Would you please stop deleting widely-accepted and widely-agreed-upon stuff from black hole? You've argued your case repeatedly in talk: and neither I nor anyone else participating there has agreed with it so either give it up, find some other editors who support your view so we can have a proper debate, or come up with some new arguments. Bryan 00:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you disagree, you MUST state explicitly why. Saying you disagree without giving reasons is nonsense.
My point, to reiterate, is that the solution of GR from the observer's point of view is not valid for two reasons: the singularity, and violation of principles of physics.
Hello, Aranoff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Having said that, I must tell you that I have just reverted your latest contribution to Black hole, purely on the grounds that such a substantial contribution needs to refer to a reliable source, and it didn't. No other reason.
Quite separately, I note that your comments to Bryan, above, breach WP:CIVIL, and that's the fastest way there is on Wikipedia to lose credibility, no matter how expert you are in your field or how accurate your contributions. I'm sure you could make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, but you are not, I'm sorry to say, going about it the right way. Please, try again, before it's too late. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not vandalize pages, as you did" Sorry. I do not know how I vandalized pages. I merely inserted text. Please tell me what I did wrong.Aranoff (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! It looked formatted in the preview. May I send you the text and you add the formatting?
I have no intention of emailing you. Any discussion to be had can be done on the talk page. You can start by providing some reliable sources that confirm that every explanation in textbooks, and on university webpages, is wrong or at least likely to be wrong. At the moment, the only thing that appears wrong is your own statements - your understanding of the physics seems to be flawed at a quite simple level, and your failure to provide external refs and continuous repetition of the same point is making you come over badly (a bit like one of those nutcases with a design for a perpetual motion machine, I'm sorry to say). Show where other physicists/astrophysicists support your argument, don't just keep repeating something that apparently contradicts everyone else from Stephen Hawking on down.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aranof - I think you honestly believe a black hole horizon can not be reached. So I do understand you feel frustrated that no-one accepts your point of view. However, I advise you to accept the fact that there is a finite likelihood that you might be wrong. I think you got unphysical coordinate times messed up with physically more meaningful (invariant) proper times. Please pick up a reputable book on GR and follow the discussion on the Schwarzschild metric. See for instance Schutz pp. 288-294. It should become clear that a distant observer at rest with respect to the static black hole undergoes an acceleration that inevitably yields a horizons that can not be reached and from beyond which no signals can reach the observer. (You don't need gravity for that, this is also the case in SR.) That does not mean a free-falling observer, who reaches the Schwarzschild radius (and also the singularity) in a finite time interval, would be in any way 'unphysical'. It just means that accelerated and geodetic observers disagree on the timing of events. Hope this helps. JocK (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Black Holes, BH, contains incorrect statements.
The article on Black Holes, BH, contains incorrect statements. I have unsuccessfully tried to correct the article. The issue is a basic misunderstanding of what science is.
A scientific theory is a mathematical system along with statements partially verified by observation and experiment. A mathematical system is a collection of arbitrary consistent statements. If we find an inconsistency, either the entire system is invalid or the particular equation is invalid. For example, setting x=90° leads to an inconsistency in tan x. We do not say that trigonometry is invalid, just that we cannot talk about tax x at x=90°. If the mathematics in not complete or inconsistent, we call it a hypothesis, not a theory. The experiments, on the other hand, do not have to agree 100%; indeed, full agreement is impossible.
Newton’s theory of gravitation, NG, is a valid theory. The mathematics is consistent, and agreement with observation is very good. General Relativity, GR, is also a valid theory. GR predicts that time on earth is slower than time on a satellite, and this is verified by observation. The concept of time being slower does not exist in NG, and cannot be discussed. Since the requirement of being a valid theory is only for partial agreement with observation, the observational fact of time being slower on earth does not mean that NG is not a valid theory.
A BH is a valid concept in GR. The mathematics is consistent, and observations agree with the theory. However, the notion of an inside to a BH, i.e., inside the event horizon, is not consistent mathematically. Several published works proved this, as I mentioned before. I will say more about this inconsistency below.
