Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

"The problem is separating social policies from science."

Speak for yourself. It isn't a problem for me.

"Animal husbandry has a history much older than Darwin, that of selecting for fittest characteristics, as opposed to survival of the fittest and eugenics was the application of selection to humans."

Your opinion is based on the myth that Darwinian evolution implies survival of the fittest. In fact, this myth is easily debunked. Random mutation and natural selection do not necessarily select the fittest organisms in the general sense that you apply to animal husbandry and eugenics -- it selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing.

"My original observation is that progress, not science, or math, is often one step back, for every two steps forward. Often otherwise known as trial and error. If one can distill out the achievements alone, from both their causes and consequences, yes, humanity has managed to evolve a complex and dominant relationship with nature. But as I keep pointing out, my interests are in that larger picture and how it functions as a whole."

So is my interest. Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience.

"I can understand your perspective, as a specialist, to view science and math in isolation, but like many conceptual relations, such as that between space and time, there is no real line between such topics and their context, only the perception of one."

In the philosophy of science, the problem of demarcation (the "real line" between what is science and what is not) is central. Popper solved it -- science is a wholly rationalist enterprise. Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational.

Tom,

Perhaps you should explain the difference between the 3-sphere and a 3-D sphere.

Just co-incidentally, in my foraging I just came across an arXiv item that might fit in here; ariv:1202.1321v1 [quant-ph] 7 Feb 2012 -- "Modified Schrodinger equation, its analysis and experimental verification" by: Isaac Shnaid. What he has done is to substitute a local time variable for 't' in the classical Schrodinger equation and also the same modification to deBroglie. It results in wavefunction propagation globally at a single magnitude of light velocity from an origin of t=0 as a continuously expanding sphere, instead of the instantaneous global propagation of conventional wavefunction.

I could follow the reasoning without actually doing calculus, which is rare for me and recommends the uncluttered presentation of the abstract. Topologically it might be another argument for Joy's framework, I think it's probably as difficult for many as for me to conceive of 'a simple pole at infinity' resulting from infinite radii reaching a maximal and then collapsing back to a point outside the maximal sphere (Riemann), which essentially makes the surface of the sphere a new origin. Correct me where I'm astray, with a straight face :-| jrc

Tom,

"It isn't a problem for me."

The issue is not so much being able to distinguish, but appreciating the spectrum of connections, distinctions, relations, etc, in all their myriad facets. You, for instance, cannot distinguish between time and space, once they have been reduced to measures, yet the chasm between science and its social context is wide and deep. Lol.

"it selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing."

Believe it, or not, but the needs of people, over time and varying situations, also changes and they can only select from the options nature provides.

"Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience."

You are obviously the best judge of your own biases.

"Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational."

Are multiverses rationalist philosophy, or science?

What we think of as religion today, was wholy rational to the peoples of thousands of years ago. What makes it seem logically irrational are those who cling to these views long after their logical assumptions have been proven false, but usually for quite rational reasons of tribal identity being more important than the particular details of their traditions. Now you of course, would never cling to any idea, whose logical underpinnings started to appear questionable, just because others in your community consider them necessary.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"all that is science, is rational."

There are other views.

"Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.[1]

The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies.[1] Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.[1] Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of "the worst enemy of science" from his detractors.[2]"

Regards,

John M

A 3-sphere is the analog of a 3 dimensional Euclidean sphere in four dimensions. Our usage was toward the 3-sphere manifold, or surface, where the Euclidean space R^3 is compactified by a point at infinity.

"Just co-incidentally, in my foraging I just came across an arXiv item that might fit in here; ariv:1202.1321v1 [quant-ph] 7 Feb 2012 -- "Modified Schrodinger equation, its analysis and experimental verification" by: Isaac Shnaid. What he has done is to substitute a local time variable for 't' in the classical Schrodinger equation and also the same modification to deBroglie. It results in wavefunction propagation globally at a single magnitude of light velocity from an origin of t=0 as a continuously expanding sphere, instead of the instantaneous global propagation of conventional wavefunction."

