Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

"Nothing in the real world, except for strictly speaking unreal models, is of zero or infinite measure."

That's a pointless statement. It can just as well be said that everything in the real world is of zero or infinite measure.

Tom,

Just give an example.

Regarding Tom's last statement..

While acknowledging that, on some level there is truth to your claim that Eckard's statement on the absence of absolute extremes of scale is pointless, on another level that is the point (that there can be no dimensionless points in physical reality). You have to at least give Eckard some points for that (pun intended), although in some forum it might be too obvious to mention, or conversely too easily disputed elsewhere. Please do not take offense, if this response seems cavalier, because the opportunity to toss these ideas around playfully is important to our progress.

On remarks by John and Tom's replies..

I agree with Tom's assessment that efforts to completely separate space and time are a backwards and futile step, rather than a step forward. However; I am obliged to acknowledge and respect the view there is a process-like nature to time - that space of itself does not possess - and that this drives you, John, to remind us that time is something coming at us through events and interactions, which make it emergent or interactive.

I think perhaps Minkowski understood the marriage of space and time as spacetime better than did Einstein, and that we are stuck with a less fulfilling consensus than might have resulted without some of the filtering that has taken place as a result. However; even while I feel it is likely that time existed before space-like dimensions emerged in the early universe, I think Tom is 100% correct that space and time are virtually inseparable in the current cosmic era, and survive only as a union of the two in spacetime.

However; I still see as viable and important the views of George F.R. Ellis and colleagues that an event as extreme as a black hole event horizon formation might split the two again, so that the astronomical object has an outer space-like apparent horizon, with an inner time like one. But it can be said that such a splitting could only take place near an initial or final singularity (or near to where there would be one), and not in 'normal' space.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Another comment..

Some of your remarks above, John, only make sense in the view that perhaps the entire universe we observe is inside a black hole that is transiting dimensions or connecting one dimension to another. This is an idea being seriously considered, but this model's value is contingent on the view that a horizon actually forms. What I'm imagining is that if space wraps around the innermost horizon of a forming black hole, that of itself implies that anything in space can never get to the inside of the object - which means an event horizon would never form. Ergo; it is an ECO not a BH.

All the Best,

Jonathan

On zero or infinite measure..

If there is only one object in the universe, and positing there is a non-corporeal observer to measure it, such an object has absolute ambiguity of size, such that it could be said to be immeasurably large or small - depending solely on where the observer is situated. In a physical system, this might arise for single particles or possibly a black hole roaming the cosmos, at a point when the nearest object is more than the Hubble distance away.

This is the other extremum where Relativity becomes undefined, from the example I cited elsewhere on this page - where all the objects in a space overlap as in a quark gluon plasma. But if there is nothing else to observe in a given space, all measures are indeed zero or infinite. Otherwise; that statement falls apart.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John,

May I just throw a Lagrangian point into this. Gravity only acts concentrically to a minimum limit. If you're near but not AT a Lagrangian point the potential will be 'outwards' not inwards up to a limit. The pattern exists down to nuclear force scale.

One you've considered the dynamics of this you'll find a torus, which is in any case the real morphology of 'black holes' at both galaxy and stellar scales. Accreted matter to an AGN 'self organises' (against the 2nd Law) to a helical 'winding' around the toroid body. Radiation is at the poles, which is allowable if not forseen or fully described by 'Hawking radiation'. You and I call them outflows, building to quasars jets at full power precessing around the z-pinch point.

This isn't just theory, rather it's the most common interpretation of what's found. Finally, the core concept of particle physics is the 'centre-of-mass rest frame, which is purely a geometrical point at the centre of rotation/orbit, but is essential for logical analysis.

I hope that helps set some useful parameters. I should be able to find sound links for any aspect of the above if anyone wishes.

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

You can go back as far as you wish. Often progress is one step back, for every two forward. Expansion and contraction. Complexity is a tool, not necessarily an end in itself. Beyond a certain point, it becomes more noise than signal and the reset button gets pushed.

Jonathan,

The issue of time alone still does raise questions in physics. Consider that it was the subject of the first essay contest. Pretty much everything only really is understandable in context; black/white, roads/cars, restaurants/patrons, rain/puddles, etc. I frequently make the point that we can't understand objects outside of the context creating them and that while they go from beginning to end, the process goes the other direction, creating new and shedding old. So I can understand that for some the concepts of time and space are no longer distinguishable, but I still try making the distinction.

