Solution to gravitational singularities?

[muruep00]

14 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Well, then you need to start with an energy-momentum tensor that isn’t stationary (i.e. some or all of its components will be time-dependent); unfortunately then the resulting metric won’t be stationary either, so it won’t be Schwarzschild.
So basically you want to start with ordinary matter (described by some non-stationary non-vacuum metric without cosmological constant), that somehow transforms into exotic matter (necessarily described by a metric with non-vanishing cosmological constant, as quoted above). Even without any further consideration, it is already clear that a process like this is incompatible with GR, because the cosmological constant is a conserved quantity - you can’t have it being zero in one region, and non-zero in another.

Why would you describe exotic matter by a non-vanishing cosmological constant? You introduced that concept into the discussion, but I have always point out that the exotic matter is just the original mass star, and for simplicity, you may consider it a perfect fluid (or cosmological constant, your proposal). But it is not a cosmological constant, so it is not a conserved quantity.

Quote

No you don’t. The ‘M’ is a parameter in a 1-parameter family of metrics, it can’t be negative. It also can’t change from M to (-M), because it is a conserved quantity that is a property of the entire spacetime. If you propose any process where M varies in any way, then you are no longer in Schwarzschild spacetime (such spacetimes are of type Vaidya-Bonner).

I quote H. Bondi: "Active gravitational mass occurs for the first time as a constant of integration in Schwarzschild's solution. If this constant is tak.en to be positive, then test particles will, in the first approximation, describe the Newtonian orbits corresponding to an attractive body. If, however, the constant is taken to be negative then, in the 6rst approximation, test particles will describe the orbits corresponding to the Newtonian case with repulsion. Note that in the first case all bodies will be attracted, in the second all bodies will be repelled." http://ayuba.fr/pdf/bondi1957.pdf

Quote

No, I am telling you two things: that such a process isn’t physically possible because it is in violation of both GR and the Standard Model; and that, if it were somehow possible, the exterior geometry couldn’t be Schwarzschild. 

The existence of exotic matter does no violate GR, it only violates energy conditions. The time transformation I propose is not considered in GR, but it has been avoided by no reason, so yes it could be physical. Violating the Standard Model in a gravity and macroscopic phenomena when considering exotic matter should not be alarming. The exterior geometry could not be static, that is the point you have made.

Quote

It applies only to spacetimes that are vacuum in the exterior. If your fluid ball is embedded in a region of spacetime that isn’t a vacuum (e.g. Vaidya spacetime), then we are again dealing with a completely different situation, that requires detailed analysis. 

I can think about a fluid ball of compressible fluid with low density, with the exterior vacuum solution, which is not static because gravity shrinks the ball. How does Birkhoff's theorem apply here?

Edited August 21, 2020 by muruep00

[Markus Hanke]

15 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Why would you describe exotic matter by a non-vanishing cosmological constant?

Not the matter itself, but the metric of the spacetime. If there is exotic matter, the spacetime in which it lives has to have a non-vanishing cosmological constant - it needs to have the metric I gave earlier. I have explained this already.

18 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

If, however, the constant is taken to be negative then, in the 6rst approximation, test particles will describe the orbits corresponding to the Newtonian case with repulsion. Note that in the first case all bodies will be attracted, in the second all bodies will be repelled

That’s exactly what I pointed out earlier - that test particles will fall away from the surface of a ball of exotic matter. That would be so in Schwarzschild with (-M), and also in AdS Reissner-Nordström.

24 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

The existence of exotic matter does no violate GR

I didn’t say that it does. What I said was that the conversion process from ordinary matter to exotic matter is an issue, both for GR as well as within the Standard Model. And I said that the geometry of spacetime containing exotic matter isn’t just some kind of ‘inverted Schwarzschild metric’.

26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I can think about a fluid ball of compressible fluid with low density, with the exterior vacuum solution, which is not static because gravity shrinks the ball. How does Birkhoff's theorem apply here?

A shrinking ball with constant total ordinary mass, so long as the situation is spherically symmetric, will have an exterior vacuum metric that is static and stationary (that’s just Schwarzschild), so Birkhoff’s theorem applies. However, what you propose is a process whereby M -> (-M), so Birkhoff does not apply in your case. This is consistent with the earlier finding that the exterior vacuum metric of a ball of exotic matter is not Schwarzschild (how could it be if ‘M’ varies?). BTW, did you consider what happens when, in your idea, the collapse reaches the point where you have equal amounts of exotic matter and ordinary matter, and net total mass=0?

