muruep00

Yes, I totally agree. You may ask Markus if he also agrees in the fact that current model for black hole interior is speculative Question now is, how can a scientific approach handle this problem? Well, I think proposing consistent alternatives have to be done, to begin with. And one of my main question in this post is, why has anybody worked out an alternative interior to black holes just using GR? And I dont refer to the models beyond the singularity, which may be regarded as interior models as well, but alternatives to the problem GR faces inside, the singularity. We could do that instead of waiting for a 100 years stuck on the belief that quantum gravity theory should solve the speculative singularity. To the not: You said it better than me.

For the time now, we cant, in the actual model of black holes and in mine. Well, I believe the actual model is more religion-related. Mine is just a proposal, nothing more, a hypothesis to be simulated. Nowadays model is not even proved right, and everybody believes in it.

It was just a curiosity, I quote Bonnor: http://www.januscosmologicalmodel.com/pdf/bonnor1989.pdf Chemistry might be a very interesting subject in this universe. Moreover, positive atoms would attract each other, and so 3 Coulomb's law is unaltered, in particular, in sign. would negative atoms. In this way large condensations, each with a positive or negative charge, could form. In fact, charge would take the place of gravitational mass in the formation of large bodies. Although there would be no neutral planets orbiting stars under the force of gravitation, there could be charged planetary systems. Intelligent life in such a universe could not be ruled out.

To whoever goes inside and perfomes the experiment willing to know what lies inside a black hole. I was saying that the black hole interior isnt something that is beyond the scientific method because it is impossible to observe. Some physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder think that this issue takes places with the Multiverse interpretation. But interior of black holes certainly are objects of study and application of the scientific method.

I just wanted to point out that you can also be the one perfoming the experiment and proving whatever lies inside an event horizon yourself. Ghideon only talked about probes, which of course would need to send that info out so that a physicist can interpret the experiment done inside.

If you were inside the probe, why would you require to send the info out? This is again speculation on a speculative idea, but supermassive black holes might even be a habitable place, although no planets could be created with repulsive gravity, unless some electromagnetic interaction holds them up. I get your point, but I think the fact that no direct observation can be made for now, is something we encounter every day in QM. Can you measure directly the wave function of a particle? No, you just believe that there is a wave function when you do not collapse it because the model that we have that describes better the direct observations we can make in the quantum scale require them! That is an indirect observation pointing out the existance of something unobservable, just like the one I proposed in my first post. Your skepticism about the fact that I use negative matter that can be directly seen, can be compared with skepticism about the fact that QM requires the assumption of unobservable wave functions for particles, which must exist when you dont measure and collapse them (this I far as I understand QM).

Thank you for your advice joigus. I will keep learning in order to deeply understand GR, at least to the point where I can defend my idea (or new ones, maybe). For the time, im not planning to study QFT. I think you took that picture from Gerardt Hooft's website: https://www.goodtheorist.science/ It is a nice work of his, that I know of. greetings I think you cant develop a consistent model which gives the same predictions as mine with the physics that we know about (GR & QM without quantum gravity). You may even see that my model is very constrained. I agree in almost everything. I think you underestimate indirect observations & numerical simulations regarding my model, but let me make a point clear: You cant define an hypothesis to be unscientific just because our limitations of technology. That is, my model can be perfectly proved by going inside a black hole, its not methaphysics, its the real world. For now, our techonology is not capable to send a probe into a black hole. But the hypothesis is scientific, it is just that were are limited techonologically at the moment. It is like telling Einstein that gravitational waves cannot be proved to exist, just because they are very difficult to observe. And 100 years ago, even Einstein himself did not think they would be measured in the future. But we do measure them now. To put it simple, unscientific ideas have nothing to do with the limtations of techonology. It is a question of whether they can be proved or not, today or tomorrow. If my model stated that you cannot enter a black hole (just a silly example), then that model would be unscientific, because no matter which technology you have, if you cant go inside you cant prove it at a high level of certainty, never. But anyway, leaving this point appart. I believe numerical simulations, if carried out leaving little or non room for mistakes, and the predictions of my model matched precisely the observations that we currently cant explain, at least, it would be reasonable to consider my model as viable as the nowadays model (Markus model). Because I remind you that the actual model of the inside of a black hole, is not proved to be correct. What you are telling me, I already know and Im already aware (in fact I like a lot the philosophy behind science). Unfortunately, black holes may be one of these objects, together with matter that seems to not interact with light, that set the biggest challenges in proving them right. Thank you Ghideon

