Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Abhas,

While I cannot dispute your mathematical abilities (which is obvious), we may not agree entirely on your model. E = mc2, may not be correct, but if it is, then that equivalence suggests that where energy density is non-zero, we cannot talk of zero mass. Moreover, in the intensely dense and hot environment that must be present near singularities, matter cannot be stable, only radiation will.

Then concerning your remark, "However this does not mean that such a singularity actually forms, this is so because the comoving proper time for formation of a zero mass BH is Infinite. So continued GR collapse can only asymptotically strives to achieve this elusive singular state. Hence, continued GR collapse must give rise to Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) rather than BHs or true spacetime singularities."

Again, another point of departure from my position. 'Proper-time' is the time taken for light to travel a 'proper-distance', according to GR language. Obviously, if light velocity is zero, 'Proper-time' will be infinite. To grasp my point, do you acknowledge that the proper-time in a vacuum as far as Sound is concerned is infinite? As far as Sound is concerned, 'vacuum' is a form of singularity. This illustrates that in a physics founded on the velocity of 'something', be it light or sound, the fact that that something takes an infinite time to travel within a physical entity, does not mean that collapsing or expansion from singularities will take an infinite time. Our existing and expanding universe bears this witness, and formation of vacuum in the laboratory does the same. Where space-time is non-existent, light cannot travel. And space-time according to the singularity theorems is 'non-existent' in cosmological singularities (I hope I am right?). In short, infinite proper-time does not mean that collapse is an eternal process and will take an infinite time.

If you have any comment or criticism of my model, would be glad to know.

Regards,

Akinbo

Tom,

Not too get in too deep here, but it does seem that just about all gravitationally dense structures/processes/objects are also radiating significant energy, whether pulsars, quasars, galactic black holes, etc. and are spinning rapidly. It seems as though that the energy isn't just vanishing into some other dimension/black hole, but is being expressed back out, in any way possible.

In fact, the entire process of gravitational collapse, starting at the visible edge of galaxies, seems to radiate energy back out.

Regards,

John M

Akinbo, Abhas,

Could it be the singularity is essentially a pivot point, around which collapsing mass spins down to the point of radiating away all constituent energy. Such that as a form of vortex, what is inside the horizon is actually a vacuum, just as inside the eyewall of a hurricane it is quiet.

Regards,

John M

John, please read Unruh's statement that Christian quoted. The energy density near the black hole horizon is actually very small. Relevant to whether it is vanishingly small is the question of whether an event horizon exists at all.

Tom,

I see that, but I'm just trying to get confirmation. It has been my argument that the actual observations, as opposed to projections of features of those observations, could be explained as a form of cosmic convection cycle, with mass falling inward, balanced by energy radiating outward.

So if we are to the point of accepting that whatever falls into these gravitational vortices is being radiated out at an equal rate, that would be one side of the cycle completed, so the question, eventually, goes to the other side of the cycle; Does that light and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum eventually reach various points that it too eventually coalesces back into mass? Obviously there are lots of examples where some of it does, but the same issue as here applies; Does all of it?

If we can show all the loose ends tie together and the cycle is complete, there is no need for those extra forces, dimensions, etc. to explain the loose ends.

Regards,

John M

Thinking about it John, it is worthy of consideration. Your analogy, with hurricanes is also apt. Sound travels at infinite proper-time inside the eyewall of a hurricane, so if space-time can be destroyed in a singularity, light would have infinite proper-time there as well.

In the words of Penrose, p.436, The Emperor's New Mind...

"Not just all matter becomes destroyed in this way, but EVEN the very space-time must find its end! Such an ultimate catastrophe is referred to as a space-time singularity... These are conclusions that follow from the classical equations of general relativity, in any circumstance when a black hole is formed..."

(more) "...initial space-time singularity which now represents the big bang, ...rather than representing the ultimate destruction of all matter and space-time, the singularity represents the creation of space-time and matter.."

What Pensose did not address is whether ALL the matter in the universe is created all at once or gradually over the course of the universe's evolution.

Regards,

Akinbo

Ps,

Yes, I understand the energy density by the edge of the black hole would be small, as this energy really starts radiating back out close to the start of the fusion process. Much of the energy being observed comes from processes going on far from the center. Discussion of black holes is like focusing on the eye of a hurricane and ignoring what goes on around it.

Akinbo,

The point I keep arguing about time is that since we experience it as a sequence of perceptions, we think of it as the point of the present moving along a vector of events and physics reduces this to static measures of duration in the spacetime model, but what is being measured is activity and that entails the creation and dissolution of these perceptions/events, such that it is they which go from potential, to actual, to residual, thus future to past. Meanwhile only the dynamic present is real.

