BTW, just a quick thought on the information paradoxon associated with black
holes:

Thinking about it, this is actually a non-issue.

Doesn't QM say (at least in some interpretations) that a particle's properties
are not determined until it interacts?

So assume a particle actually falls into a black hole; Is any information lost?
No - because it can no longer interact with anything; so its properties were
still undetermined when it fell in. So there goes a memory storage location,
but it wasn't used.

Why wasn't it used? Well, because all information it had before was passed on to
the last particle it interacted with.

But each particle can only store so much bits of information, so where did the
information go *that* particle carried? Simple: There wasn't any in it. After
all, the only thing it interacted with was a particle that is lost, so we have
no way of checking how it influenced that particle; so those properties cannot
be (indirectly) observed either - and were hence still undefined when it
interacted.

And so on.

So as it seems, a lot of matter out there is actually just unused spare memory,
ready to back-up information of other particles doomed to fall into black
holes... the queer thing is, we don't know *which* particles are used and which
aren't...

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   If we assume the mass of the black hole would decrease, then the EH would
> > recess. The photons which were emitted extremely close to the EH will get
> > a speedup when the EH recesses. Basically the "point of entry" will stop
> > being *at* the EH and becomes being *above* it. Thus all the photons will
> > reach the external observer in finite time. The external observer will
> > end up actually "seeing" the falling object cross the EH.

> I guess it will rather be that as the black hole evaporates, the EH will shrink
> as you said, but the "victim" will still seem to "stick" to it.

  Why? Exactly how does that happen?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I don't know either. By now, I'm entirely in BS mode. :-)
> 
> BS is actually a good fertilizer...

Yeah, great useful ideas may actually germinate thanks to it. :)

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Which leads me to believe that in fact, the very moment you reach the EH of a
> black hole you just simply evaporate.
> 
> Which, again, leads me to believe that there is actually no mass at all *inside*
> a black hole: All that makes up the gravity well is the stuff busy falling into
> it. From an outside observer unable to ever reach the EH - except due to
> quantum fluctuations. Which will cause them to reach it at last and instantly
> evaporate.
> 
> 
> Duh. That's sounds simple enough to actually be true!
> 
> 
> Now *why* would you evaporate if you reached the EH? Maybe because you would zip
> off straight towards the singularity because all those evil vectors head straigt
> there - but you can't stay there because, after all, it's a singularity, a "mu"
> location where nothing can be - not even you, although it looks like you just
> fell into there. But then again, *are* you really where you seem to be?

Well, if we can believe that matter and energy began out of nothing with 
a Big Bang, why not believe it can suddenly come out of existence with 
all but silence and darkness? :P

> Enter QM: If you *can't* be there where you most likely *are*, then you must be
> someplace where it's quite *unlikely* (though not perfectly impossible) that
> you're there... like, say, not in the grasp of That Nasty Big Black Hole after
> all... like, say, Hawaii... Alas! If only you hadn't opted for that job as a
> space cadet... But... hey, did you, after all? It's a bit unlikely that you
> did, given the fact that it made you end up somewhere you cannot possibly be...
> so maybe you stayed home after all - or at least one of your electrons did...
> Whoops! Off here goes one of your elementary particles... Or you could have
> died in that explosion at Tau Alpha Ceti 6, and be part of that fascinating
> dust cloud out there... Whoops! Here goes another one...

Perhaps only Phil Connor would know. :P

> Hey, I like this idea...
> 
> 
> Boys, I don't want to brag, but could it be that I'm just hatching an important
> idea here...?? It looks to me like things are falling into place this way:

hehe, are you sure you're not a mere crackpot? ;)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

> - It would explain what the singularity in the GR equations actually means: A
> "forbidden point" in spacetime. A place that is not. GR being unable to give
> proper results for this point because the only proper result is "mu". In fact,
> it would mean that giving nonsense results for such a point would actually be a
> *prerequisite* for a good theory, unless you're using it for Zen archery target
> practice. Fascinating!

Perhaps we get to know a universe in one single dimension?  "Hey, Phil, 
long time no see!  Somewhat overcrowded here, huh?"  well, except time 
wouldn't exist and so everything would be at the same time (damn word!). :P

Perhaps everything at the same time is nothing but a blur, a nothing. 
And this is my daily contribution of BS... :P

> - It would explain the fermion paradoxon: If there's no fermion at the
> singularity in the first place, there's no need to worry about a second fermion
> trying to occupy the same spot.

Yes.

