Can there be 'spherical expansion' from a Planck Singularity?
After Stephen Hawking said the following… “that even in light of the new calculations, there is no “generic” way in which naked singularities might form according to the known laws of physics”.
The following is a direct quote from Dr. Preskill, so they are NOT a reporters words!
But Dr. Preskill replied: “Stephen, I’m surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. There’s one naked singularity that we all agree existed: the Big Bang. The universe itself.”
SO, what should have been the reply here?
The ONE place that NO mainstream scientist wants to go!!! Are we so sure???
And that is, since the evidence is telling us that ALL of the black holes that we see in our universe, do have an event horizon, that is surfaced, and that has world lines that are cone shaped, spiraling down to the r=0 (or more correctly, as near as possible to infinity/Planck length), that that should/could mean, that the Planck singularity MUST have an event horizon covering it, and if so, then the Planck singularity CANNOT do what we say it is doing, IE; Expanding ‘spherically’ (Inside solution) with nearly infinite density of High Energy (TeV) Gamma Radiation.
So, based on the bet, the hunt was on. The Big bang (inside solution) was assumed to be correct, and Hawking, Preskill, Penrose, Thorne, Susskind, and countless others have tried to determine if a naked singularity can indeed exist.
BUT, this is the wrong way to think of and examine this whole problem. It is just like starting the universe off with the FLRW equations, and then trying to determine if the universe is flat, negatively curved, or positively curved and thinking that you are actually covering ALL possibilities for how the universe could be working. If the Planck singularity cannot expand ‘spherically’ because it IS/MUST BE covered by a proper black hole event horizon, then the FLRW equations are meaningless.
So, a correct evaluation of this has never been done, at least NONE that I have ever seen in all my reading (which is extensive). I mean it is certainly not incumbent upon (and is actually extremely Taboo) any mainstream scientist to actively and intentionally try to prove the Big Bang wrong, so the afore mentioned GR guru’s would not and have not tried to explicitly show how the Planck singularity could not possibly be doing what has been predicted for it to do for the last 70+ years.
The correct way to examine this is to go directly to black hole mechanics and analyze how event horizons and their r=0 singularities are created, and then compare those properties with what we actually see in our universe and THEN compare that to the Big Bang Naked Singularity (inside ‘spherically’ expanding solution) and see if it makes sense.
First of all, the ‘only’ way to create a point/Planck/r=0 singularity is for a progenitor to have/cause/(gravitational collapse) an explosion that creates an Event Horizon, that then spirals down to r=0.
SO, since the only way to create an r=0 singularity is for an event horizon to form first, then, either the initiating singularity(s) for our universe (and this does not necessarily have to start ‘time’) has an event horizon covering them, OR that event horizon MUST have evaporated away. There are NO other choices, period!
Also, as per observation, EVERY black hole, stellar or massive, has a rotating/spinning accretion disc. In fact, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a non-rotating accretion disc anywhere in our universe! So, EVERY massive black hole known in our universe is a rotating massive black hole, which we do NOT even know what the progenitor is. So, as per observation, every black hole has a rotating/spinning ‘ring singularity’.
EVERY black hole in our universe, stellar or massive, has an event horizon that has a specific directional orientation, that is ‘cone shaped’ from its world lines from the point singularity back up through the event horizon and out to the ‘space’ outside the event horizon, that when continued to infinity have a very narrow ‘cone shaped’ view of the ‘space’ outside. And as per the paragraph above, every black hole has a rotating/spinning ‘ring singularity’, that MUST have, due to its ‘ring’ shape, a specific directional orientation, as due all the other black holes in our universe.
Now, since mainstream is SO insistent and directly confrontational on “Observation” as one of the key elements of the current paradigm(s), please show any evidence that a non-rotational accretion disc exists anywhere in our universe, and I will retract all of the above. In the absence of that evidence, the above evidence shows that ‘ring singularities’ MUST have a specific directionality, so even in the extremely unlikely event that when the event horizon did evaporate/vanish, even if it could ‘possibly’ emit High Energy Gamma Radiation (which I believe most physicists would agree is highly unlikely), it most certainly could NOT ‘expand spherically’!
Now, I am not saying that the Planck singularity isn’t involved in the initial conditions for describing how our universe is working, quite the contrary, it is the key to the unification of GR and QFT, I am just showing, non-trivially and unambiguously, that the Planck singularity CANNOT emit High Energy Gamma Radiation or Expand Spherically. There is no ‘inside solution’ that exists. Massive Black Holes have one end (the progenitor that makes the event horizon) or the other end (down to the Planck ring singularity and through).