Does Gravitational Collapse Lead to Singularities? by Ernst Fischer

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

dear Ernst Fischer

I'm very interested with your conclusion "Instead every spherically symmetric gravitational collapse can find a

final equilibrium state of finite density. No matter is inevitably lost from the

surrounding space."

Please will you read my paper "The Exact Solution of the Pioneer Anomaly According to the General Theory of Relativity and the Hubble's Law" http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

I interpreted the Hubble law same as what you proposed in your paper. Pioneer anomaly can be solved by that. My solution to the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly, see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

I hope to discuss by this point, specially solving the Pioneer anomaly and the Hubble law is good proof that I and you are moving in the right side relative to reinterpreting the GRT by quantum concepts and principles.

Ernst.

Your past papers are exceptionally close to mine. One is in review but I'll send privately if you wish (send you address to mine on my essay) A full galactic cycle is described, which you already had more than half of, but no jet accretion back to the old disc is found. The other touching on the ontology webarchived here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 Your red shift findings are also agreed with.

You said: "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."

What is does is derive all the classical effects of SR and 'curved space time' in a similar way to you, with just matter, with a complete consistent quantum mechanism but overcoming all the previous obstacles. It only takes SR to be derived from QM to complete unification. Gravity emerges consistently with your own far better quantified construction if not described in the same way.

i.e. Take 'Stellar Aberration', the main reason SR was formulated in the first place (photon particles not waves were needed to explain it), and CSL. Both emerge direct from scattering at c by all absorbing particles (= Local c, always, at all detectors). Asymmetry of charge with lateral motion during wave particle interaction then rotates the optical axis of re-emission. This IS diffraction, which matter in space (plasma) is precisely able to produce.

I believe our work is very compatible and could be valuably co-joined to be far greater than the sum of the parts (but you'd have to collect the Nobel). I hope you may agree.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Ernst Fischer,

I do agree your concept that energy density has limitation and it provides the mass energy conversions at the heated center of astronomical objects. Nearly 8 years ago, so when Bush ex-us-president won the second term election, I posted a comment to a physics forum that if you are tired hearing or saying "four more years", next you should say is "no more holes". Well, I didn't have any followed at that time ;)

So, I as well built up my idea based density limitation entry here, the part is section 2 and 3 would be related. I would be glad if we can exchange thoughts.

I am wondering if your description of GRT can be connected to my graviton and wave function model as both stands on the same principle newly introduced.

Regards,

Ryoji Furui

Dear G S Sandhu

It is worth mentioning that the notion of an energetically isolated gravitational system might be inherently incompatible with a Machian theory of gravitation. Mach's principle supposes that the rest energy of an object is gravitational potential energy due to distant matter. If we are to accept this viewpoint, it is not unreasonable to anticipate some as yet unknown energetic relation between the particles and distant matter.

Let me put forward a simple idea that seems to fit. This is necessarily speculative. If changes in potential energy are mutual and presumably equal, it is conceivable that the change in potential energy of the two particles is (somehow) mirrored in the potential energy of distant matter - they all rise or they all fall.

If we let U be the potential energy of distant matter, then U will vary with the change in potential energies V1 and V2 resulting in a balance if U is included in the accounting of energy.

This particular proposal may be half-baked, and perhaps not convincing, but it must be realized that the notion of an isolated gravitational system is in conflict with Mach's concept of energy.

Colin

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/