Indian physicist vindicated in black hole controversy
LEJ Brouwer
appears that even
Stephen Hawking has admitted that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute
sense":
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/800815.cms
I am very glad to see that Abhas Mitra is sticking to his guns on this
important issue.
- Sabbir
Bill Hobba
"LEJ Brouwer" <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zvUQc.81098$vX4....@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
Also I get a little miffed by statements like the following:
'Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, was
perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly
challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the
modern-day Einstein.'
Hawking is a first rate scientist who has done and is probably continuing to
do first rate work. But an Einstein he is not. Many would argue living
scientists like Witten and Weinberg have a greater claim to that title and
certainly when Feynman was alive he also has claims to that mantle. Of
course it is doubtful that Hawking is the one perpetrating it and I know I
am not the first to mention it as a beat up of the media..
Thanks
Bill
Daniel Weston
stateside work is being outsourced to India, or their mathematicians and
physicists are imported. May Vishnu take mercy on our souls.
Bill Hobba
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2798-411...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
> India produces first class mathematicians and physicists. More and more
> stateside work is being outsourced to India, or their mathematicians and
> physicists are imported. May Vishnu take mercy on our souls.
Why? India has always produced some first class mathematicians and
physicists eg the mathematical magician Ramanujan and the physicists Bose
and Chandrasekhar. I seem to recall Feynman was quite taken aback at the
suggestion they had not produced any great physicists and cited Abdus Salam
as a person he greatly admired and learnt something from every time attended
a talk of his. Just because they have not produced someone that most
physicists would rate in the top ten of all time (say Einstein or Newton)
does not mean they have not produces great mathematicians and physics - they
have.
Thanks
Bill
ueb
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/800815.cms
> - Sabbir
There is evidence for the existence of objects with extreme gravitation
that may lead to an event horizon. I agree with Mitra that such objects
would not follow the known idealized solutions. My simulations reveal
another kind of solutions, in which the idealized solutions may be
good for initial conditions. - Why does Mitra ignore the more realistic
solutions, which already let see particles ?
Ulrich
Australopithecus Afarensis
> physicists eg the mathematical magician Ramanujan and the physicists Bose
> and Chandrasekhar. I seem to recall Feynman was quite taken aback at the
> suggestion they had not produced any great physicists and cited Abdus
Salam
> as a person he greatly admired and learnt something from every time
attended
> a talk of his. Just because they have not produced someone that most
> physicists would rate in the top ten of all time (say Einstein or Newton)
> does not mean they have not produces great mathematicians and physics -
they
> have.
That is because Indian physicists do not shamefully try to take credit for
other's work. For example, when Bose was desperate looking to publish his
paper, he came to Einstein. Einstein only agreed to publish Bose's paper on
the condition that Einstein was also the co-author. Thus, we have
Bose-Einstein Condensation.
Before that, we had
** Lorentz-Einstein Transform
** Einstein-Poincare Special Relativity
** Planck-Einstein Black Body Radiation
** Boltzmann-Einstein Kinematics for ideal gas
** Einstein-Grossmann-Hilbert General Relativity
And the list goes on. Have we noticed a trend here?
Australopithecus Afarensis
> popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we
call
> black holes is very strong.
Oh, really! Black holes are not directly observable!
> Hawking is a first rate scientist who has done and is probably continuing
to
> do first rate work. But an Einstein he is not. Many would argue living
> scientists like Witten and Weinberg have a greater claim to that title and
> certainly when Feynman was alive he also has claims to that mantle. Of
> course it is doubtful that Hawking is the one perpetrating it and I know I
> am not the first to mention it as a beat up of the media..
So, Einstein is a god, and General Relativity is a religion.
Bill Hobba
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6X%Qc.35786$sh.12972@fed1read06...
> > Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in
the
> > popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we
> call
> > black holes is very strong.
>
> Oh, really! Black holes are not directly observable!
Oh really - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm
>
> > Hawking is a first rate scientist who has done and is probably
continuing
> to
> > do first rate work. But an Einstein he is not. Many would argue living
> > scientists like Witten and Weinberg have a greater claim to that title
and
> > certainly when Feynman was alive he also has claims to that mantle. Of
> > course it is doubtful that Hawking is the one perpetrating it and I know
I
> > am not the first to mention it as a beat up of the media..
>
> So, Einstein is a god, and General Relativity is a religion.
No - you are just a peanut brain.
Bill
LEJ Brouwer
news:2798-411...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
> stateside work is being outsourced to India, or their mathematicians and
> physicists are imported. May Vishnu take mercy on our souls.
For some reason, I am unable to see Bill Hobba's messages (or my own) on
my newsreader. Nevertheless, this is really a response to Bill.
>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise. I would
refer you to the lengthy but interesting discussion which took place on
this matter on this newsgroup in the past (see the thread 'Academic
censorship
on sci.physics.research?):
>Also I get a little miffed by statements like the following:
>
>'Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, was
>perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly
>challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the
>modern-day Einstein.'
Well, the article was written by a journalist, not a physicist, and it is
an Indian newspaper besides, so we know whose side they are on. Having said
that, I have known Abhas Mitra for some time, and on this matter I think he
is dead right. I also know that he has made Stephen Hawking aware of his
paper, and has asked him to respond on a number of occasions, but received
no response from him.
>Hawking is a first rate scientist who has done and is probably continuing
to
>do first rate work. But an Einstein he is not. Many would argue living
>scientists like Witten and Weinberg have a greater claim to that title and
>certainly when Feynman was alive he also has claims to that mantle. Of
>course it is doubtful that Hawking is the one perpetrating it and I know I
>am not the first to mention it as a beat up of the media..
I agree with you completely about Hawking. On the other hand, I have
supported Abhas Mitra right from the start on this matter, simply because
his
mathematics is correct, and from my numerous interactions with him I have
found
him to be an extremely admirable character indeed.
I would not be at all surprised if Stephen Hawking read Mitra's paper, found
know flaws in it, used Mitra's results without referencing him to produce
his
'own' solution to the information paradox, which he then presented at the
Dublin conference. Knowing that he was aware of Mitra's work, and given that
Mitra had already stated much the same solution to the information paradox
in
the past (i.e. black holes do not actually ever form), I feel that it is
very possible
that Hawking is plagiarising Mitra's work and trying to pass it off as his
own.
Even if he is not, and came to his conclusions independently, Mitra was
already
there well before him.
- Sabbir.
LEJ Brouwer
news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise. I would
refer you to the lengthy but interesting discussion which took place on
this matter on this newsgroup in the past (see the thread 'Academic
censorship on sci.physics.research?):
>Also I get a little miffed by statements like the following:
>
>'Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, was
>perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly
>challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the
>modern-day Einstein.'
Well, the article was written by a journalist, not a physicist, and it is
an Indian newspaper besides, so we know whose side they are on. Having said
that, I have known Abhas Mitra for some time, and on this matter I think he
is dead right. I also know that he has made Stephen Hawking aware of his
paper, and has asked him to respond on a number of occasions, but received
no response from him.
>Hawking is a first rate scientist who has done and is probably continuing
to
>do first rate work. But an Einstein he is not. Many would argue living
>scientists like Witten and Weinberg have a greater claim to that title and
>certainly when Feynman was alive he also has claims to that mantle. Of
>course it is doubtful that Hawking is the one perpetrating it and I know I
>am not the first to mention it as a beat up of the media..
I agree with you completely about Hawking. On the other hand, I have
supported Abhas Mitra right from the start on this matter, simply because
his mathematics is correct, and from my numerous interactions with him I
have
found him to be an extremely admirable character indeed.
I would not be at all surprised if Stephen Hawking read Mitra's paper, found
know flaws in it, used Mitra's results without referencing him to produce
his 'own' solution to the information paradox, which he then presented at
the
Dublin conference. Knowing that he was aware of Mitra's work, and given that
Mitra had already stated much the same solution to the information paradox
in the past (i.e. black holes do not actually ever form), I feel that it is
very possible that Hawking is plagiarising Mitra's work and trying to pass
it off as his
own. (Someone has mentioned that Einstein may have been similarly
opportunistic
in the past - I don't know much about that, but I certainly would not put it
past
Hawking).
And even if he is not, and came to his conclusions independently, Mitra was
Androcles
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2798-411...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
| stateside work is being outsourced to India, or their mathematicians and
| physicists are imported. May Vishnu take mercy on our souls.
Why this ethnic slant? Is there some relevance to it? Is there something
about a political boundary within which a person is born that makes one
mathematician different from another?
Since the population of India is about 4 times greater that the population
of the USA, it can hardly be surprising that there would be four times as
many mathematicians. Maybe Indians don't compete for scholarships by playing
with a ball...
Androcles
Daniel Weston
are being shipped overseas. I understand all the humanitarian benefits
to be had when the emerging (backward) economies have wages brought up
and ours brought down so that all Indians, and all Chinese, and all
South America, all make the same identical wage. For the US citizens
and those of GB, the transition phase will be one very long transition
phase of recession and decreasing standard of living. I think that is
wonderfully humanitarian so long as it does not effect my income. Those
in Bangladesh might have to wait 1 or 2 years extra. BTW, an Indian
computer programmer can be had for 1/3 the cost of a stateside
programmer. That is great for me but sad for the people I know that are
being laid off by HP thereby necessitating them to work in fast food
joints at half the previous income. I also think it is OK for all the
Indians and Mexicans who want our welfare to move to GB and US. Our
citizens' welfare will go down radically, but that bad feeling will be
assuaged by the increased happiness of new welfare recipients from all
the backward countries. Glory be.
Zachary Uram
Hallo Ulrich,
Do you have a website?
Zach
LEJ Brouwer
Will he admit where he got his ideas from?
Or will he try to take all the credit for himself in the hope that noone
will notice?
Australopithecus Afarensis
A lot of theories predict an event horizon of some sort. Although some
theories do interpret event horizon as existnece of black holes, event
horizon does not necessarily mean existence of black holes in general.
Australopithecus Afarensis
more like 8:1 for engineering and software development, 4:1 for blue collar
production work. With the rapid de-industrialization of the US, the only
high paying jobs are services. With services, you really don't need a good
education. It is very interesting to see if a strong economy can be
sustained with only service industry. I have a feeling that in two
generations, the US would be a third world country.
The question now is why the government allows this to happen. The answer is
to promote an under-educated mass. Ever since the internet opened up
closets to allow all skeletons to tell their sides of stories, intellectual
ideas flourished. One such finding does indicate our government is actually
supervised by a small group of elite spanning international communities.
With an educated and financially more independent middle class, it is rather
difficult for this elite group to control it and maintain power. Thus, by
destroying the economic base of the middle class, the middle class (or going
to be lack of it) have to spend more time and less sophisticated jobs to
feed their families. The educational base will suffer despite the extend of
internet. There are a lot of good information and analysis out there.
However, there are also piles of mis-information and misleading analysis
which an educated person with a logical and analytical educational
background can easily make use of the good and discard the useless
materials. Although the job loss started in the mid 70's to the far east,
these were blue collar jobs which do not require a lot of education to
fulfill. However, the current trend of job loss is alarming. They are
white collar jobs which need a higher educational background to achieve.With
dumbing down of educational system, it becomes very difficult for the mass
to determine what is useful and what is BS. The mass becomes easier to
control.
You may argue all these transitions are normal and based on capitalism. If
capitalism is thoroughly executed, there are just too many benefits to speak
out for capitalism. However, if the rules imposed on the development of
capitalism only applied to one nation and not others, it is not capitalism
any more but a form of socialist planning. For example, if Indian companies
don't care about their environment nor benefits of their workers, it would
be silly to allow the US to compete against India. Another example is if
the Chinese utilize slave labor for their international economic
competition, it is rather unfair for the US to compete. But all these
things do happen in the international arena.
So, folks, brace yourselves for a transition to a third world statue with
downgrading of living standard in the next two generations. The internet is
becoming too powerful. They have to do something to compensate. We are
living on the fruits of industrialization built by our fathers,
grandfathers, and beyond which give us an advantage among international
communities. Now, without the industrial base, we are bound to spend all
our ancestors left us. That would leave nothing to show for our children,
grandchildren, and beyond.
May Einstein (our god) have mercy on our souls (in the context of General
Relativity as a relgion). Amen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 09:34 AM
Subject: Re: Indian physicist vindicated in black hole controversy
Why this ethnic slant? Is there some relevance to it? Is there something
about a political boundary within which a person is born that makes one
mathematician different from another?
Since the population of India is about 4 times greater that the population
of the USA, it can hardly be surprising that there would be four times as
many mathematicians. Maybe Indians don't compete for scholarships by playing
with a ball...
Androcles
Androcles
Not being a US citizen but having lived in the USA for 20 years, I recognize
parochialism when I see it. I do not feel *I* require an attitude
adjustment.
Tell me, how does employing cheaper mathematicians, physicists, engineers,
chemists etc. make your standard of living fall, since you will be buying
cheaper cars, cheaper carpets, cheaper refrigerators, cheaper drugs etc., of
the same quality or better than before. 'Wage' was, is and will forever
remain the number of hours you have to work to obtain breakfast, and from
what I've seen of obesity in the USA, you eat too many breakfasts. Yes, it
is happening in Britain too.