Im not sure I follow, as I have not studied QFT. Thank you for the formulas. I've watch that Sidney Coleman video and I understand that in his example, he is treating a time transformation as the reversal of a process. The question again, as I have stated before is, have we really observe something moving backwards in the time dimension? The answer is, no, that is why time transformations are defined anti-unitary arbitrarely. The only reason Weinberg rejects it being unitary, is the fact that it would imply negative energies. I dont think that if you could reverse time in GR, a process would run blackwards. Time in GR is a dimension, "similar" to a spatial direction. I can move up or down, and say hello when going up, and say hello again going down, without having that process reversed. Im always talking about time transformations as moving in the other direction as usual in the time dimension, not reversing processes. If treated as a dimension, positive and negative time is not the difference between a process and the reverse process. I understand that if you are limited to positive time, then yes, it is related to the motion of a test particle in a gravitational system through geodesics as you said. But you cant reverse time in GR, since GR is built prohibiting those transformations. As we discussed before, I would have to extend GR for that. Anyway, Markus pointed out that exotic matter cannot be explained by the Standard Model. I understand that considering time transformation unitary does not agree with QFT, although you can work out the math in the Dirac equation and in Lorentz transformations, and both agree on the result. Perhaps somebody could work out the math for QFT, but that is not going to be me. I know a bit of classical mechanics, I am a mechanical engineer. True, I already knew that.

Alright, but that is another question! You were arguing that the fact that I use negative energies which are hidden behind an event horizon looked suspicious. If you let me make use of the example I talked about before, with virtual particles, these have indirect effects that can be observed (cassimir effect). With black holes and for no quantum approaches, the observables are very few: size (dependent of mass), spin, or charge. Curiously, one of these, when observed, does not match the prediction of GR when combined with accretion and merging estimations. One may argue that the estimations are wrong (MigL did), and interior model we use for black holes with GR is right, but supermassive black holes are way too big for our estimations to be wrong (the would be very, very, very wrong). Others have proposed eternal primordial black holes, and I propose my model. In my model, no information escapes the black hole, that is forbidden, but the event horizon grows, which is something that we know already happens by other mechanisms such as accretion. And it can be observed. Spin may also tell a lot about how black holes grew, but I have not study the consequences of my model for spin of black holes and actual observations (spin is difficult to estimate in supermassive black holes, because it can change due to the "sense" of the spin of accretion matter or other black holes that merge, and no body knows about the spin these had during the life of a supermassive black hole). I dont know where do you want to go with this question, since we arrive at the same discussion we had earlier about whether if my model is the only one consistent just using GR, or that many others can be built whose predictions are the same, so even if my models' prediction matched actual observations, one would not be sure whether if my model is the one that is correct (your argument). And who knows, as far as I know, hawking radiation is independent of what lies inside the black hole, but perhaps it depends somehow of it (it certainly changes the mechanism by which it reduces the mass of the black hole inside, since that implies a negative energy flux in words of Hawking, and in my model, they can only be negative energy fluxes inside the black hole), and my model would change that hawking radiation (for instance, maybe it implies that it does not exist), giving you another way to prove it. But this is speculation about my speculative model... Im just saying that I might be missing a better way to prove it myself.

You can observe it, just go inside a black hole and perform an internal gravitational experiment. Im sorry that we dont have a black hole near us, but in principle yes, it is possible to go inside, so it is not hidden. If it were non-observable, nor directly or indirectly, that would not be science (i guess it would be methaphysics). Take for instance virtual particles again, you cannot observe them (perhaps because god made them to live very short lifes ), but you may argue that they exist due to observable experiments such as the Cassimir effect.

