PDA

View Full Version : The Universe: A Black Hole in Search of Its Singularity?



thothicabob
2007-Aug-14, 03:51 PM
Thought Experiment:

A black hole is a region where space and time are warped to the extreme in a region surrounding an object described as a 'singularity' that consists of matter under maximum gravitational compression (I won't go so far as to say it's a point particle where matter is infinitely compressed; QM says it cannot be and logic would agree with that, so let's just say for now it's as compressed as matter can be).

A black hole is surrounded by an 'event horizon', with its radius dependent upon the mass of the singularity, marking the boundary of its gravitational well where escape velocity equals the velocity of light ( v(e)=c ); anything crossing this boundary (at least any information about it) is "lost forever". Due to the extremes of gravity and it's effect on space-time near the black hole, things appear to behave strangely with respect to the differences in perception of a distant observer and the entity approaching - and crossing - the event horizon.

Now, within the event horizon of a black hole, conditions are believed to be even "stranger". One effect is that, internally, the t axis of space-time seems to "change places" with the spatial r=axis (radius) of the black hole. This gives the impression, to some amazingly determined and well-put-together entity inside the black hole, that the inside edge of the event horizon is rushing away from him, when in fact, depending on his angular momentum (velocity/angle of approach) relative to the singulariy, he's actually just moving towards the black hole at c or near it; the appearance that the internal edge of the singularity is rushing away very fast is simply due to the effects described above; the internal side of the event horizon is not moving from him spatially but in time, and time seems to pass relatively slowly (passing on the r axis), but still doesn't quite stop - sooner or later (in relative terms) the entity will "hit" the singularity, even if in "reality" (if it could be measured) the distance travelled is relatively short and the time elasped correspondingly so. Even if supplied with a rocket engine capable of accelerating him to v=c straight 'up', after a while he'll still "become one" with the singularity. ;o)

For all intents and purposes within the region, the illusion is perfect.

Change context: You have a singularity that consists of ALL there is that undergoes some complete quantum decomposition (or collapse), decaying in an instant from one large "complex" quantum particle into a huge number of smaller, discrete particles, resulting in a similarly huge and near instantaneous release of energy, and an accompanying huge superluminal inflation in volume for a brief period for some reason (perhaps due lack of gravity prior to the fundamental quantum particles organizing well enough to allow the emergence of gravity?) which suddenly slows, but continues at or just below c. All the energy (including that in the form of matter) within this volume would be 'the Universe'.

Question: Would there not, despite the superluminal period, be an event horizon - not just a local one for each location within this volume (roughly demarcated by r=c times the time elapsed since the 'bang'), but also a global one, perhaps in a difference sense? It would seem that the whole shebang could be seen as the inside of a black hole, however without (at least initially) a singularity, it's mass having been distributed within the volume of this 'global' event horizon when it 'banged'. This condition would seem to create an entirely different situation than that found within a 'normal' black hole, with some changes as to how various things are looked at/perceived, for example, the 'r' and 't' axis are percieved as we do now (obviously).

However, is it possible that eventually things would reach a state where the global event horizon and the expanding energy/matter of the universe would somehow converge (or even "something" analogous creep up from "behind")? what would be the effect of this? Would - for those regions - the values of the t and r axes 'exhange places' with each other? If so, how would this be manifested? How would the effect appear to propagate through space? How would it be percieved? Accepted, we would not see a reversal of cause and effect (not that we could notice it, and I bet the universe wouldn't like that anyway), but still - our perception of reality SHOULD somehow change fundamantally. Could it "appear" that expansion is "accelerating" - a perfect illusion we could not otherwise refute from 'within' the black hole of our universe?

Note: I am not putting this forward as an idea of what I 'believe' to be happening - this idea just follows from from questions that come up in my mind in trying to apply what we believe (as I understand it) 'happens' within a 'normal' black hole (and I realize that in some ways this is an over-simplification, however still, the effects should be 'real' enough), and trying to stretch it over what could happen in the universe as a whole which, for all intents and purposes could be considered globally as a 'black hole' itself - but without a 'singularity' at the 'center', at least for a time (and hence, no 'real' center), yet should still have some of the other qualities of a black hole globally (I'll bet light cones look really wierd inside a black hole, too!), and exhibit therefore some of its characteristics, affecting how it changes over time internally (and how those changes would be percieved by internal observers).

So, does anyone know if this line of reasoning has been addressed before in this (or some similar way) before and refuted? Or if not addressed, what would be the reasons why it wouldn't be?

Just curious...

John Mendenhall
2007-Aug-14, 04:39 PM
For all potential black holes and existing black holes in our universe, their singularity lies or lay in their future. For our universe as a whole, its singularity lies in the past. Always. It is a critical difference.

thothicabob
2007-Aug-14, 04:53 PM
For all potential black holes and existing black holes in our universe, their singularity lies or lay in their future. For our universe as a whole, its singularity lies in the past. Always. It is a critical difference.

Well, that is an 'interesting' perspective, I admit - and illustrative of the difference between them and the universe as a whole (sticking to the black hole analogy), but though interesting, the comment doesn't really address the question - just highlights perhaps one 'difference'.

