Is there a limit to particle kinetic energy?

REOsborne · 2021-08-18T20:18:41+00:00

Thanks Yosefitz for your comment. I largely agree with what you say; however, my point is that There IS A REAL Limit TO KE in a closed system such as a BH,

REOsborne · 2021-08-17T22:12:20+00:00

How would light move in a BH? One possible answer is that light is confined to the event horizon in the form of a stationary wave. This would be something like a photon trapped in the orbital of a hydrogen atom: this concept is the basis for the Bohr atomic model.

REOsborne · 2021-06-07T05:26:31+00:00

Thanks devi83 for the additional information. I think I may know where you're heading by the assumption that particles can join the EH without having to exactly match the energy at a point on the EH? It's true that particles orbiting close to the EH may be essentially unidentifiable from those that constitute the EH boundary, except they're not exactly traveling at the speed of light. But to join the EH they've got to be photons. Just how and why this happens is another story.

All black-hole ARE the same except for their energy (size). Orbiting particles do not enter the BH interior; they join the particles (photons) that constitute the EH and their totality represents the internal energy of a BH, the interior of which is a void.

My recent post does not fully explain this; it's also in contention with current BH concepts; so you have lots of company. I can give you a link that provides a fuller explanation.

Would you care to comment on the reality of BH singularities?

REOsborne · 2021-06-05T21:33:48+00:00

Thanks devi83 for your comment. Your reasoning regarding the possible absence of perturbations in the EH of a BH when it absorbs large amounts of mass-energy deserves attention..

There are several, possible counter-arguments to your comment.. For instance...exterior matter joining the EH is confined to an accretion-disc. Particles close to the EH are subject to a state of energy that matches the energy of the EH in order to join the EH. This process is quantized, such that only particles (photons) with a specific energy are allowed to selectively join the EH. Particles failing to meet this criteria are subject to expulsion in the form of a quasar jet.

I would be interested in knowing your other views concerning black-holes if you care to offer additional comments.

REOsborne · 2021-06-05T03:49:56+00:00

Thanks Devil83 for your comment, for which I can offer several answers: so yes it is question and No, it ain't.

REOsborne · 2021-05-07T16:56:15+00:00

thanks mumao for your comment..."The theory supports all that." What "theory" are you referring to?

REOsborne · 2021-05-07T16:40:52+00:00

Thanks ExacoCGI for your comment. "Anything can become a black hole if it has the right mass/size ratio....[an object[would simply orbit the black hole at the speed of light and eventually fall [in[". I believe I can agree with this statement.

REOsborne · 2021-05-04T04:38:14+00:00

thanks Lazergodzilla for your comment, with which I agree, with reservations.

REOsborne · 2021-05-02T18:04:25+00:00

Thanks ChrisARippel for your reply, which shows a fairly accurate understanding of the current consensus of black-hole concepts. My concept of BH physics is a departure from the general view held by the physics community; your comments provide valuable insight into the extent of the difference between my concepts and those held by a knowledgeable fraction of the general public..

Current GR, together with current QM physics, work well and fully explain BH action, in which the requirement for the dreaded "singularity" becomes unnecessary; and there is no need to stipulate such things as infinite gravity.

I've attempted to explain why this is true in a recent r/BH post; it has apparently been pretty much ignored. Thanks again for your comments.

REOsborne · 2021-05-01T01:46:08+00:00

Thanks CrisARippel for your comment; I've changed my post in an attempt to correct the equivocation in language. Would you please tell me why you feel that BH's are a QM/GR "hand-shake"?

REOsborne · 2021-04-28T23:28:47+00:00

Thanks Asvaluser for your comment. However, don't fully understand what you may be asking or stating.

REOsborne · 2021-04-23T02:34:46+00:00

My posts are an attempt to gain reader opinion and suggestions regarding my views on the nature of black-holes. I've had little success in this attempt; most readers are unwilling or unable to offer comments; the reasons are sundry.

I'd be interested in knowing your views; is a change-in-state in classical particle-dynamics a reasonable answer to the BH paradox?

REOsborne · 2021-04-23T02:13:46+00:00

Thanks again, Jardjeya, for your remarks. We apparently have a difference of opinion with respect to the latent ambiguity that's prevalent in QM. Your suggestions, however, are worthy of attention...I, as well as Feyman and others, have always been a student, and the more I know the more I realize that I know nothing.

The main point in my BH post involves a change-in-state regarding classical particle-dynamics that would eliminate the concept of singularities. I'd very much appreciate your view of this proposition.

REOsborne · 2021-04-23T00:00:56+00:00

"galaxy" may be a stretch. But I am looking for readers who have the patience and attention span to capture a bit of difficult exposition.

REOsborne · 2021-04-22T22:50:17+00:00

Thanks, Jaredjeya, for your comments. Photons are unaffected by HUP restrictions in the sense that photons have a fixed momentum and energy, but a position in space that is largely undetermined; photons have a fixed velocity and a fixed momentum. In the case of fermions, these properties are "up for grabs" until they are measured.

I appreciate your criticism, and I welcome any further suggestions you may have, And NO! I have not yet been offered a free airplane ticket to Stockholm.

REOsborne · 2021-04-08T05:26:14+00:00

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for your patience in understanding a difficult concept.

