Hi Mark your comment....
But I have a suspicion that General Theory of Relativity is such that one probably needs to have a mathematical appreciation as qualitative explanations are just going to be an oversimplification to the point of being useless.
is absolutely correct
. Usless in the context that the math becomes the delight of discovery rather than grappling with the major problems our original premise has left us with...blach hole equales nothing can escape...even gravitons??? we can not happily rush past such an anomoly
.
The point is GR is in effect an attempt to provide humans with some understanding of something perhaps that will forever remain beyond our comprehension.
Notwithstanding the complexity of the maths (try getting your head around the 11 field equations) GR is geometry where we use x y and z axis and then incorporate a negative "time" line..to descibe to measure to quantify ...space...whatever space is
.. understanding the math and focusing upon its value without additional regard to the difficulties we are left with if we rely upon the extrapolations GR suggests.
I find it interesting that Dr Einstein found great difficulty in excepting the black hole idea and given he is the man who gave us general relativity I for one take such as reasonable support to question the likelyhood of their very existence.
However irrespective of how complex one may wish to call the math of GR if one follows it we come to difficulties when considering "extremes" ..in my view.
One such extreme is the difficulty of working out a path for messenger particles (the standard model of particle physics suggest and endorses such concept..bosons I think
...certainly outside the event horizon we can easily speculate to a point where we can move stuff about but once inside we must content with the logic and conscequence of the null geodesics which tells us clearly... whatever be on this path will remain on that path forever or until the laws of GR collapse or are modified to overcome what would seem a mecahism which prevents all and any activity at any level ....
The complexity one wishes to place upon the math or perhaps more correctly the geometry we work in GR should not be enlisted to dump such relevant questions you raise.. In seeking an answer something perhaps will need adjustment be it the math or indeed the very premise of a balck hole.
AND I know when one questions the existence of black holes all will laugh at the apparent ignorance of the proposer to all the "black hole discoveries" now cataloged. THey are fact not speculation we are told ..and yet I say this..until the problem of how messages pass between a balck hole and the rest of the universe is satifactorily addressed we have a grave problem which can not be dismissed merely by reference to a lack of understanding of the math... the math is there to make ideas managable by a human mind not to exclude logical thought on perplexing matters one could suggest.
Prof Hawking spent much time considering the memory problem for matter within a black hole... or once matter has been crushed or smashed or experienced whatever condition we can speculate may occur within a balck hole the question is raised ..what if this matter gets free can it remember what it "was" and "go back" so we can enjoy managing all sorts of problems within our black hole .... however it would be wise to remember we possibly speculate upon conditions within a body that may be very different to what we mathmatically have determined in the absence of specific observation.
alex
