Is the Universe a blackhole? Tell me why I'm wrong!

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:43:58 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 01/04/2014 10:45 AM, dlzc wrote:
....
Exterior looking in: OK, someone (a flatlander)
in the container Universe will say that all the
matter and energy fell into the center and is
compressed into and infinitely dense point.
What is time dilation for an infinite value for
g? Infinity. Time stops.

Well, time dilation doesn't even have to stop at
infinite density.

Nice that it does, though.

It stops even before it gets to the exact center,
it stops at the event horizon.

No, it does not. Curvature at the event horizon is finite. Just because Schwarzchild metrics have problems at the event horizon, does not mean Nature suddenly has a cow there.

Interior, on a worldline: We know we will expand
until no particle will have any other particle in
its future. Time stops here too. No forces, no
light, no meaningful further expansion, nothing.
Essentially a perfect state for a BEC to start
quantum tunneling...

We don't know if we'll expand until we get to
the Big Rip,

.... or even if there is a Big Rip, certainly the "bathtub curve" does not require there to be one.

we may stop well before that, but that would still
mean that time stops.
....
But then again, Dark Energy may just keep going on
forever, just getting closer and closer to zero.
Dark Energy is already pretty close to zero right
now, it amounts to no more than 10^-9 J/m^3 right
now, but the calculated value of ZPE is 10^113 J/m^3,
which is for all intents and purposes is already
zero in a calculator. So Dark Energy is using 122
orders of magnitude less energy than is available
in the ZPE -- i.e. zero.

No, Dark Energy is increasing in forward time, remember?
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...more-confusing

And since gravitation is not a force, it takes NO energy for the Universe to expand or accelerate expansion.

....
Whatever amount of times. The amount that is
reingested will always be less than the amount
lost. So at some point the amount lost will
always be more than the amount regained.

False in this Universe, so therefore false in
our container Universe. Always bathed in (at
minimum) CMBR radiation that establishes the
balance point between continued growth, and the
beginning of mass-loss via Hawking radiation.

We won't know it's false in this universe until
we get close to the container universe's internal
event horizon.

We've been there, at the Big Bang. We are also already in contact with the central singularity, hence the acceleration of expansion.

Hawking Radiation is supposed to be really slow
anyways for really large blackholes.

It kills a black hole in a "million" years or so at current CMBR temperature. "Really slow" is waiting until the Universe cools, the rest is not.

Perhaps Dark Energy is this mass-loss?

I don't think so. Mass / energy loss occurs on the "loop" from future to Big Bang. And the reduced input stream is transparent to the entire history of ingestion that is written on the Big Bang. I think Dark Energy is the interaction of matter / energy *now* with "the future"... aka. "the central singularity".

....
First off, remember that for Hawking Radiation to
work, the virtual particles have to come from the
outside, not the inside.

Wrong. The virtual pair *came from inside*.

A virtual particle pair will have one of the pair
fall into the blackhole while the other one escapes
for a period of time.

The period of time is the life of the container Universe.

The one that falls in will have to annihilate with
another member of its opposite particle inside
the blackhole to reduce the mass of the blackhole.

See, here is your problem. Mass is not annihilated, since the energy released is equivalent in mass, and is still trapped "at the center". Also, why is this anti-matter not destroying normal matter on the fall in?

So the Hawking Radiation will have to come from
the outer event horizon.

No, that is just where it is visible in the container Universe.

Secondly, I don't look at the ZPE as recycled
energy. I think ZPE is the intrinsic energy of
each of the spacetime quanta itself.

Spacetime is not stuff. It is not quantized. Spacetime is just the momentum history of every bit of matter and energy in the Universe.

No matter how large spacetime expands, the
ZPE doesn't go down in density, the density
always stays the same more or less.

Sounds like religious belief to me.

So it's likely that the ZPE was what was there
before there were any container universes,
....

I do not agree with you, and find your position untenable. You like it, we can move on. I was trying to give you a candidate for ZPE, period. You aren't interested, fine.

