Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 45.1: How Black Holes Generate Both Infinite Gravity and Infinite Repulsion
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
10 Dec 2006 09:18:17 PM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 45.1: How Black Holes Generate Both Infinite Gravity and Infinite Repulsion |
From Osher Doctorow
Whether we regard an hourglass as containing a thin neck or a
singularity at the "center", there is little doubt that
Experimental/Observational evidence are in favor of black holes
regardless of GR. Those readers who doubt whether I regard
Experimental/Observational evidence as a major foundation of physics
should read or reread my threads, including recent ones.
When a spherical collapsing star is examined along the time axis in
theory, regarding space as two-dimensional (e.g., x, y) and time as the
third (e.g., z) dimension, there is little doubt that the first half of
a two-sided cone approximates its behavior, with the cone approaching
either a narrow neck or a singularity at time z = t = 0 and spatial x =
0, y = 0. Tidal forces are supposed to crush infalling matter but not
radiation, increasingly as one approaches this region in time and
space.
Why not regard radiation (for those who insist on great caution) as
experiencing a reverse process as it "passes through the singularity"
(which Seiberg considers to be the case - at least the part about
passing through the singularity)?
I'll return to this shortly.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 45.1: How Black Holes Generate Both Infinite Gravity and Infinite Repulsion |
10 Dec 2006 09:41:00 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
The GR and even GR-QFT Mainstream crowd doesn't even allow us to
speculate about such things, but when we're free from artificial
constraints of totally mimicking GR and QFT among other things, the
first thing that arguably arises is the fact that the first half of the
double cone approaches infinite force (whether called "tidal" or not)
toward the apex or narrow throat. Let's assume, following Hawking and
Nathan Seiberg (the latter of the Princeton Institute), that something
"gets through". Seiberg has a rational approach - he understands that
there's nothing wrong with traversing a singularity, and in fact he
formulates in mathematically in the arXiv/Front for the Mathematics
ArXiv papers. Hawking has what can only be described as a strange
approach, namely that the black hole at its apex just evaporates in
ordinary finite spacetime.
Why would a black hole, approaching infinite "tidal" forces toward the
apex, suddenly decide to be "generous" and evaporate into a
well-behaved classical "fizzle"? The only explanation that Hawking
can offer intuitively is that this solves the paradox of the
singularity. So Nature is so perverse that it approaches infinite
tidal forces in order to fizzle out and satisfy Hawking - an odd use of
the idea of an Anthropic Principle, if I've ever seen one. If this is
not "fine-tuning", I don't know what is.
It is more likely that the other side of a black hole, the second half
of the double cone or "hourglass" or "approximate hourglass with a thin
neck at the center", is an "exploding" Universe, a Big Bang. After
all, where does the infinite force and arguably infinite energy go?
Into expansion - but not just ordinary expansion, but Inflation.
Supposedly Inflation was preceded by a very, very short period that was
not Inflation. But we are dealing with tiny fractions of a second
here, mostly theoretical, and this very very short period does not
compute without the artificialities of the other Mainstream theories.
It's even much more intuitive that once you "get infinity", you use it.
Now arguments begin to reinforce each other. Linde's (Stanford)
Inflation theory postulates an infinite spatial expansion but not
necessarily an infinite mass expansion, but the former is entirely
explained by what has already been attained at the "shrinking limit" or
"shrinking neck" of a black hole placed before the origin.
Readers will now read typical Mainstream arguments that the Big Bang
Singularity, if it existed, cannot have been a black hole, but again
these arguments rest on the questionable Mainstream theories that I've
been discussing. It actually doesn't matter whether it was a Black
hole or a "black hole type" of object. If it only passed radiation
through, then good - it explains the Radiation-Dominated Era of the
early Universe. I suspect that some matter also entered (we know this
from nucleosynthesis and so on, in fact), and now that we have odd
things like neutrinos passing through most matter we can even accept
that more or less intuitively.
Quantum Gravity is entirely depicted or represented by this picture of
the Big Bang, before and after. And it is more important than ever to
get out into space and head toward the neighborhood of the nearest
black hole.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
