Neutron Star to Black Hole

Explain what you mean here and/or what your getting at

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So its not real , this thinking is theoretical

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A fossil field suggests that the field persists in the abscence of the influence of the originating mass. The only way that could occur is if you also insist that spacetime becomes so curved that it cannot recover when the mass that caused the curvature is removed. That is a very weak argument. And why I earlier pointed out that first sentence in your reference.

When you say, "they are glued together for want of a different word", you would no longer be talking about a fossil field, because if the field inside and outside the event horizon are glued together, the mass of the black hole that is connected to spacetime inside the event horizon is also connected....

There is no objection I have heard, to the spacetime within the event horizon remaining associated with the mass of the black hole, especially in the case of the Kerr solution. The disassociation occurrs in two cases; for the Kerr black holes it is a disassociation or inability to describe how spacetime is connected across the event horizon; and doubly in the case of the Schwartschild black hole where the point singularity adds another break point.

In theory all solutions breakdown, as far as descriptions of reality at the event horizon... And we wait for a consistent model of QG to fill in what is missing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My interpretation of a fossil field, is that of a mass, that undergoes catastrophic collapse past Schwarzchild radius.
Let's use another analogy. If our Sun should magically collapse to a BH, it would need to be around 3kms in diameter [dont hold me exactly to those figures, its just a relative example going from memory].
But the gravitational field remains so that all the planets keep orbiting along their present paths.

No, just the spacetime, as per the Eternal BH example....
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html

 

Let me give you the reply of a well respected GR physicist I once knew ....

"Now let me explain my reasoning carefully: GR is a local theory - and this is why I chose to answer the question this way, because we know a lot about the local workings of GR. You can only tell what's going on here and now by looking at space-times which can naturally communicate with here and now. In terms of the theory, any event can only be described meaningfully in terms of other events in its past light cone.

The immediate example which springs to mind is the space-time between the singularity and event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. We know there is space-time there, there is gravitational curvature. But the mass at the hole's singularity is in the future light cone of all events in this space-time, so it can't communicate with them. The gravitational field will only communicate with any infalling masses, but it would still exist if no mass were infalling. This is an undisputable example of a local space-time which exists without any mass. (And a real, plausible one, Greg).

Now Thorne, as one of the world's leading relativists, will understand the difference between local and global applications of the theory, and will see my point. As the question was asked by Blacky, the answer I gave is kinda definitive (ie it is a real example which proves the possibility).

If on the other hand we want to ask whether it is possible to have a global solution with space-time but without mass, this is a different question. I don't really think we should include discussions of the quantum vacuum in the answer because we don't yet understand what that has to do with space-time or gravity. I think GR is still probably the best tool to use to answer that question.

So let's look at cosmological models. The de Sitter model describes an expanding universe of constant curvature which is homogenous and isotropic because the global density is zero - ie all the mass has been removed from the universe. In this model the universal radius grows exponentially and the hubble constant (which helps define the expansion with time) is related to a non-zero cosmological constant (Lambda). Now it might be possible to equate Lambda with a quantum vacuum energy, but this has not yet been performed and so we're guessing to add that factor.

Basically what I've done here is give one local example and global example of space-times which can exist without mass. It seems those who disagree with me are largely talking philosophically. I'd like anyone who disagrees with me to show me where my examples are wrong (I think I'd have to have both examples shown to be wrong to be convinced)."

No, only the spacetime continuum.
Let me give an example...If the Sun should magically collapse past its Schwarzchild limit, it would form a BH around 3kms in diameter [from memory]
All the planets would keep on orbiting in their present paths, affected by the gravity at their particular parameter the same as before.

Though the Singularity/mass is certainly disconnected from anything beyond it, the spacetime/gravity itself, remains connected as per my post from the GR expert, and due in no small part to spacetime/gravity non-linearity.

 

river as someone who believes in long defunct Plasma/Electric Universe theory instead of BB, ghosts, goblins, giants, and UFO's of Alien origin, plus your general anti science stance, I don't believe you deserve an answer that you havn't already before rejected.

That rejection of course is like dust in the wind, and makes no difference to science in the greater scheme of things.
Like all fraudsters and the fraud they attempt to impose on society, common sense and the peer review system, in general will sort out the wheat from the chaff.
You need to live with that.

 

...so..."magically collapse"...is that a scientific term?

