Jump to content
muruep00

Solution to gravitational singularities?

Recommended Posts

I said I was done, but you keep providing ammunition for us to continue the battle.
( even though it may be pointless, as you don't seem to actually consider what anyone else says )

40 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

And what is the problem? Virtual particles cannot be observed, but since there existance can be tested indirectly, we know they exist.

Agreed.
We also have a mathematical model for the mechanism of their production, and interaction, which agrees very, very closely with those tests.
Do you have a mechanism for the change-over to 'negative energy density' once an event horizon is established?
Do you have a mechanism or model for the resultant antigravitational interaction?
This is obviously not the negative pressure/cosmological constant model, as that has its basis on false zero point vacuum energy, so, if/when you come up with a mathematically self-consistent model ( as QFT, and GR, is ), people might start to take you seriously.

 

26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

it has been an open question in the physics community for about 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation 

So is galaxy formation ( top down and bottom up models, simplest of which is Lambda-CDM )
And since the central BH contributes directly to galaxy formation, it is no wonder there are still some unanswered questions.
But that is no reason to go on a 'flight of fancy', and propose 'magic' happens at the event horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

I have described to you an observation for which there is no explanation or prediction with our current models.

!

Moderator Note

You have ignored replies with explanations you don't agree with, so you don't get to claim this. If you don't start responding to posts that refute your idea, I'm going to close this and give you a warning point for Soapboxing. Stop waving your hands and pony up on the evidence!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MigL said:

I said I was done, but you keep providing ammunition for us to continue the battle.
( even though it may be pointless, as you don't seem to actually consider what anyone else says )

This is no battle, no body wins nothing here, we are just here to share ideas and perhaps learn from each other.

Could state as a summary why my model is mathematically inconsistent as you said before? 

Quote

Do you have a mechanism for the change-over to 'negative energy density' once an event horizon is established?
Do you have a mechanism or model for the resultant antigravitational interaction?

Yes, time transformations if considered unitary and linear imply the existance of exotic matter. Prove can be found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05046

Im trying to justify that this time transformation takes place at the event horizon of black holes, but since GR automatically (and for no other reason apart from assuming they are not physical) prohibits these, it is not easy. My guess is that if you allow these transformations, the singnature change that Schwarzschild originally wanted to avoid by making the event horizon singular in his metric, would imply a time transformation. 

Either GR or newtonian mechanics predict negative masses to have a repulsive interaction between them. Everybody knows this.

Quote

This is obviously not the negative pressure/cosmological constant model, as that has its basis on false zero point vacuum energy, so, if/when you come up with a mathematically self-consistent model ( as QFT, and GR, is ), people might start to take you seriously.

Im not talking about anything else apart from GR (with time transformations allowed and violation of energy conditions)

Quote

So is galaxy formation ( top down and bottom up models, simplest of which is Lambda-CDM )
And since the central BH contributes directly to galaxy formation, it is no wonder there are still some unanswered questions.
But that is no reason to go on a 'flight of fancy', and propose 'magic' happens at the event horizon.

As I said before, it is not magic what I propose that happens at the event horizon. Im just trying to justify that it could take place at the event horizon, but since some people here remain 100% confident that no other model different that the one they belief in can be postulated, this is of course a waste of time, and I will keep that discussion before even talking about what my idea is about.

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

You have ignored replies with explanations you don't agree with, so you don't get to claim this. If you don't start responding to posts that refute your idea, I'm going to close this and give you a warning point for Soapboxing. Stop waving your hands and pony up on the evidence!

 

No, no explanation has been given to supermassive black hole formation. Even though there are proposals such as primordial black holes, the scientifc comunity does not agree on any. And this is an observation for which there is no explanation with the predictions of our current models.

This is an open question, you may want to check it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics , I quote "How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 1010 solar masses so early in the history of the universe?"

Btw, I think Im replying to everyone.

 

If you were referring to the solution to gravitational singularities (which I was not in what you cited me), there is no experimental evidence that they are solved by a quantum theory of gravity. There is even no evidence that you need quantum gravity to explain the inside of black holes.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

Could state as a summary why my model is mathematically inconsistent as you said before? 

From the first page, Markus states

"1. The overall metric must remain continuous and differentiable everywhere at the boundary
2. The new metric must itself be a valid solution to the field equations "

IOW, you cannot have an abrupt change in the metric at the horizon.

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

Either GR or newtonian mechanics predict negative masses

Exotic matter can be 'visualized' as the part of the virtual particle pair that gets swallowed by a BH, while the other part escapes to infinity and becomes real Hawking radiation. By the HUP, then, the BH has to lose the equivalent mass-energy while ingesting a virtual particle, so the exotic virtual particle is assigned a negative mass.
Is this negative mass really negative, or simply an 'accounting' method ?
Neither Newtonian gravity nor Gr predict 'negative 'mass.

