# Solution to gravitational singularities?

## Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I agree!
I just have some (personal) problems when the mechanism in an explanation, be it negative energy or some other concept, is hidden in such a way that it is impossible to observe or detect even in principle. For instance hiding behind an event horizon but resulting in a black hole that from the outside will look the same as if modelled/predicted by an accepted theory. Such explanations gets too close to being unscientific for my taste, kind of like "God Did It", "God of the gaps" or "last thursdayism".

You can observe it, just go inside a black hole and perform an internal gravitational experiment. Im sorry that we dont have a black hole near us, but in principle yes, it is possible to go inside, so it is not hidden.

If it were non-observable, nor directly or indirectly, that would not be science (i guess it would be methaphysics).

Take for instance virtual particles again, you cannot observe them (perhaps because god made them to live very short lifes  ), but you may argue that they exist due to observable experiments such as the Cassimir effect.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

You can observe it, just go inside a black hole and perform an internal gravitational experiment. Im sorry that we dont have a black hole near us, but in principle yes, it is possible to go inside, so it is not hidden.

How do you plan to get the information out?

I realise I was not clear enough. By hidden from observation I mean:
A: Not possible to detect or observe from outside of the event horizon since the observable is bound the event horizon
and
B: No mechanism for entering an then exiting or sending signals back from within a black hole is presented

##### Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

You can observe it, just go inside a black hole and perform an internal gravitational experiment. Im sorry that we dont have a black hole near us, but in principle yes, it is possible to go inside, so it is not hidden.

You do that and I'll be answering your previous points properly in the fullness of time. Don't worry, I won't see you inside the BH, but you will see me.

If you can go back in time we'll meet here... I mean now.

##### Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

How do you plan to get the information out?

I realise I was not clear enough. By hidden from observation I mean:
A: Not possible to detect or observe from outside of the event horizon since the observable is bound the event horizon
and
B: No mechanism for entering an then exiting or sending signals back from within a black hole is presented

Alright, but that is another question!

You were arguing that the fact that I use negative energies which are hidden behind an event horizon looked suspicious.

If you let me make use of the example I talked about before, with virtual particles, these have indirect effects that can be observed (cassimir effect). With black holes and for no quantum approaches, the observables are very few: size (dependent of mass), spin, or charge. Curiously, one of these, when observed, does not match the prediction of GR when combined with accretion and merging estimations. One may argue that the estimations are wrong (MigL did), and interior model we use for black holes with GR is right, but supermassive black holes are way too big for our estimations to be wrong (the would be very, very, very wrong). Others have proposed eternal primordial black holes, and I propose my model. In my model, no information escapes the black hole, that is forbidden, but the event horizon grows, which is something that we know already happens by other mechanisms such as accretion. And it can be observed. Spin may also tell a lot about how black holes grew, but I have not study the consequences of my model for spin of black holes and actual observations (spin is difficult to estimate in supermassive black holes, because it can change due to the "sense" of the spin of accretion matter or other black holes that merge, and no body knows about the spin these had during the life of a supermassive black hole).

I dont know where do you want to go with this question, since we arrive at the same discussion we had earlier about whether if my model is the only one consistent just using GR, or that many others can be built whose predictions are the same, so even if my models' prediction matched actual observations, one would not be sure whether if my model is the one that is correct (your argument).

And who knows, as far as I know, hawking radiation is independent of what lies inside the black hole, but perhaps it depends somehow of it (it certainly changes the mechanism by which it reduces the mass of the black hole inside, since that implies a negative energy flux in words of Hawking, and in my model, they can only be negative energy fluxes inside the black hole), and my model would change that hawking radiation (for instance, maybe it implies that it does not exist), giving you another way to prove it. But this is speculation about my speculative model... Im just saying that I might be missing a better way to prove it myself.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

How do you plan to get the information out?

Very good and simple question. +1

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I dont understand what do you mean with BHs ejected into intergalactic void.

I mean loners, solitary BHs that have been ejected by the centrifugal potential barriers. There are bound to be many objects like that in the universe. Not only BHs. For those unfortunate wanderers, there is no accretion. Only a future of perpetual evaporation (if Hawking is right).

3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I never said that they didnt. Im just saying that any eternal growth mechanism for black hole, even if it slows down in time, counteracts hawking radiation, because this one is very very small. I guess Hawking radiation occurs, although we are not 100% sure since we havent observe it.

