Q-reeus

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

About Q-reeus

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. No thanks for being so damn lazy in not pointing to relevant passages. That likely strategy - hoping I would bog down in the withering math, has backfired on you. Check out p202 2nd para. The heuristic summary there directly contradicts your own stated non-standard position - as I have pointed out now several times. You can keep asserting otherwise if you wish, but your earlier post forms a permanent record that hopefully not even here at SFN would mods stoop to conveniently back edit. As for the goading opportunist laughably elevated recently to title 'scientist', I continue to bite tongue re point-by-point responses, in deference to StringJunky's advice given elsewhere.
  2. I doubt you believe what you wrote there, but sadly, others here may swallow it. Again - that link to a reputable article backing your non-standard take on HR process?
  3. Distort on, it's evidently a sacred tradition here at SFN. And btw, how about showing some personal integrity and finally owning up to your clear error as per: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118740-black-hole-why-do-we-believe-that-matter-could-be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101387 Since you like dishing it out, be prepared to receive some too. I don't like it's (unobservable) flat Minkowski background either - a point I made at the outset. But no GW's have NOT 'put a nail in it's coffin' and that author & co-author maintain the opposite is true. The matter has yet to be properly resolved - in no small part due to the ongoing failure of LIGO_Virgo consortium crowd to publicly engage on the controversy. Telling imo. And btw if you're up to it, I linked there to articles where detailed calculations backing Svidzinsky's claims (on GW polarizations) are there for you to scrutinize for any errors. Good luck. Refresh your memory, and try and sort the ubiquitous hype from reality re EHT images: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118686-first-real-black-hole-image-10-april-2019/?do=findComment&comment=1100700 See my above comment to Strange. In your case, a particular personal integrity issue relevant here is failure to defend your personal, non-standard scenario as per: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101508 Again - where is that link to a reputable article backing your personal notions of how it goes? How gracious of Your Majesty. But I'm not feeling gracious towards you. Consider NOT living up to your signature line for a change. As for instance your LYING here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101610 To cover up your contradictory claim (any virtual particle) further back here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101530 And need I remind you of my disgust at your self-serving BS over in that 'Particle in a Box' thread? One expects high standards of those wielding authority. In too many instances, like here at SFN, reality is a cold bucket of water to that one. Here's a simple formula few here will agree with - but at least it's easy to follow: SFN = Neo-Marxist overrun shithole. That should be good for more red (me) and green (righteously indignant hostiles) - with nothing in between. Have a nice day folks - and I really mean that btw.
  4. What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.
  5. Some real experts in QFT maintain virtual particles, vacuum or otherwise, are nothing more than mathematical artifacts, e.g.: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/ Regardless, you keep misconstruing things. We were supposed to be talking about generation of HR, which is notionally real quanta. If one, HR particle of a created pair is real, so must be the partner - the one going inside 'EH'. Symmetry principles/conservation laws. Your implied concoction of a real, outgoing HR particle plus a virtual, inward traveling particle - both supposedly created from a vacuum virtual pair. The distinguishing feature of a supposed gravitational EH is causal disconnection. Once trapped inside, it's impossible for anything to exit back out (barring perhaps conjectured QM tunneling events). A feature of GR not present in some other theories. Have you so readily forgotten that peer reviewed article on horizonless gravity theory by Anatoly Svidzinsky, that was the subject of my very first post at SFN? I'm sure you can find it readily. It's not the only one e.g. Yilmaz gravity. This is getting considerably off-topic. And I really do want to leave off this topic.
  6. You failed to note I made that clear in my very first post here. Or you have forgotten already? No point in challenging that kind of 'logic'. If you have a deep, constructive insight on HR to offer, that I would have regard for.
  7. I'll respond to just that question. I was hoping to get far enough into any ostensibly credible detail re 'negative energy inflow' to show it lacks self-consistency - from entirely within the GR HR framework. But with so much evasion and sniping, getting even that far proved beyond reach. Cheers.