Pretty bold conjecture. Quick scan tells me that potential energy and time are identical at the initial condition, which implies equivalence of time dependent and time independent versions of the Schrodinger equation -- the novelty is in preserving time unitarity without quantum discontinuity. Thanks for the link; I want to give it a serious read. My gut feeling is that the treatment might have to discard advanced solutions to the Schrodinger equation, and thus give up global time symmetry, and I don't think I can live with that.

"I could follow the reasoning without actually doing calculus, which is rare for me and recommends the uncluttered presentation of the abstract."

Yes, I agree that even at a glance, it looks easy to read.

"Topologically it might be another argument for Joy's framework, I think it's probably as difficult for many as for me to conceive of 'a simple pole at infinity' resulting from infinite radii reaching a maximal and then collapsing back to a point outside the maximal sphere (Riemann), which essentially makes the surface of the sphere a new origin. Correct me where I'm astray, with a straight face :-| jrc"

Well, Joy's mathematical tools are entirely different -- using the algebra of geometry generalized as topology -- while Schnaid is addressing field theory in the classical wave equation. Joy's framework is specifically designed to measure quantum correlations in a continuous measurement function, while Schrodinger's framework is for the evolution of a non-quantized wave function. Where the ideas intersect, however, is in the determinism of the result -- a statistical correlation like Joy's doesn't invoke a time parameter for the initial and end state, yet it does predict continuous covariance; the Schrodinger equation is natively covariant, dependent on boundary conditions. Joy's framework is stronger, because it eliminates the need for boundary conditions as well as a privileged coordinate system, while retaining the continuous measurement function of an analytical model, as permitted by the simple connectedness of the spherical manifold.

You have a bit of a misconception of the point at infinity. It's an analytical point, a way of saying that a curve is closed (a line is the special case of a curve). You've heard that old magician's patter -- "You'll notice that at no time does my hand ever leave my arm" -- same idea. :-)

Maybe more, later.

You do know that Feyerabend was Popper's rebellious student?

The question on which anti-rationalist philosophy (I decline to call it science) rests, is that of whether philosophical problems exist. If philosophical problems don't exist, as is the attitude of Wittgenstein and Feyerabend, why should scientific problems exist?

So from that, one gets your brand of philosophy, which cannot include objective science.

"You, for instance, cannot distinguish between time and space, once they have been reduced to measures, yet the chasm between science and its social context is wide and deep. Lol."

What are time and space besides measures? I don't have mystical delusions of existence and non-existence. I spoke of a demarcation between science and philosophy -- a line, not a chasm.

I wrote "(evolution) selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing."

You responded, "Believe it, or not, but the needs of people, over time and varying situations, also changes and they can only select from the options nature provides."

Since over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct, nature would seem to provide very little in the way of options, wouldn't it?

I wrote, "Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience."

You responded, "You are obviously the best judge of your own biases."

I am. And so would you be, if you subjected your bias to objective criteria.

I wrote, "Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational."

You responded, "Are multiverses rationalist philosophy, or science?"

Philosophy, I'd say, with the potential for science.

Tom,

It's not that I fully agree with any particular position. Your view tends toward the dogmatic and so I offer up an academic anarchist as contrast.

Consider it as a sailing ship, in which the hard frames of dogmatism are like ballast down in the hold, while his more free ranging views are like top sails, gathering faint gusts of wind. I see the entire range as necessary and functional, much as liberalism and conservatism balance each other.

There could be no science without society and trying to understand science in isolation from what which it springs is its own version of naivete.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Thanks for the prompt reply, though I'm still muddy about the point at infinity. Analytically, at an infinite distance I suppose it wouldn't matter to the sphere where its at. Also, in my first post I got ahead of my typing and meant to say of Shnaid's modification that it results in wavefunction propagating at 'c' locally. He does address time dependent and independent forms, and what struck me was that it would challenge non-locality. I don't know why that would be a problem for global time symmetry anymore than SR. Thanks again, :-) jrc

Tom,

"What are time and space besides measures?'

