Juan Mentat
@juanmentat.bsky.social
composer / mix-mastering engineer / sound designer / dj / daft / science
#music #ambient #soundtrack
https://album.link/gsv002nspswm7
#music #ambient #soundtrack
https://album.link/gsv002nspswm7
But as you say, this isn't a debate. Point taken. Thanks for the exchange. If a revised article appears, it will certainly be an interesting read. Cheers.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
But as you say, this isn't a debate. Point taken. Thanks for the exchange. If a revised article appears, it will certainly be an interesting read. Cheers.
Fair enough. I appreciate you clarifying your position. The points raised (LIGO, EHT) aren't about "coordinate confusion" but about direct external observables that match the "formed horizon" model and contradict the "eternal collapse" model.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
Fair enough. I appreciate you clarifying your position. The points raised (LIGO, EHT) aren't about "coordinate confusion" but about direct external observables that match the "formed horizon" model and contradict the "eternal collapse" model.
(7/7) The "ontological leap" the essay decries is simply... physics.
The observations prove the "ontological reading" is the correct one. The external universe does know the black hole has formed—it feels its gravity, sees its shadow, and hears its ringdown.
The observations prove the "ontological reading" is the correct one. The external universe does know the black hole has formed—it feels its gravity, sees its shadow, and hears its ringdown.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(7/7) The "ontological leap" the essay decries is simply... physics.
The observations prove the "ontological reading" is the correct one. The external universe does know the black hole has formed—it feels its gravity, sees its shadow, and hears its ringdown.
The observations prove the "ontological reading" is the correct one. The external universe does know the black hole has formed—it feels its gravity, sees its shadow, and hears its ringdown.
(6/7) The physics of that shadow depends entirely on the external spacetime (the Kerr metric) of an already-existing black hole.
If it were just an "eternally collapsing" star, the external spacetime would be different, and the shadow would not match our observations.
If it were just an "eternally collapsing" star, the external spacetime would be different, and the shadow would not match our observations.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(6/7) The physics of that shadow depends entirely on the external spacetime (the Kerr metric) of an already-existing black hole.
If it were just an "eternally collapsing" star, the external spacetime would be different, and the shadow would not match our observations.
If it were just an "eternally collapsing" star, the external spacetime would be different, and the shadow would not match our observations.
(5/7) Evidence 2: The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT).
We have photographed the shadow of the event horizon in M87 and Sgr A*.
We have photographed the shadow of the event horizon in M87 and Sgr A*.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(5/7) Evidence 2: The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT).
We have photographed the shadow of the event horizon in M87 and Sgr A*.
We have photographed the shadow of the event horizon in M87 and Sgr A*.
(4/7) That ringdown signal is the "ontological proof." It's the sound of a new, single, fully-formed event horizon settling into its final state.
This is a real, external event. Two "eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge and produce an observable ringdown.
This is a real, external event. Two "eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge and produce an observable ringdown.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(4/7) That ringdown signal is the "ontological proof." It's the sound of a new, single, fully-formed event horizon settling into its final state.
This is a real, external event. Two "eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge and produce an observable ringdown.
This is a real, external event. Two "eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge and produce an observable ringdown.
(3/7) Evidence 1: LIGO/Virgo.
We don't just see two objects approaching a merger. We see them merge.
And, crucially, we observe the "ringdown."
We don't just see two objects approaching a merger. We see them merge.
And, crucially, we observe the "ringdown."
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(3/7) Evidence 1: LIGO/Virgo.
We don't just see two objects approaching a merger. We see them merge.
And, crucially, we observe the "ringdown."
We don't just see two objects approaching a merger. We see them merge.
And, crucially, we observe the "ringdown."
(2/7) This is the central error. The "ontological reading" isn't "unjustified."
It is demanded by observation.
The entire premise that the external universe "can't know" the black hole has formed is directly refuted by our hard-won data.
It is demanded by observation.
The entire premise that the external universe "can't know" the black hole has formed is directly refuted by our hard-won data.
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(2/7) This is the central error. The "ontological reading" isn't "unjustified."