OK. So I'm counting your answer as maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Yes, in other words, im redifyning what a time transformation is. Just like somebody did for the Dirac equation as I showed in other paper. The question is, ¿how do we know time transformations are anti-unitary? ¿Has somebody ever observe one? I believe not, you may have observed irreversible processes like: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1742.pdf  which may break time process symmetry, but no time transformations where times goes backwards.

We know it must be anti-unitary because it's a consistency requirement both of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

QM:

The transition from state 1 to state 2 has an amplitude that is complex. Reversing time implies going from state 2 to 1 instead of 1 to 2, which requires complex conjugation.

Proof in QFT (I will just reproduce the formulas that you can't see in the video below, by Sidney Coleman, the images are awful-quality):

$q\left(-t\right)=U_{T}^{\dagger}q\left(t\right)U_{T}$

$p\left(-t\right)=U_{T}^{\dagger}p\left(t\right)U_{T}=-p\left(t\right)$

$\left[q\left(0\right),p\left(0\right)\right]=i$

$U_{T}^{\dagger}\left[q\left(0\right),p\left(0\right)\right]U_{T}=i$

$\left[U_{T}^{\dagger}q\left(0\right)U_{T},U_{T}^{\dagger}p\left(0\right)U_{T}\right]=i$

$\left[q\left(t\right),-p\left(t\right)\right]=i$

$\left[q\left(t\right),p\left(t\right)\right]=-i$

Contradiction with canonical commutation rules. The intuitive argument that I've given you for QM is perhaps even more illuminating.

Sidney Coleman, Lectures on QFT (Harvard). Lecture 7; 2' 02''-11' 57'':

Version in PDF:

(there are two paradoxes if you define time inversion as a unitary operator; the other one is for the Hamiltonian)

Conclusion => Time inversion in QM or QFT must be implemented by an anti-unitary operator. Otherwise, you run into inconsistencies.

I don't know what you've read into Weinberg, but it's either he or you wrong. I'm guessing you.

3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Because that is not what time in GR is about. You may use time to reverse processes in particle physics, but time in GR is a dimension.

Wrong again!! When you deal with a tiny particle in the presence of a black hole, you can write its Lagrangian and study its motion in the background geometry of the big object. How do you think one calculates the motion of Mercury and the anomalous precession of its perihelion? One completely ignores the distortion that Mercury itself produces. In that case, the proper time of the particle is a parameter to describe a geodesic in the background geometry. The proper time of the particles you're talking about is the parameter of a curve. Never mind that it's a "dimension". You really must study GR!!!

I can give you another link for curves of particles in GR if you want.

3 hours ago, muruep00 said:

You can easily check that what is conserved is the absolute value of energy. I believe that is what GR accounts for, absolute values of energy

You really must study analytical mechanics and some classical field theory. Forget GR for now. You need lots of basic formalism.

Energy conservation comes from Lagrangians through Noether's theorem when the action is invariant except for a total derivative (divergence in several dimensions). There is no conservation for the absolute value of the energy. If there were, I would be interested to know where it comes from. I really recommend you a primer in classical field theory. Lectures 1-5 from Sidney Coleman's course Physics 253a that I've linked are an excellent, if quick, one.

Edited by joigus

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Hawking radiation is an shrinking mechanism, a very VERY slow one

A point I'd like to make, is that BHs grow regardless of your 'mechanism'

All BHs we know of are assumed to be the result of gravitational collapse, and as such, have a minimum size ( no evidence of primordial BHs ).
The 'temperature' of a BH is inversely dependent on its size; large BHs are very cold.
Even in the absence of any accretion, the BH temperature is much cooler than the CMB radiation, and as a result, will be a net absorber of radiation.
And grow in size.

Only when the universe approaches 'heat death' will 10 stellar mass BHs actually start to shrink due to radiation losses.

##### Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, joigus said:

I mean loners, solitary BHs that have been ejected by the centrifugal potential barriers. There are bound to be many objects like that in the universe. Not only BHs. For those unfortunate wanderers, there is no accretion. Only a future of perpetual evaporation (if Hawking is right).

OK. So I'm counting your answer as maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

We know it must be anti-unitary because it's a consistency requirement both of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

QM:

The transition from state 1 to state 2 has an amplitude that is complex. Reversing time implies going from state 2 to 1 instead of 1 to 2, which requires complex conjugation.

