• Cosmology
  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

"As the physicists like to argue, only what can be measured is real and as I keep pointing out, only what is present can be measured."

No, John. Physically real, for the umpteenth time, means " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." (~ Einstein)

Your imposing the condition "only what is present" has nothing to do with what is physically real. Statistical correlations, for example, aren't physically real. Measurement results are required only to fit an objective framework, not just an empirical "present."

Jonathan, thanks for the valiant effort to get this discussion back on track. You hit the nail on the head -- unless one understands that science is a rationalist enterprise, any whimsical thing that comes to mind is as good as any other.

The black hole case, though, informs us that the mathematical context of limit is especially suited to the physical context of beginning and end -- that is, a continuous function. The foundational question then becomes whether foundational physics is a deterministically continuous function of relative becoming (Joy Christian) or a probabilistic function of continuously random fluctuations (conventional quantum theory).

Akinbo,

You may well be right about a limit to nested brackets in arithmetic, but I can't see that's any more provable than a limit the value of Pi. Can you? If not then should we 'worry'? Are we perhaps not better using our limited time to try to unravel complex ontologies that are falsifiable?

I certainly agree that a point 'particle' is a nonsense, as many before have identified. It's a mathematical convenience but then perhaps taken too far. The concept of a 'centre-of-mass' point( for the rest frame) of any virial dynamic system does however seem far MORE important than most have realised. That 'point' CAN then be used as a shorthand for 'position' of a coherent entity. I propose then that it should be 'tamed' and constrained, but we'd have other problems if it was banned! Is that fair?

I'd also point out the Boscovich/ Descartes/ Pauli exclusion principle would be nonsense anyway if the 'entity' had zero dimensions.

Best wishes

Peter

Jonathan,

It's the 'important subtleties' that I try to find and identify, but most just refer to some but don't specify what they are. I've greatly appreciate all who have done so in the past as all are good tests, so hope you can. I've never knowingly 'ducked' or ignored any point raised so please do call me up and specify 'what' if you think I have done or do so.

I'm actually now excited to see what material subtlety you've spotted as my attempt to elicit any have recently unrewarded.

I sincerely apologise for the e instead of a. It's force of habit as a close friend is a 'Jonathen'. I'm disappointed you consider it 'rude' but can see it may be taken as lack of respect, which it was not. I'll try harder!

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks Tom,

and.. I'm OK with that fallback John.

Black Hole event horizons are indeed a 'chicken or egg?' or 'where does life begin?' kind of question, because all kinds of variables blow up when an event horizon is approached by a physical system, and you really need to be careful to figure out which variable blows up first, or what variables come to dominate the Physics of a system. As it turns out; whether Quantum or Classical variables come to dominate refers us back to the question of which is more foundational.

But the real deal requires a fair amount of Math and the willingness to go back into the Physics - re-deriving important equations as needed - to discover where the textbook equations have been truncated, and put back in 2nd or 3rd order terms that turn out to be important - because they tend to dominate the system in the energetic regime we are discussing. Not all of us are like Steven Kauffmann, who saw a little problem with the Math that bothered him, and then using paper and pencil filled 30 pages of a notebook - while on vacation.

However; the vast majority of Physics folks today are blissfully ignorant of the fact that textbook equations are deficient, when what is needed is a 3rd or 4th order approximation (because those are the terms where important dynamics appear) and what is given is a 1st or 2nd order one. Obviously; Black Holes, and the formation or non-formation of an event horizon, are a subject that requires of a researcher a much deeper understanding, and a great willingness to return to the roots or foundations of concepts - because just trusting the textbook equations is like reading the Cliff's Notes version of Shakespeare.

All the Best,

Jonathan

As to chickens and eggs,

It would appear that modern Science has given us the information needed to solve that conundrum. What came first was a fertilized egg. That egg was not laid by an anatomically modern chicken, but what hatched from that egg was! Ergo; the old riddle is solved. Of course; this still leaves some questions about how chickens could survive and emerge as an independent species, but that is beyond the purview of the question as posed in the riddle.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Now tell me Peter..

