[Moderator's note: Please avoid sending long lines, intentionally or   
   otherwise.  We do what we can to translate garbled stuff to the format   
   of a text-only group, but our resources are limited, thus the "=" signs   
   below.  -P.H.]   
      
   On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 2:08:07 PM UTC-6, stargene wrote:   
   > This immense grav'l field, at r, should display a strong Unruh effect,   
   > in an accelerating frame, -- I assume with its own spectrum of virtual   
   > particles.   
      
   [Remainder of description deleted]   
      
   The foregoing is why Hawking rejected the idea of there ever being a real   
   honest-to-goodness event horizon.   
      
   A more fundamental, little-noted-as-such, problem exists with the whole mat=   
   ter. Prior to the Kruskal theorem, the understanding of black holes or (mor=   
   e generally) the Schwarzschild solution was that there was some kind of sin=   
   gularity at the event horizon.   
      
   What the Kruskal theorem did -- by the folklore account -- is that it "remo=   
   ved" this singularity by showing that it was "only" a "coordinate singulari=   
   ty". What it ACTUALLY did was something far worse: it provided an embodimen=   
   t of the expression "out of the frying pan into the fire" by replacing what=   
    had henceforth been "only" a coordinate singularity by an ACTUAL singulari=   
   ty!   
      
   "Singularities" are simply a polite way of saying "contradiction". So, the =   
   usual folklore account (buttressed by such results as the Information Parad=   
   ox) is then that there is something wrong with ALL classical geometry and t=   
   hat a solution to this predicament must be found in quantum theory.   
      
   That argument is a fallacy -- and those who pose it either know so or ought=   
    to know better. All quantum theories, no matter how construed, have the pr=   
   operty that they reflect a classical theory ... not approximately but exact=   
   ly. In particular, the coherent states of the theory ARE the classical stat=   
   es of the corresponding classical theory, the difference being that the coh=   
   erent states have non-zero overlap, while the classical states do not.   
      
   A quantum theory that includes the phenomenon of gravity within its scope M=   
   UST possess a classical geometry of some form or another in the form of its=   
    coherent states. So, for instance, when you hear mention about how this or=   
    that framework (be it Loop Quantum [sic] Gravity or String Theory) embodie=   
   s gravity in a quantum setting, the first question you should ask is: what =   
   are its coherent states? If you don't get or find a clear reply, then you k=   
   now that the formalism is ill-conceived, ill-founded or both (no matter how=   
    many research papers might be written on it in Phys. Rev.).   
      
   So, there is no getting away from classical geometry, period.   
      
   Thus, when you have a result like the Kruskal Theorem -- which replaces a s=   
   ignificant but relatively harmless "coordinate" singularity by an ACTUAL si=   
   ngularity -- this result show NOT that classical geometry has a problem, bu=   
   t rather that RIEMANNIAN (and Riemann-Cartan) geometry does!   
      
   In particular, the premise that the signature of the metric remains the sam=   
   e, and that the metric is everywhere non-degenerate.   
      
   There is, in fact, a small set of literature out there that treats the even=   
   t horizon (and similarly that would treat Hubble Horizons or "Big Rips") as=   
    an actual signature-changing surface -- much as Hawking did (albeit in gui=   
   se as a "technical expedient") in his first treatments of Black Hole thermo=   
   dynamics. This research, in effect, gives physicality to the "Euclideanizat=   
   ion" trick that Hawking used in formulating his semi-classical semi-quantum=   
    black hole physics. The event horizon is then a boundary to a Euclidean wo=   
   rmhole. That term is what you'll find links to in research archives if you =   
   do a search.   
      
   The passing over from a Lorenzian background (where the Poincare' group hol=   
   ds sway locally) to a Euclidean background (where the 4D Euclidean group ho=   
   lds sway locally) takes place through a c -> 0 intermediate boundary. This =   
   would locally be covered by what's known as the "Carroll Group" (the c = =   
   0 limit of Poincare') or even the "Static Group" (the "c = 0" limit of Ga=   
   lilei, yes there is such a thing!) The passing over, in terms of the kinema=   
   tic groups, is a group contraction from Poincare' to Carroll and then throu=   
   gh Carroll to Euclid 4D.   
      
   More generally, another possible way to pass over to Euclid can then be ent=   
   ertained: Poincare' -> Galilei -> Euclid. The boundary, here would be a sur=   
   face on which c = infinity which (from the point of view of the Relativis=   
   t) would be called a "null hypersurface". That pretty much characterizes th=   
   e Cosmological Horizon and the 3-surface at "time 0" that it sits on. Acros=   
   s that boundary (according to Hawking) is a Euclidean domain. Here, too, yo=   
   u will find research that has given physicality to this "technical fix" of =   
   Hawking.   
      
   The two routes toward Euclideanization (or three if you count the passing t=   
   hrough the Static Group) are DISTINCT ways of getting from Poincare' to Euc=   
   lid, but are conflated and not even recognized as distinct in formalisms li=   
   ke the Path Integral approach (where the assumption isn't even given physic=   
   ality or treated as anything but a "technical fix"!)   
      
   >   
   > My naive question then is: Could one member of such a virtual pair   
   > then still become relatively isolated from its partner, if it momentarily   
   > travels toward M, feeling a much higher potential, while its partner   
   > moves slightly outward from M, into a lower potential.   
   >   
   > Could the local field potential differences, in the neighborhood of r,   
   > then mediate a non-zero chance of the latter member escaping and   
   > becoming real at infinity?   
   >   
   > Ie: A sort of proto-Hawking radiation?   
   >   
   > Or does any and all chance of some of the Unruh field of particles   
   > becoming real require the prior existence of the actual even horizon?   
   >   
   > Thanks,   
   > Gene   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)