Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 Poor

About muruep00

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, I totally agree. You may ask Markus if he also agrees in the fact that current model for black hole interior is speculative Question now is, how can a scientific approach handle this problem? Well, I think proposing consistent alternatives have to be done, to begin with. And one of my main question in this post is, why has anybody worked out an alternative interior to black holes just using GR? And I dont refer to the models beyond the singularity, which may be regarded as interior models as well, but alternatives to the problem GR faces inside, the singularity. We could do that instead of waiting for a 100 years stuck on the belief that quantum gravity theory should solve the speculative singularity. To the not: You said it better than me.
  2. For the time now, we cant, in the actual model of black holes and in mine. Well, I believe the actual model is more religion-related. Mine is just a proposal, nothing more, a hypothesis to be simulated. Nowadays model is not even proved right, and everybody believes in it.
  3. It was just a curiosity, I quote Bonnor: http://www.januscosmologicalmodel.com/pdf/bonnor1989.pdf Chemistry might be a very interesting subject in this universe. Moreover, positive atoms would attract each other, and so 3 Coulomb's law is unaltered, in particular, in sign. would negative atoms. In this way large condensations, each with a positive or negative charge, could form. In fact, charge would take the place of gravitational mass in the formation of large bodies. Although there would be no neutral planets orbiting stars under the force of gravitation, there could be charged planetary systems. Intelligent life in such a universe could not be ruled out.
  4. To whoever goes inside and perfomes the experiment willing to know what lies inside a black hole. I was saying that the black hole interior isnt something that is beyond the scientific method because it is impossible to observe. Some physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder think that this issue takes places with the Multiverse interpretation. But interior of black holes certainly are objects of study and application of the scientific method.
  5. I just wanted to point out that you can also be the one perfoming the experiment and proving whatever lies inside an event horizon yourself. Ghideon only talked about probes, which of course would need to send that info out so that a physicist can interpret the experiment done inside.
  6. If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out? This is again speculation on a speculative idea, but supermassive black holes might even be a habitable place, although no planets could be created with repulsive gravity, unless some electromagnetic interaction holds them up. I get your point, but I think the fact that no direct observation can be made for now, is something we encounter every day in QM. Can you measure directly the wave function of a particle? No, you just believe that there is a wave function when you do not collapse it because the model that we have that describes better the direct observations we can make in the quantum scale require them! That is an indirect observation pointing out the existance of something unobservable, just like the one I proposed in my first post. Your skepticism about the fact that I use negative matter that can be directly seen, can be compared with skepticism about the fact that QM requires the assumption of unobservable wave functions for particles, which must exist when you dont measure and collapse them (this I far as I understand QM).
  7. Thank you for your advice joigus. I will keep learning in order to deeply understand GR, at least to the point where I can defend my idea (or new ones, maybe). For the time, im not planning to study QFT. I think you took that picture from Gerardt Hooft's website: https://www.goodtheorist.science/ It is a nice work of his, that I know of. greetings I think you cant develop a consistent model which gives the same predictions as mine with the physics that we know about (GR & QM without quantum gravity). You may even see that my model is very constrained. I agree in almost everything. I think you underestimate indirect observations & numerical simulations regarding my model, but let me make a point clear: You cant define an hypothesis to be unscientific just because our limitations of technology. That is, my model can be perfectly proved by going inside a black hole, its not methaphysics, its the real world. For now, our techonology is not capable to send a probe into a black hole. But the hypothesis is scientific, it is just that were are limited techonologically at the moment. It is like telling Einstein that gravitational waves cannot be proved to exist, just because they are very difficult to observe. And 100 years ago, even Einstein himself did not think they would be measured in the future. But we do measure them now. To put it simple, unscientific ideas have nothing to do with the limtations of techonology. It is a question of whether they can be proved or not, today or tomorrow. If my model stated that you cannot enter a black hole (just a silly example), then that model would be unscientific, because no matter which technology you have, if you cant go inside you cant prove it at a high level of certainty, never. But anyway, leaving this point appart. I believe numerical simulations, if carried out leaving little or non room for mistakes, and the predictions of my model matched precisely the observations that we currently cant explain, at least, it would be reasonable to consider my model as viable as the nowadays model (Markus model). Because I remind you that the actual model of the inside of a black hole, is not proved to be correct. What you are telling me, I already know and Im already aware (in fact I like a lot the philosophy behind science). Unfortunately, black holes may be one of these objects, together with matter that seems to not interact with light, that set the biggest challenges in proving them right. Thank you Ghideon
