Black Hole.... Not so Black

How are you connecting Planck Scale to BH singularity ? Planck scale is not a singularity, it is a well defined mathematics. And singularity is not mathematically defined. Do you see the difference ? You are kind of making a statement that once a star falls smaller than EH for that mass, it goes to Planck Scale and thats singularity...thats not the theory. See, if it goes to Planck scale then it is no longer a singularity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are fixated with the instruments. No doubt that they are the essential and indispensable tools....but it cannot be said that theories cannot come without them. I have already explained that to you.

So get them peer reviewed, like what you invariably suggest to all. What are you waiting for ? If no peer review then put the same in alternative sub forum on this site. Who is stopping you ? At least I will feel great that for once you are away from cut- paste - copy - paste.

In reality it is not the case that all submitted to peer review, get acceptance, there are failures, there stumbling blocks, but then have conviction to come forward and state what you think beyond the mainstream.

Pl do not advocate for Q-Reeus..He understands what he has written and what to answer if he feels like.

Coming to your voluntary addition, the statement is woefully incorrect. ....Keep Collapsing to Planck Quantum Level.....?? Where did you get this ?

If the entire BH mass is squeezed to Planck Level, then we have a well defined density of BH...simple maths would yield Mass/[Planck Sphere Volume] as the density of BH......you have made the singularity vanish....work on it, it may come out to be the greatest theory...I am serious and I am not joking. You do not need any instrument to pursue this line of thought.

Sr # [2] is true even without reference to BH, Sr# [3] is incorrect if deduced from [2] which you have.

Push Back of singularity ?? Again you have taken some jargon from unauthenticated source on the net. Can you explain what this Push Back of singularity means ?

You have speculated independently or you agree with these "other cosmologists". If you have speculated independently...then please accept my salutation...This is a worthy hypothesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My how confusion reigns in your befuddled brain....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=planck scale
In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale (named after Max Planck) is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1019 GeV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Planck scale is where quantum gravity takes over.
As yet we do not have any validated theory of quantum gravity.
It is also the epoch where our present best theory of gravity, GR breaks down and our mathematical calculations give Infinity answers and we call it a mathematical Singularity.

So you see where GR fails giving us a Singularity, is where the Planck scale and quantum gravity effects are present.
IS THAT CLEAR?

If that does not fit with what you believe. then you need to do some googling and get another professional opinion, that either invalidates what I have said, or aligns with it, rather then anything that you prefer to dream up, under the guise of thinking for ones self.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Your last post #183, is irrelevant to the topic which we are discussing, you just talk of Plank Energy, QGT, GR, Singularity in one breath... not required.

There are n number of parameters derived from Planck Length, Planck Mass etc, by simply getting into various dimensional analysis...so Please do not copy paste about Planck scale...

I am drawing your attention that BH singularity has nothing to do with Planck's scale which you are mistakenly confused about. Failure of GR does not produce singularity.....every model will fail at singularity, It is the mathematical connotation of something which is not defined..kind of division by Zero.

If somehow you are referring to Micro Black Holes (But then they are not 'Completely Collapsed Gravitational Objects') then may be a reference to Planck Scale is understandable with BH/EH otherwise you are just mixing up...

 

I had and still have no knowledge of such a thread, but regardless, theorist calculations indicating some NS's may have such a core is fine by me and does not clash with anything I wrote earlier. Verbatim from my #152:

(bold added)
You will note the illustrated model appearing in two linked articles I gave shows just that - for most of the mantle. With a big question mark wrt the core itself - where models are admittedly still very iffy. However, according to the first article I linked to in #160, core superfluidity for at least that particular NS is considered 'directly observed'. You can certainly quibble with the language there, but when theory and observation match so well in such a case, there is little room for doubt.

Sorry if you thought so, but a careful re-reading and you should find I made no such absolute dogmatic statements. The one statement in #160 that may have implied superconducting core was:

That did not say the core itself necessarily became superfluid then, though it may well have anyway depending on the mix of extant parameters - mass, spin-rate etc.

Yes fusion has been achieved on earth - as has superconductivity and superfluidity. In all cases under vastly different conditions to those in the respective stars. But in each case enough of the fundamental physics is so well established it can be safely extrapolated to the stellar cases with high confidence as to the general picture. And again, observations of e.g. 'glitches', spin-down rates, cooling rates, spectral emissions implying enormous magnetic field strengths (which only enormous supercurrents adequately explain), all add to leave essentially zero room for any other kind of model to explain such. And wrt your #174, I prefer not to nit-pick over the points raised as it would likely lead to much off-topic argument. Suffice to say it's easy to compute a notional 'BH average volume density' defined by M/(4/3*pi*R^3), where M is the Keplerian mass and R the Schwarzschild radius *parameter* itself simply directly proportional to M. Hence 'average density' goes as 1/M^2. But again, there's no 'dense stuff' there to grab.
[edit: pardon any confusion; last bit re 'BH density' was 'crossed wires' and meant to answer RajeshTrivedi's #176]. I agree that interpretations of emission spectra garnered from 'candidate galactic core SMBH's' are heavily reliant on very complex theoretical models and considerable leeway remains.

