The Reflector Interpretation of the Event Horizon and the Black Hole

In my article titled, “Absolutism – follow up 8“: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/09/absolutism-follow-up-8_9.html, I had discussed that the ‘Big Bang’ (BB) point of the universe, is the Universe itself, and each point in the universe is relatively the Universe itself, each point is the relative Universe itself. Also, in other words, the BB-point, the entire Universe itself is the center of the Universe, and each point of the Universe is the relative center of the Universe, i.e. is relatively the center of the Universe itself.

Similarly, the center of the Black Hole (BH), the central singularity, is the Event Horizon (EH), and relatively every point in EH is the center or central singularity and the EH by themselves. There is no distinction among the three.

Now, how is that? We can see from Schwarzschild metric:

                                                      Schwarzschild Metric


we see that for r = 0, the 1st term in RHS is infinite, and second term vanishes. Also, time becomes space-like and space becomes timelike, and spatial component vanishes. While for r = r_s, first RHS term vanishes and second RHS term becomes infinite. Here, temporal component vanishes.

Now, for r = infinity, 1st RHS term and 2nd RHS, both terms are non-zero finite, and is the space-time is flat.

We clearly see, that at both EH and center there is singularity. At center, time is singular (infinite) and space vanishes, while at EH space is singular (infinite) and time vanishes.

But remember, beyond EH and at center r = 0, time is spacelike. So, in the BH and at its center, time is space. But here we’re interested only with the central point ‘within’ the BH. So at r = 0 , i.e. center of BH, time is spacelike. And at r = r_s, i.e. at EH, the space is obviously spacelike. So, both at the center and at EH, the space is infinite (singular), and time (component) vanishes (is zero). OMFG!

Now, since infinity is relative, I’ll interpret the infinite space a all the space, and containing all the spatial points, of the BH, which definitely is the entire surface ‘S’ called the EH.

So, the center of BH, and the EH horizon are the one and the same. Both are infinite space of the BH, and that space of BH, that defines it, is the surface called EH.

At both the points, r = 0 and r = r_s, the space of BH, i.e. the space of spacetime of BH, i.e. space called the spacetime of BH i.e. the spacetime of BH, is defined. Both are same space, the same space of (same) spacetime, both are same spacetime of the BH, and this space/spacetime is the 2D surface of EH.

(There are more points to be made in this regard)

Can Black Holes be split into two or more parts or components?

Are Black Holes the unit spacetime i.e. the unit of spacetime? Are Black holes the Quantum of spacetime? Are Black Holes the Quantum unit of Spacetime? Are Black Holes the indivisible Quantum unit of Spacetime?

Infinitely Infinite 3D Spatial Volume:

Now let’s again consider this:

  1. At both EH and center there is singularity. At center, time is singular (infinite) and space vanishes, while at EH space is singular (infinite) and time vanishes.
  2. Beyond EH and at center r = 0, time is spacelike. So, in the BH and at its center, time is space. But here we’re interested only with the central point ‘within’ the BH. So at r = 0, i.e. center of BH, time is spacelike. And at r = r_s, i.e. at EH, the space is obviously spacelike. So, both at the center and at EH, the space is infinite (singular), and time (component) vanishes (is zero).
  3. Now by REVI (Reflector (or mirror) Event Horizon Interpretation), EH (Event Horizon) of BH (Black Hole) as reflector, i.e. the reflection phenomena at EH, reflects spacetime from further contracting-stretching.

Therefore, by this, putting forward the following (interpretation):

In Schwarzschild metric, at the centre r = 0, spacetime is as described in 1. By 1 time-component Metric (g)cdtof the metric, or of spacetime duration/interval, is infinite. This doesn’t mean that the time/temporal-duration dt is infinite. This means the temporal structure Metric (g)cdt is infinite. And that just means that temporal-duration/dimension is zero. That is to say, the interval between two points in time dt, i.e. temporal points or only temporally separated points, or points separated (only) in temporal dimension/domain or temporal separation between spacetime points, is zero. So, temporal separation of points, i.e. separation of points in temporal domain/dimension is zero.

This can be interpreted as, and I suggest to be understood as, one point containing all temporal points i.e. singular point containing all the infinite temporal points. So, all the temporal points are one and the same, single (temporal) point. One temporal point contains all. One point contains all. And this single point is the origin of time, origin of spacetime (here, under consideration). This is the time singularity, spacetime singularity.

