Black Hole.... Not so Black

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Oct 1, 2014.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    My position is very clear..

    This is what I say.. (detailed explanation in my post # 227)

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

    Paddoboy agrees to below statement when specifically questioned

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

    But he does not agree to my statement in blue color...he calls that as incorrect....How ??

    That mean he is associating Planck's Length with singularity......That is his understanding which has no physical basis.....

    I re iterate (as stated before) that EH provides a kind of shroud to BH singularity can interact with Physical world.....BH singularity is not at all associated with Planck's scale.. Few scientists have hypothesized (again as stated in my posts earlier) that once inside EH the entire mass goes to Planck's level, if we accept this hypothesis then singularity vanishes.....Under no circumstances whatsoever scientifically any singularity can be attached with Planck's level (see my post #227).....This gentleman is thoroughly confused with QGT at Planck's level and failure of Relativity at that level due to singularity and thus mixing up singularity with Planck's level....

    It is clear that inside EH the time in Schwarzschild metric becomes how do you reach position coordinate of the level of Planck's scale ?? If you cannot reach then how can you associate Singularity with Planck's level ? And if at all you associate it with Plankc's level then where is the singularity ?? It becomes precise defined case as pursued by few scientists as referred above. These are difficult questions for him...Did you see the Paddoboy response to Professor's quote in his other cross referred thread....the self boasting, quite laughable.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    I hesitate to agree with many who post here, as sometimes what that can be taken to mean is more than what I indended. So, if you are restricting your definition of the word.., to that of a mathematical point singularity, there are no lengths or dimensions. In different words I believe that is what Peter was explaining in your spoiler (quote).

    On the other hand both Prof. Carlip's quote from the other thread and the quote you brought up from AlphaNumeric (a soul missed sorely around here) were speaking in a more general theoretical sense, extending beyond the over simplified mathematical point singularity solution. (I am not really sure from the quotes what Przyk's argument with Alpha really was. I would tend to think it was more nuanced than it appears in the quote.)

    So, yes a mathematical point singularity does emerge from one or more solutions to EFE. However, there is no evidence that those solutions represent anything that can be thought of as reality. In fact what we onbserve in reality suggest that the point singularity is constrained to theory and specific mathematical solutions.... And the word singularity is in other circumstances and solutions associated with the physical black hole itself, which must have some dimensions or lengths.

    This is implied in Prof. Carlip's comments which introduce quantum gravity as a consideration. There is no point singularity in the context of quantum gravity.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I'm not misquoting or misrepresenting anything. You appear to be doing that.
    My position aligns with the accepted mainstream stance, that where our theories/models fail, is where Singularity status begins. And that is at the Planck/Quantum scale.
    A Singularity need not be infinite in any sense.....It may lead to Infinite quantities, with the emphasis on "may".

    Again you supply nothing, no links, no references, while admitting to not even accepting the existence of BH's themselves.
    How can anyone therefor take you seriously?
    I certainly do not.

    Again, to support my position, I offer the following......
    "According to the present standard definition, a spacetime singularity can be identified by examining particles in free fall - both ordinary matter particles and massless particles like photons. In general relativity, such freely falling particles, which by definition are only affected by gravity and by no other forces, move on the straightest possible lines through spacetime, on what mathematicians callgeodesics. A spacetime singularity is said to occur wherever a freely falling particle suddenly pops out of existence! Since the particle travels through spacetime in the straightest possible way, namely on a geodesic, and since the abrupt end of the particle's existence corresponds to the unexpected end of that geodesic motion, this phenomenon is called geodesic incompleteness"

    The above is by my reckoning saying that once this particle "pops out of existence" is the same as saying once our physical laws and GR are unable to predict at that level of spacetime curvature and gravity.....[quantum gravity and the Planck scale] a Singularity comes into vogue.
    Any comment on my Interpretation by anyone?

    and another here......
    where it says.....
    "I suspect that what we call the singularity in black holes either doesn’t exist (there is some law/effect we don’t know about) or, if cosmic censorship is true, the nature of that singularity both doesn’t matter and can’t be known, since it can never interact with the rest of the universe. There are some theories (guesses) that would fix the whole “black hole singularity problem” (like spacetime can only get so stretched, or some form of “quantum fuzziness”), but in all likelihood this is just one of those questions that may never be completely resolved".

