Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:03:48 GMT
LEJ Brouwer wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:The (unbounded) half-plane is a manifold, but it does not
make sense to consider it a model of a 2-d universe because
it is trivially extensible -- no physical process could
reasonably "cut" the full plane in half. LEJBrouwer wants to
_literally_ cut Schw. spacetime at the horizon and omit the
interior, without proposing any physical reason to do so.
Whereas what is usually done is that the 'white hole' solution (sectors
III and IV of the Kruskal extension) is discarded as unphysical,
No. It's just that we don't observe anything like it in the world we inhabit. (Actually we don't observe Schwarzschild black holes, either -- all are Kerr black holes).
although it has the interpretation of an antiparticle black hole,
No. You try to put words you do not understand together, and end up with word salad. It has the interpretation of a _white_ hole. <shrug>
You have not explained why it would be inconsistent to remove the
interior solutions (sectors II and III).
Omitting regions of a manifold by fiat is not physically reasonable.
Admittedly from the
perspective of the incoming particle, it smashes pretty hard against
the event horizon and gets bounced back out again,
Where do you get this fantasy? In fact, infalling timelike geodesics go right through the horizon and intersect the singularity at r=0.
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
- Next by Date: Re: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
- Next by thread: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