Right, at this point I’m going to ask you right out - are you actually interested in anyone else’s view on your idea? Or are you just here to try and prove yourself right, no matter what it takes? Because that’s the impression I am getting. And I’d really like an honest answer. I can’t speak for others here, but so far as I am concerned, if you have genuine questions, then I’m happy to help, but my answers will always be in the context of established physics; but if this is a “I’m right, try to prove me wrong” kind of situation, then I‘m sorry but I can’t help you. So what are you hoping to get out of this thread? And please be honest, because right now this is all going around in circles.

[muruep00]

55 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Not the matter itself, but the metric of the spacetime. If there is exotic matter, the spacetime in which it lives has to have a non-vanishing cosmological constant - it needs to have the metric I gave earlier. I have explained this already.

Exotic matter behaves like regular matter, the only difference is that it is repulsive. I dont know why you need a non-vanishing cosmological constant for a non-static solution.

Quote

I didn’t say that it does. What I said was that the conversion process from ordinary matter to exotic matter is an issue, both for GR as well as within the Standard Model. And I said that the geometry of spacetime containing exotic matter isn’t just some kind of ‘inverted Schwarzschild metric’.

It might be an issue, so it is the gravitational singularity for both GR and the Standard Model.

Quote

BTW, did you consider what happens when, in your idea, the collapse reaches the point where you have equal amounts of exotic matter and ordinary matter, and net total mass=0?

This does not happen. I think I have trouble in explaning my idea so that it is clear to understand. No ordinary matter can ever meet exotic matter, that would result in the runaway motion paradox. Exotic matter is always divided from regular matter by the event horizon. What it is conserved in the process is the absolute values of mass, which never equals zero.

Quote

Right, at this point I’m going to ask you right out - are you actually interested in anyone else’s view on your idea?

Yes. You persisted in showing that no static solution can be built with a fluid ball of negative energy density and exterior Schwarzschild solution. But my idea is not static. 

Quote

Or are you just here to try and prove yourself right, no matter what it takes?

Im not proving my idea. If I could, no discussion would be needed. Im just trying to figure out why you think that the solution I propose cannot take place as an alternative to the belief of what lies inside black holes.

Quote

Because that’s the impression I am getting. And I’d really like an honest answer. I can’t speak for others here, but so far as I am concerned, if you have genuine questions, then I’m happy to help, but my answers will always be in the context of established physics; but if this is a “I’m right, try to prove me wrong” kind of situation, then I‘m sorry but I can’t help you. So what are you hoping to get out of this thread? And please be honest, because right now this is all going around in circles.

It is true that we have unfortunately ended in a circular discussion. Let me summarise my question after all:

 

Could it be that an unknown process (perhaps a quantum process,  equivalent to a linear and unitary time transformation) of gravitational nature takes place at the event horizon of black holes (so that the equivalence principle holds), so that matter inside all event horizons of black holes (which is the original's star matter + accretion + black hole mergers) is exotic matter (which is predicted to be repulsive by GR, so that the runaway motion paradox does not take place, and no non-vanishing cosmological constant actually exists), leaving the exterior solution with attractive gravity (no information about the inside alters the exterior solution) that prevents the formation of the singularity by violating energy conditions (it seems trivial, but should be proved), leading to a non-static non-stationary solution (which clearly is no Schwarzschild solution at the exterior, although the only difference would be that the event horizon grows with time) which resembles an inflation of black holes, so that another mechanism or growth can be postulated in order to explain supermassive black hole formation?

Considerations:

1. We may have a prediction of the interior of black holes and a prediction of star collapse (in which it is assumed that energy conditions hold) but it has never been tested since observation can only be made after crossing, and this prediction leads to a singularity in GR. Thus, alternative interior solutions can be postulated.

2. We dont care about the fact that Standard model does not include exotic matter, because we are dealing with macroscopic gravitational phenomena, and perhaps a quantum gravity process.

Edited August 21, 2020 by muruep00

[Markus Hanke]

13 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Im just trying to figure out why you think that the solution I propose cannot take place as an alternative to the belief of what lies inside black holes.

Leaving aside the actual collapse process itself, the end result of the collapse is simply a static ball of perfect exotic fluid, according to what you propose. The exterior vacuum of such an object is described by the AdS-Reissner-Nordström metric, as given earlier. This is a very different spacetime from Schwarzschild.

20 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

no information about the inside alters the exterior solution

The metric is a global property of the spacetime, so of course all the various regions depend on one another via boundary conditions. This has nothing to do with the propagation of information.