 

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

This is no battle, no body wins nothing here, we are just here to share ideas and perhaps learn from each other.

Tow more casualties of misinformation on the battlefield …
You might want to pick up your wounded. I'm going for lunch. :)

 

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MigL said:

From the first page, Markus states

"1. The overall metric must remain continuous and differentiable everywhere at the boundary
2. The new metric must itself be a valid solution to the field equations "

IOW, you cannot have an abrupt change in the metric at the horizon.

I have always agreed about that with Markus, it is just that I never said that my model is not continuous, differentiable, or that it is not a valid solution of the field equations. You can think about the hypothesis of the transition at the event horizon as a quantum transition, but I decided to refer to it as a time transformation, since it is consistent with the creation of exotic matter, and we know how this works. Markus followed arguing that my proposal is not a valid solution of the field equations if it is stationary, but in my first post it is clear that what I propose is not a stationary solution, since the way to prove my model is by taking into account the growth of the event horizon in supermassive black hole mass estimations.

Quote

Exotic matter can be 'visualized' as the part of the virtual particle pair that gets swallowed by a BH, while the other part escapes to infinity and becomes real Hawking radiation. By the HUP, then, the BH has to lose the equivalent mass-energy while ingesting a virtual particle, so the exotic virtual particle is assigned a negative mass.
Is this negative mass really negative, or simply an 'accounting' method ?
Neither Newtonian gravity nor Gr predict 'negative 'mass.

Exotic matter appears in many places, either in Hawking radiation (as negative energy flux, not by the name of exotic matter), in Kip Thornes work of wormholes (here yes, as exotic matter), in James Farnes cosmology model... I dont know the point you want to make with this. Hawking did not provided any further explanation about the negative energy flux (I think he stated that it violated energy conditions, im not 100% abou that), apart from the fact that energy conservation must hold when considering it.

I never said newtonian gravity or GR predicts negative mass. I said that it if you place negative masses in either newtonian gravity or GR, the interaction between them is repulsive, which was what you asked: "Do you have a mechanism or model for the resultant antigravitational interaction?". GR does not prohibit negative masses, since negative energy densities are allowed.

 

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

GR does not prohibit negative masses

HaHa!
GR doesn't prohibit singularities either.

So by your argument, THERE ARE singularities ( or at least a valid theory of singularities ) within the EH ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MigL said:

HaHa!
GR doesn't prohibit singularities either.

So by your argument, THERE ARE singularities ( or at least a valid theory of singularities ) within the EH ?

Hahaha, no.

GR allow singularities, but that does not imply the exist. Same with exotic matter, that is true.

But the point is that my model, with the exotic matter which GR allows, is testable. And the actual model of black holes (which is a valid theory of course, in which in GR they contain a singularity, but that should be solved by quantum gravity), is not proved. Then you arrive at two unproved models, but mine is testable, why not give it a chance and test whether negative mass exists? Why stick to the non-testable one?

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, muruep00 said:

You could built an aproximated model for mi idea, and then make the estimations of supermassive black hole growth including the new mechanism of growth that mi idea implies.

I had hoped for some more detailed description, but let’s work with what we got so far. 

Assume that you succeed with creating a simulation that predicts that black holes grows without accreting matter, using some mathematics. Then what? A simulation is not observational evidence. There are numerous possible simulations* that will let an event horizon grow, but that does not mean such simulations describe any physical event or process. Or that the mathematics** in those simulations have better predictive power than GR.

6 hours ago, muruep00 said:

If it fits observations, my idea is right.

No.

What is the observation or experiment that shows that your idea is the correct one? And not any other possible simulation that also matches observations. And where is the evidence that black holes actually do grow (gain mass / increase their gravity) without accreting matter?


 

 

*) I’ll not hijack the thread by listing such possible mainstream-contradicting simulations (unless requested to do so)

**) Note that I choose neglect Markus' observations regarding the problems with the mathematics presented. One: I do not possess the skills to drive that aspect of the topic further. Two: It is interesting to see if OP have any valid arguments from an experimental/observational point of view while thread is still open.
 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I had hoped for some more detailed description, but let’s work with what we got so far. 

Assume that you succeed with creating a simulation that predicts that black holes grows  without accreting matter, using some mathematics. Then what? A simulation is not observational evidence. There are numerous possible simulations* that will let an event horizon grow, but that does not mean such simulations describe any physical event or process. Or that the mathematics** in those simulations have better predictive power than GR.

Not without accreting matter, but together with accretion estimations. Accretion exists, there is no doubt about that...

If it that simulation of my model predicts correctly the size of supermassive black holes, then it is an indirect proof that it is right. Indirect evidence would be given to my model, instead of the actual model, which has none, so you would be forced to belief that mine is right (or more probable than the other). You are right that it is not direct observational evidence, but a lot of models in physics rely on indirect evidence for them.