  8. Im not sure I follow, as I have not studied QFT. Thank you for the formulas. I've watch that Sidney Coleman video and I understand that in his example, he is treating a time transformation as the reversal of a process. The question again, as I have stated before is, have we really observe something moving backwards in the time dimension? The answer is, no, that is why time transformations are defined anti-unitary arbitrarely. The only reason Weinberg rejects it being unitary, is the fact that it would imply negative energies. I dont think that if you could reverse time in GR, a process would run blackwards. Time in GR is a dimension, "similar" to a spatial direction. I can move up or down, and say hello when going up, and say hello again going down, without having that process reversed. Im always talking about time transformations as moving in the other direction as usual in the time dimension, not reversing processes. If treated as a dimension, positive and negative time is not the difference between a process and the reverse process. I understand that if you are limited to positive time, then yes, it is related to the motion of a test particle in a gravitational system through geodesics as you said. But you cant reverse time in GR, since GR is built prohibiting those transformations. As we discussed before, I would have to extend GR for that. Anyway, Markus pointed out that exotic matter cannot be explained by the Standard Model. I understand that considering time transformation unitary does not agree with QFT, although you can work out the math in the Dirac equation and in Lorentz transformations, and both agree on the result. Perhaps somebody could work out the math for QFT, but that is not going to be me. I know a bit of classical mechanics, I am a mechanical engineer. True, I already knew that.
  9. Alright, but that is another question! You were arguing that the fact that I use negative energies which are hidden behind an event horizon looked suspicious. If you let me make use of the example I talked about before, with virtual particles, these have indirect effects that can be observed (cassimir effect). With black holes and for no quantum approaches, the observables are very few: size (dependent of mass), spin, or charge. Curiously, one of these, when observed, does not match the prediction of GR when combined with accretion and merging estimations. One may argue that the estimations are wrong (MigL did), and interior model we use for black holes with GR is right, but supermassive black holes are way too big for our estimations to be wrong (the would be very, very, very wrong). Others have proposed eternal primordial black holes, and I propose my model. In my model, no information escapes the black hole, that is forbidden, but the event horizon grows, which is something that we know already happens by other mechanisms such as accretion. And it can be observed. Spin may also tell a lot about how black holes grew, but I have not study the consequences of my model for spin of black holes and actual observations (spin is difficult to estimate in supermassive black holes, because it can change due to the "sense" of the spin of accretion matter or other black holes that merge, and no body knows about the spin these had during the life of a supermassive black hole). I dont know where do you want to go with this question, since we arrive at the same discussion we had earlier about whether if my model is the only one consistent just using GR, or that many others can be built whose predictions are the same, so even if my models' prediction matched actual observations, one would not be sure whether if my model is the one that is correct (your argument). And who knows, as far as I know, hawking radiation is independent of what lies inside the black hole, but perhaps it depends somehow of it (it certainly changes the mechanism by which it reduces the mass of the black hole inside, since that implies a negative energy flux in words of Hawking, and in my model, they can only be negative energy fluxes inside the black hole), and my model would change that hawking radiation (for instance, maybe it implies that it does not exist), giving you another way to prove it. But this is speculation about my speculative model... Im just saying that I might be missing a better way to prove it myself.
  10. You can observe it, just go inside a black hole and perform an internal gravitational experiment. Im sorry that we dont have a black hole near us, but in principle yes, it is possible to go inside, so it is not hidden. If it were non-observable, nor directly or indirectly, that would not be science (i guess it would be methaphysics). Take for instance virtual particles again, you cannot observe them (perhaps because god made them to live very short lifes ), but you may argue that they exist due to observable experiments such as the Cassimir effect.