26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Let me summarise my question after all:

My answer to this is a ‘no’, for all the reasons previously given.

26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

and this prediction leads to a singularity in GR.

Yes, it does indeed. In pretty much the same way that singularities appear for point charges in Maxwell’s electrodynamics, or for the Big Bang in cosmology. But what does this actually mean? It means simply that for the process in question, the model that is being used has been extended beyond its domain of applicability (which is always limited for any model in physics). It does not mean that a point of infinite energy is being ‘predicted’ to physically exist. So, the appearance of the singularity in GR means that the end stages of a gravitational collapse process are outside the model’s domain of applicability - which should really go without saying, since it’s a purely classical model. You fix this by extending the model’s domain of applicability - you go from Maxwell’s ED to quantum electrodynamics for example, and for gravity we will need to go from GR to some as yet unknown model of quantum gravity. It makes little sense to attempt to hide the singularity by proposing some ad-hoc mechanism that has no physical basis; you can’t really fix a singularity from within a singular model. You can only hide it, which isn’t the same thing.

As such, I see very little benefit or reason in what you are proposing, even if it did somehow work; it just introduces a whole new range of difficulties (whether you acknowledge those or not), without addressing the fact that the model itself goes singular in situations where quantum effects become non-negligible, which isn’t just during gravitational collapse.

So to me, the way forward is to continue research into quantum gravity - not postulating things for which there is no theoretical or observational basis.

Does this answer you question, even if you don’t agree with the answer?

[muruep00]

29 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Leaving aside the actual collapse process itself, the end result of the collapse is simply a static ball of perfect exotic fluid, according to what you propose. The exterior vacuum of such an object is described by the AdS-Reissner-Nordström metric, as given earlier. This is a very different spacetime from Schwarzschild.

The metric is a global property of the spacetime, so of course all the various regions depend on one another via boundary conditions. This has nothing to do with the propagation of information.

My answer to this is a ‘no’, for all the reasons previously given.

Yes, it does indeed. In pretty much the same way that singularities appear for point charges in Maxwell’s electrodynamics, or for the Big Bang in cosmology. But what does this actually mean? It means simply that for the process in question, the model that is being used has been extended beyond its domain of applicability (which is always limited for any model in physics). It does not mean that a point of infinite energy is being ‘predicted’ to physically exist. So, the appearance of the singularity in GR means that the end stages of a gravitational collapse process are outside the model’s domain of applicability - which should really go without saying, since it’s a purely classical model. You fix this by extending the model’s domain of applicability - you go from Maxwell’s ED to quantum electrodynamics for example, and for gravity we will need to go from GR to some as yet unknown model of quantum gravity. It makes little sense to attempt to hide the singularity by proposing some ad-hoc mechanism that has no physical basis; you can’t really fix a singularity from within a singular model. You can only hide it, which isn’t the same thing.

As such, I see very little benefit or reason in what you are proposing, even if it did somehow work; it just introduces a whole new range of difficulties (whether you acknowledge those or not), without addressing the fact that the model itself goes singular in situations where quantum effects become non-negligible, which isn’t just during gravitational collapse.

So to me, the way forward is to continue research into quantum gravity - not postulating things for which there is no theoretical or observational basis.

My model is falsifiable, and every new idea that is falsifiable and does not contradict observations is an opportunity to construct new theoretical models, and of course, there is one observation that contradicts GR together with black hole accretion estimations, which are supermassive black holes, for which my idea is a proposed solution.

Quote

Does this answer you question, even if you don’t agree with the answer?

Just -essentially- one more question.

Will you accept that you are not absolutely sure about what lies inside black holes since we have no observational evidence to prove the predictions you have been referring to throught this discussion? Will you accept that, perhaps, something different may take place far away from the center, inside black holes? Do you agree that since we do not observe the formation of the supposed singularity, it may not even collapse inside? Will you accept that the universe does not care about how many difficulties our models have to deal with, and indeed the better we model nature, the more complicated these models seem to appear to us? Will you accept that, while someone worksout a quantum theory of gravity which may explain this gravitational singularity, it will still be a problem to prove whether if it even exists, and since science is based on experimental evidence, it is scientific to explore other alternative models to black hole interior, as long as they can be proven right or wrong?

If your answer is yes, then I will keep developing my idea and trying to justify it with math (and asking experts as I do here about whether is feasible or not), not because Im convinced that my model is true, but because Im convinced that if it can be tested, its worth it. If your answer is no, I dont think you are taking a scientific approach and I will leave you with beliefs.

