On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves
1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.
It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of
matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH. If you added matter to the
Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into the singularity with a
corresponding increase in the size of the BH.
And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is presumably
your friend says via an email.
So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look him
up!?
I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.
Brent
Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources who agree with you
that
1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to
the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter
entering the black hole.
I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can
provide some authoritative ones.....
And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution which clearly is
based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or at least most physicists,
agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the black hole that produces the event horizon.
Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you produce any? If
not I find your explanation unsupported..
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and
several others
(eg.
> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html
<http://casa.colorado.edu/%7Eajsh/schwp.html>) and reread Chapter 13:
Inside Black
Holes of
> 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say
what you are
> saying, namely that
>
> 1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
> 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside
of it but to
> the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the
matter
> entering the black hole.
>
> I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to
correction if you
can
> provide an authoritative one.....
You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the
Schwarzschild BH
solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0?
>
> In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on
the basis of
> which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the
Schwarzchild
> solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created
by the mass
> INSIDE IT.
But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the
same field
outside
the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space,
but it doesn't
follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to "send
out
gravity".
>
> So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black
hole or do
you
> have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain
English you can
> provide?
>
> Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the
matter inside a
> black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else,
I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same
thing in GR.
One
way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy,
i.e. is
takes a
lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is
non-linear
so it
"pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularity (classically).
Hawking the
radiation
is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles.
> but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you
must
come up
> with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to
contain
all the
> mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't
actually there
anymore.
>
> Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of
the above.
No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in
fact there is
speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from
fluctuations in
the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the
Milky
Way were
created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in.
>
> Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual
authoritative
> reference that states your 1. and 2.?
No, it's common knowledge. Here's Sean Carroll's email, seanc...@gmail.com
<javascript:>; ask him.
>
> BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate
world?
I'm retired. I worked for the U.S. Navy.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