Proof in QFT (I will just reproduce the formulas that you can't see in the video below, by Sidney Coleman, the images are awful-quality):

q(t)=UTq(t)UT

p(t)=UTp(t)UT=p(t)

[q(0),p(0)]=i

UT[q(0),p(0)]UT=i

[UTq(0)UT,UTp(0)UT]=i

[q(t),p(t)]=i

[q(t),p(t)]=i

Contradiction with canonical commutation rules. The intuitive argument that I've given you for QM is perhaps even more illuminating.

Sidney Coleman, Lectures on QFT (Harvard). Lecture 7; 2' 02''-11' 57'':

Version in PDF:

(there are two paradoxes if you define time inversion as a unitary operator; the other one is for the Hamiltonian)

Conclusion => Time inversion in QM or QFT must be implemented by an anti-unitary operator. Otherwise, you run into inconsistencies.

I don't know what you've read into Weinberg, but it's either he or you wrong. I'm guessing you.

Wrong again!! When you deal with a tiny particle in the presence of a black hole, you can write its Lagrangian and study its motion in the background geometry of the big object. How do you think one calculates the motion of Mercury and the anomalous precession of its perihelion? One completely ignores the distortion that Mercury itself produces. In that case, the proper time of the particle is a parameter to describe a geodesic in the background geometry. The proper time of the particles you're talking about is the parameter of a curve. Never mind that it's a "dimension". You really must study GR!!!

Im not sure I follow, as I have not studied QFT. Thank you for the formulas. I've watch that Sidney Coleman video and I understand that in his example, he is treating a time transformation as the reversal of a process. The question again, as I have stated before is, have we really observe something moving backwards in the time dimension? The answer is, no, that is why time transformations are defined anti-unitary arbitrarely. The only reason Weinberg rejects it being unitary, is the fact that it would imply negative energies.

I dont think that if you could reverse time in GR, a process would run blackwards. Time in GR is a dimension, "similar" to a spatial direction. I can move up or down, and say hello when going up, and say hello again going down, without having that process reversed. Im always talking about time transformations as moving in the other direction as usual in the time dimension, not reversing processes. If treated as a dimension, positive and negative time is not the difference between a process and the reverse process. I understand that if you are limited to positive time, then yes, it is related to the motion of a test particle in a gravitational system through geodesics as you said. But you cant reverse time in GR, since GR is built prohibiting those transformations. As we discussed before, I would have to extend GR for that.

Anyway, Markus pointed out that exotic matter cannot be explained by the Standard Model. I understand that considering time transformation unitary does not agree with QFT, although you can work out the math in the Dirac equation and in Lorentz transformations, and both agree on the result. Perhaps somebody could work out the math for QFT, but that is not going to be me.

Quote

You really must study analytical mechanics and some classical field theory. Forget GR for now. You need lots of basic formalism.

I know a bit of classical mechanics, I am a mechanical engineer.

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

A point I'd like to make, is that BHs grow regardless of your 'mechanism'

All BHs we know of are assumed to be the result of gravitational collapse, and as such, have a minimum size ( no evidence of primordial BHs ).
The 'temperature' of a BH is inversely dependent on its size; large BHs are very cold.
Even in the absence of any accretion, the BH temperature is much cooler than the CMB radiation, and as a result, will be a net absorber of radiation.
And grow in size.

Only when the universe approaches 'heat death' will 10 stellar mass BHs actually start to shrink due to radiation losses.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I know a bit of classical mechanics, I am a mechanical engineer.

Just because you're a mechanical engineer it doesn't mean that you can't come up with an good idea. Actually, being an engineer you're in a better position to do so than many amateurs. But if you want to push your idea any further, you should be your first critic. Try to find things that could be wrong. Is energy conserved for a particle falling through the horizon? And angular momentum? Mmmm... really? Energy is not conserved in GR in the usual way. But for small test particles moving in a metric it must be. Can I make the fundamental invariant (proper time) go through the horizon continuously? Actually, the more there is of value in your idea, the more worth it it is to put it to the test for consistency. It's the best way to find possible modifications that might be needed. Or saving lots of time invested in an idea that's not worth pursuing.

Saying that continuity, differentiability and injective character are essential in microphysics is no understatement. Discontinuities only appear in physics in the thermodynamic limit (phase transitions).

