New Theoretical Considerations For The Black Hole System

[Dubbelosix]

Related to previous work shown, this is a continuation explaining relative temperature for the transition equation and will cover some other interesting things. 

 

It seems that a black hole could potentially radiate according to the same kind of rules that charges give up their energy when accelerated. This would mean that the temperature of the black hole is a ‘’relative’’ thing. The equation of interest is the entropy we derived:

 

[math]S = \frac{1}{kT} \frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_0} = \mathbf{R}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1kT} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2kT})[/math]

 

We knew already there are relativistic effects from the equation:

 

 

[math]\Delta E_G = \frac{n\hbar c}{\Delta \lambda} = \frac{1}{4 \pi }\frac{m_0v^2}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{1}{4 \pi \lambda_0}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2}) = \frac{p}{4 \pi \hbar}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2})[/math]

 

The equation satisfying a relativistic temperature is

 

[math]\frac{1}{T} = \frac{1}{T_0(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2})}[/math]

 

*Remember, the temperature of a black hole is

 

[math]T = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi GMk_B}[/math]

 

In which case it enters our first equation like so

 

[math]S = \frac{1}{kT} \frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_0} = \frac{1}{kT_0(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2})} \frac{\hbar c}{\lambda_0}[/math]

 

[math]= \mathbf{R}(\frac{Gm^2}{n^2_1kT_0(1 - \beta^2)} - \frac{Gm^2}{n^2_2kT_0(1 - \beta^2)})[/math]

 

Where we have used the common shorthand notation

 

[math]\beta^2 = (\frac{v}{c})^2[/math]

 

One of my arguments is that the transition equation will still work for a quantum mechanical black hole that has a critical evaporation time (when the system evaporates completely, since it would still give up that radiation in these terms of discrete quantum processes). What difference do you find with measuring a black hole at rest to measuring a black hole in relativistic motion and how does the motion of an observer effect the radiation rate of a black hole?

 

The moving observer will measure the black hole to be cooler than the person measuring from the rest frame. Likewise, everything is relative, if the black hole is moving at relativistic speeds, to someone at rest, will measure it to be much hotter than a black hole at rest relative to the observer. This is very much like the Larmor radiation of charges - perhaps it is an actual analogue in the theory? This is one theoretical consideration. Further, adding to strange features of relativity, two observers can even disagree of when a black holes critical evaporation point is.

 

Another involves a theoretical suggestion [1], [2], in which the surface of a black hole [may] be considered as conducting surface; the argument goes like this:

 

‘’ Introducing an effective thickness [math]\Delta r[/math] of the membrane, and assuming the same resistivity [math]R_H[/math] within [math]\Delta r[/math], one can relate total resistance of the black hole with the conductivity of the membrane using a model of two concentric spheres with radii [math]a_1 = r_s[/math], [math]a_2 = r_s + \Delta r[/math] where the spherical shell is filled by homogeneous conducting matter is given by [2]’’

 

[math]R_H = \frac{1}{4 \pi \sigma}(\frac{1}{r_1} - \frac{1}{r_2})[/math]

 

Where [math]\sigma[/math] is the conductivity. It struck me how similar this equation is, compared to our transition equation using the Rydberg constant:

 

[math]\frac{1}{\Delta \lambda} = \mathbf{R}(\frac{1}{n^2_1} - \frac{1}{n^2_2})[/math]

 

And have since wondered about any inter-relationships that may explain the same phenomenon. In one approach I have already considered, involves going back to the original arguments which led to this model of the black hole (which has similarities to the Holeum model for a stable binary black hole particle which is said to be the ground state analogue of the hydrogen atom, but I believe the model I have chosen is truer).

 

Remember, our model is arranged so that we consider the black hole changes not only in terms of discrete quantum processes, but one that can reach a ground state in the quantum limits. If the black holes internal structure is similar to the energy levels of an atom, then the particles may be arranged inside similar to the arrangement of Fermions in the highest or lowest occupation states. It was shown that if the entropy of a black hole was capable of going to zero, would mean it would not radiate. It could not have in such a case, an observable temperature in which it was able to give up Hawking radiation - in such a case, it would become a true system at absolute temperature; And since that realisation I have leaned against their existence in the ground state and will in fact evaporate until nothing is left.

 

This suggested such a strange interpretation, I took it to mean that it has no context with the fundamental black hole system and would be highly unstable as a result. It was also suggested that as a black hole particle would cool down, it’s internal structures could follow quantum mechanical principles not too dissimilar to a condensate - it seems though that it would need to be a Bose condensate since a the collapse itself is a process from a Fermion degenerate matter into some form of Boson [3] which is yet unknown and will probably remain unknown since there is no known way something passing the event horizon can escape, with one exception involving theoretical wormholes. Redargless of whether we find out, it has led some authors to speculate whether the black hole is actually a graviton condensate, but I am not happy with this hypothesis.