Does Kauffmann's treatment of non-uniform collapse reproduce the kind of cyclical variations you were talking about above?

All the Best,

Jonathan

I want to add..

A lot of the analysis in Steven's paper is possible only because he was willing to re-derive some solutions working from first principles, to insert the higher order terms that get truncated in many textbook equations, and has for some time been exploring what it tells us when we do add in those higher-order terms. As I commented to Tom and John in a thread above; Steven worked through some things using pencil and paper - while on vacation, earlier this year - yielding some 30 pages of equations, without having a textbook for reference.

I think that people are scared of non-linearities, and would prefer to deal with 1st or 2nd order approximations that are linear, rather than trying to crack the Math of the actual Physics. I first heard this from Mikhail Kovalyov at FFP10, but since have heard it again and again from a retired local Physics prof who has lately become my mentor. The majority of non-linear equations are not soluble, so people typically make limiting assumptions that allow equations to be linearized, then solve those equations to see what salient behaviors are observed. They can plug in numbers, and test the results against reality.

However; this tends to obscure exactly all of the interesting behaviors we would like to look at, which allow us to see what these astronomical beasts really are. And that's where all the fun is! Seeing what's really there, and accurately describing it, is what this is all about. Without understanding the non-linear behaviors, we can never hope to really grasp what is going on in these objects, or whether it is best to say they are ECOs, MECOs, Dark Energy Stars, Gravatars, Black Holes, or something else entirely. Just calling something an AGN does not tell us about its nature.

But it is a daunting task to figure out the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th order terms that need to be re-inserted - that are missing from the textbook versions and describe the interesting dynamics - in order to see what is really happening.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan,

I don't pretend to be anything more than an outsider with a few opinions and observations. While I appreciate that Tom is willing to continue these discussions with me, he makes it clear I don't have anything worth offering. While this may be true, it is quite evident that a lot has been swept under the rug and it doesn't seem like it has quietly gone away. While I am not a "physicist" I do have to deal with a very physical reality on my own naive and ignorant terms and many of the lessons learned have cost a bit of skin. So maybe the observations of someone outside the circle might have a different point of view, but it seems obvious those inside the circle are not quite finished drinking their own bath water.

Time will tell.

Tom,

You have a frame which works for you, but I don't assume any platonic reality. To me, abstractions are only distilled models and reality requires presence. So flunk me as a physicist.

Regards,

John M

Hello, you all,

I am out if my depth in this topic but find it instructive. The origin of the science that brings us to this really does need revisited as Jonathon points out. Specifically whether Rutherford was correct in concluding that electrons orbit the nucleus of gold atoms, when perhaps the reason QM works at all is that in permutation of the linear wavefunction (which as a projection of probability of accelerated electron location, exceeds 'c' at higher velocities !!), into 3-D shell configuration accidentally mimicks an essentially matter free atomic volume of violent turbulence precipitating sub-atomic energy quantities that have a propensity to evolve in a volumetric of optimum proportions.

Also, agreed, 2nd n order effects need clear classification. Specifically, if matter emerges from space, time and energy, then matter-time is a 3rd order effect, "...objects occupying space actually define it's extent - J.D.". Therein lies the physical form of a wavelength of EMR. Matter-time within spacetime.

I must agree with Tom in that separation of space and time would formally quantize either, dependent only on the brand of mayonnaise in the 'chicken and egg salad sandwich'. And while I have no idea what-so-ever as to how or why existence comes to be, nor anybody else, space and time become indistinguishable at the foundational level and the 'too much of nothing' argument is as good as any. There is simply no universal scale by which to assign measure to the apparent existence of duration and length. Personally, I like 'phi', at light velocity the ratio of extention of covariant spans of time:space equalizes as the 'Golden Mean' so that ratio can be taken anywhere as an increment giving spacetime the physical characteristic that different locations will measure as if the scales of time and space were actually equal rather than comenserate. Above a ratio that obtains phi@c, the extention dynamic would invert and extinguish at 'c'. Hence a true arrow of time asymmetry.