I know you've come to expect a new car at least once a year, preferably a
gas guzzling SUV, and consider anyone with less than a two car garage is
poor, but you'll soon be able to get those essentials cheaper because you'll
be employing cheaper labour to manufacture them. Well, you are already doing
that. The company I worked for in Pittsburgh shipped product to Mexico for
cheap manual assembly until Genicom, our customer, filed Chapter 11 because
it still could not compete.
You guys scream "Land of Freedom" and "Land of Opportunity", but when anyone
takes advantage of that you turn into a bunch of Luddites. Sorry, mate, but
yours is THE capitalist society, driven by fierce competition, and if India
plays by your rules, remember you wrote the rules. You'll just have to
compete harder, won't you?
Androcles
ueb
> Hallo Ulrich,
> Do you have a website?
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
Ulrich
ueb
> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
> news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
> Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
> physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
> who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise. I would
> refer you to the lengthy but interesting discussion which took place on
> this matter on this newsgroup in the past (see the thread 'Academic
> censorship on sci.physics.research?):
Abhas Mitra has been attacked from Chris Hillman, whom John Baez has
meanwhile dropped like a hot potato for his immaturity and childishness.
I'm not convinced that such attack would mean a lot.
The role of such persons might be a huge lot worse for unknown persons
who have to say something essential, and who are not perceived by
the persons who should understand it, thanks to these minor-minded
creatures.
> - Sabbir.
That is a hard suspicion. But Mitra is in a position where he can fight.
What shall I say ? As long I live, the people concerned are ironly
silent, and nobody will prevent them from helping themselves as soon I'm
dead. If Mitra has the noble character as you tell, he should immediately
take care of my work.
Ulrich
PS:
> For some reason, I am unable to see Bill Hobba's messages (or my own) on
> my newsreader.
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express
Try Mozilla, better another OS.
LEJ Brouwer
Hi Ulrich,
I think Mitra is still busy trying to finish fighting his own battles and it
is premature for him to start thinking about waging other people's wars.
Anyway, although it does not seem like it sometimes, I am on your side, and
sincerely hope that your ideas are right. Even having spent so much time
studying it, I do not like quantum theory - it makes no sense at all, and
appears to have no compelling mathematical basis. My hunch is that there is
enough complexity even in classical physics to explain the apparently
quantum-mechanical observations that we make.
Best wishes,
Sabbir.
Daniel Weston
the mill. After Adam Smith, free trade was advocated by most economists
living in countries that permitted free expression. (non dictatorships)
But when free trade was spoken of. they were referring to free trade in
_goods_, NOT free trade in labor.
Nobody advocated free trade in labor.
Within the US we have free trade in labor.
Anybody can move to any state to work, and any company can outsource any
work to another state. If is desired the company can pick itself up and
move to another state. Or any worker can leave his state and move to
any other state to live and work. Absolutely no restrictions. And the
US has benefited from this "mobility of labor". "Mobility of labor"
enables the most efficient utilization of labor, thereby raising the
general standard of living when the country is considered as a whole.
So why not put the whole world on an unrestricted "mobility of labor"?
The problem lies in the aspect of _transition_.
People reading my first post overlooked my using of that term. For many
reasons the transition may be very painful and disruptive. Rather than
a dissertation let me ask a very simple question. What would happen if
the US and GB opened up its borders permitting any Muslims, any people
from Uganda, India, Mexico, China, etc immigrate. Answer, it would
lower "our" standard of living, and raise theirs. If the mobility were
indeed free, it would cause extreme dislocations, civil unrest, and
hardships unbounded.
When it comes to the free movement of labor and laborers, I support the
"trickle" theory. Let it be done slowly so disruptions are minimized.
When a few computer manufacturers and computer programmers lost their
jobs, that was OK but how much is enough. Or to put it another way, how
much is to much?
ueb
> Hi Ulrich,
> I think Mitra is still busy trying to finish fighting his own battles and it
> is premature for him to start thinking about waging other people's wars.
You see that too narrowly:
1.) That is not other people's war. It is the science itself.
2.) My insights and results should excellently help Mitra fight.
Mitra will not win the fight, if he confines himself to "his own battles".
I knew just one person who could get him that - you !
> Anyway, although it does not seem like it sometimes, I am on your side, and
> sincerely hope that your ideas are right. Even having spent so much time
> studying it, I do not like quantum theory - it makes no sense at all, and
> appears to have no compelling mathematical basis. My hunch is that there is
> enough complexity even in classical physics to explain the apparently
> quantum-mechanical observations that we make.
If you replace "classical" with "geometrical", then it is no hunch
but certainty. :-)
Best wishes,
Ulrich
ueb
[ununderstandable stuff]
I have no idea what you want to say.
Abhas Mitra is in India and Sabbir Rahman is in Bangla Desh,
and both do not think to immigrate.
Ulrich
Daniel Weston
was obviously talking about general problems, not specific applications
to specific persons.
ueb
I did so for politeness.
Because what you talk about "general problems" may be good for
the local but does not belong to a circle of educated humans.
(And it is inappropriate in this thread.)
Ulrich
ueb
> Ulrich, my comments were in no way inappropriate and the subject matter
> applies to science jobs and science support jobs. Before you start
> telling me what is appropriate and not appropriate, learn to read and
> understand English better. Your comments were out of place and show bad
> judgement on your part. Please learn some rudimentary English. Please
> learn basic economics, particular free market economcs.
I know your "general problem" quite well.
In Germany, people tell in the local that the foreigners take the jobs
(even also science jobs) from them. Everybody, who knows a bit of
basic economics, knows that such talk is crap. Only neonazis and
extremists profit from that.
BTW, why do you not discuss your great ideas about economics in an
economics newsgroup ?
Ulrich
Daniel Weston
Daniel Weston
German economists on balance are more knowledgeable than US and British
economists. My opinions regarding economics are consistent with the
Austrian School of economics.
Australopithecus Afarensis
> Austrian School of economics.
So, we have two extreme executions of economic systems:
** Communism/socialism
** Capitalism/Austrian School of Economics
Ideally, either system, if done righteously without corruptions and other
inevitable devious means greedily committed by the ruling elites, would
benefit all economical classes. However, when dealing with human nature, it
is impossible to be ideal in this case. We have the government dominated by
the elites controlling corporations taking the advantage of middle class,
and we have the corporations dominated by the elites controlling the
government to take the advantage of the middle class. The result is the
same. The difference is in the methodology.
In our world, it appears the capitalistic societies have triumphed over the
communists so far. The trend is heading for ruins in capitalistic countries
as well which the US is a good example. Therefore, the Orwelling society
can be achieved from either ends of the economic systems.
What is the alternative? There exists a German School of Economics. I am
not saying this system is ideal, but it was executed during the
industrialization of the US and many other countries. It allowed our
fathers to leave us with a great industrialized society far outpacing others
which in our generation we are throwing it all away because we have adopted
the Austrian School of Economics in the '60's and '70's. The elites sitting
in their corporations can screw the middle class by controlling our
government. It is worth while to learn from the recent failures of the
elites sitting in their government screwing the middle class by controlling
their corporations.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 09:11 PM
Subject: Re: Indian physicist vindicated in black hole controversy
To Androcles: The only slant to my post is emphasizing that U.S. jobs
are being shipped overseas. I understand all the humanitarian benefits
to be had when the emerging (backward) economies have wages brought up
and ours brought down so that all Indians, and all Chinese, and all
South America, all make the same identical wage. For the US citizens
and those of GB, the transition phase will be one very long transition
phase of recession and decreasing standard of living. I think that is
wonderfully humanitarian so long as it does not effect my income. Those
in Bangladesh might have to wait 1 or 2 years extra. BTW, an Indian
computer programmer can be had for 1/3 the cost of a stateside
programmer. That is great for me but sad for the people I know that are
being laid off by HP thereby necessitating them to work in fast food
joints at half the previous income. I also think it is OK for all the
Indians and Mexicans who want our welfare to move to GB and US. Our
citizens' welfare will go down radically, but that bad feeling will be
assuaged by the increased happiness of new welfare recipients from all
the backward countries. Glory be.
----- Original Message -----
Daniel Weston
Von Mises? When the elite take over the government and screw the middle
class, that is not Austrian economics. BTW, I should mention that in
every government throughout history that I am aware of, the elite run
the government and seek and obtain special privileges. The question, is
how do we keep it to a minimum. Countries which are the more successful
in controlling corruption, have the highest standard of living. The top
10 countries with the highest standard of living, have comparative less
corruption than those with the lower standards of living.
---
Pure Communism is much worse than pure Capitalism, unless you believe
that government bureaucrats are better at determining prices and
allocating resources than the free market. In pure free markets, it is
the People that set the prices. The prices allocate resources.
Have you ever read "The Road To Serfdom".
Australopithecus Afarensis
> Von Mises?
Von Mises and Rothbard were good friends. As the founding father of the
Libertarian Party, Rothbard hated communism, but his ideology represents the
other end of the spectrum which is just as bad.
> When the elite take over the government and screw the middle
> class, that is not Austrian economics.
I agree if the Austrian School of Economics is executed in perfection.
However, there is no such thing as an ideal situation, do we?
> BTW, I should mention that in
> every government throughout history that I am aware of, the elite run
> the government and seek and obtain special privileges. The question, is
> how do we keep it to a minimum. Countries which are the more successful
> in controlling corruption, have the highest standard of living. The top
> 10 countries with the highest standard of living, have comparative less
> corruption than those with the lower standards of living.
Yes, good observation. The countries with fewer corruptions adopt neither
Austrian School of Economics nor Communism.
> Pure Communism is much worse than pure Capitalism, unless you believe
> that government bureaucrats are better at determining prices and
> allocating resources than the free market.
Pure communism is just as bad as pure capitalism, and vice versa.
> In pure free markets, it is
> the People that set the prices. The prices allocate resources.
Imagine there is no FDA. So, when a drug company introduces a drug, it is
up to the consumers to figure out the merit of the product. If the drug
kills a lot of people, the consumers would figure out in time that this
product is no good. Therefore, they would not be buying that product any
more. It is a beautiful thing to allow the free market to take over its
course, isn't it?
Imagine there is no FCC. One giant corporation can just come in introduce
all sorts of products hogging all frequency bands. Any new comers would not
be able to compete any more. Again, this is a free market system, is it
not?
Imagine there is no anti-trust law. This is the free market at its best,
isn't it?
What are wrong with these pictures above? Luckily, our fathers were smart
enough not to endorse the Austrian School of Economics. We are now
endorsing it at an accelerated rate after the collapse of Soviet Empire.
Embracing the Austrian School of Economics, we are becoming less and less
industrialized every day.
> Have you ever read "The Road To Serfdom".
No, I have not, but do you care to give a few paragraphs of summary?
Eric Baird
Yep, the theory of bodies with a surface escape velocity equal or
greater than lightspeed goes way back ... Michell published a long
paper on the subject of what we'd now refer to as "dark stars" in the
journal of the Royal Society, it's in the 1784 volume.
I think I probably still have a transcribed copy in .PDF format
somewhere if anyone needs it. Don;t know if it would be against ng
etiquette to post it here (does a PDF count as a binary? I guess it
probably does).
So that aspect wasn;t new, the thing that made GR black holes
different was the total collapse ot a singularity, and the /total/
lack of radiaiton,and the way that the innards of a black hole were
supposed to be totally cut off from the outside universe by a one-way
surface. Dark stars let stuff percolate out through the horizon, black
holes didn't.
I think that people also tend to forget that Einstein himself
reputedly never accepted the black hole idea and apaprently thought
that the idea was flakey. I think he even published a paper (which I
can't remember much about, its buried in my files somewhere) arguing
something like high gravity objects can;t undego total collapse, or
else their interiouirs woudl lose the notraml causal connection with
the outside universe, which is obviously forbidden. Something like
that, anyway.
I actually think that Einstein comes out of this pretty well, he
apparently never caved in and accepted the black hole idea, and now I
think he's been proved right (posthumously).
But nowadays things get confusing: from the original usage, "QM" black
holes arguably aren't black holes, but we call them black holes
anyway, because that's now the common word for horizon-bounded
high-gravity objects. Phenomenologically, it's probably more correct
to call them dark stars, but that would make it look as is we were
saying that GR was wrong, and upset the SR/GR people, and we don't
want to do that, so we say that GR was right, the objects show
classical black hole behaviour underneath, but then we have this
additional QM layer on top that spoils things and just happens to make
our black holes /look/ like old pre-GR dark stars, even though they
supposedly aren't, not really ...
The king is dead, long live the king.
Certainly, the GR description of a black hole does not seem to
correspond to anything in our universe, if the current interpretations
of QM are to be believed.
But there are almost certainly super-dense, high-gravity objects out
there. We just don't know what to call the damned things any more.
The whole thing seems to be becoming a bit like a game of chinese
whispers.
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: " Soylent Green is purple?!?"
Eric Baird
wrote:
>LEJ Brouwer wrote:
>> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
>> news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>>>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>>>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>>>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
>
>> Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
>> physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
>> who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise. I would
>> refer you to the lengthy but interesting discussion which took place on
>> this matter on this newsgroup in the past (see the thread 'Academic
>> censorship on sci.physics.research?):
>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=2463c4a5587b36feb41bdca20fa482a2.28832%40mygate.mailgate.org&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3080159614d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D2463c4a5587b36feb41bdca20fa482a2.28832%2540mygate.mailgate.org
>
>Abhas Mitra has been attacked from Chris Hillman, whom John Baez has
>meanwhile dropped like a hot potato for his immaturity and childishness.
