Black Hole.... Not so Black

Gibberish.
Now stop the bullshit, stop trying to ignore what cosmology entails as knowledge....something you have been doing since this thread started, and answer my previous questions.....

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.

And if you cannot answer them, then at least do what else I have suggested. Do some googling yourself, to show you what is correct and accepted.
Until you do both you are pushing shit uphill, with unsupported claims.

I'll try and help you further......
There is really no experimental evidence whatsoever that "the Planck length is relevant to reality nor if it poses any restriction which "prevents the possibility of singularities or infinite densities".
That's what I meant with regards to a future validated QGT, may reveal a surface of sorts and either eliminate or push back the aspect of a mathematical singularity.
The significance of the Planck length is purely a theoretical prediction at this point, which just happens to be where quantum effects take over and GR faails, so bringing the Singularity into focus.
From philosophical considerations we suspect that the GR prediction of a singularity is wrong, but there is nothing in theory nor in evidence that confirms it.

Now Rajish, I have done my bit, and can only hope you drop this continued pretentious "thinking for yourself" which is blinding you to the reality of the situation.

I will from here ignore those pretentious claims and let you grovel in ignorance, if that is your choice.

Remember, all you need to do is answer the questions, and do some Internet searching, to reveal the accepted knowledge of BH and their singularities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nowhere, you only say "There is really no experimental evidence whatsoever that "the Planck length is relevant to reality".

You again missed the google learning that Planck's length is quite small, but not the Planck's mass..So when you say Plancks' scale, you must refer the specific paramater, and in general it is associated with Energy.....

Again no where ? You would not ask this question, if you understand the real meaning of QG...

Basically EM is defined under Quantum mechanics, but Gravity is defined under GR. So a theory which can define Gravity under QM umbrella will be your QG. You are confused because lack of your understanding of the finer point that at subatomic level GR cannot explain gravity well due to presence of substantial quantum effects.....but it does not mean as and when QGT comes, it will restrict only to that level.. That's why i said you would not have asked this question if you knew somewhat deeper about what you are referring to. Now pl do not jump to String Theory or LQG.

It does not fail per say, it is just that where quantum effects cannot be disregarded, some new developments will have to be made to reconcile GR with QM...in fact thats what would be your QGT, which you must have referred almost in all threads without knowing what it is..

Again No where.. because in reality we cannot assign a location or coordinate to singularity. You are fully ignorant about concept of singularity.... You feel that for a BH, a singularity is kind of a fixed spherical location (inside EH) situated at the center with the radius equal to Planck's Length...If so then it is no singularity...As I told few mainstream scientists came up with this hypo to eliminate singularity..

You are at singularity with this statement...this is Gibberish..

part 1 of this statement is correct, part 2 is just plain non sense... Just find out the mass of a star with plank's length as its Schwarzschild radius. You will understand more about Plank's level.

Do you know the objective of QGT ?? It is to describe the quantum behaviour of graavity...it will do no push ups or pull ups with singularity..

Quantum effects do not take over, it is just that quantum effects cannot be discarded....see the difference ??

Who are we ?? This is blasphemy from your standard..

You are a good active guy, need to push your brain further to understand the finer aspects of these theories..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously you fail at all levels and do not want to learn.
Like I said...you have answered and understood nothing, nor do you have the guts to show any links showing I am wrong.
You have failed from day one in this thread when you question the existance of BH's without offerring any valid alternative...then you claim more wierd takes on quantum/mini BH's.
Get out of your bottomless "think for myself" cesspool, because to be able to think for ones self, one needs at least a scientific learned base to start from. You though reject all accepted mainstream bases.
How many other forums have you been banned from.

