Immediately after switching the page, it will work with CSR.
Please reload your browser to see how it works.
I did. In particular I did not miss the whole preceding apparent horizon vs event horizon context of §VIII or the second half of the second column of p. 17, all of which conflicts with your:
It hasn't finished forming because as its gravitational
field increases its time distortion increases. Its
formation is "frozen in time" (actually just very very
slow), it is *never fully formed*.
And then this choice statement and your previous paragraph in mixed order:
> That was 37 years ago! We may have figured out one or two things about black holes since then
"Tell all physicists you don't read physics papers without saying you don't read physics papers..." [1]
I mean, did you even look at the range of dates in your One Good Paper's bibliography?
For starters, Ginzburg & Frolov was just a useful foundational paper (which I suspected you had never heard of) that shows that generically in curved spacetimes, different observers count different numbers of particles, and in particular one observer's vacuum can be another observer's cloud of electrons, positrons, and photons. This was a nice way of saying that your "relativity does not allow observers to disagree on observations of what" is just wrong.
I gave you a google scholar link to the 37 year old paper paper so that it would be clear anyone with a slightly different academic background (and I hoped you) that it's a foundational theory paper. Frolov is the well-known author of two standard textbooks on the physics of black holes (with Novokov and with Zelnikov), both of which deal with Frolov's 37-year-old paper in the context of evaporation and of different observers counting different particle numbers and how that an acceleration between past and future observers accounts for Hawking quanta. Both Frolov textbooks appear early on the first page of google scholar results.
(The 37-year-old concern is especially funny. Frolov's 21st century textbook, like practically all textbooks on gravitational phenomena and theory, even reference papers which are now more than a hundred years old, oh no! Choosing a recent GR textbook -- Carroll 2014 -- the author lists under Advanced General Relativity: Hawking & Ellis 1973, de Felice & Clarke 1990, Sachs & Wu 1977; and in the Graduate section: Wald 1984, MTW 1973, Weinberg 1972, ...)
> modern (2024-era) numerical methods
which are built to be compatible with ... what? Analytical and/or perturbation theory, right?
(BTW, Stark & Piran published their computer results in 1985: <https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.55...>. Again, can be found by placing sci-hub.se/ before that URL. That's 39 years ago! "We have performed an extensive series of tests [including] known perturbation solutions.")
One more kick at the ridiculous dead horse: at the bottom of p. 17 one finds, "We are not the first to propose a picture like the one presented throughout this section. As far back as theoriginal discovery of the Hawking effect, similar ideas were invoked in [4], and by various comments of [2, 3]". The dates of those are respectively 1974, 1975, and 1976. Oh no!
Could it be that among the "one or two things about black holes since then" that "We" may have "figured out" is that early theory papers (the 80s are not early) turn out to have good support in things like astrophysics, magnetohydrodynamics, gravitational wave observations, Hulse-Taylor / PSR J0737−3039 etc. etc.?
- --
[1] https://journals.aps.org/125years but uh oh that was 2018 and surely the list would be totally different now!
Can a BH form in a finite time as viewed by a
distant observer? (Answer: Yes.)
It hasn't finished forming because as its gravitational
field increases its time distortion increases. Its
formation is "frozen in time" (actually just very very
slow), *it is never fully formed.*
If there is a paradox in your model, then your model
is broken, end of story.
Static and non-static observers in general curved spacetimes immersed in relativistic QFTs generically disagree on particle counts. The Unruh, Hartle-Hawking, Rindler, Minkowski and Boulware vacuums seem especially apposite search terms for someone who isn't among "the slow people at the back of the class".
(Ginzburg & Frolov 1987 is a good starting point: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1070/PU1987v030n12ABEH... (one can also stick "sci-hub.se/" in front of the URL). It is cited a lot <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=12518697499517381...>).
Uhhh... one of those words should go.
Let's keep it fully classical and drop "photon": we're interested in gravitational effects rather than quantum ones (uncertainty, fluctuations, tunnelling, details about scattering and more). Really what we want is something to illuminate (pardon the pun) interesting null geodesics, so a thin collimated beam -- a pencil of light -- will do.
The relevant surface here is the apparent horizon, which can be measured by infalling apparatuses, and not the event horizon, the location of which is determined by the configuration of the entire spacetime. (See Visser PRD 2014 <https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.12...> or the corresponding arxiv version <https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7295>).
> stay in place forever
Note the region inside the shell and the downward-pointing wedge in Fig 1. of Visser 2014 is flat Minkowski spacetime. Everything in that region will work like Special Relativity, as one would expect from the shell theorem.
In particular, a pencil of light directed outwards through the apparent horizon in Fig. 1. will ride the AH down to the singularity, but a receiver intercepting the pencil of light just inside the shell would notice nothing unusual: spacetime is flat there.
Eventually the collapsing shell collides with observers floating weightlessly inside it, and they have a bad time. But they can direct a pencil of light inwards just before the shell hits them.
Singleton black holes from collapsed stars move in their galaxy about the same as uncollapsed star: on the order of 200 km/s or so (faster towards the middle but still in the disc where motion is roughly circular around the galaxy's centre, slower in the bulge where motion is randomly around the galaxy's centre). Really unusually high-velocity stars move about 65-100 km/s faster than these, which is still not that fast, and "hypervelocity stars" (we've seen some twenty, compared to the 100 billion or so stars in our galaxy) move about only five to ten times faster still, but we're still at only about a thousandth of the speed of light.
Black hole binaries can be arbitrarily wide, even up to many thousands of light-years, taking hundreds of thousands of years or more to orbit each other, possibly at speeds comparable to those of stars in galaxies. MEERKAT just announced its pulsar timing array results which focuses on orbital periods of some tens of years ("nanohertz gravitational waves"), which means not moving very fast. Here's a nice cartoon: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/116 LIGO is sensitive to much higher frequencies, once a black hole binary's mutual orbit has shrunk considerably - at the final chirp, they are moving at double-digit percentages of the speed of light and the orbital periods are in the milliseconds. In that regime black hole horizons do have bumps raised on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1M-AbWIlVQ
The black holes can't rip apart though: everything inside stays inside.
I'm afraid I can't figure out what you're talking about in terms of frozen in time, time dilation, or atoms compacting.