>I'm not convinced that such attack would mean a lot.
Woo, I tracked back to Hillman's post, to have a look-see, and he
really did seem to be freaking out, didn't he!
I was slightly bemused by CH saying::
:: ... an earlier draft of this preprint, unfortunately no
:: longer available on LANL (but I have a hard copy printout) ...
, because its a design feature of the LANL system that posted
submissions always stay available. The latest posted version of a
paper becomes the default link, but the earlier incarnations stay
there, preserved in all their glory (or otherwise), and explicitly
linked to at the top of the paper's auto-generated LANL abstract page.
Hillman posted a link to the paper's abstract page, and there at the
top of the page are the appropriate links to all the earlier versions,
presumably including the one that he said was no longer available on
LANL. The links do seem to work.
<shrugs>
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: " If one record company turns down the Beatles, it's a screwup.
: If several record companies turn down the Beatles, it's an understandable mistake.
: If every record company turn down the Beatles, then everybody concerned made the right decision. "
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Baird" <eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ra60i0defrrgbbfql...@4ax.com...
Not making any proclaimations, but there are a whole group of medical
conditions that can similarly affect the psyche. Alterations in "normal"
behaviors, paranoia, etc. They all indicate a need for medical attention.
Chris has been a rock. I hope Chris has support now...
David A. Smith
R. Srinivasan
Not being an expert on GR or QM, I am totally confused about one issue
here. It seems that Abhas Mitra is claiming that GR does not predict
the existence of black holes (in the strict sense). So we now have
(a) GR proves that black holes do not exist (in the strict sense);
this is Mitra's, and now, Hawking's claim.
(b) GR proves that black holes do exist in the strict sense (the
earlier claim of Hawking and other mainstream relativists).
Now is it that (b) is wrong? If so, why should the SR/GR believers be
upset? After all, (a) is a favourable result as far as compatibility
with QM is concerned.
On the other hand, if both (a) and (b) are true, I can see why the
relativists would be upset, for that would make GR a logically
inconsistent theory.
Can someone clarify whether Mitra (and now Hawking) used *only* GR in
claiming (a) or did they (perhaps tacitly) bring in QM considerations
into the picture? If they used *only* GR, then has any error in the
earlier (widely accepted) claim (b) been found?
R. Srinivasan
Daniel Weston
Capitalism. In so saying, Afarensis was merely restating the
proposition, not making an argument. I hope he does not continue to
avoid answering this QUESTION: Do you believe that government
bureaucrats in pure Communism are better in determining prices and
allocating resources than in pure Capitalism where the people determine
the prices and hence the allocation of resources.
---
I generally agree with Afarensis that the Gov. should assume some
responsibility for the general welfare, if it is done pursuant to a
freely elected governing body. If the people wish to tax themselves for
this purpose, that is OK by me. The crucial issue is when does the
intervention of the Gov. result is less creation of wealth? At some
point the people are sharing poverty rather than sharing prosperity.
John Baez
ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote:
>LEJ Brouwer wrote:
>> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
>> news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>>>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>>>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>>>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
>> Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
>> physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
>> who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise.
That may be true if this "anyone" has never studied general relativity.
However, anyone who has will see that Mitra's work is based on some
serious misunderstandings of this subject, and is full of mistakes.
Black holes may or may not exist, but Mitra's work sheds no light on
this matter. In particular, his blunders have not been vindicated by
Hawking's new insights.
Ulrich Brucholz also wrote:
>Abhas Mitra has been attacked from Chris Hillman, whom John Baez has
>meanwhile dropped like a hot potato for his immaturity and childishness.
>I'm not convinced that such attack would mean a lot.
It actually does mean a lot, because while Hillman gets overly
upset about the mistakes of various crackpots, he knows general
relativity well and is good at spotting mistakes.
I never "dropped" Chris Hillman, whatever that means. We're friends,
and I'm glad he is learning how to waste less time arguing with
people on the internet and more time thinking about interesting things.
Australopithecus Afarensis
> Capitalism. In so saying, Afarensis was merely restating the
> proposition, not making an argument. I hope he does not continue to
> avoid answering this QUESTION: Do you believe that government
> bureaucrats in pure Communism are better in determining prices and
> allocating resources than in pure Capitalism where the people determine
> the prices and hence the allocation of resources.
Mr. Weston is not listening to what I am saying. In this scenario, we are
given with two choices of extremities in economical systems. One is
communism, and the other the other one is pure capitalism which can be
described as anarchism without any authority interfering with the course of
the economic development. Well, you are comparing oranges with apples by
assuming one situation as ideal and the other one as mundane.
In one choiced situation, you are idealizing pure capitalism as simple as
consumers setting prices. Everything becomes extraordinarily "cool".
However, the world is far from perfect. In a society with pure capitalism,
it is the corporations that screw the workers and the consumers by any means
of false advertisement and extreme abuses. If you are describing a utopian
pure capitalistic society, it is fair for you to compare with an equally
utopian communist society where the leadership is able to analyze the data
and plan for production to meet the projected demands. If not, it should be
fair for you to conclude the corporations able to control the resources by
any evil means. One example in today's society is the price of silver
staying stagnant without any change in the past 20-30 years..
> I generally agree with Afarensis that the Gov. should assume some
> responsibility for the general welfare, if it is done pursuant to a
> freely elected governing body. If the people wish to tax themselves for
> this purpose, that is OK by me. The crucial issue is when does the
> intervention of the Gov. result is less creation of wealth? At some
> point the people are sharing poverty rather than sharing prosperity.
You are right on. Historically, it actually does not take much to balance
it in any situation if adopting the German School of Economics. During the
time of plenty, it is obvious that all citizens should be sharing the
wealth. In time of scarcity such as war and pestilence, the system should
force all citizens to share poverty. It is actually as simple as what it
appears.
R. Srinivasan
> In article <8o55fc...@Muse2.private.de>,
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >LEJ Brouwer wrote:
>
> >> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
> >> news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
> >>>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
> >>>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
> >>>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
>
> >> Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
> >> physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
> >> who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise.
>
> That may be true if this "anyone" has never studied general relativity.
> However, anyone who has will see that Mitra's work is based on some
> serious misunderstandings of this subject, and is full of mistakes.
>
> Black holes may or may not exist, but Mitra's work sheds no light on
> this matter. In particular, his blunders have not been vindicated by
> Hawking's new insights.
>
Can you kindly elaborate on the alleged "mistakes" and "blunders" of
Mitra? After all, he has published his work in a very respectable
journal (Found. Phys. Lett.) and has received favourable feedback from
experts (see quotes below).
I am interested in this issue for purely logical reasons. In
particular, is Hawking's latest claim that black holes do not exist in
the strict sense (which is what Mitra also claimed in his work)
derived *purely* from the GR postulates or does it involve QM as well?
What, if any, are the errors in the earlier (widely accepted) claim
that the GR postulates imply the existence of black holes in the
strict sense? It seems to me that the earlier claim can co-exist with
the latest claim if the latter involved the QM postulates as well;
what would be demonstrated in this case is an incompatibility between
GR and QM. Otherwise one of the two claims has to be wrong, in order
to argue for the consistency of GR. A third possibility is that GR
neither proves the existence nor the nonexistence of black holes,
i.e., it is incomplete and these two opposing claims are both
consistent extensions of GR (at least from the viewpoint of classical
logic).
Here are some quotes from the website cited in the original post:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/800815.cms
\begin{quote}
"Except a handful, the majority of mainstream scientists dismissed
Mitra's conclusions even though, till now, no scientist has
contradicted him in writing. Mitra invited several notable black hole
theorists including Hawking and Jayant Narlikar of India to criticise
his work but no one replied."
"In a subsequent work Mitra showed that the 'Eternally Collapsing
Objects' that he proposed are actually the massive compact objects now
referred to as Black Hole Candidates (BHCs).
Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson and
Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense magnetic
fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes
which cannot have magnetic field."
"Though his own colleagues had sidelined Mitra after his first paper,
he is solaced by the encouraging e-mails he had received from several
physicists around the world.
One from Salvatore Antoci, University of Padova, Italy, a noted
relativist says: 'Let me express to you my great joy in seeing your
much-disputed paper eventually accepted for publication by Foundations
of Physics Letters. Convincing the community of relativists about the
mythical nature of black holes will remain a tremendous task, but it
is a little less desperate thanks to your success.'
Peder Norberg, of the Department of Physics, Durham University, UK,
said he carefully read through Mitra's paper and found 'that most of
the results presented there are more than impressive' while Stanley
Robertson, a relativist of South Oklahoma St Univ, USA said:
'On first becoming acquainted with your work, I was dubious, thinking
it unlikely that something as profound as belief in the existence of
black holes could become erroneously established in the literature. In
the meanwhile, I have found no errors in your work. It is
fascinating.'
The only Indian who praised Mitra's work was relativist Pankaj Joshi
of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai."
\end{quote}
R. Srinivasan
John Baez
R. Srinivasan <srad...@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>Can you kindly elaborate on the alleged "mistakes" and "blunders" of
>Mitra?
Sure. See below.
>I am interested in this issue for purely logical reasons. In
>particular, is Hawking's latest claim that black holes do not exist in
>the strict sense (which is what Mitra also claimed in his work)
>derived *purely* from the GR postulates or does it involve QM as well?
Hawking's argument involves a combination of GR and QM. Since
there is not yet a full-fledged rigorous theory combining GR and QM,
his argument is necessarily somewhat heuristic. He also hasn't
made the details public yet - he hasn't put a paper on the arXiv.
So, it's premature to try to discuss it in detail.
Mitra's argument involve a combination of GR and mistakes.
GR is a mathematically rigorous theory, so black holes either
exist in this theory or not. Mitra claims they don't; most
people know they do.
>What, if any, are the errors in the earlier (widely accepted) claim
>that the GR postulates imply the existence of black holes in the
>strict sense?
NONE. The errors lie with Mitra, not everyone else in the world.
Here's some old discussion of Mitra's mistakes. I also wrote
my own analysis of his mistakes back when I had to reject some
of his articles on sci.physics.research, but it'd take a bunch
of work to find this now.
.............................................................................
From: Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Black Hole Preprints by Abhas Mitra [Was: charged black holes]
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:04:11 -0700
Organization: University of Washington
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.33.010717...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, "zirkus" wrote (in sci.physics.research):
>> Btw, I have not looked at the following paper but, according to its
>> abstract, GTR only admits the existence of extremal black holes and
>> the paper might discuss how this result is related to string theory:
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905182
This preprint is by Abhas Mitra, a nuclear physicist by training, who
apparently likes to claim expertise in astrophysics. But, unfortunately,
when it comes to gtr there is no simply polite way of describing his level
of understanding, which literally does not rise to what is expected of
-undergraduate students- taking a first course in gtr (c.f. the well known
textbook by Schutz).
-Of course- Mitra is flat out wrong. Specifically:
(1) Mitra claims that gtr only allows extremal Reissner-Nordstrom
electrovacuums (q = m in relativistic units in which G = c = 1)! In fact,
any decent undergraduate student of gtr can easily check that the
subextremal (q < m) RN hole is a perfectly legitimate exact electrovacuum
solution to the EFE; that is, it solves the Maxwell source-free field
equation on curved spacetime and also the Einstein tensor matches the EM
stress-energy tensor, so the RN electrovacuum models a the exterior
fields, both electric and gravitational, of a massive charged object.
The maximal extension has a global conformal structure
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/history.html
which Mitra doesn't like (or understand), but no matter how many preprints
he posts to LANL claiming otherwise, he cannot change the fact that it
-is- a perfectly legitimate exact solution to the Einstein-Maxwell field
equations. Indeed, a standard problem for beginning students of gtr is to
-derive- the this electrovacuum. See for example the discussion of the RN
electrovacuum in this review paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0004016
or in the well-known monograph
Stephen W. Hawking and G. F. Ellis,
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.
Cambridge University Press, 1975.
In print, ISBN 0-521-09906-4; list price $47.95 (paperback)
or in widely used gtr textbooks such as
Ray A. d'Inverno,
Introducing Einstein's Relativity
Oxford University Press, 1992
In print, ISBN 0-19-859686-3; list price $42.95 (paperback).
Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John A. Wheeler,
Gravitation,
W. H. Freeman & Company, 1973.
In print, ISBN 0-7167-0344-0; list price $63.95 (paperback).
as well in as these high quality on-line course notes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/grad.html#gr
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9707012
Mitra has posted many other c---ky preprints to the LANL server, including
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904162
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408
in which, as anyone can easily verify:
(2) Mitra claims that the tangent vectors to a timelike geodesic in the
Schwarzschild vacuum must become -null- at the event horizon r = 2m; this
is of course completely incorrect! One need only start with -any-
timelike vector at r = 2m and evolve backward in time a timelike geodesic,
parametrized by proper time, by using this initial data in the geodesic
equations. Mitra appears to be completely unaware of the Painleve chart
ds^2 = -dt^2 + (dr + sqrt(2m/r) dr)^2 + r^2 (du^2 + sin(u)^2 dv^2)
-infty < t < infty, 0 < r < infty, 0 < u < pi, -pi < v < pi
in which it is very easy to find explicitly the world lines of "LeMaitre
observers", namely
r(t) = (9m/2)^(1/3) (t0-t)^(2/3),
-infty < t < t0
Here, r(t1) = 2m for t1 = t0-4m/3, and it is true that the -coordinate
slope- dr/dt equals -1 there, but if you draw the -light cone- there using
the LeMaitre ONB of vectors
e_1 = d/dt - sqrt(2m/r) d/dr
e_2 = d/dr
e_3 = 1/r d/du
e_4 = 1/(r sin(u)) d/dv
(to draw the light cones in the tr plane, use the null vectors e_1 + e_2,
e_1 - e_2), or if you simply compute the squared magnitude of the tangent
vector, you will see that of course this tangent vector is -timelike-, not
null! Part of Mitra's confusion throughout his preprints rests upon
persistent failure to distinguish clearly between coordinate slopes and
physical velocity measured relative to some "very close" observer (e.g.,
defined by the unit timelike vector X = e_1 in an ONB, such as the
LeMaitre ONB).
