Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Oct 1, 2014.
GR FAILS AT THE PLANCK/QUANTUM LEVEL.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You have twisted and mangled all in this thread, to support your alternative hypothesis.
You have evaded continually obtaining any reference or link supporting your stance.
Like I said, again you lie.
They have...Q-reeus and Only Me so far...as well as all the professors.
As someone earlier noted, you are stuck in a rut with a Mathematical Singularity .
Let Q-Reeus and OnlyMe come forward and rescue you with specific agreement that singularity is at Planck's level. And do not dishonestly claim that professors have agreed that singularity is at Planck's level..
And by the way Mathematics is the only tool to arrive at singularity.....Can you explain me how chemistry can be used (sans mathematics) to define or calculate or hypothesize singularity ?? Just do not stick to irrelevance.
I don't need to have anyone come forward. It's you looking for a way out, not me.
Like I said, you have uttered nothing but confused nonsense since you started this thread, with your supposed "attack" on GR and mainstream cosmology.
And yes, our Professor friends have supported me.....One would need to be a complete Idiot not to see that.
Now once again ignoring your pompous arrogance, A Singularity is said to exist where our laws of physics and GR do not apply, and that is at the Planck/Quantum level.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In science fiction, the term quantum singularity is used to refer to many different phenomena, which often approximately resemble a gravitational singularity in the scientific sense in that they are massive, localized distortions of space and time. The name invokes one of the most fundamental problems remaining in modern physics: the difficulty in merging Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which includes singularities within its models of black holes) and quantum mechanics. In fact, since "singularities are infinitely small" according to relativity, they are expected to be quantum mechanical by their nature; a theory of quantum gravity would be required to describe this behavior, and no such theory has yet been completed. On the other hand, only one kind of singularity has ever been observed (black holes), and due to the mass dependent, stable radius of the connected event horizon, it is currently unknown if this kind of singularity actually approaches or even drops below scales relevant to quantum mechanics.
My only disagreement with the above is rather pedant but in this case Important.
The highlighted words in inverted commas, are not 100% correct imvho....
A Singularity may lead to infinite quantities, but in itself, it is not infinite per se.
My genuine advice to you is to read the Professor's replies again,
Or the following is an excellent summary......
As is Q-reeus's post in reference to one of mine.....
Now Rajesh, I am growing tired of your troll like nonsense, that deals in blatant lies, and fails to recognise obvious tracts of what a BH and its Singularity does entail and then claims someone, anyone is supporting his stance.
And at the same time steadfastly refuses to give any links or references supporting his stance.
Revel in your Ignorance Rajesh.
What I am claiming......
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.
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.
The Singularity will only vanish if and when cosmologists formulate a valid QGT.
Even in that case, a QGT may just push back the realm of the Singularity further into the unknown.
What Professor Hamilton said....
One thing can be said for sure: general relativity fails at
singularities. In the Schwarzschild case, general relativity
cannot continue geodesics past the singularity.
The reaction of most theoretical physicists is that some other theory,
presumably a quantum theory of gravity, must replace general relativity
at singularities. Surely physics cannot simply end at singularities.
And most physicists would argue that quantum gravity becomes
important at the Planck scale. In the Schwarzchild case,
the spacetime is empty.
You only indirectly sought their confirmation....I am not looking forward to a way out, I do not need one..My stand is crystal clear...you have not responded to both the questions...and sticking to generalization..without any specific stand...
part 1 is perfect....part 2 not..
With due reservation about wiki entries...but you provided this link to support your argument....you only disagree in the same post...thats ironical
Please re read the above statement at least n times.......till you decipher that second part is pure and pristine gibberish.
This is the first time assertively I am saying....You are doing just nothing but trolling...It has kind of become an ego trip for you and you need a support or rebuke from Mods.....I will let it pass.......
CAN YOU SUPPLY ANY LINK OR REFERENCE SUPPORTING YOUR STANCE?
That stance is that although GR breaks down at the quantum/Planck scale, that does not mean that is where the Singularity begins.
My stance is, where GR and our laws of physics break down, is where we conclude the Singularity, and that happens to be at the Planck/Quantum scale.
But perhaps we should also mention the other stances that you have taken...
