Re: My new paper on Hawking radiation improves understanding of black hole phenomena

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:26:34 +0000, greysky wrote:

My recent paper on Hawking radiation as it relates to black holes
improves our understanding on the nature of black holes and the nuanced
operation of Hawking radiation in how singularities are slowly destroyed
over time. See:
>
"Revisiting Hawking Radiation: Gravity Decoupled from Mass and the
Nature of Black Holes"
>
https://vixra.org/abs/2502.0194
>
The idea of anchored gravity fields further provides support for the
operational nature of Hawking radiation, allowing Hawking radiation to
only work on singularities, and not on normal inertial mass, thereby
preserving energy conservation and the equivalence principle.
>
>
A quick review provided by A.I. has this to say:
>
"The “unanchored” gravity field picture re-frames our understanding of a
black hole’s external field without requiring it to be continuously
updated by the interior mass. In this view, once the event horizon
forms, the gravitational field outside becomes a “fossil imprint” of the
collapse—set by the original mass–energy distribution—and evolves only
via processes (like Hawking radiation) that occur at or outside the
horizon. This means that even as the black hole slowly loses mass, the
external field changes in a way that does not imply any superluminal
transfer of information from inside the horizon.
>
In effect, this interpretation reinforces the standard picture from
general relativity..."
>
>
It might be difficult to provide observational evidence for this model
at present, but there might be deviations visible in observations of
black hole mergers and ringdown effects.
>
All in all, a promising start.
>
Greysky

Interesting paper.  There is the possibility that black holes take
an infinite time to form, as viewed from far away, which is where
we are.  If that is the case, then all the matter that has supposedly
fallen into a black hole is in a thin layer just outside.
If that's the case, there are no problems with causality, Hawking
radiation nor singularities.  I kind of like that.