>>   I don't think that's possible. When he is exactly at the EH, the entire
>> EH engulfs the entire view on all sides. He doesn't see anything else
>> than the EH. What he "sees" inside... I don't know.
> 
> "Mu" again.
> 
> As I pointed out previously, I see the EH as being identical to the singularity
> - a single point in spacetime blown up to macroscopic dimensions.
> 
> Actually, stating that the singularity is something which is not, this also
> means that the EH is something which is not. Spacetime ends an infinitesimal
> distance away from it. You can't reach it - being there is impossible, and
> impossible is less likely than the infinitesimally small probability of not
> having steered too close to the black hole in the first place.

Now that it's being considered that our universe could be a hologram, 
perhaps it's nothing but the slot to the credit card machine?  Freedom 
at last! :P

Well, I think we got into some wild scifi scenarios here and I'll be 
munching all of it away for quite a few time... :D

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > I guess it will rather be that as the black hole evaporates, the EH will shrink
> > as you said, but the "victim" will still seem to "stick" to it.
>
>   Why? Exactly how does that happen?

Suppose for argument's sake that the BH just suddenly happens to shrinks to half
its mass.

What happens to the EH? Simple: It recedes. A BH with less mass has a smaller
Schwartzschild radius.

What happens to the gravity well? Simple, too: Its slope gets less dramatic
where the EH used to be. Still catastrophic where the EH is *now*.

What happens to the point where the victim was "hanging out"?

Now this gets a bit more tricky. I'll present two approaches that sound
plausible to me; both would come to the conclusion I presented, and I guess
actually both would happen at the same time:

(a)

What does a "gravity well" mean? Well, it's distorted spacetime. I imagine it as
"compressed". So let's for the sake of argument use a very simplistic image;
say, a BH would just influence a radius double its EH radius, and the space
between that distorted linearly.

So let's assume that the "victim" has fallen 99% along this slope (he has had
enough time to do that), so he's just 1% of the EH radius away from the EH,
when all of a sudden the black hole goes on a diet: Pop! here goes the EH
radius to, say, half its diameter.

Space further away gets "un-distorted" - actually all the space up to the old EH
radius. But that's only the part up to 50% along the old slope. The remaining
50% are still "downhill", with our victim still on this slope. 98% along it,
actually. So 2% of the new EH radius away from the new EH.

So for practical purposes, he has almost exactly moved along with the receding
EH.

Note that in reality, the distortion close to the EH would be much stronger than
further away, and the "un-distortion" effect would be much weaker for areas very
close to the EH than for areas further away.

(b)

What would happen if the EH would suddenly recede and spacetime getting somewhat
"un-distorted", and our victim would *not* follow the EH?

Well, in that case, from an outside observer his wristwatch would speed up
again. But then what? Remember what the poor old sod was busy with when we left
him hanging at the edge of the EH? Right: Falling straigt towards the black
hole! So what will he do now in his newly recovered spare time? Um... continue
falling I guess...

So if the receding EH would also recede from our poor sod, he'd *very* quickly
catch up with it...


I guess both effects will happen, and they will combine. So there's reason
enough to believe that even as the EH recedes, that guy will still keep hugging
it, bound in eternal love... ("Oh darling, why can't this moment last forever!")

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Yes, Schwartzschild (an interesting name coincidence, by the way, that someone
> whose name translates to "Blackshield" should be the first to discover the
> formula for a black hole's event horizon) did his calculations for the most
> simple of black holes.

Indeed.  And thanks for the info, I was afraid he was son of 
Schwarzzenegger or something. :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> What happens to the point where the victim was "hanging out"?

  The victim was not "hanging out" anywhere. There were simply some
leftover photons there, going out (with asymptotically lessening frequency).

  When the event horizon recedes, these leftover photons will be in a
less strong gravity field and will thus get a boostup. The photons which
were almost touching the EH will now be farther away, and will get out
in less time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Perhaps only Phil Connor would know. :P

Maybe - I don't know *him*... should I?


> hehe, are you sure you're not a mere crackpot? ;)
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Hm.... let's check this out (BTW, I'm a fan of JOAN Baez, so it must be good
;))...


.... uh-oh! Looks like I'm making a *really poor* crackpot... a few points from
the first items, but I utterly fail at the real challenges...

I guess we *all* have to train still a bit more to qualify ;)

(We didn't even get into a flamewar about this... that's really poor! :P)

> Perhaps we get to know a universe in one single dimension?  "Hey, Phil,
> long time no see!  Somewhat overcrowded here, huh?"  well, except time
> wouldn't exist and so everything would be at the same time (damn word!). :P

The good thing is that it wouldn't last long :)

> Now that it's being considered that our universe could be a hologram,
> perhaps it's nothing but the slot to the credit card machine?  Freedom
> at last! :P

Yeah... so next step would be a few bit shift registers, accumulators, and - ah!
There you go: Correct pin, so spit out them greenbacks... :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka escreveu:
> > Yes, Schwartzschild (an interesting name coincidence, by the way, that someone
> > whose name translates to "Blackshield" should be the first to discover the
> > formula for a black hole's event horizon) did his calculations for the most
> > simple of black holes.
>
> Indeed.  And thanks for the info, I was afraid he was son of
> Schwarzzenegger or something. :P

Just googled around a bit. Looks like Arnold "Arnie" Schwarzenegger (just one
"z" BTW) bears a surname derived from a Swiss location called "Schwarzenegg",
which in turn might translate to "black corner/region" or something alike.