(3) Mitra claims that the Kruskal-Szekeres chart has a coordinate
singularity at r = 2m; this absurd (and very incorrect) conclusion may
also be very quickly debunked: it is easy to write the K-S chart in closed
form, without the constraint (used in most textbooks) which confuses
Mitra, by using the "Lambert W function":
m^2 W[(R^2-T^2)/(2me)] [-dT^2 + dR^2]
ds^2 = -------------------------------------
(1 + W[(R^2-T^2)/(2me)]) (R^2-T^2)
+ 4m^2 (1 + W[(R^2-T^2)/(2me)])^2 (dU^2 + sin(U)^2 dV^2)
-1/e < (R^2-T^2)/(2me) < infty, 0 < U < pi, -pi < V < pi
Here, the Lambert W function is the holomorphic function defined by
z' = z exp(z) iff z = W(z')
We choose the -principal branch- of the W function, which is real valued
precisely where we need it to be, namely on the interval (-1/e,infty).
At the horizon (the locus R^2=T^2 in the KS chart), it is easy to check
that the line element given just above reduces to
ds^2 = 8m/e [-dT^2 + dR^2] + 4m^2 [dU^2 + sin(U)^2 dV^2]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
where the underlined part is the metric of an ordinary sphere of "radius"
2m. Thus, the K-S chart has no "coordinate singularity" at the event
horizon, contrary to Mitra's claim.
(4) Mitra claims that the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapsing dust ball model
can only yield a black hole with -zero mass-. This is of course absurd;
the OS model is carefully and correctly analyzed in many gtr textbooks,
for example
Hans Stephani,
General Relativity: An Introduction to the Theory of the
Gravitational Field, 2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
In print, ISBN 0-521-37941-5, $39.95 (paperback).
One of Mitra's persistent confusions arises from an apparent inability to
understand the matching employed in building the OS model (in which we
match across the world sheet of a collapsing spherical surface from a dust
ball which is a region of the collapsing FRW dust with E^3 hyperslices, to
a exterior vacuum region, which is a region of the Schwarzschild vacuum).
Mitra also appears to be completely ignorant of the well-known Vaidya null
dust in which a collapsing spherical shell of massless radiation
(Minkowski region vacuum inside the shell, incoherent massless radiation
in the interior of the shell, Schwarzschild vacuum region outside the
shell) collapses from scri^- to form a black hole; see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/history.html
The point is that no matching is required to construct or analyze this
exact solution. The Vaidya null dust is briefly discussed in this review
paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0004016
and is also extensively discussed here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/vaidya
and in the monograph
I. D. Novikov and V. P. Frolov,
Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998
In print, ISBN 0-79-235145-2; list price $98.00 (paperback)
(5) Mitra claims that "the proper time for the formation of any black
hole" (tellingly, he cannot clearly explain what he means by this claim)
is "infinite"; this is also absurd, under any sensible interpretation
(e.g. the proper time measured by an observer riding on the surface of
the OS collapsing dust ball), as every competent student of elementary gtr
knows. This issue is discussed at length in most gtr textbooks; a
particularly well illustrated discussion can be found in
Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John A. Wheeler,
Gravitation,
W. H. Freeman & Company, 1973.
In print, ISBN 0-7167-0344-0; list price $63.95 (paperback).
(6) Mitra claims that the well-known "trapped surface" singularity
theorem is -false-! The (correct) statement and proof can be found in
Robert M. Wald,
General Relativity,
University of Chicago Press, 1984.
In print, ISBN 0-226-87033-2; list price $34.00 (paperback).
Mitra has repeated the claims (1)-(6) in other preprints, and has made
still more incorrect claims, and he has not accepted correction of his
errors:
http://arXiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Mitra_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
"Squark" commented (in s.p.research):
> I don't have the stength to go through this paper, but it sounds
> absurd to me:
Of course it is absurd!
> certainly reasonable solutions of the GR equation exist which describe
> gravitation collapse formation of non-charged black-holes. They
> actually claim the later cannot form! Has anyone read this?
In fact, it is only necessary to skim the abstracts of Mitra's preprints
on gtr to see that they all make ludicrous claims which anyone who has
worked through an elementary gtr textbook (e.g Schutz or Stephani) will
know right away are dead wrong.
However, some years ago I read in some detail an earlier draft of
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408 and it was quite frankly so riddled
with -elementary- misstatements and misconceptions concerning gtr as to be
not only worthless but frankly embarrassing. Mitra is terribly confused
about gtr, and so it is no surprise that it is usually impossible to be
sure exactly what he is trying to say at any given place in this preprint,
because a person who is thoroughly confused in his own mind cannot
possibly express himself clearly! Nonetheless, I believe that anyone who
reads the abstracts of his preprints posted to LANL will see that he
-does- make the claims I listed above.
It is very regrettable that this particular preprint (astro-ph/9910408)
was (shame! shame!) actually -published-:
Found. Phys. Lett. 13 (2000) 543
The irate abstract to an earlier draft of this preprint, unfortunately no
longer available on LANL (but I have a hard copy printout) stated that
Mitra was having a great deal of trouble with the referees; I cannot
understand why the editor apparently decided in the end to publish the
paper with all the misstatements of the original left untouched. The
published version is -shorter- than the original draft but it is no less
-erroneous-.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: Since I post under my real name, as an anti-spam measure, I have
installed a mail filter which deletes incoming messages not from the
"*.edu" or "*.gov" domains or overseas academic domains.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ueb
>>LEJ Brouwer wrote:
>>> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
>>> news:2RUQc.37008$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>Interesting article. But I am always a little wary of what I read in the
>>>>popular press. I think the evidence for the existence of something we call
>>>>black holes is very strong. That they might not be exactly what people
>>>>though is not quite the same thing as saying they do not exist.
>>> Although the existence of black holes is now taken as fact by almost all
>>> physicists, their foundations are actually on rather shaky ground, as anyone
>>> who reads Abhas Mitra's recents carefully will come to realise.
> That may be true if this "anyone" has never studied general relativity.
> However, anyone who has will see that Mitra's work is based on some
> serious misunderstandings of this subject, and is full of mistakes.
> Black holes may or may not exist, but Mitra's work sheds no light on
> this matter. In particular, his blunders have not been vindicated by
> Hawking's new insights.
It were good if you yourself could concretely point out Mitra's
"mistakes", and what distinguishes "his blunders" from "Hawking's
new insights". That would help even people, whom you believe
to have "never studied general relativity", notice the "serious
misunderstandings of this subject".
> Ulrich Brucholz also wrote:
>>Abhas Mitra has been attacked from Chris Hillman, whom John Baez has
>>meanwhile dropped like a hot potato for his immaturity and childishness.
>>I'm not convinced that such attack would mean a lot.
> It actually does mean a lot, because while Hillman gets overly
> upset about the mistakes of various crackpots, he knows general
> relativity well and is good at spotting mistakes.
If Hillman is as "good at spotting mistakes" like in his "arguments"
against my proposal to go from the integration constants of the
Einstein-Maxwell equations, then Mitra has nothing to fear.
> I never "dropped" Chris Hillman, whatever that means. We're friends,
> and I'm glad he is learning how to waste less time arguing with
> people on the internet and more time thinking about interesting things.
Nice for him. I have to thank you for clarifying.
U. Bruchholz
LEJ Brouwer
news:cftjks$2cc$1...@glue.ucr.edu...> Sure. See below.
Dear John,
It is really quite disappointing to see that the best you can do is to
regurgitate the same nonsense which Chris Hillman spewed forth at an earlier
date, and which was also responded to in some detail by Abhas Mitra himself.
I have attached his response below, which is taken from the earlier
discussion of this matter on this newsgroup. Given that you have taken the
time to actually comment on this matter, I hope you will also have the
dignity to stand by your claims and post a mathematical response. I am still
in touch with Dr Mitra, and am sure he would be delighted to take part in
intelligent and constructive discussion of the matter.
> NONE. The errors lie with Mitra, not everyone else in the world.
Despite your (as yet unsupported) claim, there is a growing number of
respecting physicists who would disagree with you. According to Abhas Mitra,
this includes Professor Vaidya himself, whom Chris Hillman mentioned in his
post.
> Here's some old discussion of Mitra's mistakes. I also wrote
> my own analysis of his mistakes back when I had to reject some
> of his articles on sci.physics.research, but it'd take a bunch
> of work to find this now.
I, Abhas Mitra, and I am sure many others would be very interested to see
this supposed analysis of yours. Merely claiming that you made such an
analysis without allowing others to see it is hardly satisfying or
convincing. I personally do not believe that you have made a
rigorous mathematical analysis of his work. Even if you had, what value does
it have if it is not made available for scrutiny by third parties?
Sincerely yours,
Sabbir Rahman
............................................................................
.
From: Abhas Mitra, ami...@apsara.barc.ernet.in
Newsgroup: sci.physics.research, sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Rejoinder to Hillman's posting entitled "Black Hole Preprints
by Abhas Mitra"
None of the various posting(s) made by Chris Hillman to this forum [can be
said to be] a scientific critique of my preprints/reprints related to the
non-occurrence of finite (gravitational) mass Schwarzschild Black Holes
(BHs),
for the following basic reasons:
(i) It seems that he has not read my papers properly and has attributed
or implied several aspects which are not contained in my papers. Neither
does
he appear to have made any sincere attempt to understand whatever portions
he
might have read.
Some of the comments posted in this forum by others are also likely to have
been based [solely] on reading of the abstract. [For example], someone
[referred to as] "zirkus" wrote, "I have not looked at the following paper
but, according to its abstract...".
(ii) Most of my preprints are based on simple and exact analytical
calculations
(WITHOUT ever involving a single assumption or simplification) and
associated
equations. A meaningful critique of such works must point out the definitive
errors/shortcomings in specific equations, quoting specific equation
numbers.
If there is a conceptual error, a meaningful critique must point out which
specific equation is based on those conceptual errors, or else provide an
interpretation of which equations have been [derived or used] incorrectly.
But as one can see, Hillman has been unable to point out any such specific
error.
(iii) In the following, I shall show that whatever little analytical
elements
(non-numbered equations) there [happen to be] in the critique by Hillman,
actually CORROBORATE the results of my preprints.
1. One of my previous preprints (gr-qc/9807197) tried to show that:
If we follow the radial geodesic of a test particle around a BH using any
coordinate system including Lemaitre coordinates (r, t, t=comoving time),
the geodesic, which must be TIMELIKE (ds^2 >0) at any non-singular region
of spacetime, would become null (ds^2=0) at the Event Horizon (EH) at
R=R_g=2M. Hillman asserts that my derivation to this effect is incorrect
because "Part of Mitra's confusion throughout his preprints rest upon
persistent failure to distinguish clearly between coordinate slopes and
physical velocity...".
While he makes this accusation, note that he has NOT pointed out which
EQUATION is based on such "confusion" and in turn, which specific result
is incorrect because of such "confusion". He has unnecessarily
introduced the "Painleve chart", and claims, WITHOUT ACTUALLY SHOWING IT,
how the "Painleve Chart" disproves my result. For the benefit of the
serious readers, I give below the essence of my proof:
In Lemaitre coordinates, the radial geodesic (angular part=0), the metric
of a test particle around a BH is
ds^2 = dt^2 - g_rr dr^2 (1)
where
g_rr = [(3/2R_g) (r-t)]^{-2/3} (2)
The invariant circumference coordinate R is related to r, t in the following
way:
R = [(3/2R_g) (r-t)]^{2/3} R_g (3)
Thus at R=R_g (2M),
[(3/2R_g)(r-t)]^{2/3} = 1 (4)
Using Eq.(4) in Eq.(2), we find that,
g_rr = 1 at R = R_g (5)
Using Eq.(5) in Eq.(1), we have
ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 at R=R_g (6)
Note that while he uses the symbol "r" for circumference coordinate, I am
using "R" for the same; also while Hillman uses "m" for the gravitational
mass of the BH, I use "M" for the same.
We would require here a standard result:
dR -(1-2M/R)
--- = ---------- [E^2 -(1-2M/R)]^{1/2} (7)
dT E
where E is the conserved energy per unit rest mass of the test particle.
Since t is the comoving time, we have
dt = (1-2M/R)^{1/2} dT (8)
Now by using the above equations, it can be found that,
(dr/dt)^2 = 1 at R = R_g (9)
Hillman also writes that "it is true that the coordinate slope equals to
-1 here"; by 'here' he means at R=2M. To verify the correctness of
Eq.(9), however, it would be better to see the Eq. 3.12.5, pp. 112 of
Zeldovich and Novikov, Rel. Astrophysics, Vol. 1, Univ of Chicago (1971):
(dr/dt) = +/- (R_g/R)^{1/2} (3.12.5) of ZN
Note that the tau of ZN is our t, r of ZN is our R and vice-versa, and
recall that we have taken c=G=1.
