From: roland.franzius@uos.de   
      
   Am 01.03.2017 um 22:40 schrieb rockbrentwood@gmail.com:   
   > [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?   
   >>   
   >   
      
   Many good points, but the essential point is missing.   
      
   The upper left half of the Kruskal geometry has a spacelike singularity   
   that on may or not may hit onto in future. Thats without much influence   
   to the physics on time slices long before that time.   
      
   This half space (ct,r) (angles suppressed) has the radial Rindler wedge   
   that is spacelike to the center point with hyperbolas r= const and rays   
   t=const.   
      
   The outer metric is Schwarzschild ds^2= f(r) dct^2 - 1/f(r) dr^2 is   
   stationary and allows for local fields with compact support that give   
   conventional quantum field physics in the forward light cone of a   
   compact 3d-space start conditions.   
      
   Inside the (ct=r) forward light cone the metrics is the inerer   
   Schwarzschild, ds^2 = f(ct) dct^2 - 1/f(ct) dr^2 with coordinate time   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)