Also, at the centre, r = 0, the spatial-component of the metric, or of spacetime duration/interval, is zero. This doesn’t mean that the space-duration dr is zero.

This means the spatial structure Metric (g)dr is zero. And that just means that spatial-duration/dimension is infinity. That is to say, the interval between two points in space dr, i.e. spatial points or only spatially separated points, or points separated (only) in spatial dimension/domain or spatial separation between spacetime points, is infinite. So, spatial separation of points, i.e. separation of points in spatial domain/dimension is infinite.

This can be interpreted as, and I suggest to be understood as, an infinite spatial volume with points separated infinitely i.e. with infinite space separation. So, it is an infinitely infinite spatial space. This is the space singularity, spacetime singularity.

Therefore, the center or singularity, r = 0, is an infinitely infinite 3D spatial volume with no temporal component or dimension, in which all infinite times (or temporal points) lie at and is a singular point, namely the center or origin.

Now under conventional interpretation of the interior and exterior Schwarzschild solution/metric, the sign flip in the temporal and spatial components is understood as time becoming spacelike and space becoming timeline.

Therefore at singularity, space component is infinite and spatial difference or spatial interval zero. Time component, on the other hand, is zero and temporal difference/interval infinite. Hence, it (singularity) is actually an infinitely infinite temporal space, in which each temporal point is infinitely separated from the other.

But anyway, this is nothing but a EH, which has infinite space-component and infinite space contraction and zero time-component and thus infinite time/temporal-stretching. All the infinite space/time points are all the points of the EH; infinity being a relative thing. The new interpretation to Schwarzchild metric given here, suggests the EH and central point singularity to be equivalent and to be the same one thing.

REVI

Now under Refractor/Mirror Event Horizon Interpretation (REVI), the space becoming timeline and time spacelike interpretation of the sign flip is changed and interpreted differently:

Under REVI, the sign flip represents the reversing of the direction in which the spacetime is stretched-contracted. As we approach the EH, i.e. as r becomes smaller and smaller, the temporal component/share of spacetime interval ds decreases and eventually becomes zero at EH. This corresponds to the time-interval becoming or stretching to infinity. The spatial component/share, on the other hand, increases and eventually becomes infinite at EH. This corresponds to the spatial-interval/difference becoming or contracting to zero.

Now as we approach further, the approach isn’t in the interior and radially inward towards the center. The EH is a spacetime reflector/mirror that reflects the curvature of spacetime, and therefore the approach and thus further spacetime contraction-stretching is reversed. The sign-flip represents this reversing. Spatial component/share of spacetime reduces from infinity and space or space-interval begins to stretch from zero, temporal component/share of spacetime increases from zero and time or time-interval begins to contract from infinity.

The spacetime contraction-stretching is reversed and bounced back from and by the EH of a BH. The curvature of spacetime bounces and gets reflected back from and by the EH of a BH. So as the spacetime collapses and falls towards the center and towards the EH or BH, this collapse (contraction-stretching) and falling (approaching the EH or the center) of spacetime is met with this spacetime mirror/reflector called EH. EH bounces the spacetime curvature off it.

The singular point at the center in the conventional understanding is nothing but the EH or EH singularity.

Black hole isn’t a singular point at the center, it is the singular spherical shell at the center. Collapsing matter-energy and thus spacetime doesn’t form a singular point at the center, it forms a singular spherical shell ‘at the center’. It doesn’t attain equilibrium at all points and among all point masses/entities by collapsing to a singular point at the center, it attains equilibrium by collapsing to a singular spherical structure ‘at the center’. Central point singularity of spacetime (CPSS) is equivalent and same as central spherical shell singularity of spacetime (CSSSS).

If we introduce uncertainty and quantum physics, then the BH/EH structure is a ‘fluidy spherical shell’ with some ‘uncertainty thickness/range’ defined by the Quantum uncertainty and General relativity or BH physics.

Also, the EH defined by speed of light c is a never attainable or approachable EH. And ideal so to speak. The actual, corrected, EH is that defined by the actual attainable speed limit c’, due to special relativity and quantum physics, which is a little bit less than the speed of light c in vacuum. This actual attainable EH is larger than that conventionally defined by speed of light in vacuum c.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more