A Solution to the Black Hole Information Paradox

[tomf]

if any truly alternative to the already verified and validated aspects of BH's was forthcoming, it would be responsibly written up on a paper, with a reputable publisher [not vixra] for proper professional peer review

What is your evidence of this? Do you think ideas are considered by a reputable publisher regardless of the author's credentials?

I made it easy to see otherwise. Anyone who can do logic problems and algebra can see by page 2 that there must be an alternative to GR, lest nature be illogical.

 

[paddoboy]

What is your evidence of this? Do you think ideas are considered by a reputable publisher regardless of the author's credentials?

I made it easy to see otherwise. Anyone who can do logic problems and algebra can see by page 2 that there must be an alternative to GR, lest nature be illogical.

Firstly I'm not a scientist and certainly not competent enough to invalidate the points you are trying to make.......but in answer to one of your questions....
https://academia.stackexchange.com/...me academics strongly disapprove of viXra.org.
"The typical quality of papers on viXra.org is much lower than that of arXiv.org because of its open submission policy and because many of its users are independent researchers."

Let me add, that publishing with vixra does not automatically invalidate any paper, but if such a conclusion of any paper, did have any merit [as you claim] why then havn't other professional scientists given it any recognition.
Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting incalcitrant or questionable mainstream dogma and/or any stubborn refusal to shift ground. Science and the scientific method by its very nature, is in eternal progress, but by the same token, any new idea/hypothesis etc, needs to and must "run the gauntlet" before it supersedes a theory as validated and as exceptionally verified as GR.

GR has since its inception, has been continually verified over the years and its predictions constantly being validated. eg: Lense Thirring effect...gravitational waves.

Yes, "perhaps" one day we may have a QGT that can be validated but by the same token any QGT would extend on the parameters of GR...just as GR extended on the parameters of Newtonian mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Here's another aspect...............
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/have-we-solved-the-black-hole-information-paradox/

My own idea is simple......GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. But GR also fails us at the quantum/Planck level.
We can then I believe, then surmise a surface of sorts at or just below the quantum/Planck level. A surface of space/time/matter/energy whose exact nature is unknown. Similar if you will, to the unknown t+10-45 seconds post BB...There spacetime [in an unknown state]evolved from the quantum foam, and expanded to past the t+10-45 seconds, to a more recognisable spacetime as we know them, and then the emergence of matter as we know it.
But that's just my idea...

 

[tomf]

if such a conclusion of any paper, did have any merit [as you claim] why then havn't other professional scientists given it any recognition.

Because a paper won't necessarily be read by any professional scientist, regardless of its content. Journals don't have the resources to read every paper, so they filter largely based on credentials. Even arXiv is selective like that. Not every paper or author is allowed to run the gauntlet.

Yes, "perhaps" one day we may have a QGT that can be validated but by the same token any QGT would extend on the parameters of GR...just as GR extended on the parameters of Newtonian mechanics.

It's also possible that GR has a problem to be fixed, like I show.

Here's another aspect...............

Good article.

My own idea is simple......

Write it up! Seriously, let your ideas fly. There are two parts to GR's incompatibility with QM. My paper doesn't address the part you're talking about, incompatibility at sufficiently small scales outside the singularity.

 

[paddoboy]

Because a paper won't necessarily be read by any professional scientist, regardless of its content. Journals don't have the resources to read every paper, so they filter largely based on credentials. Even arXiv is selective like that. Not every paper or author is allowed to run the gauntlet.

If a paper is good enough, without flaws and mistakes, and truly invalidates an incumbent theory, then it will certainly get off the ground and be accepted.

It's also possible that GR has a problem to be fixed, like I show.

I really don't see too much of a problem, that has not been possible explained and rectified as per the link/s I gave.
The BB also has some nagging problems, that can be rectified by certain assumptions...irrespective though, it passes the four main pillars of cosmology and is still overwhelmingly accepted...so much so, that a reputable astronomer explained to me, that any future QGT will not invalidate the BB, rather encapsulate it and extend the boundaries of applicability.

