Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

I didn't speak of sets [L] and (L) but of a physical body of length L assumed as continuous in the sense explained by C. S. Peirce and without any obligation for referring it numerically to a particular unit. The body is imagined to extend from a to b. A second one extends from b to c. I don't see any reason to attribute the point b to either the first or the second body. Only point-sets give rise to do so and distinguish between open, closed, or even clopen. The reason is perhaps obvious: Pebble-like numbers are demanded to be unique. Moreover, measure-based (Euclidean) numbers fit better to physics, where there is often no natural zero available, than do coordinate systems.

While Dedekind cut claims to create irrational numbers, I see it just an infertile method to constructively describe the separation of the continuum of real numbers into the rational and the necessarily always only implicitly given irrational numbers - or the other way round a justification of putting rational and irrational numbers by means of an axiom under the common umbrella of the continuum of real numbers. Dedekind followed Stiefel when he guessed that there are much more irrational than rational numbers instead of accepting the different quality of what Stiefel called fog and Weyl called sauce. I see them failing to accept the incomparability of quantity and quality.

I see Dedekind cut a crossing mark rather than a cut in the usual sense of a knife separating two parts. It depends on the chosen measure one whether an interval is of rational or irrational quality.

Moreover, D's cut denotes the position of a point, not of the absence of a position. Hence the word cut is a bit misleading.

You mentioned identical intervals between succeeding integers. I focus on something quite different: mirror-symmetry in particular between positive and negative in IR. Incidentally, Dedekind used R for the body of rational numbers.

Writing "symmetric about the complex plane axis" you confused me. Did you mean the real axis, the imaginary one, or what else?

Your "the least of the most and the most of the least in the continuum have boundary of length 1 and measure of zero" sounds to me also like an unnecessary play with confusing words.

Eckard

" ... something within the earth's field is going to be attracted more to it, than say Venus."

Right. All physics is local.

Distractedly yours,

T

Sorry, Eckard, I can't make sense of what you are saying. This isn't going anywhere.

Vladimir,

We need material metaphysics and logic to deal with what the universe is made of and how it works by itself, spontaneously. Right now we have no substance and no cause as this metaphysics would require.

This old FQXI paper of mine might be of interest to you...

Cheers!

Marcel,Attachment #1: 1-LeBel_Metaphysics_Possibility.pdf

Tom,

The question is whether physics is cyclical.

Is what contracts in, eventually being radiated out and what is radiated out eventually cool off to the degree of coalescing back together, rather than linear assumptions, where gravity contracts to a singularity and light radiates to infinity, without apparent relation.

It would seem the premise of this forum topic is that what contracts in does radiate out, so when would the other side of this relation be considered, given that the possibility doesn't involve any current conflict between established theories and the subject fields seem too narrowly defined for anyone to consider it as a big picture consequence.

Insistently,

John M

"It would seem the premise of this forum topic is that what contracts in does radiate out ..."

That's not how Hawking radiation works, John. It's a quantum effect at the black hole event horizon. If the event horizon doesn't exist, then we can speak of how to describe the effect in terms of a local theory, i.e., the behavior of classical wave mechanics near the singularity. That's why the topic is foundationally important.

Jonathan,

Tom wrote: "It's a quantum effect at the black hole event horizon. If the event horizon doesn't exist, then we can speak of how to describe the effect in terms of a local theory, i.e., the behavior of classical wave mechanics near the singularity."

That's why my Figures 1-4 might be unwelcome and Tom has no chance but to blindly reject them: Bogoljubov was son of a priest, Bog means God, Ljubov means love. Not just Bogoljubov transformation is based on the firm belief that reality is ruled by the mathematics at hand. Of course, tan(90°) is actually infinite. However...

Eckard

Tom,

"Mersini-Houghton and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole. Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.""

Reading between the lines, it would seem political cover to say it is Hawking radiation, because Hawking radiation theoretically exists on the edge of black holes and this says there is never enough density for black holes to form in the first place.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"the behavior of classical wave mechanics near the singularity."

Which gets back to the point I made above and what Eckard is mentioning, as to whether gravity is really a mathematical projection from the surface of the sphere, to the center, or whether it is an attractive element of mass.

The difference being whether there is that singularity at the center, or whether at the center, all the attraction is surrounding it.

Regards,

John M

The center is everywhere, John.

John,

1+1=2 posits the dynamical process of addition to arrive at the answer.

You are absolutely right! 2 is only the final answer. A planet acquires mass by pulling more mass closer ... and on its surface. Addition in nature is a geometrical operation. Also, addition means that one or more properties of what is being added DO add up: more mass, more light, more charges BUT the basic addition is about something that exists.

Bests,

Marcel,

Since several issues were raised..

I'll begin with this; while Hawking radiation is a quantum effect, it is founded on the principles of thermodynamics. Specifically; black body radiation was found to act differently from the Classical interpretation, where energy is emitted in continuous ranges, but is well explained if we assume that it is a spectral phenomenon. This is then interpreted as evidence the system is quantum mechanical - radiating only in discrete units of a specific frequency.

However; the question of what constitutes Hawking radiation is considerably more complicated. Strictly speaking; Mersini-Houghton uses the term incorrectly, because the way it is defined Hawking radiation is a phenomenon that occurs once an event horizon has formed - and M-H is positing that it does not. So there is definitely an issue with calling it that. But I think that Hawking's own recent paper opens the door to redefinition by focusing on the fact that an event horizon's location is sufficiently indefinite that a physical system could never evolve to that state.

