MigL

Sorry Carrock, although your posts 'inspired' my response, it was actually meant for Q-reeus, who is no longer with us. I apologize for the confusion my lack of specifics caused.

You fail to realize that these are interpretations. In that particular paragraph he actually uses two interpretations of the mechanism for reducing the EH. One involves particles of negative energy moving forward in time and also positive particles moving backwards in time. The theory/model is mathematical ( which you seem to abhor ); the 'interpretation' is a comparison to easily understood concepts. I'm sure you are familiar with the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretation ( and others ) of Quantum Mechanics. Does it mean that if your cat isn't alive AND dead in a box simultaneously, the theory/model is wrong ??? Why didn't you read further in that paragraph where S Hawking states... "It should be emphasized that these pictures of the mechanism responsible for the thermal emission and area decrease are heuristic only and should not be taken too literally." It's obvious we will never convince you, but we are presenting the accepted science. You are more than welcome to post ( and support ) your conjectures in Speculations. Good luck with that.

Here you go... https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

The link you provided sends me to a post where you are confused about how a BH absorbing one part of a virtual particle pair can lose mass/energy, while a real particle is emitted as Hawking radiation. I thought I, and others, had explained that. I guess the real lack of integrity is not reading other's replies in a discussion forum.

I just take my aspirin straight, without the caustic. Less stomach ulcers that way.

If, by 'horizonless gravity' you mean vector gravity, I thought GWs were putting nails in its coffin with each new observation. ( and I don't like its flat Minkowsky background ) But since 'horizonless' implies no Black Holes, how then do you explain the recently released photos ? Photoshopped maybe ??? Or is the 'theory' more valid than observation ??? You are right, one side is making is making a sh*tty argument, that goes against all observations. ( care to guess which side I'm talking about ? )

I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus... "Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist" Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance. But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong. If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding. If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition. What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ? How substantive do they need to be before they exist ? How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

Does it matter if they are particles, or quanta, as you seem to think there is a difference ??? These virtual pairs exist on energy borrowed from the universe, for a brief period of time according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And once that time is up the debt must be re-paid to the universe according to stdev(E)*stdev(t) >= hbar/2. If one of the virtual particles ( or quanta ) is no longer available to annihilate with the other, it must become a real ( Hawking ) particle or quanta. That means the universe is owed the equivalent of TWO particle's mass/energy by the Black Hole which has caused this debt. The Black Hole, however, has swallowed ONE particle's mass/energy, so the net effect is that it loses the equivalent of ONE particle's mass/energy. Where is this negative you speak of ??? If I owe you money, does it mean I give you negative currency ???

I did not call it negative energy. There is no such thing, But virtual particles must re-pay their borrowed energy according to Heisenberg. So the 'accountant' puts it in the - column.

Did not want to confuse the issue too much as it did not relate to the OP. You are right, and no version of the Sparrow missile used active guidance. IOW, its own radar does not illuminate the target and home in on it. That is what active means. So semi-active is the correct classification ( which I omitted ), because it does have a targeting radar. Active imparts fire and forget capability to a missile ( see AMRAAM or Meteor ) Targeting by emissions or other than own illumination, I termed passive ( see Sparrow and Skyflash/Aspide versions or Sidewinder ) Good talking to someone who shares similar interests.

Even if you consider just low energy virtual photons, you still need to satisfy conservation laws. You cannot simply have one heading towards the EH. Conservation of momentum dictates its opposing virtual photon is headed away from the EH. And once one of the virtual pair is removed by the BH's EH, the other of the pair becomes a real low energy photon or Hawking Radiation. But those pesky conservation laws again dictate that the energy debt must be repaid, as virtual particles live on borrowed time, and so, the BH gives up that amount of mass/energy to make the re-payment. I don't see the problem Q-reeus, maybe you can elaborate.

I had read this on Daily Mail and figured it was the usual drivel that they publish. It saddens me that it is real.

You seem to have a problem with Beecee and words and phrases he has used ( fact, hope that helps, facts may aspire ), yet you have not posted any meaningful contribution to this topic. What you are doing is not discussion. Grow up, before someone decides to report you.

I believe the term 'black hole' was coined by J A Wheeler, Sensei. However the term has rude connotations in Russian, so Y B Zeldovich called them 'frozen' stars instead. No-one has called them cold stars that I know of. This on account theory predicts that, from an external FoR, a collapsing star will only collapse to its Swartzschild radius, and temporally 'freeze' there. These days, even in Russia, 'collapsar', or black hole, is used.