Edited August 21, 2020 by muruep00

[Markus Hanke]

15 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Will you accept that you are not absolutely sure about what lies inside black holes

Of course. No one is sure about this. In particular, no one is sure just how far exactly the domain of applicability of GR actually extends below the horizon.

16 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Will you accept that, perhaps, something different may take place far away from the center, inside black holes?

Sure, somewhere below the horizon as per yet unpredictable things will happen. But it won’t be as far up as the horizon itself.

19 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Do you agree that since we do not observe the formation of the supposed singularity, it may not even collapse inside?

No. That a collapse happens is certain, at the very least up to energies of the QCD scale. The physics involved are well understood and thoroughly tested up to that point, in full accord with the scientific method. It’s only when we go beyond that (the last stages of the collapse) that we don’t yet know what happens.

22 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Will you accept that the universe does not care about how many difficulties our models have to deal with, and indeed the better we model nature, the more complicated these models seem to appear to us?

This doesn’t have an objective answer, since ‘complicated’ is a subjective term. I find GR conceptually easier than Newtonian gravity, even though it is more complex.

23 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Will you accept that, while someone worksout a quantum theory of gravity which may explain this gravitational singularity, it will still be a problem to prove whether if it even exists,

But we already know that it doesn’t exist, that’s what I have been trying to explain. The appearance of the singularity just means that GR does not apply in that region (it can’t make physical predictions there), just as Maxwell’s equations don’t apply on quantum scales. No one in their right mind would take singularities as actual reality.

32 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

it is scientific to explore other alternative models to black hole interior, as long as they can be proven right or wrong?

As long as they are compatible with what has already been scientifically established, and so long as they are falsifiable - sure. In this case that means any proposal needs to be compatible with the laws of gravity, as well as with the already well tested and established parts of the Standard Model - I think your idea fails both of these criteria, for the reasons explained.

26 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

If your answer is yes, then I will keep developing my idea and trying to justify it with math (and asking experts as I do here about whether is feasible or not), not because Im convinced that my model is true, but because Im convinced that if it can be tested, its worth it. If your answer is no, I dont think you are taking a scientific approach and I will leave you with beliefs.

So it really doesn’t matter what anyone says, because in the end it doesn’t make a difference to you? I have already shown you why it isn’t feasible, and I have even hinted at how it can be tested (gravitational wave signatures, motion of test particles), but you haven’t accepted that. My guess is that, even if I were to work through the entire maths from start to finish, you still wouldn’t accept it.
And then - “If you don’t agree with my leading question, you are unscientific.”
Ok. It seems I just wasted several hours of my time here, which I could have used better to work on my own GR-related projects - I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and thought you were genuine, so I wanted to help. My bad. And chances are this isn’t the first forum you’ve been posting this on, either - just my intuition.

Good luck to you.

[muruep00]

31 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

That a collapse happens is certain, at the very least up to energies of the QCD scale. The physics involved are well understood and thoroughly tested up to that point, in full accord with the scientific method. It’s only when we go beyond that (the last stages of the collapse) that we don’t yet know what happens.

I quote you, "are you just here to try and prove yourself right, no matter what it takes?"

That is not a scientific reasoning. If you cant doubt about what has not been directly measured (which is not, its not tested there, no experiment has been done in that particular region), you are no longer a scientist but a believer. The sientific method never states that you should belief a theory just because it works in other different experiments (just like you would be wrong if you believed that Newtonian gravity must work in the experiment of calculating the perihelion of mars, because it works for other planets). What the scientific method states is that you should check experimentally that your theory gives the right predictions, at the place and even at the time in which you want to verify that the theory works. You are embracing black hole religion with what you have stated. 

Quote

But we already know that it doesn’t exist, that’s what I have been trying to explain. The appearance of the singularity just means that GR does not apply in that region (it can’t make physical predictions there), just as Maxwell’s equations don’t apply on quantum scales. No one in their right mind would take singularities as actual reality.

I understant the point you want to make, your are saying, in other words, that the singularity is not a problem, because it is not a singularity, it is something else that a quantum theory of gravity will explain. My point is that, the singularity might not be a problem, but because no quantum gravity scales even matter, because GR (allowing energy condition violations and time transformations) might not even predict that singularity, but rather another different interior. And I repeat, even if you had a quantum theory of gravity, you cannot be certain that whatever that theory predicts for inside black holes is true, until you prove it experimentally. Thats the scientific method.