Take some time to learn about the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, and then Poisson brackets. They may look like gratuitous sophistication to some people, but they are very important in theoretical physics, and illuminate very important relationships. And then go through some primer on QFT. Enough to be going on with. The deep connection between symmetries and conservation laws, discrete symmetries, how they are different from continuous symmetries...

And, above all:

##### Share on other sites

23 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I dont know where do you want to go with this question,

To be blunt; checking if your idea is unscientific or not. First; the result from the thought experiment discussion seems to be that an alternative model, created according to the same rules as your model can’t be distinguished from your model. Now let's check scientific vs unscientific:

List of what I find in the tread so far:
-The only way to perform an observation supporting your idea is to enter a black hole.
-Your idea accepts GR which per definition means there is no way, even in principle, to get any information back from the hypothetical observation done beyond the event horizon.
To further complicate observation:
-Even if a probe could, by some exotic means, communicate back from behind the event horizon (which is in principle impossible according to GR and your own descriptions) the probe would have turned into negative matter when it passed through the event horizon.
-Your idea states that the properties behind event horizons are unique; it is there, and only there, we will find negative matter, negative gravity etc.

According to your presented facts, as I understand them*, this has the following consequences:
-A probe, sent into the only region in the universe where the test can be performed will:
1: Turn into negative matter (and also inflate) once the probe passes the event horizon.
2: Have no means what so ever to send anything back to an observer outside of the black hole since the probe is beyond the event horizon.

I do not know if this is your intention or not but from the description so far you have created a scenario that is in principle completely impossible to get supporting observational evidence for. Isn't running some simulation as the only possible support for the idea very close to unscientific?

Before you compare to other theories, please note the difference between Extremely complicated, impractical, expensive, currently not possible and impossible even in principle. So far It looks like falsification/verification of your idea falls into the second category.

*) Disclaimer: I may have missed some detail in the five pages, or some explanations in the mathematics. But I'm confident that at least the last part are covered by @joigus and other experts.

##### Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, joigus said:

Just because you're a mechanical engineer it doesn't mean that you can't come up with an good idea. Actually, being an engineer you're in a better position to do so than many amateurs. But if you want to push your idea any further, you should be your first critic. Try to find things that could be wrong. Is energy conserved for a particle falling through the horizon? And angular momentum? Mmmm... really? Energy is not conserved in GR in the usual way. But for small test particles moving in a metric it must be. Can I make the fundamental invariant (proper time) go through the horizon continuously? Actually, the more there is of value in your idea, the more worth it it is to put it to the test for consistency. It's the best way to find possible modifications that might be needed. Or saving lots of time invested in an idea that's not worth pursuing.

Saying that continuity, differentiability and injective character are essential in microphysics is no understatement. Discontinuities only appear in physics in the thermodynamic limit (phase transitions).

Take some time to learn about the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, and then Poisson brackets. They may look like gratuitous sophistication to some people, but they are very important in theoretical physics, and illuminate very important relationships. And then go through some primer on QFT. Enough to be going on with. The deep connection between symmetries and conservation laws, discrete symmetries, how they are different from continuous symmetries...

And, above all:

Thank you for your advice joigus. I will keep learning in order to deeply understand GR, at least to the point where I can defend my idea (or new ones, maybe). For the time, im not planning to study QFT.

I think you took that picture from Gerardt Hooft's website: https://www.goodtheorist.science/ It is a nice work of his, that I know of.

greetings

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

To be blunt; checking if your idea is unscientific or not. First; the result from the thought experiment discussion seems to be that an alternative model, created according to the same rules as your model can’t be distinguished from your model.

I think you cant develop a consistent model which gives the same predictions as mine with the physics that we know about (GR & QM without quantum gravity). You may even see that my model is very constrained.

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Now let's check scientific vs unscientific:

List of what I find in the tread so far:
-The only way to perform an observation supporting your idea is to enter a black hole.
-Your idea accepts GR which per definition means there is no way, even in principle, to get any information back from the hypothetical observation done beyond the event horizon.
To further complicate observation:
-Even if a probe could, by some exotic means, communicate back from behind the event horizon (which is in principle impossible according to GR and your own descriptions) the probe would have turned into negative matter when it passed through the event horizon.
-Your idea states that the properties behind event horizons are unique; it is there, and only there, we will find negative matter, negative gravity etc.

According to your presented facts, as I understand them*, this has the following consequences:
-A probe, sent into the only region in the universe where the test can be performed will:
1: Turn into negative matter (and also inflate) once the probe passes the event horizon.
2: Have no means what so ever to send anything back to an observer outside of the black hole since the probe is beyond the event horizon.