Currently, GR and quantum mechanics, QM, conflict. For almost a century people unsuccessfully tried to resolve this. The reason is that GR speaks about geometry, and QM about probable positions. The future theory that people hope will be developed will be called quantum relativity, QR. This will be an advance over GR, just as GR is an advance over NG. Just as GR must produce the results that have been verified by NG, QR will have to produce the results that have been verified by GR.
Susskind wrote about the inside of a BH. I know him, and respect his intelligence and questioning ability. Susskind’s point is that the inside of a BH can be discussed only within QR.
A reader suggested I go to a BH and see if I can enter to see the inside. Let us say that QR is developed as a valid theory, and the inside of a BH becomes a verifiable fact. Nevertheless, it is still true that the inside of a BH does not exist in GR (due, among other reasons, Susskind’s arguments), just as the verified slowing of time does not exist in NG.
We must remember that concepts in physics have meaning only within the framework of a theory. As we observe phenomena we do not understand, we try to use existing theories to explain the phenomena, or develop hypotheses that hopefully may blossom into theories.
Another thing that confuses people about science is how to deal with disagreements. Hawking, a world-renowned mathematician, wrote about the inside of a BH. Many textbooks on GR discuss the inside of a BH. When Susskind showed that the idea of the inside of a BH is full of contradictions, the popular attitude is to look at this as a disagreement, similar to the disagreements between politicians or different opinions people have. This attitude is not the correct scientific attitude. Science is a collection of theories, logical structures. We know that a theory can be invalidated by experiments. It can also be invalidated by demonstrating logical flaws. As soon as Susskind pointed out the flaws in Hawking’s thinking, Susskind became right and Hawking wrong, without the need for a higher judge to decide. Of course, someone can come along to defend Hawking’s ideas showing that Susskind is wrong, but this has not happened. As we speak, the notion of the inside of a BH is rife with contradictions, and so is not part of the theory of GR.
How do we know what is true? To simply rely upon experts is wrong. Experts said that the speed of light is different in different inertial systems, and were wrong. Einstein noted that the speed of light was a consequence of Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. Postulating that the laws of physics must be the same in all inertial systems leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is constant. [By the way, Einstein unfortunately stated that the constant speed of light is a postulate, when it really is a theorem, a proven conclusion. This confused many physicists.]
I tell my students they must understand themselves the material, and ask questions, not accepting things on faith. The basic principles must be clear. We can trust the detailed calculations and experiments, but must understand the principles.
Since there are mathematical and principled contradictions with the idea of a BH inside, we must drop this from GR. We ignore the solution of the point of view of the falling observer without rejecting GR.
The article about BH is wrong, as is discusses the inside of a BH as part of GR. If you wish to discuss the inside of a BH, then discuss it as part of speculative possible future ideas.
It is best to drop this idea and leave it as part of the history of science, along with the von Laue current, the Ether, and phlogiston. A high school teacher told me that he has to discuss phlogiston with his students for them to be able to understand the correct ideas about heat flow. The reason is that phlogiston is intuitive. In a similar fashion, the notion of the interior of a BH is intuitive but false.
:Arenoff, has it occurred to you that yourself and Lennie Susskind are the only two people around who are saying that Stephen Hawking is wrong? And of Susskind, one of the kinder comments I've read recently is unfortunately, he’s not the only seemingly smart, reputable physicist who seems to have taken leave of his senses the last few years…Blog, so should perhaps not be considered a reliable source. Struck through as an unwarranted slur on Susskind.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive shown you mine, now you show me yours. Either a major source like NASA or Caltech, or a physicist supporting your interpretation in a peer reviewed journal. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound incorrigibly 'flip', but if you have actually read your way through Lennie Susskind's argument, and understand the holographic principal, why on earth are you continuing to spout this rubbish about nothing ever being able to reach a black hole because time stops. Because (from my very limited grasp) Susskind's entire body of work was concerned with the effect that infalling and outgoing matter has on the event horizon - showing that information is not lost when an object falls into a black hole?