The measures in question are of duration and distance, which are attributes of time and space, not even fully descriptive of them. With duration, it is the state of what is present, as action creates and dissolves particular events being used as references. As such, it doesn't extend outside the "point of the present" and so treating it as a line is only representative, not fundamental. So there isn't even a physical "south of the north pole." It is effect, like temperature, which is also a measure of action.

As for space, if you can first examine the concept of time independently, than the concept of space as simply the void raises another set of issues. As I've argued, this lack of physical structure also means it has no limiting properties, but you are free to consider it as you wish. Just so long as you don't try to say it can expand relativistically, yet not have the speed of light increase proportionally, in order to patch another theory, because that would be self contradictory.

"Since over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct, nature would seem to provide very little in the way of options, wouldn't it?"

Nature would seem to care very little for the immortality of form/information.

"if you subjected your bias to objective criteria."

In other words, yours?

"Philosophy, I'd say, with the potential for science."

Yet arguing for time as a measure and effect of action and not part of some foundational fabric is not philosophy with the potential for science, because I'm not properly accredited and it would conflict with the fabric of spacetime being physically real, which is beyond falsifiablity.

Regards,

John M

About the matter-free regime..

What happens when all of the matter in a region is converted to energy? One can cite the example of a quark gluon plasma, where the energy density is too high for matter to form - such that you need to allow the energy ball to occupy more space for particles to exist. But what happens if you squeeze things further still, or raise the energy to a higher level instead?

As it turns out; a collection of energy needs to occupy at least a minimum amount of space. But even pure energy also exhibits self-gravitation. This is what Abhas Mitra is talking about, when he describes the phenomenon of radiation trapping that causes collapsing objects to become ECOs. This way; there is a layer of pure energy trapped forever between the inner and outer ergosphere.

Enough for now,

Jonathan

On the 3-sphere..

What is conventionally assumed JRC, is that the space we inhabit is like a 3-dimensional sphere - only exceedingly large and expansive. But if the space we inhabit is better described by the 4-d 3-sphere, this creates a condition where the universe and its objects are simultaneously rightside and inside-out, such that there is a continuous mapping between the two aspects. One could say that a 3-sphere is like a Möbius strip or Klein bottle, because top and bottom or inside and outside surfaces are connected - and are a single surface.

If we are talking about the universe; this means local and global frames of reference are connected too. This is the 'point at infinity' comment's meaning, that global properties appear to be coming from everywhere. But it is hard to think of 'out there' and 'in here' as being continuously connected. I guess this is why most people have a hard time visualizing Joy Christian's model.

But the FQXi essay and writings of Michael Goodband describe a model that also posits the space we are living in is a 3-sphere. And as I recall; his model includes astronomical objects that are like a Black Hole, sort of, but more closely resemble the ECOs of Abhas Mitra, having an inner and outer ergosphere as a trapping region - but otherwise being a hollow shell with no interior whatsoever! So if you believe Goodband's version; there are no black holes (with a singularity at the center) in a 3-sphere universe.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Peter,

You commented above as follows. "One you've considered the dynamics of this you'll find a torus, which is in any case the real morphology of 'black holes' at both galaxy and stellar scales. Accreted matter to an AGN 'self organizes' (against the 2nd Law) to a helical 'winding' around the toroid body. Radiation is at the poles, which is allowable if not foreseen or fully described by 'Hawking radiation'. You and I call them outflows, building to quasars jets at full power precessing around the z-pinch point."

