I invite anyone to participate to an open discussion on the latest “findings” on Black-Holes' research. The motive of this thread is a set of articles appeared in the issue of September 2022 (p. 26-51) of Scientific American magazine under the title “Black Hole Mysteries solved”.
I have proposed a new way of thinking about Nature/Reality NCS(Natural Coordinate System) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324206515_Natural_Coordinate_System_A_new_way_of_seeing_Nature?channel=doi&linkId=5c0e3a7d299bf139c74dbe81&showFulltext=true) and I would ask whether you recognize any basic distinction between the above preprint(and the following Appendices) and the articles of Sci. Am.. This thread is intended to be an open– in respect to time and subject - discussion forum for the latest results of Black Hole research in order to advance new perspectives based on NCS and to put the proposals of NCS to the public assessment.
In order to seed points of arguments, I picked up some phrases from the articles of SciAm in comparison to phrases or references from NCS preprint.
PS. This discussion is NOT open for new “pet-theories” apart from NCS.(!!!)
It’s not a good idea to discuss technical issues on the basis of articles that aren’t technical. The ``black hole paradoxes'' haven't, yet, been resolved-they've been reformulated in ways that seem to grant more insight into what they actually mean.
The defining property of gravity is general coordinate invariance, which means that it doesn’t make sense to inquire about ``natural" coordinate systems, since any coordinate system is as good as any other and nothing can depend on this choice.
There are many open questions about black holes and these have to do with how the singularity might be resolved.
What is, still, missing, is a way of summing over the metrics, that don't represent solutions to Einstein's equations. Equivalently, the gauge group of gravity is non-compact and how to sample that space isn't known.
For the moment only certain approximations for realizing this sampling are known.
It is reasonable for someone who intents to participate to a discussion to read - apart of its title – at least the introductory post and the references that the discussion is about. If this happens it should become obvious that NCS is not merely another “coordinate system” but an entirely new framework/model of how reality works (with its physical part that physics deals with, and its metaphysical part as well).
There’s no point in discussing metaphysics and physics is an expression of mathematical statements. If NCS is a ``new" framework, it must agree with the `` old" framework, in the present case general relativity, where both are valid and resolve the problems the ``old" framework can’t.
NCS does neither. The black hole information paradox isn’t due to the choice of any particular coordinate system, because black holes don’t depend on it, nor does the quantum evolution. So the term doesn’t make sense and the references provided don’t lead to anything new.
All the articles mentioned are just essays about how not to do the calculation that has to be done-summing over metrics-and trying to guess the answer. Unfortunately the guesses, as expected, fail at some point.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Organizational Psychology
- Training