Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Thank you Peter,

A balance is struck. I'll comment further on specific items when there is time. Check out this recent paper by S.K. Kauffmann in the meanwhile.

JJDAttachment #1: aeondxu.pdf

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

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?

Tom,

Three dimensions are a coordinate system. As such, they represent a frame. If I'm not mistaken, you just pointed out further up the thread, that there is no privileged frame. That would make space infinitely dimensional, as any number of frames can be used in the same space.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

It may well be an errant proposal, but that's why I'm putting it out there, to see where the holes are.

My thought process is that I really do see spacetime as a model and not an underlaying reality, so there has to be some property causing this effect, than some platonic cosmic geometry.

The problem is that it is an effect without any apparent cause, so while GR models it as the curvature of space and time, they are still looking for some quantum graviton, or gravity waves.

Now curves, such as the bell curve, often emerge from top down descriptions of what are at ground level, processes that are too complex to efficiently describe otherwise.

So I'm simply suggesting that when we really do begin to really be able to model even all the forces we understand in isolation, as a dynamic whole, could it be that gravity starts to emerge then, much as a picture emerges from a field of discrete pixels?

The strong, weak and magnetism seem like scales, maybe the entire classical reality is in that scale between magnetism and gravity.

Not fleshing this out well, but having to hurry...

Regards,

John M

Three dimensions are a coordinate system. As such, they represent a frame."

And the eight dimensions of S^7 (for example) isn't a frame?

"If I'm not mistaken, you just pointed out further up the thread, that there is no privileged frame."

No privileged observer frame. Which is what 'privileged' implies.

"That would make space infinitely dimensional, as any number of frames can be used in the same space."

Aha. That's the Hilbert space.

I tell you, John, there's a world of knowledge out there to explore, right from your armchair.

The Kauffmann paper is very good and very close to Mitra as well since both address the Oppenheimer-Snyder dust collapse notion of a black hole. Although Mitra does not reference Kauffman, Kauffman does reference Mitra...something weird going on there.

Thanks for sharing the link.

I had no idea that science was so close to a quantum gravity. All that is needed is a connection between the GR ECO and the quantum boson star, both with well established literatures, and the two universes will finally be one.

So when I derive the metric for a collapsing universe, that brings a differential of mass into the action equation...and seems to lead to some interesting results. Instead of just the normal differential in proper time with the Schwartzchild radius, rs,

dtau^2 = (1 - rs/r) dt^2 - 1/(1- rs/r) dr^2/c^2

a collaping universe has a term with matter decay as

dtau^2 = (1 - rs/r) dt^2 - 1/(1- rs/r) dr^2/c^2 [2 (rs - ro) / (mo c alpha)]^2 dmo^2

Of course, both Kauffmann and Mitra do something similar by assuming small dust particles that collapse on themselves due to gravity. But matter time is already quantum and the result is a quantum object with ro as the center of action and rest mass mo.

In a collapsing universe, there is still an event horizon at rs and light time is zero, but proper time survives as a pure differential of matter. Needless to say, these solutions are simple log spirals and describe an ECO hohlraum as a stable boson star in the shape of the horn torus.

This result has all kinds of fun consequences since there are no singularities, just an unusual state of light-like boson matter trapped by the hohlraum of the Schwarzchild event horizon.

So it appears that if there is a matter decay term, black holes and ECOs and boson stars all become the same quantum objects.