Write it up! Seriously, let your ideas fly. There are two parts to GR's incompatibility with QM. My paper doesn't address the part you're talking about, incompatibility at sufficiently small scales outside the singularity.

Thanks for the confidence! But I don't see it so much as an incompatibility, rather then just a restriction to explain at a certain level, as Newtonian lacks the accuracy of GR.

My apologies if I appear too mainstream and stagnant in my thinking, but as I said, I aint no scientist, and I have watched many many claimants over the years, confident that they have overthrown and invalidated GR with something more complete and correct. They so far remain as that...just claims. Again though, if you are convinced of the validity of your claim, then take it further.....It will be hard and there will be obstacles....but as I said, that's a necessary part of the progress of any scientist and theory.

 

[tomf]

If a paper is good enough, without flaws and mistakes, and truly invalidates an incumbent theory, then it will certainly get off the ground and be accepted.

This looks like wishful thinking, although I admire your optimism. No, not all papers or authors can be considered even once.

I really don't see too much of a problem, that has not been possible explained and rectified as per the link/s I gave.

That's fine. There are many proposed solutions to the paradox. They're typically speculative or stretch logic rather than definitively eliminate the paradox like I did.

I have watched many many claimants over the years, confident that they have overthrown and invalidated GR with something more complete and correct.

Yes, that explains why not all papers or authors can be considered even once. Yours likely wouldn't either, but don't let that stop you from sharing it. Perhaps centuries from now an internet archaeologist, if only a bot, will incorporate your findings into a better model.

Again though, if you are convinced of the validity of your claim, then take it further.....It will be hard and there will be obstacles....but as I said, that's a necessary part of the progress of any scientist and theory.

Again I admire your optimism but I'm fine with minimal sharing like on Vixra and here. By not wasting time on the professional scientific community like you're talking about, I'm able to progress by leaps and bounds on scientific discovery.

Thanks for the confidence! But I don't see it so much as an incompatibility, rather then just a restriction to explain at a certain level, as Newtonian lacks the accuracy of GR.

Vixra is perfect for an idea like that. They explain in their FAQ why it's important for scientists to have a place to share ideas large and small, where a scientist is anyone who does science.

 

[paddoboy]

Vixra is perfect for an idea like that. They explain in their FAQ why it's important for scientists to have a place to share ideas large and small, where a scientist is anyone who does science.

Sure on that score...but seriously, while nothing is perfect, including the scientific methodology, the scientific method is by far the best system we have.
People are apt to push there own ideas, and sometimes its well worth it and they will be shown to be correct...on the other hand, some are simply too close and involved with a personal idea/hypothetical, and are unable to see its faults.
Both GR, the BB are overwhelmingly supported, and one of the lesser reasons of their successes, is how they do go together like a hand in a glove.
BH's have now been imaged and validated after aligning with templates with gravitational wave discovery.
They are being tested every day, as any young up and coming scientist, knows the tremendous cudos he or she would be entitled to if they did discover a solution, or model that gave further insight and matched further predictions.

And quite possibly there may even be a model out there that is every bit as good as GR. But to knock GR off the top perch, it must be better.
I had a variation of the expanding universe alternative put to me by a professional...shrinking rulers!! Now it very well may work, but I just find it, well let's just simply say I dislike it.

 

[tomf]

Both GR, the BB are overwhelmingly supported, and one of the lesser reasons of their successes, is how they do go together like a hand in a glove.

They should, because the BB is based on GR. A replacement for GR could alter the BB.

BH's have now been imaged and validated

Suspected BH, not validated. I cover this in the paper. There's no definitive proof of a BH.

as any young up and coming scientist, knows the tremendous cudos he or she would be entitled to if they did discover a solution, or model that gave further insight and matched further predictions.

Likely he or she would be ignored. Here's an example of that: See the chart at the bottom of the The Relativistic Rocket that's in the Usenet Physics FAQ. I contributed that chart and the equations for it. If the physics there was generally accepted then our cosmology (which is also based on GR) would need to be revised. So even though that's nothing more than SR used in a certain way, and that info has been hosted by physics departments at universities for years, that "model that gives further insight" can't make it into a journal and will otherwise be ignored.