I agree whole-heartedly with most of this, but I think you are being misled if you feel that self-organization works against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Of course; that's how the editors of Scientific American described it on their cover, several years back, but the article inside by J. Miguel Rubi clearly informed the reader that the 2nd law is never broken, in non-linear entropic systems where order is emergent out of chaotic motion. Instead; this indicates the appearance of hidden degrees of freedom in certain energetic regimes.

Once you add in those extra degrees of freedom, and use Onsager's reciprocity rules properly, it is seen that order is emergent NOT because the 2nd law is broken, but because it is preserved! What is seen is a situation where some of the energy that would be seen as an increase in temperature or motion (for example) instead gets invested in an exchange of modes of action. So there are then regions where inward collecting and outward pressing forces balance to create stable order.

All the Best,

Jonathan

More generally..

I think the popular notion that 'entropy is disorder, more or less,' is extremely problematic and misleading metaphor, in some contexts, although in other settings it appears to make sense. I strongly prefer the metaphor of Harvey Leff and Frank Lambert, that suggests we should see entropy as a kind of spreading function relating to the dispersal of energy or the blending of one substance into another. While still imperfect; spreading is a far more robust way to visualize thermodynamic entropy than disorder.

Regards,

Jonathan

(as in 'I am more Jona than you, not 'I was Jona, then I became something else.')

I should also mention, Peter..

I recognize that in the example above (an AGN, ECO, or 'black hole'), there are electrodynamic as well as thermodynamic forces at work. And I acknowledge that there are non-linear dynamics in both - as well as an interplay between the two - at work in the systems under study here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Almost everyone commenting here is worried by zero and infinity, except Tom and Peter who walk where angels fear to tread (see Tom's reply on Oct. 15, 2014 @ 01:50 GMT and Peter's infinite brackets within brackets on 'Alternative models thread'). Eckard is worried and has asked Tom thrice to name examples but I can't see any physically real example. John M has also commented. Jonathan has raised probably the most relevant issues [Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2014 @ 16:04 GMT and Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 14, 2014 @ 15:21 GMT], "If Relativity is correct, the notion of point masses can't be...". I generalize the Relativity here to all (Galilean, Special and General).

The following descriptions and discussions can be found on what Jonathan raised:

"A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space".

From Fermilab: "Point particles are much more bizarre and are sometimes said to have zero size. This statement has raised more than one eyebrow. How can something have no size at all? And if it has mass, does the zero size mean it has infinite density? (And by the way, as you read on, you'll see the answer to that last one is no.) You begin to see why some people are skeptical when a scientist says a particle is point-like.....

In summary, extended particles have a fixed size, although they may have a fuzzy edge; point-like particles are mathematical abstractions with zero size. But even zero-size particles have an extended effect, due to the effect of the field surrounding them"

Then, in response here to: Why isn't the electron considered a black hole? It does have mass and its radius is infinitely small, isn't it?

"In actuality, we don't know how big the electron is. All of our measurements point to the electron having no size, but we haven't measured down far enough. The electron, if it were a black hole, would have to be smaller than 1x10-57 meters, quite a bit smaller than we've ever measured! ...

The electron (and all truly 'fundamental' particles) are considered to be true mathematical points in the sense that they have no classical spatial extent. This is known, for example in the case of the electron, by performing scattering experiments: the way particles scatter off one another is quite different if the target is represented as a point as opposed to having some finite size. All of the electron scattering experiments done so far are consistent with the hypothesis that the electron is truly a 'point particle.'

For an electron we would obtain 1.35x10-51m. If the electron were a point particle, it seems it would be within even this fantastically small radius and would indeed be a black hole"!

What inferences can we draw?

-If an electron despite having mass, does not form a black hole, then there must be an end to gravitational contraction. That is a limit to how small a radius can be.

-If all electrons are the same, any lower limit must then be non-random but a prescription of Nature, that is "No matter what mathematicians say, thus far, but no more!!". This is what appears to prevent the electron from reaching 1.35x10-51m. Trying to tease Peter, you can 'bracket' thus far, but no more.

