supermassive neutron star [by supermassive I mean a
neutron star that has a mass that is larger than the Chandreskahar
limit] from receding beyond its' own event horizon. He offers no
explanation, which does not satisfy me because the entire reason black
holes have any link to reality is through the death of a star.

I would think that with the amount of people who dislike black holes on
any level, he would find someone to publish him. The best he seems to
have is an endorsement for the arXiv, which concerns me.

Place two papers side by side and wipe your mind of the ability to
understand them. One is published ...somewhere... and the other sits on
the preprint server without being published. Which one will you trust,
even if the trust only goes as far as your ability to throw it?

>
> How are you at math and tensors?

The word undergrad comes to mind. Give me the PDE set that falls out of
Einstein's equations and I ...might... be able to tell you something,
but I can't tell you if you have derived them correctly.

I side with the majority opinion on black holes because it is the
majority opinion, and black holes fit a nice observed cosmic niche.

More to the point, I can't reproduce the derivation of any solution to
Einstein's equations except by rote. I don't like that but I can't do
anything about it for at least another year. [Math is hard, hurr]

BTW, Loinger's interpretation of Schwarzschild's that says black holes
do not exist is not the same thing as saying "black holes do not exist"
because there are other solutions of Einstein's field equations [Kerr
comes to mind] that yield a black hole. Nor is it the same thing as
saying that "Schwarzschild says black holes do not exist".

> Ken
> ...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Solaris 9 count the number of forks
    ... I consider it more stable than Studio 11. ... DDIR = amd64 ... No output written to sysstat ... Ahh - the configure script fails to pick up the static libncurses on ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: GR -> Black Holes Cant Form... Take 2
    ... >> publishing of his solution and his untimely death in the trenches ... happens to a neutron star of say, ... I would think that with the amount of people who dislike black holes on ... saying that "Schwarzschild says black holes do not exist". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Solaris 9 count the number of forks
    ... On May 22, 12:21 pm, Thomas Glanzmann ... Solaris _9_? ... this is the correct command: ... If that's a transactional load it ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Find a binary
    ... NOTICE: oracle, uid 4032: setuid execution not allowed, dev=f400019650 ... Kjetil T. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Why is this machine busy
    ... If you want to look at I/O, use iostat. ... tin tout kps tps serv kps tps serv kps tps serv kps tps serv us sy wt id ... of 4 Gbyte process isn't that cheap to copy, ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)