....
Time wouldn't really stop, it would simply stop
making sense anymore. We wouldn't know which way
is forward or backward anymore.

If time flow is the result of net production of
entropy, then a system that is at full entropy,
no longer has time flow. I cannot prove this, of
course...

I'm talking about the external-view, if we're
looking at this universe from the outside (god
point of view). Of course the flatlanders inside
the container universe will stop to exist once
time stops for them, but even from a god point of
view, we would not be able to tell which way that
container universe's time used to flow. It would
all just slosh around back and forth, and in fact
we couldn't tell the time direction from the space
directions either.

We do know that the container Universe started no later than our Big Bang (since it required exterior space to form interior spacetime), and that it ends *after* we do (since we evaporate into it as our last act).

....
Have we made tiny blackholes? I must've missed
the announcement. I thought CERN dismissed those
claims?

We made them in the Tevatron too. But as soon as
we make any such claim, "the herd" can be easily
swayed to stop funding again. What do you think
they can possibly say that cannot be used to scare
the herd?

Well, let's just chalk that one upto conspiracy
theories. It may be true, or may not, since it's
being covered up.

Nature must have made a black hole with this particle:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/
.... yet we are still here. So we know they evaporate. Does not mean Ma and Pa Kettle believe a bunch of eggheads.

....
So rather than "proving you wrong", I "welcome
you to my nightmare"... ;-)

Well, the nightmare isn't so much that we are
living inside a blackhole, but rather that our
blackhole might evaporate one day.

But it did. We do not have an infinite amount of mass / energy entering this Universe, so our black hole has already evaporated into our container Universe... in exterior time.

David A. Smith

part 1/2

On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:43:58 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, time dilation doesn't even have to stop at infinite density.

Nice that it does, though.

It stops even before it gets to the exact center, it stops at the
event horizon.

No, it does not. Curvature at the event horizon is finite. Just
because Schwarzchild metrics have problems at the event horizon, does
not mean Nature suddenly has a cow there.

Well, I suppose you'll have to discuss that with Einstein to show him
why he's wrong. Every equation says that time starts to slow down the
closer you get to the event horizon, and it completely stops at the
event horizon. What happens below the event horizon is mostly a complete
mystery, unless it's what we see happening inside our container
universe's blackhole, which is that time starts up again, though not
necessarily the same direction of time that is outside the event horizon.

But then again, Dark Energy may just keep going on forever, just
getting closer and closer to zero. Dark Energy is already pretty
close to zero right now, it amounts to no more than 10^-9 J/m^3
right now, but the calculated value of ZPE is 10^113 J/m^3, which
is for all intents and purposes is already zero in a calculator. So
Dark Energy is using 122 orders of magnitude less energy than is
available in the ZPE -- i.e. zero.

No, Dark Energy is increasing in forward time, remember?
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...more-confusing

There's two ways to look at this: (1) Dark Energy is increasing with
respect to what it was in the past, or (2) Dark Energy is decreasing
with further distance. We have trouble distinguishing between time
travel and space travel at these massive distances.

And since gravitation is not a force, it takes NO energy for the
Universe to expand or accelerate expansion.

Gravitation can be looked upon as "negative energy" in some contexts.
Therefore if it is a negative energy, then it is a negative force.
What's the difference between a negative energy and a positive energy?
Probably nothing much more than the direction of force.

False in this Universe, so therefore false in our container
Universe. Always bathed in (at minimum) CMBR radiation that
establishes the balance point between continued growth, and the
beginning of mass-loss via Hawking radiation.

We won't know it's false in this universe until we get close to the
container universe's internal event horizon.

We've been there, at the Big Bang. We are also already in contact
with the central singularity, hence the acceleration of expansion.

That's the start-times event horizon, or whitehole event horizon. I'm
talking about the end-times event horizon, which would be the blackhole
event horizon.

Yousuf Khan

continued next part

part 2/2

On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:43:58 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Hawking Radiation is supposed to be really slow anyways for really
large blackholes.

It kills a black hole in a "million" years or so at current CMBR
temperature. "Really slow" is waiting until the Universe cools, the
rest is not.