Hi joigus, I dont understand what do you mean with BHs ejected into intergalactic void. I guess they exist, or they could exist. Sure there wont be accretion in that case. But my model of inflation at the inside does not need accretion, a black hole always has matter inside, the matter belonging to the original star that collapses (I assume Schwarzschild black holes, either macroscopic vacuum black holes or eternal black holes do not exist). So inflation would always take place, whether if it happens only because of the mass inside from the original star, or that one plus accretion plus black hole merging. I never said that they didnt. Im just saying that any eternal growth mechanism for black hole, even if it slows down in time, counteracts hawking radiation, because this one is very very small. I guess Hawking radiation occurs, although we are not 100% sure since we havent observe it. Yes, in other words, im redifyning what a time transformation is. Just like somebody did for the Dirac equation as I showed in other paper. The question is, ¿how do we know time transformations are anti-unitary? ¿Has somebody ever observe one? I believe not, you may have observed irreversible processes like: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1742.pdf which may break time process symmetry, but no time transformations where times goes backwards. I dont know about QFT. I only know what Weinberg stated, that the only reason time was defined anti-unitary, is because if unitary, "for any state of energy there would be another state of energy with negative energy". The only consequence this unitary time inversion has in the Dirac equation is that negative energies imply negative masses. If you agree the prediction of negative masses being repulsive between each other of GR, then the only physical change that a unitary time transformation does in a particle is that it changes to behave antigravitationally for other particles with negative energy and mass. (I might make a point here, which is that the time transformation in my model may also occur together with a parity transformation, because when you redefine time as unitary, Tp(T^-1)=p , so it also changes the usual parity transformation that a time transformation is linked to). Because that is not what time in GR is about. You may use time to reverse processes in particle physics, but time in GR is a dimension. As I said, in my model, a time transformation only switches to antigravitational interactions. A particle that has fallen into a black hole, cannot trace its own particles` past, because that would mean escape the black hole from inside, which is not possible, so that proposal in your question is inconsistent. You can easily check that what is conserved is the absolute value of energy. I believe that is what GR accounts for, absolute values of energy. I guess since exotic matter and negative energy densities have been studied in many fields of GR, even in models where they interact with positive energies, that jump does not violate energy conservation. QFT might be different, but since particles of E and -E never interact between each other in my model, the notion of E being twice -E is not relevant. There is no first I have E energy, then Zero energy, and finally -E energy, it has to be an instant switch. I agree.

Hawking radiation is an shrinking mechanism, a very VERY slow one. If you propose a non-ending mechanism of growth (accretion and merging eventually end), this one would counteract hawking radiation. It not a remnant as described in the remnant solution to information paradox, but in my model, black holes do not evaporate, because they never stop growing, and at the end, there is always what you might call a remnant. But really I havent worked out in my model whether the information paradox is solved. As you are saying below, we dont even know if hawking radiation actually occurs. This is something secondary for me. Oh yes, in my model, negative energies only appear under a time transformation, and time transformations only can occur at event horizons, because no body as ever seen a time transformation (the time transformation of the Lorentz group). Moreover, having negative energies in the same causal spacetime as positive ones, result in paradoxes, in which you could build perpetual motion machines. That is solved when you divide for negative and positive energy spacetimes by an event horizon, which switches from positive to negative.

Hi Ghideo, First, Im happy that you are willing to do some research related to my idea. References of that paper are also interesting, if you want to go further. Second, it is not difficult to guess that its my paper, since my username is my email address in it . I wrote that this idea was not published because I did not want to post my paper here, and I just wanted to comment on the ideas in a conceptual way. The quality of the paper is bad, and I have been re-writting it this summer, I think there are some things which demand a correction, and others can be better explained and further mathematically justified, that is why before sharing my idea here as a preprint, I want to finish it first. At the end (and now that my identity has been revealed), Im just a recent and young graduate in engineering, and my knowledge in modern physics is very limited (I study independently GR). As you pointed out, the publisher is not as good as one may want it to be, its a q4 journal, and I would like to publish in a better journal (just because I think my idea is worth it, I do not want to become a researcher).

Thank you for that extensive explanation. I see what you wanted to point out, but I dont think MigL was referring to that. My question is, if black holes do not evaporate, does the material entering a black hole (pure state) have to be transformed into the mixed state of hawking radiation, if this last one exists? Because my idea implies that a "remnant" always remains, probably with all the information, and that is one solution to the information paradox. btw: my time transformation idea at the event horizon has nothing to do with this time reversal

Welcome back. I quote MigL regarding my explanation of black hole information paradox: I just copied the explanation of the information paradox from Sabine Hossenfelder, you can check it here: Now, following with my idea again, and answering joigus, it is clear that if you propose a new mechanism of growth for black holes, no matter how slow it is after plenty of time (as long as I does not stop), evaporation does not take place, thus, solving black hole information paradox.

Well, there is already evidence for energy condition violations in the Cassimir effect and quantum fluctuations. Exotic matter may seem different, but it is just a name, technically is negative energy density, which is negative because it violates energy conditions. Additionally, other models rely on negative energies, such as Hawking radiation, I quote: "A renormalised operator which was regular at the horizon would have to violate the weak energy condition by having negative energy density" "This violation must, presumably, be caused by a flux of negative energy across the event horizon which balances the positive energy flux emitted to infinity" "it is shown that any renormalization of the energymomentum tensor with suitable properties must give a negative energy flow down the black hole and consequent decrease in the area of the event horizon. This negative energy flow is non-observable locally." Hawking even states that hey! this negative energy does not solve the singularity "Therefore one would not expect the negative energy density to cause a breakdown of the classical singularity theorems until the radius of curvature of space-time became 10" 33 cm" https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking Particle Creation.pdf