  11. Hi joigus, I dont understand what do you mean with BHs ejected into intergalactic void. I guess they exist, or they could exist. Sure there wont be accretion in that case. But my model of inflation at the inside does not need accretion, a black hole always has matter inside, the matter belonging to the original star that collapses (I assume Schwarzschild black holes, either macroscopic vacuum black holes or eternal black holes do not exist). So inflation would always take place, whether if it happens only because of the mass inside from the original star, or that one plus accretion plus black hole merging. I never said that they didnt. Im just saying that any eternal growth mechanism for black hole, even if it slows down in time, counteracts hawking radiation, because this one is very very small. I guess Hawking radiation occurs, although we are not 100% sure since we havent observe it. Yes, in other words, im redifyning what a time transformation is. Just like somebody did for the Dirac equation as I showed in other paper. The question is, ¿how do we know time transformations are anti-unitary? ¿Has somebody ever observe one? I believe not, you may have observed irreversible processes like: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1742.pdf which may break time process symmetry, but no time transformations where times goes backwards. I dont know about QFT. I only know what Weinberg stated, that the only reason time was defined anti-unitary, is because if unitary, "for any state of energy there would be another state of energy with negative energy". The only consequence this unitary time inversion has in the Dirac equation is that negative energies imply negative masses. If you agree the prediction of negative masses being repulsive between each other of GR, then the only physical change that a unitary time transformation does in a particle is that it changes to behave antigravitationally for other particles with negative energy and mass. (I might make a point here, which is that the time transformation in my model may also occur together with a parity transformation, because when you redefine time as unitary, Tp(T^-1)=p , so it also changes the usual parity transformation that a time transformation is linked to). Because that is not what time in GR is about. You may use time to reverse processes in particle physics, but time in GR is a dimension. As I said, in my model, a time transformation only switches to antigravitational interactions. A particle that has fallen into a black hole, cannot trace its own particles` past, because that would mean escape the black hole from inside, which is not possible, so that proposal in your question is inconsistent. You can easily check that what is conserved is the absolute value of energy. I believe that is what GR accounts for, absolute values of energy. I guess since exotic matter and negative energy densities have been studied in many fields of GR, even in models where they interact with positive energies, that jump does not violate energy conservation. QFT might be different, but since particles of E and -E never interact between each other in my model, the notion of E being twice -E is not relevant. There is no first I have E energy, then Zero energy, and finally -E energy, it has to be an instant switch. I agree.
  12. Hawking radiation is an shrinking mechanism, a very VERY slow one. If you propose a non-ending mechanism of growth (accretion and merging eventually end), this one would counteract hawking radiation. It not a remnant as described in the remnant solution to information paradox, but in my model, black holes do not evaporate, because they never stop growing, and at the end, there is always what you might call a remnant. But really I havent worked out in my model whether the information paradox is solved. As you are saying below, we dont even know if hawking radiation actually occurs. This is something secondary for me. Oh yes, in my model, negative energies only appear under a time transformation, and time transformations only can occur at event horizons, because no body as ever seen a time transformation (the time transformation of the Lorentz group). Moreover, having negative energies in the same causal spacetime as positive ones, result in paradoxes, in which you could build perpetual motion machines. That is solved when you divide for negative and positive energy spacetimes by an event horizon, which switches from positive to negative.
  13. Hi Ghideo, First, Im happy that you are willing to do some research related to my idea. References of that paper are also interesting, if you want to go further. Second, it is not difficult to guess that its my paper, since my username is my email address in it . I wrote that this idea was not published because I did not want to post my paper here, and I just wanted to comment on the ideas in a conceptual way. The quality of the paper is bad, and I have been re-writting it this summer, I think there are some things which demand a correction, and others can be better explained and further mathematically justified, that is why before sharing my idea here as a preprint, I want to finish it first. At the end (and now that my identity has been revealed), Im just a recent and young graduate in engineering, and my knowledge in modern physics is very limited (I study independently GR). As you pointed out, the publisher is not as good as one may want it to be, its a q4 journal, and I would like to publish in a better journal (just because I think my idea is worth it, I do not want to become a researcher).
  14. Thank you for that extensive explanation. I see what you wanted to point out, but I dont think MigL was referring to that. My question is, if black holes do not evaporate, does the material entering a black hole (pure state) have to be transformed into the mixed state of hawking radiation, if this last one exists? Because my idea implies that a "remnant" always remains, probably with all the information, and that is one solution to the information paradox. btw: my time transformation idea at the event horizon has nothing to do with this time reversal
  15. Welcome back. I quote MigL regarding my explanation of black hole information paradox: I just copied the explanation of the information paradox from Sabine Hossenfelder, you can check it here: Now, following with my idea again, and answering joigus, it is clear that if you propose a new mechanism of growth for black holes, no matter how slow it is after plenty of time (as long as I does not stop), evaporation does not take place, thus, solving black hole information paradox.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.