That said, you can extrapolate a bit - assuming a cyclic universe, the universe would oscillate between singularity/expressed universe/singularity/experessed universe (essentially, the same 'thing', just in different/changing quantum states overall). So...does that mean the singluarity condition also lies in our future? Could there be some mechanism in place that prevents us from 'knowing' it? But to avoid getting too far off track too early, I'd like to try to explore the idea in the OP and see how/if it is refuted, or - better - letting is 'stand' for a bit and exploring just how things WOULD seem if somehow some effect as described could be the case.

If it is something 'possible', then it would seem to be a simpler answer than some being proposed now; then again, it also doesn't necessarily exclude them, either, but points to a way to perhaps both explain and overcome the problems with the observations, too (e.g. I assume that a cyclic universe IS the case (for other reasons, too) so that SOMEHOW some mechanism IS available for overcoming the (apparent) increasing acceleration of cosmic expansion.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-14, 05:47 PM
Thought Experiment:

A black hole is a region where space and time are warped to the extreme...

So, does anyone know if this line of reasoning has been addressed before in this (or some similar way) before and refuted? Or if not addressed, what would be the reasons why it wouldn't be?

Just curious...

Allow me to paraphrase, just to be sure that I understand what you're driving at:

Assuming no rotation, at the center of the black hole there exists a general relativity-provided point known as a singularity.

At the outer edge, you have an event horizon, inside of which not even light can escape (save for Hawking radiation as provided for by quantum mechanics). The event horizon has a radius Re.

You propose Schwarzchild's time vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric)as a way of looking at the time arrow, namely that it can only point inward anywhere inside the event horizon, and will be curved so as to remain within the event horizon. Thus, there wouldn't be a "light cone" as erroneously reported, but a "light sphere" where the outermost edge is coincidental with the source within the event horizon.

Even if the observer could withstand the billions of Gs (calculated to sheer subatomic particles from one another) as it passes through the event horizon, because of the curvature of space-time, things would actually appear quite normal.

If a superluminal event occurred at the singularity, it would appear to be a "Big Bang" event.

Is that about right?

If so, here's a couple of my own thoughts:

1. The "universe" inside the event horizon would not be uniform, and noticeable sheering of both density of apparent stars and red-shifting would occur near the direction of the event horizon.

2. Although you said "time slows down," that's a misnomer. In the presence of such a gravitational field (nearing the event horizon) the passage of time slows down for the observer, but it keeps passing. In reality, events external to the observer appear to the observer to accelerate to near or at infinity by the time the observe impacts the event horizon. The observer's last second before impacting the event horizon might take minutes, hours, or years. Thus, the observer's last observation is of a large black hole approaching him with ever-increasing acceleration, until black-out.

3. It's possible that beyond the event horizon, the passage of time stops for the observer (as it does for a photon), but the observer (or what's left of him) continues to move towards and become one with the singularity.

4. I believe if the singularity theory holds (no actual edge to the mass), I believe that inside the event horizon you would experience nothing until you hit the singularity.

5. If there is an actual edge to the mass, however, it would itself still constitute an event horizon, so I believe the same thing would be experienced between Re and Rm (radius of the mass).

Once you're at the "mass's" edge, I believe the accumulated energies are so great, that matter exists only as an incredibly dense photon, quark, and lepton soup.

thothicabob
2007-Aug-14, 07:57 PM
one thing...

i am not talking about a 'big bang' happening within 'a' black hole ( don't even think it could be possible). i am talking about 'the' Big Bang. there is a brief superluminal inflationary period associated, as you know; it still seems to me this would also serve to create/inflate an event horizon of it's own 'around' the entire universe and there'd be no 'central' singularity. my question is about how this would be percieved internally, especially if somehow there was some sort of 'limit' to it or if 'normal' inflation managed somehow to 'catch up'. in other words, is it possible for there to be a similar flip between the r and t radius of the universe under some conditions, and if so, what would the effect of that be, how would the effect seem to propagate, and how would it appear/be percieved?





PS: i realize relativity calls for a point-like singularity in black holes; QM forbids this, however, and i think it makes more sense; in any case, it makes no difference practically speaking for this case if a black hole is a mass compressed to some small multiple of the planck length or a point particle (such problems arise in other contexts).

nature may abhor a vacuum, but i am certain it absolutely despises infinities. ;o)

thothicabob
2007-Aug-14, 08:15 PM
Allow me to paraphrase, just to be sure that I understand what you're driving at:

Assuming no rotation, at the center of the black hole there exists a general relativity-provided point known as a singularity.

At the outer edge, you have an event horizon, inside of which not even light can escape (save for Hawking radiation as provided for by quantum mechanics). The event horizon has a radius Re.

You propose Schwarzchild's time vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric)as a way of looking at the time arrow, namely that it can only point inward anywhere inside the event horizon, and will be curved so as to remain within the event horizon. Thus, there wouldn't be a "light cone" as erroneously reported, but a "light sphere" where the outermost edge is coincidental with the source within the event horizon.