 

The article we linked to, has articulated it in the following way:

 

‘’It is a general result of quantum mechanics that no object can be confined in a space smaller than its own wavelength, making such a singularity impossible, but there is no widely accepted theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics sufficiently to tell us what the structure inside a black hole might be. One possible theory is that constituent particles decompose into strings, forming a structure called a fuzzball.’’

 

This ‘’quantum mechanical’’ application would have to possess a significance for a theory in which the structure inside of it may arrange similar to the energy levels of an atom. Certainly, an internal structure where systems tended to assemble in energy levels would involve the wavelength of the objects inside of the system. It would remove things crashing to a singularity - quantum mechanics did something similar, electrons would have been found crashing to the centre of the atom if it had not been for a combination of the wave mechanics and the uncertainty principle. The same principles of quantum mechanics may still apply regardless of how dominating the gravitational force is. Another way to view it, is that gravity cannot strip matter (of whatever form) from the laws of wave mechanics nor should it allow violations of the uncertainty principle - unless of course, it’s only the inside of black holes we may expect ordinary quantum mechanics to break down - and if they did, then you would have to settle with something like a singularity.

So there are two possibilities:

1. The laws of physics breaks down in a black hole.
2. The laws of physics are preserved, even though we may never know in what way.

Even though we may never know, it will still not stop people like me from speculating on the possibilities. If there are clues in nature about what may happen, then approaching idea’s like condensates and quantum effects are not entirely out of the realm of possibilities. Maybe a really good way to argue for option 2. is what may have seemingly appeared as an unrelated subject: quantum cosmology.

 

Quantum cosmology is the study of the universe when quantum effects are expected to be significant: This includes a wave function for the universe as well, which was an idea which originated with Hugh Everett the III and was initially met with skepticism but has since became the dogma of mainstream thinking. The idea is simple, the early universe is not free from quantum effects… And if you have followed my blogs, you will know that we have shown there exists strong arguments that the early universe had a structure very similar to a black hole. If there is indeed an analogy between the two, like many scientists believe, then if quantum effects do not vanish in early cosmology, they should not disappear inside a black hole either. In fact, I have shown it is not only early cosmology that fits neatly into the prospects of black hole models, but this also applies to our late cosmological phase as well, in which a very large black hole, with a lot of mass, would appear not very dense from the inside and would appear mostly flat (from using Arun’s extended equivalence principle) which obviously would fit our current observations of the universe (though it is likely the universe is not entirely flat) since this would imply an infinite size for the black hole. Additionally the density has to be equal to the critical density for a Freidmann universe, and this is not what is actually observed. 

 

Related to the idea of a conducting surface is the idea that black holes are diamagnetic, excluding flux just like a superconductor [4]. There is even implications with this ~ since diamagnetic systems have a symmetric electronic structure (i.e ionic crystals) and no permanent magnetic moment, nor is diamagnatism affected by any changes of temperature for the system - so the diamagnetic effects of a large black hole would be no different to a small black hole.

 

References

 

[1] - Collection of Electrodynamical Problems. Nauka, Moscow,1970

[2] - https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.3770v1.pdf

[3] - Degenerate matter - Wikipedia

[4] - http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-012-098

Edited July 20, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Shustaire]

I recommend you look at degeneracy and hot as opposed to cold condensate states. As the Compton and Debroglie wavelengths are in essence squeezed, there is a sequence of degeneracies. The last one being fermion degeneracy. This would entail one remote possibility on a bosonic nature with which any number of bosons can reside in the same space under the same state via Pauli exclusion.

 

I've been leaning in this direction for the singularity being in a bose condensate state due to degeneracy pressures for some time. Its a speculation on my part. As you stated we will never know but it makes sense to me and I have yet to convince myself in error on it. Though would love if someone can point out a flaw in that speculation.

 

How one measures temperature does involve relativity however locally to the BH ie the same reference frame will be the rate it will radiate. Time functions the same and so does the laws of physics in the same reference frame.

 

Also remember the [math]\frac{2GM}{r}[/math] is a false singularity not a true singularity. R=0 is the true singularity as its the only singularity that cannot be corrected via a coordinate change as opposed to the former.

