The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Farsight, Mar 12, 2014.

  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    What? My math is the mathematics of GR. The difference resides in the fact that most studies of EHs begin with the presumption of their existence and explore the consequences of that. I'm claiming that GR actually prevents the EH from forming in the first place.

    OK, so you reject the importance of information preservation. What about gravitational fields? Would you agree that they propagate at a finite velocity? Because a frozen star would not allow for this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight

    Yes. In a way an electromagnetic wave is a gravitational wave too.

    A black hole doesn't emit any electromagnetic waves, and it won't emit any gravitational waves either. But that's not to say you can't get any gravitational waves out of a close-couple binary black-hole system.

    Again, think about why the light doesn't get out. That will tell you that the black hole really is a frozen star.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    You haven't changed your burden, you just moved it to something else. The same problem exists for making the star stop collapsing as making the astronaut stop falling.

    If you have a star remnant that is too large and therefore not dense enough to have an event horizon, but burned-out to the point where pressure no longer supports it, it collapses. There is no known mechanism for stopping its collapse: atoms don't exist, the strong and weak nuclear forces are too weak to stop it, etc.

    At some point during the collapse, it will become dense enough to have an event horizon unless something makes it stop collapsing. You have to propose - and prove - a mechanism to make it stop collapsing.

    And what is interesting about the way it is collapsing is that the event horizon forms inside the stellar remnant while it is collapsing, when a certain amount of mass gets behind a certain radius. Again, most of the matter is already inside. So I suppose what you would be proposing is that the collapse halts with not quite enough matter inside to form a black hole, and that matter is frozen in a solid block. Matter outside collapses onto the surface of this "frozen star".

    Again: you have to prove this.
    The "frozen star" has a surface, where all infalling matter freezes, does it not?
    If you don't like the name "event horizon", then call it something else. Either way, it is there and you are claiming that the infalling matter freezes there (and the matter already behind it stops collapsing). You have to prove why.
    That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you are aware that what you are presenting is not the mainstream view -- irrespective of whether your view is right or wrong.
    That's not in anyone's job description. It is up to you. My suggestion is to go take a few undergrad courses in GR to learn how it actually works and why instead of proposing an alternative interpretation before you even know the mainstream one. That's part of what is causing you so much trouble: since you already have and like your alternative explanation, you have closed your mind to learning and accepting the mainstream one.
    Well, part of your problem is that you are using philosophy, but the rest is that you don't understand the math and logic well enough to even understand what it is that you are claiming, much less how the theory work! Which is so bizarre I'll say it again: based on what I covered in the first part of the post, it is pretty clear that you don't even know what it is that you are claiming.

    You've also declined to respond to the rest of my post #180. Shall I take it you recognized that your logic failed you and decided you needed out? I'll finish the thought for you:

    When you walk out your door and into the sun, you do it with the confidence that it is still there because you are confident in the laws of physics telling us that it can't just disappear. You predict what the sun is doing "now".

    Same goes for a laser you fire at Alpha Centauri: 4.5 years from now you can say with confidence that it got there even though you can't see it. Your observation of the event is in your future, but the event itself is in your past.

    The same goes for our observer falling into the black hole. You watch him redshift and get dimmer as he approached the black hole in your past; you know what you see in your present actually happened in your past. Knowing the black hole's mass and therefore the geometry of spacetime around it, you can calculate when in your past the infaller entered the black hole.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Then that's another problem for your theory. Current theory says that gravitational waves certainly do get emitted from a black hole, and those waves aren't reduced when mass has supposedly passed through the EH.
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    This is easy. Needing a mechanism to make something "stop doing something" is simply a function of time. When I said that gravity-induced time dilation is absolute in GR what I meant is that it isn't symmetric. All frames would agree that the lower gravity well passes time more slowly, although they might differ on the amount of dilation relative to their current frame. The only exception to this is if time is dilated to infinity for an observer, at which point time stops; in that case all frames agree that time has stopped for that observer. You're thinking of stopping in terms of forces but this is more fundamental than that.