 

[paddoboy]

They should, because the BB is based on GR. A replacement for GR could alter the BB.

While the four pillars of evidence heavily favour the BB, I don't see that happening anytime soon. [1]Observed expansion. [2] CMBR at 2.73K. [3] Abundance of lighter elements. [4] Galactic formation and distribution.

Suspected BH, not validated. I cover this in the paper. There's no definitive proof of a BH.

Suspected?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...day published the,center of galaxy Messier 87.

Likely he or she would be ignored. Here's an example of that: See the chart at the bottom of the The Relativistic Rocket that's in the Usenet Physics FAQ. I contributed that chart and the equations for it.

Like I said, even the scientific method is not perfect....I find it hard to accept some conspiracy based on one event, and one obviously close to your heart. And again, your's isn't the first to have opinions that shall we say, stray from mainstream somewhat? We have a fellow called ilja-schmelzer whom I have crossed swords with on occasions. Then we have had debates on the pros and cons of Vector gravity....all claim with the same certainty as you.

 

[tomf]

The alteration to the BB could be something that doesn't affect agreement with observations to date.

Dr. Lincoln is being loose with his title in that video. We don't actually know that black holes exist. You don't need proof of this, you can just use logic. There's no observation of a star imploding to form a black hole. So what is he basing his description on? He's basing it on predictions of theories, including GR, the theory that predicts black holes. Then if GR is invalid, black holes may not actually form from imploding stars. An accurate title would be "How we know black holes exist, assuming GR is valid". All observations of black holes likewise depend on GR's validity.

I find it hard to accept some conspiracy based on one event, and one obviously close to your heart.

You need only one event. That site can be used in a repeatable experiment in discussions with physicists to find that they will indeed ignore a "model that gives further insight". It's a good example because it's only SR applied in a certain way. Saying you need more than one event is like saying you need more than one kangaroo to know that kangaroos exist.

 

[paddoboy]

The alteration to the BB could be something that doesn't affect agreement with observations to date.

And until we have evidence of any alternative, the status quo remains overwhelmingly supported.

Dr. Lincoln is being loose with his title in that video. We don't actually know that black holes exist. You don't need proof of this, you can just use logic. There's no observation of a star imploding to form a black hole. So what is he basing his description on? He's basing it on predictions of theories, including GR, the theory that predicts black holes. Then if GR is invalid, black holes may not actually form from imploding stars. An accurate title would be "How we know black holes exist, assuming GR is valid". All observations of black holes likewise depend on GR's validity.

Two points, all evidence and observational data, show that GR is valid within its parameters, and the reason for the overwhelming support.
Second, BH's were first theorised with observational data of Cygnus X-1, and the actions of spacetime and stellar objects within that vicinity, that was unable to be explained other then with something where the escape velocity exceeds "c"...hence BH's. Since those heady days, the evidence has only mounted.

You need only one event. That site can be used in a repeatable experiment in discussions with physicists to find that they will indeed ignore a "model that gives further insight". It's a good example because it's only SR applied in a certain way.

No, its simply one example on your say so....there are way too many young up and coming physicists, and established ones, for the facts to be hidden in some unlikely fabricated conspiracy.

Saying you need more than one event is like saying you need more than one kangaroo to know that kangaroos exist.

I didn't say conspiracies don't exist. I'm simply saying that it isn't the case with the scientific method and the average scientists, for reasons already stated.
And as we all know some conspiracy claims are actually ridiculous and reflect only on the tin foil hat brigade, that push such nonsense.eg: claims of faked Moon Landings....9/11 etc.

It's also worth remembering that a great proportion of the mainstream accepted science, was at one time also non mainstream...mainstream becomes mainstream, because as the evidence is gathered that support any particular aspect of science, more and more see the logic and accept it, and use it.
Other models may be similar and/or totally different, but unless they are actually a better model and/or predict more, they will gather dust along with thousands of other papers.