...also, could you please CITE any evidence to back up your claim : "...If the Sun should magically collapse past its Schwarzchild limit, it would form a BH around 3kms in diameter [from memory]
All the planets would keep on orbiting in their present paths, affected by the gravity at their particular parameter the same as before."

 

Where have you been hiding dmoe? I have truly missed the child like nature of your inquisitions.
Let me explain as simply as I can.
[1] Magically collapse: because the Sun will never collapse to a BH. It is no where near massive enough. This is a thought experiment. Like Einstein imagining he was riding on a beam of light. Understand?
[2] The 3kms [or thereabouts] is the schwarzchild limit for a mass of the size of the Sun. Once any mass under gravitational collapse reaches this Schwarzchild limit or radius [which just happens to be where the EH forms for the schwarzchild metric] then further collapse is compulsory.
[3] A BH, any BH is not an all purpose vacuum cleaner, so yes the planets, all being outside any real danger zone, would orbit as per normal.
Isn't that Interesting?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...uatoabh!!!

...so, you can provide no evidence to back up your claims???

...so...time to PM your help?

...protocols...

 

If I google uatoabh will I find a definition?

ETA: Nope, it asked me if I meant autobahn.

 

I don't need evidence. I'm stating scientific fact with regards GR, the schwarzchild limit and mass.
If you doubt what I say, then show some evidence invalidating it. :shrug:

And please, don't you think its time to drop such silly pretense with this childish "uatoabh!!!"?

 

Umm, let him be, is the best advice I can offer,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Does have a certain ring to it if you shout it while drunk, though. Great nonsensical word for a horror movie curse.

 

Schwarzschild showed that any mass could become a black hole if that mass were compressed into a sufficiently small sphere—a sphere with a radius R, which we now call the Schwarzschild radius. To calculate the Schwarzschild radius of any object—a planet, a galaxy, even an apple—all you need to know is the mass to be compressed. The Schwarzschild radius for the Earth is approximately one inch, meaning that you could squish the entire mass of the Earth into a sphere the size of a basketball and still not have a black hole: light emitted from that mass can still escape the intense gravitational pull. However, if you squeeze the mass of the Earth into a sphere the size of a ping-pong ball, it becomes a black hole.

Does the Schwarzschild radius define the “size” of a black hole? The answer is both yes and no. On one hand, theorists believe that all the “stuff” inside a black hole collapses into a singularity, an infinitely small and infinitely dense point well inside the boundary defined by the Schwarzschild radius. If you could visit a black hole, you wouldn’t perceive a physical boundary along the surface defined by the Schwarzschild radius. However, you would in fact be at a very special location: You would be traversing the “event horizon” of the black hole, the point-of-no-return from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/the-schwarzschild-radius-natures-breaking-point/

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But have you ponder over the issue that who has denigrated this thread ? Its you by stating that in Kerr BH mass/singularity spins, and also your friend brucep by silently letting you continue with your rant..

Further,

Farsight has some views, which are quite contrary to mainstream and these are his views. He does not hide his displeasure over some of the mainstream accepted lines, that does not make him troll or fool. He has the right to stay put with his opinion, as long as it does not harm others.....But you are harmful to others... How ?

Every third post or so , you claim yourself as die hard fan of mainstream, hands down support to mainstream. So whatever you post is actually not your opinion (unlike Farsight), it is actually reflection of your understanding of mainstream...and it has been revealed by this issue of classical singularity and Kerr BH Mass spin fiasco, that your understanding is just the superficial (and factually incorrect on many points) and not commensurate with number of posts you have put up in this forum (around 8k). So in future either you should be careful in posting as an advocate of mainstream or you should put a disclaimer that these are as per your understanding of mainstream concepts.

I am sure you will do a great justice to the forum members and to your conscience by just stating...that yes, classical singularities have nothing to do with Planck' scale and also Kerr BH Mass/singularity does not spin. No harm in such admission, after all, we are all learning at every stage of our life. I instantly acknowledged Prof Abhay's response that I learnt with his response that Angular Momentum can be associated with filed, I did not know that and thats why I asked the question where does angular Momentum go, when it cannot be associated with mass at singularity.

 

...still...uatoabh...!!!

 

Meaning what exactly ?

 

... Still... What does that mean???

 

It is a solution to Einstein's equations.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole