On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of
'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are
saying, namely that
1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to
the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter
entering the black hole.
I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can
provide an authoritative one.....
You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the Schwarzschild BH
solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0?
In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of
which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild
solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass
INSIDE IT.
But that's the "equivalent" mass that would be necessary to produce the same field outside
the event horizon. As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, but it doesn't
follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to "send out gravity".
So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you
have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can
provide?
Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a
black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else,
I doesn't pop up somewhere else. Remember mass and energy are the same thing in GR. One
way to look at it is to say the mass in converted to gravitational energy, i.e. is takes a
lot of energy/mass to warp space up into a singularity. Gravity in GR is non-linear so it
"pulls on itself", that's why it makes a singularity (classically). Hawking the radiation
is the conversion of this mass/energy back into particles.
but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up
with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the
mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore.
Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the
above.
No, but it shows that a BH doesn't have to be created from matter, and in fact there is
speculation that black holes might have been created in big bang just from fluctuations in
the metric. Of course we suppose that BH like the one at the center of the Milky Way were
created, or at least grew large, by matter falling in.
Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative
reference that states your 1. and 2.?
No, it's common knowledge. Here's Sean Carroll's email,
seancarr...@gmail.com; ask him.
BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate world?
I'm retired. I worked for the U.S. Navy.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