Perhaps Dark Energy is this mass-loss?

I don't think so. Mass / energy loss occurs on the "loop" from
future to Big Bang. And the reduced input stream is transparent to
the entire history of ingestion that is written on the Big Bang. I
think Dark Energy is the interaction of matter / energy *now* with
"the future"... aka. "the central singularity".

I actually do agree with that definition of Dark Energy, that Dark
Energy has something to do with the present vs. the future vs. the past,
but for a totally different reason! I think Dark Energy is likely the
difference in vacuum energy/ZPE from a smaller past state of the
universe vs. an expanded future state of the universe.

We know from the Casimir Effect that we can constrict parts of space
such that the ZPE present inside a short-gap between a pair of plates,
is less than the ZPE present outside of that short-gap; this creates a
pushing together force between the plates. I propose that there is an
equivalent, but reversed Casimir Effect on the scales of the universe.

In the regular Casimir Effect, the small gap restricts certain
long-wavelength modes of the vacuum energy. The vacuum energy outside
the gap is not restricted in any way, so that means the overall vacuum
energy outside the gap is slightly stronger than that inside it.

In the reverse Casimir Effect, I propose that the expansion of the
universe itself enables even longer wavelengths of vacuum energy, i.e.
wavelengths as large as the borders of the universe itself. It's
completely possible to have photons with a wavelength of several billion
light-years, but which we'd never be able to detect. And also photons of
such enormous wavelengths would have so little energy that we'd normally
just consider them contributing only insignificant amounts of energy.
But let's face it, Dark Energy is working with extremely tiny amounts of
energy density, 10^-9 J/m^3, but even that tiny amount is big enough to
push the entire universe apart faster and faster.

So you got upwards of 10^113 J/m^3 available in the ZPE. But Dark Energy
is calculated to be only using 10^-9 J/m^3 of that available energy.
That's so much smaller, that we'd usually be tempted to call that simply
zero, except that we know that even that small amount is significant to
the motion of the universe, so we can't ignore it. So as the universe
expands, newer longer wavelength modes of the ZPE come into existence.
When the universe was only 1 billion years old, the overall ZPE might
have still been the ballpark of 10^113, but as it expanded to 2 billion
years, and then 3 billion years, all of the way upto the present day of
age of 13.8 billion years, even more and longer wavelengths were added.
Every second, some imperceptibly larger wavelengths are added to the
universe. But these additional wavelengths are wavelengths that didn't
exist before, and they may just have enough excess energy to power Dark
Energy. If Dark Energy is working with 10^-9 J/m^3, then that could just
be the difference between the universe at 13.8 billion years old, vs.
the universe at 8 billion years old, as an example.

First off, remember that for Hawking Radiation to work, the virtual
particles have to come from the outside, not the inside.

Wrong. The virtual pair *came from inside*.

They come from outside! The whole idea is that the virtual pairs form
just outside the event horizon, and one gets caught in the gravitational
field and falls in, while the other escapes.

Secondly, I don't look at the ZPE as recycled energy. I think ZPE
is the intrinsic energy of each of the spacetime quanta itself.

Spacetime is not stuff. It is not quantized. Spacetime is just the
momentum history of every bit of matter and energy in the Universe.

What a quaint, old-fashioned way to look at the universe. You are truly
a traditionalist. As far as I'm concerned all theories are converging
towards a quantized spacetime, but you continue to believe your beliefs.

No matter how large spacetime expands, the ZPE doesn't go down in
density, the density always stays the same more or less.

Sounds like religious belief to me.

So it's likely that the ZPE was what was there before there were
any container universes,
...

I do not agree with you, and find your position untenable. You like
it, we can move on. I was trying to give you a candidate for ZPE,
period. You aren't interested, fine.

We already know what is behind the ZPE, it's Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED):

"Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy
in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 Joules
(10^-2 ergs).[1] However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of
Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant
requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic
meter.[2][3] This huge discrepancy is known as the vacuum catastrophe."

