Ernst,

If, as I argue, the concept of cosmic time is invalid, makes no sense at all, then we can no longer assert that light has a (finite) velocity, so the 'speed' of light c refers to a property of spacetime (which is why all observers, no matter their own motion measure the same value for c): this insight of course changes everything in physics.

I don't agree with your statement that time depends on distance but not vice versa. Whereas a Big Bang Universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) contains and produces all time within, so if an inside observer is to see clocks showing an earlier time, objects in an earlier phase of their evolution as they are farther away (and, as I argue, NOT because it takes their light time to reach us, it doesn't), then time must be observed to pass slower at larger distances, no matter the position the observer looks from. This does not mean that time depends on distance, only the observation of its pace: we can as well say that some object is physically more distant as inside processes are observed to proceed at a slower pace. In a SCU a space distance corresponds to a time distance, a fact which has nothing to do with the passing of time or with light whatsoever. In a SCU there is a time distance between any two different space positions even if nothing happens: a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all. Unfortunately, this fact will only be accepted when we acknowledge that causality, in the final analysis, is a religious rather than a scientific concept. If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum, or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything.

My essay, short as it had to be, only could summarize the main arguments and conclusions of a far more extensive study you may find interesting and can be found at www.quantumgravity.nl. I think that there's enough food for thought in it to make up for its many flaws. If you do, I'd very much like to hear your comment on it: as a work in progress, it can only benefit from critique.

Anton

Dear Vladimir

I feel uncomfortable with all those theories which ascribe energy or other properties to the vacuum. Such models require the existence of an absolute space and interactions with this vacuum demand an absolute time. 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. The timeless absolute universe, which you mention, appears to be as a purely philosophical abstraction to express that the notion of distance and time are not absolute, but both are internal parameters to describe relations of objects and their change.

Best regards,

Ernst

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for correcting the question on degrees of freedom. I think that particles inside a black hole, or better to say inside nuclear matter, do not 'bounce around'. Degeneracy energy or pressure should rather be considered as an internal degree of freedom, which is coupled, however, by the quantum mechanical interaction to the neighbouring particles. If the complete system is spinning, there is indeed one and only one additional degree of freedom, as the relative position of the individual particles is fixed by their quantum mechanical interference so that the system acts like a rigid body.

Best regards,

Ernst

Dear Peter,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read your essay, too. But for me it is difficult to find out, what the basic idea behind your view of the universe is and why it can unify QM and classical physics consistently with SR. I would have preferred a more mathematical form. But I assume that this is a problem of my way of thinking.

You ask for recently published papers on this theme. Some years ago I have written an extensive paper, in which I have tried to set up an equilibrium model of the universe without a Big Bang singularity, looking for alternative explanations of red shift, microwave background, chemical element composition and cosmic structure formation. (arXiv:0708.3577)

Discussion of red shift, which should be present also in a static universe, can be found at (arXiv:0805.1638).

The properties of homogeneous static solutions of the Einstein equation under the assumption that time is not absolute, but may dependon distance, can also be found in a published paper (ApSS 325, 69-74 (2010)).

Best regards,

Ernst

  • [deleted]

  • Post #45

Dear Ernst,

I'm really interested with your previous comment. Please, have you read my essay in order to discuss. According to my essay I solved all the contradictions between quantum (Copenhagen School) and relativity (special and general). What I proposed is solving the related problems between GR and quantum field theory.

please read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002

According to this paper I answered the question related to your previous comment.

Azzam

Dear Lawrence,

You correctly mention that the TOV equations describe a static distribution of matter. But there is no motion at all, be it geodesic or not, and no initial condition involved in this equilibrium. That there exists the second term [math]4 \pi G\int \rho dr/rc^2[/math] in your equation results from the deviation of the spatial geometry from Euclidean space. It reflects the fact that the relation between local parameters and integral data differs from Euclidean geometry. The volume enclosed between surfaces with two values of the radial parameter differs from the corresponding value in Euclidean space.

With every volume integration in curved space we have to take into account this change of the volume elements by curvature, if we apply it to quantities defined locally in Euclidean tangent space.

If we want to transfer the local definition of density from Euclidean space into curved space, we have to add a correction term to account for the change of the volume element by curvature. The identification of this correction term with the potential energy, as we know it from Newtonian theory, comes in with the basic idea of GR, to relate curvature to the gravitational action of mass or energy.

The introduction of the potential energy term in my essay is nothing more than demanding the correct application of volume integration in curved space. With this correction the problem of singularities and horizons vanishes automatically.

Best regards

Ernst Fischer

    • [deleted]

    • Post #47

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #48

    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

      Dear Dirk,

      By now I have no detailed model of the jet formation process. Formation of jets is a highly dynamical process, while the model described in my essay is only on static equilibrium conditions. But the physics, which governs the equilibrium, must, of course, be valid also in dynamical situations.

      There is observational evidence that the jets, which emanate from the collapsed cores of galaxies consist of highly relativistic matter consisting mainly of protons and electrons, which must have been processed at extreme energy densities, which only occur inside nuclear matter concentrations. In the accretion flows around these concentrations on contrary we expect processed matter from stars, that means matter enriched with heavier elements. Thus the source of the jets must be inside the core. This core cannot be a black hole, from which an escape of matter is impossible.

      Gravity may become repulsive, when the contribution of potential energy exceeds the matter equivalent, just as it is discussed with the so called dark energy. This situation can occur in the dynamical processes of accretion onto a nuclear matter concentration, but not in an exactly spherically symmetric case. In a rotating core, where the collapse is slowed down by centrifugal forces in the plane of rotation, the repulsive situation will occur preferably in direction of the rotational axis, so that ejection of matter will be preferred in this direction. An additional collimation of the jets will normally occur by the strong magnetic fields, which exist in the accretion region of the 'black hole'. As the ejected particles are electrically charged, matter can escape only in the polar direction of the field, while in other directions the ejected matter is led back into the core along the field lines.

      This qualitative picture is all I can offer to you at the moment. I hope that other experts in the field will take up this idea to develop quantitative models, which lead to a complete understanding of the mysterious cosmic jets.

      Best regards,

      Ernst

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #52

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #54

      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

        Dear Avtar,

        You cite the paragraph of my essay, in which I mention that potential energy may play the role of the so called dark energy in an expanding universe. But also with this interpretation the problem remains that there must be some unknown physical effect, which drives the expansion, and that the expansion must have started in a singular state. The same problem occurs in your model, too. What is the mechanism, which transforms matter into expansion energy?

        The other possibility, which I mentioned at the end of my essay, appears to me more sensible: a stable static universe. The only thing we must abandon is the belief that red shift is a consequence of expansion. Other explanations are possible. In a paper, which I have submitted to arXiv (arXiv:0805.1638), I have shown that curvature of space together with the consequent application of Lorentz invariance must inevitably lead to red shift also in a static universe.

        A further comment on your GNMUE model I will post on your blog.

        Regards,

        Ernst

        • [deleted]

        • Post #58

        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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #59

        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