    Which seems to be agreeing with what Professor Carlip said.

    Yet you fail to address any of those points, instead just rattling off what you have become obsessed with.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    No, I'm sure I said that we do not know what any Singularity entails.
    It may have dimensions...there may be a surface of sorts somewhere, that maybe revealed with a validated QGT.
    And this Singularity event, both with the BB, and a standard Schwarzchild BH, occur at this Planck/quantum scale.

    I have shown many links supporting my position. You have shown nothing, instead just giving your own unqualified take on the situation.
    And yet you continually ignore that short coming, expecting no one will notice.

    Ahaa! At last! Some logical accepted cosmology. That has been rather rare among your continued posturing.
    But what has that to do with the Singularity which comes into vogue at the Planck/Quantum scale?

    Now that is just plain wrong.
    Let me explain...
    [1]A Schwarzchild BH Singularity comes into vogue at the quantum/Planck scale, by reasons of the compulsory collapsing of a particular mass, past its Schwarzchild limit, which happens to be what we refer to as the EH.
    [2]All mainstream scientists/cosmologists do accept the fact that once a mass under gravitational collapse surpasses its Schwarzchild limit, further collapse [to Singularity/Quantum/Planck scale] is compulsory.
    Just because you state differently in your previous posts, does not make it correct. If you were fair dinkum, you could show a reference or link...something you continually ignore.
    [3]The Singularity will only vanish if and when cosmologists formulate a valid QGT.
    [4]Even in that case, a QGT may just push back the realm of the Singularity further into the unknown.

    All unsupported theoretical concepts. Please show some reference or link supporting your hypothesis, instead of mouthing off against mainstream accepted cosmology.
    Surely that is not asking too much....afterall you yourself asked....
    at post 176
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2014
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Hi tashja...
    If you are going to put more of this debate to the good professor, I believe the relevant bits would entail the claims from Rajesh at post 241, and my relevant rebuttals at post 245.
    [Perhaps also if it isn't too much to ask, the reference links of mine at post 243.
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Tashja, before you choose to seek any kind professor intervention, It is necessary that a firm and clear stand of Paddoboy is taken on record....He has used so many references, links, copy paste in his posts and due to that his clear stand appears inconclusive...

    Paddoboy, My unwavering stand is re produced below..with respect to Schwarzschild BH Singularity

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

    What is your stand....please choose A or B or C or D or E from below...

    A. Above statement is Gibberish and absolute non sense.
    B. Above statement may be true, but the poster has not given any reference in support.
    C. Above statement is ok in general, but not for Schwarzschild BH Singularity.
    D. Above statement is fairly ok and I agree with that.
    E. The statement is false but I am not able to Pin Point any inaccuracy in above statement.
    F. ..........

    F = You can add any other single line answer in rebuttal...

    And for GOD sake paddoboy, Please restrict yourself to a single Alphabet if your answer is from A to E, or single line if it is F...Thats a kind request from my side so that matter gets concluded...
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Your posturing and grand standing is never ending.
    My position is clear to any logical clear thinking individual without an agenda.
    Your own position has wavered throughout this thread, and been shown to be in error on many issues.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    The matter has been concluded. All links have agreed with what I have said, including Professor Carlip.
    Any more verification is just icing on the cake.
    Again, you totally and evasively avoid my request of some authentication.

    Please show some reference or link supporting your hypothesis, instead of mouthing off against mainstream accepted cosmology.
    Surely that is not asking too much....afterall you yourself asked....
    at post 176
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Rajesh said .....

    The above "doubting Thomas" attitude to a well known aspect of GR, was in reply to my mainstream accepted claim that once a gravitationally collapsing mass reaches its Shwarzchild limit/radius, which just happens to be the EH, then further collapse is compulsory.