By putting Eq.(9) in Eq.(6) one can find that INDEED
ds^2 = 0 at R=R_g=2M following the radial geodesic. (10)
If the EH R=R_g were a mere coordinate singularity and actually a regular
region of spacetime, GTR demands that the geodesic must remain timelike
there and we should have had ds^2 > 0. Thus Eq.(10) implies that the
R=2M is NOT a non-singular region of spacetime. [Rather], it corresponds
to a true physical singularity. But, for a BH, we know that the true
physical singularity is at R=0. Therefore we can reconcile Eq.(10) with
this knowledge by recognizing that we must have
R = R_g = 2M = 0 (11)
In other words, the mass of the BH must be
M = 0 (12)
Note that at no point in this proof do we mention "physical velocity" and
neither is there any "confusion" between "coordinate slope" and "physical
velocity".
2. In Sec 3 of his posting, Hillman writes that "Mitra claims that the
Kruskal-Szekers chart has a coordinate singularity at R = 2M; this absurd
(and very incorrect) conclusion..."
Now the fact is that, I HAVE NEVER EVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM IN ANY OF MY
PREPRINTS. On the other hand, I have pointed out, in several of my
preprints, that even if one uses the Kruskal coordinates u and v, one
would find that the EH is a true physical singularity. In other words, I
have derived Eq.(10) using [these] coordinates. In fact, I have done so
in a most straightforward manner using Schwarzschild coordinates too. For
the benefit of the serious readers, I shall, again, give below the
essence of my proof that (du/dv)^2 =1 at R=2M in this regard:
In one of his earlier postings [webpages?] entitled "Hall of Shame",
Hillman had ridiculed my work without even attempting to put up any
scientific critique. All that he could say was to mention a preprint,
(astro-ph/9905144), by I. Tereno which had scientifically, albeit
erroneously, criticised my preprint. Nevertheless, here Hillman had
conveniently forgotten to mention any of my REBUTTALs to Tereno's work:
A. Mitra, astro-ph/9904163 and 9905329
Anyway let me proceed with my proof:
From Eq.(7), it follows that, dR/dT = 0 at R=R_g=2M. And since dT is an
infinitesimal quantity by definition (not to be confused with delta T,
which could be finite or even infinite), we have
dR = 0 at R=R_g=2M along a radial geodesic (13)
The Kruskal coordinates obey, everywhere in the Kruskal diagram, the
equation
u^2 - v^2 = (R/2M -1) exp (R/2M) (14)
so that,
u^2 = v^2, (v/u)^2 = 1 at R=2M (15)
Now differetiating Eq.(14) w.r.t. R, and using Eq.(13) on the LHS, it
follows that
u du - v dv = 0 at R=2M (16)
Or,
(du/dv)^2 = (v/u)^2 at R=2M (17)
Invoking Eq.(15) in Eq.(17), we see that
du^2 = dv^2 at R=2M (18)
Now for a radial geodesic, it can be seen that the Kruskal metric at
R=2M is:
ds^2 = (16M^2/e) (du^2 - dv^2) (19)
Invoke Eq.(18) here and obtain
ds^2 = 0 at R=2M along a radial geodesic (20)
Again note that this proof neither involved any mention of "physical
velocity'' or any associated "confusion". Hillman unnecessarily and
irrelevantly invokes the "Lambert W function" without showing how the
W function or any other function would actually disprove my Eqs. 13-20.
Here Hillman has used two variables "R" and "T" without even mentioning
what they are (note that I use R and T for Sch. coordinates);
presumably they are proportional to our u and v. For the radial part of
the metric, Hillman too finds, through a convoluted route using the
"Lambert W function" that at the EH
ds^2 = (8m/e) (-dT^2 + d R^2) , R and T not defined by Hillman.
By comparing with Eq.(19), it seems that R= 2m u and T =2m v (at least
at the horizon). Then, we would have (dR/dT)^2 =1 at the EH, and
Hillman's Eq. too would give ds^2=0 at the EH. As explained earlier,
this would mean that the mass of the BH, M=0.
3. Since Hillman has been unable to point out any real error in any of
my preprints, he goes on citing one standard book after another (without
showing how those books actually negate my precise derivations). If at
any given point of time, the existing scientific literature and
interpretation of laws of Nature were the ultimate without leaving scope
for new analysis and interpretations, there would not have been any
scientific or intellectual progress, and, intellectually, we would have
continued to be like the prehistoric cavemen.
My criticism of the Oppenheimer-Snyder paper is based on the fact Eq.(36)
of it overlooked the fact that the ARGUMENT OF A LOG FUNCTION CANNOT BE
NEGATIVE. This statement cannot be negated by citing books and pouring
forth ridicules. And this statement demands that during the collapse of
the dust-ball, we must have
2M/R < = 1 (21)
This mathematical result means that TRAPPED SURFACES DO NOT FORM in the
O-S dust collapse. As I have shown (astro-ph/9904163, 9910408), unless
Eq.(21) is incorporated into the O-S analysis, the behaviour of the
metric coefficients would be inconsistent and unphysical at R=0.
Here Hillman makes mention of the "Vaidya null-dust" without knowing
that Prof. P.C. Vaidya himself has found my work to be completely
correct.
4. Hillman writes that "Mitra claims that the well-known 'trapped
surface' singularity theorem is false! The correct statement and proof
can be found in.."
Firstly, I never mentioned "trapped surfaces" as singularities.
[Secondly,] it appears that Hillman is unaware of the fact that the
well-known singularity theorems are based on several ASSUMPTIONS. The
most crucial assumption here is that there is a "trapped surface" in
the spacetime. Now when, by definition, existence of "trapped surfaces"
is an ASSUMPTION how can any book PROVE the existence of trapped
surfaces?
On the other hand, I have actually proved, in a general manner, for
spherical collapse of baryonic matter, that trapped surfaces do not form
at all. In other words, I have shown that the crucial assumption behind
the singularity theorems is incorrect (for collapse of isolated bodies).
And since the essence of my proof is so straightforward, for the
serious readers, I present it below:
All spherical collapse involving baryonic matter and radiation obey (see
ref. in my paper) a relation
Gamma^2 = 1 + U^2 - 2M/R (22)
where
Gamma = dR/dl (23)
and dl is an element of proper length along the radial worldline of the
collapsing fluid. Also,
U = dR/d tau (24)
where d tau is an element of proper time following the fluid element.
Clearly, Eqs.(23) and (24) are correlated as
U = Gamma V (25)
where
V = dl/d tau (26)
and let us treat V as a pure symbol.
By putting Eq.(25) in Eq.(22) and by transposing, we have
Gamma^2 (1- V^2) = 1 - 2M/R (27)
Now by using the result that the determinant involving the metric coeff.
of any metric must be negative, I have shown that, if (1-V^2) is negative,
then so must be Gamma^2, so that the LHS of Eq.(27) is always positive.
Then it follows that
2M/R < = 1 (28)
a result obtained independently from the O-S work. Eq.(28) shows that, if
the fluid [were to] collapse to a singularity at R=0, under positivity of
mass, one must have
M-->0 as R-->0 (29)
5. The preprint astro-ph/9910408 was published in Foundation of Physics
Letters and this has obviously greatly disappointed Hillman and others.
If they are so sure that it is all wrong, I would suggest that they
submit an academic critique of my paper to Foundations or any other
standard refereed journal.
This paper was published in Foundations after several referees failed to
point out any specific errors in my work, after some referees found that
the work is "mathematically" correct, and eventually after two anonymous
referees recommended its publication with some revisions. This is hardly
a "very regrettable" or "shame shame" procedure.
6. Hillman's posting started with criticism of my work hep-th/9905182.
In this work I never claimed that non-extremal BHs with mass M>Q (charge)
are not exact GTR solutions, as implied by Hillman. In fact they are as
exact solutions as the Schwarzschild BHs. But if one starts with a M>Q
case and slowly reduces Q to Q=0, one should recover the Sch. BH. In such
a case, one would obtain a finite mass M>0 BH. But since I have already
shown, by several independent modes, that the only allowed value of M is
0, eventually, it is [only] the extremal BHs with M=Q solutions which are
to be accepted because they lead to the correct result M=0 when Q=0.
I invite Hillman and all other readers to write a proper scientific
critique pointing out specific errors in my equations and interpretations
in case any of them think that my work is erroneous. Incidentally, through
email, I have repeatedly requested Profs. S. Hawking. R. Penrose, K.Thorne,
C.W. Misner and many others to send their critique, if any, to me. But none
of them have acted so far.
Bruce Pew
As a member of the group 'many others' I would like to know how
Mitra's prediction that black holes don't theoretically exist, within
the context of general relativity, is vindicated by the comments of
Professor Hawking relating to information loss?
ueb
I can only wonder, what impertinent manner you declare yourself for,
that Hillman favours in scientific argument.
I experienced that Hillman unscrupulously insinuated that I did
absurde claims (which I never did), in order to ridicule my proposal
to go from the integration constants of the Einstein-Maxwell
As well, he always ignored the _results_ from numerical simulations
according to these tensor equations, which obviously disturbed him
(and other persons too).
I see that Hillman deals with colleagues apparently in the same
manner.
U. Bruchholz
John Baez
LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"John Baez" <ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote in message
>news:cftjks$2cc$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
>Dear John,
>
>It is really quite disappointing to see that the best you can do is to
>regurgitate the same nonsense which Chris Hillman spewed forth at an earlier
>date, and which was also responded to in some detail by Abhas Mitra himself.
>I have attached his response below, which is taken from the earlier
>discussion of this matter on this newsgroup. Given that you have taken the
>time to actually comment on this matter, I hope you will also have the
>dignity to stand by your claims and post a mathematical response.
Dignity, eh? If I had any "dignity" I wouldn't be posting here.
But, it's a lazy summer afternoon, so I guess I'll pass the
time by finding the mistake in this passage by Mitra where
he claims to "prove" that any black hole has mass zero.
The funny part is that he's trying to do this using only
general relativity! Starting from the solution which describes
a black hole of mass m, he attempts by a calculation to show that
m = 0. It's a bit like taking an arbitrary prime number and
proving that it must equal 37.
In an earlier version of his "proof", Mitra's mistake was simple
to spot, since he was using the familiar Schwarzschild coordinates,
and the mistake involved dividing by zero.
Now he has made his argument more complicated by using the less
familiar "LeMaitre coordinates". Luckily, to spot the flaw, all
you need to know is that these are coordinates (r,t) in which someone
freely falling into the black hole stays at constant r as t increases.
(They're vaguely similar to spherical coordinates, and I'm
ignoring the two angular coordinates since they're irrelevant
in what we're doing.)
Okay, here goes:
>For the benefit of the
>serious readers, I give below the essence of my proof:
>
>In Lemaitre coordinates, the radial geodesic (angular part=0), the metric
>of a test particle around a BH is
>
> ds^2 = dt^2 - g_rr dr^2 (1)
I got a bit suspicious right here, since the phrase
"the metric of a test particle" makes no sense. The
metric is something on spacetime, and it applies to
all particles moving in spacetime, so one never speaks
of the metric "of a test particle".
But, it turned out this was only tangential to the main
problem. He's describing the metric for a nonrotating
black hole in LeMaitre coordinates...
>where
>
> g_rr = [(3/2R_g) (r-t)]^{-2/3} (2)
... and I think he's got it right, though I wouldn't vouch for
all the numbers.
>The invariant circumference coordinate R is related to r, t in the following
>way:
>
> R = [(3/2R_g) (r-t)]^{2/3} R_g (3)
I think this so-called "invariant circumference coordinate"
is just the usual radial coordinate R in Schwarzschild coordinates.
R_g is just the number 2M.
>Thus at R=R_g (2M),
>
> [(3/2R_g)(r-t)]^{2/3} = 1 (4)
>
>Using Eq.(4) in Eq.(2), we find that,
>
> g_rr = 1 at R = R_g (5)
All this looks fine - or at least I don't think this is
where the real *problem* lies.
>Using Eq.(5) in Eq.(1), we have
>
> ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 at R=R_g (6)
I think this is okay too. At this point, it's best to skip down to
the final "result" and then work backwards....
Somehow M = 0 has popped out. It's popped out because in
equation (10) he gets ds^2 = 0 at R = 2M, "following the
radial geodesic". He's not very clear about that means,
but interpreting him generously I'd say he's concluding
the change in proper time vanishes for a test particle
freely falling into a black hole as it crosses the horizon.
This would indeed be a contradition since general relativity
"demands that the geodesic must remain timelike there and
we should have had ds^2 > 0."
So, his mistake may lie in his derivation of ds^2 = 0.
Where does this come from? He says it comes from
ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 at R=R_g (6)
and
(dr/dt)^2 = 1 at R = R_g (9)
I've already said I see no flaw in (6) so probably the
flaw is in (9). And indeed, (9) is false for a test
particle freely falling into the black hole: in LeMaitre
coordinates, r is constant for such a particle, so
dr = 0
contradicting (9).
The rest is a mopping-up operation: to see how Mitra
gets ahold of the false equation saying that (dr/dt)^2 = 1.