  8. I made it real clear the issue was one of coherent detail, and that bookkeeping is merely an overall constraint that offers no coherent detail. Really? Because every particle pair creation process I'm aware of results in two real particles - never one real plus one virtual. Symmetry requirements! Straw man. I have never suggested otherwise. And to repeat, in all such experiments the created particles in all pairs are both real - never one real plus one virtual. While the math has a reputation for being notoriously difficult, an intelligible physical picture should emerge at the end. We have two standard picture givens - real photons aka HR given off, and a shrinking BH mass accordingly. Just how and what facilitates that shrinkage, in a consistent, believable manner, is what's been my central and unanswered question. Evidently no-one here has a comprehensive grasp of the detailed HR picture(s) Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist, the whole HR enterprise is thus imo an elaborate castle in the air. For that reason and above assessment of complete absence of expertise on standard HR theory at SFN, I will not pursue the matter further here.
  9. More ridiculous still is to attribute to me something I have never implied. Get your facts straight! Of course not. It's just that 'particles' typically conjures up the image of electron/positron pairs, whereas as I mentioned earlier in reality it's typically very low frequency/long wavelength photons that are notionally involved. Hence 'quanta' conveys that somewhat better. That picture is quite non-standard. In the standard picture, the hole mass decreases owing to negative energy quanta being swallowed. Link to a reputable article where the accounting picture has positive energy quanta being swallowed. I do agree with this much of your own version - logically there must be a pair of positive energy photons created owing to tidal g ripping apart of a virtual pair. But to then say the BH field just adjusts down it's mass to compensate is precisely the kind of vague hand-waving I pulled Swansont up on earlier. HOW could that 'BH mass downward adjusting' happen? See above - any analogy to financial ledgers is woefully inadequate.
  10. You also fail to answer my question. What exactly are the 'particles' or more specifically 'quanta' that get swallowed up? Vague hand-waving about 'the BH gives up some energy' just doesn't near cut it.
  11. What?! It's clear in HR picture that what escapes to 'infinity' is positive energy real photons. To balance the energy ledger, you *must* have something possessing 'negative energy' entering inside the BH EH. Again - what can those somethings be? See my reply to MigL
  12. Merely stating that the usual conservation laws must be respected is not enough. Detail matters. As I said I'm no expert but find the usual picture unsatisfying. Let me throw this back to you. What exactly is the 'negative energy' entity that enters inside the BH EH? Recalling my uncontroversial point photons are their own antiparticles.
  13. Too bad I never bothered to check out the political/ideological sections of this site before participating. I now have a good feel for what's really behind the unceasing negative reactions that are without rational, objective basis. And yes, I do understand that just saying that much will likely invite further hostile reactions!
  14. Good question, and one many ask. For a typical stellar mass range BH, the 'particle-antiparticle pairs' will not be say electron-positron, but overwhelmingly just very low frequency photons. Now it's a fact that a photon is it's own antiparticle. Which sort of makes it very hard how to see one can be assigned positive energy, while the other, nominally identical member somehow carries negative energy! Best I can tell, and I'm definitely no expert here, this is gotten around by imo a very dubious 'trick'. We start with the standard Planck definition E = hv, where v is the frequency of a given photon in some static frame just outside the EH. By assigning a local coordinate system, we then define 'positive frequencies' to propagation in say the radial outward direction, and 'negative frequencies' to inward radial propagation. Which is formally ok for use in a say a waveguide setting any EE would be familiar with. But no such EE would take seriously the notion that waves propagating along say -z axis really possess 'negative energy' whereas only the +z propagating waves carry positive energy. Anyway, seems to me HR buffs actually make the formal assignment E = hv = negative for the locally assigned negative propagation sense i.e. inward radial motion. It's evidently additionally justified by formally equating negative frequency' with a 'positive frequency' particle i.e. photon, 'traveling backwards in time'. Somehow that strengthen the argument for 'negative energy', but I'm not clear how! Apart from the matter of whether an EH, which is necessary for this picture to give HR, exists, I find the above line(s) of reasoning, drastically oversimplifying perhaps, to be very suspect indeed.
  15. I try, but there is a need at times to defend against mischaracterizations etc. that if left unanswered can be construed as de facto admission of wrong/error. Still, the ongoing saga is probably riling others similarly so I will try and exercise more constraint as you have suggested. Cheers.