 

The state of the art instruments available to our cosmologists today, are revealing data that would be impossible to get any other way.
And any cosmologist without the data from these state of the art probes, would be working with his hands tied behind his back.
And in any event any new revelation/theory in cosmology, is not going to come from some renegade alternative hypothesis pusher of the likes we have here, rather it will in all certainty be from mainstream, with or without the probes at his or her disposal.

Why would I seek any peer review and waste reputable people's time, when I have no evidence, no theory, no access to state of the art probes, and just an hypothesis.
It appears you have learnt nothing.
If you don't like copy and paste from reputable cosmologists and physicists, then one can only conclude you are not interested in the truth...just your "thinking for myself and wearing it like a badge of honour" paranoia.

In reality it appears you have learnt nothing and are not interested in learning anything.
That's OK, you are entitled to remain ignorant if that is what you wish.
Or are you also a conspiracy adherent claiming established science and cosmology are railing against all these new up and coming alternative pushers, whose only outlet for their diatribe is public forums such as this.
I'll stick to the real science.

I'll advocate for whoever I like thank you very much, and especially as he has actually said exactly what I have in different words.
I see we can add arrogance to you list of other qualities like ignoring mainstream knowledge, delusions of grandeur, and tall poppy syndrome.

Common mainstream cosmology tied to the Schwarzchild limit/radius and GR which says compulsory collapse to singularity status when the Schwarzchild limit is reached.
Of course if you want to dispute that, go right ahead and supply some reputable link or reference that invalidates what I have told you.
I'm waiting anxiously.

This along with many other BH concepts has been explained to you.
Do you know how big the SMBH at our galactic center is?
ANS: About the size of our solar system.
Yet all the mass resides at the Planck/quantum level.
Again if this does not gel with your thoughts, then do some googling and invalidate it if you can.

No, I'm correct. Unless you can refute it with a reputable link saying otherwise.

Firstly, most of my links are reputable. The only "unauthenticated"chatter about all of this so far is from yourself.
But let me try and explain again.
If we come up with a QGT, it may reveal a surface of sorts just below the quantum/Planck level of the mass that has undergone this compulsory collapse, once the Schwarzchild radius was reached.
Or it may push what we view as the mathematical singularity, evident at the quantum/Planck level, to an even new level below that.
Since we do not have a QGT, it is just speculation.

The last thing I really need is your salutations from some one so far that has displayed total irrationality.
But no they are my speculations that just happened to be aligned with other speculations, which just goes to show that any amateur alternative pusher, who believes he can come up with some revelation that has never been thought up before by anyone, is really playing with himself.

In essence, I have answered all your questions to the best of my ability at least two or three times, and now feel as if you are trolling for your cause, and this tiresome boring "thinking for one's self"and "ignoring" what has been learnt over the last 50 years or so.

So if you doubt what I have said, then old son, google is your friend...refute what I have said, or keep pushing shit uphill with whatever you imagine.

 

You think what you like. I'm rather tired of playing games with you being so obtuse.
Your whole post is rubbish. I stand by all I have claimed and I have given likns which naturally you abhore as they sort of put a dint in your line of thought.
A BH is a BH is a BH. All BH's are Gravitationally Completely Collapased Objects..ALL

Now if you have an alternative hypothesis, then start a thread and see what prevails.

 

Disagree.....Please find out how and who discovered CMBR. They were not mainstream guys.

Ok, fine with me.... But who says that, hypotheses cannot be reviewed ?

Disagree.... I am thankful to this site and many participants, including you...Because of all these I have learnt a lot about cosmology.

No he did not mix up Planck's Scale with EH/BH Singularity, like you did.

See, you changed, you have conveniently taken off the Planck's reference. This statement is ok..

Bold is your imagination.......we do not even know what resides inside BH, and think of it, dear old Paddoboy, if all the mass were to reside at Planck level (meaning Planck Sphere ?) then there is no singularity. So unlearn this part.

Let the QGT come, as of now it makes no sense to push back the singularity, it is either your imagination or picked up from some source here and there. It is like adding 1 to x/0...

I have forgotten what I am pushing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...please tell me what is that in this thread which you find a pushing by me. Or are you referring to the past..[/QUOTE]

 

Ok, let me agree to what you just now stated....

But you know about Chandra Limit for EDP (around 1.4 Solar Mass), then beyond that TOV (and improvised) limit for NDP (around 3 Solar Mass as on date)...If the star mass is beyond this TOV limit, then collapse to BH is envisaged after NS..... This is mainstream, I am sure you will not cut cross with me on this.

So please tell me how a Micro BH can be Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object ? I think you would require more googling...

 

Already answered by paddoboy's piece in #179, but here's cut-n-paste from my 'crossed-wires' in #185:

 

Penzias and Wilson...Both mainstream scientists.
Serendipity was involved still it was involved with mainstream guys with proper instruments. Try again.

That's nice, as long as you have some observational and/or experimental evidence to support said hypothesis.

Oh cut the bullshit! You have only partly admitted error, where it would be down right idiotic to ignore..