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:40:03 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
part 1/2



On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:43:58 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

It stops even before it gets to the exact center,
it stops at the event horizon.

No, it does not. Curvature at the event horizon
is finite. Just because Schwarzchild metrics have
problems at the event horizon, does not mean Nature
suddenly has a cow there.

Well, I suppose you'll have to discuss that with
Einstein

No, because he knows we are talking about "falling in", not trying to hover at elevations above the event horizon.

Every equation says that time starts to slow down
the closer you get to the event horizon, and it
completely stops at the event horizon.

No, you are looking at the wrong formulae. We are talking about falling in..

....
But then again, Dark Energy may just keep
going on forever, just getting closer and
closer to zero.
....

No, Dark Energy is increasing in forward time,
remember?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...more-confusing

There's two ways to look at this: (1) Dark Energy
is increasing with respect to what it was in the
past,

Correct.

or (2) Dark Energy is decreasing with further
distance. We have trouble distinguishing between time
travel and space travel at these massive distances.

If it is not gravitationally bound to us, expansion is detectable, and expansion occurs between *now* and *then*... so I guess "time travel".

....
And since gravitation is not a force, it
takes NO energy for the Universe to expand or
accelerate expansion.

Gravitation can be looked upon as "negative energy"
in some contexts.

And you tell *me* to take it up with Einstein?

If you squint your eyes just right, she looks younger than 18. Doesn't mean she is. Gravitation is NOT a force, so it take no energy (positive or negative) to expand the Universe.


False in this Universe, so therefore false in our container

Universe. Always bathed in (at minimum) CMBR radiation that

establishes the balance point between continued growth, and the

beginning of mass-loss via Hawking radiation.



We won't know it's false in this universe until we get close to the

container universe's internal event horizon.



We've been there, at the Big Bang. We are also already in contact

with the central singularity, hence the acceleration of expansion.



That's the start-times event horizon, or whitehole event horizon. I'm

talking about the end-times event horizon, which would be the blackhole

event horizon.

In whose Universe? We do not end in a black hole, we end in a cold, dark, infinitely diffuse future. That our container Universe sees us as "in a black hole"... And you keep trying to differentiate between the exterior event horizon, and the interior "Big Bang event" as if they were different things. At the event horizon, interior spacetime is created from exterior radial space. At the "Big Bang event" spacetime is created. There are no intermediate states here.

David A. Smith

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:40:40 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:


On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:
....
First off, remember that for Hawking Radiation
to work, the virtual particles have to come
from the outside, not the inside.

Wrong. The virtual pair *came from inside*.

They come from outside!


Nope. Read up on the topic. The stuff "at the singularity" quantum tunnels "out" past the event horizon some distance, then re-enters exterior spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
2nd paragraph.

The whole idea is that the virtual pairs form
just outside the event horizon, and one gets
caught in the gravitational field and falls in,
while the other escapes.

If this was the case, the black hole could not evaporate, could only get larger / more massive. Think about it.

Secondly, I don't look at the ZPE as recycled
energy. I think ZPE is the intrinsic energy of
each of the spacetime quanta itself.

Spacetime is not stuff. It is not quantized.
Spacetime is just the momentum history of every
bit of matter and energy in the Universe.

What a quaint, old-fashioned way to look at the
universe. You are truly a traditionalist.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Quantum behaviors suddenly appear anyplace you can measure precisely enough, even where we have good measures of size. So spacetime is neither quantized, nor "stuff". Not really "quaint" or "traditional" to consider spacetime meaningless without the system "Universe".

As far as I'm concerned all theories are
converging towards a quantized spacetime, but
you continue to believe your beliefs.

"All" theories still fail to make predictions that Nature agrees with, so you bet I will.

All substantive mentions of ZPE were trimmed, since I have nothing further to contribute to the subject in this thread.