Quote

As long as they are compatible with what has already been scientifically established, and so long as they are falsifiable - sure. In this case that means any proposal needs to be compatible with the laws of gravity, as well as with the already well tested and established parts of the Standard Model - I think your idea fails both of these criteria, for the reasons explained.

I do not think my idea breaks the laws of gravity, and what you are saying is the same as telling Einstein that this theory of general relativity is in contradiction with the established newtonian laws of gravity before he proved them wrong. Honestly, its an awful argument. 

Quote

So it really doesn’t matter what anyone says, because in the end it doesn’t make a difference to you? I have already shown you why it isn’t feasible, and I have even hinted at how it can be tested (gravitational wave signatures, motion of test particles), but you haven’t accepted that. My guess is that, even if I were to work through the entire maths from start to finish, you still wouldn’t accept it.

It would matter if for instance my model resulted in a paradox (like the runaway motion), or if it clearly contradicted observations (like a repulsive exterior solution) even by a quick conceptual check like the one we are doing here, which it doesnt.

I still dont know why isnt feaseble. If I did, I would not keep thinking about it, it would be a waste of time. And its not a matter of faith (I doubt about my model, thats why Im asking here) or that I dont understand what you have explained here. Is that you arguments are based on the actual belief of the black hole interior, which is of course, since Im proposing something different, in contradiction with my idea.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by muruep00

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

My model is falsifiable

Can you explain how your idea is falsifiable? What observations do you suggest?

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

And I repeat, even if you had a quantum theory of gravity, you cannot be certain that whatever that theory predicts for inside black holes is true, until you prove it experimentally. Thats the scientific method.

What observations and experimental results supports your idea?

[MigL]

As Marcus has explained ( numerous times ) the exterior metric has to 'butt up' seamlessly to the interior metric.
This condition constrains what kind of changes can happen at the event horizon;  there can be no abrupt changes to the metric at the event horizon.
Furthermore, Markus uses the fact that the metric can only change 'smoothly' to make predictions as you venture further inside the event horizon.
The abrupt changes you propose simply cannot happen, according to GR, until GR reaches the point where it is no longer applicable.
IOW, at that point it's anybody's guess, but understand that only happens close to the 'predicted' ( but not expected ) singularity.

This is what I previously posted.
Markus uses the math to guide his beliefs about the interior of the EH.
While you say 'IF' this condition, "THEN' this happens; total WAG.

Edited August 21, 2020 by MigL

[muruep00]

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you explain how your idea is falsifiable? What observations do you suggest?

What observations and experimental results supports your idea?

Its already explained in the first post, but I have no problem in explaning it again since I might not explain myself good enough, and this leads to confusions in our discussion.

I will explain it starting from the end. We observe supermassive black holes, with 40 billion times the mass of the sun. If one accounts for a big initial star that formed the black hole, lets say 500 solar masses (and thats really big, but hey, its the early universe, who knows..) and accretion estimations, one finds that almost all the mass in supermassive black holes seem to come from no where. Proposals have been made to explain this, such as primordial black holes o black hole formation due to massive dust collapse, but they all fail one way or another, there is no consensus and the question is still open in physics.

The quick way to solve this is to propose another mechanism of black hole growth, apart from accretion and black hole merging. My idea, which is explained in my first post, is that black holes only contain exotic mass, that all mass that has crossed the horizon, including the initial mass star, has suffered a gravitational transformation at the event horizon, and is now exotic mass. This exotic or negative mass is predicted to be repulsive, so gravitational singularities inside black holes would not take place. Also, the interior of black holes, instead of a collapse, undergoes an inflation due to this antigravitational interaction. My idea is that this inflation inside, which is slowed down by time dilation, since time runs slower closer to the event horizon for an outside observer, and all the exotic matter is inside and close to the event horizon, has a direct impact in black hole event horizon size, making it larger. If the horizon grows big enough, this creates the illusion that the matter inside, with the actual nowadays model of black holes, has to be huge. Of course, we observe black holes of very small size such as 5 solar masses, so one must assume for consistency that small inital black holes do not blow up as quick as bigger ones, like supermassive black holes that are very old black holes for which most physicists agree that a big star created them.

Thank you for your interest, this is just a brief explanation and Im sure Im leaving some questions unanswered.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

As Marcus has explained ( numerous times ) the exterior metric has to 'butt up' seamlessly to the interior metric.
This condition constrains what kind of changes can happen at the event horizon;  there can be no abrupt changes to the metric at the event horizon.

