Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Okay, John, now you can talk about 'theoretical patches,' and I won't say a word. :-)

I stand with Einstein and Hawking -- no firewalls. Let the games begin.

Tom

Thank you, Zeeya!

Tom,

The point I think worth making here is this is a structure which emerges from and can be explained by basic thermodynamic, convective processes and any mathematical modeling is simply descriptive. So I think that when we really add up all the pieces of galactic processes, the mass falling in, the energy radiating away, etc. the shape is not due to the geometry(spacetime), the geometry simply describes the shape which emerged from those physical processes.

Does gravity really eventually collapse into a black hole? If you were to go to the center of the earth, would there be a small black hole there, or would the gravitational attraction balance out in all directions, since the mass would all be above you? Leaving only enormous pressure and heat.

Similarly, if you were to go to the center of the galaxy, would the gravity continue to pull you into a black hole, or would it actually balance out, like on the smaller scale of the planet? Leaving only the pressure, heat and rotational velocity to shoot whatever does fall in, out the poles as jets of cosmic rays.

It seems to me, the idea of a singularity models the form of the vortex to infinity, rather than seeing it as emergent structure of dynamic processes.

Regards,

John M

" ... would the gravitational attraction balance out in all directions, since the mass would all be above you?"

Yes. The mass above is equal to the mass below.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

So if this applies to galaxies, wouldn't the center of the galaxy be more the eye of a storm, then a mathematical singularity? That the mass and thus gravity is equalized in all directions, rather than a vortex vanishing into infinity?

Or is the gravity of galaxies somehow different from the gravity of planets?

Regards, John M

" . . . wouldn't the center of the galaxy be more the eye of a storm, then a mathematical singularity?"

Who said the center of a galaxy is a singularity?

Perhaps you mean that a singularity is supposed to be at the center of a black hole -- we don't actually know, however, if such a "naked singularity" exists. All we know is that there is an event horizon beyond which light cannot escape, so we have no information for or against the singularity.

So you are free to think of the center of the galaxy as the eye of a hurricane.

Personally, I think that no particle that enters the event horizon reaches the singularity in less than infinite time. Which implies to every distant observer that every singularity is extinguished in finite time. Which of course is consistent both with general relativity and Hawking radiation.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

But in practical terms, these ocean eddies have event horizons. The water pulled into them doesn't "radiate" back out. It gets pushed through the vortex. Just like what falls into the center of the galaxies gets shot out the poles, not radiated out as Hawking radiation. The "singularity" is that cosmic jet.

Regards,

John M

John,

You are confusing forces, such as the pressure differential that creates vortices, with the formation of gravitational black holes, which involves no force. Now it may be that cosmic jets obey this classical dynamic--that doesn't imply that no gravitational event horizon lies at the galactic center.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"the formation of gravitational black holes...involves no force." Do we know that? Is not the intrinsic rotation of matter in space to some virial radius a 'force'?

A Lagrangian point is a 'centre of mass' position where toroidal gravitational field potential cancels to zero (we have 5 in the Earth/Sun/Moon system). The centre of Earth is another. The main difference with an active galactic nucleus (AGN, or SMBH in old money) seems to be that the latter is in fluid motion. But vortices are 3D not the 2D modelled here. The tools do exist in 'Lagrangian Coherent Structures'

http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v20/i1/p017501_s1?bypassSSO=1">(LHC's Intro.)](https://

http://chaos.aip.org/resource/1/chaoeh/v20/i1/p017501_s1?bypassSSO=1) but are a bit complex.

I read this paper on arXiv and was concerned at some major bodies of research it had missed. In Eddies as in EM toroid acceleration (see Nuclear Tokamak experiments) the apparently chaotic flow 'self-organinses' into helical flow, with strong similarities to the patterns found in AGN accretion and jets. Also the 'stable boundary' ring assumed (including by Poe) is not so at all, it's highly dynamic. To explain;

If you watched the Americas Cup races you'll have noticed the 'tide lines', which are 'foam' propagated at the frame (flow direction) transition. Look closer and you'll have seen the larger of the small vortices along this line. At each vortex (eddy) there may well be a maintained ring of foam. However the assumption that this signifies some 'barrier' is wrong.;;

The foam is being continuously propagated by the shear 'plane' as the surface water rotates, accelerates and 'enters' the vortex (dye tests confirm this), whereon it's dragged around and down and eventually exits at the bottom (applause to John!). There's a vertical contra flow outside (common in Kansas). Did you never wonder where the air came from to 'lift' the cows? So the 'form' of the ring is maintained but it's constantly replenished. Watch the time line for a while and you can see it translate laterally across the bay.

The point then is not that the mathematical model for black holes is different, but that it's assumptions may be incorrect, so slightly different one may apply to both. Interestingly, the outflows from AGN's have been shown to actually contain more mass that accreted! (for which there are a number of possible explanations). In that case it may be said that black holes often appear to "eject more than they swallow." But that's astronomy not theoretical physics, which often seem to differ.

I hope that made a bit more sense than the paper. If anyone's interested in any particular aspect I have some links.

Best wishes

Peter

"the formation of gravitational black holes...involves no force." Do we know that? Is not the intrinsic rotation of matter in space to some virial radius a 'force'?

We do know that, Peter. You are standing right now on a potential event horizon--were the Earth's matter compressed to a size which is precisely calculable by Schwartzchild's formula, you could not escape, nor could any light or other information. Hawking's signature accomplishment was to show by quantum mechanical rules that there is a nonzero chance that 1/2 of a particle pair does escape the event horizon, which appears as radiation to an observer outside the horizon.