    Please note also that he openly bears his soul to his fanatical anti mainstream stance with his last paragraph requesting I not give links or references.

    Just one of his many misunderstandings about BH's throughout this thread, not forgetting of course that he does not believe GR BH's are a reality.
    Like one or two others with this same train of thought, they are yet unable to explain any other means as to how the spacetime and matter/energy is so critically affected in regions that mainstream cosmology envisage as BH's.

    Here are two more......

    Again here are two more aspects of this thread that Rajesh seems totally unclear about, and yet he still wants all to accept his versions of a Singularity, Planck and Quantum scale and denial that they all represent a Singularity simply by being beyond the parameters of present models.

    His non acceptance of the latest Singularity at the Planck/Quantum scale debate is just one more example of this gross misunderstanding and his subsequent "anti mainstream" trolling.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    But what is your position ? For a change pl stop this repeated copy-paste and put on record what is your stand, you do not have to do much, just choose from options A to F........
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    My position has been obvious from day one, not only on this current matter, but all of the erroneous concepts that you have raised.
    As each was refuted and derided, you then moved on to some other aspect of your total misunderstanding.
    My copy and paste will continue unnabbated and when necessary to reinforce my own layman views. I'm not in anyway adverse to what is accepted by mainstream physics, and certainly and proudly see that as my guide.
    All scientists worth there salt recognise the giants of the present and past.
    Most are not burdened by any delusions of grandeur, and a fanatical drive to show the world that they can think for themselves, ignoring all previous knowledge.
    As your posturing continues, I'll certainly show you are in error, as you have been throughout this thread, if and when that is required.
    Ignoring all the facts I have presented with regards to those errors of judgement, will not make them go away.
    They are there in black and white, including your most recent fauxpas.

  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    While it is generally accepted that when we speak of BH's, we speak of the simple garden variety Schwarzchild metric, with a simplistic Singularity at the center, at the Planck/Quantum scale, this simplicity gets quite a work out if that same BH is spinning. This is called a Kerr type BH after the NZ physicist Roy Kerr. What we would have then is a "ring Singularity"
    This presents then a rather weird speculative scenario, of the possibility of taking a path into such a BH from around the polar regions, with a trajectory taking one directly through the middle of this ring Singularity.
    The possibility is real that one could pass through unharmed with the tidal pull of gravity from all sides, cancelling each other out.

    Here are some other interesting concepts around BH's...

    Black holes in quantum theories of gravity[edit]
    It is possible, in some theories of quantum gravity, to calculate the quantum corrections to ordinary, classical black holes. Contrarily to conventional black holes which are solutions of gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity, quantum gravity black holes incorporate quantum gravity effects in the vicinity of the origin, where classically a curvature singularity occurs. According to the theory employed to model quantum gravity effects, there are different kinds of quantum gravity black holes, namely loop quantum black holes, non-commutative black holes, asymptotically safe black holes. In these approaches, black holes are singularity free.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Sorry to see you degenerate like this....

    Please ponder, what you have been doing on this forum ? Copy-Paste and deriding people..calling them nutters, arrogant, sock puppets, dunking doubters, lunatics, trolls........seeking their bans from mods......even in this thread you pleaded with mods (judges) for my some other thread in some other sub forum, the poster has rebuked you for seeking his ban.....

    Here, for once you have been called to be specific by stating your stand and you got punctured, completely flattened and started making louder cranking noises. As I told, you have a very wide but shallow knowledge, so you will relish only in generalisation not in specifics.....You are stating that your stand is aligned with is not the question of aligning with mainstream, it is the question of stating what your understanding of the subject is.

    Since no substantial purpose would be served by insisting on taking your specific stand on record, I will authenticate my stand as stated in my posts to your satisfaction..

