To be clear...
The violation of the premises of Relativity is evident in the QGP, because the individual quarks do not behave like distinct objects with independent centers. And the 2010 Mitra and Glendenning paper deals with some of the complications arising thereby.
Regards,
Jonathan
Jonathen,
Have you considered this model, consistent with fractals;
1. Imagine you can shrink or grow to ANY size scale, from below Planck to greater than our universe.
2. Whatever size you decide to be you find spinning bodies (OAM) also describing a helical path (which may be ellipticised) as they translate (or orbit) as they spin. This is indeed the spin/orbit relation of light, Birkland currents etc.
Certainly our planet and sun do so through the galaxy, etc etc right up to the CMB helicity. At quark scale the 'hyperfine spin' state is consistent with the same pattern, of positive and negative charges orbiting the greater body. Certainly 'hyperfine' spin states are ubiquitous in optical science, parallel with Gell-Mann's 'fine grain' decoherence mechanisms. Way down smaller we may even find the same as a 'phase transition' to dark energy (ether?)
Peter
Yes, John, to overcome the "crisis of understanding" the fundamental knowledge requires a comprehensive synthesis, compression all information accumulated by mankind and construction of "the general framework structure". Need more profound dialectic than the "Yin-Yang" deeper ontological eidos of the Universum - eidos of "coincidence of opposites", pulling together all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Gusserl), all the ultimate meanings and values of the Universum. New heuristics and understanding of the Universum can only give the deepest philosophical ontology.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Steve,
This latest finding confirms the quasar luminosity variability issues showing why redshift is the safest distribution function;
"Introduction; Luminosity variability is a common feature of quasars (QSOs), and active galactic nuclei (AGN) in general, throughout the electromagnetic spectrum from X-rays to radio wavelengths and on time-scales from several hours to many years. Various models have been postulated to explain this variability, such as accretion disc instabilities (e.g. Rees 1984; Kawaguchi et al. 1998), variation of accretion rates (e.g. Li & Cao 2008; Zuo et al. 2012), supernova explosions or starbursts (e.g. Terlevich et al. 1992; Kawaguchi et al. 1998), and gravitational microlensing (e.g. Hawkins 1993; Alexander 1995).
Several studies of quasar variability in the optical bands have explored relations between variability amplitude and important parameters such as time lag, luminosity, rest-frame wavelength and black hole mass. The amplitude of variability is found to correlate with time lag, increasing until it seems to flatten at longer time-scales (e.g. Hook et al. 1994; Trèvese et al. 1994; Cristiani et al. 1996; di Clemente et al. 1996; Vanden Berk et al. 2004, hereafter VB04; Bauer et al. 2009; Kelly, Bechtold & Siemiginowska 2009).
A number of studies have also found an anticorrelation of the variability with the luminosity of quasars, with more luminous quasars varying less (e.g. VB04; Hook et al. 1994; Trèvese et al. 1994; Cristiani et al. 1996; Wilhite et al. 2008; Bauer et al. 2009; Zuo et al. 2012). Furthermore, evidence of an increase of the amplitude of variability with decreasing rest-frame wavelength (bluer) is seen in the part of the spectrum ranging from the UV to the near-infrared..." etc.
The ensemble optical variability of type-1 AGN in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7
It's in the the November issue (early access alert) but may be out on arXiv. A group of other 'anomalous' findings in that issue also appear to only be consistent with a cyclic model with significant re-ionizing outflows. I'm analysing them now.
Abhas does seem rather churlish entirely ignoring the physical evidence. Seems a bit like studying monkeys from 3rd hand descriptions when we have real monkeys to study! If he'd rather call outflows 'Gorillas' I suppose it's ok, but it seems to miss the point rather. Has he actually responded to anyone?
Best wishes
Peter
Tom,
Please comment on my Fig. 3 if you are able to do so without resorting to unnecessarily confusing utterances as "points are lines". A point in a 3D physical space or in a 2D plane, including the complex one, should also be understood as something zero-dimensional, something that has no parts although its position is described by 3 or 2, respectively measures.
You will of course feel sure when you are blaming me for lack of understanding in topology. Be cautious. I am merely arguing that topology suffers from Cantor's ill-founded set-theory. Just substitute the notion set by continuum. and understand that the distinction between open and closed only applies for rational numbers, not for really real ones.