    There is no EH surface, but there certainly is a star surface. As I said, this star is solid to the core. The EH starts as a point at its center, where the gravitational forces are maximized. The EH never grows beyond a point, because all matter collapsing in to it takes an eternity to do so. In theory, anyone on Earth could still see the very first neutron particles collapsing at the center of any black hole area in the Universe today, save for the enormous (but not infinite) red-shifting. To claim that this is not true is to reject GR. To proclaim that an EH exists today is to reject GR because the EH's existence presupposes that those first neutron particles have already collapsed beyond the point of no return.

    I didn't respond to your sun comment because it detracts from my point. The fact is that you don't know the sun exists beyond 8 minutes ago. You're only relying on this objection because it seems absurd to imagine a scenario where the sun just stopped existing at some point in the last 8 minutes, based on history and our knowledge of the universe. Additionally, we can verify that you currently made a safe assumption in another 8 minutes from now, but that's all it was: an assumption. You are confusing this with scientific knowledge.

    This is where philosophy enters the subject; please define "your present" mathematically. There are spacetime slices but they are only universal in SR. GR breaks any concept of the now. Lastly, your final statement is erroneous because the infaller has never entered the black hole in my past. That's well known and the centerpiece to the entire crux of my argument.
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    "This is where philosophy enters the subject.." Really? The philosophy of 'preferred coordinate systems' for doing scientific analysis. It's the philosophy of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Your philosophy.
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member


    I'll add this for your edification on the subject of coordinates. This is a quote from rpenner's post #115 in the SR Issue thread. Very informative.

    "When you list the coordinates in frame Σ, you make the mistake of not labeling them clearly by event and frame. A coordinate is a function of what event in space-time we are talking about and what coordinate frame we are using to describe its position. Failure to label things clearly will get you in trouble because x is not the same thing as x' and t is not the same thing as t'."

    You fail to label your coordinates by event and frame. And you conclude the description of the event is the same for the local and remote observations. Generally in the weak field the results of the remote and local analysis are real close. Just like Newton predicts. Makes it hard for you to believe the description of the event could be so different in the strong field. So you search for a way to philosophically declare the Schwarzschild remote coordinates are the 'real' and 'true' coordinates. LOL. Actually your argument is about as clever as every other crank. As far as physics and philosophy are concerned your argument is ignorant nonsense.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    That's been patently obvious with this and other alternative hypothesis "experts" since I have been coming here.
  12. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    The past light cone of an outside observer does not change with a change in coordinates. My explanation holds, regardless.
  13. Farsight

    It isn't my theory. What I'm telling you about is one of two GR interpretations. The problem is that the other one is more popular, and people don't appreciate that there's two interpretations. See this from Kevin Brown's formation and growth of black holes

    I'm saying the "field interpretation" is right. Most people don't even know about it.

    I think you've misunderstood something somewhere. Energy can't get out of a black hole via any mechanism. Two co-orbiting black holes can emit gravitational waves, but the emitted energy comes from their orbital energy, not from inside the black holes.

    Whatever. But again, you're ducking the issue, which is this: you're standing on the event horizon with a laser pointing vertically upwards. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down, or fall back. Why doesn't the light get out? You have to address this to understand why I'm right.
  14. Farsight

    Whilst I don't share RJ's view about the event horizon not existing, I do agree with the gist of his answer. The coordinate speed of light at the event horizon is zero. Nothing can move faster than light. So a body falling towards the black hole ends up with a speed of zero. And there's no more gravitational force, because the force of gravity at some location relates to the local gradient in the coordinate speed of light. When the coordinate speed of light is zero, there's no gradient, and no gravity.
  15. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Of course, I didn't mean "your" interpretation. I meant both interpretations suffer from a loss of information while I believe the pure GR theory itself does not.

    Ahh wait just a minute. You cannot just "whatever" away an objection. Again, both interpretations suffer from this: if energy cannot escape past the event horizon how does it continue to exert gravitational forces upon the universe? Surely a frozen star would cease to affect a universe once all local matter had been consumed/frozen, yes?

