Brent, That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any authoritative sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH collapses into the singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the black hole.
Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot of his theories are highly speculative and unconfirmed... Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' which says otherwise: "The hole must be born when a star implodes upon itself; THE HOLE'S MASS, AT BIRTH MUST BE THE SAME AS THE STAR'S; AND EACH TIME SOMETHING FALLS INTO THE HOLE, ITS MASS MUST GROW" So again your theory is a highly speculative INTERPRETATION of the equations you mention which so far as you can demonstrate is NOT a mainstream scientific understanding of BH's. So who's hopeless now? (I wouldn't have added this barb if you hadn't BTW) Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your > interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an > open mind. > > > It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in > the absence of matter (you know what "vacuum" means?), forms a BH. If you > added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into > the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH. > > > And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who > is presumably your friend says via an email. > > > So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look > him up!? > > I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar. > > Brent > > Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources > who agree with you 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 some authoritative ones..... > > And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution > which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or > at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the > black hole that produces the event horizon. > > Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you > produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported.. > > Edgar > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > 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, > [email protected]; 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href=" > http://groups.google.com/group/everything > > ... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
