Trying to break a bad habit, where bottom-up realizations are presented as top-down Platonic truths.
If you have a black hole, it can't grow bigger. Which implies that it can't form in the first place - as soon as an infinitesimal black hole forms, it prevents itself from growing bigger. The mechanism that prevents the growth forms smoothly as the density approaches the critical Schwarzschild limit, so even the infinitesimal black hoel doesn't form. Specifically, the mechanism is gamma: time dilation, length contraction, etc.
At the surface of a black hole, time dilation and length contraction go infinite. This is why black holes can't grow - while the infalling object would A) see the event horizon move and B) would cross at a finite point anyway, no distant observers will see it cross. Relativity can bend simultaneity of distant objects, not proximate ones. If black holes aren't immune to entropy, they will decay, and if they decay, we will always see the black hole decay before anything crosses the event horizon.* If we see the black hole decay before the object crosses, the object must also see the black hole decay before it crosses, else black holes violate causation.
*(Not that in practice we can see the crossing, since the object is also infinitely redshifted.)
As density approaches the Schwarzschild limit, 1/gamma approaches infinity. Gamma shrinks much faster than the density increases, preventing the density from appreciably increasing. Black-hole sized stars collapse because the force of gravity grows larger than any other force - the last one, I read, is the Fermi exclusion principle, which manifests as a force. Once gravity can make neutrons collide, they collide, interact, and there are no stronger forces to overcome. However, time dilation is not a force, exactly. It does not involve transfers of energy, which means it can grow without limit. As gravity grows, it tunes down the essence of the process that allows gravity to grow. Outside observers will only see the black hole form at t -> ∞, which is the physicist way of saying 'never.' Though naturally it will closely approximate a black hole after a short time. It will appear black because of the intense redshifting, because infalling light will take eons to fall in, and because it will take eons to re-emit anything the dense material absorbs.
However, the removal of the singularity means there is no event horizon, meaning there are no paradoxes. There's no information dilemma, there's nothing that needs veiling, no wormholes, and no perpetual motion machines.
This fact is part of a broader pattern of post-WWII science being pseudoscience, which is why I won't bother to try to officially publish the idea. It is not complicated, but not only is it unknown, but it's an unknown unknown: I should have seen a refutation somewhere, at least a flawed one. I did it by modelling the formation of a black hole in my head, meaning it could definitely be done on a computer, which would have easily revealed this mechanic. It would appear that modelling a black hole collapse has not been tried - it was proven possible top-down, and when dark grey holes were found in space, they were taken as evidence for black holes.
Most physicists know black holes, and singularities in general, are our mistake, not nature playing with fire and have for over a century. But to dispel them, we see fantastically complicated stories.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I thought of something like this awhile ago (yay signaling) but when I asked a more knowledgeable friend he gave a rebuttal that went totally over my head. You should talk to someone with a relevant background about this.
I personally have the relevant background.
In shocking news, idiots give bad advice to their betters.
Large it's because of cope. They don't want to admit their better is better.
Post a Comment