People are often skeptical of Black Holes because they cannot understand how matter can be compressed to such a high degree in the central singularity ( near zero size ) to reach ( almost ? ) infinite density. One has to remember that elementary particles, like leptons, are treated as if they have zero size, and only other properties, like the exclusion principle and the statistics they obey, keep an infinity of them from being stacked on top of each other. As to mass, it is a property of these leptons, not a thing onto itself, and in a Black Hole, this property is conveniently left with the Event Horizon ( along with charge, angular momentum and in a non-classical treatment, entropy ). The EH is the mathematical construct where pre-collapse properties are stored, not the central singularity. So we have a dimensionless singularity where a large number of dimensionless particles, that no longer have the property of mass, reside. Is there actually a problem there ?

Sure Endy, if your goal is to SIMULATE intelligence, that can already be done. I didn't think that was the subject being discussed though. EVA who, Theoretical ? Doesn't come up in any search for AI, but as a virtual assistant. ( IE only capable of handling a limited range of tasks; not true AI ) And if you meant Eva Longoria, I have the same objections.

When the ASI can decide to, and implement the changes, to its software and hardware on its own, without external input, it will have achieved AI, as it will be self-aware. Again, that is not facilitated by any form of pattern recognition.

IOW Endy, it is not something that can be programmed. A computer program has to access external elements just to make a random choice, never mind an instinctive guess. A human brain, Theoretical, grows extremely fast, at an average rate of 1 % per day, during the first year, and actually doesn't stop until about 25 yrs of age. During this process many pathways in the brain's cortex are severed and many more are built up. ( In the final years, it mostly severs connections, as it can no longer build up new ones; we call this senility ) It is not simple pattern recognition; that 'computer' in your head can not only modify its program code without external direction, but also its 'hardware', independently.

"Never having investigated the experiment", Carrock ? I assumed your background was Physics. Millikan oil drop is standard 1st year experiment for Physics. ( at least it used to be 4 decades ago )

I imagine it all depends on your background. Some of us may come from countries where political 'whistleblowers' are routinely disappeared, or assassinated with ricin or radiation poisoning ( even while residing in other countries ). Or perhaps hit squads of young gullible girls are sent to assassinate political opponents with nerve agents in airports. Or ( mediocre ) journalists who report on a morally bankrupt kingdom are butchered in foreign embassies. I don't think we, in the West, have become cynical enough to believe that of our Governments yet. ( certainly not in Canada or Europe, although one never knows with D Trump )

I remember Lisp, Eise. It doesn't have a self modifying capability, but it can be programmed to modify its code. IOW, it still uses the same computational model. Going back to my previous example... I can ask any person to make a wild-ass guess ( have to write it out as some don't know WAG ), based solely on 'intuition' and no facts. It is simple enough and anyone can do it. No computer will ever be able to do that; at best it can generate a ( semi ) random response as a 'guess'.

So it's not 'free' ?

Before we go too far down the free will 'rabbit hole', we should consider differences between how our minds work and how a computer works. When I was young, I hated lobster; it was a disgusting, bottom dwelling sea creature with a funny taste. But, just like they say, it's an acquired taste, and over the years I came to enjoy it. Some people I know never have. I'd like to see someone write a program for this process. the outcome can, of course, be simulated, but the actual process, of subjective preference change, cannot be. Our minds are not following a 'program'. They are actively and continuously re-writing their programming. And sometimes for no apparent reason, or external stimuli or forcings, so there are no other variables to include in the program. And I don't mean just humans, we are nothing special; lower animals do it as well. So, unless we come up with a computational model which can modify its own coding, we cannot achieve true AI

Also, as Strange's video link explains, the BH's event horizon is much smaller than the dark area that you see. So, although a rotating BH ( all of them since and momentum is conserved ) will have a degree of flattening, depending on speed of rotation, the elliptical shape of the central area you see is most likely due to the extreme bending of the light coming off the accretion disk. ( as the video link also explains )

The fact that humans ( and even lesser species ) can make wild-ass guesses is inconsistent with re-assigning weights to pre-programmed choices. Our brains can even re-assign function and storage to different parts, as opposed to the simple redundancy in Touring computational engines. The Touring model, in my opinion, will be able to somewhat mimic AI, but never achieve true AI. I agree with WTF, in that we need a new computational model for true AI.