I imagine this is he: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
That took a good 5 seconds! On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that went into its formation has disappeared down an infinite plughole, and there's no way to tell if the BH was formed from matter, antimatter, energy, vacuum fluctuations, gravitational waves, or whatever else is possible. The resulting object only has mass, spin and electric charge. (The famous "no hair" theorem.) (By the way, what's so special about electromagnetism that it leaves an imprint on a BH when the weak force and hypercharge and whatever other oddities are around don't?) However, the no hair theorem runs afoul of the equally famous "BH information paradox". QM at least suggests that something may turn out to be necessary besides the GR formulation, and that whatever it is will allow the information about what went into making the BH to (very much in principle) be recoverable. On 29 January 2014 13:20, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > 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) 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; 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. > -- 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.
