Black Holes or Anything Else? by C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. J. Mosquera Cuestra, S. Robertson, and R. E. Schild

Hi Tom,

It is me the parano.:) I am not really ok with your words.Why a point at infinity for the singularities.It is not foundamental at my humble opinion. The serie of uniqueness is a finite group. It is not a fictional calculation. It is a real road towards this singularity.

Now I can agree if we considering the source with the adds or multiplications.But not for our uniqueness number. It is not rational considering the encoding of these informations. If these informations are correlated with the central spheres.So the volumes of stability become very important and very relevant. So the main central sphere are the most important volume for the two 3d scales ,at the walls. It is relevant for these singularities and the singularity.I beleive that the informations must be classified with these volumes. With the prime number 1 like the main code. If we interpret the infinity, the infinities and the finite groups without a real universal spherical domains, so it becomes moredifficult for the real quantization of this mass.This mass is a coded system in evolution with sortings and synchros. The volumes, I am repeating, are essential.

Wheeler is relevant about the informations but the domain of taxonomy of infinities , constants,....must be rational about these sortings and synchros.Correlated with these spherical volumes of this universal serie of uniqueness. It is relevant also when we consider the same number of uniqueness for the cosmological number of spheres and the quantum number of spheres of this finite group.

The informations are an interesting subject in all case. The main central spheres are the secret of main codes. The fermions polarize the informations and the bosonic complementarity.Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?

Regards

Steve

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your kind words. Actually, the dedication to Darry Leiter has been right and proper. He was a great scientist and lots of ideas on our Essay are due by him. In fact, last year I promised to his widow that such ideas would be used to realize an Essay for this Contest.

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Donatello,

Thanks for giving us positive rating.

I also hope that we will find occasion to share our ideas.It will be quite interesting as I think that such ideas should arise from a common "Einstenian" point of view.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Steve,

"Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?"

This is the only part of your post that I understand, and I think you're right. That's why my model is finite in space and unbounded in time -- i.e., a continuously evolving wave function is infinitely quantized and so not quantized at all. This is perfectly consistent with general relativity -- except that GR, conventionally interpreted as finite in time and unbounded in space, cannot avoid the singularity, and this model must.

Best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Tell me Tom. My english is so bad? I don't learn it but I evolve ,No?

Tom, is it my english or is it my reasoning that you do not understand ?

There is a thing that I don't agree with your words. Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that. At my knowledge, the GR tells us that the mass curves this space. So the spheres spherificates the Universal sphere. Furthermore the spherical volume of this universal sphere evolving , changes in time. The time is a constant of evolution implied by the rotations of spheres.A pure irreversible duration. So I don't understand why you say that the Sapce is unbounded. The universal sphere is a finite system in evolution of mass. The mass curves this space. The SR tells us that c is constant and is the maximum velocity for bosons. These two gauges permit to undertand the evolution, so this light becoming mass. For a real quantization, we must have a bounded universal sphere. Furthermore the finite groups also are essential.

It is simply a deterministic interpretation of this relativity. I don't understand why you say that in fact Tom about our GR ?

That said, the time can be considered indeed like infinite.But with real proportionalities in 3D so !

ps I am going to search a good teacher for my engligh.

ps2 I dislike to study languages :) it is not my force this matter .

Regards

"Why you say that the GR considers an unbounded space. Never the GR says that."

Yes it does, Steve. The curvature of spacetime in 4 dimensions means that if one were to (hypothetically) travel in a straight line at the speed of light, one's path would follow a geodesic of the curve and return to the starting point. That's what we mean by finite and unbounded. The GR model is finite in time (bounded at the singularity of creation) and unbounded in space.

Please, though, let's not impose any more side discussions on Christian's space.

Tom

I am sorry to tell you it, but no Tome you are the most the time not rational and general.In fact Tom, you are not really deterministic in fact. I think that you confound a lot of things, don't teach but learn so .I am sincere and I am right you know, each person at its place after all when we speak about our foundamental universal 3D sphere.It is better for the people. You interpret the relativity bizarelly.

The space is curved by the gravitation !!! the spherization Tom.

the singularity of creations, it is the central main sphere, cosmlogical, the main central spheres, quantic, are the singularities. You interpret the infinity bizarelly.It is the reason why your domains, limits are not correct.

Dr Corda has interesting ideas. I don't impose, I just show him several foundamental roads. You can also learn from these ideas, and relevances in a pure finite universal sphere witha spherical volume in evolution.

Don't make also too much publicity! The sciences and its determinism are better.

You know Tom, I am shocked by several comportments of several persons.It is not that the USA. Have you seen the film "an on a ledge" om. I am in the same state of mind you know. I have faith in my theory with or without the approvements of jealous, envious or vanitious or full of hate. It is in fact not my probelms their states of mind. My universal faith is my reason of being.

You must differenciate a lot of things Tom. It the war against the bad Tom. With or without their approvements, they shall fall down ! You want really seeing this spherization in its generality Tom. Don't worry you shall understand what is the universality.We are young you know.

Please Tom, don't teach !!! you are not general and foundamental in your doamins !!! The students cannot learn these things said to all. It is not complicated to understand. I critic simply.

Regards

Steve,

The meaning of "finite and unbounded" in relativity theory is not controversial.

As long as you brought it up, however, it will be necessary to know what that interpretation means in order to understand what Christian Corda et al are saying:

The singularity theorems (Penrose, Hawking) conclude that either:

1. (Penrose) A light path is restricted at the limit of the black hole; i.e., it cannot complete a geodesic circuit; therefore (as Einstein himself in fact knew) general relativity fails at the singularity to be a complete theory, and can only apply in a limited way to the large scale structure of the universe. (A geodesic is the longest path on the circumference of a sphere.)

Or

2. (Hawking) The rules of quantum mechanics forbid a singularity at creation; this imposes an impossibility condition on infinite energy density at the Big Bang. Therefore, the minimal 2-dimensional analysis that quantum mechanics requires allows unphysical phenomena such as negative time. General relativity fails not at the singularity; it fails at the Planck time.

Corda et al, using the principle of equivalence (or as they say, the strong principle of equivalence, SPOE) -- which is central to relativity -- go back to the fundamental nature of dynamics. That is, a classical (or what has come to be known as semi-classical) explanation has to give a top-down accounting of quantum phenomena, such that time (as in the Hawking theorem) is conserved, and geodesic incompleteness (as in the Penrose theorem) is therefore obviated.

When these conditions are satisfied, Corda et al show, no quantum mechanical effect prevents relativistic observers from realizing locally all the effects of physics in all of spacetime. Global uniformization is identical to local physical dynamics. As a consequence, not only are "naked singularities" prohibited, so are the event horizons that hide them, even for extremely compact astrophysical objects.

So if you want to stay on topic here, address these issues rather than whether you think I am rational. As far as generating "publicity" -- yes, I am happy to promote any and every framework that plausibly leads to a comprehensive and fully relativistic explanation of how nature works.

Tom

o :) Make surf Tom in 8 dimensions and make a bridge between 7 and 8, more 12 and also stop to check my pc and also learn from real generalists.and also stop your obliged publicity of frustrated. You want what with Jonathan and Ian, what? it is what your problem, the vanity, the money, what, the faith. A man on a ledge my friend, kill me it is better. A real circus of strategists.

You are ironical.You do not understand neither the works of Penrose, nor Hawking, nor Riemann, nor Einstein,....in fact you are a false generalist. Your interpretation of the ether, or the relativity or the gravitation or the evolution is subjective and irrational. You search hidden variables without determinism and causality. It is ironical in fact.

In fact people speaks about the singularity and the singularities and the ether and they have not even the faith, let me laugh Tom and friends. With your beautiful words in english. Parallelizations, yes of course, an academic parrallelization. It is that ? for the private airplanes paid by the whom?You know the intrinsic pseudo integre politeness of private circle will not change the universality you know. Abraham Lincoln and Kenedy shall agree if they were here no? I know better the story of your country that you I am persuaded. If you were a generalist and a rationalist or an universalist, never you shall have made all this strategy.In fact don't search like excuse that it is the competition.It is too easy Tom ! I know the persons vanitious and angry agaisnt me, just because I critic with transparence. I know the jealous, the vanitious and the envious,and the strategists.It is easy in fact.

ps I am sorry to tell it but you do not understand the real meaning of singularities.

The prinnciple of equivalence is rational !!! your reasoning Tom, no!

Never a gravitational collapse does not insert singularities.

Let's discuss about this principle of equivalence and the entropy principle and the anthropical principle and the finite groups and the kissing spheres.

ps we are here to critic with logic and rationality, we are not here to take gloves when we critic the works.We cannot violate the principle of equivalence !!! The competition is not foundamental even in darwinistic point of vue or Lamarkist. So the critics on the essays are essential. It permits to show them their errors and so the next essays shall be better.

Don't teach Tom, your interpretation of relativity is false, you cannot teach your subjective reasonings.

Regards

Dear Christian:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and intuitive essay.

My paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" strongly vindicates the conclusion of your paper - "....black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities.......quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework."

My paper even goes further in describing a detailed model of the missing physics of spontaneous decay based on the above suggested framework and successfully predicts the observed data at all scales from below Planck scale to beyond cosmological scales. The proposed model not only resolves black hole singularities but also the unresolved paradoxes of physics and cosmology. It also explains the inner workings of QM and eliminates its inconsistencies with relativity.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best of Luck and Regards

Avtar Singh

Intersting!

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf

Dear Hoang Cao Hai ,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

I welcome your essay that is untraditional approach to BH. I have read some of your articles devoted to gravity and find there new points, particularly about possibility of absence of the gravitational waves, that is very likely for me. However, mine approach to gravity problem is differs from accepted ways. I have start from essence of elementary particles, and I have looked the gravity as universal, unknown property of all kinds of particles. It is long way, and used methodology very different from accepted ones. You can judge it from mine essay that I hop will interesting for you. Essay

I sent you a formula below, defining theoretically value of gravity constant:

G=alpha^2(1+alpha/2p)c*lambda^4/4ph*s^2=6.66*10^-11[Nm^2/kg^2] (6.67*10^-11)

Where:

alpha=1/137

lambda - Compton wavelength of electron

p - 3.14...

h - Plank's constant

s - second

Dear George,

Thanks for your kind comments. Actually, the absence of the gravitational waves, is NOT likely for me.

In any case, I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which has a variable cross-section S, in the absence of gravitational forces. If [math]\rho[/math] is the density of the liquid, V is the average speed of the flow, then the formula for the mass flux is: [math]\rho V S=const =C[/math] When the section S is changing the speed V of the liquid and the density of the kinetic energy Ek in this section is changed: [math]E_k=\frac {\rho V^2} {2}= \frac {C^2} {2 \rho S^2}[/math] In this case the density of the kinetic energy is inextricably linked with the geometry, and we can write the law of conservation of energy density [math]E_k + f(S)= const [/math] where [math]f(S)[/math] is a geometric function of the cross section S, which in general can arbitrarily depend on external conditions affecting S. On the other hand, we can do not use the geometry, and consider the potential energy of the liquid in the form of pressure P, then the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy will be saved regardless of S: [math]E_k +P= const [/math] This shows that the problem with pseudotensor energy field arises in general relativity because of the fact that there the role of energy is performed by geometric quantities, and the gravitational field itself is reduced to the metric field and the curvature of spacetime. Of course, gravity changes the movement and energy of photons, which are used for the spacetime measurements. Hence the conclusion that the metric tensor in the presence of gravity changes its form relative to the metric of Minkowski space in the special theory of relativity. Therefore, such a change in GR metrics associated with gravity so as to satisfy the principle of equivalence. But then in GR energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field disappear, and the field itself is not a real physical field but the geometrical object. Hence, there are paradoxes. For example in GR contribution to the gravitational field can make any other field, but the gravitational field itself do not make similar in the form of contributions in other fields. Then, why the gravitational field has such unique status? Because of the geometrization of the field in general relativity, we may never know exactly what causes spacetime to curve near the masses? And what is the maximum extent of this spacetime distortion? And where is the evidence that the degree of curvature is able to achieve the status of a black hole? Some of these problems are solved in the Covariant theory of gravitation. In this theory, gravitation exists as a fundamental physical field and has its own energy-momentum tensor like the electromagnetic field. That's gravitational field affects the movement and energy of photons or other test particles, and thus changes the spacetime metric, found by these photons and particles. The role of geometry is reduced only to a change in the metric by gravitation. At the same time as the physical mechanism of gravitation provides a mechanism in the Le Sage theory of gravitation, i.e. gravitation is a consequence of the fluxes of gravitons. And we can find density of energy of gravitons fluxes (http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0076).

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

Actually, I do not understand how your theory can be consistent with Equivalence Principle if it has its own energy-momentum tensor. This is the key issue as Equivalence Principle is an observational constrain. I think that you should agree with me that a theory which violates observational constrains has to be ruled out.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Dear Christian, et al,

My condolences also on the passing of Dr. Leiter.

I just read, as best I could, your essay today. I must say that I'm a simple person with no qualifications in physics. However, I did find some of the basic points in your analysis to be complimentary to some of my purely conceptual thinking.

In particular, it seems obvious that no form of matter could be contained within a dimensionless singularity without invoking metaphysical solutions that allow some dimensional exportation while retaining mass effects locally (more later). As for ideas regarding supermassive material objects, as you discuss the densest confirmed objects are pulsars and neutron stars composed of primarily neutrons with perhaps a quark-gluon plasma core.

But as I understand (and you describe on the basis of theory), those objects seem to be limited to less than 2 Solar masses (by degeneracy pressure) while the orbital characteristics of stars in the proximity of the proposed Milky Way SMBH indicate a compact object with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses. It seems problematic to me that any even hypothetical form of exotic matter must have some finite constraint limiting its degeneracy pressure and resulting maximum density, preventing perhaps even the existence of any physical object of millions of Solar masses. I think you may address this in your essay, but I'm afraid I can't adequately comprehend.

I was intrigued by you brief mention of a recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," as this may relate to some of my thinking. Unfortunately I was unable to identify much less access the document. Actually, my thinking has been not that BHs effectively contain no mass but that perhaps BHs contain only potential mass-energy - separated from its co-configuration with dimensional matter.

My reasoning is that the extreme conditions imposed in particle accelerator experiments disintegrate massive particles, in effect dispersing not only their dimensional material but also whatever physically imparts the property of mass to particles. Gravitational theory describes its effect fundamentally as being proportionate to localized mass. If, in the extreme conditions of acceleration and density imposed upon matter accreted by a BH, with particle collisions or not, matter may be disintegrated, dissipating even its potential mass-energy. Whether manifested as an energy field or some short-lived exotic particles, perhaps the material residue is (however) ejected through the polar jets as observed while much if not all of the original material's potential mass-energy is retained within the BH, perhaps directly imparted as a gravitational field (curved spacetime). In this way, the internal gravitational effects may be physically directed to a single focal point - presenting the effect of a massive gravitational singularity.

Of course these are merely very loose speculations, but they might could explain the extremely energetic, relativistic expulsion of low mass particles and address the issue of potentially unphysical, exceedingly 'dense' masses. This idea, to me at least, does seem to be reasonably based on observed quantum effects under extreme conditions. In that sense this scenario might even provide a closer link between quantum theory and general relativity.

I'd very much appreciate and consideration you may be able to give to these ideas. I'm sorry to take up so much of your time with what may just be naive nonsense.

Sincerely, Jim

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your condolences on the passing of Darryl Leiter, for reading your Essay and for your interesting comments.

Concerning SMBH with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses, we propose 3 different alternatives with respect to ordinary black holes. The first two are the so-called Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) and Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs). MECOs are proposed like alternatives to black holes by Darryl Leiter, Stanley Robertson, and Rudy Schild. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra. In those objects the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can.

Together with Herman Mosquera Cuesta we proposed a third alternative to black holes, the Non-Linear Electrodynamics objects (NLED). We have shown that, by inserting a non linear electrodynamics term in the right hand side of the Einstein Field Equation, an exact non-singular solution of such an equation can be found for a collapsing body. Such a solution well matches with the external Schwarzschild solution.

Concerning the recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," you can find the paper by Mitra here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4754.

I am also going to comment the ideas that you discussed in your comment, but, before making this, I prefer to read your Essay on the Galaxy Rotation Problem. I will put my comments in your Essay page.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ch.