I read Susskind's works carefully.
Leave out the lectures and stop dumping unformatted text into the article, and keep going either here or on the talk page. There may be something that you are trying to say that actually does belong in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yourself and Lennie Susskind are the only two people around who are saying that Stephen Hawking is wrong
As I said, I felt my posts were becoming too flippant, and were not taking us any further. Stephen Hawking himself agreed he was wrong and paid up on the is information lost question, and there are no grounds on which to question Susskind's work on holographic principle. Hence my subsequent post - I honestly thing Aranoff believes that someone (Susskind or other) has said that it is impossible to reach a black hole, and that this is now the orthodox belief. I don't know why he believes this, as he has given no sources, just his strange essays.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FACT: Susskind's solution, the Holographic Principle, is based upon quantum mechanics. This is my point. Without QM, we cannot discuss the inside of a BH. If we use QM, then we are using a theory that has not been developed; we can only say it is a hypothesis.Aranoff (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aranoff, is this what you want the article to say - that the current hypothesis is that XYZ is the case, rather than sounding as if we know for a fact that black holes are full of say, cherry jam?? From the perspective of me (not an astrophysicist) the whole lot of it - black holes, superstrings, branes etc - all seems a bit hypothetical anyway. I was under the impression that very little of it is in any way testable with our current state of the art, let alone has been tested.
String theory has not been tested. Therefore it is not yet a theory of physics. Let us not confuse the issue. The subject is not string theory, but GR.Aranoff (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a discussion that could be had - does this article sound too much like we are advancing certainty, instead of presenting hypotheses. But where does 'a BH is an unapproachable object" fit in?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A BH is a fine object, valid in GR, both theoretically and verified by observation. My objection is talking about the inside, which I maintain is not a valid concept in BH. Maybe in the future. Not today. Leave the inside to speculation.
As we watch something falling in, we note that it takes forever to reach the event horizon. This is because of the time dilation caused by the mass. We can use this as a definition of BH: An object with mass so huge that nothing can reach it in a finite time. See any text on GR. Did I answer your question about an unapproachable object?Aranoff (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. The problem we have here is not with theoretical (or otherwise) astrophysics. It is wholly with the rules and policies of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia policy is that articles must not contain
None of the reliable sources either referenced in the article or that I have so far located define a black hole in the way that you do. All of the sources make reference to objects interacting with the event horizon (falling into a black hole). In short, the article is based on the current consensus view among all the sources that the editors have examined, and it does not match your view.
This makes your view original research, which is not [WP:V|verified]] by reference to reliable sources. As such, it cannot be included in this (or any other) Wikipedia article. The only way to have it included is to find other physicists out there who have actually defined a black hole in the way that you do, and point to their research (preferably in peer-reviewed journals).
As regards your point about the interiors of BHs, if the physicists cited in the existing references say that what they are advancing are theories (which I am sure they all do - no-one has ever reported back from the inside of a BH, after all), then it is acceptable to include them in the article if they are badged as theories. If you find any statements written as if they are fact, then it would be acceptable to alter the statement to clarify that it is a theoretical understanding. What we cannot do is leave it out - astrophysicists are madly speculating about what goes on inside a BH, and the article quite rightly features the consensus of leading theories.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you a number of references stating that it takes forever to reach the EV. Look at a standard text, such as Misner. This is within the guidelines.
Use your logic. Time on earth is slower. As mass increases, time slows, eventually stops.
Some published works say a BH cannot exist due to the time dilation.
Since one cannot reach the BH, neither can one discuss leaving, as the article incorrectly states.
Have you checked Misner or other texts on GR?
Susskind shows clearly in published works that the inside of a BH does not make sense without QM. My point is that an article on BH must not refer to QM, as there is no theory of QG.Aranoff (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you see, you haven't given me any references that support you. Every reference confirms that from the frame of reference of a distant observer time slows down to zero. However, every source also states that as the observer approaches the black hole, time speeds up until at the event horizon they are instantaneously sucked into the BH. No-one supports your conclusion that black holes cannot be approached. In fact, a number of projects look for BHs by seeking to identify the signatures of objects (I think mainly gases) that are being drawn into the BH.
