Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

I'm certainly not asking you to agree.

"You can view it that way, if you don't try to call it mathematics. Know why?"

Actually I'm not really concerned what it is called, but curious why?

From wikipedia; Definitions_of_mathematics

"Different schools of thought, particularly in philosophy, have put forth radically different definitions of mathematics. All are controversial and there is no consensus."

Frequency would be the measure between two oscillations. In other words, the process of oscillation creates frequencies. Actually extracting meaning from observations of those you disagree with is definitely not one of your strong points.

Regards,

John M

Actually one oscillation plus one oscillation equals two oscillations.

You're incorrigible, John. :-)

Do you really think your error has anything to do with the definition of mathematics? Do you know of any art whose definitions are not varied and controversial? No -- the thing is, that you substitute process for meaning and therefore there is no meaning in your result, because it is not independent of process.

"Actually extracting meaning from observations of those you disagree with is definitely not one of your strong points. "

Guilty. I never consider it my responsibility to tell others what they mean by what they say. I consider that presumptuous.

What is frequency, then?

Steve,

I still can't seem to get whether you define matter, and matter waves, as solid chuncks of stuff that isn't energy but something undefined. What is matter made of? Simple answer will do. jrc

I did read your paper...and many others. They all had the same graphs vs. z, but not quasar luminosity on the same scale. I realize z represents the data, but actually velocity is even better. The z is a pain because it distorts the scale and luminosity needs a proportional time base for comparison since its value depends on time.

"Saying you 'couldn't find' a plot shows you didn't see my paper! Fig 1 shows the smoothed curve."

The data plotted is really simple and does not really show any recycling. Recycling is such a simple model that if it fit the data, there would be hundreds of papers touting that quantitative fit...there are no papers with quantitative fits for recycling, ergo, recycling just doesn't represent a substantial factor.

As a matter of fact, this plot seems very straightforward. SMBH quasars form at 12.25 Byr, collect galaxies and max in number at 10.3 Byr, decay to zip at 1 Byr, and there we are...in the dip as you say. Or, SMBHs are mostly in their ground states and no longer feeding on stars and gas and not radiating much any more.

It appears that you are the one trying to impose your model by contorting this data. You do not even plot the luminosity function in your paper and yet that is what everyone and their dog is doing in the literature.

There are lots of unanswered questions, that is sure, but recycling is just not consistent with this dataset nor with any other that I have seen. You did not do a quantitative fit in your paper and that weakens your argument. Noone else seems to do a recycle fit either and that further weakens your point. You need to get the numbers to work with more than just words. In any book, a radiated sun a year is just not much mass for a 200 billion star galaxy...

Boy, you are still with me! Matter is very simple stuff when it comes right down to it.

"I still can't seem to get whether you define matter, and matter waves, as solid chuncks of stuff that isn't energy but something undefined. What is matter made of? Simple answer will do."

There is just one fundamental particle, the gaechron, and its mass is 8.68e-69 kg, its spin is zero, and it is a boson. All other particles of matter and large objects are made up of this baby with the action of the Schrödinger equation.

The Fourier transform of a very long matter pulse like the universe is a matter spectrum that is necessarily composed of a mostly very small particles as well as peaks for all of the other matter interactions. The gaechron is very simply Planck's constant divided by c2 and the universe pulse width, 26 Byrs. However, we are only 3.4 Byrs into the matter universe epoch.

That all of the universe, including space, is made up of the same fundamental particle is very cool. The gaechron, though, is still a matter wave and it has amplitude and phase.

Tom,

Ok, you have me there. The duration of a particular oscillation is a period. Frequency is how many such periods in a particular timespan.

Regards,

John M

Dark matter and dark energy are not ad hoc assumptions, but just poorly understood consequences...

"Not ad hoc assumptions. Just, at present, poorly understood physical consequences of the theory of gravity, that have nothing to do with the theory of the quantum."

...but you know for sure that they have nothing to do with a quantum gravity. Give me a break. You are quite the apologist for the religion of gravitology. Okay, I am a quantumologist, so we're even.

Since you brought up mass energy equivalence, which is the Klein-Gordon equation norm,

E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2

I like it too, but it is incomplete. There is another term as

E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2 (dMstar/dt)^2 v^2 r^2

is the correct equation but is only a factor at very large scale with very large matter decay rates. Quantum gravity shows that there is an exchange term to any bound object like a galaxy matter wave where the matter decay of each disk star couples by its velocity into inner bulge stars. Quantum exchange forces are very common with atoms and molecules, but not yet known for galaxies and cosmology. In effect, this term moves angular momentum from inner bulge stars to outer disk stars (it is a vector equation) and is what causes constant galaxy rotation.

All bound quantum systems show binding energy due to charge and gravity, but there is also an extra bonding due to exchange of identical particles. Quantum gravity shows the same principle as charge on a very different scale. So yes, dark matter and likely dark energy are both effects of quantum gravity.

Hello All,

I want to thank Abhas Mitra for his active participation, and others for their continued interest in this subject. But I'd also like to stir the pot a bit, to keep things interesting. There is some complacency I think, even among the experts in the fields that most pertain, in assuming such expertise allows us to trivialize or dismiss various concerns about BHCs - even when doing so is highly erroneous.

The reason is that to study these objects well requires expertise that is unusually deep and broad - so that most researchers are unwilling to study the half-dozen or more unfamiliar topics that are absolutely necessary for a proper treatment, beyond their core disciplines. And that is partly why the scientific community looks to multi-disciplinary experts like Stephen Hawking to pass judgment, or provide needed insight, for additional progress to be made.