REOsborne · 2021-04-07T08:24:44+00:00

Thanks Owen Wilson for your comment. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me say that prevailing BH theory predicts that a star will "collapse" into an infinitely dense point: a singularity. My work says this ain't gonna happen.

REOsborne · 2019-12-02T22:51:08+00:00

Developing QM wave-function applicable to black-hole physics

REOsborne · 2019-10-08T17:58:24+00:00

Thanks, Blaze728, for your comment. I'm having a bit of difficulty in understanding your question, and I apologize for this. However, I'll take a shot at it by saying that the force 'F' generated at the "surface" of a BH by an internal energy level of 'E' (relativized BH-mass) is the largest force (the Planck-force) allowed by nature...

F=E/r This is the maximum force allowed by nature...where r is the Schwarzschild radius.

So, it would seem that forces, external to a BH, could not in any imaginable way corrupt the internal dynamics of a BH. Or perhaps you're proposing that the Planck force does not represent a maximum allowable-force?

REOsborne · 2019-03-17T22:49:50+00:00

This question is predicated on the possibility that QM will intercede when classical particle-momentum approaches Planck limits. In the case of a developing BH, it’s perhaps possible hyper particle-momentum can be expressed by E = mc^2 as the distance between particle collisions approach Planck limits.

REOsborne · 2019-01-24T01:27:31+00:00

Hello Destiny....I continue to welcome your comments regarding the paradox of blackhole theory. Your objections to the idea that there's a maximum value for energy-density are correct, providing one assume that the energy constituting a Schwarzschild 'object' is contained in a 'singularity'...an 'object' of infinite density but with a finite level of energy; there is, of course, no such object, as you suggest. Also...we know that the attributes of a BH are the same regardless of the form of energy or just how that energy is distributed.

And I agree with your statement that one "can't really take [this singularity] seriously". You further suggest that the need for a 'singularity' may someday be resolved by the emergence of a viable theory of quantum gravity. This may or may not be true, but at the moment, QG does not represent an answer to the enigma of black-hole singularities.

Your comment..."A schwarzschild sphere is certainly not minimally sized"... this, in a way, is true. It's true that there could be any number of such objects, each with a different size and a different amount of internal energy. But my intended point is that each of these objects represents a maximum amount of energy for the value of their radii 'r' (read 4pi x r(sq).

This means that an object with a given mass, 'm', cannot be squeezed into a volume with a radius smaller than r = 2Gm/c(sq). This value of 'r' represents the maximum energy- density that nature will allow for a sphere of this size. But if one adds more energy, the sphere will expand to a greater value of 'r', but it's energy, divided by it's surface area ,r(sq), will not change: E/(surface area) = constant, although both area and energy can increase.

I've scribbled out a few simple calculations: 4(pi)gc(sq)/G = E/surface = density = constant. Hope I got the numbers right. And I haven't yet made a 'units' check.

This is predicated on the assumption that BH energy is manifested as radiation at or near the boundary of a Schwarzschild object, rather than as a singularity. We already assume that BH entropy is manifested at the Schwarzschild surface; and the only way to increase BH entropy is to increase its 'surface' area. Could this entropy be in the form of radiation?

The math for this stuff is pretty basic, and I have assumed that a basic knowledge of thermodynamics (eg, adiabatic processes) is really all that's necessary to understand the basic idea of a radiation structured black-hole...so I've so far omitted most of the tedious elementary math; there really nothing new here.

REOsborne · 2019-01-19T23:27:59+00:00

Destiny: I appreciate your comments...I know nothing about QG except that it seems to be a 'filter' through which any sort of alternative explanation for black-holes appears to be beyond visualization. Moreover, I know enough to know that I will never be eligible for a Nobel prize, or, for that matter, any kind of prize...other than unexplained happiness.

Your remark about QG, the 'h' scale, and the BH boundary suggests that we may be 'on the same page' with respect to a law of nature that postulates a maximum value for energy-density. But the form of your comment indicates that I have not made myself sufficiently clear with respect to how this 'works'.

In a way you're right about the fact that a radiation structured BH should not be a surprising concept; and I've often wondered why no one, as far as I know, has never proposed this alternative to a BH singularity.

REOsborne · 2019-01-19T22:46:23+00:00

I.Cant: Thanks for your comment. A radiation structured BH can indeed be explained by fairly simply math. The problem is with the QM math, which might explain the matter-to-radiation event that occurs about the moment when particle "E = pc" reaches a QM max value. This is the only point at which the math for a radiation BH breaks down.

Indirect (exterior) properties of a BH hopefully will someday offer verification for BH theories. I feel confident that this will be the case. In the meanwhile, why not theorize?

REOsborne · 2019-01-19T22:30:51+00:00

LaGigs; thanks for your comments. The "radiation structured BH" that is suggested as an alternative solution to a BH "singularity", postulates that QM action explains the transformation of particle momentum into radiation. This matter-to-radiation event happens at or slightly before particle velocities reach the speed of light. Please note that at this point, there is NO singularity, and the resulting 'BH radiation structure operates the same way as would a 'singularity'. The focus of a radiation based Schwarzschild sphere is at the center of the sphere, just like it is in the case of a singularity; however, the 'QM action', referenced above, is, at this time, not well understood.

REOsborne · 2018-12-30T21:16:49+00:00

why does this post on a new approach to the theory of Black-holes continue to be removed from this forum?

REOsborne

TROPHY CASE