Let me try and answer instead of you the naive question by John M:
- Being perfectly zero is the fictitious quality of being unreachable by division and accordingly representing no measure at all; being perfect infinite is the fictitious quality of being an unreachable by addition and accordingly neither enlargeable nor exhaustible measure. Therefore, functions that are leading to indefinite expressions like 0*oo, 0/0, oo/oo, oo-oo, 0^0, oo^0, 1^oo can at best be treated with the rule by Bernoulli and l`Hospital.
John M,
The abacus with pebbles instead of measures was already very popular for at least a millennium before Euclid. Dedekind and Cantor were just populists when they reintroduced the pebbles instead of measures. There are however several imperfections, e.g.:
- Imagine pebbles for ... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... with red color for negative but green color for positive pebbles. What about the pebble zero? Is it positive, negative, can we choose it arbitrarily, or may we use a split number? - While the problem cannot be satisfactory resolved with pebble-set theory, the continuum of measures does not need a pebble zero.
-In other words, a cut that is thought to separate two pebbles cannot be simultaneously located at one of them. Pebble-set theory based topology cannot even perform what every child is in principle able to perform: a symmetrical cut between positive and negative.
- With enough pebbles one can in principle represent any rational number but not the variety of the mere potentialities called real numbers. As many pebbles as you like cannot exactly represent irrational measures.
- The superiority of measures over pebbles is quite understandable as a result of dealing with length in geometry and belonging logical foundation by those like Euclid and Galileo in contrast to use of abacus.
- Peirce's Tychism corresponds to an uncertainty: the ultimate absence of distinction between individual points.
Eckard
Vladimir,
Yin and yang is a very simple model, but using it as a counter-example to linear narrative is a way to express how there are profoundly different paradigms taking precedence for different people. Being able to first develop some common denominator of understanding in order to have the necessary conversation requires some basic models and relationships. Probably a more explicit example would be along the lines of feedback loops and thermodynamics.
Now the larger goal might well be to have more than just a pleasant conversation and trading of insights and to genuinely get humanity thinking about what it wants for the future of this planet, as the prior contest asked and that requires strategy, not just modeling.
The only way that would arise from these discussions is if the coming paradigm shift in physics can be used as a lever to raise questions about many of the other facets of society and civilization which could use reconsideration. That was somewhat the intent in my own entry, but I didn't state it explicitly, just reviewed some of those broader issues which could use a different perspective.
While this may seem far-fetched in our current situation, change does happen and if a generation raised on such ideas as the Big Bang theory were to suddenly find it was just a passing intellectual fad, they might be much more open to re-consideration of other sacred cows. Now you wouldn't think such a thing possible, given how set these particular conversations can be, but that might well be due to many of us being middle aged or older. Who knows what the world will look like in even just another ten years. Certainly the political map looks like it will have significant changes in assumptions and relationships. Not all for the good, but some good will arise from the coming chaos.
Regards,
John M
"At what point does it stop being 0?"
For the third time, John, what does that have to do with your claim that infinity times zero equals zero?
"Please comment on my Fig. 3 if you are able to do so without resorting to unnecessarily confusing utterances as 'points are lines.'"
Since complex plane points are represented by lines, I am not going to be able to fulfill your request.
Tom,
You offer no argument for why it won't.
Regards,
John M
You guys are rehashing the basic dilemma of Zeno's paradox and the only thing that is absolutely certain is that you will never resolve the infinities of multiplication and division with any notion of space. The real number line is a construct of human consciousness that effectively and pragmatically deals with infinities. Space is a construct of human consciousness that effectively and pragmatically deals with the lonely nothing of amaterial inaction.
The association of the real number line with spatial displacements is therefore no accident. We keep track of action over time largely by imagining objects on trajectories that are displacements in space. However, all action simply involves changes in object mass and phase and exchanges of matter between objects with certain coherence. We deduce displacements in space by changes in mass and their phases and do not even realize it.
Space is just a convenient representation of consciousness that expresses the duration and phase of time between object actions. The infinities of multiplication as well as the infinities of division are both rooted in the way that we imagine space. In other words, we imagine space just like we imagine the real number line. They are convenient tools of consciousness that allow us to effectively predict action.
Of course, you have put your finger exactly on my point.
"Similarly Boson stars are expected to have fixed upper mass limit unless one would conveniently imagine a different Boson mass or a different scalar field."
I am not sure why you think a boson star mass limit would be tied to any fermion mass except the ultimate fermionic particle...the universe. Your work has put a nice hammer in the works for QG and you must have thought a lot about the angular momentum of an ECO as well as ECO spin. But you do not deal with ECO spin...or do you?
