Does Gravitational Collapse Lead to Singularities? by Ernst Fischer

Dear Colin,

I cannot accept the Machian theory of gravitation for want of any physical mechanism for the same. In my opinion, the electrostatic field of charged particles (electrons, positrons) and the gravitational field of neutral particles, both contain energy which is actually accounted in the mass energy of these particles. That is, the gravitational field of matter particles is physically associated with or is a physical appendage to these particles. The gravitational interaction between two particles is physically the superposition interaction of these fields and the energy released or freed from such interaction of the fields is transferred to the kinetic energy of the interacting particles. In a common center of mass coordinate system, mutual interaction force between the interacting particles will be equal and opposite leading to the equal and opposite momentum gained by the two particles. Obviously the kinetic energy gained by the two particles will be inversely proportional to their masses. The field energy released from the interacting gravitational fields is defined as the negative potential energy of the interacting particles.

As shown in my previous post under this thread, Ernst Fischer's proposal to account for the gravitational potential energy of interacting matter particles actually amounts to cancellation of the influence of kinetic energy terms in EFE and thereby leading to only mass energy terms of interacting particles giving rise to the gravitational field. Therefore, in my opinion, only gravitational masses of the interacting particles give rise to their gravitational fields as in Newtonian gravitation and separate kinetic energy or potential energy terms need not be included in the EFE. The only plus point of the spacetime model of GR over Newtonian gravitation is the incorporation of the speed of propagation of gravitational influence in the model. But when we start treating the 4D spacetime manifold of GR as a physical entity, we end up building wonderful fantasies of black holes and metric expansion of space.

In this regard you are requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Dear Ernst Fischer,

After reading your paper several times, I cannot say I can fully understand yours yet but I pick up what I can understand and applied to my graviton's energy definition and it became beautiful math in result.

Please see my latest post at my essay page.

My previous solution to infinite problem was to set a finite value for mass, -1

Dear Ernst Fischer

The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution: rho(r) = 0 exactly. If you add in a density, "even if the density is arbitrarily small but not exactly zero at r = rs, this yields an infinite value, in contradiction to the assumption that the mass is negligibly small." This is because of the non-linearity of the Einstein equations: no matter how small the density, it is no longer a Schwarzschild solution. One must switch to the TOV equations you use later, and the problem doe not arise (actually the divergence arises from a fixed point of the Killing vector fields in the extended Schwarzschild solution: once you add matter in, there is no longer any timelike Killing vector).

You then say "the only reasonable way to describe potential energy is a term in the energy tensor of the form $lambda(r)g_{ij}$. But this is precisely the form of "dark energy": it is equivalent to an energy density rho plus a pressure p = -3 rho. It is well known that the "mass" term (9) in the TOV equation is not the actual mass included, but that's what the equations tell us should be the source in the TOV equations. If you alter it you are abandoning the Einstein equations, unless you do so consistently by including a pressure as remarked above: giving dark energy, as in cosmology. Sure you can avoid singularities then. But this modification to the space-time energy density should then be detectable in stars: it should alter stellar evolution.

You don't say what you are doing with the pressure in (13,14). But if it constant density you ought to rederive the Schwarzschild interior solution. You conclude "we have demonstrated that an equilibrium state of collapsed matter will always be outside the singular conditions assumed in the Schwarzschild geometry." But you have not examined the equation of state of cold matter in the depth that Wheeler, Thorne, and others long ago, did before reaching a contrary conclusion. I can't see how you can claim such a result independent of this equation of state.

George Ellis

I found an error of this posting system. Both above post ends before "less than sign" automatically so I repost the message without it below.

Sorry for many posts, I found my previous post was cut off in the description of my solution for infinite energy. My mass term comes from contraction of time axis so the infinite energy comes when $\eta=-1$ in equation (7) in my paper. So if we can set $-1 "less than" \eta "less than" 0$ for the origin of mass and let it the max density of energy, we can avoid infinite, I think. And I wondered if we could connect it to the lhc newly discovered mass term.

Thanks,

Ryoji

Hi Ernst,

An interesting essay. 聽You as many others recognise that a singularity in nature cannot exist. 聽You also recognise that a universe as a whole cannot change its energy content.聽

Here I fully agree with you, but your solution to avoid the singularity is 聽to fix a theory that is faulty in the first place. New theories have to be found, a possible ansatz you will find in my essay.