Yes, but once the event horizon is formed, one can change all matter inside into exotic matter, and the exterior solution is unaltered. It might be imposible to built a static & stationary solution for that case, as Markus pointed out. My interest in the fact that the metric changes its signature at the event horizon. That seems like nothing special, but if one allows SR to include time transformations and rebuilts RG with them, this signature change may be a time transformation, which is what, by other reasons of more weight, can transform regular matter into exotic matter.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Furthermore, Markus uses the fact that the metric can only change 'smoothly' to make predictions as you venture further inside the event horizon.
The abrupt changes you propose simply cannot happen, according to GR, until GR reaches the point where it is no longer applicable.
IOW, at that point it's anybody's guess, but understand that only happens close to the 'predicted' ( but not expected ) singularity.

What I propose of a gravitational shift from regular matter to exotic matter may not require a non-smooth transition at the event horizon or abrupt changes.

As I said, im trying to slighty modify GR by allowing time transformations, but if you are not comfortable with these time transformations, you may want change them for "quantum transitions" in my proposal, which is no longer justified by GR, but serves as an hypotheses.

I would like to ask Markus or yourself, to prove to me that the model in which you belief (that GR holds as we know it until close to the singularity) is true. And stating that GR works fine elsewhere is not a proof. Since I know that no body can test by measurements or experiments whether GR still gives good predictions right after passing the event horizon, I am very certain that you cannot prove undoubtly that your model is true. Once that is accepted, one can propose alternatives to the whole black hole interior. And stating that "GR holds as we know it until close the singularity" is no longer an argument against my proposal, since its very clear that my idea its trying to substitute that model, so of course it is in contradiction with the actual model (I would call it actual belief).

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Proposals have been made to explain this, such as primordial black holes o black hole formation due to massive dust collapse, but they all fail one way or another, there is no consensus and the question is still open in physics.

Is it ?
These supermassive Black Holes were formed billions of years ago.
WE can see them far away ( in the early Universe ) as QUASARs, that shine with the brilliance of thousands of galaxies put together ( 10 to 100 000 times brighter than the Milky way ).
IOW, the accretion discs of the central BHs are HUUUGE, and probably involve large numbers of infalling stars and gas clouds.

I don't see that needing an alternate explanation.

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Its already explained in the first post, but I have no problem in explaning it again since I might not explain myself good enough, and this leads to confusions in our discussion.

Thanks for your reply. I got the idea from your initial post but thanks for the additional information on super massive vs stellar mass black holes. It raises more questions that I'll try to address later.

11 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

 Im sure Im leaving some questions unanswered.

Yes; many the two questions I asked:
Can you explain how your idea is falsifiable? What observations do you suggest?
What observations and experimental results supports your idea?

 

[muruep00]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Is it ?
These supermassive Black Holes were formed billions of years ago.
WE can see them far away ( in the early Universe ) as QUASARs, that shine with the brilliance of thousands of galaxies put together ( 10 to 100 000 times brighter than the Milky way ).
IOW, the accretion discs of the central BHs are HUUUGE, and probably involve large numbers of infalling stars and gas clouds.

I don't see that needing an alternate explanation.

Even if it involved large numbers of infalling stars and gas clouds, 40 billion solar masses is too much for that. Again, estimations of black hole accretion have been made. Might want to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

Primordial black holes predict too many, or arbitrarily large ones. Its in contradiction with observations, that is why there is no consensus and there are many other proposal over the table.

[MigL]

16 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I would like to ask Markus or yourself, to prove to me that the model in which you belief (that GR holds as we know it until close to the singularity) is true. And stating that GR works fine elsewhere is not a proof.

I have never jumped off a building in China, as I've never been there.
Yet the math guides me, and I know I'll be accelerating at 9.8m/s/s downwards, until I hit the ground with a loud 'THUD".

[muruep00]

12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Yes; many the two questions I asked:
Can you explain how your idea is falsifiable? What observations do you suggest?

One would just need to put this into math (as an aproximated solution, because Markus is right that the time dependent exact solution might be really complicated to derive). Once done that, redo supermassive black hole formation and growth estimations, this time taking into account the new mechanism of growth due to inflation inside them. I know little about experimental physics, but I guess you would have to assume an inital star mass for the contribution of this new quantity.

Quote

What observations and experimental results supports your idea?

Well, first, it is not in contradiction with observations (at first glance). That is enough to propose it as an hypothesis I guess. But the need to explain supermassive black holes in the most simple way (with another mechanism of growth) is the motivation.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have never jumped off a building in China, as I've never been there.
Yet the math guides me, and I know I'll be accelerating at 9.8m/s/s downwards, until I hit the ground with a loud 'THUD".

