Does Gravitational Collapse Lead to Singularities? by Ernst Fischer

Ah, I'm getting it now. Thanks to you both. I agree with you, Ernst -- the extra degree of freedom renders all measurement functions nondegenerate near the singularity. My essay also confirms.

Tom

The correction due to sqrt{g} ~ 1 GM/rc^2 with this potential does reflect curvature as interpreted in a Euclidean format as the inclusion of a gravity potential. This gravity potential occurs this way because there are spacetime paths for units of matter, but they are not geodesic. The whole mass is moving forwards in time with no spatial motion relative to a coordinate system tied to the center of the mass. It is for this reason I think the nonexistence of the horizons occurs because the set up has a static mass to begin with.

Cheers LC

Dear Ernst

JETS

Thank you for this paper. Could you elaborate on the proposed jet formation mechanics:

"Inflow of matter near the rotational plane will cause an outflow along the axis of rotation."

Thank you

Dirk

A very interesting and well written essay, which conclusions I find myself in agreement with.

The notion of a balance or state of equilibrium, is central, not only for cosmic scale objects but also for objects at the fundamental scale. I believe that the laws the impose certain size limit on atomic nuclei, for example, play a role in determining the maximum density and size of, for instance, black holes.

I hope the essay gets all the attention it deserves.

DLB

Mr Ernst Fischer,

It is a pleasure to read your essay on gravitational collapse and resulting singularities. I removed myself from mainstream physics to develop my own understanding of nature long time back. This gave me an opportunity to develop an alternative thought processes. It is Pico-Physics. In this thought process we have one founding statement as 'Space contains Energy' and all other axioms describing different aspects of nature are related to this statement called unary law .

In PicoPhysics thought process, we begin with attempts to understand energy and space. This projects nature as Five- dimensional universe . The relevance of PicoPhysics is unification of phenomenon of gravitation, expanding universe and space singularities with unary law.

The thought processes begins with separating neutralization from conservation, to evolve Konservation concept and hypothesising a reality Knergy as host to this concept. Space is considered as host reality of anti-Konservation that makes it consumable. It is created in space and consumed by matter (Knergy). The Hubble's constant represents the process of creation of space and Energy represents consumption of space by Knergy. The two processes together explain;

1. Gravitation

2. Expanding Universe (apparent motion of astronomical objects to observer proportional to the distance from observer) - No big-Bang singularity.

3. Limitation on atomic mass of nuclei (absence of high atomic number elements)

4. A higher limit to energy density - no singularities on gravitational collapse

Thus, in PicoPhysics we do not encounter singularities and view universe in dynamic equilibrium (sort of).

I request and appreciate your time to review and comments on this approach.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

Mr Ernst Fischer,

I read some comments about dark energy. PicoPhysics has a view on Dark-Energy. It is the low density distribution of Knergy in space, such that rate of consumption of space (Energy density) balances with rate of generation of space, over large extent of space. It is distinguished from cosmic background radiation based on Knergy per occurence being unity in CBR in contrast to dark energy where significant amount of knergy is glued together.

Picophysics has an equilibrium view of universe that cycles through Knergy/Dark-Energy->elementary particles->Matter->Astronomical objects->Cosmic Background radiation->Dark-Energy/Knergy.

I thought I shall mention the same. as my previous message got recorded as Anonymous. To be Anonymous was not the intention, but a mistake.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Hi Ernst. Some important clarification regarding gravity. Gravity is both seen AND felt, and it fundamentally requires/involves visible and invisible space in fundamental balance/equilibrium.

GRAVITY (SEEN AND FELT) IS KEY TO DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE.

ULTIMATELY, GRAVITY, INERTIA, AND ELECTROMAGNETISM together INVOLVE BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION. OPPOSITES ARE REQUIRED FOR EXTENSIVENESS. THIS IS NECESSARY FOR STABILIZED DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE, AND BECAUSE GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED.