- In view of the foregoing should the concept of point particle not be abolished from our physics? Recall this is also partly what necessitates the use of renormalisation in quantum theory as Tom himself noted.

- Have Aristotle and Proclus not been proved right about what a geometric point can and cannot be as I referenced in my 2013 essay.

- Can there be genuine unification in physics if point particle is still persistently accepted as existing in reality and of zero dimension?

- As I referenced in that essay, the original architects of zero dimension, Plato and latter followers like Leibniz abandoned this route before they passed on. Why their modern day followers continue on this route is an area worthy of study.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Jonathan,

"persistence in time."

Consider what is assumed in this concept; That there is a vector on which forms exist, such as a material object, ie. persistance. Yet this is an inherently dynamical existence. That form requires some energy to be manifest and when its environment overwhelms its ability to persist, it dissolves back into that larger field from which it arose. So it is a process of coming into being and dissolving. Now look at the range of forms which follow this trajectory, from a day to a rock. Just as the sun shining on a spinning planet is a combination of energetic processes combing to create the event of a day, so to is a rock a combination of energetic processes occurring over that much longer span of duration to form a rock. You might say a day is a short frequency, high amplitude event, while the rock is a long frequency and low amplitude wave of existence.

Now the point I keep making is that while this sense of persistance is only physically occurring in what we refer to as the present, our mental functions are focused on the details being manifest, so it is those, not the larger dynamic of creation and dissolution, which seem more real. Meanwhile that state of being present seems like a small, almost measureless instant, but that is because we perceive it in terms of those events. Now if we think of it as what is physically real, which is largely energy flashing around faster than our senses can register, the issue of the details is what seems the more fleeting and transitory. So which is the more foundational?

For much of human existence, we thought of the sun as moving relative to the earth, for the entirely rational reason that it seemed evidently smaller, but now we know that is a function of our point of perspective. So now ask yourself, which is more fundamental; The energy flashing about in space, or these particular forms arising and dissolving? Is it the point of the present actually moving along this vector from past events to future ones, or is it these events coming into being and dissolving, thus going from potential, to actual, to residual?

Regards,

John M

Jonathen,

Interesting. I like that view of the 2nd Law as English Law not rigid (Roman based) 'statute' Law. Indeed It was only economy in parenthesis that I omitted "apparently" before 'against'. Ultimately of course it does mean that a whole load of clay particles from a broken pot can self-organise back into a pot!

In the extreme, it the significant evidence I identify of the same peculiar dynamics at the cosmic scale is correct then the whole universe may recycle and create the current complex organised state from entirely an re-ionized particle plasma. Would that not look like a symmetric state where the strict 2nd Law interpretation would only hold for half the process?

Frankly I consider such arguments rather semantic as they distract us from far more important implications. The nested hierarchy and Casimir force imply that dark energy is just a phase or fractal below the Planck scale of 'hyperfine' quantum spin. As the ban on 'preferred frames' is lifted by making them discrete nested fields we can make light change speed to local c within each local rest frame (as SR's postulates!) and allowing consistency with QM.

Now there's the nub I suggest.

Peter

Tom,

The real world is not a mathematical term but understandable to everybody except for those who are intending to squeeze anything into their inapt formalisms.

You asked for my definitions.

I understand definitions of point and of continuum by Euclid and C. S. Peirce, respectively, as logic necessities.

To me, reality of the world and causality are conjectures that are indispensable for reasoning and reasonable actions and so far always reliable without exception, in contrast to speculations on mystic or formal-mathematical basis.

A measure is something that refers to an object or a property of it. Measures cannot be collapsed to zero and also not extended to infinity without loosing their concrete meaning within the real world.

For instance, nothing can have the measure zero of length. The universe may have the measure infinitum absolutum because it is not an element of the real world but it was introduced as a container of anything, strictly speaking even of all hypothetical extra-worlds.

Logic does not allow something to be more than infinite, just incomparable.

Eckard