Same reasoning did physicists with the unbeatable newtonian gravity theory to the perihelion of mars, and failed no matter what they did, because they were wrong when the assumed that their model worked everywhere just because it works somewhere. The scientific method forces you to perform the experiment to be confident of a prediction.

Thankfully no one has to die jumping off a building to prove my model.

Edited August 21, 2020 by muruep00

[MigL]

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

Same reasoning did physicists with the unbeatable newtonian gravity theory to the perihelion of mars, and failed no matter what they did, because they were wrong when the assumed that their model worked everywhere just because it works somewhere.

I'm not aware of any problem with using Newtonian gravity for Mars' orbit ( very good approximation to GR  at that distance out of the gravity well ), other than corrections for the perturbations due to other planets ( multiple body problems ).
Do you maybe mean Mercury ????

And what does it have to do with Black Holes and exotic matter ?

[muruep00]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not aware of any problem with using Newtonian gravity for Mars' orbit ( very good approximation to GR  at that distance out of the gravity well ), other than corrections for the perturbations due to other planets ( multiple body problems ).
Do you maybe mean Mercury ????

And what does it have to do with Black Holes and exotic matter ?

Sorry I meant the perihelion of Mercury, my bad.

They did find a problem, back in the days, they struggle a lot to make the newtonian gravity fit that observation.

It is just an example about the fact that newtonian gravity may give you precise predictions for some planets, but the it fails in others (well, if fails close to the star). The same happens to black holes: just because general relativity gives you the right predictions for many observational phenomena, that does not mean that it gives the right prediction inside black holes, not even at the interior but far away from the singularity. You need to make the measurement to confirm that. Since that measuremente cant be done, you can only assume that whatever model you have for the interior of black holes is right. Now, current model cannot be tested right or wrong. I provide you an alternative model that yes It can (I believe). Wouldnt it very interesting to rule out my proposed model?

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

One would just need to put this into math (as an aproximated solution, because Markus is right that the time dependent exact solution might be really complicated to derive). Once done that, redo supermassive black hole formation and growth estimations, this time taking into account the new mechanism of growth due to inflation inside them. I know little about experimental physics, but I guess you would have to assume an inital star mass for the contribution of this new quantity.

Markus has already shown that your idea is invalid mathematically, no need to go through that again. I gave you an opportunity to explain something experimental. At this stage of the development of the idea, there is no known observation or experiment that can falsify the idea, correct? 

 

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Well, first, it is not in contradiction with observations (at first glance). That is enough to propose it as an hypothesis I guess. But the need to explain supermassive black holes in the most simple way (with another mechanism of growth) is the motivation.

That is not an answer to the question. Again: what experiment or observation supports your idea? I'll formulate differently: What experiment or observation will fail to support established theories while at the same time support your idea? 
 

 

[muruep00]

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Markus has already shown that your idea is invalid mathematically, no need to go through that again. I gave you an opportunity to explain something experimental. At this stage of the development of the idea, there is no known observation or experiment that can falsify the idea, correct? 

No, Markus argued against a static solution. Since my idea leads to an increase in the event horizon size with time, it is not static. 

If my model were simulated, you would clearly see wether if fits observations of supermassive black holes mass or fails and predicts too little or too much.

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That is not an answer to the question. Again: what experiment or observation supports your idea? I'll formulate differently: What experiment or observation will fail to support established theories while at the same time support your idea? 
 

 

Supermassive black hole formation can not be explained by the combination of GR (the assumed interior back hole) and estimations of accretion. This is still an open question in physics, so you may say that established theories fail to predict the observed supermassive black holes. The experiment I propose is just a simulation of my model.

 

[MigL]

I really don't wish to pursue this any further, as you seem to ignore the valid objections to your idea, and just keep repeating it over and over without adding any convincing value. 

I'll be blunt.
The arguments presented against your idea by Markus have a sound mathematical basis.
The arguments you presented for, are basically "We don't have observational evidence, so my 'fantasy' is just as valid as your math."
IOW, you just pulled it out of your ass.

 

t adding

[muruep00]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I really don't wish to pursue this any further, as you seem to ignore the valid objections to your idea, and just keep repeating it over and over without adding any convincing value. 

I'll be blunt.
The arguments presented against your idea by Markus have a sound mathematical basis.
The arguments you presented for, are basically "We don't have observational evidence, so my 'fantasy' is just as valid as your math."
IOW, you just pulled it out of your ass.