Even if the observer could withstand the billions of Gs (calculated to sheer subatomic particles from one another) as it passes through the event horizon, because of the curvature of space-time, things would actually appear quite normal.

If a superluminal event occurred at the singularity, it would appear to be a "Big Bang" event.

Is that about right?

Not exactly - i am talking about The Big Bang - not 'a' big bang within some black hole.


If so, here's a couple of my own thoughts:

1. The "universe" inside the event horizon would not be uniform, and noticeable sheering of both density of apparent stars and red-shifting would occur near the direction of the event horizon.

What do you mean by 'sheering' and 'red shifting in the direction of the event horizon'? wouldn't that be 'away' from any other point internal? how would this 'sheering' be manifested? could it be as an appatent 'acceleration' expansion after a certain point?

(Are also still you considering the effect of a (brief) superluminal inflationary period of a homogenous "quantum" singlularity as it decomposes on the structure/relationship of the two event horizons that would exist (local from any given location within, and the global one? (assuming you get what i mean there?))


2. Although you said "time slows down," that's a misnomer. In the presence of such a gravitational field (nearing the event horizon) the passage of time slows down for the observer, but it keeps passing. In reality, events external to the observer appear to the observer to accelerate to near or at infinity by the time the observe impacts the event horizon. The observer's last second before impacting the event horizon might take minutes, hours, or years. Thus, the observer's last observation is of a large black hole approaching him with ever-increasing acceleration, until black-out.

I think I covered that in my use of 'impression', 'apparently', 'appears to' or 'seems', etc. I am not disputing what you say, just correcting the impression i don't get it. also - i am not concerned in this question with events external to the black hole/observer (once he passes the horizon).


3. It's possible that beyond the event horizon, the passage of time stops for the observer (as it does for a photon), but the observer (or what's left of him) continues to move towards and become one with the singularity.
yes.


4. I believe if the singularity theory holds (no actual edge to the mass), I believe that inside the event horizon you would experience nothing until you hit the singularity.

Could be true. But I do believe that QM is right here, and that 'singularity' should be either redefined to mean the gravitational center of the condensed object (that has a real finite size) or the graviationally condensed object itself. I do not believe that nature allows for infinities in that - or any other real sense. That math does is one thing; math deals with ideals. Reality is quantized and finite.


5. If there is an actual edge to the mass, however, it would itself still constitute an event horizon, so I believe the same thing would be experienced between Re and Rm (radius of the mass).

?


Once you're at the "mass's" edge, I believe the accumulated energies are so great, that matter exists only as an incredibly dense photon, quark, and lepton soup.

I agree, in general - a supremely compressed complex quantum particle or entity would be my guess.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-14, 09:20 PM
What do you mean by 'sheering' and 'red shifting in the direction of the event horizon'?

Stars appearing not where they should be, but smeared into either a concentrated area or a fairly void area, depending upon whether one was looking toward the singularity or away.


I agree, in general - a supremely compressed complex quantum particle or entity would be my guess.

Ok, let's call it a Lepricon, the intensely fiendish (and dense) super-masso particle created when black hole densities crush photons, quarks, and leptons together.

thothicabob
2007-Aug-14, 09:27 PM
Ok, let's call it a Lepricon, the intensely fiendish (and dense) super-masso particle created when black hole densities crush photons, quarks, and leptons together.

I think we can still call it a 'singularity'. and consider seriously - how WOULD you describe such a thing? i can't imagine it being a composite entity with any structure that would be meaningful beyond it being a 'complex' quantum particle/entity...that would be the effect, i'd think, of 'mashing' the particles that fall into/onto it together.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-15, 06:12 PM
I think we can still call it a 'singularity'. and consider seriously - how WOULD you describe such a thing? i can't imagine it being a composite entity with any structure that would be meaningful beyond it being a 'complex' quantum particle/entity...that would be the effect, i'd think, of 'mashing' the particles that fall into/onto it together.

I like my idea of a photon, quark, lepton soup. Call it PQL soup.

Alternatively, how about PartiQL Soup?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-15, 06:28 PM
How's this for a crazy theory:

"The shape of the particle soup (actual matter) in a black hole is precisely the same shape and size as it's event horizon. Corollary: It's density is uniform throughout."

Scares me just thinking about it!

But, for a moment, let's so postulate...

Then we would have an ellipsoid, a 3D figurewith all planar cross sections which are either ellipses or circles. It would have three semi-axes, a, b, and c. The semi-axes are half the length of the diameter, and occur through the longest diameter, the shortest, and an orthoganal to both.

The volume would be:

V = (4 Pi/3)abc

This would cause the density to be D=M/V, where M is the mass of the black hole.

Given uniformity of a rotating black hole, we can assume that two of the axes (b and c) equal each other, which would make a the polar axis.

Then, the formula would become:

V = (4 Pi/3)a*b^2

Where b is the equitorial axis.

Now the formula for density is D=3*M/(4*Pi*a*b^2)

The big question is (since this is one of those back of napkin theories), does this hold true given what we know about the masses and size of black holes across a wide number of equivalent solar masses? Or don't we know enough yet to actually calculate a polar and equitorial diamter?

thothicabob
2007-Aug-15, 07:32 PM
I like my idea of a photon, quark, lepton soup. Call it PQL soup.