I do not know if this is your intention or not but from the description so far you have created a scenario that is in principle completely impossible to get supporting observational evidence for. Isn't running some simulation as the only possible support for the idea very close to unscientific?

I agree in almost everything. I think you underestimate indirect observations & numerical simulations regarding my model, but let me make a point clear:

You cant define an hypothesis to be unscientific just because our limitations of technology. That is, my model can be perfectly proved by going inside a black hole, its not methaphysics, its the real world. For now, our techonology is not capable to send a probe into a black hole. But the hypothesis is scientific, it is just that were are limited techonologically at the moment. It is like telling Einstein that gravitational waves cannot be proved to exist, just because they are very difficult to observe. And 100 years ago, even Einstein himself did not think they would be measured in the future. But we do measure them now. To put it simple, unscientific ideas have nothing to do with the limtations of techonology. It is a question of whether they can be proved or not, today or tomorrow. If my model stated that you cannot enter a black hole (just a silly example), then that model would be unscientific, because no matter which technology you have, if you cant go inside you cant prove it at a high level of certainty, never.

But anyway, leaving this point appart. I believe numerical simulations, if carried out leaving little or non room for mistakes, and the predictions of my model matched precisely the observations that we currently cant explain, at least, it would be reasonable to consider my model as viable as the nowadays model (Markus model). Because I remind you that the actual model of the inside of a black hole, is not proved to be correct.

What you are telling me, I already know and Im already aware (in fact I like a lot the philosophy behind science). Unfortunately, black holes may be one of these objects, together with matter that seems to not interact with light, that set the biggest challenges in proving them right.

Thank you Ghideon

##### Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

To put it simple, unscientific ideas have nothing to do with the limtations of techonology.

I agree. Ind thats why I specifically stated:

37 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Before you compare to other theories, please note the difference between Extremely complicated, impractical, expensive, currently not possible and impossible even in principle. So far It looks like falsification/verification of your idea falls into the second category.

31 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

For now, our techonology is not capable to send a probe into a black hole

I don not worry about delivering the probe to a black hole or the probe passing the event horizon and turned into inflating negative matter. I ask: how do you get the results back out. No result=no observation/no evidence. Getting the result back is not limited due to current technology, it is completely impossible due to the theory you have used in your idea.

##### Share on other sites

In other words, your theory must be falsifiable.

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I don not worry about delivering the probe to a black hole or the probe passing the event horizon and turned into inflating negative matter. I ask: how do you get the results back out. No result=no observation/no evidence. Getting the result back is not limited due to current technology, it is completely impossible due to the theory you have used in your idea.

If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out?

This is again speculation on a speculative idea, but supermassive black holes might even be a habitable place, although no planets could be created with repulsive gravity, unless some electromagnetic interaction holds them up.

I get your point, but I think the fact that no direct observation can be made for now, is something we encounter every day in QM. Can you measure directly the wave function of a particle? No, you just believe that there is a wave function when you do not collapse it because the model that we have that describes better the direct observations we can make in the quantum scale require them! That is an indirect observation pointing out the existance of something unobservable, just like the one I proposed in my first post.

Your skepticism about the fact that I use negative matter that can be directly seen, can be compared with skepticism about the fact that QM requires the assumption of unobservable wave functions for particles, which must exist when you dont measure and collapse them (this I far as I understand QM).

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out?

Are you serious?

##### Share on other sites
Just now, joigus said:

Are you serious?

I just wanted to point out that you can also be the one perfoming the experiment and proving whatever lies inside an event horizon yourself. Ghideon only talked about probes, which of course would need to send that info out so that a physicist can interpret the experiment done inside.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I just wanted to point out that you can also be the one perfoming the experiment and proving whatever lies inside an event horizon yourself. Ghideon only talked about probes, which of course would need to send that info out so that a physicist can interpret the experiment done inside.

Proving to whom?

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joigus said:

Proving to whom?

To whoever goes inside and perfomes the experiment willing to know what lies inside a black hole.

I was saying that the black hole interior isnt something that is beyond the scientific method because it is impossible to observe. Some physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder think that this issue takes places with the Multiverse interpretation. But interior of black holes certainly are objects of study and application of the scientific method.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

To whoever goes inside and perfomes the experiment willing to know what lies inside a black hole.