I'll let someone play your tiresome fairy tale games from now on.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NugSt4i2-KIC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=the planck scale and when singularities form&source=bl&ots=YgPvdrxPiT&sig=jwLz9iS7-QwU4tv6giZom-c2sd8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVufVN6pCcP4mAX0woDwCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the planck scale and when singularities form&f=false


http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html


http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...e-schwarzschild-radius-and-black-hole-singula

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-planck-scale.htm

In physics, the Planck scale refers to either a very large energy scale (1.22 x 1019 GeV) or a very tiny size scale (1.616 x 10-35 meters) where the quantum effects of gravity become important in describing particle interactions. At the Planck size scale, quantum uncertainty is so intense that concepts like locality and causality become less meaningful. Today’s physicists are very interested in learning more about the Planck scale, as a quantum theory of gravity is something we currently lack. Were a physicist able to come up with a quantum theory of gravity that agrees with experiment, it would practically guarantee them a Nobel Prize.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

With regards to the last sentence, the problem I see is manufacturing the tools that will enable the quantum/Planck realm to be able to be observed.
That appears to still be the big stumbling block with the otherwise promising string theories and their derivitives.




It is a fundamental fact of the physics of light that, the more energy a photon (light particle) carries, the smaller a wavelength it has. For instance, visible light has a wavelength of around a few hundred nanometers, while the much more energetic gamma rays have a wavelength about the size of an atomic nucleus. The Planck energy and the Planck length are related in that a photon would need to have a Planck-scale energy value in order to have a wavelength as small as the Planck length.

 

Paddoboy,


This is what I wanted to know from you in my post # 181...

How are you connecting Planck Scale to BH singularity ?

You did not realise the slip and started blasting me and attempted to firm up BH singularity with PS....then again I stated as follows..


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.....

This was declared Gibberish by you...and you referred me to 3 links to justify your claim of positioning singularity with Planck's scale...

The link # 3 of your post # 203 states as under..

......we cannot define a notion of length or associated any length to the singularity......

So, why do you want me to provide you with a link which would state the obvious that singularity of any kind cannot be attached with any physical parameters in real sense, when you yourself have that link......The cause of your confusion as I told you earlier also is your understanding of: That any length cannot be smaller then Planck's length so all the mass of BH inside EH will concentrate at a sphere of radius = Lp.....and thats how you linked BH singularity with Plank's scale...which is incorrect understanding. See your referred link #3 line above, as soon as you associate singularity with LP, the singularity vanishes...thats what I am saying....

Every time calling others as trolls, arrogant, ...blah blah.....will not establish your case. You have just exposed yourself that you have a very wide but........

 

I know I shouldn't do this as your obvious trolling has been forthcoming throughout this thread.
The Mathematical Singularity at the PLANCK SCALE IS NOT COVERED BY ANY OF OUR MODELS.
AGAIN, YOU SHOW YOUR ARROGANT IGNORANCE BY IGNORING ALL ANSWERS AND REPLIES.
SUMMATION:
Our models fail and do not encompass the PLANCK/QUANTUM SCALE, and that is where our Singularity reveals itself.

Yes, I speak the obvious truth, and that is evident from the first pages of posts in this thread, in how many facts and accepted science of BH's, that have been explained to you, and which you just ignorantly Ignore.

That by the way is also a banning offence.
You need to check out the rules.

Just as obviously, why you ignore all that has been told to you, is the fact that they just don't happen to align with your dream world take on what you believe cosmology should entail.
This is your obvious anti mainstream persona coming to the fore, like so many other alternative hypothesis pushers.

Now again, if you believe what I say is wrong, show me some reference or link confirming that, and stop your gutless excuse making, trolling and attempting to "getting out from under".


AGAIN...THE SINGULARITY OF A BH REVEALS ITSELF WHEN THE PRESENT GR MODEL FAILS, AND THAT HAPPENS AT THE PLANCK/QUANTUM LEVEL.

 

The BB Singularity is also evident from t+10-43 seconds, which like the BH Singularity, is the Planck/Quantum scale.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html


Before 1 Planck Time
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the fourfundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

It is not that we know a great deal about later periods either, it is just that we have no real coherent models of what might happen under such conditions. The electroweak unification has been supported by the discovery of the W and Z particles, and can be used as a platform for discussion of the next step, the Grand Unification Theory (GUT). The final unification has been called a "supergrand unification theory", and becoming more popular is the designation "theory of everything" (TOE). But "theories of everything" are separated by two great leaps beyond the experiments we could ever hope to do on the Earth.