 

t adding

Yes, what you are saying is true, except for the fact that mi idea is not fantasy but a testable hypothesis, for which we have not found any direct contradiction with observations, and it certainly can be justified by math.

The arguments presented by Markus have indeed a mathematical basis which contradicts my idea. True, but that is what my idea is about, my idea tries to substitute Markus math. If not, I would not be a new idea. It is like Einstein telling the physics comunity that General Relativity is a new idea that substitues Newtonian gravity, and it can be tested, and the physics comunity replies Einstein that his idea is wrong or not valid, just because they already have a newtonian model for gravity, although this model does not predict certain observations.

And this discussion is not about my new idea anymore, is that you are not willing to accept that any other different model can take place inside black holes, just because it breaks with your beliefs of what is inside black holes. That is what all Markus arguments are about, trying to justify that his idea of the interior of black holes is the one that is true, although he cant prove it.

I no wonder why there is a crisis in theoretical physics since the 70s if everyone thinks as you do, that is, thinking that we dont need new ideas even though they are testable because we already have some other model that might work, even though we have not tested that it works where the new idea wants to substitute this one.

 

Bye

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by muruep00

[Ghideon]

25 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

the fact that mi idea is not fantasy but a testable hypothesis

You have not yet proposed any such test. Only vague descriptions regarding simulations.

Your idea contains: "negative energy density" and "antigravitational interaction". Do these things exist? Where do they exist? All I get so far is that they are impossible to observe, hidden beyond an event horizon.

 

15 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Since my idea leads to an increase in the event horizon size with time, it is not static. 

What is the evidence that event horizons grow? I guess it is possible to run simulations that results in growing black holes, but that does not support the existence of such growth. 

 

20 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It seems I just wasted several hours of my time here, which I could have used better to work on my own GR-related projects

Not completely wasted, if my learning from your posts counts as "non-waste".

Edited August 22, 2020 by Ghideon

[muruep00]

Just now, Ghideon said:

You have not yet proposed any such test. Only vague descriptions regarding simulations.

I have described to you an observation for which there is no explanation or prediction with our current models.

Simulate my model to see if it fits observations is not a test? I think it is, that is exactly for instance how gravitational waves from GR are tested, black hole mergers are simulated and then compared to observations of LIGO, for instance.

Just now, Ghideon said:

Your idea contains: "negative energy density" and "antigravitational interaction". Do these things exist? Where do they exist? All I get so far is that they are impossible to observe, hidden beyond an event horizon.

And what is the problem? Virtual particles cannot be observed, but since there existance can be tested indirectly, we know they exist. Same with exotic matter and its gravitational interaction, you may not be able to see it from Earth (you could observe it if you crossed the event horizon, so it is not a non-observable where you cannot apply the scientific method), but you can guess whether they exist or not by indirect effects of these, which in my model, they are observable.

Just now, Ghideon said:

Not completely wasted, if my learning from your posts counts as "non-waste".

You can certainly learn about the currect model that is assumed to be true inside black holes with Markus explanations. But we are in "Speculations", not in "Learning the already known physics".

[Ghideon]

8 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Simulate my model to see if it fits observations is not a test?

Where is there an observation of a growing event horizon to compare against? Using observations that matches the predictions of GR is not useful.

2 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

but you can guess whether they exist or not by indirect effects of these, which in my model, they are observable.

How?  What effects? What observations and experiments do you suggest?

 

[muruep00]

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Where is there an observation of a growing event horizon to compare against? Using observations that matches the predictions of GR is not useful.

You observe event horizons that grew much more than what is expected with GR and accretion estimations. Well more precisely, we measure the masses of supermassive black holes, which are proportional to their event horizon (for the simple no rotating case, r=2GM with c=1, for a rotating black hole, which are the ones we observe, the relation is not that simple, but it is still the same dependent of mass). This mass is apparent mass, because again, you cannot measure how much mass is inside, in other words, it the mass is the exterior observable parameter of black holes, same as you could observe their charge and we observe their spin.

Again, this observation does not match the prediction of GR together with accretion estimations, and it has been an open question in the physics community for about 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation 

Quote

How?  What effects? What observations and experiments do you suggest?

My model predicts that black holes should also grow due to this exotic matter inside. You could built an aproximated model for mi idea, and then make the estimations of supermassive black hole growth including the new mechanism of growth that mi idea implies. If it fits observations, my idea is right. If it isnt enough to explain supermassive black hole observations, or if it is too much, then my model is wrong.

Edited August 22, 2020 by muruep00