Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Gamma Ray Bursters and Friedwardt Winterburg's Firewall

  1. #1 Gamma Ray Bursters and Friedwardt Winterburg's Firewall 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    You bump into articles like this on the internet: Alice and Bob Meet the Wall of Fire. The subtitle is How a new black hole paradox has set the physics world ablaze and it's written by Jennifer Ouellette. It goes back about 18 months and it's about the AMPS firewall. You can read things like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer Ouellete
    "Conventionally, physicists have assumed that if the black hole is large enough, Alice won’t notice anything unusual as she crosses the horizon. In this scenario, colorfully dubbed “No Drama,” the gravitational forces won’t become extreme until she approaches a point inside the black hole called the singularity. There, the gravitational pull will be so much stronger on her feet than on her head that Alice will be “spaghettified.”

    Now a new hypothesis is giving poor Alice even more drama than she bargained for. If this alternative is correct, as the unsuspecting Alice crosses the event horizon, she will encounter a massive wall of fire that will incinerate her on the spot. As unfair as this seems for Alice, the scenario would also mean that at least one of three cherished notions in theoretical physics must be wrong"...

    According to Joseph Polchinski, a string theorist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the simplest solution is that the equivalence principle breaks down at the event horizon, thereby giving rise to a firewall. Polchinski is a co-author of the paper that started it all, along with Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf and James Sully — a group often referred to as "AMPS". Even Polchinski thinks the idea is a little crazy. It’s a testament to the knottiness of the problem that a firewall is the least radical potential solution. If there is an error in the firewall argument, the mistake is not obvious. That’s the hallmark of a good scientific paradox..."
    What should raise a flag is the word "paradox". With experience you come to appreciate that there are no real paradoxes. If there appears to be, there's a mistake somewhere, perhaps in the assumptions or something we take for granted. Things like "This radiation results from virtual particle pairs popping out of the quantum vacuum near a black hole". Or things like "Complementarity is a theoretical concept developed to address a specific problem, namely, reconciling the two viewpoints of observers inside and outside the event horizon". Because when you start from first principles and learn about time and the speed of light and gravity, you find yourself favouring the original frozen-star black hole interpretation. This does include a firewall of sorts, but one that's very different from the AMPS firewall. One that is very simple, and free from paradox. And free from stuff like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer Oullette
    "The mental image of a singularity migrating from deep within a black hole to the event horizon provoked at least one exasperated outburst during the Stanford workshop, a reaction Bousso finds understandable. “We should be upset,” he said. “This is a terrible blow to general relativity"....
    You'll doubtless be aware that the "coordinate" speed of light varies in a gravitational field. The thing is, if you drop an electron into a black hole, it falls faster and faster. At no point does it ever slow down. Falling bodies don't do that. But the coordinate speed of light is lower at a lower elevation. The electron falls faster and faster and faster, and the coordinate speed of light gets lower and lower and lower. Only the electron can't be at some location moving faster than the coordinate speed of light at that location. Remember pair production and the wave nature of matter and annihilation. Matter can't move faster than light, because it's "made of light". So something's got to give. And it's got to be the electron, because its kinetic energy is being bled out of its mass-energy. It can't survive. It has to break up, and turn into gamma radiation. Hence gamma-ray bursters. If you fell into a black hole, you'd never make it to the event horizon. On the way in you'd be ionized and vapourized and annihilated. You would be turned into gamma rays (and maybe neutrinos). It would be like a fly in an electric fly killer, but much much worse. So much worse it even breaches conservation of charge, which we can maybe test for.

    It seems cut and dried, and so simple that you wonder why nobody has ever thought about it before. Only they have. Scroll down to the comments on Jennifer Oullette's article, and there you can see Freidwardt Winterberg talking about the firewall he proposed in 2001 in a paper called Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity. Here's the abstract:

    Quote Originally Posted by Freidwardt Winterberg
    "In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincaré, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters".
    You can find him commenting on other blogs, like quantum frontiers. There's even a reference to his paper in An Apologia for Firewalls, which is the AMPS paper. It's genuine stuff, it flies. And whilst I might come at it from a different direction and say things in a totally different way, the end result is the same. A black hole is a gamma-ray burster, infalling matter can't survive even as far as the event horizon. And the event horizon appears first at the centre of the collapsing body, so the black hole grows like a hailstone. It ticks all the boxes, there are no paradoxes, it fits with the first-principles appraisal, it's got to be right. So why haven't I heard about it before? Because Winterberg has had some problems, and like Planck said, science advances one death at a time. But that's one for another day. Meanwhile...

    Discuss!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    There's even a reference to his paper in An Apologia for Firewalls, which is the AMPS paper.
    There isn't a reference. The paper appears in the list of references seemingly by mistake, since the paper isn't referenced in the body of the text. I suspect a LaTeX error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    There is a reference. See [1304.6483] An Apologia for Firewalls and go and look for yourself. On page 27 where you can read this:

    Other proposals that lead to similar behavior include [85, 86, 87, 88, 89]. All such suggestions may be categorized as (perhaps suitable limits of) the massive remnant scenario described in [90].

    Then see the references where on page 35 you can read this:

    [87] F. Winterberg, "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity," Z. Naturforsch. 56A (2001) 889-892.

    If you do your own research you can doubtless find references to Winterberg's paper in other arXiv papers. Here's one: [1401.4534] A Case for Lorentzian Relativity . And guess what it says?

    "...To show the nature of these changes, a massive particle is modelled as a standing wave in three dimensions. As the particle moves, the standing wave becomes a travelling wave having two factors..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Ah, I see why searching for "[87]" turned up no results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Interesting stuff though isn't it? It takes us well away from the typical description of a black hole. Some people say this sort of thing isn't in the "spirit" of relativity, but I don't think so myself. IMHO people treat the equivalence principle and Lorentz invariance as golden rules. They say things like "if you're in breach of the equivalence principle you've busted general relativity". Which IMHO is totally stupid, because the equivalence principle applies to an infinitesimal region. A region of zero extent. To no region at all! And then you get people who talk about Lorentz Invariance and the speed of light when Einstein and the evidence says it varies anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Ah, I see why searching for "[87]" turned up no results.


    My mom tells me not to read posts by Farsight. But Messier 87 is a quasar, it may have been a "burst" and I'm unsure if technology was around to detect it at the time.


    Sorry if I don'r follow.


    :EDIT:

    Neve rmind...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your post "links".

    I am or was confused by the hypothesis' presented by the "link"...until I thought it thru. If what is presented is true, then there is no point in studying physics! It's ALL MAGIC!!!!

    It would mean the end of Relativity as well as the principles of logic and proportion...one might as well say "because God says so".

    ....

    (death by "firewall" or "spaghettification?" This is physics reduced to "Star Trek" gibberish)

    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •