Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / April 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The black hole Einstein-Rosen bridge instability revisited

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
stargene - 22 Apr 2008 18:11 GMT
When Thorne et al proved that the Einstein-Rosen bridge
interpretation of the black hole paradigm was unstable against
collapse, ie: without the presence of exotic matter to shore it
up,  was their proof itself stable against anything that a correct
but as yet nonexistent Quantum Gravitation theory might
throw at them?

That is, was their approach sufficiently general and powerful
that their proof of instability would survive any plausible
Quantum Gravitation Theory in the future?
Uncle Al - 22 Apr 2008 22:39 GMT
> When Thorne et al proved that the Einstein-Rosen bridge
> interpretation of the black hole paradigm was unstable against
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that their proof of instability would survive any plausible
> Quantum Gravitation Theory in the future?

Name one quantized gravitation theory that can accurately predict the
precession of Mercury's orbit and correct GPS for satellite velocity
and altitude vs. an observing base station.  Every flavor of quantized
gravitation is empirically bankrupt.  To postulate another version
that does what it must plus allows the seemingly impossible is overly
optimistic.  Prove me wrong.  Write it.

Uncle Al has asked a simple question since 1999:  Do local left and
right shoes/screws/hands vacuum free fall identically?  If
reproducibly not, gravitation is Weitzenböck spacetime torsion not
Riemann-Cartan spacetime curvature.  Since all quantized gravitations
demand either the Equivalence Principle as such or BRST invariance,
they would all be falsified on a technicality.  They don't work
because they are wrong.  Somebody should look.

If Adelberger ran a parity Eotvos experiment opposing single crystal
test masses of enantiomeric space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz
he'd be looking for a first order EP violation founded in orthodox
classical theory that wholly includes GR as a restricted case.  He
instead pursues (epsilon)^3 outputs:  a small effect arising from
negligible net active mass and strongly prohibited from occuring as a
first order process,

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/schlamminger08.pdf
baryon number arises from an internal symmetry - no coupling to
rotation or translation.  Null output.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl97-021603.pdf
The vacuum is empirically inert to EM over billion lightyear paths.
Null output.

How smart is that?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.