Quote

No.

What is the observation or experiment that shows that your idea is the correct one? And not any other possible simulation that also matches observations.

A simulation is an experiment. You can observe the perihelion of mars, simulate it with GR, and notice that GR does give you a much better approximation for it. That is one way in which GR was proved right. Other example is that you observe gravitational waves that you dont know what they are, but if you simulate black hole collisions (with GR), that simulation is an extraordinary approximation of the gravitational waves signal you observe, and thus, you assume that what you observe is a black hole collision and that GR works.

As a reminder, you could go inside a black hole and perform, for instance, an internal gravitational experiment to prove my model. Being this unachievable for the moment, it just shows that the interior is observable, and the scientific method applies in their study.

Quote

*) I’ll not hijack the thread by listing such possible mainstream-contradicting simulations (unless requested to do so)

Do it, no problem. Are they consistent with the rest of observations?

Quote

**) Note that I choose to not include Markus' observations regarding the problems with the mathematics presented. One: I do not possess the skills to drive that aspect of the topic. Two: It is interesting to see if OP have any valid arguments from an experimental/observational point of view while thread is still open.

As I said Markus stated that if we deal with time dependent solutions, the math gets complex very quick. He is right, but approximated models can be built.

My valid observation is that no model predicts black hole growth correctly, and my idea suggests that it might do so.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

59 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Indirect evidence would be given to my model, instead of the actual model, which has none, so you would be forced to belief that mine is right (or more probable than the other). 

No. I would compare such indirect evidence* against peer reviews papers covering direct evidence of GR. If still in doubt I would ask for help, for instance here on the forum. Then I would make a decision.

 

54 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

A simulation is an experiment. You can observe the perihelion of mars, simulate it with GR, and notice that GR does give you a much better approximation for it. That is one way in which GR was proved right. Other example is that you observe gravitational waves that you dont know what they are, but if you simulate black hole collisions (with GR), that simulation is an extraordinary approximation of the gravitational waves signal you observe, and thus, you assume that what you observe is a black hole collision and that GR works.

As a reminder, you could go inside a black hole and perform, for instance, an internal gravitational experiment to prove my model. Being this unachievable for the moment, it just shows that the interior is observable, and the scientific method applies in their study.

I am aware of those examples, unfortunately they do not answer the question. There are other possible models, possibly matching observations; can you please explain in more detail about the experiment or observation that makes your idea stand out as the correct one? 

 

*) Hopefully found in peer reviewed papers from reliable sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No. I would compare such indirect evidence* against peer reviews papers covering direct evidence of GR. If still in doubt I would ask for help, for instance here on the forum. Then I would make a decision.

Im using GR, im not proving GR wrong. There is no direct evidence for GR inside black holes. GR can be right outside black holes and wrong inside (give wrong predictions inside, just like newtonian gravity does near a star).

Quote

I am aware of those examples, unfortunately they do not answer the question. There are other possible models, possibly matching observations; can you please explain in more detail about the experiment or observation that makes your idea stand out as the correct one? 

Which other possible models for the interior of black holes have indirect evidence? What do you want me to explain furthermore, exactly?

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add some points to what Markus, MigL and Ghideon have already said.

You talk about violation of energy conditions. What energy conditions? From what I know about energy conditions, they are imposed on the matter tensor; and there is no matter tensor in the Schwarzschild problem, as there is no RHS of Einstein's equations. It's a vacuum solution.

Maybe you're implying a matter tensor with negative T00 for the interior. If that's the case, what you should do is solve the Einstein equations with that source, patch them up with the exterior solution and prove that no singularities in the metric happen from the outside to the inside. You cannot do physics in vague concepts and claim that it must make sense in the face of all criticism.

You talk about quantum jumps at the horizon as possible justification for your jumps in the metric. Do you realize that you're talking about quantum gravity?

You seem to suggest a Wick rotation. Can I see a mathematical formula? How does it act on the metric coefficients and the coordinates? You've been very ambiguous about this. Is it a Wick rotation or an time inversion? Those are different things.

And may I ask what has been suggested to you before?:

What are your predictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Which other possible models for the interior of black holes have indirect evidence? What do you want me to explain furthermore, exactly?

Ok, since getting a straight answer seems not possible at this point I'll illustrate the issue with an example*.

Let’s identify the rules as I understand them from your earlier posts:
-What lays beyond the event horizon of a black hole can’t be directly observed (I agree on that)
-Beyond the event horizon we are free to assume the existence of things that according to current consensus may be considered unphysical in space outside the event horizon. For instance negative gravity or negative energy.
-The mathematics model running the simulation does not have to agree with consensus of relativity experts; Markus objections have not had an effect on your stance so far. 

Singularity:
Make a simulation that cuts off the compression of matter inside the black hole at some very high density. That avoids a singularity and will, from the outside, result in a black hole matching observations. Markus, Mordred and other experts would object against my mathematics and my lack of compatibility with GR (and QM). I say they can’t observe what’s inside the black hole and I have no singularity, similar to your argumentation.

As for the growing event horizon, inflation of the black hole or apparent increase of mass:
I could modify the model of the vacuum inside the event horizon. Allowing regular matter to be created in some circumstances, adding mass to the black hole. Don’t worry about conservation of energy, we are inside the event horizon and I may propose such quantum fluctuations as per your argumentation. 

 

Result: By using your approach towards observations and falsifying I have pulled some examples out of thin air and ended up with something that seems to match your model’s predictions and current observations. My example ideas do not rely on negative mass, negative energy so they are simpler and more plausible. I have, as you did, ignored input from experts regarding flaws in my application of mathematics.  

Do you get the point? Can you show how we could tell that your idea is correct? Not just against my illustrations, but against such ideas in general. There must be something that makes your idea to stand out, allowing it to be confirmed or falsified. My point is that the level of explanations you have provided so far is not enough to support the claims you make.

Please don't put too much energy into pointing out that my idea is an invalid approach. I know that and that is the intention. I want the details, how to tell that your idea is not just as invalid as my example is.

 

* (Disclaimer: the example is not intended to be in line with mainstream consensus. The purpose of this example is to highlight the issues with the approach and arguments from OP up to this point. Again I choose to neglect Markus objections; trying to drive a fruitful discussion from an experimental point of view. )

 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, joigus said:

I will add some points to what Markus, MigL and Ghideon have already said.

You talk about violation of energy conditions. What energy conditions? From what I know about energy conditions, they are imposed on the matter tensor; and there is no matter tensor in the Schwarzschild problem, as there is no RHS of Einstein's equations. It's a vacuum solution.

The energy conditions exotic matter violates. Im not proposing a new Schwarzschild solution since my idea relies on a non-static solution

Quote

You talk about quantum jumps at the horizon as possible justification for your jumps in the metric. Do you realize that you're talking about quantum gravity?

Yes, but there is already a mechanism that we know in relativistic particle physics that does the same job: a time transformation (https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05046). Does it imply that the jump in the metric is not smooth or not differentiable? I dont think so.

Quote

You seem to suggest a Wick rotation. Can I see a mathematical formula? How does it act on the metric coefficients and the coordinates? You've been very ambiguous about this. Is it a Wick rotation or an time inversion? Those are different things.

A wick rotation is what Hilbert did to Schwarzschild approach to his metric (https://www.jp-petit.org/Hilbert-1916-de.pdf page 60 above eq. 45). I always stated that I propose a time transformation. Schwarzschild treated time as real coordinate, and Hilbert as an imaginary one. Thats why I dont trust Hilberts metric (which is the one used nowadays). But this was in the discussion we had in which I asked Markus about the possibility of justifing a time transformation in the original Schwarzschild metric. The fact that Hilbert treated time in different way, and that the signature of the metric changes, were my motivations.

Quote

And may I ask what has been suggested to you before?:

What are your predictions?

Yes, my predictions is that black holes grow because of an inflation that takes places inside, not only by accretion and black hole mergers. Since we observe black holes "too big" for our estimations, It might solve that problem and at the same time, be the way to prove my model.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, since getting a straight answer seems not possible at this point I'll illustrate the issue with an example*.

Let’s identify the rules as I understand them from your earlier posts:
-What lays beyond the event horizon of a black hole can’t be directly observed (I agree on that)
-Beyond the event horizon we are free to assume the existence of things that according to current consensus may be considered unphysical in space outside the event horizon. For instance negative gravity or negative energy.
-The mathematics model running the simulation does not have to agree with consensus of relativity experts; Markus objections have not had an effect on your stance so far. 

I think the math can be worked out. In fact, Im trying to do it myself. There is no quantum gravity, its all GR. Again, Markus only stated that a time dependent solution is very complex (approximated models can be built), and that the solution has to be smooth and differentiable at the horizon, which does not contradict my hypothesis.

Quote

Singularity:
Make a simulation that cuts off the compression of matter inside the black hole at some very high density. That avoids a singularity and will, from the outside, result in a black hole matching observations. Markus, Mordred and other experts would object against my mathematics and my lack of compatibility with GR (and QM). I say they can’t observe what’s inside the black hole and I have no singularity, similar to your argumentation.

How does that cut off work? Isnt that just what people expect from quantum gravity? You need to specify what does counteract the gravitational pull at those high densitites.

