Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Q-reeus

  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.
  16. Are you a GR buff? If not, instead of boredom you should be able to learn something useful or at least be stimulated to check further, from my posts at least.
  17. Those words are your own assertion/concoction and a term such as 'the lie' is contextually and/or rhetorically interpreted and need not at all imply deliberate deceit. Even less 'a conspiracy'. 'Optical illusion' is however a lie in in the sense of it's asserted factual basis being wrong. Since you cannot challenge that yourself, either wait for someone(s) else here who may think they can - or e.g. do what you customarily do and email say Hamilton on this - hoping of course for a 'fail' being handed out to me.
  18. It's an easily established fact within GR that for a notionally inextensible string connecting two different radii both in a Schwarzschild metric exterior to any 'EH', there is an exact 1:1 correspondence in any measured radial displacement of the string, as determined at both radii. That is, there is no 'redshift' correction factor involved there. And as mentioned in a previous post, coordinate clock-rate and radial length scale both -> 0 as r -> R_s (Schwarzschild radius). Combining above, it follows that radial motion, determined by a stationary external observer, of a string tied to an in-faller, goes to zero exactly as said in-faller hits R_s. Which strangely ignored but easily determined thought experiment, gives the lie to the oft repeated 'optical illusion' claim. The in-faller 'really stops cold' at EH as directly measured by string motion at external observer. Caveat GR is correct.
  19. Not so. See for instance the typical but not universal-within-GR-community claim of 'freezing at EH is just an optical illusion' made in article I first linked to here: https://www1.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q11 (last line, 2nd para under "Will an observer falling into a black hole be able to witness all future events in the universe outside the black hole?") I made no mention of that bit back then as the key point was there dispelling the faulty position of some that only gravitational redshift inversely determined in-faller's view of outside universe. That same 'optical illusion' claim is often trotted out by a number of GR buffs at e.g. PhysicsForums - and it's plain wrong.
  20. Recall that Strange made an unqualified "(the rest of the universe would look increasingly blue-shifted)", which is wrong. That's what I responded to. Sure within BH in-fall scenario an in-faller will encounter a mix of transverse and radial light ray components. The former becomes an increasingly minute contribution as in-fall proceeds to small r, since only the radial component of photon momenta get gravitationally boosted as in-fall proceeds. Taking as a given the formal GR calcs of Hamilton are indeed valid, it's (sort of) obvious from his color coded movie that for the vast majority of in-fall, redshift entirely dominates. And btw the reason all that is moot is that even assuming GR as Truth, contrary to many claims, it's no 'optical illusion' that the in-faller freezes at the EH - as seen from outside. The logical consequence of having coordinate c -> 0 at 'EH' is that from in-faller's 'stopped coordinate-time clock' pov the entire rest of universe is infinitely old at the moment he/she hits the 'EH'.
  21. Why do you evade my clear and perfectly reasonable questions? That disjoint and vacuous line doesn't even attempt to address them. Similarly for what follows there. The implication is obvious - you cannot provide straight and meaningful answers to my questions. Let's see how Strange fares. See above.
  22. https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/singularity.html#distortion Image distortion inside the black hole At 0.35 Schwarzschild radii. Compare this view to the unconventional view you would see if the Schwarzschild surface were attached to another Universe via a wormhole. Images are being distorted by two effects: a tidal distortion from the gravity of the black hole, and a special relativistic beaming from our near light speed motion. Just as the tidal distortion redshifts images from above and below, and blueshifts them about your middle, so also it tends to repel images from above and below, and concentrate them about your middle. At first, images appear distorted into a kidney shape. As the distortion grows, images become stretched and squashed into a doughnut shape about your waist. Our near light speed motion concentrates our view ahead, by special relativistic beaming. Relative to observers freely falling radially from rest at infinity, our velocity increases towards the speed of light: the relativistic Lorentz gamma factor at radius rr is 1+2rs/r1+2rs/r. The distortions grow At 0.01 Schwarzschild radii. The tidal force continues to concentrate our view into a ‘horizon’ shape, while our near light speed motion further concentrates the view ahead. The tidal force and our motion blueshifts photons from the outside world eventually to very high energies, which we would see as x and gamma rays. It's typical of you to hunt for a contrary finding and just cut & paste it without acknowledging it represents conflicting opinions among assumed GR experts, or explaining your own pov and giving detailed reasoning why. So which of those two conflicting positions do you support, and why exactly? And btw, there is a link from my 2nd linked ref: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/black-hole.104577/post-861282 , that gives detailed calculations for (notionally)you, or Strange, to follow. Feel free to 'spot the fatal error'. And note I made it clear in earlier post this is all reasoned on the assumption GR is true hence EH's actually exist. I don't believe in either, but nevertheless expect a better, horizonless theory will share to some degree some of those general tendencies.
  23. That in red is wrong. It's well known that GR predicts the opposite - rest of universe will appear redshifted, not blueshifted. See e.g.: https://www1.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q11 https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-do-i-see-while-falling-into-a-black-hole.910174/post-5733039 Some 'authorities' do get it wrong, e.g. here (and reference therein): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-the-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole
  24. So that's it then. Any criticism of GR is akin to blasphemy here at SFN. Any corrections to incorrect statements dealing with that or similar is 'being a jerk' and 'nitpicking'. Interesting situation. I made a choice not to rip into your appalling BS response here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117698-particle-in-a-box/?do=findComment&comment=1089004 Given your above 'assessments', just as well I didn't. I do agree with that signature line below your name btw.
  25. And even sillier to set up a straw man, and then knock it down, thinking that settles anything useful.
  • 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.