Another BTW: With contemporary German orthography, "Schwartzschild" would lose
the "t" in his name... like "Rothschild" (which is "Redshield") would lose the
"h"...

..... I must confess though that this information has absolutely *nothing* to do
with black holes or cosmology or anything remotely close :P

(... except if you're opting for a holistic view on our universe ;))

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > What happens to the point where the victim was "hanging out"?
>
>   The victim was not "hanging out" anywhere. There were simply some
> leftover photons there, going out (with asymptotically lessening frequency).

No, there's not enough space "wrapped up" to keep them there. It's instead the
phenomenon of time dilation - the fact that time is "wrapped up" there as well
(after all, it's the *spacetime* that is warped) - that produces the effect.

From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.

Maybe I'll draw a picture this weekend to illustrate what I mean.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Do you go to the doctor to check if you have the flu, even if you have no
>> symptoms? No, because lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary. :-)
> 
> LOL! I tried to find a good scientific example, but didn't come up with anything
> good - yours hits the mark ;)

Yes. The proper expression is "absence of proof is not proof of absence." 
But evidence certainly is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

> Well, even with fermions, it is questionable whether this is a problem with GR,
> or rather with QM.

I think we've all acknowledged that repeatedly. :-)

>> I don't think anyone on p.o-t knows whether GR or QM is wrong for sure.
> 
> I think you can apply this theory to outside p.o-t as well... there's currently
> little evidence to the contrary ;)

Yup.  Except that wouldn't nearly be as sarcastic. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Doesn't QM say (at least in some interpretations) that a particle's properties
> are not determined until it interacts?

Some are, some aren't.  A photon is always positively charged whether you're 
measuring it or not. Only the properties that are orthogonal (i.e., 
"uncertain") are indeterminate.

> So assume a particle actually falls into a black hole; Is any information lost?

I'm told there is. :-)

> And so on.

Nice thought, but again, I personally am willing to take the word of people 
like Hawking over my own understanding of QM. :-)

> So as it seems, a lot of matter out there is actually just unused spare memory,
> ready to back-up information of other particles doomed to fall into black
> holes... the queer thing is, we don't know *which* particles are used and which
> aren't...

Cute.  Sounds like a good SF story.

Oh, wait, already did one. Permutation City by Greg Egan. Highly 
recommended. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
> be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.

  How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
communicate with him.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Maybe what we see isn't the "big bang" after all, but the "big crunch"?

My favorite personal random idea is ... what if we really *are* at the 
center of the universe, and everything really *is* moving away from *us*?

What if we happen to be near the very peak of a big curve of space-time, and 
everything else is rolling faster and faster down the big hill away from us, 
while we're perched at the top?

> (Okay, I'm back entirely in BS mode again now, too :))

I saw a great line:  "Of *course* God put the Earth in the center of the 
universe. That's why all the stars shine *towards us*!"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> in a collapsing superstar, maybe this is sufficient to slam two fermions
> together into the same quantum state,

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. It isn't like pushing two magnets 
together, where if you just squeeze hard enough, you overcome the 
resistance. There's no interaction between the fermions keeping them apart - 
rather, there's no pair of paths that both end at the same place that don't 
cancel each other out.

It's like waves, I guess. No matter how hard you try, you can't combine 
sin(t) and -sin(t) and wind up with a wave. It's not a matter of squeezing 
them real hard - they just cancel out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Perhaps we get to know a universe in one single dimension?  "Hey, Phil, 
> long time no see!  Somewhat overcrowded here, huh?" 

"In the beginning, before the big bang, my friends and I all hung out with 
each other. I mean, where else was there to go?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> So if there's no EH, you can just zip straight through the singularity?

I think it's more that you can see things coming out of the singularity.

> actually decide to turn around any time? Speaking of which, how will time be
> affected near the singularity?

Dunno. Complex math.

> I think I recall remember having heard that spinning black holes would actually
> not have a point-shaped singularity at all, but a loop, because their drag on
> spacetime is that extreme.

Yep. And if you fly through the hole, you wind up ... somewhere else.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Perhaps only Phil Connor would know. :P
> 
> Maybe - I don't know *him*... should I?

