Chasing the black holes of the ocean

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

Light as matter

As the photons enter the cloud of cold atoms, Lukin said, its energy excites atoms along its path, causing the photon to slow dramatically. As the photon moves through the cloud, that energy is handed off from atom to atom, and eventually exits the cloud with the photon.

"When the photon exits the medium, its identity is preserved," Lukin said. "It's the same effect we see with refraction of light in a water glass. The light enters the water, it hands off part of its energy to the medium, and inside it exists as light and matter coupled together, but when it exits, it's still light. The process that takes place is the same it's just a bit more extreme - the light is slowed considerably, and a lot more energy is given away than during refraction."

When Lukin and colleagues fired two photons into the cloud, they were surprised to see them exit together, as a single molecule.

The reason they form the never-before-seen molecules?

An effect called a Rydberg blockade, Lukin said, which states that when an atom is excited, nearby atoms cannot be excited to the same degree. In practice, the effect means that as two photons enter the atomic cloud, the first excites an atom, but must move forward before the second photon can excite nearby atoms.

The result, he said, is that the two photons push and pull each other through the cloud as their energy is handed off from one atom to the next.

"It's a photonic interaction that's mediated by the atomic interaction," Lukin said. "That makes these two photons behave like a molecule, and when they exit the medium they're much more likely to do so together than as single photons."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html#jCp

" ... as Newton put it, 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' That relativity tends to be reactive."

While it's an unexpected pleasure to be talking about some actual physics in this dialogue, quoting from Newton's second law of motion doesn't obviate Newton's first law of motion.

"What is the larger context; Does it balance and if so, wouldn't that balance be a universal state?"

John, didn't I ask you to look up "equivalence principle" a while back? It would save you from a whole lot of speculation.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I know it is heresy, but I think spacetime is model, not mechanism. It is no more causal than giant cosmic gear wheels explaining epicycles. So the question is as to what underlaying factor is being overlooked. Now I know you don't give Carver Mead much credence, but just bear with me a little and think through some of the implications of the following:

"A ten-foot electron! Amazing!

It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.

A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.

Right, that's what I was brought up on-this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation."

So what happens to the space being defined by this energy, as it contracts into atomic structure? It shrinks. It's not a force in itself, but is an effect of these quanta contracting.

It may not be acceptable to your beliefs as to how reality functions, but it does seem more likely to me and in all our discussions, you haven't yet convinced me that spacetime geometry offers an actual, physical solution, so I find this more reasonable. Maybe I am wrong and someone will come along to point out my error, but just making the same points over and over again on the assumption I didn't hear you the first time is not a sufficient proof.

Regards,

John M

John,

I don't hold anything against Carver Mead that I don't hold against any believer in a discontinuous reality, such as Vongehr and his followers.

The reason is right there at the top of your source: "Things on a very small scale behave like nothing you have direct experience about. They do not behave like waves. They do not behave like particles ...or like anything you have ever seen. Get used to it."

All believers in a quantum reality independent of the classical wave function take this view. It amounts to an invitation to just believe, and click the heels of your ruby slippers.

Even were an electron of infinite length -- (which is what the Wheeler-Feynman one-electron universe amounts to) -- the continuous uncollapsed wave function that is the Schroedinger equation would define the shape of space in a scale invariant coordinate-free continuum that is made only of space and time. One is not compelled to believe in it; its structure is complete. One is only compelled to believe things that one imagines are separate from a unitary reality.

I am not the believer in this dialogue.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I'm no more standing by everything someone says, whom I find a particular insight interesting. As I said, I could well be wrong. There are real physical reasons why things like length compression and time dilation are real, but I don't think it arises from the geometry, rather the geometry models it. So when these physical causes are ignored and the geometry alone is used, resulting in ideas like expanding space, but then ignoring the need for time to increase to match it in order to be relativistic, I start to think important factors are being overlooked. This is not politics to me. I'd like to think I know what is happening, but I understand my ability to know will always be finite and am willing to accept the word of the experts, but when the experts start saying things that don't even make sense on their own terms, let alone mine, then it all is open to question. To go back to a previous impasse, what is the difference between the vacuum and empty space? This is not intended as a gotcha question, but a genuine problem. I just can't walk across a bridge that doesn't exist.

Regards,

John M

John,

Push 2 gyroscopes when one's spinning and one not. You'll discover where the power is in the IQbit in my essay, and why 'unmoving' is wrong. Inertia IS momentum, but orbital angular momentum (OAM), and symmetrically balanced in a toroid (two opposing 'vortices') not a sphere. Particles 'spin' or do not exist at all!

And I agree. 'Higgs', 'Marjorana fermions', 'Cooper Pairs', electrons/positrons, whatever condenses from the QV background does so, and due to relative motion.

The 3D gyroscope is the 'Sagnac ring' which is a toroid. They're essential on spacecraft as they can sense 'yaw' as well as the basics. They work on a principle consistent with the DFM and the postulates of SR, NOT the 'interpretation' of SR now embedded is Tom's and so many psyche's. That seems to be the true trouble with physics'.

Peter.

PS; Applause for your 'space-time' definition. It's an effect not a cause.

Therefore it behooves me to figure out another way to cross that river.

" ... what is the difference between the vacuum and empty space?"

What is the difference between the ether and the vacuum? If we are speaking of physical, i.e., measurable, phenomena, things that are not differentiable are identical.

An ether does not measurably affect the propagation and transmission of electromagnetic waves. What measurable effect would one or the other -- vacuum or empty space -- produce, if they are not the same thing?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

" What measurable effect would one or the other -- vacuum or empty space -- produce, if they are not the same thing?"

Yes, but according to the expanding universe model, empty space is expanding, while the vacuum, as measured by the speed of light, is constant. I don't see any difference, but this Big Bang cosmology is based on it. Presumably the "fabric of space" is expanding, but not the dimension of time.

Regards,

John M