It is demanded by observation.
The entire premise that the external universe "can't know" the black hole has formed is directly refuted by our hard-won data.
It is demanded by observation.
The entire premise that the external universe "can't know" the black hole has formed is directly refuted by our hard-won data.
(1/7) You're right, the essay acknowledges finite proper time. It has to.
But it then dismisses this physical reality as a mere "formal result" and pivots to a philosophical claim that this local event has no external meaning or "ontology."
But it then dismisses this physical reality as a mere "formal result" and pivots to a philosophical claim that this local event has no external meaning or "ontology."
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
(1/7) You're right, the essay acknowledges finite proper time. It has to.
But it then dismisses this physical reality as a mere "formal result" and pivots to a philosophical claim that this local event has no external meaning or "ontology."
But it then dismisses this physical reality as a mere "formal result" and pivots to a philosophical claim that this local event has no external meaning or "ontology."
(9/X) The real problems (Info Paradox, Hawking radiation) all require a formed horizon. The article tries to "solve" them by reverting to an introductory-level misunderstanding.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(9/X) The real problems (Info Paradox, Hawking radiation) all require a formed horizon. The article tries to "solve" them by reverting to an introductory-level misunderstanding.
(8/X) Physics doesn't commit the "fallacy" the article alleges. General Relativity calculates that the collapse occurs in finite proper time. The external gravitational effects (mass, spin) are all there. The object is there.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(8/X) Physics doesn't commit the "fallacy" the article alleges. General Relativity calculates that the collapse occurs in finite proper time. The external gravitational effects (mass, spin) are all there. The object is there.
(7/X) Yes, due to extreme redshift, a distant observer never sees the crossing. The last light they get is from just before the event, infinitely faded. This is an effect of observation, not the object's reality.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(7/X) Yes, due to extreme redshift, a distant observer never sees the crossing. The last light they get is from just before the event, infinitely faded. This is an effect of observation, not the object's reality.
(6/X) EHT: We have photographed the horizon's shadow in M87 and Sgr A*. That shadow is cast by an existing horizon bending light. Its size and shape match predictions for a formed black hole, not a "still-collapsing" one.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(6/X) EHT: We have photographed the horizon's shadow in M87 and Sgr A*. That shadow is cast by an existing horizon bending light. Its size and shape match predictions for a formed black hole, not a "still-collapsing" one.
(5/X) This "ringdown" is the vibration of the new, already-formed horizon settling down. "Eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge or produce this signal. The merger is a finite, observable event.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(5/X) This "ringdown" is the vibration of the new, already-formed horizon settling down. "Eternally collapsing" objects cannot merge or produce this signal. The merger is a finite, observable event.
(4/X) LIGO/Virgo: We have heard black holes merge. The gravitational waves from mergers (like GW150914) show a clear "ringdown" signal.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(4/X) LIGO/Virgo: We have heard black holes merge. The gravitational waves from mergers (like GW150914) show a clear "ringdown" signal.
(3/X) In proper coordinates, the physics is clear: horizon crossing happens in finite proper time (the infalling observer's watch). The collapse happens. The article clings to a mathematical artifact to create a false paradox.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(3/X) In proper coordinates, the physics is clear: horizon crossing happens in finite proper time (the infalling observer's watch). The collapse happens. The article clings to a mathematical artifact to create a false paradox.
(2/X) Physicists have known this for 60+ years. That's why other coordinates (like Eddington-Finkelstein, which the article even shows) are used. The problem vanishes in them.
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(2/X) Physicists have known this for 60+ years. That's why other coordinates (like Eddington-Finkelstein, which the article even shows) are used. The problem vanishes in them.
(1/X) The Schwarzschild "time t" becomes singular at the horizon. Using that clock, the collapse appears to take forever. This is a problem with the map (the coordinates), not the territory (the physics).
November 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
(1/X) The Schwarzschild "time t" becomes singular at the horizon. Using that clock, the collapse appears to take forever. This is a problem with the map (the coordinates), not the territory (the physics).