David A. Smith

On 04/04/2014 10:29 AM, dlzc wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:40:03 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:
No, it does not. Curvature at the event horizon is finite. Just
because Schwarzchild metrics have problems at the event horizon,
does not mean Nature suddenly has a cow there.
Well, I suppose you'll have to discuss that with Einstein
No, because he knows we are talking about "falling in", not trying to
hover at elevations above the event horizon.
Every equation says that time starts to slow down the closer you
get to the event horizon, and it completely stops at the event
horizon.
No, you are looking at the wrong formulae. We are talking about
falling in.

I am talking about falling in too. As far as the passengers on the
spaceship falling into the blackhole are concerned, they can continue to
use good old Newton's Laws to measure inside events happening to them.
If their speedometers say they're 15 minutes away from the event
horizon, then they will arrive at the event horizon at exactly 15
minutes. They may then go through the event horizon, and assuming that
they are still intact, then they may continue using Newton's Laws inside
the blackhole.

But it's people on the outside looking at them falling in, that will see
time slowdown. I suppose what's really happening is that the time axis
is re-orienting itself to a different direction as it approaches the
event horizon. So the time axis of our outside universe has no further
meaning to the occupants of the spaceship falling in. To external
viewers, it looks like the spaceship has stopped in mid-air, because our
direction of time is no longer really used to measure its progress anymore.

No, Dark Energy is increasing in forward time, remember?
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...more-confusing

There's two ways to look at this: (1) Dark Energy is increasing with respect to what it was in the past,
Correct.
or (2) Dark Energy is decreasing with further distance. We have
trouble distinguishing between time travel and space travel at
these massive distances.
If it is not gravitationally bound to us, expansion is detectable,
and expansion occurs between *now* and *then*... so I guess "time
travel".

Time distances may be your preference, but you can't dismiss it as space
distances either. There's simply no way to tell if it's as a result of
space distances or time distances. And this is a bit of a paradox that
will need resolving, because which interpretation is correct is which
will determine if Dark Energy is increasing or decreasing.

Gravitation can be looked upon as "negative energy" in some
contexts.
And you tell *me* to take it up with Einstein?

If you squint your eyes just right, she looks younger than 18.
Doesn't mean she is. Gravitation is NOT a force, so it take no
energy (positive or negative) to expand the Universe.

This has nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity. It has to do with
QED, and the quantum vacuum energy. Relativity has nothing to say one
way or another about whether gravity is a force or energy, it just looks
at its effects without any context. But what lies beneath Relativity is
a different domain.

As they often say, the total energy budget of the Universe is precisely
zero. Energy was borrowed to create all of the matter and radiation in
the universe, and by standard accounting practices, when you borrow from
zero, you have to balance it off with debt (aka less than zero). But in
reality there is no such thing as less than zero anywhere. Just like
with banking, the debt gets taken from other people's deposited money;
we don't consider everybody else's finances at the bank, so we just call
it a negative sum for our own accounting purposes.

It's the same thing with negative and positive energy in the universe.
The energy to create the universe was borrowed from the quantum vacuum.
The quantum vacuum is an extremely large bank. We repay this bank by
issuing debt, which is the negative energy, which is gravity. The
gravity exactly balances out the matter and radiation. General
Relativity is a simplifying mechanism, and doesn't concern itself with
all of the quantum machinery underneath.

That's the start-times event horizon, or whitehole event horizon.
I'm

talking about the end-times event horizon, which would be the
blackhole

event horizon.
In whose Universe? We do not end in a black hole, we end in a cold,
dark, infinitely diffuse future. That our container Universe sees us
as "in a black hole"... And you keep trying to differentiate between
the exterior event horizon, and the interior "Big Bang event" as if
they were different things. At the event horizon, interior spacetime
is created from exterior radial space. At the "Big Bang event"
spacetime is created. There are no intermediate states here.

I'm talking about our container universe. From the outside, we'd be
seeing the container universe shrinking through Hawking Radiation. But
how would we detect the Hawking radiation from within the blackhole?
We'd likely see that the borders of the event horizon are shrinking too,
and backward in time.

Yousuf Khan

On 04/04/2014 3:01 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 3:40:40 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 02/04/2014 3:25 PM, dlzc wrote:
Wrong. The virtual pair *came from inside*.
They come from outside!

