Reply To: Physics Nobel to Big Bangers

[mchargue]

tensordyne wrote:

Finally, what you are interested in. Since light can always escape any gravitating system no matter how strong it is as long as the system does not create an event horizon (this is proveable too), and the system I have has no event-horizons (or worse, singularities), what does happen when gravity just keeps crushing down on some huge mass? Well, from Particle Physics we know that the probability for the particles to start colliding, creating huge sprays of new particles, becomes much greater. A fair fraction of the possible interactions though involves creating Bosons. The bosons will escape the pull of the gravity due to the hyperbolic nature of even curved space-time and so while nothing halts the collapse what-so-ever (some other force or something) the material itself that allows the collapse fizzles away in the form of massless but highly energetic particles. People talk about BH evaporation and I say BH’s do not exist, so what does happen then? Simple (in a complex sense), you get Fermion evaporation. Matter particles (Fermions) rapidly collide trying to create bosons to releave the stress of gravity and by the laws of physics they are always guaranteed to succeed. So, large masses that are undergoing unrestrained gravitational collapse eventually enter a stage I call Matter Evaporation. It is somewhat similar to evaporation too in the real world. It is at the interface (the current surface of the sphere) that I would expect the “phase-transition” to occur. Matter there would allow light to escape, thus reducing the strain of gravity on the system. Eventually, depending on how the physics works out, you might get a Fermionic Condensate or just have the matter all blow apart, I really can not say for sure, but those two possibilities seem the most logical ending points given what the solid physics is that is currently known about the subject.

The idea that particles in a deep gravity well collide & recombine into other particles – I can understand that. The idea that they recombine to create particles (bosons) that fly off as a means to bleed mass off of the object, that I have a problem with.

If that were true, it should place an upper limit on the density/mass of any high-mass object. Because, as the mass of the object increases, then so should the likelihood of the creation of this boson. Because of this, the mass of the object would then be limited by this mechanism, and that all BH objects would exhibit the same maximum mass.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by observation.

As I understand the math, the creation of a BH occurs at something far less that the observed mass that is at the center of our galaxy. If the mechanism you proposed operated, then this should not have occurred; the mass would have long ago been stopped-out through the production of bosons millions of solar masses ago.

As regards ‘evaporation’ of BH envisioned by Stephen Hawking, the mechanism that creates this evaporation is not the same as mass exiting the BH across the event horizon. Rather, it’s an additive mechanism where anti-matter (anti-mass, if you will) from outside the event horizon of the BH falls into the BH, and cancels out mass inside the BH.

The anti-particle is created as part of a pair of particles; a particle and anti-particle matched set, as it were. When the anti-particle falls into the BH, and its ,matching particle does not, then there is a net loss of matter in the BH behind the event horizon.

As regards the distant observer’s clock, and the idea that time stops as the in-falling object approaches th event horizon of a BH – I’ve got problems with that, too.

Pat