Alternatively, how about PartiQL Soup?

I don't think it's a soup. I think particles that become part of the singularity lose their identity as individual particles; i think the singularity essentally becomes a single (quantum, not 'point') 'particle' whose wave function changes as more particles/energy is "absorbed" by it.

I further think there's a limit, and when that limit is hit, the singularity immediately and completely decomposes (almost 'shatters') into myriad particles in the simplest states possible, states which are defined at that time and determines how the process of 're-assembly' back to the singularity state will procede (eg. new instantiation of a/the universe, with different elemental properties/constants/values that govern how it can/will change or evolve during that process. the 'shattering' is brief could be interpreted as an 'inflationary' period which perhaps lasts until there's sufficient organization for gravity and other properties to emerge and 'slow' it down.

needs work, though - i know. it's just a very simplified/high-level summation of a working proposition for the moment.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-17, 06:58 PM
Interesting, but the term "singularity" refers to a single point. If you're talking "particles" in the plural, you're assuming some form of dimension, at which point the term "singularity" no longer applies.

publius
2007-Aug-17, 09:10 PM
Interesting, but the term "singularity" refers to a single point. If you're talking "particles" in the plural, you're assuming some form of dimension, at which point the term "singularity" no longer applies.

No, a singularity, an essential singularity is where some invariant of space-time, such as the curvature, or the stress-energy tensor, blows up, becomes infinite (or mathematically problematic in some other way).

It need not be a "point". And even then, what do you mean by point? That depends on your coordinates. A stationary Schwarzschild observer says the singularity is a point at r = 0 that exists for all time. It's not a "point" in space-time, but a surface. A radial free faller sees no singularity in space, but one in time. To him, the singularity is a point in time that occurs over all space.

Now, go to a Kerr black hole. The singularity there to a stationary Kerr observer is not a spatial point, but a spatial ring, a 1 dimensional circle. The curvature still blows up there, but blows up all along that ring, not just at a single point. Different observers there will see all sorts of complicated things different from the stationary observer.

And finally, consider the proposed Big Rip scenario. At finite time, the scale factor becomes infinite. Space-time blows up everywhere in yet a different way than the above.

-Richard

RussT
2007-Aug-18, 06:37 AM
No, a singularity, an essential singularity is where some invariant of space-time, such as the curvature, or the stress-energy tensor, blows up, becomes infinite (or mathematically problematic in some other way).

It need not be a "point". And even then, what do you mean by point? That depends on your coordinates. A stationary Schwarzschild observer says the singularity is a point at r = 0 that exists for all time. It's not a "point" in space-time, but a surface. A radial free faller sees no singularity in space, but one in time. To him, the singularity is a point in time that occurs over all space.

Now, go to a Kerr black hole. The singularity there to a stationary Kerr observer is not a spatial point, but a spatial ring, a 1 dimensional circle. The curvature still blows up there, but blows up all along that ring, not just at a single point. Different observers there will see all sorts of complicated things different from the stationary observer.

And finally, consider the proposed Big Rip scenario. At finite time, the scale factor becomes infinite. Space-time blows up everywhere in yet a different way than the above.

-Richard

Publius, I fully realize that you are just using GR/SR maths/concepts here, BUT you are stating all this as though it were fact, at least in terms of the 'interpretations' of what would be seen in 'space' and 'time'.

Schwarzschild is great for determing 'geometries' and volumes and sizes of things, BUT it is a Static solution. It is not so good at determining movement.

Also, Einstein made decisions about what makes up 'space/time' in formulating both SR and GR, part of which is....


Originally Posted by Wiki
In general relativity, the terms metric and line element are often used interchangeably.

The line element ds2 imparts information about the causal structure of the spacetime. When ds2 < 0, the interval is timelike and the square root of the absolute value of ds2 is an incremental proper time. Only timelike intervals can be physically traversed by a massive object. When ds2 = 0, the interval is lightlike, and can only be traversed by light. When ds2 > 0, the interval is spacelike and the square root of ds2 acts as an incremental proper length. Spacelike intervals cannot be traversed, since they connect events that are out of each other's light cones. Events can be causally related only if they are within each other's light cones.

In addition to that...this is built right in...




Originally Posted by Wiki
One of the core ideas of general relativity is that the metric (and the associated geometry of spacetime) is determined by the matter and energy content of spacetime. Einstein's famous field equations:

Now, let's just consider the black hole scenarios.

For a Schwarzschild black hole, we have an Event horizon spiraling down to r=0...a Point...we know that because the Big Bang can only get down to T=10^-43 seconds=10^-33 length/Planck Length/size.

SO, r=0 here would simply be the 'center' of the 'point'

Now, I believe you and Tim Thompson have both agreed/capitulated/whatever, that ALL known black holes have an accretion disc that is rotating, and therefore all black holes should have a Ring Singularity. That therefore has eliminated r=0.