Ever seen "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray?  A classic. :)

> Yeah... so next step would be a few bit shift registers, accumulators, and - ah!
> There you go: Correct pin, so spit out them greenbacks... :P

or that! :D

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> clipka wrote:
>> Maybe what we see isn't the "big bang" after all, but the "big crunch"?
> 
> My favorite personal random idea is ... what if we really *are* at the 
> center of the universe, and everything really *is* moving away from *us*?

Shouldn't then we not see them above the peak?  Oh, alright, spacetime 
is curved and light would also bend and come from the sides and seem to 
be right above our heads fooling us into thinking the universe is 
roughly spherical.

> I saw a great line:  "Of *course* God put the Earth in the center of the 
> universe. That's why all the stars shine *towards us*!"

Well, it's all relative to the observer, so from our point of view the 
universe indeed revolves around us.  Actually, to the common man in the 
streets -- whose view at nights is occluded by both smog polution and 
city lights so he doesn't really take the time to look up the few 
blinking stars so far away and so static -- the universe revolves around 
mundane job, bills and society's many rituals. :P

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
>> be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.
> 
>   How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
> communicate with him.

If he could, he'd be in the very same spacetime region and thus subject 
to the same effects.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   The victim was not "hanging out" anywhere. There were simply some
> leftover photons there, going out (with asymptotically lessening frequency).
> 
>   When the event horizon recedes, these leftover photons will be in a
> less strong gravity field and will thus get a boostup. The photons which
> were almost touching the EH will now be farther away, and will get out
> in less time.


I thought you said, the speed of time is constant.  How can it slow down 
or boost up?

If we take it instead that near a humongous gravitational field 
spacetime is dilated, then light should have a hard time (bad pun) 
getting out of it, either because space expands near it or time slows 
down (which is about the same thing given space and time 
interchangeability)...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Maybe what we see isn't the "big bang" after all, but the "big crunch"?
>>
>> My favorite personal random idea is ... what if we really *are* at the 
>> center of the universe, and everything really *is* moving away from *us*?
> 
> Shouldn't then we not see them above the peak? 

Uh, 4D curvature. What if it isn't "everything is moving away from 
everything else" but really "everything is moving away from the Milky Way"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> What if it isn't "everything is moving away from 
> everything else" but really "everything is moving away from the Milky Way"?

They know we're baddass mofos. :D

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I thought you said, the speed of time is constant.  How can it slow down 
> or boost up?

  It's not the speed of the photons which changes, but their timeframe.

  (No, I don't fully understand this myself. Don't ask for specifics.
I'm just blindly repeating what I have read. And it's perfectly possible
that I have misunderstood what I have read.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   (No, I don't fully understand this myself. Don't ask for specifics.
> I'm just blindly repeating what I have read. And it's perfectly possible
> that I have misunderstood what I have read.)

we're all laymen, even the scientists. :)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
> > be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.
>
>   How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
> communicate with him.

He can: He can send light pulses to him. And the poor victim can send light
pulses back. After all, he has not passed the EH yet.

Doing so, the observer will easily be able to convince himself that the victim
is still there. He's a bit slow of speech, but still responding. And the victim
will find it hard to understand the observer because he's speaking a bit fast,
but... well, from a theoretical point of view, they'll have no trouble still
communicating :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I saw a great line:  "Of *course* God put the Earth in the center of the
> universe. That's why all the stars shine *towards us*!"

LOL - that's a good one :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's like waves, I guess. No matter how hard you try, you can't combine
> sin(t) and -sin(t) and wind up with a wave. It's not a matter of squeezing
> them real hard - they just cancel out.

Stupid bastards! We'll *make* them combine! :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > So if there's no EH, you can just zip straight through the singularity?
>
> I think it's more that you can see things coming out of the singularity.

If that is so, then where do they come from? Must have fallen in there, don't
they? So *they* sort of zipped right through, right? ;)

> > I think I recall remember having heard that spinning black holes would actually
> > not have a point-shaped singularity at all, but a loop, because their drag on
> > spacetime is that extreme.
>
> Yep. And if you fly through the hole, you wind up ... somewhere else.

Ah... could that be a variation of that "fly into it - happen to most probably
be not there at all but someplace else" effect I suggested?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Perhaps only Phil Connor would know. :P
> >
> > Maybe - I don't know *him*... should I?
>
> Ever seen "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray?  A classic. :)

Aaah! Of course, yes - that rings a bell. Great movie, liked it a lot!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, it's all relative to the observer, so from our point of view the
> universe indeed revolves around us.  Actually, to the common man in the
> streets -- whose view at nights is occluded by both smog polution and
> city lights so he doesn't really take the time to look up the few
> blinking stars so far away and so static -- the universe revolves around
> mundane job, bills and society's many rituals. :P

Yeah, and for too many of them, the world actually revolves around *them* :)

BTW, as a child I pictured that as of course the world is round, then whenever
we would be driving around, the world would revolve below us... and, by the
way, of course mountains would be the places where the earth was "bent" :)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > blinking stars so far away and so static -- the universe revolves around
> > mundane job, bills and society's many rituals. :P
>
> Yeah, and for too many of them, the world actually revolves around *them* :)

That's the worst. ;)

> BTW, as a child I pictured that as of course the world is round, then whenever
> we would be driving around, the world would revolve below us... and, by the
> way, of course mountains would be the places where the earth was "bent" :)

hah!

