First pic of a black hole?

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,334
Funny, the first thing I noticed was the asymmetry, and it's cause was detailed in the article.

If I understand correctly, the bottom, bright edge is rotating toward us, and the top, faint, edge is rotating away. Therefore, the wavelengths emanating from the lower edge are shorter than those on the top.

Agreed?

Oh...and as a side point: the "space" near the event horizon is actually being dragged around the black hole -- this is a necessary solution to the relativistic mechanics of a rotating black hole.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,334
From the above article:

"The black hole is not the event horizon, it’s something inside. It could be something just inside the event horizon, an exotic object hovering just beneath the surface, or it could be a singularity at the centre … or a ring,” said Younsi. “It doesn’t yet give us an explanation of what’s going on inside.”
I don't believe a singularity exists. Rather, all the matter that comprises the black hole (and its entire history) resides on a two dimensional sheet that defines the surface of the event horizon (from the point-of-view of an outside observer).

My argument is that enough time has yet to pass for infalling matter to broach the event horizon. In fact, enough time will never pass.

This also implies that -- relative to matter contained in this sheet -- space within the confines of the sheet is infinite. In other words, as one approaches the horizon, the 2D sheet, relative to the traveler, appears to inflate into infinite space. It matters not how far he falls -- nor for how much time. He never escapes the sheet.

Buckaroo Bonzi said it best: "No matter where you go, there you are."
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,790
It matters not how far he falls -- nor for how much time. He never escapes the sheet.
That's true from our (outside observers) frame of reference. But for the person that's falling, nothing changes (assuming that person survives) as he/she goes through the event horizon. Although one could argue that the gravitational difference between his feet and head would be so large that relativity would manifest itself with very strong temporal effects between the two.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,334
That's true from our (outside observers) frame of reference. But for the person that's falling, nothing changes (assuming that person survives) as he/she goes through the event horizon. Although one could argue that the gravitational difference between his feet and head would be so large that relativity would manifest itself with very strong temporal effects between the two.
I cannot tell if you are agreeing with me, or if you are arguing in favor of a singularity. It makes no matter: neither of us -- nor any one else -- will ever observe anything beyond the horizon. And since the math breaks down, it's difficult to theorize with any certainty what the interior of an event horizon contains.

That one would not survive his travels is completely irrelevant, in the same way that one trying to prove gravity by jumping off a tall building would not be able to report his results back to us. We can still observe the external effects and theorize, though.

Assuming his survival, I agree not much would change from his point of view (which actually is at odds with the singularity hypothesis -- he'd crash into the singularity in microseconds). His local space would gradually inflate, and he'd continue to fall indefinitely. He'd have -- in a maybe not so unrealistic sense -- a universe to himself, and his native universe would evaporate from his existence -- or at least grow away from him beyond his reach.

I like my theory: It doesn't require any new math and relativity remains unscathed. The math doesn't matter beyond the horizon as there is no "beyond the horizon" and no math required to describe it.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,790
The math doesn't matter beyond the horizon as there is no "beyond the horizon".
That's probably the only point where we might disagree. You don't believe there's a singularity, while I believe there might be. But this has nothing to do with beliefs, right? ... either way, you're absolutely right that since the math breaks beyond the event horizon, the discussion becomes moot...

Question, why do you believe there is no singularity?
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,334
Question, why do you believe there is no singularity?
I will answer your question when I have more time later tonight or tomorrow, but in the mean time:

...while I believe there might be.
I wish you would rephrase this to "...while I believe there is." This puts us in a better place from which to argue our points, and requires a bit of "courage of conviction".
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,790
I wish you would rephrase this to "...while I believe there is." This puts us in a better place from which to argue our points, and requires a bit of "courage of conviction".
To make my point clear, the only reason I believe there is, is because other scholars seem to agree. I declare myself a neophyte regarding this subject, but I'm quite fascinated by it.... and as for the difference between I think there is vs there might be ... well... it's too subtle for me to tell ... remember, we're not using my mother language here ... ;)
 
Top