I think you asked if the event horizon was real via the question about time near the event horizon.

You then get into an esoteric argument about whether an area of dense gravity without an event horizon is a black hole. GR predicts the event horizon but now you have some scientist lately like Hawking claiming it won't exist for various reasons and hence black holes don't exist.

They are what I call really stupid arguments because they miss the basic problem which was the problem I gave you and to repeat it

What is the smallest black hole you can have and why?

That answer is the most crucial in the argument because every argument made so far by every scientists gives no answer to that question. The latest AMS results show another problem with all current theories the evaporation rates are out by a really long way. It is really worth following the the comments of JaneHM in Lubos's article (http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/a-simple-explanation-behind-ams.html)

She solves the problem in an interesting way which I am not sure I agree with but it is at least a viable option

Originally Posted By: JaneHM
the E^-3 tail mathematically is set by how the black hole mass decreases with time. The E^-3 is only slightly modified by the inclusion of extra fundamental particle species

If we find the extra fundemental particles she is on a winner.

To be complete we should also say there is another possible answer that is that gravity isn't a Quantum field but an entropic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity). It's not popular as an idea but in the interest of discussion it's worth discussing all the options.

All current theories are out from experimental results so none of them are valid at what happens at what we call a "black hole". However GR is working brilliantly over a huge range within the universe and the only points it has trouble with is very small when it meets QM and at points of space that are black hole like. It is the only theory that covers that range and gives the correct answers so it is rightfully the standard science theory to use within those normal limits.

Last edited by Orac; 10/07/14 01:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.