Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

I'm very much aware that abstraction is foundational to thought. My point is that then arguing it is foundational to the reality being abstracted in the first place is not logical. There is no platonic realm of ideal form guiding the actions.

The abstractions are how our minds conceive the actions. We extract, distill, categorize, differentiate, judge, etc. Then we act on the bottom line conclusions, if our various subconscious impulses haven't already acted on their own.

That those who spend their lives immersed in the collective knowledge of humanity might feel this formalization represents some foundational essence of reality can certainly be excused that thought, but the evidence does clearly suggest that it is only a vast file and nothing more. If the library catches fire, reality doesn't go up in flames.

Regards,

John M

Akinbo,

From wikipedia;

" According to the Big Bang model, the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface called the surface of last scattering. This represents the set of locations in space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have occurred[25] and at a point in time such that the photons from that distance have just reached observers. Most of the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic microwave background,[26] making up a fraction of roughly 6Г--10в€'5 of the total density of the universe.[27]"

REgards,

John M

And nature also constantly creates forms, often repetitively, and math largely involves clarifying those most stable and or most constant forms, in an effort to try to understand nature. What is overlooked though, is one of the most constant and reliable patterns and that is that nature also likes to destroy and dissolve form. Information is constantly lost. This is the basis of our concept of time; Prior forms evolving and dissolving into subsequent forms. The concept of blocktime and the idea that information is never lost, except possibly by falling into black holes, overlooks one of nature's most overwhelming features.

John M,

Noted. In one form or another, be it as protons, electrons or neutral atoms, we both and even including Peter were part and parcel of that "surface of last scattering". It is not as if that surface were some distant place sending thermal radiation to us. Although I largely agree with the Big bang model, there are areas I believe it needs some tweaking and clarification. CMBR is not coming from the edge of the universe, it is the ambient energy that has always been there but previously very much hotter. That explains why it has no identifiable source or direction. It is like a dense fog that is clearing gradually.

For instance, was there no radiation before the last scattering? There was. This however is one area where Peter's beloved absorption and re-absorption process comes useful. Such process goes on till the ambient energy has cooled enough to leave behind 'relic radiation', the leftover of the meal eaten and vomited by primordial matter.

We still continue eating this meal till today but in less abundance, i.e. some of this radiation still gets absorbed and it is all around us.

As to "This represents the set of locations in space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have occurred". We are IN and ARE PART OF one of those locations in space.

Also that explains why one cannot be said to move nearer the 'surface of last scattering' and measure a temperature higher than the 2.7K at this epoch. With slight differences only, the temperature is almost uniform at 2.7K. You can however measure a difference in temperature by moving rapidly in some direction, as the fog gets thicker in that direction and lighter in the opposite, similar to but not same as the Unruh effect ascribed to ambient vacuum energy.

Peter,

Regarding your questions (a), (b), (c), I think we have discussed these before. We are in agreement with the only difference being that you propose absorption and re-emission mechanism, while I suggest the changes are due to the presence of matter, and how light propagates at different speeds in different types of matter.

Since you agree that the recycling dynamic model will be proved false if there was "absolutely nothing" at a beginning. That's fine. My model proposes there was absolutely nothing at a beginning which of course implies absolute zero temperature, at onset of the cosmogenic event in which the ambient temperature in the initial space appearing becomes 1032K. I have tried working out the thermal history of such a model and it correspond with the Big bang model without the latter introduction of 'inflation'. Certainly, all models are worth postulating and falsifying. Can you falsify a beginning from nothing? What was the ambient temperature at the beginning of your recycling model before cooling?

Regards,

Akinbo

PS. I am not expert so I am just discussing and accepting what seems to make more sense and falsifying those that don't, so expert astronomers welcome.

What happens mathematically if we presume the existence of a second Higgs field, a different Higgs field. Can we get subtle interactions? Can we get wave-function to wave-function interactions? While particles might not interact, maybe the wave-functions of quantum systems, one from each Higgs field, can interact? A typical wave-function can hold a set of eigenstates, but what if those eigenstates are affected by another wave-function, from an unknown Higgs field, that can impose a particular kind of behavior? Is this possible? If you don't think it's possible, can you explain why not without a trivial explanation of saying, "it's unlikely"?