Regards

Anton @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

Ernst,

We have essays with similar themes concerning potentials within the EFE running through them.

My essay is based also on a simple premise. If the function F1 is the Newtonian gravitational field strength, then F1' is the gravitational force. How do we know we have been anti-differentiating the Newtonian field correctly since we could have just been mistaking F1' for (C-F2)' following the rules concerning arbitrary constants of integration. This should lead back to a substitution in the Einstein field equation of [math]G_{\mu\nu}=\Omega g_{\mu\nu}-L_{\mu\nu}[/math]. If the constant term is equated to the potential energy of the vacuum, then the Luv term is just equated to the dynamic residual energy tensor. This would seem to solve the cosmological constant magnitude problem, make it look like gravity is attractive but also allow for a repulsion after a certain radius.

Reading more through your essay. Comments on mine appreciated.

Regards,

Jeff

Dear Ernst,

I enjoyed reading your essay! One question that comes to mind is how dark matter fits into this picture. As you point out, potential energy of the form you describe might account for the negative pressure and energy density associated with dark energy, but it seems that dark matter exhibits roughly the "opposite" effect, albeit at a smaller scale, in the sense that it seems to involve an increased attractive effect.

Do you agree with the conventional dark matter hypothesis that dark matter is "real matter," then, or do you think it is an unexplained dynamical effect? The reason I ask is because I am interested in scale-dependence of phenomena; I discuss this more in my essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting you're under any obligation to explain both dark matter and dark energy with your ideas; after all, conventional GR explains neither! I'm just interested to know your thoughts on the subject. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Rethink...

All The Mass Of The Universe Formed At The Pre-Big-Bang Singularity

The universe is a two-poles entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.

The elementary particle of the universe is the graviton. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, with zero distance between all of them. This state is mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.

The big bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, which is mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang since the resolution of gravitons, their release from their shatters-clusters, proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

Dear Ernst,

Your well written and well argued essay (which I have read between the equations)is most interesting. Even though I don't understand all of it, I feel that I have learnt something new and also found some possible answers to the questions i ask in my own essay.

Thank you and best wishes in the contest!

Inger

Dear Ernst,

You have written a well-argued essay and I am very sympathetic to your point of view. What I would like to know is, surely redefining the Energy-Momentum Tensor in the way you suggest should have observable consequences testable by direct experiment? For instance, would the application of your idea to a Pound-Rebka Experiment (possibly over a much larger distance than the original one) not give a prediction that deviates from that of standard GR? If so, I think it should be tested.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Dr. Fisher,

Thank you for clarifying the point. My original questions was motivated by the fact that already in classical physics potential energy is in a sense a shared property between the test particle and the source mass, but you are correct, the fact that the earth is much more massive does not allow your idea to be tested in this way.

However, what do you think of this possible experiment: Place two objects that are as much as possible equal in mass (and shape) at a Lagrangian point, where the earth and Sun's gravity fields cancel. Then measure their relative acceleration towards each other. It seems to me that under your idea, the relative acceleration should be very slightly higher than under standard GR. Of course, the idea needs to be quantitatively fleshed out to see whether the effect is even realistically measurable, but for now, let us just consider this in principle. Is my statement of the prediction of your idea correct?

Armin

Ernst, what is not actual, true/real, and natural may be held to be potential; as we cannot experience outer space. The sensiblity and comprehensibility of outer space is, and will remain, lacking. Telescopic observations GENERALLY make matters even less sensible. Outer space is, in an important sense, less real. Truth and reality go together -- WITH NATURAL EXPERIENCE TOO.

Dear Fischer,

Your introduction states that GRT is the best description of gravitational interaction. But the Newtonian concept is more simple. The perihelion shift is the only thing that cannot be explained by that classical concept.

The problem of singularity appears in Newtonian gravity also.The reason is we take the mathematical equation as a 'physical law'. If we put a physical limit to gravity, and include that in the equation, the equation can be made finite, and the singularity can thus be avoided.For example,in the case of two moving bodies, their motion physically opposes the attraction which tries to bring them together in a resultant direction.So the force components that oppose this can be represented in terms of one of the masses as (-mv^2)/d.

