Black Hole
T-Symmetry Violation

W   
hen black holes were first postulated (seriously-Chandrasikar), there was a "gut" reaction by the general physics community that could not take them seriously. The underlying reason for this reaction was (and always is) "a postulate in opposition to the 'subconscious ouevre' of the experienced scientist".

The 'oeuvre' of the physicist consists primarily of:

1. Laws of Thermodynamics
2. Symmetry Principles (conservation laws)
If a physicist detects any oeuvre violation, he rejects it like a toddler rejects unwanted food, i.e. it just gets ejected with total unconscious decisiveness.

Black holes were rejected because they represent a gross (read macroscopic) t-reversal violation of a kind never seen in the laboratory ... or anywhere else for that matter.
(They are not rejected now because P and CP violations are familiar.)

For the uninitiated, time reversal symmetry requires that any physical process whatsoever must be reversable without violating any conservation law at least in principle. Thus, if you take a motion picture of someone diving into the water, that film run backwards represents a physically possible event (it is just terribly unlikely by way of probablility).
Now, clearly, if something goes into a black hole and is theoretically constrained not to come out, a film of the object going into the hole, when run backwards, represents a physically impossible event (not improbable ... impossible).

One might appeal this on the grounds that an improbable Hawking radiation effect could reassemble the object and eject it from the hole. However, this gambit does an "end run" around the gravitational interaction detouring into the weak-strong force for "mystical" assistance.

This is not allowed when determining invariance.

Either the gravitational interaction is invariant under T-reversal (of and unto itself) or it is not.

For those familiar, this T violation commands an offsetting CP violation such that CPT symmetry is conserved. (And all agree here that if CPT is invalid we may retire our organs of thought.)

As I have indicated previously (CP violation), a T violation in the gravitational interaction is increasingly possible as the time period over which it is measured is increased. The black hole T violation may be functionally connected to the CP violation of the weak interaction. A 'functional' connection is what is required to balance the logical symmetry books on this subject.

What can come out of a B-hole?

Nothing? ... Not exactly. One must first define phrases like "come out", "go in".

For instance, one might hover (powered) over an event horizon and lower an object on a rope past that horizon ... then retreive it ... say, an instrument package ... (unlikely, but theoretically possible). Or, you could simply go into the hole and power straight out so long as you didn't go in so far as to be "tidaled apart" or exceed the mechanical requirements for getting out.

What !?

Yes. The description of a hole indicates unique mathematical points of interest where gradual transitions occur. At the event horizon, the escape velocity is light speed ... hence one thinks immediately of escaping the hole itself. Not so fast here. Back up.

Escape velocity is that velocity required to assure that you will never return, in principle, to the gravitating body. By way of example, you can get off the Earth's surface and go to the moon at 1 mph if you had some miraculous anti-matter rocket that could maintain that slow rate without running out of fuel. Not efficient ... just possible.

Similarly, you could just power out of a b-hole slowly until you were past the event horizon or past any designated point.

When they speak of a speed C at the event horizon, they mean an orbital velocity and its attendant centrifugal force which offsets the gravity at that point. Obviously, you can maintain a near earth orbit at a velocity of ~18,000 mph. But you could also get to the same height by taking an elevator (running on a super-strand from geosynchronous orbit). The difference is that if you elevator to 100 miles up, you must maintain that altitude by means of the application of continuous force whereas an orbital body maintains its altitude by "falling" at the same rate that the ground drops away. Get it???
OK ... then what do they mean when they say that nothing can get out of a black hole??? Can light get out???

No, not if it goes past the event horizon.
The problem here is power.
Light does not accelerate.

Once within the event horizon ... at some certain point ... if it is to get out ... it must travel in a direction perpendicular to the G-field (an orbital insertion point). Since it is in uniform motion, it's velocity, at that point, is orbital, sub-orbital or ... supra-orbital (it will go off on a hyperbolic trajectory).

But since the event horizon marks the place where a supra-orbital velocity is c , it must necessarily never get out since its present velocity is c ... and ... greater than c is required when it is under the event horizon ... see?.

Same, same all same for ponderable, non-powered, free falling objects.

It should be realized by all that the event horizon is not a magic place. You wouldn't know it when you passed it. Nothing special "happens" ... NOTHING HAPPENS. It is a mathematical 'condition' ... not an occurence of any sort. Its significance is almost irrelevant mechanically if you had a really, really heavy duty power plant. If not, you shouldn't go near the thing.

The most sober thought I have seen on black holes was an amateur observation, to wit ...

"Black holes don't suck in any more matter than a regular star."

So, we have a problem here.

Either the first part is true ... "Gravity is a T-banger"
or,
The second part is true and things can get out of a black hole.

No matter how you cut it ... something is wrong.
These two ideas are incompatible.




Next Page


Ebtx Home Page