The probability is classically random. Thus the unification of quantum rules with general relativity and the possibility of eliminating singularities from the theory, which are what keeps it from being complete.

Tom

Tom,

"Involves no force."

It's just the curvature of spacetime, right?

Previously you agreed that as a quantum of light, a photon is not necessarily a point particle, but can expand and contract. As bosons, presumably you can have lots of such quanta of light overlaying each other, creating a holographic model of light, where each is an image of the whole, not just an infinitesimal particle. True? Or at least possible.

Now how would such a model work in reality? Somewhat like a fluid, with wave dynamics. And eddies.

What is gravity, but shrinking space and how does physics define space? As measurement between points. So if the points move closer, that's shrinking space and if your points are in a medium which can contract, then space contracts. As I keep pointing out, when you release light from mass, it expands and this creates pressure. Think atomic bomb. So if that energy is contracting, then physics would model it as collapsing space. And the actual, physical effect would be a vacuum.

Now that energy doesn't cease to exist, either it condenses into mass, or it gets ejected out the "bottom" of the vortex.

So while math may not need force, physics does.

"were the Earth's matter compressed to a size which is precisely calculable by Schwartzchild's formula, you could not escape, nor could any light or other information."

Has anyone ever actually measured/observed a non-rotating black hole? They are interesting in theory, but do they exist in nature?

Regards,

John M

Tom,

You appear to be confusing theory with 'fact'. You may subscribe' to some theory but you seem to be forgetting that only makes it a belief not a fact! You seem to be ever abandoning the 'singular' importance of correspondence with findings? and the only fundamental truth, that "all theory is provisional."

Do your beliefs now also exclude that?

Lets' look at nature. When any mass or massive system is put in space it starts to rotate, on some virial radius. This is 'intrinsic rotation'. Are you really suggesting there is no 'force' which causes this? I'm really curious! Note that I consider the concept 'force' rather inadequate in all cases, but here let's use the present general paradigm.

One reason I'm curious is that in a model which removes singularities (and other anomalies) a cause for this rotation emerges, which comes under the description above.

It also agrees with John, a black hole energy 'is' rotation, which is Orbital AM. It does not exist without it.

Peter

Peter,

In the latest post on Peter Woit's blog, this comment coaght my eye;

"The almost inconsistent SM parameters have an interesting analog in statistical physics. In the 1940s Onsager showed that critical exponents have to satisfy certain inequalities. Twenty years later people realized that these inequalities are in fact equalities, i.e. critical exponents are on the border of inconsistency. The underlying reason is scale symmetry.

By analogy, the fact that the SM Higgs mass is on the verge of inconsistency could be a sign that a symmetry principle is at work here too. If so, there probably isn't any BSM physics to be found, apart from gravity which is a different matter altogether."

It made me think of your observation above;

"The foam is being continuously propagated by the shear 'plane' as the surface water rotates, accelerates and 'enters' the vortex.."

A vortex forms on the boundary between frames/fields, so what boundary is the Higgs forming on? Between motion and inertia?

Regards,

John M

caught

"You appear to be confusing theory with 'fact'."

No danger of that in physics, when a fact is correspondence between theoretical prediction and observed phenomena.

Best,

Tom

"'Involves no force.'

It's just the curvature of spacetime, right?"

Right.

If you would understand, John, that particles do not resist their motion and that all motion is relative, you could answer your own questions and possibly surprise yourself.

Best,

Tom

John,

Thanks. Motion and speed are indeed only relative concepts. There can be no 'shear surface' or consequential rotation without relative motion.

The only reason an 'ether' state of motion (frame) was banned was because it was assumed it must be one 'absolute' state of motion. What hierarchical 'discrete fields' do is show is's not absolute. So everywhere can have a local background frame (we just then need the 'domain limit' mechanism, borrowed from optics).

Now we can have the QV, dark energy, dark matter, the Higgs field or whatever we wish, but WITH a relative 'state of motion'. (Of course we don't 'know' what is is moving and won't until we give it some name, but that can't matters).

So that answers your very important question. Anything that moves in the background causes compression, relative motion and eddies, always known as fermion conjugate 'pair production', most of which instantly annihilate, but some (Cooper pairs, Majorana fermions,{arXiv} Protons etc.) combine and make the basic plasma ions. (Also the Unruh effect, pretty big around comets, on re-entries! at at LL Orionis - see my '2020 Vision' essay fig.).

All quite simple really. Does it make sense to you? I'm not sure where the main party is. Should we wait for them to catch up? How long?, ...2020? I did pass round piles of maps! Actually I'm happy here, as I've just posted two of the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle 'evidence' verifying the DFM dynamics on my essay blog. Bob and Alice's toroid spin detector field particles DO have a consistent spin-axis orientation subject to setting! There comment was right, it;

"promises to untangle a theoretical logjam about key elements of the interstellar medium."

Tom,

"that doesn't imply that no gravitational event horizon lies at the galactic center."

Doesn't that imply it is simply a one way street, not necessarily a cul de sac?

"particles do not resist their motion and that all motion is relative,"

Yes, but as Newton put it, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That relativity tends to be reactive. What is the larger context; Does it balance and if so, wouldn't that balance be a universal state?

Regards,

John M

Peter,

The Higgs presumably imparts mass. What is mass, other than inherent inertia? Not just inertial motion, but total inertia, as in unmoving. So when you drag something which is "unmoving," it would drag on you, therefore imparting "mass." Yet the Higgs has energy and thus must have motion. So is its field one of absolute "un-motion," and the Higgs is the vortex stirred up by something moving through this state. Think vacuum fluctuations being stirred up like dust by a passing car.

Regards,

John M