Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

" ... an electron's rest energy may be too small to measure as a gravitational effect on a macroscale, but two electrons hypothetically in a background independent void whose gravitational field boundaries overlap in the least, would mutually experience the asymmetric directional tendency as would be called 'attraction' in the classical Newtonian paradigm."

No, John R. Electrons (and all fermions) are not mutually attractive; they repel each other in all cases except Cooper pairs, in which electrons cooperate in their spin states and become superconductive. That's not gravitation, though -- it's definitely a quantum electrodynamic effect of energy exchange, even though the behavior mimics bosons under the conditions in which Cooper pairs form.

A plausible exotic theory of gravitation is the case of boson stars that Steve brought up. I have no opinion on it, though what makes boson stars plausible is that any number of bosons can occupy the same space, i.e., share the same state of self interaction. No two fermions can do so.

I didn't catch the NSA reference the first time around. I must be missing some history here.

" ... contextualize itself objectively ..."

Only in a world where oxymorons are the rule.

Tom,

Very true. Yet in this world, dichotomies rule.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

All due respect for your extensive acumen, but when was the last time you read the story of science and how the standard model came to be? It's more cookbook than theory, and the Lorentz recipe lacks an essential ingredient that makes fermions behave as if they were ONLY mutually repulsive, and that to infinity. But I'm here just for a little practical visibility. :-)

Akinbo,

I don't like the phrase either, my argument is that for a mass to exhibit inertia, some portion of it's rest energy must exist at a constant density as the greatest density, in a c^2 proportion to total energy quantity. No singularity. :-)

John M.

No, the 'inward/outward' concept does not seem to be much favored. It's not that it seems a bit too much like 'Woodstock philosophy', the development of theoretical approaches has mushroomed and experiment is calibrated on theory precepts which have not been revisited. But don't mistake Tom for any sort of neo-Newtonian, he is just firmly rooted in classical mechanics and both relativity and QM rely on those foundations. He just enjoys saying things in a cryptic manner sometimes, which can be a bit confusing. :-) jrc

" ... how the standard model came to be? It's more cookbook than theory ..."

I'm aware of that. That's why classical mechanics is a far better guide to a mathematically complete theory of physics. No extraneous and superfluous explanations required.

And BTW, I am always disappointed when someone calls my exposition cryptic. I do strive to be clear -- I would far rather give precise mathematical explanations, yet even when I try to simplify the math, people (particularly in this forum) tend to react as if I have three heads.

Dichotomy and oxymoron are two different things. Dichotomies can be reconciled; oxymoronic expressions cannot.

" ... the Lorentz recipe lacks an essential ingredient that makes fermions behave as if they were ONLY mutually repulsive, and that to infinity."

John R, a little reflection should tell you that objects cannot be mutually repulsive to infinity; the repulsive function is proscribed by limits, although an attractive function is not. I think you've misread something.

One has to approach classical physics, always, with the tools of function, limit, domain, range and boundary conditions.

If you reject the notion of the the mass equivalence of energy, you reject Lorentz invariance...and vice versa. One does not really come before the other...they both come together.

"It is however wrong to say that,"equivalence principle is what leads to Lorentz invariance". Perhaps, you may want to go back to square one to crosscheck what led to Lorentz invariance. It had nothing to do with equivalence of energy and mass. Rather, it is the other way round."

There is not a lot for me to say without these principles since everything that I believe and all the science and philosophy that I know is prefaced on these principles. Maybe your universe works okay, i.e., you can make good enough predictions to survive, without the principles of matter equivalent energy and Lorentz invariance, but I my universe works by these principles.

"These answers ["All disturbances are energies and all energies are masses. Ergo, sound has mass"] will introduce wave-particle duality which merely reflects a deficiency in our current knowledge."

I would agree that there is a deficiency, but it is largely one of interpretation and a much smaller one of substance.

"In particular can these your "mediating" photons pass through an opaque barrier? I have a magnet now underneath my table top and its influence is getting through to a metallic object on the table surface. That suggests, I am wondering if these your photons mediating attraction/repulsion are gifted with properties their visual counterparts do not have in order to pass through a table made of lead through which even Xrays cannot pass."

Magnetic and electric fields are very useful Maxwellian constructs, but Feynman showed us the quantum interpretation. Each atom of magnetism excites the vacuum oscillators which excite the oscillators of matter which then excites more oscillators if the matter is transparent to that frequency. Some matter is transparent to magnetic flux, some is not. Some matter is transparent to visible light, some is not.

If this forum had a 'like' feature, Steve, you'd be getting a thumbs-up from me.

John R,

It also a bit too simplistic for this complex situation. Hence we have neo-liberalism for predatory economic expansionism and neo-conservatism for whatever the next locus of attraction, after the central state, happens to be, from religions to corporations.

I guess I was referring to Tom's dogmatic tendencies, rather than his logical framework. Given he is more willing to defend wormholes, than examine the idea of time as an effect of change turning future into past, rather than part of some metaphysical geometry in which such contrivances can exist, I'm more confounded by his mental rigidity, than dexterity.

Yes, time as a vector is extremely classic. History is based on it.

Tom,

I do understand the difference between oxymorons and dichotomies. Yes, looking at ourselves objectively would be an oxymoron, as, I've pointed out repeatedly, any point of view is subjective and as you put it, there is no privileged observer. Yet it is possible to better understand how to relate to reality, such as that ideal forms, whether mathematical, economic, political, or theological, are models extrapolated from reality, not the physical basis for it.