Era of 1 Planck Time
In the era around one Planck time, 10-43 seconds, it is projected by present modeling of the fundamental forces that the gravity force begins to differentiate from the other three forces. This is the first of the spontaneous symmetry breaks which lead to the four observed types of interactions in the present universe.

Looking backward, the general idea is that back beyond 1 Planck time we can make no meaningful observations within the framework of classical gravitation. One way to approach the formulation of the Planck time is presented by Hsu. One of the characteristics of a black hole is that there is anevent horizon beyond which we can obtain no information - scales smaller than that are hidden from the outside world. For a given enclosed mass, this limit is on the order of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. But from theuncertainty principle and the DeBroglie wavelength, we can infer that the smallest scale at which we could locate the event horizon would be theCompton wavelength.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Equating L and λ, we obtain a characteristic mass called the Planck mass:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Substituting this mass back into one of the length expressions gives the Planck length

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and the light travel time across this length is called the Planck time:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Keep in mind that this is a characteristic time, so its order of magnitude is what should be noted. Sometimes it is defined with the wavelength above divided by 2π, so don't worry about the number of significant digits.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

If you disagree with what I am claiming and the links which support it, then you need to show anything, any link that supports your ideas.
Then you will need to gather what evidence you do have, and submit yourself for peer review.
You wont do any of that of course, which gets back to why I and others see you as a troll.

 

Yes there is a beginning...When the maths of GR start spitting out infinities.
And an end to a mathematical Singularity is entirely theoretically possible, when we formulate a QGT.

Just one invalid assumption among many invalid assumptions you have made throughout this thread.

 

Paddoboy....you are forcing me to be rude...

"Singularity is a mathematical expression and cannot be attached with any physical aspect like position / Energy / Mass etc",. Even your referred link #3 states so.......think of a simple question... Attach singularity with a physical qty x, then others will ask you why not with y ???

So please, stop spreading this incorrect non sense that singularity is attached/positioned at Planck's scale etc. You have not understood the concept of BH Singularity viz a viz Planck's scale. Neither you have understood the objective of QGT which you promptly keep telling people that as and when it comes it will push the singularity back, without appreciating the fact that per say singularity cannot be pushed or pulled.

I will throw light on your incorrect Push Back understanding also.....Possibly QGT or some other theory may come forward with our understanding of gravity at the distances smaller (or of the order) 10^-35 (Planck's Length).... in that case mathematics of BH becomes definable inside EH and at least till Planck's level. So there is a hypothesis that BH singularity shroud which is at present at Even Horizon may be shifted to inner sphere of Lp. It is like our learning of inside of EH till Plank's level will become better, not that we have pushed the singularity to Lp (thats a pretty non scientific laymanish statement to make)....GOTCHA !...or still cobwebs ?

 

Perhaps you need to stop posting Idiotic content and anti mainstream gobblydook.

I never said any of that. That's just you trolling for attention again.

You are being deliberately and childishly obtuse. And have misinterpreted this "push and pull" aspect of what I said.....Again for the normal people.
[1] "THE SINGULARITY OF A BH REVEALS ITSELF WHEN THE PRESENT GR MODEL FAILS, AND THAT HAPPENS AT THE PLANCK/QUANTUM LEVEL"
[2] A future QGT may eliminate the Singularity, or even possibly push its application back further

See previous comment of mine.
GR of course does make predictions past the BH's EH/Schwarzchild radius, but does fail at the quantum/Planck level which is obviously then where the mathematical Singularity comes into vogue.
A QGT may push that need back further.

Of course you can show that your ideas as complicated as they are have some validity, by showing a link or reference?
But I wont hold my breath!