Nope. Read up on the topic. The stuff "at the singularity" quantum tunnels "out" past the event horizon some distance, then re-enters exterior spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
2nd paragraph.

Which section's second paragraph are you referring to? I see no such
mention at all. The only mention of "quantum tunnelling" is from this
section, and it's actually the third paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking...nckian_problem

"A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process
is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear
close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into
the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total
energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a
negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black
hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside
observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a
particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect,
whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one
will tunnel outside the event horizon.[11]"

It doesn't mention that the particle has to come from the blackhole's
central singularity, just from anywhere inside the blackhole. The way
quantum tunnelling works, I suppose there is a non-zero chance that it
could tunnel from the central part of the blackhole all of the way to
outside. But there's more likelihood of the tunneling occurring from
just near the inner edge of the blackhole's event horizon to just
outside it.

I'll have to admit that I hadn't thought of quantum tunnelling occurring
in this way, so it could make virtual particles appearing inside the
blackhole and escaping outside of it possible. I was looking at it in
only the most traditional way (I'm guilty of that too), where a virtual
particle comes from outside the blackhole and falls in. But either
method comes out to the same effect in the end. But it would be
interesting to figure out what percentage are quantum tunnelled out of
the blackhole, and what percentage are gravity captured into the blackhole.

The whole idea is that the virtual pairs form
just outside the event horizon, and one gets
caught in the gravitational field and falls in,
while the other escapes.
If this was the case, the black hole could not evaporate, could only get larger / more massive. Think about it.

Yeah, it may look that way in a traditional sense. But remember the
virtual particles don't come from nowhere, they come out of the
ZPE/quantum vacuum energy. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is a
big bank of energy which needs to be repaid. If the blackhole is going
to be spewing out a particle, then that particle's mass is going to have
to be paid for from blackhole's own bank account, i.e. its own mass. The
ZPE will automatically take that mass back from the blackhole.

The ZPE is the big boss here, it rules all blackholes and all universes.

What a quaint, old-fashioned way to look at the
universe. You are truly a traditionalist.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Quantum behaviors suddenly appear anyplace you can measure precisely enough, even where we have good measures of size. So spacetime is neither quantized, nor "
stuff". Not really "quaint" or "traditional" to consider spacetime meaningless without the system "Universe".

Who told you that stuff ain't broke, and don't need fixing? You may be
happy with the way the machinery is working right now, even if it is
working with a rattle and wheeze, and the "Check engine" light is
blinking. But that's different than the machinery isn't broken, it's
merely the machinery is working well enough for your limited purposes
right now.

It's time to start thinking past Einstein now. He himself was already
thinking past his own theories before he died, and he certainly wasn't
hung up on his own theories being the final word on anything. There's
been a world of new discoveries since the Laws of Relativity, but most
of it at the quantum levels. And the goals of Physics since Einstein
have always been to come to a unification of Relativity with Quantum
Mechanics.

Quantized spacetime would explain the origins of energy and matter, and
spacetime, from fundamental principles, without having to just wonder
how it got there. Just because Relativity treats spacetime as a fabric,
doesn't preclude the fact that all fabrics are always made from atoms.
Superstring Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, etc. are all looking for the
fabric of spacetime at its most particulate level.

As far as I'm concerned all theories are
converging towards a quantized spacetime, but
you continue to believe your beliefs.
"All" theories still fail to make predictions that Nature agrees with, so you bet I will.

Yeah, but that means you've succumbed to a classic fallacy, more
precisely it's called a "genetic fallacy" (which has nothing to do with
DNA). That's the belief that if one small part of something is wrong,
then the whole of it is wrong. As with any work in progress, eventually
all of the details will get worked out.

All substantive mentions of ZPE were trimmed, since I have nothing further to contribute to the subject in this thread.

But did you find those mentions useful?

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:06:54 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 04/04/2014 10:29 AM, dlzc wrote:
....
Every equation says that time starts to slow
down the closer you get to the event horizon,
and it completely stops at the event horizon.