Dear Earnst:

Beautiful... I was astonished to see the following conclusions in your paper that are strongly vindicated by the predictions of the GNMUE model and comparison against universal observations described in my paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" :

"Neglecting potential energy in the balance equations appears as a general problem in the conventional methods of general relativistic modeling. In the description of the global dynamics of the universe, in addition to the search for dark matter, people are looking for the so called dark energy, which is necessary to bring the theoretical model into agreement with observations. This dark energy should be present throughout the universe and exhibit a negative pressure and an energy density comparable in order of magnitude to that of matter. Potential energy of matter itself just fulfills all these requirements. In a homogeneous solution of the Einstein equation it would look just like a cosmological constant, with the only difference that it is not a true constant, but varies with the matter density. No mysterious dark energy is necessary to fulfill the balance. Potential energy of matter itself can do the job."

I would greatly appreciate if you read my paper and offer your comments on the similarities ( as well as differences) between them.

Regards

Avtar

Dear Ernst Fischer,

Thank you for your response. It agrees with my conception of the situation.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ernst. Our ability to understand outer space is inherently limited. I am positive of this. Outer space is a larger space that is not expanding. It is quite simply, expanded. The detachment of this space from our [natural] touch and thought makes it less sensible and comprehensible. The red shift relates to the space being larger/magnified and smaller/visible on balance, to stabilize/balance distance in/of space. Don't forget where visible light is in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The body and body/eye is what ultimately and fully balances inertia and gravity or there would be no stabilized distance in/of space. Where do you think the conceptual/theoretical equivalency comes from? We exist between larger and smaller space. Balance and completeness.

Dear Researcher Fischer,

I found your essay absorbingly interesting, although because of my not having had the benefit of a formal education, I did not understand any of the mathematics it contained. As I tried to clumsily explain in my essay Sequence Consequence, I doubt that the seeming perverse irrationality of mathematics can be at all useful for understanding how the Universe continues working. For instance, the physicist's insistence that originally abstract nothing was a possible real singularity is rather like the Orwellian contention "war is peace." Only a real one can have a real eternal singularity once. While it is true that a natural object has to have three differing observable aspects once, each of these real differing observable aspects is also subject to three true differing rational explanations once. One could go on interminably asserting that each true rational explanation of an object's existence also is subject to three real differing experimental methodologies once and so on. Nothing actually equates. Although as I understand it, Albert Einstein tried to prove that abstract energy equaled two of the differing aspects of abstract mass and the so-called constant speed of abstract light, he failed to take into account that real energy has three real incalculable differing potentials; real light has three real differing appearances, and squares are completely unnatural because they do not have three differing aspects.

Dear Ernst:

Thanks for reading my paper and offering thoughtful comments. I have provided response to your comments under my posted blog.

Below is a response to your comments above:

You cite in your essay that potential energy may play the role of the so called dark energy in an expanding universe. In my GNMUE model, the so-called dark energy is not potential energy but kinetic energy (see equation 7 in my paper) generated via evaporation of mass via the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. All masses, from small particles to large structures are seen to decay sooner or later via converting mass to energy. This mechanism is modeled via the GNMUE model presented in my paper. The physics of this mechanism has been missing from current theories including general relativity that leads to their failure to predict the observed accelerated expansion of the universe.

Hence, your comment above regarding the unknown mechanism is adequately addressed by the GNMUE model in my paper.

Regards

Avtar

Dear Ernst Fischer,

I see a good chance for you to win the contest with a surprising and perhaps mathematically correct alternative to some counter-intuitive tenets. If you already tried in vain to publish it elsewhere, this would demonstrate how valuable the open-minded exchange of ideas at fqxi is.

You wrote: "To my opinion the only things that count are spatial and causal distances which set up a relative space-time continuum, in which the spatial distance (the shortest spatial connection) is related to the shortest causal connection by the constant c and thus defines the notion of time."

I notice, you did not mention Einstein's observer. In that I agree with you to presumably disagree with the mandatory special theory of relativity and the usual notion of time.

While I do not expect you dealing in public with my related more comprehensive criticism, may I hope for a phone call from Stolberg to Magdeburg 0391 2516557?

Best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

When I assume it only makes an ass of u and me. Real objects can never be at reat. What is the real base unit of "potential energy?" Is "potential energy" greater or lesser than real energy? It has to be one or the other because it cannot be identical to real energy can it?