    You have made a reference to Ring Singularity (albeit with different solution)....In Schwarzschild Solution also, there are two at r = Rs and other at r = 0....The singularity at r = Rs is coordinate specific, that means it can be avoided by proper use of coordinates...But the singularity at r =0 is true singularity and independent of coordinate system chosen.....How do we say that it is the true singularity...that is due to the fact that it is irrespective of any chosen coordinate system.. Moreover there are 3-4 principle invariants (value not dependent on coordinate system), one of them is Kretschmann Invariant..the value of this invariant is inversely proportion to r^6.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    clearly establishing a true singularity at r = 0 not at any other level....Planck's or otherwise...If as what you are loosely claiming this singularity is at Planck's level...then this invariant would have had a term in the denominator like (r-Lp)...which it does not have..

    So please understand that the mainstream Schwarzschilds solution does not link its true singularity at r = 0 with Planck's length or level....In fact no dimension can be attached to a true singularity.......
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    What are you babbling about? The Schwarzschild solution is a simplified solution that is not representative of anything in reality. Everything we observe suggests that black holes have both angular momentum and magnetic fields...

    You get it? A Schwarzschild black hole has no true singularity, because it represents an unreal and yet useful simplification of EFE.

    While I have seen many theoretical physicists that speak of point singularities, within the context of theory.., I don't know of any that actually believe a black hole is a point singularity in reality. Any physical reality associated the object - black hole - is for quantum gravity to sort out. No matter how you twist and turn what you think you know about general relativity, it cannot tell you exactly what the physical composition of a black hole is. It can only tell you how what lies inside the event horizon influences things outside the event horizon.

    (And yes there is the nut of at least part of the information paradox. Nothing is supposed to get out and yet the gravitational field of a black hole seems to.)

    As far as general relativity is concern, beyond that there be dragons!
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Certainly I have made comments such as you suggest to the forum,s various nutters, sock puppets, lunatics etc etc, and its also obvious most all of those people have had their posts relegated to Alternative, Pseudo, or cesspool.
    There is an old saying, "If the cap fits, wear it"
    You certainly are the joker in the pack, so let me inform you straight up....No, I have not made any appeal to any moderator, and if and when I do, it will be one appeal, and then the decision will be left to them. I do not criticise mods for the thankless task they have, and accept their decisions even when I'm at the wrong end of those decisions.
    But all you are doing here, is taking the spot light off your own anti mainstream cosmology stance and lack of intestinal fortitude, in refusing to supply any link of any description to support what you say.
    Have you ever as yet, started any thread that does not set out to deride, refute or invalidate standard accepted cosmology?
    Not that there is anything wrong with that if you have the necessary expertise, capabilities and most of all evidence. You have none of those three qualities, and in reality, if you did have any hard evidence, you would not be here.
    You would get it peer reviewed and be inline for this years Physics Nobel.

    You have authenticated nothing, much to mine and the forum's disgust, although I have been asking for any authentication from day one.
    You have yet to admit to any of the errors in this thread you have already made including erroneous takes on micro BH's, Neutron stars/BH's densities, Schwarzchild radius and compulsory collapse, and even the existence of BH's.
    As I have showed, your efforts to grand stand, pontificate, and posture has not impressed anyone for one simple reason....YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!!!!

    The continued ignoring of the facts as I have presented them with regards to your errors of judgement, and Ignoring any links and references, will not make them go away.
    They are there in black and white, including your most recent fauxpas.

    Now if I am wrong with any part of my summation, you can easily show that.

    You won,t, and you can't, and that makes your posts a good example of trolling.

    In the meantime, I'll put in a better effort to post more authenticated verification links and references of what I have claimed.
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2015
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I suppose I should have been clearer on that point.
    It seems I made an error in judgement on what I thought Rajesh was capable of understanding.
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Get a clue. The Schwarzschild coordinates are specific to the Schwarzschild geometry which result in the point like singularity being at r=0. The Schwarzschild geometry is spherically symmetric, non rotating. The Kerr geometry is rotating with a ring singularity specific to the Kerr geometry. The coordinate transformation is between the spherically symmetric non rotating geometry and the rotating geometry where angular momentum rules. The Kerr metric reduces to the Schwarzschild metric when the black hole quits rotating.
  23. tashja Registered Senior Member


Share This Page