Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)

On Jun 24, 6:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 24, 4:59 pm, v...@xxxxxxx wrote:





On Jun 24, 2:34 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You live in a fantasy world filled with straw men.

Re:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

Only the world I live in believes the fantasy as described in the link
you posted. And they are almost always wrong. Consider the section:
"What about Hawking radiation? Won't the black hole evaporate before
you get there?"

The author fails to answer this question persuasively. His explanation
is muddled and deeply confused. He begins by saying, "No, it won't"
but then quickly contradicts himself:

Matt McIrvin -himself- stated that he wasn't sure of the answer
by starting with the following warning:
"First, a caveat: Not a lot is really understood about
evaporating black holes. The following is largely deduced from
information in Wald's GR text, but what really happens--
especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear.
So take the following with a grain of salt."

It doesn't matter if Hawking radiation physically exists or not
because the evaporation rate has nothing to do with my mathematical
argument. The question we are debating is if test particles sent by
observers ever pass through the event horizon of a black hole. You do
not understand my argument. I'm saying that if an observer sends a
high speed particle toward a black hole, where the evaporation of the
hole doesn't even begin for 10^1,000,000 years and takes
10^1,000,000,000,000 years to complete, then it can be easily
calculated that the test particle never entered the event horizon. My
point is put in arbitrarily large numbers, well beyond all hope of
empirical refutation. I am questioning the popular belief that matter
and energy is passing through the event horizon of countless black
holes on a daily basis. By use of the word "daily," I refer to time on
earth. I am claiming a purely mathematical rebuttal.

His FAQ on this topic was not intended to be taken as gospel, but
rather was his best take on the question based on his 1995 reading
of standard textbooks.

Neither -you- nor -I- are equipped with the mathematical tools to
address this question in any sort of definitive fashion.

I can't imagine why it would be difficult for a relativist to confirm
my reasoning with a formal mathematical proof. The metric for a
spherically symmetric spacetime with radiation evaporating off of an
event horizon should have a very simple form. To keep things as simple
as possible, let all the photons radiate only radially if you like.

The spherically symmetric spacetime is the Schwarzschild metric.

Sure, by Birkhoff's theorem, any spherically symmetric distribution of
matter, even in radial motion, leads to the Schwarzschild metric
exterior to the matter-energy distribution. But if a professional
relativist wants to argue that the radial energy flow would disturb an
infalling particle gravitationally and requires a special interior
solution, I'm willing to accept whatever metric the experts agree is
the right one.

You're saying the expert 'is the guy' who uses the bookkeeper time
coordinate to evaluate what happens at the event horizon?


There
are NO coordinates for the event horizon. Think about what that means
for evaluating events occuring at the horizon using the Schwarzschild
metric? Doesn't work and it leads to folks like you and the author of
this paper getting goofy results. The only way to evaluate phenomena
occuring at the event horizon is using a metric whose coordinates
exist at the horizon.

The only space of relevance to my argument and to the computations
that I have in mind is between the event horizon and the stationary
outside observer.

??


Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf





Certainly not -you-, who regularly displays the primary defining
qualities of a crackpot, ignorance combined with arrogance.

I believe that I'm fully justified in claiming that most physicists
misunderstand physics at the high school level. There are professional
physicists who have published similar comments:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/synchronization.htm

No doubt that you too are confused by my high school physics paper:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
But you are right to recognize the audacity of my claims.

"I think I've got the right idea, to do crazy things -- what other
people would consider crazy things. There's so much fun to be had."
- Richard P. Feynman.

Thirty-one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his
''sum over histories'' version of quantum mechanics. ''The
electron does anything it likes,'' he said. ''It just goes in
any direction at any speed, . . . however it likes, and then
you add up the amplitudes and it gives you the wavefunction.''
I said to him, ''You're crazy.'' But he wasn't.
- Freeman Dyson, 1980.

Your intuitive handwaving arguments on this question carry no weight.

You should let mathematicians decide on the validity of a logical
argument. I don't believe that you're qualified to judge. Obviously,
logic isn't powerful or even persuasive to a believer in myth.

It may happen that Krauss comes to the conclusion that, contrary to
the FAQ, a black hole will indeed evaporate before an infalling object
crosses the event horizon, but I will wait for a consensus to develop
on Krauss's paper before coming to any conclusions.

In other words, you know how to follow the herd but can't reason by
yourself.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

-Hide quoted text -





- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)
    ... Won't the black hole evaporate before ... especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear. ... It doesn't matter if Hawking radiation physically exists or not ... calculated that the test particle never entered the event horizon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)
    ... "What about Hawking radiation? ... Won't the black hole evaporate before ... especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear. ... calculated that the test particle never entered the event horizon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A simple thought experiment concerning Hawking radiation
    ... "What about Hawking radiation? ... will you see the black hole evaporate ... escaping light caused by proximity to the event horizon can only last as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)
    ... Won't the black hole evaporate before ... especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear. ... It doesn't matter if Hawking radiation physically exists or not ... calculated that the test particle never entered the event horizon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... This radiation does not come directly from the black ... Just outside the event horizon of a black hole, virtual particles may be ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)