Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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.

Okay, I can't stand it any more -- apparently no one in the thread has the good research sense to find out that infinity isn't a number. So stop treating it like one.

Tom,

It is only by convention that zero is a number. I'm not trying to multiply infinity by 12.

Why do you think I'm treating infinity as a number? How about if I just say, "Anything multiplied by zero is zero." "Anything" is not a number either. Would that satisfy your religious convictions?

Regards,

John M

"Why do you think I'm treating infinity as a number? How about if I just say, 'Anything multiplied by zero is zero.' 'Anything' is not a number either. Would that satisfy your religious convictions?"

No, it would only satisfy me further that you (among others) don't know a damn thing about mathematics, though you continue to hold forth on it. Business as usual.

Re: Thomas Howard Ray - Oct. 7, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT

"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."

Tom, I am glad you said that. It always seemed to me suspect that there could be a black hole horizon. How could there be a "membrane" (for lack of a better description) at which all objects behave the same? Wouldn't it depend on the mass and the speed and the trajectory of a given object at which it would (or wouldn't) be captured by the gravity of the black hole?

That would make the black hole horizon a very bumpy and abstract structure that did not really contribute any information toward the understanding of black holes.

I will again restate my earlier plea that I will not reply to anyone. The reason is that I am not as versed in physics nor mathematics as the rest of you (or most of) are. But if you ask me a "philosophical" question or reply in that "vein," then I can deal with it.

Vladimir,

One cycle to keep in mind in these discussions and knowledge in general, is the relation of simplicity to complexity as a form of expansion/contraction cycle.

Especially in math, there is a natural tendency to treat complex forms as a sort of platonic reality that naturally pre-exists any physical manifestation, because they are, by definition, regular. The assumption being these patterns are inevitable, so their existence must be a deterministic given.

I would argue they are still ultimately bottom up. That no form pre-exists its physical manifestation and regularity is a consequence of the same processes yielding the same results.

Remember that factors are in essence nouns and functions are verbs. We do actually have to commit the act of adding one and one, in order to arrive at two as the answer. If the cause does not occur, there is no effect. In the void, there is no form.

The larger point being is that this flower of expanding mathematical complexity is just as natural and dynamic as an actual flower blooming and regular as a field of flowers, yet still not nearly as complex.

So when we get around to discussions of what is the best course to follow, everyone is naturally going to have their own perspective and lead off in a particular direction, which is good. Like ants exploring for food, our knowledge should go in all directions. Now the resulting complex of input will eventually contract. Either because some answer to the issue in question is found and then the group effort then becomes to expand from that new level of understanding, or no answer is found, the joint effort breaks down and everyone goes off in their own directions, scattered to other endeavors.

Either way, it is that cycle of expansion and then collapse, contraction, or consolidation, depending on the intentions and results.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"No, it would only satisfy me further that you (among others) don't know a damn thing about mathematics, though you continue to hold forth on it."

Hopefully your math makes more sense than your grammar.

Regards,

John M

John,

I agree with you. But the question remains: primordial ontological structure of space, the nature of information and time. I think that the only answer to this question, and not solving equations and observations provide an opportunity to talk about the essential nature of "black holes" and the inclusion of the concept of "black hole" or other more clear and distinct concept in the scientific picture of the world. I think the problem is conceptual and ontological, as well as the problem of "dark matter" and "dark energy". In addition to the standard empirical justification of the fundamental knowledge is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Oh, now the topic is grammar, is it?

Steve,

Of course, quantitatively should read qualitatively.

Tom,

as usual, instead of trying to defend what you learned you managed distracting from my arguments, this time against what I consider a relapse to inapt pebble-like instead of Euclidean numbers. I blame this relapse for unreal topological models leading to mere artifacts, in particular to singular points in IR.

Eckard