Thanks,

Jason Wolfe

Higher order geometries are something that math instructors write down on whiteboards. I think in nature, a Higgs field is something that exists that has a set of standard model particles associated with it. If a second Higgs field exists in the same space as our detected field, particles and energy might not interact between them, but what about the wave-functions? Could the wave-functions between them interact?

To take things a step further..

Eddington's "Space, Time, and Gravitation" is a book I read repeatedly, as a young man, and one thing that jumped out at me was that a difference of Einsteinian with Newtonian gravity is that the lines of force - forming a gravitational well - converge not to a point, but to a ring the gravitational radius away from the exact center. But this latest work by George F.R. Ellis and colleagues suggests a further generalization that makes sense of the rest.

What if the sphere defined by the gravitational or Schwarzschild radius has no spatial volume, no space-like interior to speak of, and is purely a sphere or ball of time? This sphere that contains a parcel of time could be what sets the duration of mass-bearing objects, in general! It could be said that, in all cases, the existence of mass will cause a sphere of time to arise, which is a place keeper allowing it to persist with locality in space.

This, of course raises questions about whether photons or gravitons, usually thought to be massless, must actually have a minimal rest-mass to fulfill their function - but I'll leave that aside. The real question is how what Ellis calls the formation of an IMOTS or Marginally Outer Trapped Surface, which is purely time-like, might hold the door open while not actually allowing anything to enter - forbidding a Black Hole event horizon from forming. This has the effect of giving ECOs the property of duration in time, or allows them to persist in our universe. In effect; the event horizon contains a finite piece of eternity. This is the embodiment of an old saying from Plato, often attributed to Diogenes, 'Time is the Image of Eternity.'

All the Best,

Jonathan

On some level...

A large subset of the inflationary multiverse theories actually are a kind of steady-state universe, only with the continuous creation usually occurring beyond the horizon of observability or Hubble radius. On some level; it's also about where you are looking at it from, John. My work deriving cosmological models from the Mandelbrot Set shows me that a single model can appear to have a cold dark end, and be cyclical, and be steady state - all at once - if a God's eye view of reality is allowed.

The Wheeler-Dewitt equation implies a God's eye view, according to Fotini Markopoulou, and sometimes viewing the universe that way can be helpful. However; it is not going to be realizable by any physical entity, so it can be argued it's not really Physics. On the other hand; there are serious approaches that do not require a Big Bang, Inflationary, or Multiverse scenario, to reproduce what we see. I particularly like Fractal universe cosmologies, and I think Dr. Mitra has also been looking at this lately.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John, if you think information is not conserved, you're going to need something a bit more substantial than personal incredulity to support your claim.

On the surface..

Talking of higher dimensions, and higher-order geometries associated with them, might appear to be irrelevant to this discussion. However; what is being discussed is a kind of dimensional boundary. What is this event horizon thing?

Does it lead to another dimension? Is it 4-d, 5-d, 7-d space inside - or none at all? I'm leaning now toward the hypothesis it contains only time, and no space at all. But between us and that dimensional boundary, there is likely an energetic region that exceeds the binding energy of particles.

Perhaps the lines of space actually wrap around a Black Hole, instead of entering it. Is it possible that this puts the interior of a Black Hole outside of space, and beyond the reach of a Higgs field or field structure from multiple Higgs mechanisms?

Regards,

Jonathan

IMOTS should be..

Inner Marginally Trapped Outer Surfaces, is the proper long form. Ellis and colleagues assert that this is the innermost layer of a Black Hole's horizon and that it is purely time-like. And my generalization is that the gravitational radius of any mass-bearing object likely defines a sphere containing only time, and being outside of space or having no interior to speak of.

All the Best,

Jonathan

It's not my business to deal with black holes. I agree with Jonathan Dickau only on that what I consider speculations about the universe as a whole are interrelated.

Please forgive me uttering my perhaps unwelcome doubt whether there are at all actual singularities and any actual infinity in the real world. Isn't history of ideas for a created and somehow complete world is a record of tenets that were proved untenable or at least seemingly rescued by means of adapted and again adapted hypotheses?