I believe you understand that 'singularity' is a placeholder for 'what is really happening there'.

Now, the whole idea of 'shrinking the universe down to a point' was based on the gravitational collapse of the universe to that point...the Big Crunch...

So, 1. how does this even apply...[To him, the singularity is a point in time that occurs over all space.]?

BUT, much more importantly, IF the universe does have a Black Hole solution that can describe its initial conditions, wouldn't the Ring Singularity eliminating the r=0 and the defining of 10^-33 Planck size "Point" that would fit 'through' that Ring, the Ring actually defining the Point size ?(and it should be 2d, shouldn't it? and may even be 3d if it is a torus, or as Tim indicated a "Locus" of points)

In Fact, if the Universe does have a Black Hole solution that can define its initial conditions, that would have to mean that, since all black holes rotate, and therefore all black holes have a Ring Singularity, that 10^-43 isn't a Singularity at all, it is a "POINT" That is 10^-33 in size with r=0 as its center.

publius
2007-Aug-19, 07:00 AM
Russ,

Well, if you want to be a real stickler, there are no known black holes anyway. Nothing has been proven (and this will be the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, not 100% certainty, because I don't think that's possible since you can't escape to tell what was inside )to be that type of object/gravitational entity that we call a black hole. We've got things that look and act pretty much like the theory says they should look and act, but we can't be sure. They could be MECOs, or something else no one has yet discovered that looks very similiar to black holes.


Yes, Schwarzschild is a static, spherically symmetric space-time. And that works pretty good, since most gravitationally significant objects are fairly spherical. It's the GR equivalent of inverse square point mass Newton.

And that's a static space-time. It describes the motion of small objects in that space-time well, so long as the field of the objects themselves can be neglected. So, it handles "movement" pretty well.

And yes, it is non-rotating. Let something that is rotating collapse, and you get something different, the Kerr metric. But again, if you want to be a stickler, the Kerr metric is just as much of an idealization as Schwarzschild.

And the accretion discs don't really have anything to do with it, it's the mass of the thing that collapsed. A Schwarzschild black hole could certainly have an accretion disc rotating around it. If you want to take into account the field of the disc itself, then you've got something different in all cases, rotating hole or not. But that is a small effect anyway in most cases I'm sure.

And then there is not any horizon "spiralling" down to r = 0. The horizon in Schwarzschild occurs at R = 2GM/c^2. And it's just a coordinate thing anyway, which is the basis of one of the fundamental points I like to make.

The notion of 'r' and 't' is observer dependent. One man's space is another man's time. That just blows your mind, but that's the way it is (yes, the way it is in that model we call GR).

The external, stationary observer says there is a singularity at r = 0 in his coordinates. It's a location in space that exists at all times. Now, the radial free-faller has a different set of coordinates. His space and time, his own ruler and clock are different than ours. To him, the singularity is a point in time that exists over all space. And that's related to radius and time flipping inside the horizon. And such words themselves are related to our own external ruler and clocks. Nothing flips to the free-faller. His time is his time and his ruler is his ruler.

Now, it turns out that the Big Bang metric (in the most simple form without all the fancy stuff added) is just the time reversed form of the metric of someone riding a dynamic spherical collapse. The radial free fall into a pre-existing black hole is a little different, but the same conceptually really.

You see "r = 0" or r = Planck length is a *COORDINATE THING*. It is not any absolute description. "r" is actually time to the co-moving observer.

Now, about the rotationg thing. Yes, any local object in the universe likely to collapse is most certainly going to be rotating. The asymptotic state is thus not Schwarzschild.

But guess what. Our universe does not have any net angular momentum as far as we can tell. So no rotating solution comes into it.

Russ, these are models. Nothing more, nothing less. General Relativity provides a cosmological scale frame-work to describe things that agrees with what is observered. And that descriptions happens to be that of a "time reversed" spherically symmetric collapse. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more.

-Richard

RussT
2007-Aug-20, 08:42 AM
The notion of 'r' and 't' is observer dependent. One man's space is another man's time. That just blows your mind, but that's the way it is (yes, the way it is in that model we call GR).

The external, stationary observer says there is a singularity at r = 0 in his coordinates. It's a location in space that exists at all times. Now, the radial free-faller has a different set of coordinates. His space and time, his own ruler and clock are different than ours. To him, the singularity is a point in time that exists over all space. And that's related to radius and time flipping inside the horizon. And such words themselves are related to our own external ruler and clocks. Nothing flips to the free-faller. His time is his time and his ruler is his ruler.

This is the exact same thing that I showed for the example that KenG gave for Time being 'frozen' at the event horizon of a Black Hole!!!

If 'Nothing 'flips' for the free faller', THEN there should be no 'repeling' at the singularity, and therefore once inside the event horizon, we have to 'figure out' what is happening in that frame, RATHER than use the Maths from our distant frame to 'really tell' what is happening there!!!



In addition this is NOT a trivial or 'be careful' evaluation of what happens in 'reference frames', and ultimately what it really means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KenG From post 18...
We must avoid the illusions that come from taking what is happening in our frame, transforming to the photon frame where it all stacks up on top of itself and looks just like a point, and then reason from that point what should happen when we transform back to our reference frame.

