• Cosmology

  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

His point is not that infinitely complex systems are not adaptive, as nature has been proving they are for a very long time. His point is that systems pushed to the breaking point, for any number of reasons, are fragile and prone to break.

Regards,

John M

You've misquoted him, John. There was no mention of "infinitely complex systems," just a claim that complex systems are not infinitely adaptive. In fact, though, there is no reason to believe that complex systems of sufficient variety at multiple scales are not infinitely adaptive -- therefore, no breaking point.

Tom,

One of the main ways they have of being adaptive is to overproduce, on those multiple scales and to sacrifice eventually all forms, but keep producing new ones. While this interpretation of the paper is somewhat off topic for this thread, the reason I found the essay topical is that it describes what amounts to a social and ultimately civilizational maelstrom.

In essence it is a form of black hole. What drives this mad rush is a global population which can only operate cooperatively with the contractual function of a monetary system. Which has succeeded in throwing off most legal restraints and being used to siphon value out of the larger economy into what amounts to vast waste on increasingly fewer people, as well as unpayable gambling debts. This being the black hole at the center. Meanwhile the society increasingly swirling around it has to further drain value out of the earth's environment in order to both survive and create the illusion they too can win that lottery. Meanwhile any attempts to resist it, such as the Occupy movement, have their intended friction simply turned to heat and feed it as well, as it mostly empowers the police and security functions, which otherwise keep the larger population in line and working. Negative feedback for those fighting it.

Though I have to say, being in the horse business, in the Baltimore Washington area, the income for my livelihood is probably due to the glow from this particular beast.

I also have to say that while I probably attribute devious motives and serious character flaws to you, when you habitually disagree with everything I say, these debates do provide an outlet for me. I long ago grew used to people thinking I'm somewhat wacked, so it doesn't bother me anymore, but that makes it difficult to sustain interesting conversations.

I mention this because of those two links you posted, of why time is slowed and the path of least action. While I mentioned the connection that occurred to me in passing, I thought I'd clarify it;

That if you consider the wavy lines of the paths of not least action and the excess energy that would be required to make them work, compared to the light being bounced back and forth between the mirrors and how this is an analogy for what happens in atomic structure, with less bouncing representing slower time, they represent different descriptions on the same effect;

Now a beam of light would be the most efficient path of least action, as no energy is lost and no time passes. Then you get to the frame traveling near the speed of light and so little bouncing around and little energy lost. Then you get to the ones where it is bouncing around a lot and lots of energy is lost and time moves much faster.

Now I know you are not going to agree with anything I say, but if you just hurumph and tell me what a idiot I am, I'l know I'm onto something. Otherwise, if you clearly and concisely explain the flaw in my logic, then I will have learned something.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

Still having issues. It asked for a social media address and my somewhat ignored facebook account didn't seem to go through.

Not a big fan of BBT, if that's what you mean, though we have been through that before.

Regards,

John M

Basically then, time is resistance. What slows light down and gives it form.

Ohh, this is really great stuff!

What about boson stars? There has got to be a link between the MECOs of GR and quantum boson stars...come on...where are the links?

The SaggA* data is getting better and better and soon we will have a matter spectrum of SaggA*. To prepare for that, we need to differentiate among the various event horizon models and get a testable hypothesis for whatever will actually occur.

Just like with the CMB, the noise spectrum of SaggA* will be the determination of which model holds water....this will be fun...

Pardon my ignorance. In a language that Galileo and Newton can understand what are bosons and what force of attraction can bind them into a celestial body called a star?

I know about quantum mechanical rabbits called 'spin half' and 'spin 0'. I will be happy if you can answer to an ignoramus without using rabbits or mathematical tools favored by Tom.

Thank you.

Akinbo

Tom,

The problem with the premise of monotheism is that absolute is basis, rather than apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. So the element of consciousness is the basis and the form of its thoughts are the details. Apply this to physics and it is the element of being, that which is present, that is basic. The forms manifested by it are the details. Math is form.

Regards,

John M

Thanks Jonathan. I get a moment later in the day..

Regards,

John M

Basically, a boson star is when there is enough light together in an accretion that the light's matter equivalent energy is large enough to gravitationally contain itself. So the event horizon acts like a mirror and keeps all light contained in the accretion as pure energy.

All of the physics is straightforward quantum stuff, but there is an ad hoc assumption needed of a resonance or binding energy between particles of very small mass. This is called a scalar field and results in a well behaved quantum object inside of an event horizon with the quantum Klein-Gordon action.

It is exciting because the new MECO stuff breaks down the properties of the accretion up until the event horizon and completes a description outsides of the event horizon with a GR proper time Lorentz invariance. The MECO guys just have to tear their gravity dust apart into the amplitude and phase of a quantum dust much like Mersini-Houghton did in her nice work.

Since my universe has a smallest particle by axiom, the gaechron, just 8.7e-69 kg, and the same quantum action equation, it seems that matter time has the basic pieces for joining the proper time of a quantum boson star below the event horizon with the proper time of the matter accretion above the event horizon.

Accelerating dust to c results in a boson binding energy of twice the dust rest mass as a matter and antimatter gaechron pair. All this means that light itself is just such a gaechron/antigaechron pair and so light does have a very small rest mass, and that would permit a boson star to capture light at its event horizon.

If this boson star smoothly transitions to the matter accretion above the event horizon, it would mean that GR cannot provide a complete thermodynamic description of the matter accretion, even with a chaotic collapse. It is not that that approach would not work, it is just that it would be incomplete.

The density of states at the event horizon will be very large, but finite. Since radiation is trapped, the event horizon is the only connection between the rotating boson star and the rotating matter outside of the event horizon, which is like Hawking radiation. No information is lost, though, since there is also a proper time below the event horizon. Thus there is a very large but finite entropy and a very high but finite temperature as well.