So you're serious. (Just checking.)

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, muruep00 said:

To put it simple, unscientific ideas have nothing to do with the limtations of techonology.

And Heaven is a beautiful land of milk and honey.
( no virgins though, I like my women experienced )

I t must be true; you just can't communicate the information back to the living after you die.

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, muruep00 said:

If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out?

This is again speculation on a speculative idea, but supermassive black holes might even be a habitable place, although no planets could be created with repulsive gravity, unless some electromagnetic interaction holds them up.

I get your point, but I think the fact that no direct observation can be made for now, is something we encounter every day in QM. Can you measure directly the wave function of a particle? No, you just believe that there is a wave function when you do not collapse it because the model that we have that describes better the direct observations we can make in the quantum scale require them! That is an indirect observation pointing out the existance of something unobservable, just like the one I proposed in my first post.

Your skepticism about the fact that I use negative matter that can be directly seen, can be compared with skepticism about the fact that QM requires the assumption of unobservable wave functions for particles, which must exist when you dont measure and collapse them (this I far as I understand QM).

The problem is c represents a physical limit, rather than one we might solve with technology. It wouldn't truly be a black hole if information can come back out of it.

Even flying in might not work. May run afoul of the No-Cloning Theorem from QM.

Edited by Endy0816

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, muruep00 said:

supermassive black holes might even be a habitable place, although no planets could be created with repulsive gravity, unless some electromagnetic interaction holds them up.

Which EM interaction would do that?

Photons?

Magnetostatics?

Electrostatics?

EM always vanishes at even moderately large distances.

The picture of a supermassive black hole's interior as a nice habitable place has sent shivers down my spine.

And your suggestion of sending physicists past the event horizon has reminded me of this line by Scottish comedian Danny Bhoy:

"They say crocodiles can be faster than horses. I don't know how many horses it took to find that out."

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joigus said:

EM always vanishes at even moderately large distances.

Here's a perhaps more intuitive way to explain why electricity cannot act as a substitute for gravity:

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

Which EM interaction would do that?

Photons?

Magnetostatics?

Electrostatics?

EM always vanishes at even moderately large distances.

The picture of a supermassive black hole's interior as a nice habitable place has sent shivers down my spine.

And your suggestion of sending physicists past the event horizon has reminded me of this line by Scottish comedian Danny Bhoy:

"They say crocodiles can be faster than horses. I don't know how many horses it took to find that out."

It was just a curiosity, I quote Bonnor: http://www.januscosmologicalmodel.com/pdf/bonnor1989.pdf

Chemistry might be a very interesting subject in this universe. Moreover, positive atoms would attract each other, and so 3 Coulomb's law is unaltered, in particular, in sign.  would negative atoms. In this way large condensations, each with a positive or negative charge, could form. In fact, charge would take the place of gravitational mass in the formation of large bodies. Although there would be no neutral planets orbiting stars under the force of gravitation, there could be charged planetary systems. Intelligent life in such a universe could not be ruled out.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, muruep00 said:

If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out?

Of course I do not speak for the majority of scientists but my opinion is that a detection or observation must be accessible for peers that choose not to enter the black hole, otherwise an observation does not count. If your approach towards the observable is useful as an argument to get others to support your idea remains to be seen. My opinion is that your idea, as presented by you so far, is unscientific. Maybe we should leave that aspect of the idea and agree that you have some different definition of scientific evidence, observable, detectable than I have. There is still the aspect of simulations to cover.

13 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I think you underestimate indirect observations & numerical simulations regarding my model

I have not made any serious attempts at commenting that aspect of your idea yet. I'll try to post something later today.

12 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I get your point, but I think the fact that no direct observation can be made for now, is something we encounter every day in QM. Can you measure directly the wave function of a particle? No, you just believe that there is a wave function when you do not collapse it because the model that we have that describes better the direct observations we can make in the quantum scale require them! That is an indirect observation pointing out the existance of something unobservable, just like the one I proposed in my first post.

I rely on indirect observations every day. For instance this morning I observed a thermometer graded in degrees Celsius. I did not perform a direct observation of individual molecules and/or subatomic particle interactions. You seem to use incorrect analogies; please tell us how to indirectly observe the inside of black holes.

*) Also note that the arguments surrounding your idea begin to look very similar to religious ideas and beliefs, intended or not. I'm not going to further push that discussion, feel free to open a thread in the correct section.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×