The spin of an ECO might be a way to bridge the gap between scalar charge and tensor gravity forces. But first of all, there do need to be fundamental pairs of boson exchange particles that are is resonance with corresponding neutral matter pairs. This resonance provides the tensor force that stabilizes the boson star that is an ECO.
There have been many indications lately that ECO's rotate near if not at the speed of light. Since my collapsing universe revolves around the classical electron spin velocity and a classical matter decay rate, mdot, there is a fundamental boson particle that makes up all matter, the gaechron. The classical electron spin velocity is faster than the speed of light, which is c/alpha, but quantum exchange takes care of that.
Just like electron binding with a nucleus represents the fundamental action of fermion charge, gaechron binding with neutral matter represents the fundamental action of boson gravity. What this means in a nutshell is that photons are the basic exchange particles for both charge and gravity. Charge force involves the exchange of one dipolar photon to bond an electron and proton, while gravity force is the exchange of two or more coherent photons between two hydrogens with two gaechron. The two photons are just two gaechrons different and that residual mass is then the exchange force that we call gravity quadrupoles, octupoles, and higher even multipoles of light.
The ECOs seem to be spinning up to the classical electron spin velocity, c/alpha, which is the mass limit of which you speak, as a result of the classical matter decay rate, mdot. Your ECO's seem to be the classical GR description of a rotating QG boson star. The neutral matter current of the collapsing ECO is in resonance with itself in your ECO model, and that is the same classical description of electron and proton in hydrogen.
Quasar variability does not change whether you plot luminosity on z or time. Naively, one expects quasar variability since the mass accretion that feeds the AGN is likely to be a highly variable process.
You have encouraged me to go deeper into all of this luminosity stuff and you are right. A collapsing universe with increasing c, alpha, and h is strangely symmetric with an expanding universe that assumes these are constants and so observations don't distinguish between them.
I managed to dig up galaxy number densities and luminosity functions and so now can plot them on the same time base. What fun. Once again, there definitely is an evolution of quasars and an evolution of galaxies, but galaxy luminosity is a much reduced function of z and time.
I had no idea that so much useful analysis was out there...why don't you talk about this neat stuff? Of course, the analyses that I have seen support both expanding and collapsing universes, but the plasma aether cloud thingy just does not make any sense.
Steve,
I think you are confusing direction and distance with space.
I tend to consider space as volume. In which any number of coordinate systems, ie, three dimensions, can be applied. Unless you specify the actual vectors of the coordinate system, it doesn't exist, but once you do, it is defined and thus limited to its own references. For example, much political conflict could be described as incompatible coordinate systems, backed by similarly reactive narratives, being applied in the same space.
When you reference particular vectors, ie, distance and direction, then usually it is in relation to the movement of a particular object or point of reference within this spatial volume. The broader response to this particular action is reaction. As in Newton's; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Thus, in the human context=politics.
This is why I think our mental function of linear narrative, such as a universe going from beginning to end, isn't a good universal model, but should be kept in a more balanced context of cycles. As in feedback loops, thermodynamics and convection cycles, yin/yang, etc. If we ever want to break away from our current rush towards mutual oblivion.
We have this linear sense of numbers going from zero to infinity, with negative numbers going the other way, but positive and negative exist in tandem. They exist as balancing force within this reality and zero is the state of equilibrium. So there really is no other side to zero, as it could only be another state of balancing forces arising from equilibrium.
So a linear sense of space and time, ie. distance and duration, is largely a reflection of our own condition and if we want to better relate to the larger reality, it isn't to fit reality into this linear system, but understand our perspective is only a subset, drawn from the point of view of a particular object in motion.
Regards,
John M
Ps, Zeno's paradox only makes sense if Achilles and the tortoise slow in proportion to the fractions being crossed. That the speed is halved as the distance is halved. Very quickly they will both effectively be standing still at the finish.
Good, now you are thinking about space...
"I think you are confusing direction and distance with space."
There are three dimensions to space and one dimension to typical time...and my time has two dimensions, amplitude and phase...so there. And matter has two dimensions as well, amplitude and phase. Since matter and time are orthogonal, these four dimensions reduce to three and those three matter time dimensions project into the three Cartesian dimensions.
Roughly speaking, distance is the norm of a complex time, the norm of matter is orthogonal to time, and there is a phase that expresses the final needed dimension for the complete specification of action. The math works fine...but our brains need to use space to make sense of the universe, that is true, and it is only by our abstract math that we can know a deeper truth.