No, you are looking at the wrong formulae. We
are talking about falling in.

I am talking about falling in too.
....
But it's people on the outside looking at them
falling in, that will see time slowdown.

That is a problem with the light climbing out, not the stuff falling in. No time stoppage, cross the event horizon in finite exterior time.

....
To external viewers, it looks like the spaceship
has stopped in mid-air, because our direction of
time is no longer really used to measure its
progress anymore.

No you are wasting effort on the light climbing out, rather than sticking with the bits that fall in.

....
This has nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity.
It has to do with QED, and the quantum vacuum
energy. Relativity has nothing to say one way or
another about whether gravity is a force or energy,

Yes, it does.

it just looks at its effects without any context.

False.

But what lies beneath Relativity is a different
domain.

One not subject to experimental falsification, and of no interest to me. "Reality" like "Truth" is something Nature does not show us.

....
That's the start-times event horizon, or
whitehole event horizon. I'm talking about
the end-times event horizon, which would be
the blackhole event horizon.

In whose Universe? We do not end in a black
hole, we end in a cold, dark, infinitely diffuse
future. That our container Universe sees us
as "in a black hole"... And you keep trying to
differentiate between the exterior event
horizon, and the interior "Big Bang event" as if
they were different things. At the event horizon,
interior spacetime is created from exterior radial
space. At the "Big Bang event" spacetime is
created. There are no intermediate states here.

I'm talking about our container universe. From the
outside, we'd be seeing the container universe
shrinking through Hawking Radiation.

No, since every bit of matter that ever entered the black hole, always enters at the Big Bang event. Time zero. For all observers.

But how would we detect the Hawking radiation
from within the blackhole?

I say as ZPE, but you did not like that.

We'd likely see that the borders of the event
horizon are shrinking too, and backward in time.

Nope. Crossing the event horizon is always time zero, for all interior observers.

David A. Smith

On 05/04/2014 9:32 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 6:06:54 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 04/04/2014 10:29 AM, dlzc wrote:
...
Every equation says that time starts to slow
down the closer you get to the event horizon,
and it completely stops at the event horizon.

No, you are looking at the wrong formulae. We
are talking about falling in.

I am talking about falling in too.
...
But it's people on the outside looking at them
falling in, that will see time slowdown.

That is a problem with the light climbing out, not the stuff falling in. No time stoppage, cross the event horizon in finite exterior time.

The speed of light is also the speed of time.

To external viewers, it looks like the spaceship
has stopped in mid-air, because our direction of
time is no longer really used to measure its
progress anymore.

No you are wasting effort on the light climbing out, rather than sticking with the bits that fall in.

Time and lightspeed are inextricably linked. This is as Einstein says,
are you now disagreeing with Einstein?

This has nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity.
It has to do with QED, and the quantum vacuum
energy. Relativity has nothing to say one way or
another about whether gravity is a force or energy,

Yes, it does.

it just looks at its effects without any context.

False.

But what lies beneath Relativity is a different
domain.

One not subject to experimental falsification, and of no interest to me. "Reality" like "Truth" is something Nature does not show us.

This is the area of full experimental falsification, it's called the
Standard Model!

I'm talking about our container universe. From the
outside, we'd be seeing the container universe
shrinking through Hawking Radiation.

No, since every bit of matter that ever entered the black hole, always enters at the Big Bang event. Time zero. For all observers.

No, only for observers inside the blackhole. Observers outside the
blackhole will see objects falling into the blackhole at different
various times. Observers inside the blackhole will always think that it
all came in at exactly the same time, i.e. at the very beginning.

But how would we detect the Hawking radiation
from within the blackhole?

I say as ZPE, but you did not like that.

We'd likely see that the borders of the event
horizon are shrinking too, and backward in time.

Nope. Crossing the event horizon is always time zero, for all interior observers.

But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about Hawking
radiation, which is objects leaving the blackhole. That's always going
to be at the end of the universe.

Yousuf Khan