    I understand your point, and this is useful for others to appreciate the EH, but my interpretation has no EH so this doesn't apply. The EH is simply a point at the center of this giant mass. If you were located at this EH point with your laser pointer, its light would indeed eventually get out, but it would take a horribly long time. Similarly, all information is preserved and magical gravitational forces no longer need explaining. GR predicts this, while physicists introduce these problems by presuming a fictional event horizon in their analyses.
  16. Farsight

    Sorry. I only said that because of what I'd said previously, wherein energy can't get out of a black hole.

    Because energy is like spatial pressure. Have a look at the stress-energy-momentum tensor and note the energy-pressure diagonal. Then have a look at Gravity works like this:

    "I don’t know if you know, but there’s another couple of problems with the rubber-sheet picture. One is that it depicts tension instead of pressure. Einstein’s stress-energy tensor has an energy-pressure diagonal, and to envisage pressure you need to step up from a rubber sheet to three-dimensional space. Imagine it’s like some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly, then you insert a hypodermic needle and inject more jelly to represent the mass-energy of the Earth. The surrounding jelly is pressed outwards rather than being pulled inwards..."


    Because the coordinate speed of light at that location is almost zero. Yes?

    If you and I could see that light, I'd say it wasn't moving. You'd say it was moving very very very slowly. There's not a great deal of difference between our two positions.

    I think the central point singularity is the fiction. Along with the idea that you can fall through the event horizon or "surface" if that's what you'd rather call it.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I see your problem and misinterpretation due to the fact, that in essence, you "must" support your self written and self publicised book.
    In other words, you are unable to see the forest, because of the trees.
    This is obvious in the title you chose for the thread, " The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right" which tells me that you will never accept the possibility that you are wrong.

    But let me explain in my layman's fashion and what I understand GR to predict and tell us.....
    You said...
    What do you understand of the meaning of a Singularity?
    I see it as a "physical" region of spacetime, being the smallest volume allowed, at the quantum/Planck level.
    I don't see a singularity as Infinite in itself, rather the possibility of certain qualities like density and spacetime curvature possibly leading to infinite quantities.
    In other words, any surface of any BH, will most likely be shown to exist here, [the singularity] by any future QGT.

    What you need to appreciate is that the EH is what is commonly accepted as the EH, that is the parameter at which the escape velocity of light is reached.
    This just happens to align with the Schwarzchild radius, or the parameters where the density of any mass reaches a stage where further gravitational collapse cannot be stopped, at least up to the point commonly referred to as the Singularity.

    Please also note the following...any body/mass, falling towards the EH of a BH is falling at a speed approaching "c"
    It will fall through the EH with no undue weirdness or time effects within that FoR.
    From an outside FoR, though, time is seen to slow and become Infinitely redshifted so that is is never seen to cross said EH from that outside FoR.
    Remember that all FoR's are as valid as each other.

    Back to Farsight....You said...

    If one is standing on the EH, which is a rather weird way of putting it, as it infers a surface which doesn't exist. All the EH is, is a parameter in a gravity well, where the escape velocity, and the Schwarzchild radius is reached.
    If we interprete your analogy more correctly, we would say anyone about to cross the EH, shining a laser directly away, will see the light/photons from the laser gradually arcing back to fall in with the laser pointer and the body pointing it. That is except that light/photons that is pointed directely radially away.
    In that case, that light/photons will be seen to hover forever just above the EH never quite escaping and never getting sucked in.
    Likewise If I had a speed of light space ship, and I approached the EH, and then turned and accelerated directly away at "c". my ship would also be seen to hover just above the EH, never quite escaping but never getting sucked in.

  18. nghia_dtvt5 Registered Member

    Its good post
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Though I don't know the merits or demerits of this thread yet, I suspect that just like my ideas and discussions, it is now in the place that this community deems appropriate for it. I know Farsight doesn't like to post out here, and I don't presume to speak for him, but I think he might have been talking mathematically about the central singularity in this exchange. He was responding to this statement:

    RJBeery - "Similarly, all information is preserved and magical gravitational forces no longer need explaining. GR predicts this, while physicists introduce these problems by presuming a fictional event horizon in their analyses."