"Black holes cannot exist" was a theory that had some acceptance some years ago. However, it is now viewed by the scientific consensus as a fringe theory - the consensus being that there is sufficient evidence that BH's actually do exist. That the hypotheses around how they exist and how they behave involves some handwaving about quantum gravity does not affect the fact that the consensus is as I have described it.
Wikipedia references the consensus (or, where there are branching main theories, it should refer to the acceptable theories of the day - I don't think superstrings are consensus, but they are certainly considered an acceptable theory by the scientific community).
As for Misner, Misner himself continued for years after the publication of Gravitation (in which he does not say that a bh cannot be approached), to continue to work with others on black holes, and the physics of objects falling into black holes. Unlike you, he does not seem to have espoused either a belief that bh's cannot be approached or a reluctance to speculate in the absence of a fully formed theory of quantum gravity. I think you may need to read a few more recent publications to understand how he overcame the "logic" that has caused you to take a misstep. The reading recommended here [1] may help - see also the notes about Gravitation being out of date (where Kerr bh's are concerned)Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two points that you did not address. One is the singularity, which means the solution is not valid, just as boundary conditions restrict wave solutions. A physical theory is based on mathematics, which is a collection of consistent statements. What type of math are you proposing that will allow solutions containing singularities? Remember, ALL paths entering the EV MUST reach the singularity. This proves all paths are not valid solutions.
Misner does agree with time dilation. For large enough mass, time slows to zero. No one disagrees with this. Do you?
What about Susskind? He criticizes the solutions of entering the EV, but resolves the issue by resorting to QM. My point is that without QM, the solutions are not valid. Again, we are discussing GR, not QR.Aranoff (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aranoff, I'm not talking about the physics here. I am talking about Wikipedia. You clearly feel that the entire scientific consensus is wrong. For all I know you are correct, but you cannot put that into a Wikipedia article as it is unverifiedoriginal research unless you can point to paragraphs of text by physicists that say the same words as you. As you say, Susskind resorts to QM, and the scientific consensus agrees with him that this is an acceptable approach. I can verify that statement. I can point to where other scientists are saying this is a potential answer to the conundrum.
Time may prove all of them to be wrong - I don't know. But Wikipedia rules say that it is acceptable to include Susskind, because reliable sources say that his interpretation is acceptable. Your ideas are not acceptable because no reliable sources support your interpretation. Don't say anything else to me about the physics. Just tell me whether you understand what I am saying about Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the RoadsSorry, but I simply do not understand you, as you contradict yourself and do not make any sense. Please try to explain yourself better. You said, "Susskind resorts to QM, and the scientific consensus agrees with him that this is an acceptable approach." We also know that there is no theory of QG. The only consensus scientists can have is for a hypothesis on the way to QG. This consensus approach does not belong in Wikipedia on an article on GR, which should restrict itself to the GR theory, that is, consistent mathematical statements. If we have to resort to QM, as does Susskind, then it is beyond the scope of a proper treatment of GR, and does not belong here.
I am not talking about the scientific consensus, but about GR, BY ITSELF WITHOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. Things that cannot be explained in GR without using GM MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE!
Susskind's interpretation is not acceptable, as it involves QM!
Time may prove them wrong?! C'mon. It will not happen, just as GR does not prove Newtonian gravitation, NG, wrong. NG is a valid consistent theory of physics. GR is more accurate. GR will not be proven wrong, even if QG comes along. Your problem is that you do not understand what one means by a scientific theory.
In an article about NG, there is no room for discussions about time dilation, except to comment that another theory, GR, deals with it. Likewise, in an article about GR, there is no room for discussions about crossing the EV, except to mention that scientists are working on a new theory and have preliminary ideas such as Susskind's ideas.