So in the case of a body orbiting another, gravitational energy used becomes equal to kinetic energy.That is, gravity need be balanced by kinetic energy and there need not be any static orbit. This removes the perihelion anomaly also.

1/2mv² =mgh=.........they turn so they are :)and the finite number is ....

Ernst,

While my math skills are poor, I fully agree with your explanation of curvature on physical terms and that current theory is a simplistic abstraction of part of the process. I am concerned that in the last few lines you seems to assume a finite universe. ? As I see it, Big Bang theory is based on the same conceptual simplifications being reconstituted in physically illogical and impossible fashion, as that which assumes singularities.

The point I concentrate on in my entry is that we focus on the effect of time(sequence and the measure thereof) and not its cause; action. It's not the present moving from past to future, but the changing configuration of what physically exists, turning future potential into actual present and then residual past. Not the earth traveling a narrative dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates. Since this makes time an effect of action and not its cause, spacetime is simply correlation of distance and duration, not some underlaying foundation. This leave space as an aphysical infinite inertia. Consider that centrifugal force is the relationship of spin to inertia, not some outside reference.

Since I've had little luck in getting others to think through the consequences of this on current explanations of cosmology, I've been forced to devise my own crude model. In doing so, I've come to see it as a form of convective cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass. This is in accordance with your far more educated description, in that as mass/structure contracts, it sheds radiant energy. Eventually what remains is ejected out the poles in those jets.

I think a major part of expansion and contraction is due to the basic interaction of such processes with the inert geometry of space. I suspect that light doesn't travel as a point particle, but expands to fill available space and the received quanta are a sample of this, not a singular particle. Thus redshift is largely due to the dispersion of increasing volume with increased distance. As for gravity, when energy is released from mass, it creates pressure. Think shock wave of a nuclear explosion. So wouldn't energy fusing into mass logically have the opposite effect of creating a vacuum, since it occupies less space? If we follow this process from cosmic rays potentially condensing into interstellar gases in the near zero temperatures of the outer reaches of galaxies, all the way down to the fusion within stars and the pressurization in the cores of large planets, not to mention all the radiant energy being directly absorbed, it would create a seemingly empty force of even consistency, closely related to mass, but as a dynamic effect of the creation and condensing of mass, than just a property of it.

One other problem I have with the expanding space theory is as to what is the basis of C, if space truly expands? How can we say the space expands and then use lightyears as a measure of that expansion? What is the vacuum that light is crossing at a constant speed, if it's not space?

Also, Einstein argued gravity contracts space and devised the CC to balance it. Now it's argued the expansion is a CC, but galaxies are treated as inert point of reference!!! According to relativity, they are contracting space, therefore absorbing the expanding intergalactic space.Now the light from those most distant galaxies can only reach us by traveling the most empty routes and thus be most affected by crossing this inergalactic space, so the redshift is compounded.

I will append this note with a few additional observations on the subject of time, that have either occurred or been clarified in discussions subsequent to my writing that essay:

"Like temperature, time emerges from basic thermodynamic activity. Clock rates vary, as levels of activity vary. More activity, faster clock rate. If time were a dimension from past to future, one would think a faster clock rate would travel into the future more quickly, but the opposite is true. As it ages/burns quicker, it moves into the past faster. The twin in the faster frame is dead when her twin in the slower frame returns.

Duration is not some dimension that transcends the present, but is the state of the present between detection events.

Since the lightcone of any event is incomplete prior to the event, the future is probabilistic, even if the laws deciding its outcome are deterministic.

It is the collapse of probabilities which yields actualities, so the cat is not both dead and alive, because there is no external timeline moving the present from past to future, but the actual occurrence of events turning future into past.

Cause and effect is not sequence, but energy exchange. Yesterday didn't cause today, any more than one rung on a ladder causes the next. It is the sun radiating on this rotating planet that creates this sequencing called days. Time is an effect, not a cause.

Knowledge is created inductively, as future becomes past, but is used deductively, as the past is used to predict the future."

Now I may be completely out to lunch on a lot of this, but at least it doesn't have multiworlds, blocktime, wormholes, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, multiverses, etc, but is just my own little stab at tying up some loose ends.