If you were able to simulate it, its because math works out I guess.. What math is rejected by the experts in my idea? You may change "supported by zero observations" to "consistent with all available observations". I again insist that I believe no other model using just GR can be built apart from mine (if so, I think I would have also came up with different possible versions of my proposal, which I havent)

You got me wrong, I trust GR, but not inside black holes. Let me change my question: Which supporting evidence does the nowadays model for the inside of black holes have that mine doesnt? My idea tries to give a scientific answer to that question about supermassive black holes. Yes, I though that I wouldnt have to remind people in this post that you can build a different model for the interior of black holes using just GR that does not contradict observations, so that it is reasonable to explore the idea. Also, any suggestion to the idea are welcomed. I dont know as much about GR as some people in this post, so somebody might want to back up my claims. What I think is that, if my model was simulated and it accurately explained supermassive black hole evolution with actual estimations, then it would be reasonable to think that mine is correct and (lets call it Markus' model) is not, because it cant predict supermassive black holes evolution and outside black holes, both are the same. If you could built different models without relying on magical phenomena of a theory of quantum gravity (as you discussed before), and my model was the only one consistent with observations and simulable, then you would have no alternative but to use mine. That is because usually no body considers that perhaps, there are another mechanisms of black hole growth apart from accretion and merging. That is not right, you dont understand the information paradox. The problem with information in black holes is that black hole evaporation is an irreversible process. You cant tell from the final state (evapored) what was the exact inital state. There is no problem in quantum mechanics with the fact that some information is hidden behind an event horizon. This hidden information has not "disappeared", it permanently disappears when black holes evaporates through random radiation. Just to make it even more clear, the black hole information paradox was discovered right after Hawking showed that black holes should radiate in 1973. This problem did not exist before 1973, and black holes were already been studied. Indeed, one possible solution to the information paradox is to propose a model in which black holes do not evaporate, leaving remnants. If it doesnt it doesnt. A time dependent solution where the inflation due to the exotic matter inside grows the exterior event horizon.

Well, yes, there is an upper limit, because eventually a very big black hole is no longer able to gain mass by accretion. It is not proved that it is a problem of our estimations in galaxy formation. The orders of magnitude of supermassive black holes are much bigger than what you would expect, even in the worst case, for localizations of large amounts of mass/energy in the early universe. If that observation was so simple to explain with reasonable amounts of dust/stars collapsing in the early universe, then no other alternatives (such as primordial black holes) would have be studied. Well, the problem exactly is that those supermassive black holes formed very quickly in the early universe, that is the issue. If you take into account another mechanism of growth that does not eventually stop, no matter how small it is (because hawking radiation is very, very small), black hole evaporation may not take place (this has to be proved, but it is trivial). With no black hole evaporation, there is no information paradox. Show them to me, clearly. I already asked you this question and you just answered that Markus stated that the overall metric must remain continuous and differentiable everywhere at the boundary and that the new metric must itself be a valid solution to the field equations. I dont think my idea violates any, and Markus was arguing against a Schwarzschild exterior solution to my proposal, but my proposal is not Schwarzschild, because its time dependent. Joigus also pointed out that justifing that time transformations switch to negative masses in the Dirac formalism is not enough, and I should also prove that in QFT. I answered that as long as that transformation is consistent in the Lorentz group for GR, and it changes the sign of masses, that is all you need for building a model in GR. Guideon stated that different models can be proposed, which give the same prediction as mine, so that even if my model predicted supermassive black holes correctly, my model may not be correct. I pointed out that I believe my model is the only consistent one you can build without invoking the effects of an unknown quantum theory of gravity.

Which supporting evidence does the nowadays model have that mine doesnt? It most certainly does not predict the mass of supermassive black holes we observe. And there are more troubles with it, such as the information paradox.

You suggest in you idea that somehow, regular matter appears inside the black hole. There is no known mechanism to do that, the only way to propose that is to invoke an unknown theory of quantum gravity. My model does not require to mention quantum gravity at all! Perhaps none. May I also change my question?: Why did anybody build a different black hole interior just using GR, that would fit better the observations? Why stick to Markus model as a belief if other models can be built? It is about the physics we already know, it does not create paradoxes, it solves some theoretical problems in an elegant way (like the runaway motion, interior of kerr black holes), it may fit better the observations we've got... The transformation is an antichronous transformation, everybody already know these. It might not have been worked out in QFT, but it has been in the Dirac formalism. Anyway, this is not necessary, at end, im just dealing with GR and Lorentz transformations.