Quote

As for the growing event horizon, inflation of the black hole or apparent increase of mass:
I could modify the model of the vacuum inside the event horizon. Allowing regular matter to be created in some circumstances, adding mass to the black hole. Don’t worry about conservation of energy, we are inside the event horizon and I may propose such quantum fluctuations as per your argumentation. 

The problem is the regular matter you introduce to be created inside the black hole. Where does that regular matter come from? That makes no sense, since all matter in my model is very clear where does it come from, and Markus argued against solutions in which the vacuum is different inside and outside (which my model does not imply).

Quote

Result: By using your approach towards observations and falsifying I have pulled some examples out of thin air and ended up with something that seems to match your model’s predictions and current observations. My example ideas do not rely on negative mass, negative energy so they are simpler and more plausible. I have, as you did, ignored input from experts regarding flaws in my application of mathematics.  

The problem is: Can that model of yours be simulated? I guess not, since it relys in QM gravity. And I dont think its simpler, you just avoid explaining how do you counteract gravity inside.

Quote

Do you get the point? Can you show how we could tell that your idea is correct? Not just against my illustrations, but against such ideas in general. There must be something that makes your idea to stand out, allowing it to be confirmed or falsified. My point is that the level of explanations you have provided so far is not enough to support the claims you make.

I get your point: you can make similar but different models that would mimic the prediction of my model, so even if simulated and matching observations, it could be other model different than mine.

Well, true. But my model is the one that does not rely in quantum gravity (or magically appearence of regular matter). It is about things we already know! If you invoke quantum gravity, since we dont know how it works, any model can be built that would fit observations, assuming quantum gravity effects are one way or another.

 

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Yes, but there is already a mechanism that we know in relativistic particle physics that does the same job: a time transformation (https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05046). Does it imply that the jump in the metric is not smooth or not differentiable? I dont think so.

You forgot to read the abstract:

Quote

We review the standards of relativistic quantum mechanics such as the Dirac equation under the concept of negative masses. We show that negative energies are acceptable provided the masses are simultaneously negative. Negative energy and mass anti-fermions are obtained from positive energy and mass fermions through a unitary PT transformation.

Relativistic quantum mechanics is a play-toy. If you want to get serious you need to use QFT. When you do that, first thing that happens is that Dirac 4-spinors go in the rubbish bin, because they're not irreducible representations of the Poincaré group (particles). That's one of the reasons why the SM is formulated in terms of Weyl spinors. The authors don't say to be proposing any plausible mechanism or making any strong claim. They seem to me to be arguing that negative energies are not as crazy as it may seem if you use a unitary CT operator that they introduce in the naive wave function formalism. That's all. You've read too much into it.

 

50 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

A wick rotation is what Hilbert did to Schwarzschild approach to his metric (https://www.jp-petit.org/Hilbert-1916-de.pdf page 60 above eq. 45). I always stated that I propose a time transformation. Schwarzschild treated time as real coordinate, and Hilbert as an imaginary one. Thats why I dont trust Hilberts metric (which is the one used nowadays). But this was in the discussion we had in which I asked Markus about the possibility of justifing a time transformation in the original Schwarzschild metric. The fact that Hilbert treated time in different way, and that the signature of the metric changes, were my motivations.

No. That's not a Wick rotation. What Hilbert did there was to absorb the minus sign in the metric by re-defining time as pure imaginary. I suppose Hilbert was much more familiar with Kronecker deltas than Minkowski pseudometrics. That's kind of a re-labelling, a convention rather than a transformation. I don't know if I'm explaining myself: You take the sign from the metric and absorb it into the time definition. That's why I asked you about the changes both in the metric and in the coordinates. Nothing sacred about the metric coefficients in relativity, but the contraction of metric with coordinate differentials is next-to-sacred. And there are good reasons for it.

A Wick's rotation is very different. The metric doesn't change, but time does. This is called a Euclidean-time calculation. You calculate the partition function, pretend time is imaginary, and obtain a nicely convergent result, from which you guess the actual solution by arguments of analytic continuation. You're not swapping the sign from one place to the other; you're actually changing it, obtaining a "fake" solution, and guessing the physical one.

You're keeping your ideas behind a horizon in many senses. I suspect it's all because you don't want anybody to really see them. It's all like behind a thin veil of heuristic censorship (GR joke.)

I certainly don't want to go through the same ordeal as other brave warriors, getting fired from behind the bunker of a conceptual horizon. I'm just trying to give them a temporary relief in battle.  ;)

Edited by joigus
minor correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, joigus said:

You forgot to read the abstract:

Relativistic quantum mechanics is a play-toy. If you want to get serious you need to use QFT. When you do that, first thing that happens is that Dirac 4-spinors go in the rubbish bin, because they're not irreducible representations of the Poincaré group (particles). That's one of the reasons why the SM is formulated in terms of Weyl spinors. The authors don't say to be proposing any plausible mechanism or making any strong claim. They seem to me to be arguing that negative energies are not as crazy as it may seem if you use a unitary CT operator that they introduce in the naive wave function formalism. That's all. You've read too much into it.