Quote:
Originally Post by RussT
You just described what they are doing when Time is 'frozen' at the event horizon of a black hole. Didn't You?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenG
Yes, very much so. Saying time is "frozen" at an event horizon is also extremely misleading, but in a somewhat different way. It is impossible to enter the frame of the photon to see that "frozen" time, whereas you can be in the frame of something at an event horizon-- and if you do, time isn't frozen at all.

NOW, everyone has just shined this on as "Oh well, that's relativity for ya"

BUT, this is just "ONE" of the problems with SR.

There are only two options with this 'what is happening at the point of the reference frame where we are trying to determine, based on the MAths, what is happening there.

1. when we get to the refrence frame where we are trying to determine, 'what is happening there', we MUST decide that the 'Opposite' of what the maths is showing us is 'what is happening', just as KenG showed above. That is NOT just a matter of 'being careful'!!!
or 2. The maths need to be refigured in a way that DOES show the reality of what is happening there.

Everyone has always assumed that that scenario was only applicable at the Event Horizon of a black hole, BUT that is NOT true...it applies to all refernece frames where we are trying to determine 'what happens there'!!!

Both of these are telling us that the Maths are NOT configured correctly, and that the reference frames being used are NOT Valid to be able to see "Reality"!!!



Now, it turns out that the Big Bang metric (in the most simple form without all the fancy stuff added) is just the time reversed form of the metric of someone riding a dynamic spherical collapse. The radial free fall into a pre-existing black hole is a little different, but the same conceptually really.

Yes, I agree that the universe is not Rotating, as a whole, BUT that DOES NOT make the Scwarzschild solution of an expanding non-rotating "point" naked singularity Valid!

AND, collapsing the universe down to a 'Point' is NOT a valid gravitational collapse in the first place!!! The ONLY way to get down to r=0 is for an Event Horizon to form 'FROM A GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE'...Period...End of story.

Now, you guys can go through all your mathematical Sci-Fi, and what ifs, and maybe it is this way or that way, BUT in our 'real' 'physical' universe....that's it.

SO, the "Blowing up" at the Singularity, of GR/SR and the Laws Of Physics, is simply saying that THEY ALL MUST change, especially including QM, if you are going to model how the universe is working correctly!

Because, The Singularity/"What is really happening there" is 'real' and 'physically valid' as pertains to 'how our universe is working'.

http://www.bautforum.com/1001660-post68.html

Sometimes you are so close to realizing some real inuitive things about how our universe is working.

MY above post comes as close as I can to mathematically showing that the Naked Singularity "Point" of which r=0 just identifies the 'center' of that point, cannot even exist, in Our Real Universe, and is not even a 'real' singularity, BUT is the identification of a "Point Particle" going 'through' a Ring Singularity.

Some of the things mainstream has accepted as 'true' to justify all the maths working are just incredulous. This being only one of those...



Originally Posted by Tensor
4 years for someone on earth. Travelling at c, the ship would experience no time for the trip (this assumes there is no acceleration or deceleration time, getting to and stopping from c.)



And even when you state it in its most extreme case you cannot see that it is PURE Sci-Fi

Time does NOT stop just because something is traveling at "c"

Everything is 'Relative', including a single photon traveling at "c".

Even though that single photon has 0 velocity, in its own frame, for every 186,000 miles it travels, 1 second of Time passes.

And this whole thing shows the absolute falicy in defining light in 'its own reference frame' as having 0 velocity, because that winds up defining the whole path of light from its source to its sink as "Instantaneous", which is "Impossible", even in its own frame!

SO, whether photons are emitted from a star 4 light years away or 100 million light years away, they reach us INSTANTANEOUSLY in lights own frame :(


SMBH's and "Exotic Matter"/Extra Gravity are the two things that mainstream has figured out that ARE correct. Notice that Neither of those is Big Bang Theory Dependent ;)

The ECO/MECO/GravaStar has come about as a direct result of the confusion of 'what is happening at r=0/singularity', and the farther away from the realization that SMBH's are 'real' and that the r=0 dilemma MUST be dealt with and NOT abandoned, as unsolvable to protect SR/GR and the Big Bang especially, the more lost cosmology will become!

I have come to fully realize that an 'open system' is devastating for 'science', as it has inadvertently defined 'everything' as a 'closed system', starting with the Laws Of Thermodynamics, before the SR/GR or the Big Bang was even formulated, BUT as I have said numerous times...all the information was NOT available to make the decisions that have been made.

The major one thing that was not realized, was that once you define the speed of light as constant "c", that makes Space and Time "Dimensionless".

In addition, there IS a Particle Medium that IS carring light/photons, and this I'm sure would not be considered 'scientific', BUT...

It is absolutely Impossible for electrons to 'accelerate' Massless photons "Instantaneously" to 186,000 mps ;)

Have you ever tried to 'throw' something that is 'massless', and when you turn on your light in a completely dark room, how are those electrons 'accelerating' those photons 'instantaneously' to 186,000 mps?