I said....."Common mainstream cosmology tied to the Schwarzchild limit/radius and GR which says compulsory collapse to singularity status when the Schwarzchild limit is reached".
James said.....
"The mathematical Schwarzschild description of a black hole tells us that all matter inside the event horizon moves continually towards the centre of the hole"
Q-reeus said.....
"Density of a BH is fairly meaningless given there is no 'stuff' present as there is for say a NS. Regardless though of how large is the supposed EH, according to Schwarzschild metric the proper acceleration required to hover at such EH is always infinite. Implying infinite stresses no material could withstand"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where does the Planck scale begin?
Where does quantum gravity take over?
Where does GR start to fail?
Where does the Singularity exist?
Now you read what you want into that, and put your "badge of honour" to work. Answer the questions honestly of course.

Answer those questions honestly, and you will see that what I say and what is accepted by mainstream cosmology is correct according to GR.

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius/limit is reached, [the EH] further collapse to Singularity/quantum/Planck level is compulsory.

You are funny, funny, peculiar, not funny haha.

 

Why the hell have you raised micro BH's anyway?
They are just purely hypothetical and thought to maybe to have existed just after the BB.

I know you do not read reputable mainstream links but here anyway...One can always live in hope......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

 

PS:

When Q-reeus says....
" But again, there's no 'dense stuff' there to grab." he means what I said in an earlier post...all a BH is, is critically curved spacetime, with the mass residing at the center at the Planck/Quantum level, which we call a Singularity.

So the SMBH at the center of the MW, is just critically curved spacetime, as large as our solar system, according to our GR calculations on BH's

 

OK Paddoboy, I drop the Micro BH, because you understood, I brought in Micro BH because of bold ALL in your post..

I have no objection with James and Q-Reeus post......but

"Planck level is not at all singularity ? Neither we can associate singularity with Planck level."

This is what I said in Post # 175, in response to your otherwise looking statement in Post # 167..

James or Q-Reeus who have been cross referred, can respond, if what you said is same as what they stated...

 

Why don't you google some reputable sources for BH's and their Singularities yourself?
What I have said, is just plain ordinary common sense, in line with GR predicted BH's.
You blue highlight defies common sense and is meaningless obstructionist nonsense, and if you answered the questions I posed, instead of trying to get out from under, you would see that what I did say was common sense.

 

Here, I'll make it easy for you.......

Where does the Planck scale begin?
Where does quantum gravity take over?
Where does GR start to fail?
Where does the Singularity exist?

Just as the Schwarzchild radius/limit in a Schwarzchild metric BH, is the same parameter as the EH, so to is the beginning of the BH mathematical Singularity, and the Planck/quantum scale also at the same parameter.

 

Gravitational pressure causes the entropy to decrease. For example, iron at the temperature of the core of the earth, if it was at the pressure of the surface of the earth, would be a gas. At the higher pressures of the core, due to gravity, iron becomes solid, at the same temperature. The solid phase is a lower entropy phase of matter compared to the gas phase. As such, a black hole should reduce the entropy of its material toward zero. With zero entropy, the BH would need to be a singularity; lacks the entropy for any degree of freedom. This is more mathematical than experimental.

 

Compare the way you worded the above with the way you spoke of the same information in that earlier post... That aside...,

The thread where the idea of cubic neutrons was introduced was (probably before you joined the forum), http://www.sciforums.com/threads/neutron-star-matter.109577/

The first post introducing the theoretical composition of a neutron star core made of cubic neutrons (Trippy's Post #15),

And the paper introducing the idea of cubic neutrons, http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1859

As I tried to mention in my last post, the way I read your comments was that you were presenting what remains theoretical, as if it represents some absolute knowledge. You are not alone in that. I find myself similarly caught up at times. Still it was only what appeared to be a discussion of what remains theory, as some absolute description of reality, that I was commenting on. Not the theoretical validity itself.

 

Paddoboy,

I was thinking about the cause behind your linking of BH Singularity with Planck's scale.....

Recently couple of mainstream scientists, attempted to eliminate the singularity (and Information Paradox) by proposing that entire mass of BH (once inside EH) gets to the Planck level, and this opens up further possibility for New Universe or opening in the same universe.

Since you also have the similar speculation, so in all likely-hood you got fixed to the point that entire mass of BH goes to the singularity which is Planck's scale level. You missed the crucial point which I highlighted in my earlier posts that once you connect the BH mass to Planck's Scale, the singularity vanishes, rather it never comes into picture.

See, if at the start of theory of BH, if it was proposed that once inside EH, the entire mass collapses into the Plank's Sphere ( r = Lp), then the word singularity would not have been attached to BH..

Hope now you would agree to de-link Planck scale with singularity of any kind..

 

I respectfully differ with you on this assertion.

When you make the above statement, you are effective telling that singularity is kind of at 10^-35 meters (Plank's Length...or any other Plank's Parameter)...which is incorrect.

There is no beginning and no end of singularity.....

Yes mathematically we can say that for a function a/x, the singularity appears if x->o, but that is not the beginning of singularity per say, as no value can be assigned to it.