 

As rajesh noted in a previous comment, I tend to post that which aligns and is generally accepted by mainstream cosmology. I unashamedly admit to that.
Reasons probably being because it's rather logical, that the vast majority of scientists would tend to accept the most logical outcome of what we do know about BH's and cosmology in general.
That is of course dominated by GR and its phenomenal successes in revealing the nature of these strange beasts we call BH's.

Rajesh on the other hand, obviously appears to refute what mainstream accept, burdened and blinkered by the vast over-use of the familiar cry of our "would be if they could be" alternative hypothesis pushers, of thinking for one self, and rejecting out of hand the works and data handed down from the giants of the present and past, even though in actual fact, they chose to reject the most logical solution/outcome, just so that they can say "I thought of it myself!"
This burden and over-use of thinking for ones self, is further shown to be the more Idiotic approach, when It comes from amateurs and lay people who have no training in the applicable science, and are not privileged to use and access the many Earth based, state of the art 'scopes and the probes that have been sent aloft to gather data and make further observations.
Rajesh has shown this burden to the nth degree many times in this thread, from suggesting BH's do not exist, to claiming cosmologists have not investigated aspects of possible BH's to denying that a BH Singularity, or break down of GR mathematics occurs at the quantum/Planck scale, which then for obvious reasons we call a Singularity.
He further then complicates the issue with some inane maths and rather astonishing suggestions re where the Planck/Quantum scale is, and when the Singularity is predicted by GR mathematics.

In all honesty, in his undying efforts to try and get out from under, I do not have a clue what he is now trying to claim, and I unashamedly do not really care.
I claim accepted BH physics....
[1] "THE SINGULARITY OF A BH REVEALS ITSELF WHEN THE PRESENT GR MODEL FAILS, AND THAT HAPPENS AT THE PLANCK/QUANTUM LEVEL"
[2] A future QGT may eliminate the Singularity, or even possibly push its application back further

I have given many links all supporting that concept, and as well the previous comment of Qreeus, as accepted mainstream knowledge.
Rajesh continues unabated, with no links, no references supporting whatever it is he is trying to say.

As he is the one insidiously trying to discredit mainstream accepted cosmology on BH's [although he denies their existence] the onus is on him to show evidence supporting whatever it is he is trying to say, and/or at least come up with a link or reference supporting whatever it is he is saying.
He will not do that, and has wriggled and squirmed around supplying any concrete evidence invalidating my claim, which is accepted mainstream cosmology, or supporting whatever it is he is trying to claim.

I add him to the forum's long list of pseudo/cesspool scientists along with constant theorist, chinglu, Farsight, undefined.
All make grand alternative scientific claims, all deride the scientific methodology and peer review, and all misinterpret/misrepresent and quote mine standard accepted cosmology.

 

I also submit as exhibit A, evidence supporting the anti accepted mainstream persona and "thinking for one's self" over use by Rajesh, in another crazy thread which ended up in alternative hypothesis section at......
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-at-all.142714/

and one particular gibberish post......

In essence Rajesh, what I'm trying to get across to you is to try and have an intelligent conversation does not mean throwing around science terminologies and pretending.
You need to stop the posturing...no need for it.

Accepted mainstream Science is awesome and potentially quite revealing still, even in this day and age, without any Intellectual and scientific pretense and posturing.

 

You should have responded this way to my post # 181... Anyways I am dropping the matter here itself.

Please enjoy the arrival of New Year 2015 and let the judges also enjoy the same. You can prosecute me later on if you so desire, till then Happy New Year and best wishes !!

 

When I know someone is being deliberately obtuse, and basically trolling with a record of ignoring previous advice and answers, I may or may not reply in total derisive disgust.....Or I may feel sorry and continue to try and open the door to logic, sensibility and generally the accepted mainstream model.

You too.
PS: There is an answer in a thread I started called
PLANCK/QUANTUM SCALE, and TIME DILATION and LENGTH CONTRACTION: from a recognised professor in the Physics and Maths section, as supplied by tashja.
Check it out.

 

Paddoboy,

Thanks

I have seen the other thread, I do not know much about Lorentz Violation...so cannot make a comment on professor's remarks as on date, I will respond to your query in that thread soon..