 

What this means is the surface area of the event horizon will change to different observers which will affect the rates of Hawking radiation to the remote observer.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Incorrect read Mathius Blau if you want a reference It is a common statement in many articles in regards to Schwartzchild metric to using Tortoise coordinates. This removes the sigular condition at the event horizon . So does the Penrose diagrams. Simply changing from Schwartzchild

 

Here see reference to coordinate singularities.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington%E2%80%93Finkelstein_coordinates

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

There is no singularity, its a coordinate artefact, besides, I don't need to read ''Mathius Blau'' whoever that is, I know the mathematics which describes this and yes, it is observer dependent as you go past the horizon. Its a natural consequence of the strong effects of gravity.

 

 

Same thing A coordinate singularity is a type of coordinate artifact. So we both agree on this point. Different terms but same meaning.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Same thing A coordinate singularity is a type of coordinate artifact. So we both agree on this point. Different terms but same meaning.

That's not what he meant by artifact.

"something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure"

 

In a hydrogen medium the proton has lost it's singularity but continuously radiates by the sub-planck length of the artifact of it's schwarzchild radius when it was an anti-proton, suspended in the proton state (post-evaporated reversed direction of length contraction) by it's neutralizing collective equivalent of charge in respect to the negating spacetime (compactification of the photon medium/ether) in the surrounding electrons

Edited July 9, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Poly please don't tell me what is right and wrong under physics Your not nearly skilled enough yet Evidence by that last smattering of buzzwords that has nothing to do with specifically coordinate artifacts.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Your not nearly skilled enough yet

But he is

[Shustaire]

Possibly

[Vmedvil2]

I recommend you look at degeneracy and hot as opposed to cold condensate states. As the Compton and Debroglie wavelengths are in essence squeezed, there is a sequence of degeneracies. The last one being fermion degeneracy. This would entail one remote possibility on a bosonic nature with which any number of bosons can reside in the same space under the same state via Pauli exclusion.

 

I've been leaning in this direction for the singularity being in a bose condensate state due to degeneracy pressures for some time. Its a speculation on my part. As you stated we will never know but it makes sense to me and I have yet to convince myself in error on it. Though would love if someone can point out a flaw in that speculation.

 

How one measures temperature does involve relativity however locally to the BH ie the same reference frame will be the rate it will radiate. Time functions the same and so does the laws of physics in the same reference frame.

 

Also remember the [math]\frac{2GM}{r}[/math] is a false singularity not a true singularity. R=0 is the true singularity as its the only singularity that cannot be corrected via a coordinate change as opposed to the former.

 

What this means is the surface area of the event horizon will change to different observers which will affect the rates of Hawking radiation to the remote observer.

 

No, Shustaire  a real singularity is Radius Schwarzchild or R_s and not zero, but this is a Quantum Mechanical description of a BH. So it could be different. That R there is actually a R_s .

 

The schwarzchild BH is not a false singularity just one that is not spinning which not all BH spin with a large angular momentum but others do. It is a simple description for any BH that does not spin, otherwise you must use the Kerr Metric for spinning, Dubbel you need to make a Quantum Mechanical Kerr Metric for rotating BH with Quantum Mechanical effects.

Edited July 9, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

No, Shustaire a real singularity is Radius Schwarzchild or R_s and not zero, but this is a Quantum Mechanical description of a BH. So it could be different. That R there is actually a R_s .

 

The schwarzchild BH is not a false singularity just one that is not spinning which not all BH spin with a large angular momentum but others do. It is a simple description for any BH that does not spin, otherwise you must use the Kerr Metric for spinning, Dubbel you need to make a Quantum Mechanical Kerr Metric for rotating BH with Quantum Mechanical effects.

Such a metric is only necessary for anti protons.

 

Which is good because so far we can't really tell a proton and an anti proton apart. The ability to mathematically distinguish between the two with a quantum Kerr metric could be the key to devising a way to contain anti matter in storage

Edited July 9, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

An anti proton can be suspended by positrons if you have a method of identification like a memrister-reading thats programmed to recognize that Kerr metric

[Vmedvil2]

Such a metric is only necessary for anti protons.

 

Which is good because so far we can't really tell a proton and an anti proton apart. The ability to mathematically distinguish between the two with a quantum Kerr metric could be the key to devising a way to contain anti matter in storage

'

 

 

Just reading back on my work, the idea of the entropy going to zero implying a true ground state at absolute temperature is never a true solution in physics, but is is often taught in chemistry that the hydrogen atom is infinitely stable at zero point temperatures:

 

https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Inorganic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Inorganic_Chemistry_(Housecroft)/01%3A_Basic_concepts%3A_atoms/1.06%3A_Atomic_Orbitals/1.6H%3A_The_ground_state_of_Hydrogen

 

Here's the rub: If the stable atom has an individual expression of temperature, then it would need to radiate. Are we seeing a system imitate zero temperature behaviour? The electron is just in a very stable configuration in such a way that it is giving up no energy - I have linked this to a similar phenomenon, the zeno effect. But i hold to what I said before, because it was only with the earliest scientists that speculated that the entropy of black hole was zero, did Hawking arrive at the conclusion that actually it has a non-zero entropy and because of this, radiated heat. 