I can accept that. The paper also states and shows that it is in agreement with Lorentz transformations and allowing the antichronous ones (which is what I really care about in my proposal). What are you thoughts about these?

Quote

No. That's not a Wick rotation. What Hilbert did there was to absorb the minus sign in the metric by re-defining time as pure imaginary. I suppose Hilbert was much more familiar with Kronecker deltas than Minkowski pseudometrics. That's kind of a re-labelling, a convention rather than a transformation. I don't know if I'm explaining myself: You take the sign from the metric and absorb it into the time definition. That's why I asked you about the changes both in the metric and in the coordinates. Nothing sacred about the metric coefficients in relativity, but the contraction of metric with coordinate differentials is next-to-sacred. And there are good reasons for it.

A Wick's rotation is very different. The metric doesn't change, but time does. This is called a Euclidean-time calculation. You calculate the partition function, pretend time is imaginary, and obtain a nicely convergent result, from which you guess the actual solution by arguments of analytic continuation. You're not swapping the sign from one place to the other; you're actually changing it, obtaining a "fake" solution, and guessing the physical one.

You're keeping your ideas behind a horizon in many senses. I suspect it's all because you don't want anybody to really see them. It's all like behind a thin veil of heuristic censorship (GR joke.)

I certainly don't want to go through the same ordeal as other brave warriors, getting fired from behind the bunker of a conceptual horizon. I'm just trying to give them a temporary relief in battle.  ;)

Thank you for your explanation, you seem to know much more than I do in this topic. What if you build GR allowing the antichronous transformations? Wouldnt it be reasonable that the place where they take place is the event horizon? (my motivations for this are complexity of time treatment as you explained, the fact that the signature of the metric changes, the fact that time seems to stop at the event horizon for an external observer). Unfortunately no body has extended GR allowing these transformations to take place, but it seems reasonable to support my hypothesis of a time transformation taking place at the event horizon.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, muruep00 said:

I can accept that. The paper also states and shows that it is in agreement with Lorentz transformations and allowing the antichronous ones (which is what I really care about in my proposal). What are you thoughts about these?

The Lorentz group splits into 4 chunks. Only one of them is connected to the identity, the so-called proper ortochronous. The other pieces are not even groups and you cannot continuously go from one to another. It's as if they lived each in their own island.

The only solution I see for defining time inversions and/or changes in the metric is to extend the number of dimensions and try to figure out what the Einstein equations are as a projection from that richer space. Maybe in that higher-dimensional space the transformations that you're envisioning do make sense as a connected group of transformations.

Next step would be to make your assumptions as clear as possible. Formulate a plausible set of approximations to draw clear mathematical conclusions. They don't have to be numerical. They could be qualitative.

Now find a suitable publication that is open to more speculative thinking. Send your paper. Be cautious and understate things, rather than make big announcements. Be prepared for something more than a battle of words.

If you think what you've found here is stubborn opposition to your ideas, that's nothing compared to what you're going to be up against in the peer-review world. Be prepared for some heartbreaking trashing. 

As to time stopping, pay heed to what Markus told you. That's very very likely just an artifact of the coordinates. That's what it looks to be. They only well-referred unambiguous observers in GR (IMO, there could be differences of opinion here) are free-falling ones. And when you change coordinates to locally minkowskian (free falling observer) the weird "inversion" (which is actually a swap radius <--> time) disappears. If the BH is big enough, the observer feels nothing. That's what the maths say.

As to wiping out the singularity, Ghideon has pointed to the possibility of alternative heuristic toy models, Markus has told you about torsion or going to the more realistic Kerr metric. I would like to mention also that, if the BH is of stellar origin, there may be what remains from the dead star playing a part there.

The only serious alternative I can see for what you want to do is to generalize GR. That's quite a challenge.

And that's about what I can think of right now. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joigus said:

The Lorentz group splits into 4 chunks. Only one of them is connected to the identity, the so-called proper ortochronous. The other pieces are not even groups and you cannot continuously go from one to another. It's as if they lived each in their own island.

This is explained in the paper we were talking about. I have found others dealing with this topic: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226329889_Antiparticles_from_special_Relativity_with_ortho-chronous_and_antichronous_Lorentz_transformations

What is the problem of having non-continious transformations?

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

The only solution I see for defining time inversions and/or changes in the metric is to extend the number of dimensions and try to figure out what the Einstein equations are as a projection from that richer space. Maybe in that higher-dimensional space the transformations that you're envisioning do make sense as a connected group of transformations.

