Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Q-reeus

  1. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Here you go...


    Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

    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. 23 minutes ago, MigL said:

    The link you provided sends me to a post where you are confused about how a BH absorbing one part of a virtual particle pair can lose mass/energy, while a real particle is emitted as Hawking radiation.
    I thought I, and others, had explained that.

    I guess the real lack of integrity is not reading other's replies in a discussion forum.

    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. 9 hours ago, Strange said:

    That argument can be made about pretty much every aspect of physics. I think most physicists would agree that "virtual particles" are not particles.

    If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

    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:
    Since you like dishing it out, be prepared to receive some too.

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    If, by 'horizonless gravity' you mean vector gravity, I thought GWs were putting nails in its coffin with each new observation.
    ( and I don't like its flat Minkowsky background )

    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.

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    But since 'horizonless' implies no Black Holes, how then do you explain the recently released photos ?
    Photoshopped maybe ??? Or is the 'theory' more valid than observation ???

    Refresh your memory, and try and sort the ubiquitous hype from reality re EHT images:

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    You are right, one side is making is making a sh*tty argument, that goes against all observations.
    ( care to guess which side I'm talking about ? )

    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:
    Again - where is that link to a reputable article backing your personal notions of how it goes?

    1 hour ago, swansont said:

    You should ask for your money back. And then you can leave.

    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:
    To cover up your contradictory claim (any virtual particle) further back here:
    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. 39 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Then you should become aware of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which give rise to virtual particle pairs.

    Some real experts in QFT maintain virtual particles, vacuum or otherwise, are nothing more than mathematical artifacts, e.g.:
    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.

    39 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Which symmetry is broken here?

    Your implied concoction of a real, outgoing HR particle plus a virtual, inward traveling particle - both supposedly created from a vacuum virtual pair.

    39 minutes ago, swansont said:



    29 minutes ago, MigL said:

    I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus...

    "Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist"

    Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance.
    But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong.

    If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding.
    If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition.
    What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ?
    How substantive do they need to be before they exist ?
    How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

    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.

  5. 16 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

    Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter.

    You failed to note I made that clear in my very first post here. Or you have forgotten already?

    16 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

    Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.

    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.

  6. 11 minutes ago, Strange said:

    ...Well, it is obvious you believe GR is wrong, but in that case you don't believe that Hawking radiation can exist so why bother asking about the mechanism? Seems a bit pointless....

    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.

  7. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Applying conservation laws is no different from bookkeeping.

    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.


    Any virtual particle.

    Really? Because every particle pair creation process I'm aware of results in two real particles - never one real plus one virtual. Symmetry requirements!


    ...Meanwhile, turning virtual particles into real ones by adding energy is experimentally confirmed.


    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.

    2 hours ago, Strange said:

    To understand the details, you need to look at the math.

    Otherwise you have to accept the various analogies as crude sketches of what is going on.

    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.

  8. 3 hours ago, beecee said:

    ...I don't believe that any scenario upholding the law of conservation is hand waving...Pretty solid indirect evidence in my book. Ignoring it [law of conservation] is ridiculous.  

    More ridiculous still is to attribute to me something I have never implied. Get your facts straight!

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Does it matter if they are particles, or quanta, as you seem to think there is a difference ???

    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.

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    These virtual pairs exist on energy borrowed from the universe, for a brief period of time according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
    And once that time is up the debt must be re-paid to the universe according to stdev(E)*stdev(t) >= hbar/2.

    If one of the virtual particles ( or quanta ) is no longer available to annihilate with the other, it must become a real ( Hawking ) particle or quanta.
    That means the universe is owed the equivalent of TWO particle's mass/energy by the Black Hole which has caused this debt.
    The Black Hole, however, has swallowed ONE particle's mass/energy, so the net effect is that it loses the equivalent of ONE particle's mass/energy.

    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?

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Where is this negative you speak of ???
    If I owe you money, does it mean I give you negative currency ???

    See above - any analogy to financial ledgers is woefully inadequate.

  9. 6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That’s not how it’s done.

    the pair has an energy deficit which is fine as long as they recombine before the HUP is violated. The BH must provide that energy if the BH swallows up one of the particles.


    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.

  10. 5 minutes ago, MigL said:

    I did not call it negative energy. There is no such thing,
    But virtual particles must re-pay their borrowed energy according to Heisenberg.
    So the 'accountant' puts it in the - column.

    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?

    3 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The detail requires things like the Bogoliubov transformation to define quantum theory on a curved spacetime 

    See my reply to MigL

  11. 10 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Even if you consider just low energy virtual photons, you still need to satisfy conservation laws.
    You cannot simply have one heading towards the EH. Conservation of momentum dictates its opposing virtual photon is headed away from the EH.
    And once one of the virtual pair is removed by the BH's EH, the other of the pair becomes a real low energy photon or Hawking Radiation.
    But those pesky conservation laws again dictate that the energy debt must be repaid, as virtual particles live on borrowed time, and so, the BH gives up that amount of mass/energy to make the re-payment.

