QM and Singularities

[Butch]

Stephen Hawking in applying qm to Singularities states that at the event horizon a particle and anti particle are condensed out of empty space by the energy near the event horizon. These particles are entangled then separated at the event horizon...

This is covered in the article at this link:

https://athensscienceobserver.com/2017/02/08/the-confusing-world-of-black-holes-and-quantum-mechanics/amp/

Isn't it much more likely that at the event horizon relative effects at c convert "things" into a relatively infinite energetic state(infinite frequency field?) as they pass and convert them back on the far side of the event horizon?

My thought is perhaps they are introduced into another universe where they would be manifested as the CMB of that universe.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Isn't it much more likely that at the event horizon relative effects at c convert "things" into a relatively infinite energetic state(infinite frequency field?) as they pass and convert them back on the far side of the event horizon?

As Hawking radiation is based on theory and your suggestion appears to be random guesswork based on “common sense” I would say, no, it isn’t more likely. 

BTW your description of Hawking radiation is a not very accurate version of an analogy for what happens. I have seen a much better description recently; I’ll see if I can find it again. 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Isn't it much more likely that at the event horizon relative effects at c convert "things" into a relatively infinite energetic state(infinite frequency field?) as they pass and convert them back on the far side of the event horizon?

My thought is perhaps they are introduced into another universe where they would be manifested as the CMB of that universe.

!

Moderator Note

This is not posted in speculations. Therefore, don't post speculations.

 

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

BTW your description of Hawking radiation is a not very accurate version of an analogy for what happens. I have seen a much better description recently; I’ll see if I can find it again. 

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it includes an alternative description of what the math says: https://www.space.com/34281-do-black-holes-die.html

(The math is about separating the positive and negative energy components of the vacuum as seen locally versus an observer at infinity. Although the virtual particle analogy is Hawking's own, a lot of people don't think it is a very accurate description of what the math says.)

Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

Quote

All this supports the conclusion that Hawking particles are not created in the near vicinity of the horizon, but instead come from a region surrounding the black hole with a few times the black hole’s radius.

 

[Butch]

On 3/14/2018 at 9:00 AM, Strange said:

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it includes an alternative description of what the math says: https://www.space.com/34281-do-black-holes-die.html

(The math is about separating the positive and negative energy components of the vacuum as seen locally versus an observer at infinity. Although the virtual particle analogy is Hawking's own, a lot of people don't think it is a very accurate description of what the math says.)

Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

 

Is any of this possible if gravity is indeed the weakest force? How? Please educate me...

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

Dr. Hawking did not mind being wrong sometimes. More than anything he did, he spurred exploration... RIP.

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Butch said:

Is any of this possible if gravity is indeed the weakest force? How? Please educate me...

Why would that be a restriction? Stronger and weaker are relative terms.

[Butch]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would that be a restriction? Stronger and weaker are relative terms.

Could an atom be rendered into constituent particles by a black hole?

Edited March 15, 2018 by Butch

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Could an atom be rendered into constituent particles by a black hole?

As far as we know, the effects of tidal gravitation increases as a object approaches a BH's singularity region, to the extent that it will be ripped asunder into its most basic constituent fundamental parts.

Yes even the strong nuclear force is overcome.

Edited March 15, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Butch said:

Could an atom be rendered into constituent particles by a black hole?

I don't know what happens inside of the event horizon. 

 

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't know what happens inside of the event horizon. 

 

Can't we reasonably logically assume, that tidal gravitational effects would take place, considering we observe it with Earth/Moon system and also outside of BH EH's  with regards to accretion disks and matter spiraling in.....eg: we also assume that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on limited observations.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Can't we reasonably logically assume, that tidal gravitational effects would take place, considering we observe it with Earth/Moon system and also outside of BH EH's  with regards to accretion disks and matter spiraling in.....eg: we also assume that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on limited observations.

We have no way of knowing if the physics that applies outside a BH also applies inside of it.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

We have no way of knowing if the physics that applies outside a BH also applies inside of it.

Of course I accept that. Basically what I'm trying to say is that while we may have many ideas and possibilities as to what goes on inside a BH, we also have no real reason to assume that the laws of physics and GR should not apply inside as they do outside, except of course at the quantum/Planck level.eg: assuming that tidal gravitation still applies as it did outside, and that in essence a BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass probably and unfortunately residing where our laws do knowingly break down.

[Butch]

Ok, consider this... My education in qm is very short, however I have gleaned the idea that all the forces... Indeed EVERYTHING... Is the result of em.

What happens to electric fields as we approach the event horizon? Taken even further(I think we can do this Swansont) as we approach (calculus fish again) the singularity? 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

I have gleaned the idea that all the forces... Indeed EVERYTHING... Is the result of em.

This is just wrong. It is so wrong it is not even worthy of an explanation. It is “not even wrong”. It is “you need to learn some basic physics” wrong. 

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

What happens to electric fields as we approach the event horizon?

Nothing. 

[Butch]

Just now, Strange said:

This is just wrong. It is so wrong it is not even worthy of an explanation. It is “not even wrong”. It is “you need to learn some basic physics” wrong. 