He gets it by saying "Now by using the above equations,
it can be found that..." where the above equations include
these:
dR -(1-2M/R)
--- = ---------- [E^2 -(1-2M/R)]^{1/2} (7)
dT E
dt = (1-2M/R)^{1/2} dT (8)
But you'll notice he's applying them to the case where R = R_g = 2M.
In this case they say:
dR/dT = 0
dt = 0
So, he's dividing by zero if he wants to use these to compute
dr/dt!
I still don't see how he's trying to get (dr/dt)^2 = 1, since
he doesn't exhibit his reasoning - he just says "it can be found".
But, I see that it's false, and I see that he's dividing by zero
in his steps towards this.
So much for his "proof".
In a way, it's just a more complicated version of his argument that got
rejected on sci.physics.research. When push comes to shove, Mitra divides
by zero.
LEJ Brouwer
it complete and unedited at his request.
- Sabbir
-----------------
Although John Baez claims that ``Mitra's argument involves ..mistakes'',
howsoever reputed he may be, at least personally, has not mentioned of a
single mistake. Instead he has relied on his front man Chris Hillman. If it
were a question of addressing merely John Baez and his front man, I would
not have wasted my time because I know that, at least in this case, their
sole intention is maligning me by misusing the internet. This is so because
when 4 years back, Hillman's original comments (not what Baez has fallen
back to here) were brought to my notice (which were just ridicule,
distortion of facts, calumny), I sent a detailed rebuttal. But that forum
was controlled by Baez and Hillman theselves and refused to publish my
rebuttal which shows the dictatorial and unscientific attitude of this duo.
However here I am essentially adressing the other readers of this forum many
of whom I believe has an open academic mind.
1. Baez says that ``GR is a mathematically rigorous theory''. And I claim
that my work is also mathematically, WITHOUT ANY SIMPLIFICATION OR
ASSUMPTION, in the framework of GR. And this is what has been accepted by
the Editors and referees of Foundations of Physics Letter. So if Baez and
Hillman really wanted to make a scientific critique, they could have picked
up my Eqs. by
citing their nos. and by precisely pointing out the supposed errors in them.
It is very common to find such critiques in all journals including PRL,
Science. It is also very common to see such scientific critiques in Los
Alamos archives. When one is capable of making such scientific critique
(which is a healthy practice), one need not and would not launch vituperate
the author(s) in person (as was done in Hillman's
original piece entitled ``Hall of Shame'' with the backing of Baez. And only
when one cannot scientifically pinpoint the errors by actually referring to
the equations of the targeted paper, one need to beat about the bush or
various red herrings and present some confusing element to misguide the
readers.
For example, they mention of ``Painleve Chart'' and computing the magnitude
of the tangent vectors. They forget that, none of such charts do not come
directly from GR equations, they are MENTAL PICTURES drawn by extrapolating
some GR solutions. In this, this Chart
is based on the existence of mathematical BH solution assuming its
mass``m'' to be finite. And the magnitude of the tangent vector obtained by
such chart would depend on the value of ``m'', and such a treatment cannot
determine whether the PHYSICALLY ALLOWED value
of m is m=0. The tangent vector would be of zero magnitude when $m=0$.
Essentially what I have shown rigorously is that if any test particle would
approach the Event Horizon,
ds^2 --> 0 (1)
in violation of GR because we must have ds^2 >0 for a material particle at
least in a region which is not a physical singularity. So what they
should have shown is that derivation leading to Eq(1) is faulty by referring
to my precise steps. They could not do this because Eq(1) IS CORRECT.
Implication of Eq.(1) is that the EH at
R=R_g = 2M/R (2)
must be a physical singularity and NOT A MERE COORDINATE SINGULARITY.
But the physical singularity lies at
R=0 (3)
Then combining Eqs. 1 & 2, it would follow that
Even if the Sch solution is a mathematically correct solution showing
existence of BHs, in order that ds^2 >0 at R>0, the only PHYSICALLY allowed
value of BH mass is
M=0 (4)
And then, Pl. Chart too would give a magnitude of tangent vector =0.
2. Another example:
It seems that Baez and his friends never read my paper carefully because I
NEVER claimed that ``Krus-Sz chart has a coordinate singularity at r=2m''.
FALSE FALSE
On the other hand, I insisted that r=2m is a TRUE PHYSICAL singularity. This
is so because again K-S coordinate I showed that
ds^2 --> 0 as r--> 2m (5)
3. There are solid physical reasons too behind Eq.(1) or (5)
As Stan Robertson (Univ South Okalohoma) and Darryl Leiter, (see their
astro-ph papers) and I have shown a test particle approaching r-->2m will
have local 3-speed v-->c (as measured by any coordinate system) in
violation of GR. If you consider even Sp Rel, in 1-D motion,
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 (6)
or,
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 ( 1 -v^2/c^2) (7)
And, ds^2 -> 0 if v--> c and vice-versa (8)
This is also valid in GR.
Further, if one would drop a test particle, one can form an ACCELERATION
SCALAR (AS), out the 4-acceleration, and it is found that
AS = M/[R^2sqrt(1-2M/R)] (9)
so that as r-->2m, AS BLOWS up. But AS is a physically measurable quantity,
and thus r-2m must be the true singularity as concluded earlier. Also if
there would be a spacetime beneath r = 2m, AS would become IMAGINARY! This
would tantamount to v>c, which would happen if
there would be spacetime beneath r=2m.
4. The central part of my work was to show that if a a ``trapped surface''
would form the speed of the collapsing fluid v >c, and hence there cannot be
any trapped surface. It is these assumption of ``trapped surfaces'' which is
the mother of all singularity theorems and finite mass BHs.
Those readers who are genuinely interested to unravel the truth may kindly
see my recent posting
astro-ph/0408323
which is a much shorter and simpler proof.
4. My proof that at the EH, material particle would behave like photon
(ds^2=0) have been independently verified by
[1] `Does principle of equivalence prevent trapped surfaces from being
formed in general relativistic collapse process', Leiter, D. & Robertson,
S., Foun. Phys. Lett. 16, 143 (2003) (astro-ph/0111421).
5. My prediction was that the so-called BH candidates are actually hot
compact objects supported by radiation and magnetic pressure has also been
verified observationally:
[2] `Evidence for intrinsic magnetic moment in black hole candidates',
Robertson, S. & Leiter, D. Astrophys. J. 565, 447 (2002) (astro-ph/0102381).
[3] `On the intrinsic magnetic moment in black hole candidates', Robertson,
S. & Leiter, D., Astrophys. J. 569, L203 (2003) (astro-ph/0310078).
[4] `On the origin of the radio/X-ray luminosity correlation in black hole
candidates', Robertson, S. & Leiter, D., Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 350,
1391 (2004) (astro-ph/0402445).
Do Baez and his company think that the Editors and referees of Astrophys. J,
Astrophys J. Letter and Mon. Not. Roy Astr. Soc (London) are plain fools to
publish papers confirming my prediction?
Whether Baez likes it or not, as a rare event for Indian Sc., my concept of
Eternally Collapsing Object has also been briefly discussed in a recent
POPULAR book:
``Discovery of Cosmic Fractals'' by Y. Baryshev, St. Petersburg Univ, Russia
& P. Teerikorpi, Univ of Turku, Finland (World Scientific, 1993).
Incidentally, as far as Indian authors are concerned, this book dwells upon
3 Indians:
1. S. Chandrasekhar
2. J. V. Narlikar
3. Abhas Mitra
although this is not to tell that there are not other important Indian
astronomers.
5. Extremal BH:
Again here my work/contention has been distorted:
When I say that GR allows only extremal BHs with Q=M it is not because that
I am not familiar with Res-Nor solution. On the other hand, it is because of
the following reasons:
I have already shown that, in the chargeless case M=0
And for charged BHs, since Q <= M, only value of Q which is possible is
Q=M =0
And technically Q=M is an Extremal BH.
6. Hillman has tried to show that I am an academic riff-raff to prejudice
the mind of the readers. Thus though this is no place to flaunt my CV, I
would point out few things to the readers to show how Hillman distorted
things:
I am from BARC's training school which has been the hatchery of many top
Indian Physicists. In BARC, I started theoretical astrophysics
research, my Ph.D. thesis is entitled ``A NEW theory of Ultra High Energy
Gamma Ray Production in Cygnus X-3'' and a paper based on this earned me
best young physicist award from Indian Physical Soc in 1989. Even now only
paper on Theory of Gamma Ray Bursts,
published in Astrop. J, happens to be mine.
I have worked as a referee of Astrophys. J, ApJ Letter, Found Phys Lett and
other journal.
I have had several offers to work at various labs (most notable of which was
with Prof (Sir) Martin Rees), bust I did not/could not avail most of these
offers because of various reasons.
Last year, out of steep international competetion, and after very rigorous
screen, I qualified for NRC (USA) SENIOR REASEACH ASSOCIATE position at
NASA, Goddard.Most likely because of security reasons, I was not given final
clearance even though
I was genuinely intersted in this case.
HAWKING CONNECTION
7. My work is not specific to Hawking or any body else. However I did
mention that since there is no FINITE mass BH, no EH, there is no trapping
of Q. And there is no Information Paradox at all.
I also insisted that there is
NO WHITE HOLE, NO WORM HOLE, NO TIME MACHINE
My Found. Phys. paper was featured in NewsIndia published by Nature(London).
By seeing Hawking's U-turn, the Nature reporter recently contacted me again,
it turned out that
(i) Hawking's abstract says Information can come out because there is no
TRUE HORIZON
(ii) As appeared in Nature.com and Newscientist.com and as explained by
Garry Gibbon, Hawking's Cambridge coworker
a. Hawkings BHs (now) do not have exact horizon
b. There is no BH in the absolute sense
c. It keeps on emitting light and information for a very long time..
All such bottom lines, irrespective of how Hawking or Gibbons obtain their
results, do tend to match with the description of final stages of massive
collapse obtained in my paper:
The collapsing object asymtotically tries to achieve a BH stage, but since
there is no EH, it keeps on radiating indefinitely and tends to be a M=0 BH.
About Hawking radition, I mentioned that Gamma Ray Astronomers (I am one of
them) have been trying to detect predicted signatures of primordial BH
evaporation for last 25 years. But they have found none.
And I wrote ``And we can predict with absolute certainty that no such events
would ever be detected because GR does not allow formation/existence of
finite mass BHs'' (FPL, 15(5), 439 (2002).
And I stand by it.
-Abhas Mitra
Abhas Mitra : E-mail: ami...@apsara.barc.ernet.in
Nuclear Research Lab : Tel: 91-22-25579093 (Res)
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre : 91-22-25595186 (Office)
Mumbai-400085, India : Fax: 91-22-25505151
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Baez" <ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote in message
news:cftjks$2cc$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
[Hillman's stuff deleted]
LEJ Brouwer
> In article <2ogmqfF...@uni-berlin.de>,
> LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Baez" <ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote in message
> >news:cftjks$2cc$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
>
> >Dear John,
> >
> >It is really quite disappointing to see that the best you can do is to
> >regurgitate the same nonsense which Chris Hillman spewed forth at an
earlier
> >date, and which was also responded to in some detail by Abhas Mitra
himself.
> >I have attached his response below, which is taken from the earlier
> >discussion of this matter on this newsgroup. Given that you have taken
the
> >time to actually comment on this matter, I hope you will also have the
> >dignity to stand by your claims and post a mathematical response.
>
> Dignity, eh? If I had any "dignity" I wouldn't be posting here.
I have forwarded this message to Abhas Mitra, and I am sure he will grace
you with a detailed response to it in due course. In the meantime, I have a
few remarks to make of my own.
It is curious that you should mention your lack of dignity. You certainly
displayed none whatsoever in your past contributions to this discussion, and
you seem to be quite determined to reinforce that impression we have of you
here. Neither does it appear that you particularly care. The overall
impression one gets is that you consider the sci.physics.research newsgroup
to be your little playground where you can proudly display to the rest of
the world your immense intellectual superiority and encyclopaedic knowledge.
On the other hand, the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup is where you like to
demonstrate that all of this apparent brilliance is really just a facade and
that, deep down, you are an immature, pompous, simple-minded twit.
Just for the record, this was the sum total of your contributions the last
time this matter was discussed:
"My spies brought this article to my attention. Be careful, Vergon.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you."
Inspiring words indeed from such a great beacon of knowledge.
And lest you forget, the reason you are posting on this newsgroup rather
than sci.physics.research because YOU, as moderator, REFUSED to allow the
discussion to take place on sci.physics.research. I hope you realise how
moronic your above comment is given this context.
> But, it's a lazy summer afternoon, so I guess I'll pass the
> time by finding the mistake in this passage by Mitra where
> he claims to "prove" that any black hole has mass zero.
While I am sure Abhas Mitra will take great pleasure in taking apart your
analysis in some detail, you should probably be made aware (assuming that
you are not aware of this already) that your analysis DOES NOT EVEN COME
CLOSE to proving that Mitra's results are wrong. As I mentioned before, I do
not believe me that you have made a rigorous mathematical analysis of his
work. On the basis of your rather dubious writings below, I am now CERTAIN
that this is indeed the case. Indeed, if this group had been moderated by a
like-minded simpleton, your analysis would probably have been rudely
rejected as `overly speculative' without further explanation, and you would
have been openly ridiculed without right of reply.
- Sabbir.