I dont think higher dimensions are requiered. To my knowledge, the existence of time transformations were only ruled out because no one observed them, and so, they were said to be unphysical. 

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Next step would be to make your assumptions as clear as possible. Formulate a plausible set of approximations to draw clear mathematical conclusions. They don't have to be numerical. They could be qualitative.

What are qualitative approximations?

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

As to time stopping, pay heed to what Markus told you. That's very very likely just an artifact of the coordinates. That's what it looks to be. They only well-referred unambiguous observers in GR (IMO, there could be differences of opinion here) are free-falling ones. And when you change coordinates to locally minkowskian (free falling observer) the weird "inversion" (which is actually a swap radius <--> time) disappears. If the BH is big enough, the observer feels nothing. That's what the maths say.

I will keep studying this to check if their is a way to justify my idea. I want to point out that free falling observer should feel nothing due to the Einsteins equivalence principle, but this excludes gravitational effects. That means, if there was a gravity related change at the event horizon (for instance, gravity swithching to antigravity), one could realise that by an internal gravitational experiment for instance, but those are not restricted by the Einsteins equivalence principle (they are for the strong equivalence principle, but E.e.p. is enough to build GR).

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

As to wiping out the singularity, Ghideon has pointed to the possibility of alternative heuristic toy models, Markus has told you about torsion or going to the more realistic Kerr metric. I would like to mention also that, if the BH is of stellar origin, there may be what remains from the dead star playing a part there.

Yes, Ghideon is right, but Im trying to justify my idea without relying on an unknown quantum theory of gravity, and my model is the only one I find plausible. Einstein-Cartan theory may be true, but Markus itself pointed out that it is in contradiction with observations (I dont know which, I dont know much about Einstein Cartan theory). Im trying to build my model so that it does not contradict any observation. And yes, I account for what is left of the dead star in my model, which crosses the growing event horizon and transforms into the exotic matter I propose.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

The only serious alternative I can see for what you want to do is to generalize GR. That's quite a challenge.

And that's about what I can think of right now. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible.

Thank you very much, I will keep developing my ideas with you suggestions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

What are qualitative approximations?

Qualitative conclusions:

49 minutes ago, joigus said:

[...] draw clear mathematical conclusions. They don't have to be numerical. They could be qualitative.

 

The conclusions could be qualitative.

27 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I will keep studying this to check if their is a way to justify my idea.

You see? This is the problem. This is what I meant when I said:

(Point number 1.)

33 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I want to point out that free falling observer should feel nothing due to the Einsteins equivalence principle, but this excludes gravitational effects.

It's the opposite. First order effects cannot be detected. Second order ones can. Those are called tidal forces. If a small BH went through you, you would notice, believe me. But if it were you who's small in comparison to a quiet silent BH, you would notice nothing remarkable when going through the event horizon.

Einstein's EP is the essence of gravity. How could it exclude gravitational effects? Markus has told you that too. You seem to be just insisting on what we know not to be true.

Continuity, differentiability and injective mappings are very important in GR. In fact it's a paragon of these features. Intrinsic to its very foundations. Basically, whenever something takes you from A to B, it must be possible to reconstruct the going from B to A. Otherwise it's a can of worms you're opening. It's up for grabs for any ad hoc thinking basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, joigus said:

It's the opposite. First order effects cannot be detected. Second order ones can. Those are called tidal forces. If a small BH went through you, you would notice, believe me. But if it were you who's small in comparison to a quiet silent BH, you would notice nothing remarkable when going through the event horizon.

Einstein's EP is the essence of gravity. How could it exclude gravitational effects? Markus has told you that too. You seem to be just insisting on what we know not to be true.

Einsteins equivalence principle: The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.

A local gravitational experiment could be an internal gravitational experiment, the only way by which you could verify that gravity has become repulsive in you local spacetime.

Quote

Continuity, differentiability and injective mappings are very important in GR. In fact it's a paragon of these features. Intrinsic to its very foundations. Basically, whenever something takes you from A to B, it must be possible to reconstruct the going from B to A. Otherwise it's a can of worms you're opening. It's up for grabs for any ad hoc thinking basically.

You cannot go from A to B and from B to A when you go into a black hole (my transformation can never take place from antigravitational to gravitational, or in time transformation, from negative time to positive time).

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

You see? This is the problem. This is what I meant when I said:

(Point number 1.)

Then I must say I have an unfinished idea (which is true, if not, I would publish) and I would ask in this forum about ways to justify it by the generalization of GR we talked about before. But I can still ask if my idea, with the hypothesis, could work or not. I mean, what is an hypothesis if it is not a "my theory could be valid if..."? It cant be a crackpot idea just because of that, if Im not finished developing that.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

Yes, Ghideon is right, but Im trying to justify my idea without relying on an unknown quantum theory of gravity

 

4 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Well, true. But my model is the one that does not rely in quantum gravity

Where did I say that my addition to GR is a quantum theory of gravity? I said an expert may argue that my idea is not compatible with quantum mechanics*. Note that I play by the rules you set. You ignore Markus and other experts and you present no supporting experiments or observations. I do the same.