    To which he said:

    Farsight - "I think the central point singularity is the fiction. Along with the idea that you can fall through the event horizon or "surface" if that's what you'd rather call it."

    The second sentence of his reply seems to apply to RJBeery's comment, but the somewhat disjointed comment about the central point singularity seems to be a thought he wanted to get into the thread concerning the mathematical nature of the central point within a black hole.

    When you mentioned your description was in layman terms I took it that you were in the continual process of learning, and I am too. We should be able to do that out here where speculative discussion is common. That is the category of your description of the central point singularity that Farsight mentioned, but before I pick up on your description I want to say that what Farsight could have been talking about was not anything physical. The black hole central point singularity might just be about the mathematically singularity that describes where the spacetime mathematics "break down".

    But beyond that, if you or anyone is interested in some of the unresolved discussion on this thread, maybe we can start with your physical description of the black hole central point singularity:

    The link was interesting, and contains a good written and visual interpretation, but the physical nature of the tiny Planck length central region is not the same thing as the mathematical singularity. As I understand the way the mathematically singularity is encountered, it is the final end of backtracking the real observables when we reverse to process that lead to them. In the case where black holes form, say from the collapse of a star, they accumulate matter and energy that falls in and can't escape. All of that can be described physically and mathematically until the mathematical singularity is encountered when backing tracking the formation process to that central point.

    But that region is not portrayed as ever physically existing on its own as a start point in the black hole frozen star scenario, is it? The central point is a result of the convergence of the matter and energy that preexisted in the star, and then became a geometric central point of the collapsed star, surrounded by all of the debris and cosmic dust just produced by the event.

    Your description seems to apply better to the Big Bang singularity, which is also mathematical, but the BB singularity is implied to be the central point of origin of our observable universe. It is the nice clean mathematical end point where the math breaks down after back tracking the observed expansion as far as it can imaginably go. Could your physical description of the Planck length central region be of the infinitely dense hot ball of energy that emerges immediately after the initial event that brought the BBT universe into existence?
  20. Android Neox Registered Member

    The fact that the Shapiro Delay from any point in space above an event horizon down to the event horizon is infinite means, to me, it requires infinite time for light to travel to an event horizon, from anywhere. If light cannot get there in finite time, nothing can, ever.

    I think Einstein was correct that black hole event horizons cannot form. He accepted the Frozen Star model in which the collapsing matter slows to a virtual halt as it approaches the Schwarzschild limit.

    People often get confused about the Schwarzschild radius and think it's a distance through space. It's not. It's an apparent distance when viewed from a sufficient distance that space looks flat. In Relativity, distance between two points is defined by the time required for light to travel between those points. If the Schwarzschild radius, Rs, were a measure of distance it would take light the same amount of time to travel from 4 Rs to 3 Rs as it does from 3Rs to 2 Rs, but it doesn't. And, to travel from 2Rs to 1Rs requires infinite time.

    Also, people get confused by the fact that the proper time experienced by a freely falling observer falling to an event horizon is finite means that the fall will end. This is also wrong. Just because the area under a decaying exponential curve is finite doesn't mean the curve is finite in length.

    A simple thought experiment shines light down to an event horizon from some point in space stationary with respect to the black hole. The light beam, when it reaches the event horizon, will be infinitely blue shifted. This means the beam contains an infinite series of light waves. Since every one of these must be generated at the source and each requires finite time to produce, infinite time must pass at the source BEFORE the front of the light beam can reach the event horizon. This is a simple proof that depends only on causality and the blue shift.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Question: can we say that a BH is an "infinitely collapsing spacetime singularity"?
    Question: if everything within cone of a BH always orbits, how fast can the rotation speed up as the diameter shrinks?
  22. Android Neox Registered Member

    Technically, if no event horizon forms, there is no "singularity". There aren't any infinities until after the event horizon forms and the Frozen Star model has no EH.
  23. river

    Mathematically perhaps. Mathematical imagination .

    What form of matter ; energy really ; physically , infinitely collapsed ?

    Before this infinite " collapse " .
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019

Share This Page