Einsteins equivalence principle: The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime. A local gravitational experiment could be an internal gravitational experiment, the only way by which you could verify that gravity has become repulsive in you local spacetime. You cannot go from A to B and from B to A when you go into a black hole (my transformation can never take place from antigravitational to gravitational, or in time transformation, from negative time to positive time). Then I must say I have an unfinished idea (which is true, if not, I would publish) and I would ask in this forum about ways to justify it by the generalization of GR we talked about before. But I can still ask if my idea, with the hypothesis, could work or not. I mean, what is an hypothesis if it is not a "my theory could be valid if..."? It cant be a crackpot idea just because of that, if Im not finished developing that.

This is explained in the paper we were talking about. I have found others dealing with this topic: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226329889_Antiparticles_from_special_Relativity_with_ortho-chronous_and_antichronous_Lorentz_transformations What is the problem of having non-continious transformations? I dont think higher dimensions are requiered. To my knowledge, the existence of time transformations were only ruled out because no one observed them, and so, they were said to be unphysical. What are qualitative approximations? I will keep studying this to check if their is a way to justify my idea. I want to point out that free falling observer should feel nothing due to the Einsteins equivalence principle, but this excludes gravitational effects. That means, if there was a gravity related change at the event horizon (for instance, gravity swithching to antigravity), one could realise that by an internal gravitational experiment for instance, but those are not restricted by the Einsteins equivalence principle (they are for the strong equivalence principle, but E.e.p. is enough to build GR). Yes, Ghideon is right, but Im trying to justify my idea without relying on an unknown quantum theory of gravity, and my model is the only one I find plausible. Einstein-Cartan theory may be true, but Markus itself pointed out that it is in contradiction with observations (I dont know which, I dont know much about Einstein Cartan theory). Im trying to build my model so that it does not contradict any observation. And yes, I account for what is left of the dead star in my model, which crosses the growing event horizon and transforms into the exotic matter I propose. Thank you very much, I will keep developing my ideas with you suggestions

I can accept that. The paper also states and shows that it is in agreement with Lorentz transformations and allowing the antichronous ones (which is what I really care about in my proposal). What are you thoughts about these? Thank you for your explanation, you seem to know much more than I do in this topic. What if you build GR allowing the antichronous transformations? Wouldnt it be reasonable that the place where they take place is the event horizon? (my motivations for this are complexity of time treatment as you explained, the fact that the signature of the metric changes, the fact that time seems to stop at the event horizon for an external observer). Unfortunately no body has extended GR allowing these transformations to take place, but it seems reasonable to support my hypothesis of a time transformation taking place at the event horizon.

The energy conditions exotic matter violates. Im not proposing a new Schwarzschild solution since my idea relies on a non-static solution Yes, but there is already a mechanism that we know in relativistic particle physics that does the same job: a time transformation (https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05046). Does it imply that the jump in the metric is not smooth or not differentiable? I dont think so. A wick rotation is what Hilbert did to Schwarzschild approach to his metric (https://www.jp-petit.org/Hilbert-1916-de.pdf page 60 above eq. 45). I always stated that I propose a time transformation. Schwarzschild treated time as real coordinate, and Hilbert as an imaginary one. Thats why I dont trust Hilberts metric (which is the one used nowadays). But this was in the discussion we had in which I asked Markus about the possibility of justifing a time transformation in the original Schwarzschild metric. The fact that Hilbert treated time in different way, and that the signature of the metric changes, were my motivations. Yes, my predictions is that black holes grow because of an inflation that takes places inside, not only by accretion and black hole mergers. Since we observe black holes "too big" for our estimations, It might solve that problem and at the same time, be the way to prove my model. I think the math can be worked out. In fact, Im trying to do it myself. There is no quantum gravity, its all GR. Again, Markus only stated that a time dependent solution is very complex (approximated models can be built), and that the solution has to be smooth and differentiable at the horizon, which does not contradict my hypothesis. How does that cut off work? Isnt that just what people expect from quantum gravity? You need to specify what does counteract the gravitational pull at those high densitites. The problem is the regular matter you introduce to be created inside the black hole. Where does that regular matter come from? That makes no sense, since all matter in my model is very clear where does it come from, and Markus argued against solutions in which the vacuum is different inside and outside (which my model does not imply). The problem is: Can that model of yours be simulated? I guess not, since it relys in QM gravity. And I dont think its simpler, you just avoid explaining how do you counteract gravity inside. I get your point: you can make similar but different models that would mimic the prediction of my model, so even if simulated and matching observations, it could be other model different than mine. Well, true. But my model is the one that does not rely in quantum gravity (or magically appearence of regular matter). It is about things we already know! If you invoke quantum gravity, since we dont know how it works, any model can be built that would fit observations, assuming quantum gravity effects are one way or another.