BTW, has any of you guys ever witnessed the Milky Way by your own eyes?  I did
as a pre-teen, one of the most amazing moments in my life, no doubt.  My family
went in vacation to some rural place of sorts and I was roaming around in my
bike until dark at night.  I looked up at the sky and couldn't believe the
sheer amount of stars just above my head!  There were so many that they
gathered in thick luminous regions, which at first I thought were clouds, but
then remembered the sky was clean in the afternoon and looking more closely, it
could be seen very faint flickering in said clouds... quite a moment!  You feel
right in space, in the full glory of a 180% view of the universe... I recommend
any of you at least once to take refuge from noisy and bright cityscapes just to
marvel at this true natural beauty.

It's why I'm so full of passion for astronomic topics... :)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 19 lines --]

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > > From an outside observer's frame of reference, the victim not only *appears* to
> > > be "hanging out there", he still physically *is*.
> >
> >   How is he "physically" there? The external observer can't touch him nor
> > communicate with him.

> He can: He can send light pulses to him. And the poor victim can send light
> pulses back.

  No he can't. The light pulses sent by the external observer won't ever
reach the falling object, from the external observer's point of view, for
the exact same reason that it looks to him like the falling object never
crosses the EH.

  The falling object won't be able to send anything back because he is
inside the EH.

> After all, he has not passed the EH yet.

  Of course he has.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, has any of you guys ever witnessed the Milky Way by your own eyes?  I did
> as a pre-teen, one of the most amazing moments in my life, no doubt.

I fancy I did when I was a child - although I can't remember being able to make
out any stars, just a blurry band. Maybe that was because I've been
short-sighted ever since I can remember.

I grew up in a rather small town in a hilly region, spread across multiple
valleys, in a smaller side valley not too close to the town centers, so the air
was very clean, and not too many light sources nearby late at night. Occasionaly
our dad (a teacher) would take us out on a night barbecue with his pupils in an
even more remote spot in the woods around. We also did a few camping vacations
in different European contries (UK, France and Italy), and later took trips
once or twice a year to sparsely populated seaside regions, where we'd often go
for walks after dark.

I loved the stars, and particularly the moon, and looking up at the night sky. I
still enjoy looking up on a clear night when I'm far from the big city I live
in, and marvel in some kind of surprise once again how clear a starry night can
be!

(Unfortunately, nothing so clear though as to identify the milky way as a mass
of stars. Or maybe my glasses just aren't good enough for that.)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > He can: He can send light pulses to him. And the poor victim can send light
> > pulses back.
>
>   No he can't. The light pulses sent by the external observer won't ever
> reach the falling object, from the external observer's point of view, for
> the exact same reason that it looks to him like the falling object never
> crosses the EH.

Just believe me (or figure out for yourselves): He can...

>   The falling object won't be able to send anything back because he is
> inside the EH.

.... because he isn't.

I'll draw a picture today, to illustrate what's going on with that warped
spacetime. I thought you should know about that, if only for the sake of your
nick ;)

The key to understanding is that a second is not a second. Delta-t is not
universal (just like distance isn't), but rather depends on the frame of
reference.

Likening some time dilation effects to "after-image" effects may make them more
"digestible" to laymen than having them try to imagine how a second cannot be a
second, but it's not *precisely* what's going on.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >   The falling object won't be able to send anything back because he is
> > inside the EH.

> .... because he isn't.

  So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
nothing is "lost" there.

  Great, you have solved the information loss problem. No information
is ever lost to a BH because nothing can enter it. Everything will just
hover endlessly asymptotically close to the EH, and can in fact be
interacted with.

  What are the quantum mechanists complaining about?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
> ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
> nothing is "lost" there.

That's basically what I think it says, yes.

>   Great, you have solved the information loss problem. No information
> is ever lost to a BH because nothing can enter it. Everything will just
> hover endlessly asymptotically close to the EH, and can in fact be
> interacted with.
>
>   What are the quantum mechanists complaining about?