Russ, these are models. Nothing more, nothing less. General Relativity provides a cosmological scale frame-work to describe things that agrees with what is observered. And that descriptions happens to be that of a "time reversed" spherically symmetric collapse. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more.

Yes, I know. ~22% WIMPS....Hypothetical/made up Particles, that can only be 'modeled' VIA "Simulations", and ~76% Anti-Gravity, which has NEVER been...well, you know.

Kwalish Kid
2007-Aug-20, 02:16 PM
If 'Nothing 'flips' for the free faller', THEN there should be no 'repeling' at the singularity, and therefore once inside the event horizon, we have to 'figure out' what is happening in that frame, RATHER than use the Maths from our distant frame to 'really tell' what is happening there!!!
The maths should tell the same story. The only difficulties occur when there are areas of the story that can't be properly told because of the coordinates used.

MY above post comes as close as I can to mathematically showing that the Naked Singularity "Point" of which r=0 just identifies the 'center' of that point, cannot even exist, in Our Real Universe, and is not even a 'real' singularity, BUT is the identification of a "Point Particle" going 'through' a Ring Singularity.
Now we get back to the fantasy of the magic particles. If there is absolutely no math for this point particle, why should we believe it over the math, that you admittedly don't understand, of the Big Bang?

SO, whether photons are emitted from a star 4 light years away or 100 million light years away, they reach us INSTANTANEOUSLY in lights own frame :(
This is one way to think about things. However, it does not lead to a robust determination of physical parameters. I suggest you read up on "luminosity distance", which can provide a physically meaningful definition of the path of a beam of light.

The major one thing that was not realized, was that once you define the speed of light as constant "c", that makes Space and Time "Dimensionless".
Nobody has ever said this, nor does any serious scientist believe this. Why don;t you get away from your computer and spend some time learning the very basic mathematics of Special Relativity? One can set the speed of light to a dimensionless unit, but that doesn't remove the units from any other determination.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-20, 05:28 PM
No, a singularity, an essential singularity is where some invariant of space-time, such as the curvature, or the stress-energy tensor, blows up, becomes infinite (or mathematically problematic in some other way).

It need not be a "point". And even then, what do you mean by point? That depends on your coordinates. A stationary Schwarzschild observer says the singularity is a point at r = 0 that exists for all time. It's not a "point" in space-time, but a surface. A radial free faller sees no singularity in space, but one in time. To him, the singularity is a point in time that occurs over all space.

Now, go to a Kerr black hole. The singularity there to a stationary Kerr observer is not a spatial point, but a spatial ring, a 1 dimensional circle. The curvature still blows up there, but blows up all along that ring, not just at a single point. Different observers there will see all sorts of complicated things different from the stationary observer.

And finally, consider the proposed Big Rip scenario. At finite time, the scale factor becomes infinite. Space-time blows up everywhere in yet a different way than the above.

-Richard

Hmmm... So the Kerr black hole conserves angular momentum by not being a single point, but a radius?

I like the Big Rip vs the Big Bang. Solves a lot of problems if the universe evolved along a tear rather than at a single point. I envision continual rips which are still contributing. Branes?

RussT
2007-Aug-21, 07:03 AM
The maths should tell the same story. The only difficulties occur when there are areas of the story that can't be properly told because of the coordinates used.

But the Maths are NOT telling the correct story...That's the whole point!

And where you can really see the falseness, is at the very extremes ;)

In both KenG's and Richards example, they both are saying...what the observer in 'that frame' is really seeing, is the opposite of what mainstream is defining is 'real' 'from our frame'.

SO, at the Event Horizon, as KenG said...the free falling observer sees Time flowing for him as normal, BUT it is defined as 'frozen at the event horizon' by the math...that means the maths are defined incorrectly!

Part of that problem is...


Originally Posted by RussT
And even when you state it in its most extreme case you cannot see that it is PURE Sci-Fi

Time does NOT stop just because something is traveling at "c", or because it has 0 velocity in 'its rest frame'.

Sitting in my chair typing this, I am 'at rest'/0 velocity in numerous frames. 0 velocity in the earths rotation frame, 0 velocity as earth is traveling around the sun, 0 velocity as our solar system is traveling around the Milky way, BUT Time goes by one second at a time.

Everything is 'Relative', including a single photon traveling at "c".

Even though that single photon has 0 velocity, in its own frame, for every 186,000 miles it travels, 1 second of Time passes.

And this whole thing shows the absolute falicy in defining light in 'its own reference frame' as having 0 velocity, because that winds up defining the whole path of light from its source to its sink as "Instantaneous", which is "Impossible", even in its own frame!



Quote:RussT
SO, whether photons are emitted from a star 4 light years away or 100 million light years away, they reach us INSTANTANEOUSLY in lights own frame



This is one way to think about things. However, it does not lead to a robust determination of physical parameters. I suggest you read up on "luminosity distance", which can provide a physically meaningful definition of the path of a beam of light.

[This is one way to think about things.]

Yes, this tells us that it MUST be false.