LEJ Brouwer
- Sabbir
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. Oppenheimer - Snyder Paper in the Light of Mitra's Work
The Oppenheimer-Snyder paper is a great exercise in applied mathematics
where the intractable Einstein collapse equations were solved, in the
spherically symmetric case, for the first time by assuming that the fluid is
homogeneneous. In fact as of now, this may be the only truly EXACT solution
of collapse equations because general inhomogeneous cases are still
intractable though there may be special premeditated solutions. However,
this great applied mathematics feat was achieved by paying a heavy price on
the physics front. Because OS assumed that the pressure of the fluid is ZERO
and it is so even when the fluid is supposed to have collapsed to a point
singularity (which is supposed to have INFINITE density)!
When physics is honoured and restored, a p=0 Eq. of State is possible only
when density d=0. Then the mass of the fluid, (IF WE HONOUR PHYSICS) would
be
M= 4/3 pi R^2 d =0
Thus the OS BH too has the mass M=0 as insisted by Mitra (the same is true
of all Naked Singularities resulting from inhomogeneous Dust Collapse).
The PROPER TIME of formation of the BH as obtained by OS is
tau propto M^{-1/2}
Whem M=0, we have
tau = INFINITY
which means, the collapse actually continues indefinitely and in reality no
BH (even of M=0) is ever produced. This is in exact agreement with Mitra's
work. However confusion would arise when physics is dissociated from the
problem, i.e, when it would be assumed that despite having p=0, d=finite!
Further as repeatedly pointed out, in order that the argument of a log
function is non-negative, the Eq.(36) of OS paper demands
y <= 1 (1)
which when properly analysized would lead to
2M(r)/R <=1 (2)
i.e. ABSENCE OF TRAPPED SURFACE
(Mitra, FPL, 13(6), 543, 2000, astro-ph/9910408)
Mitra's work, however, would APPEAR in conflict with the OS solution only
when one would ignore the physical fact that p=0 is possible only when d=0.
2. PROPER TIME
One of the members of the Baez-Band has alleged that I have no idea of what
proper time is. All students, workers, Editors, referees concerned with GR
knows that if in the problem there is a moving particle/fluid the term
``proper time'' means the proper time measured by moving observer unless it
is specifically meant to be the proper time of a distant observer.
I am sure Baez too knows this, yet he, gleefully, allowed his formum to be
littered with such trivial meaningless personal attacks without any
moderation.
3. SCHWARZSCHILD SINGULARITY
For all those members of this forum who are genuinely interested in
scientific debate and not personal malice, let me point out that the fact
that the r=2m singularity is a true PHYSICAL singularity (essentially
because SCALAR ACCELERATION blows up) has been very scholarly brought out in
these papers:
[1] Gravitational Singularities via Acceleration: the case of the Sch.
Solution and Bach's Metric
S. Antoci & D.E. Liebscher
Astron. Natchr, 324, 485 (2003)
gr-qc/0107087
[2] Reinstaing Sch's original manifold and its singularity
S. Antoci & D.E. Liebscher
in ``Progress in GR and Q Grav Research'', Nova Science Pub. (NY), in press
gr-qc/0406090
Historically, the problems with the r=2m singularity was first pointed out
by
L.S. Abrams in
[3] Alternative Spacetime for the Point Mass
Phys. Rev. D20, 2474 (1979)
[4] ``Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error''
L.S. Abrams, Can. J. Phys. 67, 919 (1989)
gr-qc/0102055
and the following insightful article by L.S. Abrams would corroborate my
contention about charged BHs, that physically only charged BH that is
allowed is
q=m=0 (3)
In other words, there is no charged BH and the point charges are not BHs:
``The Total Spacetime of a Point Charge and its consequences ..''
Int. J. Theor. Phys., 35, 2261-2677 (1996)
Now will the Baez-Band direct their howling at Antoci, Liebscher and Abrams
too. Probably no. They would simply feign to be ignorant of such
developments and continue to be the frogs in the dark well or at best put up
some hotch-potch of jargons and irrelevant maths to confuse and mislead the
readers.
Personally, I am not member of any of these internet clubs/groups and
neither do I ever follow the discussions there. Yet I am posting these
materials at the request of my friends who are pained to see personal
attacks on me. Having done these postings, however, I will not follow any
thread, and on the other hand I FOCUS ATTENTION ONLY ON MATERIALS PUBLISHED
IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and
LANL ELECTRONIC ARCHIVE
Thus, in future, I would not respond to any comments, positive or negative
appearing in these fora. In case any body is seriously interested in
learning about my work can go through them and those who want to make
critique (it is always possible that I make a genuine mistake) are always
free to do so by using the channel of the journals and not by howling or
hooting.
Recall that the claim that the Sun rather than the Earth is at the center of
the solar system appeared ``ABSURD'' to many. More recently, when
Chandrasekhar showed that White Dwarfs have an upper mass limit too appeared
``Absurd'' to many, particularly to reigning pundits. Had there been
internet groups those days, Baez-Band equivalents would have been busy
castigating such ``absurd'' researches. In fact there are many unregistered
members of Baez Band in India both inside my organization and in other
scientific institutes of India. Baez would be happy to get their census
report.
4. Finally I shall cite a VERY IMPORTANT ref:
G. Neugebauer in GR (Eds. G.S. Hall & J.R. Pulham, SUSSP, Edinburg & IOP,
London,
1996) (See p. 73)
Probably the most direct derivation of metric for Spinning BHs, the
so-called Boyer-Lindquist metric, is done using Backlund transformation.
Also recall that Sch. BHs can be considered as a special case of rotating
BHs with the rotation parameter
a=0. (4)
Now when one derives the Boyer-Lindquist metric by Backlund transformation,
one would find that m and a are related through
a= m sin phi (5)
where phi is the azimuth angle. CAREFULLY NOTE that since both a and m are
constants while phi is a VARIABLE, this Eq. can be satisfied IFF
a=m=0 (6)
which shows again that BHs have unique mass
m=0 (7)
which is possible when during the preceding collapse
2m/R < 1 (8)
i.e, when no trapped surfaces form as shown by me.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE; not that we care
Eq. (6) also shows that the m=0 BHs cannot rotate (a=0). This means that all
the observed BH Candidates are not BHs, they could be Eternally Collapsing
Objects, supported by magnetic and radiation pressure.
Innumerable media reports claiming ``Detection of BHs'' actually mean
detection of massive compact objects. The exclusive hall mark of a BH is
EVENT HORIZON and which has never been detected:
``NO OBSERVATIONAL PROOF OF BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZON''
M.A. Abramowicz, W. Kluzniak, & J-P Lasota
Astron. Astrophys. 396, L31 (2002)
astro-ph/0207270
John Baez
ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote:
>It were good if you yourself could concretely point out Mitra's
>"mistakes",
I did, in a separate post.
> and what distinguishes "his blunders" from "Hawking's
>new insights".
Hawking claims that he can use Euclidean quantum gravity methods to
show there is no information loss when a black hole forms and then
evaporates. He hasn't published a paper about this yet, so all we
have to go on is his talk, but I've attempted to figure out what he
was saying here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
It's based on general relativity. He claims that the worldline
of a freely falling massive particle becomes null as it crosses
the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. This would be
a problem if it were true - it would contradict basic facts about
general relativity. However, anyone who has studied GR knows it's
false. His argument relies on dividing by zero, as I explained
in a recent post to this group:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cg2pgt%24kbt%241%40glue.ucr.edu
Another difference between Hawking and Mitra is that Hawking
doesn't post articles to sci.physics.relativity full of ALL
CAPITALIZED WORDS.
John Baez
LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In fact there are many unregistered
>members of Baez Band in India both inside my organization and in other
>scientific institutes of India. Baez would be happy to get their census
>report.
Actually I wish all these unregistered members would register and
pay their annual Baez Band membership fees! Please tell them to
register at this website:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/Baez.Band
Bruce Pew
> This is forwarded on Abhas Mitra's behalf.
>
> - Sabbir
I would conclude that you are Abhas Mitra's alter ego [actually you
are Abhas Mitra]. The one that does post in science newsgroups and the
one who is allowed to make ridiculous claims such as Hawking's
comments at GR17 somehow proof that the singularity theorems are
incorrect. Your comments insinuating that Hawking plagiarized Mitra
are reprehensible and also proof you don't have a clue what Hawking
was getting at in his talk.
LEJ Brouwer
What about those of us who would be interested in joining but do not have
the necessary minimum qualifications, namely being:
(a) clever, but not quite as clever as we would like people to think we are,
(b) under the delusional belief that people somehow give a damn about what
we have been reading or thinking about over the past week, or which
conferences we may have attended,
(c) self-centred enough to actually produce a weekly digest which proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that both (a) and (b) are true?
And once we have paid our dues, will you personally be giving all `Baez
Band' members advanced lessons in intellectual masturbation, and on how to
achieve elevated states of egotistical self-glorification? Do the membership
fees include a Baez-endorsed license to be obnoxious and condescending
towards others - even when those we insult are more respectable than
ourselves? As Baez Band members, will we be given the authority to make
fools of ourselves on unmoderated public newsgroups safe in the knowledge
that the Band's dictatorial control over the moderated newsgroups will
continue to be used to artificially enhance our status? Will you be teaching
us elementary calculus?
By the way, I met Albert Einstein at Madame Tussaud's just the other day.
And do you know what he told me? Well, he told me that black holes really do
not exist and to be very wary of the `Baez Band' who were a closed-minded
and self-deluded bunch of pseudo-scientific hypocrites who would use all
manner of guile and deception to prevent the truth from coming out and to
protect the establishment view (and their reputations). As it happens,
Albert also mentioned in passing that the cosmological constant problem had
a purely classical solution, though unfortunately he did not elaborate
further on that. I will try to remember to ask him about that again next
time I see him.
- Sabbir.
LEJ Brouwer
> In article <sostfc...@Muse2.private.de>,
> ueb <Ulrich.B...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >It were good if you yourself could concretely point out Mitra's
> >"mistakes",
>
> I did, in a separate post.
All you did, in fact, was to show that your brain has a tendency to become
so dulled on lazy summer afternoons that you forget elementary calculus.
> > and what distinguishes "his blunders" from "Hawking's
> >new insights".
>
> Hawking claims that he can use Euclidean quantum gravity methods to
> show there is no information loss when a black hole forms and then
> evaporates. He hasn't published a paper about this yet, so all we
> have to go on is his talk, but I've attempted to figure out what he
> was saying here:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Quite. And there we read,
"So one can't be sure a black hole forms, no matter how certain it might be
in classical theory. I shall show that this possibility allows information
to be preserved and to be returned to infinity."
It is fairly clear that the crux of Hawking's argument is that information
can be preserved precisely because we cannot be sure that a black hole is
ever formed. Now Mitra proved some time ago that black holes actually cannot
be formed which thereby solves the information problem. So sure, there is a
lot of additional 'fluff' in Hawking's version, but at the end of the day,
the two arguments pretty much boil down to precisely the same thing. To try
to claim otherwise by distracting our attention away from this basic fact to
the less relevant quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk is really
quite dishonest of you. Note that Hawking is well aware of Mitra's work.
Unfortunately he did not avail himself of the opportunity to present a
rebuttal when he visited India.
> Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
> It's based on general relativity. He claims that the worldline
> of a freely falling massive particle becomes null as it crosses
> the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. This would be
> a problem if it were true - it would contradict basic facts about
> general relativity. However, anyone who has studied GR knows it's
> false.
Again you are being evasive. Mitra agrees that this would be a problem. The
solution is that Schwarzschild black holes simply cannot form in finite
time, so that the problem mentioned never physically arises, and moreover
any analyses of Schwarzschild black holes effectively become redundant as
they represent solutions to Einstein's equations which are not physically
accessible - even if they do happen to be mathematically well-defined.
> His argument relies on dividing by zero, as I explained
> in a recent post to this group:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cg2pgt%24kbt%241%40glue.ucr.edu
And no doubt you will also argue that if f(x) = x^2, then at x=1, df/dx =
infinity, because dx=0 in the limit at which the derivative is calculated. I
refer you to the thread "John Baez teaches calculus." which contains a
rather humorous parody (even if I do say so myself) of your mathematical
analysis.
> Another difference between Hawking and Mitra is that Hawking
> doesn't post articles to sci.physics.relativity full of ALL
> CAPITALIZED WORDS.
Yes, and you might also like to mention your chum Hillman's predilection for
asterisks, hyphens, exclamation marks and underscores - and the fact that he
is an insolent little sod, besides. Actually, come to think of it, so by
implication, are you. Thankfully that is one deficiency of character which
Mitra does not suffer from, no matter how tremendously clever you think you
are.
- Sabbir.
Bruce Pew
No they don't and the fact you think they do proofs you don't
understand Hawking's argument. At the end of the day you are
completely wrong.
To try
> to claim otherwise by distracting our attention away from this basic fact to
> the less relevant quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk is really
> quite dishonest of you. Note that Hawking is well aware of Mitra's work.
> Unfortunately he did not avail himself of the opportunity to present a
> rebuttal when he visited India.
>
> > Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
> > It's based on general relativity.
Its based on a misunderstanding of General relativity as evidenced by
the conclusion that the singularity theorems are incorrect. The
quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk are not 'less relevant'.
If you think they are you 'once again' proof you don't understand what
Hawking was discussing.