Now what is most urgently needed is to forge an understanding of how to better merge the Quantum and Classical pictures, in order to make our understanding whole. Instead of asserting that Quantum trumps Classical or classical (plus non-linear) subsumes and trumps Quantum reality, we should be looking for a deeper understanding that encompasses both. That is how deep I think the real Physics goes, to adequately describe the objects which have been called Black Holes - sometimes Black Hole Candidates or BHCs - that are probably some flavor of Eternally Collapsing Object or ECO.

I think that Christian Corda and his recent colleagues are on the correct track, to assert that a semi-Classical approximation of what we observe should be possible and should reveal the nature of Quantum Gravity that is at work in our universe. So as I said above; it's not one or the other, but rather that the Quantum and Classical pictures are convergent. In my opinion, this is an important point.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Yes, and I am with you...I see the value in both QM and GR and want a way to merge them. Since I have a way, but am not in cosmology, it is interesting to see if matter time really holds water. That is why these discussions are useful for me.

Hi Jonathan,

Is anybody considering the existence of multiple Higgs fields, that were generated during the Inflationary Epoch? They might have there own standard model and there own light, but be isolated from our Higgs field. The great lakes are seperated by land which would represent some inflationary epoch force that we're not aware of.

Steve,

Okay, you are the quantumologist... but at least you are talking about particles as real objects. Where if at all do fields arise in a paradigm of Matter-Time. Does the gaechron have a specific volume (?) or does it undergo a state change that would measure as a volumetric difference. 'Bound' in your terminology means 'coupled' via an exchange particle, whereas in field jargon 'bound' is a limit of continuous variation. Just wondering if there is room for physical variation in a matter wave other than in strictly numbers of invariant primordial particles. Also, what is coherent and decoherent in terms of gaechron matter? jrc

It also deserves to be mentioned...

Points raised in Hawking's paper about Black Holes and Weather forecasting suggest that what is being noted is the analogy with factors that arise purely from the Math of figuring in higher-order algebras, involving the loss of commutativity and then associativity - as one gets closer to an event horizon boundary - because of scale factor considerations. It was brought up by Lawrence Crowell in his contest essay a few years ago, that this property precludes our knowing its exact location and keeps the precise boundary ill-defined physically.

After a quick read; it appears that maybe this divergence of spatial localization near the Schwarzschild radius may be related to what George Ellis and colleagues are talking about, in that this could force the space-like radii to always be projected above or outside the purely time-like bound. This would also validate my assertion from my very first FQXi essay, that time is fundamentally more primal than space - or subsumes it. But it would suggest that what we thought were Black Holes are objects that violate our concept that every physical object has an interior. Instead of there being space within the ECO, space is wrapped around it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

It is reasonable to assert..

Cosmological factors, including particle Physics like Higgs densities, regarding the properties of the background space are germane to this discussion. But while Mersini-Houghton once wrote a paper suggesting that there is evidence another bubble (an adjacent universe) is touching ours, the effects of this would most likely not influence properties of the objects under discussion in this forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

For what it's worth Steve..

Matter-time is one of the missing pillars I asserted Physics needs to define, in order to pin down the nature of reality, in my very first FQXi essay. The idea is that Relativity is founded on unifying Space and Time, while Quantum Mechanics assumes Matter and Energy are a unified entity. I said; what about matter-space, matter-time, energy-space, and energy-time unification?

Matter-Time would be connected to the property of duration, in my view, where sub-atomic particles have a particular lifetime, or half-life. I would imagine ECOs also have a discrete lifetime, or duration, which is seen to be a half-life when a statistical average of all the relativistic viewpoints possible is taken. I hope this comment is of some value.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I meant to say something here..

But I replied to your comment below Steve.

And I replied to your comment in the thread above Jason.

All the Best,

Jonathan

You ask such well-framed questions.

"Where if at all do fields arise in a paradigm of Matter-Time. Does the gaechron have a specific volume (?) or does it undergo a state change that would measure as a volumetric difference."

We have to proceed carefully lest you fall of the end of the world...space has a little different interpretation in matter time. Space is not where action occurs, rather space is the result of the action of matter in time.

Remember that fields are all a result of matter exchange between objects and fields are very convenient representations of matter exchange, especially for our minds. However, space is not really necessary to describe the matter exchange or forces or matter acceleration that is what we think of as fields.

The electron exchanges a Rydberg of matter with a proton to stabilize a hydrogen atom, 8e-21 me per period, and is what we call a charge field. The earth exchanges ~0.16 Mearths/yr with the sun to stabilize its orbit per period and that exchange matter is what we call a gravity field. Gravity seems a lot more expensive than charge...

The gaechron has a volume, kind of like a Planck volume, for every action. However, space is not where gaechron are because gaechron are the universe, not space. Space or volume is only a result of action.

One way to think about quantum gravity in matter time is entropy, since entropy has a lot to do with volume. However, entropy is just the log of the number of states and so is a counting game as well. Volume therefore is a result of entropy or the number of states and not the other way around.

Anyway, it is fun to think of a universe that does not exist in space, but rather produces space from its action. Understanding a universe that is not due to space, but rather creates space with action, is very challenging.

Good. I like pillars, as long as they are axioms and therefore self evident. And there should not be too many of them...I like three axioms for a universe.

The idea of GR is founded on space time, but matter and energy are also unified in GR. I would argue that QM is founded on matter and time and and that matter and energy are unified as well in QM.

Space time has many useful attributes, but fundamentally, space and time are two dependent representations of the same action. This is a problem for unification, but not impossible to solve.