 BH's need not exist [no explanation though forthcoming to explain the effects on matter/energy and spacetime]
 Gravitational collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached does not mean compulsory further collapse
 Why is not a BH's density larger then a Neutron star?
 BH's reside at the center of all galaxies without question
You mean, you are the authority on BH's and their Singularities, and do not need any link or reference to support that authority....[TIC mode on of course]
No its all correct, but I am willing to be corrected by any reasonable knowledgable contributor. [Which leaves you out in the cold, sorry]
Not to any level headed reasonable person without an agenda.
If anyone of reasonable knowledge would like to comment on my correct, they are welcome. [again, sorry for leaving you out in the cold]
I suggest you read it n times, as once again you are highlighting nothing but ignorance. Oh, and have you ever heard of a QGT?
You are the one continually ignoring some link or reference to support your stance.
I have many within the thread, and of course our professors and own forum members.
I have not seen anyone supporting your claim as yet.
Your post and its accusations just reflect that now infamous Rajesh dishonesty coming to the fore.
CAN YOU SUPPLY ANY LINK OR REFERENCE SUPPORTING YOUR STANCE?
* I neither sort their confirmation directly or indirectly. They obviously logically see you as wrong, just as the Professors have.
Plus there is no love lost between Q-reeus and myself.
*Of course you are looking for a way out, with excuses, refusing to give any links or references to support your stance, ignoring all the other replies other than mine, and finally lying about what was and wasn't said.
* You have continually from day one refuse to supply links and ignore all my links refuting your position, including our friends the Professors.
* Your own generalisation is way off, and many of your other specific issues on different BH aspects are also just plain wrong.
Again, that has been agreed to by all posters I have seen contribute including brucep whom I had previously forgotten.
See my list,
Prof Carlip says....
"""In classical GR, "the Planck scale" doesn't mean anything -- it
is a scale that explicitly involves Planck's constant. But
classical singularities are predicted to occur at zero size and,
typically, infinite curvature and density, which is certainly
smaller in size and larger in energy than any quantum scale."""
With this I am offering you an olive branch...I was referring to classical GR and possibly
you were referring to QGT. Ok....
Let us focus on some other topic.. I will sincerely say, although my stand is still intact, but I learnt a lot sifting and scanning lot of literature on the subject. Thanks to you....
Gravity presents itself when mass warps spacetime.
A BH certainly does have gravity...no dispute about that....although to say it has density is questionable at best, considering that 99.999% of the BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass collapsed to the Planck/Quantum region we call the Singularity.
... so... a BH has no DENSITY?
...and who is this "WE" that you keep mentioning?
A BH is mostly just critically curved spacetime. Like I said, to infer density, is questionable.
We?? I'll let our peers on this forum be the best judge of that.
All the mass of any BH according to GR resides at the Singularity. Density of a BH, which as I said is questionable at best to inquire about, was discussed further back. I'll let you do the search as you have plenty of time.
It is reasonable to assume that the mass of associated with a black hole may be in some exotic form.., more dense than even closely packed neutrons, but it is speculative to assert that the total mass of a black hole is reduced to Planck scale dimensions. That seems an attempt to conceptually hold onto the singularity predicted within the context of GR.., which in its extreme is a point singularity, with no dimensions. We have no way to test theories about the structure of the mass of a black hole.
There are valid competing theories about the composition of netron stars. Black holes are more mysterious because it seems that many of the forces we associate with the laws of physics, cannot function the same way inside of an event horizon, as we understand them, outside the event horizon.
GR doesn't really have a Planck scale. That is the domain of quantum mechanics and so far quantum mechanics, does not provide us much useful information about black holes and gravitation.
This is really a difficult topic for discussion, unless it is initially agreed from what perspective or theoretical basis it is to be discussed.
True, at least as far as it goes, but GR breaks down at the singularity and it would seem allows no wiggle room from which QM could take over. Singularities of the kind predicted, are inconsistent with QM.
Agreed in principal.
Basically as I said earlier, I see the Singularity coming into vogue where GR stops or fails. And obviously that is at the theoretically derived Planck domain, and the quantum level.
Another point that I also mentioned, is that the Singularity need not be infinite in any quantity...it can though lead to infinite quantities.
I see this as an important concept.
Separate names with a comma.