However; this would also suggest that Dr. Mitra is correct in his main arguments, because the crux of the Hawking paper is that non-linear classical dynamics can trump quantum mechanical effects by amplifying quantum uncertainty to a point where trying to define a specific state near where the event horizon would be becomes like forecasting the weather.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Politics? Most certainly!

There is so much Physics politics involved in the Black Hole issues that in some cases the need for political correctness dwarfs the importance of scientific accuracy - if you want your papers published in A-list journals. This is likely to be precisely why Mersini-Houghton calls the emanations of what is actually an ECO the Hawking radiation of a Black Hole that never forms. Of course; this is ridiculous double-speak, because it is only a clever evasion of attempts to describe what is actually happening.

Of course it IS an ECO that Mersini-Houghton and Pfeiffer are describing, but to call it that might have the exact same paper rejected and the authors black listed for inclusion in the A-list journals. Several years ago, a fellow named Stephen Crothers wrote some excellent papers describing problems with the model of ECOs as Black Holes, highlighting the inconsistencies of the conventional model, but he was marginalized, ignored, and then labeled as a crank. Lately; he has become quite a bit cranky, and it would seem that he has gone off the deep end - into the territory of pseudo-scientific speculation.

However; we have to wonder if the man was driven toward pseudo-science by the establishment, after years of carefully pointing the 'experts' back to what was actually said by the original sources - who are still well-respected - and being told he was crazy. It would seem to be an extreme example of the Einstellung effect that made people reject better models, once a 'working solution' was found. But now; even Stephen Hawking sees that this 'solution' is flawed! So people like Mersini-Houghton are rushing to fill the void in a way that is politically correct - hoping this will allow their answer to fly.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Tom wrote: "The center is everywhere, John." Did I get John M wrong or did he mean the center of a black hole?

If a mistake is possible then it might be recommendable to anticipate and avoid it. The same with your "boundary of length 1 and measure of zero".

Is Hawking radiation really an effect, is it a phenomenon that occurs, or might it be so far just a hypothesis?

Eckard

And now to points raised by Eckard and Akinbo that pertain..

If Relativity is correct, the notion of point masses can't be. The idea of using massenpunkt is simply a convenient way to help keep the Math tractable when the ratio of sizes is so great that the radius of the attracting body dwarfs that of our test masses. But a point mass approximation becomes extremely questionable as one approaches a forming or existing event horizon, because of scale exaggeration.

As I pointed out above; Eddington emphasized that one of the distinguishing features of Relativity is that things are attracted to the rim of a gravitational well - and not to its center! This fact alone (assuming my interpretation is accurate) is enough to determine that ECOs form but Black Holes do not exist - except possibly as the universe enters a final singularity at the end of time.

I see Eckard's fig. 3 and 4 in this essay as clearly showing that there is confusion between element and continuum properties, that is not completely or correctly addressed by number theorists following Cantor, which carries over into Physics - making it difficult to know where to make hard distinctions. I'm not saying this proves the Math folks wrong, but it clearly shows they are missing something.

More later,

Jonathan

"But I think that Hawking's own recent paper opens the door to redefinition by focusing on the fact that an event horizon's location is sufficiently indefinite that a physical system could never evolve to that state."

Nicely put, Jonathan. It's the same basis for my claim of classical wave behavior near the singularity -- I have been overjoyed lately that Hawking has returned to his roots as a relativist. Your explanation should also be a clue to John and Eckard of why "the center is everywhere.:

Tom,

Yes, it's called "space."

Regards,

John M

Marcel,

Yes, it is a process of both creation and dissolution. These forms are the manifestation of the dynamic process. What is eternal is this dynamic process, while the shapes it takes come and go.

Regards,

John M

Continuing on points - extending continuum properties to monads..

To begin; I see geometric topology as entirely sensible, but I think point-set topology has gone off the rails in places. I'm not enough of an expert to say exactly where the flaws are, though. I thank you Eckard for mentioning Dedekind's book could be downloaded, which I have done, but I've not had the chance to crack it open yet. However; I'd like to expand a little on my comments above, before setting this matter aside. The fact is; Relativity asserts that if something has mass, it cannot be point-like - despite how QFT would like to treat things - but has what Eddington called a gravitational radius.

For massive composite objects; the gravitational radius Rg defines a small volume around the center - to which all other objects are attracted. And as I said above, this may be a time-like extent that the lines of space wrap around - because gravity attracts masses to the rim not the center. But as Steven Kauffmann likes to point out; gravitational attractions are mutual, not one sided, so there is always a back-reaction factor to consider, as well. And while most settings make this factor small, it can have a huge influence in a black hole scenario.

For a photon; apparent size is related to its frequency or energy, such that the higher the energy the smaller it gets. But there are physical limits near the Planck scale that forbid infinite energy or objects with radii below the Planck length. However; if Kauffmann is correct, the actual smallest size a concentrated ball of energy can get is considerably larger than that. But the tricky piece of the puzzle is that for anything to manifest in the physical, it must persist in time long enough to be observed or to take action. So in spacetime, something which would be a point (in a purely space-like expanse) is a line segment instead.

More still later,

Jonathan