One real Universe can only have one real source of energy.

Dear Ernst Fischer,

It is important to read my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

In my theory there is no length contraction as Einstein proposed in his SRT. The length of the moving train will not be contracted in the direction of the velocity. In my theory the interpretation of the length contraction is different from Einstein interpretation. My interpretation is agreed with the predicted experimental results of quantum field theory, and thus interpreting faster than light without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. read my another paper also http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

What I predicted is agreed what your proposed also.

Dear Ernst Fischer,

You have stated, "Without inclusion of potential energy into the balance, gravitational collapse would be accompanied by a continuous gain of energy from the gravitational field. But in the geometrical concept of general relativity there exists no gravitational field which might possess energy. Gravitation is only a consequence of curvature. So this energy is created from nothing. Only if we include potential energy of matter itself into the balance, conservation of energy is guaranteed also in systems of strong curvature."

I have a few questions in this regard and request you to kindly clarify.

1. Do you really believe that GR does not admit of any gravitational field which might possess energy?

2. Could it be that matter actually produces a gravitational field that contains field energy, but GR represents this phenomenon through curvature of spacetime?

3. Do you believe that 4D spacetime manifold of GR is a physical entity which could actually get curved or deformed in the presence of matter?

4. Where do you think the potential energy of a matter particle is actually stored, within the physical volume of the particle or within its associated field?

Let me explain my understanding of the conservation of energy and confirm if you agree with me.

Consider two particles (or objects) of matter of masses M1 and M2 separated by distance R. I have considered two particles for the simplicity of discussion though the argument will also apply for N particles. Let the positions and velocities of these particles be defined in a center of mass coordinate system. To begin with, when R is infinitely large the kinetic energies, T1 and T2 and the potential energies V1 and V2 of the two particles will be zero and the total energy of the system of two particles will be given as,

M1.c2 + V1 + T1 + M2.c2 + V2 + T2 = (M1+ M2).c2 .... (1)

where,

V1 + T1 = V2 +T2 = 0 .... (2)

As a consequence of their gravitational interaction, the separation distance R keeps getting reduced and the magnitude of their potential energies V1 and V2 (which are defined to be negative) will keep increasing. If we assume that the gravitational interaction of these two particles does not result in any emission or radiation of energy out of the system, then the kinetic energies T1 and T2 of the two particles will also keep increasing with reduction of R such that,

V1 + T1 + V2 +T2 = 0 .... (3)

If we just consider the magnitude of these potential and kinetic energies, then equation (3) does not indicate their source. For understanding the source of these energies, equation (3) will need to be replaced with equation (1), as

M1.c2 + V1 + T1 + V2 + T2 + M2.c2 = (M1 + M2).c2 .... (1)

The gravitational interaction of the two matter particles is effected through the interaction of their gravitational fields in the spatial region of their superposition and the interaction energy released from their superposed fields equals the magnitude of their potential energies V1 and V2. This interaction energy being released from the combined gravitational field keeps manifesting as the kinetic energy T1 and T2 of the two particles. This however implies that the mass energies M1.c2 and M2.c2 inherently include their field energies. Conservation of total energy represented by equation (1) implies that the kinetic energies T1 and T2 of the interacting particles are gained from the corresponding reduction in their combined field energy, which in turn is represented by their potential energies V1 and V2.

Now coming to the present problem of accounting for the potential energies of the interacting particles, consider equation (1) without considering V1 and V2 terms,

M1.c2 + T1 + T2 + M2.c2 > (M1 + M2).c2 .... (4)

When the stress energy tensor in EFE accounts for the mass energy AND the kinetic energy terms, without accounting for the potential energy terms, total energy is no longer conserved. When you account for the potential energy terms V1 and V2, the inequality (4) transforms back to the total energy conservation represented by equation (1). But such total energy is already represented by the sum of the masses (M1 + M2) used in Newtonian gravitation.

By the way whose brilliant idea was to ASSUME in the first place that all forms of energy (other than mass energy) must be considered as sources of the gravitational field?

Kindly let me know if you agree with me.

Kind Regards

G S Sandhu