The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong

The Trouble with Physic(ist)s is that they are Not Even Wrong

I have been thinking about this and earlier discussions and wondering
what to make of it all. How is it that otherwise intelligent
individuals can agree en masse upon something which, on the face of it,
is completely and utterly wrong?

We would like to find the metric outside of a static point particle.
Clearly, before we even start, we know that the solution metric, like
the problem itself, must be time-independent. Anyway, we start by
writing the general form for a spherically symmetric metric WITHOUT
imposing the requirement that the solution be static. Despite this, we
are still able to make a change of coordinates in which the solution
metric takes a static form.

We solve the Einstein field equations, and discover the usual exterior
Schwarzschild solution. Now, Mr Fuckwit, our resident self-proclaimed
GR 'expert', notices that the if we let r < 2m, we get another solution
of the field equations, even though it is non-static and does not
happen to fit the form of the metric we derived after applying our
coordinate transformations.

Any reasonably smart first year undergraduate Oxford physicist taking
his first course in mathematical methods would at this point politely
point out to Mr Fuckwit that the solution he has just 'discovered' does
not solve our problem as (a) it is not static, and (b)does not fit the
form of

the metric that we have just derived. In order not to upset Mr Fuckwit
too greatly, he might mention that Mr Fuckwit's metric may turn out to
be the solution to some, non-static problem, but certainly not the one
we are trying to solve. But also that Mr Fuckwit should take note that
his metric has a rather nasty singularity right in the middle of it, so
that the chances of it being the solution to any physically reasonable
problem are rather slim.

Anyway, we notice that an infalling particle appears to take an
infinite amount of time to reach the 'event horizon' at r = 2m, where
some of the metric components either vanishing or become divergent.
Unfortunately the infalling particle reaches the horizon in finite
proper time, so that it is not clear where it goes after this - so our
solution must be incomplete. Mr Fuckwit of course starts dribbling
profusely with excitement at this point, exclaiming proudly that the
exterior solution we have correctly derived must be patched onto his
own dubious interior solution so that the particle can continue falling
inwards.

We take a more rational approach and note that our initial formulation
of the problem was not sufficiently general to take into account all
possible solutions, which could be multivalued in r. Using the method
of Synge, we are able to derive the complete solution, containing both
exterior patches of the 'maximal' (sic) Kruskal extension. Mr Fuckwit
again jumps up with excitement, and proclaims vociferously that the
entire plane, including both the black and white hole interior
solutions must be included. We tell him once again to calm down, and
that the interior solutions are still non-static and are still not
valid solutions to our original problem. Indeed the only two valid
solutions are the two (static) exterior solutions, labelled I and II:
_
\ / /.\
\ / / . \
I \/ II ---> I( x )II
/\ \ . /
/ \ \./
/ \ -
Two (spatially superimposed) An infinite cone with regions I and
II
quadrants with light cones ---> patched along the EH (dotted line)
with
pointing upwards in region I lightcones rotating clockwise around
and downwards in region II. the cone. (We are looking down into
the
cone here - note that regions I and
II
are still spatially superimposed)

We note that the acceleration on a particle at the event horizon
diverges, so that something unusual must be happening at the event
horizon.

We also perform some calculations showing that the area of the horizon
is 16m^2, but that it is at distance zero from the central mass, which
must therefore be at (or, rather, just inside) the event horizon.
Noting that there is no curvature singularity at the horizon, and that
the infalling particle must go somewhere, we realise that the only
physically consistent scenario is that a particle beginning in region
I, which has light cones pointing upwards, must cross to the other side
of the 'wormhole' on reaching the horizon at which point it enters into
region II (which is spatially superimposed upon region I), but now
travelling backwards in time relative to region I, so that forward
light cones in region II point downwards. An observer in region I will
not see the particle travelling backwards in time in region II, but
rather an antiparticle travelling forwards in time, so that the whole
process looks like a particle-antiparticle annihilation event occuring
at the horizon asymptotically at time t = infinity. Of course the
particle in region II can in principle reach the event horizon again
and return to its original position in region I, resulting in the
possibility of closed timelike loops. We note however that this would
not imply any inconsistency in our picture, as this process would just
look like a pair creation and subsequent pair annihilation event at the
EH.

We infer that this is the correct picture of the spherically symmetric
solution outside of a pointlike mass. Of course we are too late as
bigmouth Mr Fuckwit has already convinced himself and his sheep-like
chums that he is right, and together they have made big profits on book
sales without even realising that they are in a state of perpetual and
irreversible mass self-delusion. To this day they take great pride in
explaining the virtues of their wonderful solution, singularities and
all, and in badmouthing all the 'crackpots' who reject their point of
view (as they like to call them for merely disagreeing with them as
they are so much smarter than the crackpots and so very certain that
they are right and everyone else is wrong). Of course the establishment
Fuckwits and their Sheep-like followers will never stoop to admit they
have actually gotten it all wrong, and that that has been the reason
that they have failed to make any significant progress in their
understanding of GR in the last 90 odd years. No black holes, no white
holes, just assholes. Yes, you know who you are.

.