The matter of a boson star is still dependent on the matter outside of the EH, especially stars since their decay rates represent a dynamical coupling along with gravity force. However, since all matter decays, there is an extra dynamical coupling beyond gravity force. Although it is common now to call that coupling dark matter, it is better referred to as new property of matter called dynamical matter. Dynamical matter is not then a different matter, it is just a manifestation of matter decay.

Peter,

Yes I had seen it and agree fully. Not only are the feedback loops most evident further into the depths of galaxies, they extent out across space with light and radiation being exchanged between galaxies.

Regards,

John M

Steve, much as I suspected! Boson star contains even more rabbits than DFM plasma. It will be strange to Newton and Galileo that anyone could contemplate of light as being 'at rest' talk less of having mass.

Does sound have a state of rest? Not talking here of stationary waves. When it suits some they say light is a massless particle making it travel at c. When it doesn't they say it has mass. Which one are we to believe? Can something have a rest mass and simultaneously be travelling at c at the same time?

I agree boson star is interesting just as are multi verses, time travel and twin paradox...

Regards,

Akinbo

It is interesting that you should bring up sound, since sound does have a kind of state of rest in the normal modes of a stationary cavity, like a horn. In fact, certain "sounds" or phonons can have very long lifetimes in superconducting or superliquid states with very low decay rates. A sound cavity is a good analog for the hohlraum that would be a boson star, which seems more like a laser light cavity to me.

Since with sound, there is already particles and interactions among them, sound is a boson like wave the physics of a boson sound star would be straightforward...if all of that matter did not get in the way.

There is more common sense in the physics of sound than it is for light in today's physics.

Sound energy does not make sound waves bind to each other

Sound does not have a 'rest mass'

Sound has no mass at all

Sound having a kind of state of rest in the normal modes of a stationary cavity is because it is reflected at the boundary to form stationary waves

Sound is not made of particles

"Sound is a boson like wave" is a very unattractive rabbit in my opinion, and that kind of physics cannot be straightforward except in Einsteiniana (apologies to Pentcho). Statements like this will make Newton and Galileo restless in their graves.

Regards,

Akinbo

It is truly amazing that you say these things.

"Sound energy does not make sound waves bind to each other...Sound does not have a 'rest mass'...Sound has no mass at all...Sound having a kind of state of rest in the normal modes of a stationary cavity is because it is reflected at the boundary to form stationary waves...Sound is not made of particles"

In fact, sound is a compression and extension wave of particles of matter and very intense sound, i.e. shock waves, do in fact seem to bind to each other.

There is energy in a sound wave and so a resonant cavity with sound weighs more than the same cavity without sound. Sound energy, just like all energy, has an equivalent mass.

Sound as the resonant modes of a cavity is just like the resonance of an electron and proton that is part of the rest mass of hydrogen, the Rydberg energy, which is also a mass.

Sound is the motion of particles and that energy has an equivalent mass. So, sound does indeed have mass.

Why is this surprising? This is just standard physics...

It is true that the QM duality does make for a rather confusing description of light.

"When it suits some they say light is a massless particle making it travel at c. When it doesn't they say it has mass. Which one are we to believe? Can something have a rest mass and simultaneously be travelling at c at the same time?"

Notice that my Lorentz invariance skirted this issue, but there is an out in the collapsing universe. Just like a hydrogen is an electron and proton exchanging a Rydberg photon, it is better to think of light as a gaechron/antigaechron pair bound by a photon. Thus, a photon would not have quite a zero rest mass, but its momentum and energy would be dominated by the binding energy of the g/anti-g pair.

According to QED, photons are excitations of vacuum quanta of space and so all I am doing is letting the universe be made of very small particles. Instead of there being an infinity of vacuum oscillators, there are a finite but very large number of particles in the universe that make up all matter including light.

A hydrogen atom forms by emission of a Rydberg photon of light and a Rydberg photon exchanges between the electron and proton as the bond. That Rydberg photon is an excitation of the g/anti-g field of the universe, and so the photon moves at very nearly the speed of light since its rest mass is very small...except for photons of very, very small energy.

Steve, thanks for taking time to reply. However, if I may speak for them, some of the assertions will make Galileo and Newton say ...LOL (which I have been educated means laughing-out-loud). I will pick on some of them and comment.

In fact, sound is a compression and extension wave of particles of matter and very intense sound, i.e. shock waves, do in fact seem to bind to each other.

Sound and light are disturbances, they are not particles. A disturbance travels from source to receptor , which may be very distant apart but as we were taught no particle actually moves from the source to the receptor. Thanks for letting me read up on shock waves. I will read more on that because I see its relevance to bow shock, etc.

Sound energy, just like all energy, has an equivalent mass... Sound is the motion of particles and that energy has an equivalent mass. So, sound does indeed have mass.

I don't agree but will let it pass. The way things are going water waves will soon be proposed as having mass independent of the water medium itself.

Why is this surprising? This is just standard physics...

It is not standard physics to attribute the property of mass to a disturbance.

...it is better to think of light as a gaechron/antigaechron pair bound by a photon.

So in turn the photon binding the gaechron/antigaechron pair, is in turn made of a gaechron/antigaechron pair, which is in turn bound by a photon made of gaechron/antigaechron pair ad infintum or where does this end?

A hydrogen atom forms by emission of a Rydberg photon of light and a Rydberg photon exchanges between the electron and proton as the bond.

How on earth can the same photon mediate attraction between the electron and proton and repulsion between the electron/electron and proton/proton? If you put an opaque barrier between magnets are you not aware that attraction/repulsion still takes place or does Rydberg photon of light have a unique ability to pass through opaque barriers also?

Regards,

Akinbo