A Self-Gravitational Upper Bound on Localized Energy

Given the Theory of Knowledge we at some point must simply accept that to begin with we must start from some bald assumption. Constantinos Ragazaz choice of mathematical identity over physical law demonstrates this and is quite valid. But really, both constructs are artifacts of human intellect just as it is we mere mortals whom choose what we consider to be a bit of information.

What I find exhilarating in this discussion emanating from Steven Kauffmann's work is that there is emerging an effort to rationalize both the physics and the math into information that even a math idiot like me can grasp what is being discussed. If I might offer some thoughts on the subject of there being an upper bound on mass/energy concentration naturally relating to dimensional volume please remember that "Alas, none but geometers may enter here".

The Uncertainty Principle is commonly applied in a construct that seeks to find a break in the continuum and while it is firstly a mathematical abstraction it none the less affirms that a continuum must exist. Zeno's point was that the arrow does hit the target. Perhaps the elusive quantum might better be found in a break from the continuum rather than of it, that is to say at a point of intersection of a line tangent to a curvature of spacetime.

Some quarter century ago I began trying to learn physics more than reading for solace when I had an idea that the dual characteristics of wave and particle form of EMR might be explained as a sequential repetition of acceleration and deceleration of a mass within the confines of each wave event. Over several years I devised a simple geometric model based on a partition of Planck's Constant and postulating an upper bound of energy density relative to the total quantity of mass/energy of any relative rest mass. This is quite similar to what I can understand of Dr. Kauffmann's work and I'd like to offer for consideration a general summary of that postulate.

Time need not be assumed to extend at the same rate across a spherical region of energy density variation, rather that density variation can be described as the result of a simultaneous existence of continuous change in the rate of time's extension across the radial distance of the rest mass. Whether the upper bound of density has the characteristic of inelastic response or not does not obviate inertia, only whether it will behave as a particle of matter or as a particle-like momentary photon. For a mass of energy to exhibit the characteristic of inertia, some portion of the total discrete quantity must exist at a density relative to the whole and thus translate inertia across the full range of density variation. The LOWER bound of energy density in a discrete rest mass is what is arbitrarily assigned without a construct of limiting rationale. In my modeling I rather naively had assumed the relative inertial density to be in the relationship of c^2, which worked quite well. Over the years occasionally returning to physics and always attuned to popular media accounts of discoveries I have developed a more general understanding of what I have come to consider a general postulate of inertia. I=ec^2; where I is the relative inertial density of energy, e is the total energy quantity of a rest mass, and c is the velocity of light.

Further, if it is accepted that the rate of time extension changes from relative zero to equivalent light velocity within a rest mass, then the argument can be made that inertial density is the greatest density at center of volume and that central region would exist at a constant density by virtue of time having zero extension across the inertial density volume. From this then a finite quantity of energy might be derived as a (miniscule) portion of the total, hence no physical singularity.

The math that introduces infinities such as infinite energy in virtual particles might be better stated as an indefinite period of duration of energy existing momentarily as a virtual particle. I find it of value to choose a construct that time and space exist a priori and energy is emergent from the stress of time and space having covariant scales of length as rigid physical properties. If one thinks of energy as existing in continual recreation from that covariant correspondence of time extending to seek equilibrium with space, then dark energy is less mysterious and (for want of better words) the speed of time can coexist at different rates simultaneously in any discrete mass.

I wish to add that the concept of a universal relative inertial density might be part of the answer for Dark Matter. It's way beyond me, but I can't stop thinking that like the central volume of inertial density in a (theoretical) free rest mass existing at a c^2 proportion of energy quantity, in aggregate it might explain the flattening of the density increase curve in super-galactic core regions and perhaps also relate to the flattening of galactic rotational curves. Somebody want to run with this? Have FUN!

Thank-you all, you're great fun yourselves. John R. Cox

I like this thread but..

There has been some irrelevant content lately. It appears the individual posting about quantum antigravity does not wish to engage folks here, or even talk about his supposedly exciting results, but only to lure people to his site and increase his number of page views. So I deleted that entry, but I do hope people find this discussion for other reasons.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

Did you hear from Steven?

He has been somewhat insular..

Steven is reluctant to re-engage, mostly because he has been battling ill health, but he is gearing up for another volley. He found out he had 're-invented the wheel' after a comment by Stan Robertson led him to an old paper by Schwarzschild, and I imagine he is woodshedding but will re-emerge soon.

More later,

Jonathan