By the way, do you agree or not agree to below statement ?

........we cannot associated any length to the singularity.....

 

I'm going to interject and say ''I agree!''

Is that correct?

 

Yes, thats correct and that is what I have been stating for last 20 posts....which is being declared as gibberish

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

But Paddoboy, it seems, is unnecessarily fixated with the concept that BH singularity is at Planck's level..And he has the audacity to tell me that he wanted to teach me something as guided approach...BS. In the process he got guided.

 

Tashja, the answer to your question requires first a definition of just what is intended by the word singularity.

If you are referencing a mathematical point singularity, then there are no dimensions.., lengths.

The problem is that other than in the context of purely theoretical discussions, I don't believe there are many physicists that continue to believe that a mathematical point singularity exists in any real sense.

Thus there are times, when discussing things like black holes, where the word, "singularity", refers to the central mass associated with the black hole's gravitational filed, without assuming that it is a mathematical point singularity. In that case lengths and physical dimensions may apply. They just remain unknown, just as the exact nature of the laws of physics within an event horizon remain theoretical and unknown.

 

We cannot realistically associate anything with confidence to a Singularity.
We can only speculate.

 

I agree that it is correct, but must correct you on your continued confusion re the following statement......

Let me go through it again for you.....
GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached [the EH] further collapse is compulsory.
Therefor that collapse continues until the Planck/Quantum level is reached.
From those parameters, GR is ignorant. We call that the Singularity.
The Planck units that apply are a theoretical concept, and it is quite possible that a future QGT may reveal a surface of sorts, made up of the collapsed matter/energy in some exotic form of which we are not as yet familiar.
Therefor a future validated QGT could eliminate the singularity. Or it just may push it back further into the unknown abyss.
The above is my layman's take on things, so I will support that with the following more knowledgable and professional opinion.....
Prof. Carlip:
First, we don't know whether quantum gravity implies a minimum
length.
Second, we don't know whether the existence of a minimum length
implies a breakdown of Lorentz invariance.
On the other hand, it's also possible that quantum gravity
breaks Lorentz invariance at the Planck scale.
The above admittedly "cherry picked" statements from Professor Carlip, support exactly what I have been saying.

No, you are letting emotions get the better of you. My thoughts that the mathematical Singularity applies at the quantum/Planck realm is aligned with the accepted cosmological take on BH's.
The same applied in a similar sense from the moment of the BB to 10-43 seconds after. Besides as yet not knowing the why and how of the BB, we also do not know anything about that first 10-43 seconds, which is the PLANCK TIME and the Quantum level as well as what we define as the BB Singularity.

What science/cosmology does, is attempt to logically extrapolate backwards to those Planck/Quantum/Singularity regions.
These logical extrapolations backwards are done by men of learning and qualifications, assisted by the many Earth based, and orbital and space based probes and the data they present for edification.
With all due respect, you as a non professional, with no access to any of the state of the art equipment available, and troubled with your obvious malady I presented earlier of ignoring the knowledge of giants of the present and past, in favour of your own unsupported, unevidenced hypothetical scenarios, is stretching the Imagination to expect anyone to accept.

The other point that needs mentioning, is your continued ignoring of facts that invalidate your hypothetical, and misinterpreting other facts to prop up that same hypothetical.

What is that hypothetical??
I'm not really sure, as it has been lost in your many attempts at throwing around science terminologies and pretending and posturing.

Your response is not required. An answer that I accept, and that just happened to align with my thoughts on the subject was given by a professional in the field.
Plus of course, legitimate scientific discussions in science threads, should not be used as a vehicle to insidiously try and push some alternative hypothetical.

So you have a choice Rajesh.
You can sit back and do some real thinking, and examine what the good professor has said....you can also ignore the professor [and myself] and try and find some text/link that supports what ever it is that you are saying....Or you can continue in ignorant bliss, infesting this thread with your grand standing and and posturing, ignoring the professionals advice.