Regards,

John M

"If you reject the notion of the the mass equivalence of energy, you reject Lorentz invariance...and vice versa. One does not really come before the other...they both come together."

Thanks for reply. Will reply more fully tomorrow. Suffice to say one cannot be prevented from rejecting what is false only on condition you also reject what is true. Truth and falsehood cannot come together. Falsifying one cannot necesaarily imply falsifying the other.

The wavelength of the magnetic flux is the dimensions of the current that generates that flux. If your permanent magnet is 10 mm in diameter, the photons will be largely microwave with ~10 pi mm wavelength, which is 9.5 GHz.

If your table is opaque to that frequency of light, it will also block the flux from such an electromagnet. I do like how your questions are simple and to the point.

Your intuition is really very good...however, your math could use some improvement...

"Yet on that premise alone, wouldn't the easiest model be one where they function as opposite sides of a cycle, sort of like convection, in which energy is radiating outward, while mass is coalescing inward, with myriad complex interactions, such as mass absorbing energy, being propelled by it, resulting in spirals, jets, spheres, polarization, lensing, etc."

In essence, you have described that natural give and take, the yin and yang of matter time. That is exactly why I explore the consequences of matter-energy equivalence and Lorentz invariance with just matter and time dimensions. By the way, this math is strictly forbidden by the orthodoxy of space time, but matter time seems to work much better than space time and yet matter time is consistent with even more observations. Space time resists the idea that there is a structural change to matter because of velocity, but in a decaying universe like matter time, a structural change in matter is what drives all force.

Restating what you said in terms of matter time, objects exchange matter (i.e. energy) with other objects, radiating energy inward as bonds. Objects that bond with other objects do so by exchanging matter (i.e. energy) with the universe, radiating outward. Every bond of matter has a complementary photon of light running around the universe, which is the energy that bond.

Yet, to have the matter-energy equivalence we also have Lorentz invariance. The game of catch, you see, is not between matter and space, the game of catch is between matter and time. Since space is time, you can see why what you have intuited actually does make some sense, at least in matter time.

Again restating what you said in terms of matter time, an object gains matter over action time, radiating inward. An object correspondingly loses matter over proper time, radiating outward and these two times scales are related by Lorentz invariance.

"I'm more confounded by (THR's) mental rigidity, than dexterity."

I hope so. Spaghetti is rigid until it's cooked; putting energy into preparing and cooking it is the only thing that makes spaghetti worthwhile, just as putting energy into acquiring knowledge independent of an idea is all that makes an idea digestible, because it is ripened, softened and finally, nourishing. I find "dextrous" ideas to be raw and fleeting, not palatable at all, like most advertising slogans and all sermons.

"I do understand the difference between oxymorons and dichotomies."

From what you've written, you don't.

So John, if you absolutely require a political metaphor, look at it this way:

The idealistic slogan of the United States is e pluribus unum. The way that the actual union came about, though, is a process of ex unus pluribum. God, I hope I got that Latin right; someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The ideal is the model for the State -- and that's a dichotomy -- because the survival of the state as a constitutional democracy depends on the individual liberty which the democratic process confers, and on which the state's authority rests. That's an oxymoron, because the state cannot have authority not conferred on it by the individual.

Just one question, Steve: what is the physical difference between a matter-time continuum and a space-time continuum?

Or, if matter-time is not a continuum, where is the limit and how is it measured?

Just nudging a little more back to topic, the composite model of a boson star "trapped" by a fermion event horizon is very appealing and seems to have all of the pieces of the puzzle in one place, a BSECO.

The ECO of the time-like fermion side still works...up until some Planck limit. Then an extra term in the proper time differential acts like a phase transition to the boson matter-like time of a quantum boson star. There is a transition zone of some mixing and some fraction of fermions accrete to the boson matter and some fraction radiate as the jet.

The boson star stuff all works with a smallest particle and reflects off of the inner surface of the event horizon. There is a requirement for matter outside of the BSECO object since the center of mass has to be outside of the event horizon in order for the extra term to do its magic.

MatterTimeTorus

Thermodynamics should work well to marry the two systems since the quantum states of a boson star are calculable and the 4-space stress tensors already work well for the fermions. This seems doable, but there should be some unique predictions for such a model to truly make it worth pursuing.

Boy, is that a question...

"...what is the physical difference between a matter-time continuum and a space-time continuum? Or, if matter-time is not a continuum, where is the limit and how is it measured?"

Matter time is a discrete continuum, countably finite, limited by a smallest boson particle and the total mass of the universe. Action time is also therefore limited and varies over the proper time of the universe, the one and only continuum.

The Hubble constant defines the universe contraction rate and defines the smallest particle, the gaechron. The current speed of light and charge and gravity force constants define the matter decay rate and the mass of the universe .

Here are more details:

Universal_Quantum_Action_in_the_Matter-Time_Universe

Tom,

And before that spaghetti was dried, it started soft and flexible, like most ideas, before they become doctrine.

I guess a political discussion would get way off topic, so I suppose I'd better avoid it. Though I would say that as dynamic structures, even the best thought out state will tend to go through a life cycle of growth and stabilization, as long as it has sufficient motivating energy. As the size of the structure grows, relative to its motivating impulse, it will tend to break down, as divergent elements start charting different directions.

If you were to clearly analyze the origins of just about every state, I suspect they all begin with the blessing of the majority of their original participants. It is just that the circle of those benefiting from it doesn't necessarily grow as fast as those incorporated into it.

An oxymoron is a contradiction and a dichotomy is a balance of opposites.

Regards,

John M