I have no idea. Ask them :)


BTW, I after having so far worked only with what I picked up and remembered and
imagined, but finding that drawing a proper image based on this information is
not so trivial, I did have a closer look at the Schwarzschild metric details,
finding this on Wikipedia:

----------------------------------------
In Schwarzschild Coordinates, the Schwarzschild metric has the form:

c^2 dT^2 = (1 - r[s]/r) c^2 dt^2 - ... - ...

where

T is the proper time (time measured by a clock moving with the particle) ...
t is the time coordinate (measured by a stationary clock at infinity) ...,
r is the radial coordinate ...
r[s] is the Schwarzschild radius (in meters) of the massive body
....
----------------------------------------
(Note that dT and dt denote time intervals. I stripped the other terms because
they're not easy to represent in ASCII, and are independent of time, so they
can be considered constant for the sake of my arguments.)

There are a few interesting things to note here:

(1) As we approach r = r[s] (the radius of the EH), we'll find that the factor
of the dt^2 term diminishes zero. That means not only that "victim time" slows
down with respect to the "observer time", but that it actually slows down to
zero (or, seen the other way round, "observer time" speeds up to infinity) at
the EH.

Thus, in the observer's reference frame (I'm deliberately avoiding the phrase
"as seen from the observer", because the formula doesn't say anything about
perception, but plain hard facts), as soon as the "victim" would hit the EH,
its time would come to a standstill, so it couldn't move *any* distance in
finite time. (Note however that time slows down so dramatically already very
close to the EH that the "victim" will not even *reach* EH in finite time.)

However, in the "victim's" reference frame, as soon as the "victim" would hit
the EH, the observer's time would speed up to infinity. Again, note that the
speedup would already have reached dramatic values very close to the EH.


(2) Note that the formula is given "in Schwarzschild Coordinates"...
(Uh-huh?!)... Well, this is what Wikipedia has to say about those (emphasis
added):

"The defining characteristic of Schwarzschild chart is that the radial
coordinate possesses a natural geometric interpretation in terms of the SURFACE
AREA and Gaussian curvature of each sphere. However, RADIAL DISTANCES and angles
are NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED."

So, the equation does *not* state that the EH has a radius of r[s] = 2GM/c^2
after all. Instead, it states that it has a *surface* of 4 pi (2GM/c^2)^2.

Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
be - ta-ding! - zero after all...


(Again, I find my theory of "EH=singularity" supported - it will mark a paradigm
shift in the understanding of black holes, and I'm going to be a world-famous
nobel prize winner, named along with Einstein, Hawking and Feinman! GR and QM
will at last be proven false, and MY theory will TAKE OVER THE WORLD... no, THE
*UNIVERSE*! *MUAHAHAHAHA*!)

(Good enough to quality for a world-class crackpot this time, huh? =B))

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Another BTW: With contemporary German orthography, "Schwartzschild" would lose
> the "t" in his name... like "Rothschild" (which is "Redshield") would lose the
> "h"...

Duh... sorry folks for misinforming you on this important subject: Looks like
Schwarzschild's "t" *already* got lost in some black hole... must have been
redundant information after all...

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Thus, in the observer's reference frame (I'm deliberately avoiding the phrase
> "as seen from the observer", because the formula doesn't say anything about
> perception, but plain hard facts), as soon as the "victim" would hit the EH,
> its time would come to a standstill, so it couldn't move *any* distance in
> finite time.

I'm not sure that follows. Photons move as fast as possible, and in their 
own reference frame, time has come to a standstill. Why does the victim's 
clock influence the velocity of the victim in the observer's timeframe?

This is like saying I stick a giant engine on a spaceship, turn it on, and 
just go, and after a while you see me slowing down, because my clock is 
getting asymptotically close to stopped from your reference frame.

> (Note however that time slows down so dramatically already very
> close to the EH that the "victim" will not even *reach* EH in finite time.)

*That* is why I think the victim will not find himself inside the EH - the 
universe (including himself) will have decayed to nothingness or some such 
before he gets there.

> So, the equation does *not* state that the EH has a radius of r[s] = 2GM/c^2
> after all. Instead, it states that it has a *surface* of 4 pi (2GM/c^2)^2.

That difference is exactly the warped space. It happens with the sun and the 
earth, too, because of their gravity.

IIRC, I read where the circumference of the (ideal) earth is something like 
a cm shorter than what it should be given the radius, and the sun is a 
kilometer or ten kilometers or some such different.

> Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
> statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
> be - ta-ding! - zero after all...

More like infinity, methinks.

> (Good enough to quality for a world-class crackpot this time, huh? =B))

I don't think real crackpots go "Mwa ha ha ha!"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
> statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
> be - ta-ding! - zero after all...
>
>
> (Again, I find my theory of "EH=singularity" supported - it will mark a paradigm
> shift in the understanding of black holes, and I'm going to be a world-famous
> nobel prize winner, named along with Einstein, Hawking and Feinman! GR and QM
> will at last be proven false, and MY theory will TAKE OVER THE WORLD... no, THE
> *UNIVERSE*! *MUAHAHAHAHA*!)

