At the center of a black hole is it the same time as the moment of its formation?

[KrazyHorse]

Forgot about him. But he doesn't do physics any more. IIRC he's working in a lab in another discipline (I think he does crystallography, but I'm not sure).

[Ben Kenobi]

b) They haven't had time to fall through yet. In fact, from any sane perspective it's hard to explain how a black hole can form in finite external time. AFAIK it's possible that there are no black holes. Only objects which are almost black holes.

I thought this part was well understood. You compress the star under the chandrasekhar limit and the star collapses under the weight of it's own gravity. I presume how we would see it if we were looking at the outside, is simply that the core would vanish. Of course, it's not like we could actually percieve it since we would instead see the outer layers of the star pushed away by the collapse.

As for falling through, you mean into the center of the singularity? The time dilation thing only applies to the event horizon, beyond that once you are inside all bets are off.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I thought this part was well understood. You compress the star under the chandrasekhar limit and the star collapses under the weight of it's own gravity. I presume how we would see it if we were looking at the outside, is simply that the core would vanish.

Except that it ought to take infinitely long for the singularity itself to form, from our reference frame. At least, that's my understanding of the paradox.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
BTW, there is at least one other real physicist still around (Jon Miller; he does nuke stuff). There used to be another dude in HE theory (Rogan Josh) but I haven't seen him in ages.

I was never to sure about RJ. He subscribed to the belief that only intelligent observers (i.e. People) caused wavefunction collapse.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

As for falling through, you mean into the center of the singularity? The time dilation thing only applies to the event horizon, beyond that once you are inside all bets are off.

No, I mean into the event horizon. Solve for a radial plunge to Schwarzchild limit. You get infinite time for any reasonable outside observer.

Did you even get to GR, dude?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I was never to sure about RJ. He subscribed to the belief that only intelligent observers (i.e. People) caused wavefunction collapse.

That's strange. Seems pretty easy to disprove. Record a double-slit experiment on videotape, then watch it. I guess you could claim that the videotape itself doesn't change until you look at it, but it seems sort of a pointless distinction to me. Why elevate human memory over physical evidence?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I thought this part was well understood. You compress the star under the chandrasekhar limit and the star collapses under the weight of it's own gravity. I presume how we would see it if we were looking at the outside, is simply that the core would vanish. Of course, it's not like we could actually percieve it since we would instead see the outer layers of the star pushed away by the collapse.

Why are you bringing stars into it?

The point is that for anything to actually enter the Schwarzchild radius takes an infinite amount of time. Doesn't matter what the mechanism is.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure about whether adding angular momentum and then braking (via radiation, say) could somehow solve this.

I'm not a gravitation specialist...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I was never to sure about RJ. He subscribed to the belief that only intelligent observers (i.e. People) caused wavefunction collapse.

I was reading a reference to some physicist thinking that (the physicist not being RJ and being in Maryland). Non-physicists seem to get excited by that idea. In the physicists community it is obviously not as exciting, but I don't think it is enough to lose your credentials.

JM

[LordShiva]

There's somebody called "Rogan Josh?"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I was reading a reference to some physicist thinking that (the physicist not being RJ and being in Maryland). Non-physicists seem to get excited by that idea. In the physicists community it is obviously not as exciting, but I don't think it is enough to lose your credentials.

It sounds impossible to prove or disprove, if you extend the logic far enough.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah. He was a nice enough guy. He worked at CERN the last time I checked.

Actually, wasn't he Scottish?

I just realized I may have met him (assuming he's the age range I thought he was) last summer and not realized it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It sounds impossible to prove or disprove, if you extend the logic far enough.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that it ought to take infinitely long for the singularity itself to form, from our reference frame. At least, that's my understanding of the paradox.

Why?

Space isn't warped until the singularity forms. The only reason it takes an infinite amount of time is because of how the gravity warps the space around the singularity to the limit of infinity.

[KrazyHorse]

Honestly, how many Scottish HE theorists in their 30s working at CERN can there be?