GR, and the BB stand pretty firm, and while the BB may still have a couple of nagging problems, as well as the information paradox with GR, they both appear to be the way the universe operates.

 

[paddoboy]

You don't need proof of this, you can just use logic.

Science and scientific models and theories is not about proof.

 

[tomf]

And until we have evidence of any alternative, the status quo remains overwhelmingly supported.

We do have evidence that suggests an alternative. It's in my paper.

Two points, all evidence and observational data, show that GR is valid within its parameters, and the reason for the overwhelming support.

True. Nevertheless my paper shows that GR is invalid.

Second, BH's were first theorised with observational data of Cygnus X-1, and the actions of spacetime and stellar objects within that vicinity, that was unable to be explained other then with something where the escape velocity exceeds "c"...hence BH's.

My paper shows an alternate explanation that agrees with all observations to date.

I suggest you don't make what I call out-flanking arguments. When you haven't read / understood my paper then it's a weak argument to suggest it can't be correct for other reasons. If you can show a mathematical proof that GR is valid then fine. But theories can't be proven that way or else they'd be proofs not theories.

No, its simply one example on your say so....there are way too many young up and coming physicists, and established ones, for the facts to be hidden in some unlikely fabricated conspiracy.

The experiment is repeatable to verify the claim and rule out conspiracy. Who wrote the experiment is irrelevant. The claim need be verified by only that one experiment.

It's also worth remembering that a great proportion of the mainstream accepted science, was at one time also non mainstream...mainstream becomes mainstream, because as the evidence is gathered that support any particular aspect of science, more and more see the logic and accept it, and use it.

Yes. I only said above that not all papers or authors can be considered even once. You're talking about the other papers or authors.

GR, and the BB stand pretty firm, and while the BB may still have a couple of nagging problems, as well as the information paradox with GR, they both appear to be the way the universe operates.

There's no good reason to believe that the universe operates paradoxically. The paradox shows that something is amiss. As many physicists tell us, the solution to the paradox will change physics, which means the universe operates differently than is thought today.

 

[tomf]

Science and scientific models and theories is not about proof.

Those can be refuted (proven invalid) logically. I refuted not a scientific model or theory but a claim that we know that black holes exist.

 

[paddoboy]

We do have evidence that suggests an alternative. It's in my paper.


True. Nevertheless my paper shows that GR is invalid.


My paper shows an alternate explanation that agrees with all observations to date.

I've been participating in science forums for 20 years or more. And I have heard at least a dozen similar claims.
Again, whether you have anything concrete or otherwise, will be revealed in time. Either by your Nobel prize, or another fading away claim, lost in cyber space.

I suggest you don't make what I call out-flanking arguments. When you haven't read / understood my paper then it's a weak argument to suggest it can't be correct for other reasons. If you can show a mathematical proof that GR is valid then fine. But theories can't be proven that way or else they'd be proofs not theories.

As I have already told you, I am not a scientist. And yes, the other reasons tells me logically that it certainly does not, nor will supersede GR.

The experiment is repeatable to verify the claim and rule out conspiracy. Who wrote the experiment is irrelevant. The claim need be verified by only that one experiment.

I'll let the reputable mainstream professionals decide that, and that won't be on a remote science forum, open to all and sundry.

There's no good reason to believe that the universe operates paradoxically. The paradox shows that something is amiss. As many physicists tell us, the solution to the paradox will change physics, which means the universe operates differently than is thought today.

The overall picture and evidence shows the BB and GR as correct. No other model yet, can match either...that is fact and why they are mainstream.
If and when that changes, I'll be the first to reprint/publish it here.

Those can be refuted (proven invalid) logically. I refuted not a scientific model or theory but a claim that we know that black holes exist.