When engineers like me enjoy calculating with fictitious singularities, we never imagine them something physical real.

Eckard

There's a very nice survey of conservation of information on Physics Stack Exchange, by one of our FQXi brethren, Cristi Stoica.

Tom,

I'm not trying to be presumptuous, but my interest is not so much in the more arcane details of physics and math, but how it applies to the dynamic, social and natural reality in which we exist. One in which something like half of all wildlife species have disappeared in the last forty years.

That is what I consider information. As I recall, various of the entries in our recent contest dealt with how to preserve such genetic and cultural information.

There really is a reality outside the classroom and study.

Regards,

John M

" ... interest is not so much in the more arcane details of physics and math ..."

Then I'm curious as to why you choose to be prolific on a site where arcane details of physics and math are staples. Heck, maybe it's I who is in the wrong room.

Jonathan,

If I may explain my cyclical system with a simplistic analogy, it would be a factory.

Now on a very basic level, the product goes one direction, from start to finish, while the process points the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. Now this process consumes a lot of material and energy and creates a lot of excess, other than the final product. This is not all waste. Not only can much of it be recycled, but for a factory, much of the excess is the purpose it exists, from profits for the owners and investors, to jobs for the workers and on that level, it is actually the product that is incidental. So then when we extend this dynamic out to the larger world, there are all these feedback loops wrapping around in everything. Populations are a constant dynamic of individuals being born, growing up and old, then dying, much like the product moving through the factory, as the species moves onto the next generation, shedding the old. Meanwhile the whole purpose of this process is the experiences of those people, pushing out on the limits which ultimately define them. Otherwise known as feedback.

Then consider this dynamic in terms of a galaxy and the same pattern is at work. Mass and structure start to coalesce on the fringes and be drawn in, becoming ever more dense, complex and structured, all the while shedding back out enormous amounts of energy, all through the process. Until eventually even the hardest forms fall into the vortex at the center and are ejected out across the universe as light and material with sufficient momentum to feed other processes, or to fall back into the host galaxy as another feedback loop.

'Time is the Image of Eternity.'

Yet also consider that if time is actually a measure of action and change, then it is the present in which this activity occurs, that is eternal. Consider the projection of duration. Really it is the state of this present, as those particular events that are used to measure time, are forming and dissolving. It is just that while our consciousness only exists in the present, our thoughts are focused on these circumstances which are occurring.

Consciousness is. Thoughts are its action. I am, therefore I think.

Regards,

John M

Jonathon,

...and the Lost Particle of Time.

use it if you like :-) jrc

Akinbo,

The surface of last scattering is wherever that light emanates from, be it the sun, stars and planets, or the walls of the room and the people in it, that provide us with the information about them. Now this background radiation has no such apparent source of "last scattering," other than some primordial state that seems to radiate from the furtherest reaches of space. It was then argued that this was that glow from the initial "Big Bang." Since clarified as the stage where electron and protons combined and allowed light to propagate.

Yet if one were to consider a steady state model, in which redshift is an optical effect, there would be a very logical explanation for exactly this sort of radiation. Since light is eventually redshifted completely of the visible spectrum, then any radiation emanating from sources beyond that particular horizon line would be just what we see, black body microwaves, propagating from the edges of the visible universe.

In fact, there is an old question, called Olber's paradox, that was used to argue that the universe couldn't be infinite, since eventually every point in our perception of the night sky would eventually reach another star and nothing stopped the light, why isn't the entire sky lit up by these infinite sources of light? So this radiation is just that, the light from infinite sources, growing ever fainter, flatter and thus redder.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Believe it or not, but even the field of physics doesn't exist in isolation.

The fact is that complexity and simplicity are often sides of a larger cycle, expansion/consolidation, creation/destruction, etc, so understanding complex situation means being able to step back and sense where the energy flowing through them is going and that is the signal that will have the most effect. Much of what happens on the surface is just noise.

There is a lot of noise in politics and a fair amount in the various fields of physics.

Regards,

John M