Nothing. 

Not possible, it is a relative thing...

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ok, consider this... My education in qm is very short, however I have gleaned the idea that all the forces... Indeed EVERYTHING... Is the result of em.

No.

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

No.

Have I been mislead? Just looking for an approach to a singularty that we can go further with.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113717-particle-nature-an-illusion/

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Have I been mislead? Just looking for an approach to a singularty that we can go further with.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113717-particle-nature-an-illusion/

 

Don't you think science is hard enough without making it up?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Butch said:

Have I been mislead? Just looking for an approach to a singularty that we can go further with.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113717-particle-nature-an-illusion/

 

There is nothing in that thread that says everything is electromagnetism. And nothing about singularities. 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Have I been mislead? Just looking for an approach to a singularty that we can go further with.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113717-particle-nature-an-illusion/

 

Nothing about EM that I can see in that thread, that I can see. So no, you were not misled.

[beecee]

17 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Don't you think science is hard enough without making it up?

 Good point. The way I see it, is that there are many amateurs with an interest in science that like to believe they can after thinking for a while, come up with new theories and concepts, without giving much thought to the many hours weeks, and years of stringent learning and research that has gone into our incumbent models. As an amateur and one with a great interest in science, perhaps my "advanced years"  gives me the necessary wisdom to be able to accept the fact that the great "quality" of optimism by amateurs and professionals alike,  must be tempered by realism, the support of observational and/or experimental evidence, and the scientific methodology.

Optimism and enthusiasm are  great qualities and have certainly put science where it is today and put mankind on the Moon, but so to is the underlying realisation that hypothetical ideas and concepts are just that, and the enthusiasm and optimism shown by amateurs,  for any of it to progress further then that, it must be professionally scrutinized and examined in the finest details....GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predictive powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits any person who would ever be able to falsify some accepted concept of GR!!!  That's science, that's the scientific method.

Edited March 17, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Good point. The way I see it, is that there are many amateurs with an interest in science that like to believe they can after thinking for a while, come up with new theories and concepts, without giving much thought to the many hours weeks, and years of stringent learning and research that has gone into our incumbent models. As an amateur and one with a great interest in science, perhaps my "advanced years"  gives me the necessary wisdom to be able to accept the fact that the great "quality" of optimism by amateurs and professionals alike,  must be tempered by realism, the support of observational and/or experimental evidence, and the scientific methodology.

Optimism and enthusiasm are  great qualities and have certainly put science where it is today and put mankind on the Moon, but so to is the underlying realisation that hypothetical ideas and concepts are just that, and the enthusiasm and optimism shown by amateurs, but for any of it to progress further then that, it must be professionally scrutinized and examined in the finest details....GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predicitve powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak. Imagine the fame and fortune that awaits any person who would ever be able to falsify some accepted concept of GR!!!  That's science, that's the scientific method.

It's interesting how so many people go straight to the bleeding edge of scientific knowledge, not realising that it probably takes 30 years plus to understand it to a level that you could add to it... and that's if you are a prodigy.

[Butch]

Ok, excuse my ignorance... If it is not  em, what is mass, matter and charge?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's interesting how so many people go straight to the bleeding edge of scientific knowledge, not realising that it probably takes 30 years plus to understand it to a level that you could add to it... and that's if you are a prodigy.

Well, this is one of the bleeding edges, I recognise that and I understand why... I don't mind being thought a fool... Those of you old enough will understand that.

I just see the edge and have a strong desire to peek over it.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predicitve powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak.

It was not math or education that took Einstein to GR, those are the things that allowed him to share it with the world.

What brought him to GR was his ability for abstract thought... I do have that ability(it makes me a very good fisherman.).

I can see some things with my mind's eye, I do have some formal education, I obviously need more.

If indeed em is everything we perceive, we can go to the singularity of the black hole and perhaps beyond...

If we cannot agree that em is everything, we can at least pursue a singularities effect on em(I believe to the singularity itself... or even beyond that).

Ok, lash me more if you wish.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ok, excuse my ignorance... If it is not  em, what is mass, matter and charge?

Mass is not electromagnetic. Matter isn't, either. Charge is the property that gives rise to electromagnetic interaction, which is mediated by photons.

there is a whole host of particles which do not interact electromagnetically, and whose interactions do not involve exchanging photons.

Quote

It was not math or education that took Einstein to GR, those are the things that allowed him to share it with the world.

What brought him to GR was his ability for abstract thought... I do have that ability(it makes me a very good fisherman.).

You are severely underselling the role of math in that process.

Quote

If indeed em is everything we perceive, we can go to the singularity of the black hole and perhaps beyond...

It's not. Unless you have an actual testable model that says so, stop.

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Mass is not electromagnetic. Matter isn't, either. Charge is the property that gives rise to electromagnetic interaction, which is mediated by photons.

there is a whole host of particles which do not interact electromagnetically, and whose interactions do not involve exchanging photons.

Then what are they? I can "see" mass as em, as moving the center of charge in a universe filled(I did not say flooded) with em would meet with resistance.(Just an example of a possibility).