So basically measures of duration are frequency, just as measures of temperature are amplitude.

Just as all space has a temperature, even if it is absolute zero, so to does this activity effect change, thus it also has the effect of time. So just as a complete absence of activity is a temperature of absolute zero, so to would it have zero change/time.

Now singularities have zero, or at least unmeasurable energy/activity, so they have zero time, but this is achieved by reducing the space to zero as well, as a dimensionless point.

Is a dimensionless point real, or is it a hypothetical conceptual convenience? Anything multiplied by zero is zero. So it seems what we would have is zero energy and zero space.

This avoids the problem for QM, that all space has energy, by reducing the area to zero, but how can anything be extracted from it?

Regards,

John M

"Discussion of black holes is like focusing on the eye of a hurricane and ignoring what goes on around it."

John, that's because the black hole, about which we know little, is much more interesting than the phenomena going on around it, about which we know a lot.

"Quantum action is a bit ambiguous to me."

Quantum action is simply the change in matter over time predicted by the Schrödinger equation, which states that the change or differential of matter in time is proportional to itself. Is that ambiguous?

The proportionality constant is the quotient of the binding energy as equivalent exchange mass associated with the action with the matter scaled Planck constant, h/c2, oh and the phase factor, -i. So the quantum action of matter is somehow 90 deg out of phase with matter itself. If you thought the Planck constant was small, the matter scaled Planck constant is 9e16 smaller still, ~1e-52 or so.

So the Planck scale in matter time is quite naturally very, very tiny. Whether you do action semiclassically or with exchange step operators is simply a matter of convenience. The -i phase factor is, by the Euler identity, simply the same pi/2 or 90 degree phase angle that shows up everywhere and represents the orthogonality of matter and time or Pythagoras.

Charge and spin and gravity are all properties of the same exchange of matter between objects. All objects exchange matter with the universe as an object, which is roughly what gravity force means. Certain objects like electrons and protons just exchange much larger amounts of matter with each other as phase coherent quanta and those large matter exchanges also result in particle spin. The phase of that exchange is what determines attraction or repulsion, which is more of an isospin, i.e., a combined charge and spin.

With a universe composed of such a large, albeit finite, number of very tiny particles, most practical predictions of action need some kind of renormalization. Analogous to the renormalizations of field theories, these finite renormalizations deal with effective infinities instead of infinite infinities.

"Since spacetime is grounded in a similar set of ad hoc assumptions, dark matter and dark energy and inflation ..."

Those are theoretical deductions, not assumptions. I stand by my statement that classical gravity has a much firmer foundation in fact and theory than any proposal I've seen that assumes quantum foundations.

Tom,

That's the point. It wouldn't be the first time that assumptions about the extent of our knowledge were wrong. For one thing, as a predatory organism, our minds are biased toward focusing on particular points of attention and then, both individually and cumulatively, fill in the gaps based on assumptions/prior knowledge.

Our visual functions do it and our cultural functions do it and while you are likely quite sure such a phenomena is not possible in physics, I tend to be of the opinion that much of current cosmology is patches to support an initial assumption. As they say in politics, the coverup was worse than the crime.

If we were to consider that radiation/energy and mass/order constitute a spectrum and rather then this spectrum being linear, from the other side of zero, to the other side of infinity, it is instead a cycle between the equilibrium state of zero, to energy radiating out to infinity and so dispersing to equilibrium, than what would we observe?

The fact is that current speculation is reaching a dead end, so how difficult would it be for physics to start a white paper project, in which every possible assumption and even observation, is open to question and debate?

Otherwise, if conjectures about what lay in black holes are being set aside, then how long until speculation about what lays in other universes is to be frowned upon, than what more will there be to do, but go back and reconsider all that we "already know?"

Regards,

John M

Okay, theoretical deductions then instead of ad hoc assumptions. This appears semantic. The paper theoretically deduces that since Hawking radiation has been well documented and established, that there must be a corresponding radiation rate commensurate with collapse of matter at the event horizon.

Other work theoretically deduces that since galaxy rotation does not depend on R and is in conflict with Newtonian gravity that is well documented and established, there must be a halo of invisible, cold, dark, nonrotating matter outside of each galaxy.

As far as who is on first, it really depends on scale, right? If you care mostly about big stuff, GR is your game. If you care mostly about little stuff, QM fills the bill. It is very true that GR holds together very well and has been critical for improving QM with mass energy equivalence and the Klein-Gordon version of Schrödinger.