LEJ Brouwer
news:45534f09.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > It is fairly clear that the crux of Hawking's argument is that
information
> > can be preserved precisely because we cannot be sure that a black hole
is
> > ever formed. Now Mitra proved some time ago that black holes actually
cannot
> > be formed which thereby solves the information problem. So sure, there
is a
> > lot of additional 'fluff' in Hawking's version, but at the end of the
day,
> > the two arguments pretty much boil down to precisely the same thing.
>
> No they don't and the fact you think they do proofs you don't
> understand Hawking's argument. At the end of the day you are
> completely wrong.
I am not convinced that Hawking himself clearly understands his argument.
Noone else does because he has not published a paper which anyone can
actually read to try to understand what it is precisely that he is saying.
> > > Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
> > > It's based on general relativity.
>
> Its based on a misunderstanding of General relativity as evidenced by
> the conclusion that the singularity theorems are incorrect.
Mitra never claimed that the singularity theorems are incorrect. Rather they
assume the existence of trapped surfaces - which he has shown cannot form.
So the singularity theorems are redundant, which is not the same thing as
being incorrect.
> The
> quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk are not 'less relevant'.
> If you think they are you 'once again' proof you don't understand what
> Hawking was discussing.
Well, in my opinion they are. You may have a different opinion, and that is
your right.
- Sabbir.
jmfb...@aol.com
<snip>
I think I'm going to buy more stock of Kleenix' manufacturer.
This one is going to need a warehouse full.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
ueb
> Hawking claims that he can use Euclidean quantum gravity methods to
> show there is no information loss when a black hole forms and then
> evaporates. He hasn't published a paper about this yet, so all we
> have to go on is his talk, but I've attempted to figure out what he
> was saying here:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Ok. I'll not comment it, since I don't follow quantum gravity.
> Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
> It's based on general relativity. He claims that the worldline
> of a freely falling massive particle becomes null as it crosses
> the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. This would be
> a problem if it were true - it would contradict basic facts about
> general relativity. However, anyone who has studied GR knows it's
> false. His argument relies on dividing by zero, as I explained
> in a recent post to this group:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cg2pgt%24kbt%241%40glue.ucr.edu
You accuse your colleague of absurd claims, which "rely on dividing
by zero". That is a hammer.
If I had not experienced similar accusations (not a single of them
is true) by your friend Hillman, I would even believe that in the
light of the references.
U. Bruchholz
Bruce Pew
> "Bruce Pew" <va...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:45534f09.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > It is fairly clear that the crux of Hawking's argument is that
> information
> > > can be preserved precisely because we cannot be sure that a black hole
> is
> > > ever formed. Now Mitra proved some time ago that black holes actually
> cannot
> > > be formed which thereby solves the information problem. So sure, there
> is a
> > > lot of additional 'fluff' in Hawking's version, but at the end of the
> day,
> > > the two arguments pretty much boil down to precisely the same thing.
> >
> > No they don't and the fact you think they do proofs you don't
> > understand Hawking's argument. At the end of the day you are
> > completely wrong.
>
> I am not convinced that Hawking himself clearly understands his argument.
> Noone else does because he has not published a paper which anyone can
> actually read to try to understand what it is precisely that he is saying.
>
> > > > Mitra's main argument has nothing to do with quantum gravity.
> > > > It's based on general relativity.
> >
> > Its based on a misunderstanding of General relativity as evidenced by
> > the conclusion that the singularity theorems are incorrect.
>
> Mitra never claimed that the singularity theorems are incorrect.
Sure he did [you posted the comments].
"On the other hand, I have actually proved, in a general manner, for
spherical collapse of baryonic matter, that trapped surfaces do not
form
at all. In other words, I have shown that the crucial assumption
behind
the singularity theorems is incorrect (for collapse of isolated
bodies).
Rather they
> assume the existence of trapped surfaces - which he has shown cannot form.
> So the singularity theorems are redundant, which is not the same thing as
> being incorrect.
He just thinks he has shown trapped surfaces don't form.
>
> > The
> > quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk are not 'less relevant'.
> > If you think they are you 'once again' proof you don't understand what
> > Hawking was discussing.
>
> Well, in my opinion they are. You may have a different opinion, and that is
> your right.
Then you are confused since the main aspect of Hawking's idea is to
treat the topologies quantum mechanically by summing over all
histories from initial state to final state.
I'll finish with this comment. You initiated this discussion by
claiming Hawking's talk vindicated Abhas Mitra's proof that trapped
surfaces never form on any topology. This is clearly incorrect because
as John Baez succinctly points out Abhas Mitra's proof is a classical
proof [erronious as it is] while Hawking's idea clearly incorporates
aspects of quantum mechanics applied to gravitiational theory. Also
you insinuated that Hawking possibly plagiarized Mitra's solution to
arive at his conclusion. This proofs you are full of crap regardless
of how 'huge' your IQ is.
> - Sabbir.
LEJ Brouwer
news:45534f09.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "LEJ Brouwer" <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2oonupF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Bruce Pew" <va...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:45534f09.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> Sure he did [you posted the comments].
>
> "On the other hand, I have actually proved, in a general manner, for
> spherical collapse of baryonic matter, that trapped surfaces do not
> form
> at all. In other words, I have shown that the crucial assumption
> behind
> the singularity theorems is incorrect (for collapse of isolated
> bodies).
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl901080409d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2ogmqfFait4cU1%40uni-berlin.de&rnum=38
>
>
> Rather they
> > assume the existence of trapped surfaces - which he has shown cannot
form.
> > So the singularity theorems are redundant, which is not the same thing
as
> > being incorrect.
>
> He just thinks he has shown trapped surfaces don't form.
...which is precisely what I said. Why are you arguing with me if you are in
complete agreement with me?
> > > The
> > > quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk are not 'less relevant'.
> > > If you think they are you 'once again' proof you don't understand what
> > > Hawking was discussing.
> >
> > Well, in my opinion they are. You may have a different opinion, and that
is
> > your right.
>
> Then you are confused since the main aspect of Hawking's idea is to
> treat the topologies quantum mechanically by summing over all
> histories from initial state to final state.
Actually, I thought I understood those bits okay. As I said before, the
basic reason Hawking gives for his argument being correct is that there is
no way to know whether a black hole has ever formed.
> I'll finish with this comment. You initiated this discussion by
> claiming Hawking's talk vindicated Abhas Mitra's proof that trapped
> surfaces never form on any topology. This is clearly incorrect because
> as John Baez succinctly points out Abhas Mitra's proof is a classical
> proof [erronious as it is] while Hawking's idea clearly incorporates
> aspects of quantum mechanics applied to gravitiational theory. Also
> you insinuated that Hawking possibly plagiarized Mitra's solution to
> arive at his conclusion.
Actually I initiated this discussion with a link to a newspaper article
bearing the same title as this thread. Perhaps you should re-read it to
refresh your memory. John Baez may have been succinct (I don't think he
was), but he was also wrong. You claim that Mitra's proof is erroneous.
Could you explain - in your own words please - precisely why it is
incorrect? Have you spotted a mathematical error which you would be kind
enough to share with us?
As for Hawking, sure he throws in some quantum mechanics and other stuff,
but it still looks very much to me like he has just plagiarised Mitra's
ideas, dressed them up a bit (actually, quite a lot), and then presented
them as his own. In any case Mitra solved the information paradox (which as
it happens only exists because of Hawking's original flawed analysis) well
before Hawking claims to have done.
Why is it that Mitra's proof is wrong just because Baez says so, whereas any
claim that Baez may be wrong is an act of blasphemy? Is this blind devotion
to Baez and the unquestioning acceptance of his word as absolute truth a
requirement of membership in the `Baez Band' cult? Does membership also
involve making ritual blood sacrifices before a stone effigy of an
elephant-trunked Baez? Does he teach elementary calculus?
Bruce Pew
Maybe I should have said only the two of you think he has shown
trapped surfaces don't form.
>
> > > > The
> > > > quantum mechanical aspects of Hawking's talk are not 'less relevant'.
> > > > If you think they are you 'once again' proof you don't understand what
> > > > Hawking was discussing.
> > >
> > > Well, in my opinion they are. You may have a different opinion, and that
> is
> > > your right.
> >
> > Then you are confused since the main aspect of Hawking's idea is to
> > treat the topologies quantum mechanically by summing over all
> > histories from initial state to final state.
>
> Actually, I thought I understood those bits okay.
Continuing to claim Hawking may have plagiarized Mitra is proof you
didn't get those bits ok. But lets face facts you probably will never
understand. If you eventually do you wouldn't admit it anyways.
As I said before, the
> basic reason Hawking gives for his argument being correct is that there is
> no way to know whether a black hole has ever formed.
>
> > I'll finish with this comment. You initiated this discussion by
> > claiming Hawking's talk vindicated Abhas Mitra's proof that trapped
> > surfaces never form on any topology. This is clearly incorrect because
> > as John Baez succinctly points out Abhas Mitra's proof is a classical
> > proof [erronious as it is] while Hawking's idea clearly incorporates
> > aspects of quantum mechanics applied to gravitiational theory. Also
> > you insinuated that Hawking possibly plagiarized Mitra's solution to
> > arive at his conclusion.
>
> Actually I initiated this discussion with a link to a newspaper article
> bearing the same title as this thread. Perhaps you should re-read it to
> refresh your memory. John Baez may have been succinct (I don't think he
> was), but he was also wrong.
John Baez was right and Mitra is wrong. You are also wrong.
You claim that Mitra's proof is erroneous.
> Could you explain - in your own words please - precisely why it is
> incorrect? Have you spotted a mathematical error which you would be kind
> enough to share with us?
Baez already explained it to you.
>
> As for Hawking, sure he throws in some quantum mechanics and other stuff,
> but it still looks very much to me like he has just plagiarised Mitra's
> ideas, dressed them up a bit (actually, quite a lot), and then presented
> them as his own.
You must be joking? If not you are a fool.
In any case Mitra solved the information paradox (which as
> it happens only exists because of Hawking's original flawed analysis) well
> before Hawking claims to have done.
You must be joking? If not you are an idiot.
>
> Why is it that Mitra's proof is wrong just because Baez says so, whereas any
> claim that Baez may be wrong is an act of blasphemy? Is this blind devotion
> to Baez and the unquestioning acceptance of his word as absolute truth a
> requirement of membership in the `Baez Band' cult? Does membership also
> involve making ritual blood sacrifices before a stone effigy of an
> elephant-trunked Baez? Does he teach elementary calculus?
Typical crank response.
LEJ Brouwer
news:45534f09.04082...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> John Baez was right and Mitra is wrong. You are also wrong.
[snip]
> Baez already explained it to you.
[snip]
> Typical crank response.
Ah yes, the unmistakable signs of `Baez Band' cult brainwashing in action.
Tell me, do they make you repeat these statements of faith over and over
until you are thoroughly brainwashed, before you spew them forth as an
automatic kneejerk reaction to anyone who speaks against your great and
mighty leader?
It must be nice not to ever have to use your own brain.
John Baez
LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is this blind devotion to Baez and the unquestioning acceptance of his
>word as absolute truth a requirement of membership in the `Baez Band'
>cult?
No, you just need to fill out the form at my website and pay your
annual dues.
>Does membership also involve making ritual blood sacrifices before a
>stone effigy of an elephant-trunked Baez?
Err, yes, that's true - but it's actually kinda fun.
>By the way, I met Albert Einstein at Madame Tussaud's just the other day.
I hate to disappoint you, but that wasn't really Einstein -
Madame Tussaud's is a wax museum.
jmfb...@aol.com
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>In articles <2oq5fsF...@uni-berlin.de> and
<2on4qhF...@uni-berlin.de>,
>LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is this blind devotion to Baez and the unquestioning acceptance of his
>>word as absolute truth a requirement of membership in the `Baez Band'
>>cult?
>
>No, you just need to fill out the form at my website and pay your
>annual dues.
Define annual.
>
>>Does membership also involve making ritual blood sacrifices before a
>>stone effigy of an elephant-trunked Baez?
>
>Err, yes, that's true - but it's actually kinda fun.
Elephants? oh, drat. I've just learned that my bit gods were
doing chickens in cross-roads at midnight. I never saw chickens.
Now I have start looking for elephants.
<snip SantyClaus news>
John Baez
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <cgf6r0$1hu$1...@glue.ucr.edu>,
> ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>>LEJ Brouwer <intuit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Is this blind devotion to Baez and the unquestioning acceptance of his
>>>word as absolute truth a requirement of membership in the `Baez Band'
>>>cult?
>>No, you just need to fill out the form at my website and pay your
>>annual dues.
>>>Does membership also involve making ritual blood sacrifices before a
>>>stone effigy of an elephant-trunked Baez?
>>Err, yes, that's true - but it's actually kinda fun.
>Elephants? oh, drat. I've just learned that my bit gods were
>doing chickens in cross-roads at midnight. I never saw chickens.
>Now I have start looking for elephants.
There's a reduced fee if you only use chickens, but most members
prefer blood sacrifices to a stone effigy of an elephant-trunked
Baez. It seems to work better.
LEJ Brouwer
Well the curious thing is that, despite being made of wax, he has many
more intelligent things to say than you have.
Cosmik Debris
Please, there is no need for this. You may not agree with someone but
that is not an excuse for name-calling. I do not know John but I have
read many of his articles and news postings. He is very knowledgeable
and willing to share that knowledge, he is not dogmatic and will
listen to a good argument. I think an apology is called for.