The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Micro BH's are at best only hypothetical, and as far as I am aware, are/were only hypothetically thought to have existed or created at or near the BB.
That isn't quite right, there are cosmic rays with sufficient energy to produce a black hole in our upper atmosphere according to GR. The consensus is that these almost immediately evaporate, which is why we cannot detect them.
OK, I wasn't actually aware of that.
But anyway we are talking of the quantum/Planck level and we know what applies there... or what doesn't apply.
Quite a lengthy rundown on Wiki, but I'm still not quite sure how this ties in with the garden variety type of BH or SMBH's for that matter
The details don't matter, and the problem continues to exist for any size of blackhole. Once we've established that any form of blackhole evaporation exists (which we have, if GR's predictions are correct), we have logically prevented the event horizon from forming, ever. The recognition that black hole evaporation exists and the belief that event horizons are physical are mutually exclusive ideas. You cannot have both, logically; consensus be damned.
kevin78:
---
* with the caveat that if a coordinate system has one or more singularities that is probably a sign that the system itself isn't up to describing these particular events - at least not where/when the singularities lie in the coordinates.
A choice of coordinate system can never affect physical reality. If events happen in one coordinate system, they happen in every coordinate system.*
---
* with the caveat that if a coordinate system has one or more singularities that is probably a sign that the system itself isn't up to describing these particular events - at least not where/when the singularities lie in the coordinates.
I'm not aware of that prediction. Got a reference/link?
I don't see why. Can you explain? Thanks.
Last edited:
Microscopic black holes were given a lot of attention back when the LHC was being built because they were cited as "proof" that any such black holes created at the facility, even inadvertently, would pose no danger to the Earth.
This quote comes from the LHC Safety Assessment report, which can be found here -- https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report.pdf
The quote above encapsulates the logical contradiction. One well-known feature of the event horizon is that it cannot exist in an observer's past light cone. Now, let's say that the LHC was in fact capable of creating a black hole, and it evaporated as expected. That black hole is now in the past light cone of the experimenters in the lab, and soon the entire Earth. This isn't a subjective interpretation, it's a mathematical and logical contradiction. Any black hole of any size at any location in the Universe with a finite existence cannot contain an event horizon, and by most definitions cannot be called a proper black hole at all.
I don't understand what you're saying there.
If we, for example, take a photo of a black hole, then the horizon we see must be in our past light cone, or else we wouldn't be in a position to observe it.
And yet the evidence says they exist. The dying pulse train, and Cygnus X-1 support that as well as of course the 14 or so BH binary collisions that we have seen so far. The real fact of the matter is that so far we have no evidence of micro/quantum size BH's.
Think about what it means for an event to be in our past light cone -- it means that we have or could have received light from that event. A causal ordering would need to exist from within an event horizon to an external observer, and this is forbidden by definition of the event horizon.
If micro black holes don't exist then GR is wrong because there is sufficient energy from cosmic rays to produce them. Is that really your position? Because the LHC Safety Assessment implies that the physics community does not agree with you. Micro black holes don't need to exist anyway -- only black hole radiation. The finite nature of black holes due to some sort of evaporative radiation effect renders event horizons impossible.paddoboy said:
Pointing to suggestive evidence which has other explanations (i.e. the frozen star) is not constructive because I'm trying to explain that event horizons are logically incompatible with finite black holes - period. Continuing to point to that same data is like arguing that 2=1 without addressing the logical inconsistency.
GR's in a great part rests on its predictive powers...gravitational waves being the latest. GR also predicts worm holes and we havn't seen them either, just as per your micro BH's. The valid point to make to falsify GR, would be a discovery of something that it did not predict. Like your frozen stars.
You can interpretation I believe is faulty. Or are you also saying that mainstream is simply ignoring what you imagine to be the case?
The evidence for stellar size and SMBH's is pretty damn conclusive at this time, with gravitational waves discovery and the EHT imaging.
You have been from memory, like Farsight, pushing this hypothetical for a while now. So why not submit your evidence and claims for professional peer review, in a reputable publishing company.
Thanks. I see what you're saying.
The event horizon isn't a "thing", though. That is to say, it's not a physical barrier. It is true that no light can come out from within. But that's not what is happening when a black hole evaporates.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Hawking radiation is not a GR prediction. It is a prediction of a semiclassical QFT on a classical GR background. And the derivation has a serious problem, named the trans-Planckian problem.
The frozen star was the original prediction from GR. In fact, Einstein never did believe in black hole formation at all. The switch to Kruskal coordinates took the physics community down the wrong path, IMO. All of this is moot though because there's no room for debate unless you (or anyone) can get around the logical contradiction of event horizons existing within a finite black hole. I don't think you're taking "logical contradiction" literally enough, or you simply don't understand my argument.
I don't understand what you're saying here, James. "What" is not what is happening when a black hole evaporates? Let's keep it simple:James R said:
1) Event horizons cannot exist in our past light cones, by definition
2) Black holes which have evaporated completely can exist in our past light cones
3) Ergo, black holes which evaporate cannot contain event horizons
Which of the three statements do you disagree with?
It's worse than that -- Hawking radiation suffers from the same logical contradiction! Hawking radiation requires an event horizon to exist in the first place...which causes the black hole to evaporate...which precludes the existence of the event horizon. That's why I'm referring to "some sort of evaporative effect" rather than Hawking radiation explicitly. And while I agree that GR doesn't predict such evaporation, I'm discussing what physically exists rather than mathematical predictions in the theory. That's why my claim is that "finite black holes and event horizons are mutually exclusive".
Regarding the "pretty damn conclusive" LIGO results, I found this pretty interesting -- https://crisisinphysics.wordpress.c...at-last-success-for-einstein-not-black-holes/
The fact is, even though I have done so, the onus is not on me to provide evidence for such an alternative explanation (i.e. frozen stars) because logical contradictions (with finite black holes and event horizons) cannot be argued away.
The fact is, even though I have done so, the onus is not on me to provide evidence for such an alternative explanation (i.e. frozen stars) because logical contradictions (with finite black holes and event horizons) cannot be argued away.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...GW150914_Betray_the_Absence_of_Event_Horizons
It just takes a little searching.
It just takes a little searching.
Firstly Einstein was also wrong when he fudged the CC to reflect a static universe...his greatest blunder, secondly, GR has come a long way since 1916, thirdly, with regards to your claim that GR predicted frozen stars, GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
OK, on this I'm pretty dusty, but I would simply would make two points, [1] nothing from inside any BH ever crosses to the outside again and [2] all FoRs are as valid as each other. Not sure if that answers your question/choices at all, but that is my limited understanding.
https://crisisinphysics.wordpress.c...at-last-success-for-einstein-not-black-holes/
There are those that disagree with the mainstream interpretations, and in most part they also disagree with each other. We have had many various interpretations re GR, and interpretations that it has already been falsified. Of course being a classical theory, not being applicable at the quantum/Planck level is simply the limitation of the theory.
I disagree and believe that the onus is on you, as your claims of logical contradictions, is just an opinion, obviously not held by mainstream in general.
Finally, at least debate with you is pleasant enough, and remains polite. On that issue you have my respect.
A logical contradiction is not an opinion. I hope this is obvious to you. I appreciate that you're saying you don't know how to refute one of the three numbered statements above but, unless we can do that, there is no room for subjectivity here.paddoboy said: