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

On Jun 24, 7:15 pm, "Pmb" <som...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<v...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1182734263.058822.116820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





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?

Hi Bruce!!

Nice to see you posting again. I hope is well with you and yours?

Best regards

Hi Pete

Hope you are feeling well.

Bruce

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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: 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)
  • Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)
    ... "What about Hawking radiation? ... evaporating black holes. ... especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear. ... calculated that the test particle never entered the event horizon. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No more black holes? (To appear in Phys Rev D)
    ... evaporating black holes. ... 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)