Arguments about who is on first are not very useful. Useful discussion must focus on the boundaries of understanding between the two worlds and that is why I like it when papers try to connect the quantum and black hole universes. Since GR has no role for the amplitude and phase of matter waves, GR is somewhat broken. On the other hand, QM has no use for the singularities of GR. Since singularities of an event horizon are so obnoxious to deal with, once again, GR seems to be at fault, not QM.

In the end, there will be no perfect quantum gravity, there will only be a quantum gravity that is more useful than GR for prediction of action at certain scales.

"I tend to be of the opinion that much of current cosmology is patches to support an initial assumption."

What do you think is the initial assumption of general relativity cosmology, John?

"Okay, theoretical deductions then instead of ad hoc assumptions. This appears semantic."

Far from semantic, Steve. There is a vast difference between specifying boundary conditions for exact solutions to equations, and assuming numerical parameters for approximate solutions.

"In the end, there will be no perfect quantum gravity, there will only be a quantum gravity that is more useful than GR for prediction of action at certain scales."

That's a step backward. General relativity is perfect, up to diffeomorphism, to describe gravity in our classical world of experience. You want to replace it with a scale dependent probabilistic model? -- then you don't need more than conventional quantum theory.

Interesting...you claim that there are exact solutions and perfect theories with therefore perfect predictions of action...until there are not perfect solutions and not perfect theories and therefore not perfect predictions of action. Claims to any perfect solution and perfect theory with perfect predictions are a little suspect...at least in this universe, and so GR fails on this account alone.

You seem to imply that quantum field theory is not diffeomorphic, but of course it is. Presumably what bothers you is gauge and renormalization, not really probability. It is true that there are patches and ad hoc assumptions in QFT as well as GR.

If GR were perfect, we could calculate the entropy of a SMBH...and the answer is...? Since you have a perfect theory, you must have a perfect answer. Oops, there is that nasty little diffeomorphism again.

We need more than conventional quantum theory for gravity. There is no way to calculate transition probabilities or neutral matter current exchange energies without an exchange particle. Unfortunately, gravitons self destruct in GR because of those pesky singularities in GR. This cannot be true and there is some limit that makes quantum gravity work. Our guys just have not been able to figure it out yet.

It is not that GR doesn't work great...it does. There is even gravity radiation in GR that matches pulsar data. However, a quantum gravity will also radiate from pulsars and that radiation will likely be very similar if not identical to GR predictions. Science is getting close if it can just stay focused on the right problems.

Tom,

I can accept that you resolutely refuse to consider anything I say is valid, but do you really completely erase it from your mind?????

For one thing, I think "the fabric of spacetime" is no more a valid interpretation of this correlation between measures of duration and distance being equally affected by acceleration or gravity, than giant cosmic gearwheels were an explanation for why epicycles were accurate. Need I go into the reasons, such as time being an effect of action, creating and dissolving these events, not them existing on some blocktime dimension. Thus no wormholes through spacetime, no expanding universes, etc.

Also, as I keep pointing out, if it is relativistic and the space/distance dimension increases, then the time dimension should also increase, in order for the speed of light to remain CONSTANT to this expanded space, but that would throw off using the doppler effect to explain redshift.

This isn't angles, curved space or anything complicated, just one has to remain constant to the other.

Now, yes, you don't agree with any of this, but do you have such a strong mental block that you refuse to even remember it?

Regards,

John M

"Interesting...you claim that there are exact solutions and perfect theories with therefore perfect predictions of action..."

An exceedingly easy claim to support.

E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2

This unreduced equation of special relativity tells us that a particle of mass with zero momentum, has to have negative mass. The principle of least action applies: E_0 = mc^2 describes rest mass in relative motion. That is a perfect prediction of action: photons are massless particles with momentum.

"Nasty little diffeomorphism"? Mais oui! -- which is why general relativity, as Einstein is careful to say, applies only "up to diffeormorphism", because gravity does not yield to a unified theory, without boundary conditions. Therefore, exact solutions to general relativity equations fail at the singularity as Einstein knew they must. GR was to be intermediate, toward a unified field theory -- however, that only a field theory can withstand mathematical completeness, i.e., proceed from first principles to a closed logical judgment -- is also an exact prediction: the form of a coherent cosmology will be nonlinear and continuous.

For whatever shortcomings general relativity has, at the limit of its domain, it is still exact within the domain (as is Newtonian physics from which it was extended) -- while quantum cosmology is still searching for a leg to stand on that is free of ad hoc assumptions.

"For one thing, I think 'the fabric of spacetime' is no more a valid interpretation of this correlation between measures of duration and distance being equally affected by acceleration or gravity, than giant cosmic gearwheels were an explanation for why epicycles were accurate."

Okay, I'll remember that.

If you'll remember that spacetime is not an interpretation of something; it is an exact construction tested against measured phenomena.