    I don't see the problem Q-reeus, maybe you can elaborate. 

    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.

  12. 57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Moderator Note

    Saves us having to write new rules regarding ongoing feuds from other websites.


    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!

  13. 55 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    I have a question that is puzzling me.  I assume my problem is due to only seeing the 'pop science' explanation of Hawking radiation, anyway....

    If there is pair production near the event horizon and 1 particle falls into the BH and the other escapes, how would that decrease the mass of the BH?  Didn't a particle enter the BH and increase it's mass?

    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.

  14. 9 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    I know this is not the only forum that you 2 go 'at it', and it just gets old really fast.  I do read your posts unless you 2 are arguing and then I ignore the whole page.

    It certainly appears that you are not a fan of GR, in that you are looking for the next step in our understanding of gravity.   You also seem 'to this layman' to be quite knowledgeable.  So why don't you just ignore Beecee and make your points?  Just my humble opinion.

    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.

  15. 9 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I'll let others more qualified then I answer whatever claim you are making. Just a couple of corrections needed...There is no lie and such conspiracies concerning mainstream is without basis and that is shown every day, secondly, despite your continued excuse making re GR...No caveat is needed. It is correct as far as any scientific theory can be correct. I prefer, as I'm sure you remember, "near certain"


    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.

  16. 37 minutes ago, beecee said:

     If all frames are as valid as each other, how can anyone of them be an illusion? Actually freezing at the EH could be construed as a poor choice of words. An observer from a distance, would simply see a body further and further redshifted along the spectrum, until beyond the ability of the telescope and simply fade from view. Perhaps that is what is meant.


    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.

  17. 33 minutes ago, beecee said:

    ...Of course no one has ever suggested that anything is an optical illusion. All frames are as valid as each other, including the unlucky soul approaching the EH, and falling in. He does exactly that...fall in on a one way trip to oblivion.


    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:
    (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.

  18. 1 hour ago, beecee said:

    ...Now my reasonable question. If you reject the reasoning and answer in my link, then please tell us why. And while you are at it, please try not to flavour your answers with your  "BELIEFS" concerning BH's and GR, which are entirely irrelevant in a mainstream physics discussion. More information re BH's is of course in the BH image thread.


    Let's also clear up another apparent misconception you probably have. My take on this is from the view of someone who has already crossed the EH, viewing the outside universe. I believe that was Strange's view also, but he can speak for himself.

    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'.

  19. 10 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Not really, and the proof of the pudding is in any of my posts on this forum.

    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.

    10 minutes ago, beecee said:

    You made it clear? :rolleyes: You have attempted to make many things clear re GR and BH's and as I see it, failed. And of course what you believe is no more relevant then what some IDer believes, or any other alternative hypothetical speculator...take that with your false assumption about GR being "true" and many things are clear. A theory such as GR is our best estimation at any time, and in recent times, GR has confirmed many predictions and gained in certainty in what we do observe. That of course includes BH's and their existence.

    See above.

  20. 31 minutes ago, beecee said:


    2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

    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.:



    Some 'authorities' do get it wrong, e.g. here (and reference therein): 




    Image distortion inside the black hole

    Movie image at 0.35 Schwarzschild radii.

    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

    Movie image at 0.01 Schwarzschild radii.

    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:


    , 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.

  21. 12 hours ago, Strange said:

    We already live in curved spacetime. The main effect we notice is that thing we call "gravity". With sensitive instruments we can measure some other effects such as gravitational red-shift or lensing.

    These effects would all be greater as we approach (and fall into) a black hole: the force of gravity (and tidal forces) would be greater, gravitational red shift would be greater (the rest of the universe would look increasingly blue-shifted), gravitational lensing would be obvious (the event horizon would appear to be 2.6 times larger than expected; the entire accretion disk would be visible, including that on the far-side of the event horizon; our view of the universe would narrow; etc)


    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.:



    Some 'authorities' do get it wrong, e.g. here (and reference therein): 

  22. 5 hours ago, swansont said:



    Moderator Note

    When you nitpick and miss, you just come across as being a jerk ("more certainty" was the phrase, which is not the same as "claiming certainty")


    Moderator Note

    The use of GR as the prevailing mainstream theory is quite correct, and in accordance with the forum rules.

    You know what the staff is tiring of? All of this sniping. Knock it off.


    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:
    Given your above 'assessments', just as well I didn't. I do agree with that signature line below your name btw.

  23. 40 minutes ago, koti said:

    Yes, thats why asked Q-reeus what exactly he means hoping he will bring up some form of QGT. Maybe he doesn’t understand that Newtonian gravity was not rendered wrong by GR but instead was expanded uppon by it and that the same mechanism will take place when GR is expanded uppon by a broader theory encompasing quantum gravity. Most certainly whatever theory will acomplish that, will not render GR wrong.

    Whoever stops riding his bicycle when he gets his drivers licence saying the bike is now broken is just silly isn’t he.

    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.