 

4 hours ago, muruep00 said:

It is about things we already know! If you invoke quantum gravity, since we dont know how it works, any model can be built that would fit observations, assuming quantum gravity effects are one way or another.

Thanks. You have successfully observed that my intentionally flawed idea differs from your idea. Now back to the question I try to get answers for, slightly modified: 

What observations or experiments supports your idea while falsifying my idea*? 

 

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

my model is the only one I find plausible

That I believe in your model is a good start. Can you present any convincing arguments why others should find the model plausible? 

 

*) again, my idea is intentionally flawed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

You cannot go from A to B and from B to A when you go into a black hole (my transformation can never take place from antigravitational to gravitational, or in time transformation, from negative time to positive time).

It serves me well for trying to be intuitive. I didn't mean physically going. I meant transformations and mappings.

May I point out that you haven't shown your "model" yet? You really have no model, do you?

Your transformation? You have defined no transformation. I've got a purple one-eyed winged elephant. Do you want me to talk about it? I bet I can google for something resembling it and come up with some links to keep this going.

At this point, I take my leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Where did I say that my addition to GR is a quantum theory of gravity? I said an expert may argue that my idea is not compatible with quantum mechanics*. Note that I play by the rules you set. You ignore Markus and other experts and you present no supporting experiments or observations. I do the same.

You suggest in you idea that somehow, regular matter appears inside the black hole. There is no known mechanism to do that, the only way to propose that is to invoke an unknown theory of quantum gravity. My model does not require to mention quantum gravity at all!

Quote

Thanks. You have successfully observed that my intentionally flawed idea differs from your idea. Now back to the question I try to get answers for, slightly modified: 

What observations or experiments supports your idea while falsifying my idea*? 

Perhaps none. May I also change my question?: Why did anybody build a different black hole interior just using GR, that would fit better the observations? Why stick to Markus model as a belief if other models can be built?

Quote

That I believe in your model is a good start. Can you present any convincing arguments why others should find the model plausible? 

It is about the physics we already know, it does not create paradoxes, it solves some theoretical problems in an elegant way (like the runaway motion, interior of kerr black holes), it may fit better the observations we've got...

 

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

It serves me well for trying to be intuitive. I didn't mean physically going. I meant transformations and mappings.

May I point out that you haven't shown your "model" yet? You really have no model, do you?

Your transformation? You have defined no transformation. I've got a purple one-eyed winged elephant. Do you want me to talk about it? I bet I can google for something resembling it and come up with some links to keep this going.

At this point, I take my leave.

The transformation is an antichronous transformation, everybody already know these. It might not have been worked out in QFT, but it has been in the Dirac formalism. Anyway, this is not necessary, at end, im just dealing with GR and Lorentz transformations.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

You suggest in you idea that somehow, regular matter appears inside the black hole. There is no known mechanism to do that, the only way to propose that is to invoke an unknown theory of quantum gravity. My model does not require to mention quantum gravity at all!

Arguing that my intentionally flawed example has issues similar to your idea is not helping your idea to look plausible. Repeating what your model does not contain isn't very convincing argument.

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

 

Quote

Thanks. You have successfully observed that my intentionally flawed idea differs from your idea. Now back to the question I try to get answers for, slightly modified: 

What observations or experiments supports your idea while falsifying my idea*? 

Perhaps none.

Ok.
 

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

It is about the physics we already know, it does not create paradoxes, it solves some theoretical problems in an elegant way (like the runaway motion, interior of kerr black holes), it may fit better the observations we've got...

Thanks for repeating your claims. When may we see some supporting evidence?

 

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

May I also change my question?

Yes

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Why did anybody build a different black hole interior just using GR, that would fit better the observations?

In my case I built an example of a different black hole interior to try to drive this discussion forward, to get more insight into your idea. 

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Why stick to Markus model as a belief if other models can be built?

At this time Markus model, within the known limits where it is applicable, predicts things verified by observations better than other alternatives. It is not so much about belief. Rather about review of information as it is made publicly available, making choices based on experience and education and/or with help from others with expert knowledge.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

When may we see some supporting evidence?

Which supporting evidence does the nowadays model have that mine doesnt?

Quote

At this time Markus model, within the known limits where it is applicable, predicts things verified by observations better than other alternatives. It is not so much about belief. Rather about review of information as it is made publicly available, making choices based on experience and education and/or with help from others with expert knowledge.

It most certainly does not predict the mass of supermassive black holes we observe. And there are more troubles with it, such as the information paradox.

Edited by muruep00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.