So long, now. I'll watch and learn. jrc

" ... abstractions are only distilled models and reality requires presence."

If abstractions aren't present, where and when are they?

Jonathan,

Your post made far more sense to me than the paper, which I think suffered from some false initial assumptions. I didn't recognise any link with the helicoil AGN re-ionization mechanism of cyclic evolution which I fully describe. (All components are cited i.e. Intrinsic rotation driven by non-Maxwellian equilibria in tokamak plasmas.)

For particle density gradient and size distribution I find the standard (SPIM) measured radial 'column' invaluable. Fermions peak at the 'outer reaches' at

Tom,

Abstractions are abstracted from a larger context. They model. They are certainly present as models, as opposed to some underlaying platonic basis. Consider space as three dimensional. We call the planetary three dimensions; latitude, longitude and altitude. They effectively describe the area of the surface of this planet. They are not foundational to it. As such they are distilled out as the most efficient descriptive tool. That efficiency doesn't make them existent prior to the planet. Similarly the narrative sequence of events is a very efficient descriptive basis for our experience in this environment, but that doesn't make some form of blocktime foundational to that experience.

Abstractions only describe. If they were to be erased, then that would be lost information and therefore no longer present. Tools are another form of entity and abstractions are a tool.

Regards,

John M

Jonathan,

"The majority of non-linear equations are not soluble, so people typically make limiting assumptions that allow equations to be linearized, then solve those equations to see what salient behaviors are observed. They can plug in numbers, and test the results against reality."

What if gravity is not so much a bottom up singular force, but a top down cumulative effect across the entire range of forces, from magnetic, to pressure, to friction, to momentum, to all the various subatomic forces, etc. Wouldn't this best be modeled as a form of statistical curve, given the enormous complexity of interactions?

It would make sense all these process do function together in nature and their overall relationships would have some describable effect.

Regards,

John M

In light of the fact gravity operates on the universal scale, where all factors necessarily come into play.

John,

Are you not just saying a heap of small stones along with smaller particles which end up in a block of concrete - have the same group G potential as the block of concrete?

Clearly to me that's trivially true but misses the non linear and dynamic distributions due to the whole virial body not being 'bound'. i.e. A sensitive gravimeter next to the rotating concrete mixer will pick up fluctuations. Treating gravity as 'top down' can only then give an approximation based on assumptions. That may be 'useful' but can certainly also mislead.

What those assumptions miss is that when condensed matter condenses (as in astrophysical shock pair production) the local dark energy (Casimir) density "acquires" a distorted 'gravitational potential', which then disappears on charge cancellation over the Debye length ('annihilation').

Jonathan is then correct. nature is curved. 'Lines' are as metaphysical as 'points'. The Navier-Stokes equations for instance will always demonstrate the uncertainty principle if only due to dynamic complexity. I suggest we can however approximate nature with non-linear 'power curves' (sine/cosine/LT etc).

Does the logic of that show through?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

That seems like simple addition. What I'm saying is a total of all the forces, of contraction, expansion, friction, motion, etc and all their interactions and since the radiation of light is a significant loss of energy to this process, the remaining effects add up to a contraction. So while energy expands, the sum total of all that is mass, contracts.

Regards,

John m

John,

Solving the Navier-Stokes equations would win you £1m (with addition or not). I like different ways of looking, but can't rationalise your hypothesis, or yet see any valuable insight if it were true.

If I test it by getting a bunch of matter (gas) particles together and surrounding them with a 'balloon' skin to see what happens, they still try to expand. You're right about the balloon itself, but isn't that more of a known mechanism?!

Peter

(reposted in correct tread)

"Consider space as three dimensional. We call the planetary three dimensions; latitude, longitude and altitude. They effectively describe the area of the surface of this planet. They are not foundational to it."

So what have you got against an 8 or 10 dimension universe, or the multiverse, for that matter?

Are you sure that you've thought this through?