Whatever cause this to be defined this way is wrong...period. AND, it does not matter how robustly whatever other parameters are mathematically, that can be shown to be 'consistent', because the end result is modeling something that is NOT 'reality'.!!!

All of these parameters...Lorentz contraction, time dilation, 'at rest reference frames' were ALL modeled on SCI-FI...Rocketman traveling at .6/.8/.99 "c".

ALL of these things mainstream takes as "Truths", are false negatives that are not easy to falsify, and the only way to do it, is to show what is right. BUT, that entails 'someone' (The Next Einstein) developing a "WHOLE NEW" scheme from first principles, showing a "Dimensionless" correct reference frame model. AND NOT using spaceships traveling/accelerating to SCI-FI velocities, to TRY and figure out what 'we' would see/measure/detect on that SCI-FI ship, and what that SCI-GI ship would 'shrink down to'...'acceleration' closer and closer to "c" making it become become 'point particles' the closer it gets to "c". which acording to theory it cannot even do! AND, at the same time it is 'contracting' the faster it accelerates toward "c", it is "Gaining relavistic Mass"...cute trick...oh, that's right....that only 'counts' of it 'hits something' ;)



Now we get back to the fantasy of the magic particles. If there is absolutely no math for this point particle, why should we believe it over the math, that you admittedly don't understand, of the Big Bang?

And I can't even believe you put the bold sentence in writing ;)

The fantasy of magic particles are WIMPS...HYPOTHETICAL/made up particles :)

Why were these particles made up?

Because when mainstream tried to model the 'Extra Gravity" with Neutrino-like particles, going right through all baryonic matter, they found out two things.

They couldn't treat them as 'mass is mass is mass', and when they did simulations for those with infinite paths, it didn't even come close to following the FLRW EFE 'large or small' structure of the universe.

Mainstream has had numerous opportunities to 'see the light', and realize that they are 'making things up'/constraining/forcing things to be the way that they 'think' they are.

Inflation
Way faster star formation in very early fully developed galaxies 12/13 billion LY's away.
(And there is a major problem with AGN/Quasars/Blazars/LeBLac VS when SMBH's become active/Xray emiting)
Beta Decay and Neutrinos
CDM
Lambda
AND the Laws of Thermodynamics in all of these.



If there is absolutely no math for this point particle, why should we believe it over the math, that you admittedly don't understand, of the Big Bang

First, I didn't say I didn't understand the maths of the Big Bang...I do.

Second, I din't say that there were no maths for the point particle.

Once again, it is not being realized how 'critically derived' this really is...
When I said...


BUT, much more importantly, IF the universe does have a Black Hole solution that can describe its initial conditions, wouldn't the Ring Singularity eliminating the r=0 and the defining of 10^-33 Planck size "Point" that would fit 'through' that Ring, the Ring actually defining the Point size ?(and it should be 2d, shouldn't it? and may even be 3d if it is a torus, or as Tim indicated a "Locus" of points)

In Fact, if the Universe does have a Black Hole solution that can define its initial conditions, that would have to mean that, since all black holes rotate, and therefore all black holes have a Ring Singularity, that 10^-43 isn't a Singularity at all, it is a "POINT" That is 10^-33 in size with r=0 as its center.

I used the word "IF" twice, BUT this IS a critically derived definition that the "Point" at T=10^-43 is NOT a singularity that can exist in our "Real" "Physical" universe. There are NO Schwarzschild non-rotating black holes, there are NO SMBH's that have a r=10^-43 singularity...they are ALL Ring Singularities!

BUT the bottom line is this...

There is a "Medium" that does carry the photons at "c"...electrons 'accelerating' massless photons 'instantaneously' to 186,000 mps is absolutely impossible.

RussT has found this 'Medium' after over 100 years of everyone searching for the possibility. Every Aether model I have seen is wrong, and almost exclusively try to use some kind of 'wave' theory.

The Problem...

It goes against everything 'science' has defined. The answer is "Through SMBH's" and no one is willing to even look at the possibility, because of their "Preconceived Ideas" about what is right.

neilzero
2007-Aug-21, 08:44 AM
Some of the attributes assigned to black holes seem logical, if they are non-rotating and have less mass than 10E30 times our Sun. Assuming the blackholes were formed less than 13 billion years ago from infalling matter which had spin, we cannot have a non-rotating black hole.
At 10E30 solar mass, the event horizon is quite ordinary with low gravity and low gravity gradiant. Because of the enormous surface area of the event horizon, we should expect infalling matter to average nanograms per square meter per second. Orbiting matter will be quite slow and spiralling in negligibly. An advanced spacecraft should be able to fly in and out of the event horizon, then land on a planet orbiting the black hole outside the event horizon to refuel for more teasing of the event horizon. If our space craft flys a light year closer to the singularity inside the event horizon, they will be spagettified by the gravity gradient, which will prevent escape. Close to the singularity, things orbit at almost c and colisions with even subatomic particles release near infinate energy, but this does not happen just inside the event horizon of a 10E30 solar mass black hole. I concede the situation is different for the distant observer, but not for the crew of the space craft who are moving approximately zero with respect to their spacecraft. Please refute, embellish and/or comment. Neil