Then why are the problems with the metric at the Schwarzschild radius removable
with a coordinate substitution, e.g. Eddington-Finklestein coordinates?  If

r* = r+2m ln( r/2m - 1 ),
u = t-r*,
v = t+r*

Then you work out the details, and - voila - the problems disappear, except at
the center.  Just sayin' is all...  Oh, but don't let that stop your plans for
universe domination.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
> > ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
> > nothing is "lost" there.

> That's basically what I think it says, yes.

  Well, I think you are wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> (Unfortunately, nothing so clear though as to identify the milky way as a mass
> of stars. Or maybe my glasses just aren't good enough for that.)

It's like this: even in the big city, if you look up the sky and begin counting
the stars nearby you soon realize you can't, because looking further next to
the bright ones you can also see lots of smaller, faint flickering dots.  They
are everywhere even though when you first felt venturous enough to try to count
the stars, they didn't seem too many.

I don't know if people on glasses have difficult to distinguish the smaller
stars, but once you start counting by the brightest ones, you inevitably become
more aware of the area closer to it and can distinguish a myriad of smaller
stars next to it...

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Another BTW: With contemporary German orthography, "Schwartzschild" would lose
> > the "t" in his name... like "Rothschild" (which is "Redshield") would lose the
> > "h"...
>
> Duh... sorry folks for misinforming you on this important subject: Looks like
> Schwarzschild's "t" *already* got lost in some black hole... must have been
> redundant information after all...

Thanks.  I'm getting many useful tips in this thread, even though might some
conflict like either accelerating towards a blackhole or keeping where you are
curled up in fetal position... :D

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Thus, in the observer's reference frame (I'm deliberately avoiding the phrase
> > "as seen from the observer", because the formula doesn't say anything about
> > perception, but plain hard facts), as soon as the "victim" would hit the EH,
> > its time would come to a standstill, so it couldn't move *any* distance in
> > finite time.
>
> I'm not sure that follows. Photons move as fast as possible, and in their
> own reference frame, time has come to a standstill. Why does the victim's
> clock influence the velocity of the victim in the observer's timeframe?

That's a misconception here: Time for photons has not come to a standstill in
their *own* frame of reference, but at their location in the *observer's* frame
of reference (i.e. in the spacetime co-ordinate system where the observer is not
moving in space, and time flows at "normal speed" at his location).

Time is not universal, even in a single frame of reference.

> This is like saying I stick a giant engine on a spaceship, turn it on, and
> just go, and after a while you see me slowing down, because my clock is
> getting asymptotically close to stopped from your reference frame.

It's a bit different here I guess, because this is not about GR, but just about
SR, with a different underlying mechanism for time dilation.

In SR, which ignores gravitation and acceleration and just deals with constant
relative motion, all time dilation effects are just due to a change in frame of
reference, and can in fact be applied *mutually*: If you zoom by me at near
lightspeed, it seems to me that *your* clock is slower, while at the same time
it seems to you that *my* clock is slower. These are really just illusions due
to the peculiar nature of the question what "now" and "here" actually is.

This apparent paradoxon, however, only leads to problems when we meet once
again, which can only happen if at least one of us accelerates. Enter GR, which
deals with accelerated motion and gravitation; here, *real* time delation
effects happen, that are independent of the frame of reference, with the only
difference that in the "here" frame of reference, time "over there" slows down,
while in the "over there" frame of reference, it is time "here" that speeds up.
The relative effect is the same: Time "over there" runs slower than "here"

> > (Note however that time slows down so dramatically already very
> > close to the EH that the "victim" will not even *reach* EH in finite time.)
>
> *That* is why I think the victim will not find himself inside the EH - the
> universe (including himself) will have decayed to nothingness or some such
> before he gets there.

Yesss!

> > So, the equation does *not* state that the EH has a radius of r[s] = 2GM/c^2
> > after all. Instead, it states that it has a *surface* of 4 pi (2GM/c^2)^2.
>
> That difference is exactly the warped space. It happens with the sun and the
> earth, too, because of their gravity.
>
> IIRC, I read where the circumference of the (ideal) earth is something like
> a cm shorter than what it should be given the radius, and the sun is a
> kilometer or ten kilometers or some such different.

The order of magnitude is right, but someone messed up the sign; see
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/stcurve.pdf (emphasis added):

"The true diameters of the Sun and Earth are 4.1 km and 4.4 mm GREATER,
respectively, than one would expect from applying Euclidean geometry (C = pi d)
to the observed surface of these bodies"

(Duh - took quite a while to google that one up. Looks like this is a topic not
so frequently tackled.)


> > Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
> > statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
> > be - ta-ding! - zero after all...
>
> More like infinity, methinks.

