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

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

Dear Avtar,

Thanks for your kind comments.

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

Cheers,

Ch.

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 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.

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your rating. But it looks to have been a low rating. In fact, I have seen that our Essay went down from the 8th to the 10th position just before your message above.

Is this correct? In that case it should have been better that you did not rate our Essay.

Sincerely,

Ch.

Christian,

I suspect that the equation 3x^3 8c1a^2B^4x - a^2B^2x = 0 is reducible to the cubic equation having a pair of conjugate complex roots. I do not know what it means taking physically.

Dear Michael,

Actually, the correct equation in our Essay is 3x^3 -(B^2)x 8c1B^4=0.

The correspondent polynomial admits a minimum in x=B/(3)^1/2, a maximum in

x=-B/(3)^1/2 and it is positive for x=0. Hence, all the 3 solutions are real.

In any case, you put my attention on your Essay on the Wrong Mathematical Assumptions in Physics. I am going to read it nd I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Darryl Jay Leiter would be truly content to see the essay you wrote together.

This is a fine way to continue the cooperation even when a part of the group is no longer in our causal universe.

I read the essay, but you lost me with the equations, however the most important thought is clear to me, the essence of BH's is not yet clear to us and you together also doubt the "existence" of singulairities.

In "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my perception is that singulairities cannot exist in our causal universe, because it is limited by the Planck length and time.

What you are posing about the event horizon is indeed a foundational question, this event horizon is an exact limit and when you don't accept singulairities there are also no exact borders , because the Planck length is the minimum length, after that there is no longer cause and effect.

I hope you will read/rate and comment my essay.

Wilhelmus

Dear Chris,

Thanks again for your kind consideration! I replied to your comment in my essay's blog, including some additional thoughts about the Bullet Cluster. I'll summarize below in case you don't get back to my page...

I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, in my view, the fundamental issue with galaxy gravitational evaluations is not (when correctly applied) Newtonian physics, it is the expedient misapplication of even simpler methods of approximation by astronomers and others. There are several references to research in my 'Supplemental Info." and "Cited Works" sections (the latter correcting one erroneous URL) that more correctly represent galactic mass configurations using Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to successfully represent observed galaxy rotation. There is also a reference using general relativity - Fred Cooperstock also takes the view that the failing is inherent in Newtonian physics.

Sincerely, Jim

Dear Jim,

Thanks again for this interesting discussion.

I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.

Cheers,

Ch.