Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

Has anyone considered the possibility that during the inflationary epoch of the big bang, some energy might have been dumped into other Higgs field regions? For those who like the idea of alternate dimensions, it might work this way. During the inflationary period, energy was dumped into some finite number of other Higgs field regions that probably have their own unique standard model. Such regions would be all around us, but we could not see their light. I am assuming that each unique Higgs field supports its own photons/virtual photons/particles. There would be some kind of potential energy barrier that separates these Higgs fields (the way dirt and earth separate the great lakes). It could explain why dark matter is invisible (and why gray aliens can go unnoticed.)

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

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.

To elaborate on my comments about higher-order algebras..

My impression is that an event horizon is not a simple boundary, but rather a spectral manifold - an object with a boundary that has a spectrum of locality, instead of an exact location in space.

This is part of what I was talking about when I mentioned the loss of commutativity, because non-commutative geometries display a spectral aspect. I see this as being due to how dimensional reduction from 3-d into 2-d compresses scale and drives the scale factor toward the Planck scale - near where the event horizon would form - but before the point of crossing.

So we have something which appears to be an object, and is defined by the Schwarzschild equation as a limiting case of where its boundary would be if it did have an interior, but if Ellis and colleagues are correct the BHCs that are likely ECOs do not have an interior at all, because all of the space-like trajectories wrap around the time-like core, which is forever hidden from view. And what I said before implies the exact location of the boundary in space has a built-in uncertainty.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I meant to say..

Higher order geometries come into effect because of dimensional compression, in the direction toward the object, or where the event horizon would form, and this creates a condition where non-commutative and non-associative geometries come into play. But reading what I said above I seem to have stopped making complete sense so I need to get some sleep.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Steve,

Wouldn't overall recycling necessarily be occurring on the galactic level, with these stellar mass objects gradually falling inward. How much literature is out there in fitting observations onto an infinite time frame, rather than all trying to squeeze everything into 13.8 billion years?

It would seem that unless there are those additional dimensions at both ends, of mass/energy falling into blackholes and originating in some cosmic singularity, then there has to be some overall recycling going on within the whole system.

So it would seem we might try modeling the whole system on a much longer time frame and it might provide the ways to tie up many of these loose ends.

Regards,

John M

Jonathan, Steve,

I think that in discussions of cosmology, there has to be some reconsideration of steady state models, if only as an issue of pure objectivity. They were initially rejected at a time when physics knew far less than it does now and much of the more extreme patches and projections are efforts to explain observations within the expanding universe model; Inflation, Dark matter, Dark energy, multiverses, etc. and as I keep pointing out, using the principle of relativistic spacetime to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion, while entirely overlooking the fact that the clockrate/speed of light would have to increase to remain constant to this expanded space, for it to even be relativistic! Meanwhile it would be entirely normal for us to appear at the center, if redshift is an optical/lensing effect and there are quite a few possibilities for explaining how this could be.

I think that once this particular door is opened up again, it will give cosmology a lot of tools currently disallowed, such as an infinite time frame to explain many of the processes that don't exactly fit in the current limits.

Is cosmology a science, or politics?

Regards,

John M

"Frequency is how many such periods in a particular timespan."

Good. So the meaning of 1 1 = 2 is therefore independent of the meaning of frequency, isn't it? Point is, John, a mathematical operation -- such as addition -- is always independent of its function. In this case, we say frequency is a function of the sum of oscillations in the unit time interval. Were it not true that the meaning in the result (frequency) is independent of the operation -- the process, as you say -- of the sum of oscillations, we could not define a function called frequency that guarantees a unique output on a variety of inputs.

Now you might say that this is "just mathematics" and you have no need of it, in fact you do need this independence of language and meaning to make any kind of consistent coherent statement. Natural language can be abused just as easily as mathematical language; the principles of logical coherence do not differ from one language to another.