 

 

Well, no I want dubbel to look into the equations then find that Dark Energy is actually a wave-particle unlike he thinks he will find when he goes and finally finds that Gravity is a wave-particle too, when he has to do a QM description of GR's Metrics like I have. When I had to do the math for them, I found a String Field with a frequency attached to it which told me that they were wave-particles. I want to dubbel to find this too, so we can finally agree on a method of Q Gravity, but the thing is Dubbel if it has a wavelength, how can it not have a particle form caused from wave-function collapse into a state,which you call  λ₀ . There is obviously a Graviton wave-particle along with a Dark Energy wave-particle, why do you hold to this idea dubbel of them not? 

 

You even have a Δλ for the collapse of the wavefunction into a eighenstate, The States they collapse into is the wave-particle form of Forces which is a boson.

 

The Graviton mediates the temperature exchange into hawking radiation, if you take it from this description with Temperature decrease reducing entropy, it makes the entire picture much more simple, That BH are more stable like electrons in a lower state which makes BH themselves a Large Wave-particle too of gravitons as all the other forces are collapsed at the point of singularity. The Yau Manifolds have collapsed into a single point, which is why I like the String Field description of BH, but you have a wavelength there must be a Wave-particle that mediates BH's hawking radiation exchanges being the Graviton.

Edited July 9, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

Well, no I want dubbel to look into the equations then find that Dark Energy is actually a wave-particle unlike he thinks he will find when he goes and finally finds that Gravity is a wave-particle too, when he has to do a QM description of GR's Metrics like I have.

They're photonic dominoes. Photons have the same inverting charge/suspended charge permanence as anything else.

 

He knows this, although he used the terminology pilot wave & phonon excitation but he knows what you're describing better than you do trust me

Edited July 9, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Our observable neck of the cosmos, as well as it's CMB precedent, is but a cycle in a larger particle soup that's too large for us to observe but would look the same as the quantum world beneath us looks under our microscopes.

 

006 has described the entire universe as a wave function. he seems willing to accept that overall there is a realty in which spacetime is infinite & completely flat & there is a reality also in which the geodesic is infinitesimal: all just as beyond any particular mathematical metric as GR is beyond any preferred reference frame in particular. You describe it with mathematical paradoxes, such as cantor's infinity & zeno's paradox. That's how I came to describing these metrics. He has said that our reality is based on an inertial pattern as opposed to a luxon metric. He may employ the Yin Yang symbol as a mathematical classification lol

Edited July 9, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil2]

They're photonic dominoes. Photons have the same inverting charge/suspended charge permanence as anything else.

 

He knows this, although he used the terminology pilot wave & phonon excitation but he knows what you're describing better than you do trust me

well, no polymath he always says there is no graviton but he has fundamental wavelengths with a change in fundamental wavelength right there for a BH, which indicates a Graviton or bosonic particle for gravity.

Edited July 9, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

The wavelength is equivalent to the energy lost by the black hole. This alone does not suggest a bosonic particle for gravity. Nor should there actually be any particle associated to gravity, so if the interior consists of bosons, they will either be a new class or a class we already know of. 

 

Then how do you explain the temperature loss into a pair of photons there must be some particle turning into those photons like Electron and positron annihilation but there are none present inside or near a BH, which is the graviton mediating that reaction into the photon pair, as you said the wavelength is a loss of energy thus there must be some energetic particle removing it such as the graviton. If there is a wavelength removing it, then there is a particle there.

Edited July 9, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

well, no polymath he always says there is no graviton but he has fundamental wavelengths with a change in fundamental wavelength right there for a BH, which indicates a Graviton or bosonic particle for gravity.

The gravitons are invisible black holes located all about the volume of the inverse of the spherical coordinates located at the conic sections of the triangles of the 60th iteration of a 3D 9-folded angle (at 3 90 degree & 6 45 degree angles between those 90 degree angles [sine & cosine]) version of a square composed of 4 koch snowflake/antisnowflake equilateral triangles whose triangle tops (the point at the top of the triangle) are touching in the middle of the square of positively charged photons (phonon excitations) in an ideally redshifted vacuum medium.