Again, best of luck. So far your claim of refutation has not been accepted. BH's are certainly now known to exist.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/black-hole-image-makes-history

 

[tomf]

Okay, I read all that. We're going in circles now so time to summarize. I'm not convinced that my paper is wrong by your argument that GR is valid, if only because I have mathematical/logical evidence to the contrary. I've refuted the claim that we know that black holes exist. I cover that picture of a black object in the paper. The arguments in both of the videos you gave depend on GR's validity, so they don't prove that black holes exist (because theories aren't proven). I'm not convinced by lack of agreement from professional physicists, because they won't consider my paper (I said they have good reason to ignore it since their resources are limited). We had a side discussion about whether the scientific community would readily adopt a better theory or model. You implied that if my paper was correct then its ideas would be readily adopted. I said that whether ideas are adopted depends on unscientific criteria; when my paper won't be considered then I've made my case. Your argument that lots of people make claims like mine doesn't prove anything against my paper. It does however explain why some ideas won't be considered, hence can't be readily adopted.

You're not a scientist, which is fine. But you're posting in a scientific forum, so I suggest you stick to strong, science-based arguments. If you'll make a weak argument like an out-flanking one then make it only once and be clear it's unscientific. For example you could say "I'm dubious of this idea because there's so much evidence that supports GR" rather than repeatedly try to show that GR is valid when you know that theories can't be proven. You're smart, so you should be able to realize that proof of black holes existing that's obviously based on a theory doesn't really prove that. You should be able to realize that a picture of a black object doesn't prove that. I'd avoid altogether implying that an idea is wrong because others have tried and failed, or because it hasn't been adopted; that runs counter to the spirit of scientific discussion, especially here.

I've enjoyed the discussion! I'll still reply to any new evidence you give.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm not convinced that my paper is wrong by your argument that GR is valid, if only because I have mathematical/logical evidence to the contrary. I've refuted the claim that we know that black holes exist.

And I'm saying, if you have as you say, mathematical evidence to the contrary re GR, then in time it will be accepted. But so far we only have you saying that, and with all due respect, I would expect that from the author of the paper.

The arguments in both of the videos you gave depend on GR's validity, so they don't prove that black holes exist (because theories aren't proven).

I disagree strongly.... we have observational evidence of Cygnus X-1 and the strange orbits of stars and then disappearing.....we have gravitational radiation that just happens to align with exact templates of measurable BH's...we have also observational evidence of our own SMBH, and the reactions of stellar orbits close to it. They are observations.

I'm not convinced by lack of agreement from professional physicists, because they won't consider my paper (I said they have good reason to ignore it since their resources are limited).

Sorry, I disagree again. GR despite it's overwhelming acceptance, is being tested every day all around the world, by many scientific disciplines, to try and fudge out an error.

We had a side discussion about whether the scientific community would readily adopt a better theory or model.You implied that if my paper was correct then its ideas would be readily adopted.

After running the gauntlet, if it emerged as you claim, then yes, it would be adopted, in a huge fanfare!

I've made my case. Your argument that lots of people make claims like mine doesn't prove anything against my paper.

No it doesn't prove anything against your paper in particular.
But again, if it is everything you say, in time, and after running the gauntlet, I believe it would be accepted.

It does however explain why some ideas won't be considered, hence can't be readily adopted.

Ideas and models, that may match GR in all respects, probably won't be given a look in...no prizes for second, as they say.

You're not a scientist, which is fine. But you're posting in a scientific forum, so I suggest you stick to strong, science-based arguments. If you'll make a weak argument like an out-flanking one then make it only once and be clear it's unscientific. For example you could say "I'm dubious of this idea because there's so much evidence that supports GR" rather than repeatedly try to show that GR is valid when you know that theories can't be proven. You're smart, so you should be able to realize that proof of black holes existing that's obviously based on a theory doesn't really prove that. You should be able to realize that a picture of a black object doesn't prove that. I'd avoid altogether implying that an idea is wrong because others have tried and failed, or because it hasn't been adopted; that runs counter to the spirit of scientific discussion, especially here.

I've enjoyed the discussion! I'll still reply to any new evidence you give.

Theories in general, certainly are not proven, but simply grow in certainty as they continue to match newer observations and continue to align with the latest experiments.
One exception to that of course is the theory of evolution of life. We know that is fact.
Yep, I have also enjoyed the discussion, and as I say, hope you continue to work at improving our knowledge of science and cosmology. You do seem capable.