Wikipedia must discuss scientific theories in a consistent fashion. It must discuss the basic postulates and conclusions. It may mention phenomena that the theory does not explain, but must be careful to state that these phenomena lie outside the scope of the theory.
A theory is a logical consistent framework. No theory explains everything. What we can definitely state is that since all timelines crossing the EV meet at the singularity, these timelines cannot be considered solutions of the equations of GR, just as we employ causality to eliminate advanced solutions.
Physics includes more than theories. It also includes hypotheses, attempts to explain phenomena that theories do not explain. Look at the years preceeding special relativity. People suggested all types of things. These were part of physics, but not part of physical theory. At that time, the only theory we had was Maxwell's Equations.
Yes, if scientists believe in crossing the EV, then it is part of physics. But it is not part of the theory GR, and so does not belong in a Wikipedia article on the theory of GR.
You want to have another section devoted to speculative extensions of GR? Wonderful. Go for it. But do not confuse speculation, partially developed theories like Susskind's with the formal, established theory of GR.
Let us say QR becomes an established theory, and Susskind's arguments part of it. Let's say that in QR we can meaningfully state that one can cross the EV. Crossing the EV still does not belong in an article in Wikipedia on GR! At that future time, we will have to write an article on QR. In the article on GR we can link to the QR article.
Again, QM and GR are conflicting theories, and, as of today, one cannot talk about GR and QM simultaneously.
Well at least we have quantified the problem (sorry, bad joke)
The only consensus scientists can have is for a hypothesis on the way to QG. This consensus approach does not belong in Wikipedia on an article on GR, which should restrict itself to the GR theory, that is, consistent mathematical statements. WRONG. Wikipedia confines itself to reproducing information in secondary sources which have reliable status - ie what they say is considered by Wikipedia to be likely to be correct. Wikipedia articles do not make a judgement on whether or not it is correct.
I am not talking about the scientific consensus, but about GR, BY ITSELF WITHOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. Things that cannot be explained in GR without using GM MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE! WRONG. If the scientific consensus believes the tooth fairy makes black holes, Wikipedia will have an article on how the tooth fairy makes black holes.
"Susskind's interpretation is not acceptable, as it involves QM! WRONG. Susskind's interpretation is accepted as a valid theory by the scientific consensus therefore it belongs in Wikipedia.
Your problem is that you do not understand what one means by a scientific theory. WRONG. Your problem is that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Have you read yet any of the policies I referred you to earlier?
there is no room for discussions about WRONG. Topics are normally constructed along the lines of topics already published in reliable secondary sources. This implies that there is already a level of synthesis - along the lines of the way an article about Michael Jackson's death could be expected to have info about his life. In this case, the article is not about NG, QM, GR or the CIA, it is about black holes, so it contains a general overview of all the theories relating to black holes.
Wikipedia must discuss scientific theories in a consistent fashion. It must discuss the basic postulates and conclusions. It may mention phenomena that the theory does not explain, but must be careful to state that these phenomena lie outside the scope of the theory. WRONG. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to discuss scientific theories. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a synthesis of the current state of knowledge, or of the consensus of acceptable theories where knowledge eludes us.
does not belong in a Wikipedia article on the theory of GR. WRONG. This is not an article on the theory of general relativity. This is an article on the phenomenon of black holes, and as such it contains all the scientific theory, hypotheses, observations and other collateral from reliable sources on the subject of black holes.
QM and GR are conflicting theories, and, as of today, one cannot talk about GR and QM simultaneously.' WRONG. If reputed scientists are delivering papers on the subject, and reputable journals are writing about it, Wikipedia will - nay, must - include it.
Are you getting it yet. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. Please read WP:OR and WP:V and consider how you can make a contribution while abiding by these policies, because contributions that you make which do not comply with these policies will be reverted, and persistence on your part may lead to an unfortunate encounter with an administrator.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remove your nonsense again, because of WP:3RR. Nonetheless, it is nonsense in that article. Would you please put it back the way it was, and discuss the matter properly on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Black hole. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Black hole. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. t'shaélchat 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