(*scratches head*)
Doesn't make sense to me: We get closer to the black hole's center, and when we
have reached the EH this distance becomes *infinite*?

Now *that* would be *really* warped spacetime! :)


> > (Good enough to quality for a world-class crackpot this time, huh? =B))
>
> I don't think real crackpots go "Mwa ha ha ha!"

Darn. Lost again, hm?

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Then why are the problems with the metric at the Schwarzschild radius removable
> with a coordinate substitution, e.g. Eddington-Finklestein coordinates?  If
>
> r* = r+2m ln( r/2m - 1 ),
> u = t-r*,
> v = t+r*
>
> Then you work out the details, and - voila - the problems disappear, except at
> the center.  Just sayin' is all...  Oh, but don't let that stop your plans for
> universe domination.

Spoil-sport :P

Don't know, haven't looked at these. At the moment I fancy the're... well,
dunno, maybe just plain wrong? =B)

They look a bit... weird to me in any case. I know UV co-ordinates, but these
don't seem to fit any mesh :P

(Hey, nothing like a bit of ridiculing some (probably) well-established formulae
that can't seem to be argued against; gotta make a few crackpot points after
all...)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > >   So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
> > > ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
> > > nothing is "lost" there.
>
> > That's basically what I think it says, yes.
>
>   Well, I think you are wrong.

Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch:

"This is not argument, this is just plain contradiction"
"No, it isn't"
"Yes, it is!"
"No, it isn't"
"..."

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Thanks.  I'm getting many useful tips in this thread, even though might some
> conflict like either accelerating towards a blackhole or keeping where you are
> curled up in fetal position... :D

Practical applied science, yes :)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> That's a misconception here: Time for photons has not come to a standstill in
> their *own* frame of reference,

How do you know? They're moving at c, where relativity divides by zero. :-)

>> IIRC, I read where the circumference of the (ideal) earth is something like
>> a cm shorter than what it should be given the radius, and the sun is a
>> kilometer or ten kilometers or some such different.
> 
> The order of magnitude is right, but someone messed up the sign; see
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/stcurve.pdf (emphasis added):
> 
> "The true diameters of the Sun and Earth are 4.1 km and 4.4 mm GREATER,
> respectively, than one would expect from applying Euclidean geometry (C = pi d)
> to the observed surface of these bodies"

Diameters are greater than they should be, circumference is shorter than it 
should be. Yes?

>>> Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
>>> statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
>>> be - ta-ding! - zero after all...
>> More like infinity, methinks.
> 
> (*scratches head*)
> Doesn't make sense to me: We get closer to the black hole's center, and when we
> have reached the EH this distance becomes *infinite*?

Yes. for the same reason that the diameter of the earth is *greater* than it 
should be given its circumference.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > > >   So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
> > > > ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
> > > > nothing is "lost" there.
> >
> > > That's basically what I think it says, yes.
> >
> >   Well, I think you are wrong.
>
> Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch:
>
> "This is not argument, this is just plain contradiction"
> "No, it isn't"
> "Yes, it is!"
> "No, it isn't"
> "..."

No, it doesn't! :D

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That's a misconception here: Time for photons has not come to a standstill in
> > their *own* frame of reference,
>
> How do you know? They're moving at c, where relativity divides by zero. :-)

Okay, you got me here: Time for a photon doesn't exist anyway :)


> > "The true diameters of the Sun and Earth are 4.1 km and 4.4 mm GREATER,
> > respectively, than one would expect from applying Euclidean geometry (C = pi d)
> > to the observed surface of these bodies"
>
> Diameters are greater than they should be, circumference is shorter than it
> should be. Yes?

Hm, yes, I guess that is what it's saying.


> >>> Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
> >>> statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
> >>> be - ta-ding! - zero after all...
> >> More like infinity, methinks.
> >
> > (*scratches head*)
> > Doesn't make sense to me: We get closer to the black hole's center, and when we
> > have reached the EH this distance becomes *infinite*?
>
> Yes. for the same reason that the diameter of the earth is *greater* than it
> should be given its circumference.

Don't believe. Although I must confess that the above reasoning indicates that
it's something different than zero, and actually greater than the "expected" EH
radius.

Darn, so much for world domination...

BTW, I had a look at those other metrices; I particularly like the Lemaitre
metric: I have no idea what the coordinates might stand for, but the concept of
a coordinate system that defines "here" as where I'll stay if I continue free
fall feels rather "natural"... if there is such a thing when dealing with black
holes.

So looks like Warp's right after all: The poor victim will cross the EH, after
all. Will take more than eternity as seen from an outside observer, but *after*
that "outside eternity" he'll make it.

Duh. Achilleus and the turtle, once again. (As it happens, the
Eddington-Finkelstein metric even has a component called "tortoise coordinate"
:))

Post a reply to this message