You speak of infinities, but the fact is that even a very large number like 1e39, represents a virtual infinity for most practical predictions of action. That is the ratio of gravity to charge force, for example. Even in the finite collapsing universe that I propose, we need something like renormalization to make sense out of the virtual infinities of gravity force. Our senses have maybe a dynamic range of ten or so at any instant and require rescaling or renormalization to achieve their full range of response. That rescaling function is built into our neural system and we hardly even notice it. However, it is nowhere near 1e39.
Look...you can get lost in a real number line and you can get lost in the lonely nothing of empty space. Our consciousness can indeed get lost without some kind of anchor for the recursive loops of neural action and that is why we need to believe in space. Once we believe and accept space as infants at two years old, that belief prepares us for the more elaborate beliefs of consciousness at five and six when we finally awaken to the universe.
Steve,
Perhaps you meant 10e39 with 1e39. The property to be infinite is incomparable with, i.e. quantitatively different from any number, no matter how large it is, cf. Fig. 4 of my essay.
Wolfgang Mueckenheim wrote "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen" which was rejected because he was in principle correct. I blame him nonetheless for a few imprecise utterances. for instance he wrote: "GALILEI showed with bijection between 1 and 1, 2 and 4, etc. that there are just as many squares as natural numbers." What nonsense!
Eckard
Steve,
Even in your collapsing universe model, you haven't explained to me the difference between the space that is expanding/collapsing and the vacuum that light crosses at C. We can create any number of models, if we only leave open a few loose ends, but the purpose of physics is to tie up as many as possible, so it would seem one in which the vacuum and space are the same would have some of the more important loose ends tied up. This would make expansion/contraction a function of measuring what matter and energy are quite obviously doing already, which ties up more loose ends.
Regards,
John M
John,
With these thoughts and conclusions I agree completely. My thought is that only with deep philosophical ontology and dialectics we can come to a deeper picture of the Universe. But unfortunately not all researchers like philosophy, and even more philosophical ontology and dialectic. But the great dialectician had Heraclitus - Plato - Aristotle - Plotinus - Cusa - Descartes - Kant - Hegel ... Today we need to climb on the shoulders of the great philosophers and physicists to look further and to "dig" deeper. Go to the furthest depths of meaning of being. For example, how does Lee Smolin. But, unfortunately, Lee Smolin is not possible to discuss his ideas - he did not participates in contests FQXi.
I fully agree with you that an adequate (ontologically grounded, not just empirical observations and calculations) scientific world is extremely important for society and its present and future. "Big Bang", "inflation" and "chaos" in Cosmos - the explosions, inflation and chaos in the Mother Earth. Cosmos of the ancient Greeks - is the order of "top" and the world. Therefore, we must continue to "dig" into the ontology and dialectic.
Regards,
Vladimir
Steve,
"why don't you talk about this neat stuff?" A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and few really understand it. But even absorbing 20 papers a week for 40 years doesn't penetrate far into astrophysics. Few who espouse on it have even scratched the surface, and that includes many IN the field! As an example you suggest quasar variability doesn't change with time, but the paper I posted identifies that it does appear to! (I'm never convinced of any early report but it's something I'll look into).
The hierarchical model of inertial systems emerged from both logical requirements and an understanding of the (free electron-positron-proton) plasma distribution, concentrated in astrophysical shocks, and high coupling co-efficient. The simplistic Newtonian 'one absolute frame' for speed c fails logically and empirically and always did, that's why SR was born, to try to explain it. But SR just 'moved' the paradoxes.
I didn't invoke 'plasma ether clouds' and what I DO invoke does match the vast data perfectly. If it doesn't make sense to you it's either because you believe something different (bad science!) or that you haven't analysed as much data. How familiar are you with astrophysical shocks for instance? (at ~10^14/ce^-3), the 'Cluster' data, two-fluid plasma's, and fermion 'cancellation' over the Deybe length.
I cited all such work and much more in my paper. Few bother to look as they assume they somehow know already! No wonder the only coherent answer 'looks wrong'.
I have massive libraries of data, papers and links. I'm very happy to post more on any subject you wish, but please do be careful jumping to conclusions on superficial glimpses.
Best wishes
Peter
"You offer no argument for why it won't."
I didn't make a claim. Why don't you offer me an argument that the moon isn't made of green cheese or that Apollo doesn't drive the sun across the sky in his fiery chariot?
You refuse to get the point that you make fatuous statements about mathematics without the slightest knowledge of how mathematics works. Not to pick on you, John -- that seems to be the team sport around here.
Yes, and if we do find the event horizon a superfluous assumption, like the luminiferous ether or phlogiston of days past, we are a giant step closer to a unitary model free of arbitrary coordinates and other ad hoc propositions.