2 ms·

For those of us that didn’t think anything about black holes was obvious, what’s up with Roy? He chasing clout or something?

by heyoni 3y ago

defrost 3y ago
He's got enough clout and awards for a soccer team already, his Marcel Grossmann Award has gravitas ... He's on the cusp of 90 and getting salty still hearing about singularities on pop sci TV shows I guess. From his conclusion: The author’s opinion is that gravitational clumping leads inevitably to black holes in our universe, confirming what is observed, but this does not lead to singularities. It is true that there are ”proofs” that the curvature of a non-rotating one is infinite at its central point. These all assume that matter is classical and that it satisfies whatever nineteenth century equation of state the proponents require to prove whatever it is that they wish to prove. Equations of state assume that all variables, such as pressure and volume, occur in the simplest algebraic fashion. This may be true for the low density laboratory or engineering experiments but perhaps not at black hole densities. The author has no doubt, and never did, that when Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are melded it will be shown that there are no singularities anywhere. When theory predicts singularities, the theory is wrong! A stellar example of Max Academic shade * ”airquotes” * "whatever nineteenth century" * "low density" .. "engineering"
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  So basically a swift whack on the chalkboard with a pointing stick, followed by "Pay attention, class!"
throwaway81523 3y ago
I doubt it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kerr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kerr
pdonis 3y ago
> what’s up with Roy? My read is that he is disappointed that certain lines of research that could have come from his original publication of the black hole solution that is named after him, did not actually get pursued by the community. He describes at least some of them in the paper. Unfortunately, for reasons that I have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, I don't think the kinds of models he appears to be interested in are actually viable physically, however interesting they might be mathematically.

For those of us that didn’t think anything about black holes was obvious, what’s up with Roy? He chasing clout or something?

by heyoni 3y ago

For those of us that didn’t think anything about black holes was obvious, what’s up with Roy? He chasing clout or something?

defrost 3y ago

He's got enough clout and awards for a soccer team already, his Marcel Grossmann Award has gravitas ... He's on the cusp of 90 and getting salty still hearing about singularities on pop sci TV shows I guess. From his conclusion: The author’s opinion is that gravitational clumping leads inevitably to black holes in our universe, confirming what is observed, but this does not lead to singularities. It is true that there are ”proofs” that the curvature of a non-rotating one is infinite at its central point. These all assume that matter is classical and that it satisfies whatever nineteenth century equation of state the proponents require to prove whatever it is that they wish to prove. Equations of state assume that all variables, such as pressure and volume, occur in the simplest algebraic fashion. This may be true for the low density laboratory or engineering experiments but perhaps not at black hole densities. The author has no doubt, and never did, that when Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are melded it will be shown that there are no singularities anywhere. When theory predicts singularities, the theory is wrong! A stellar example of Max Academic shade * ”airquotes” * "whatever nineteenth century" * "low density" .. "engineering"

slowmovintarget 3y ago
So basically a swift whack on the chalkboard with a pointing stick, followed by "Pay attention, class!"

throwaway81523 3y ago

I doubt it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kerr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kerr

pdonis 3y ago

> what’s up with Roy? My read is that he is disappointed that certain lines of research that could have come from his original publication of the black hole solution that is named after him, did not actually get pursued by the community. He describes at least some of them in the paper. Unfortunately, for reasons that I have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, I don't think the kinds of models he appears to be interested in are actually viable physically, however interesting they might be mathematically.