Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

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.

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.

Steve, all I am saying is that classical gravity is well understood up to diffeomorphism, without ad hoc assumptions.

I don't know what a quantomologist is, though it is quite evident that your ad hoc assumption of quantum gravity brings with it a number of other ad hoc assumptions that do not correspond to what we know about the large scale structure of spacetime:

Any experts on CMBR in the house to clear things up?

Peter, I too now better understand the reason for your inventing several bizarre sounding mechanisms. If the CMBR is as I describe then you will have to apply Occam's razor to DFM making it more economical to manage.

"Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation DOES include the energy from emissions billions of years ago"

No, I don't agree. The CMBR is the afterglow of the hot ambient environment in which the universe started (assuming there was a beginning since you don't believe there was a big bang). CMBR is NOT from any emissions billions of years ago, say from any quasar recycling activities, collapsing stars, evaporating black holes, etc. Of course, radiation from these CAN pollute the CMBR and is to be regarded more as noise to the background music played by CMBR. Also structure formation can result in unevenness (also noise), technically called anisotropy. Even though the screeching of a bad musical recording is part of the sound in the room, it is not to be regarded as part of the music but as artifact.

"and is 'RADIATION'. That means the emissions found at ALL frequencies (including light) and certainly not just 'microwaves'!"

Again, NO. At the current epoch, all CMBR is now watered down and is now mostly in the microwave frequency.

Even, in John's room and on his farm, CMBR is there but the noise from the Earth's radiation, Solar radiation, tractors and even from John's body heat cannot make this detectable. Remember the temperature of the radiation is only about 2.7K, easily masked by all that goes on around. You can use E = kT = hf to calculate the frequency.

"The radiation propagates at c "

This can be misleading. It can be regarded as radiation but NO, it does not really propagate in the sense of travelling from one place to another. If you say propagate, where is it coming from and where is it going to? CMBR has no discernible source hence its being regarded as strong evidence that there was a hot thermal origin for the universe. It is better to regard it as ambient thermal energy rather than light travelling from a source to a destination. That may reduce the confusion. It is referred to as "fog" HERE, which is another good way to visualize it. Fog DOES NOT propagate, it is just everywhere. However, by means of Doppler effect, you can discern your motion through the fog, blue in the direction you are moving and red in the opposite direction. NOTE AGAIN that this Doppler effect is by THERMAL measurements not by direct measurement of frequency. Then because this fog is not associated with any particular direction, it can be used as a marker for Absolute motion.

See also this NASA description

and there was probably no 'big bang' anyway!

What if there was? Bye bye to DFM?

But I understand the confusion. See here for some Can the CMB be used as an absolute reference frame?

Doesn't cosmic microwave background radiation provide an absolute reference point for motion?

You can google "Absolute motion cosmic microwave background". Read between the lines because Absolute motion is understandably a taboo in Einsteiniana hence you will see a reluctance to clearly state what the rest frame of the CMBR represents. But Newton had formulated various arguments from causes, effects and properties and I am sure he will not be surprised that we now haver a marker for Absolute Space against which all measurement can be measured.

Interesting to discuss. Is this thread most appropriate?

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

I agree most 'fit' findings to theory. Call me contrary but I do the opposite. Data identifies a 2nd quasar and galaxy formation peak at z~5-6, but at that range it's weaker than at z~2 and it's inconsistent with theory so isn't yet rationalised or assimilated. Even SDSS-DR9 (88,000 QSO's) only looks back to z~4.5 as higher fidelity is needed.

All I do is identify a coherent ontology for a set of 'highly anomalous' data. I agree it's not much like 'mainstream theory', but the main difference is that it seems to be free of paradox and anomalies. Rees discussed the earlier peak in his 1995 book, and a 2010 Nature paper is here; Dust-free quasars in the early Universe.

You suggest the luminosity function (LF) depends on time, which is a horrible misunderstanding! Sure time is one factor, but other factors mean the LF CAN'T be used as a measure of age and it's only a distraction in this case which needs filtering out. I also didn't properly explain the problem with using time for 'countback'. The estimate 14Bn yrs is based on estimated expansion rate. Many say they don't agree expansion but then rely on the 14Bn yrs, which is nonsense! The only DATA we have is redshift 'z'. All else relies on assumptions so easily deceives because people always forget that!

Helium can only have been re-ionized in the later era and Hydrogen re-ionization (higher energies) co-incides with the earlier epoch model. On BH Radiation I'd add that while the Eddington formula gave ~4 x 10^8yrs (Salpeter) the common actual quasar re-ionization process lifetime is quoted by Rees as ~50 million yrs. However collimation can't explains the jets up to 10x that length as while pulse speed in the jet is c+flow the jet 'head' b must propagate at ~up to c.

Gaia will study 5000,000 QSO's, but only again to z~3. Fan et al (2006) showed the hint of reversal of the drop off, and this interesting recent presentation on Gaia even identifies the implication of QSO's as a 'link' between red (old) and blue galaxies! Gaia/QSO's. There were also a wealth of links in the references confirming the data I used. The common trumping of data with prior beliefs is NOT a method I follow. I suggest we must ALL be sure were not just dismissing all that doesn't fit our own pet model.

Best wishes.

Peter

Akinbo,

If radiation from opposite directions does c when approaching an Earth like planet in Andromeda moving at significant speed v wrt Earth, how fast are those signals moving;

a) wrt Earth?

b) wrt each other?

c) wrt light approaching Earth?

All simplistic models and assumptions have always broken down completely under logical analysis. There is only ONE possible solution which does not. It may not sound familiar' initially, but as philosophers and Sherlock Holmes said, when all other possibilities have been eliminated the one remaining is the truth.

We can't reduce nature with Occam's razor without reducing it to nonsense.

And I agree, if there really was absolutely nothing 'forever' before a zero dimensional Big Bang, then the recycling dynamic implied by the same model will be proved false. But I haven't found that a useful falsification.

I think all models are worth postulating and falsifying, perhaps even those apparently failing logic. I'm personally more with Spock, I prefer the ones that don't.

Best wishes,

Peter

PS. It may count for nought or less but according to the letters after my name I'm an accredited astronomer, perhaps the only one blogging here, so may be the nearest think to the "expert on CMBR" you ask for! However I point out that the long standing 'mainstream' model has also proved wanting, including logically.