Peter,

Thanks. I better stick to the gallery and making broad observations. It is a long and hard slog.

Regards,

John M

"Just give an example."

Of course, Eckard. One need look no further than the topic under discussion here -- the dichotomy of classical and quantum foundations. Quantum measurements are normalized, to rid the measurement function of infinities ad hoc. Successful quantum field theories are the ones said to be renormalizable, in order to bring the function closer to what we experience in the classical world. Classical wave functions are continuous and infinite in principle.

" ... remind us that time is something coming at us through events and interactions, which make it emergent or interactive."

I can't agree, Jonathan, though I appreciate your view of John's view. Thing is, I don't have a view of time -- I can only understand in a formal way that if it is an emergent phenomenon, the consequence is quantized space that is independent of time, which implies that space is independent of time.

"I think perhaps Minkowski understood the marriage of space and time as spacetime better than did Einstein, and that we are stuck with a less fulfilling consensus than might have resulted without some of the filtering that has taken place as a result."

I think it's fair to say that Minkowski had a better mathematical grasp of spacetime and Einstein had a better physical grasp.

"However; even while I feel it is likely that time existed before space-like dimensions emerged in the early universe, I think Tom is 100% correct that space and time are virtually inseparable in the current cosmic era, and survive only as a union of the two in spacetime."

I see no reason that time should ever have existed independent of space; in fact, I see a unit of time identical to a unit of information, a quantum bit. I can't see a further reduction of the pair without losing the measurement function entirely, with the result being that physics is done by analogy and metaphor. Even Lev Goldfarb, who has one of the most radical ideas of computability that one can imagine, nevertheless retains the formal structure of time. (He and I agree that time is identical to information.)

"However; I still see as viable and important the views of George F.R. Ellis and colleagues that an event as extreme as a black hole event horizon formation might split the two again, so that the astronomical object has an outer space-like apparent horizon, with an inner time like one."

Well -- it will be another "black hole challenge" then. Is the universe closed off from observation in the special case -- or does the case of uniformity apply generally? My bet is on all physics being local, without exception, in a topologically simply connected spacetime.

"But it can be said that such a splitting could only take place near an initial or final singularity (or near to where there would be one), and not in 'normal' space."

If all physics is local, all space is normal. (Both in the colloquial and the mathematical sense.)

"Often progress is one step back, for every two forward."

Agreed, John. However, can you cite a single time in history when this was true of science, or even mathematics?

I've done a lot of thinking on this subject since a couple of years back, after reading Vesselin Petkov's essay. His statement, "Science never goes goes backward," struck me as profound. I could not think of a counterexample.

Tom,

We have to put science in the larger context to appreciate the side effects. From the time of Adam and Eve, it has been intuited that knowledge can be a double edged sword. Right now we appear at a peak of seeming self awareness and scientific hyperbole, but what will it look like in another 500 years? Will our achievements seem so magnificent, or will they simply have speeded up our own destruction of this one and only habitable planet? We have made enormous strides in the last 2000 years, but is that progress completely without cost? Unfortunately you and I will not be around to fully discover who is right.

As it is, one of those observations about time that I make which you chose to ignore, is that a faster clock burns quicker, so instead of rushing into the future, it fades into the past that much faster.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

On Oct. 14, 2014 @ 19:27 GMT you quoted me:

"Nothing in the real world, except for strictly speaking unreal models, is of zero or infinite measure" and replied: "That's a pointless statement. It can just as well be said that everything in the real world is of zero or infinite measure."

I reiterate: Can you please give an example (of something in the real world)? You cannot.

Eckard

Tom,

Eugenics.

Regards,

John M

"I reiterate: Can you please give an example (of something in the real world)?"

You must have missed my reply at 0150 GMT.

Thanks for making my point, John. Eugenics is social policy, not science.

John,

Have we just revealed why science is stuck up this blind Alley? : "Science never goes goes backward,"

I've only found a few times it has, and only ever successfully. The most recent was 'quasicrystals'. Science discarded and ignored them and moved 'ahead'. A Nobel laureate even called them 'quasi-science'! Daniel Shecktmann even lost his job. Theory charged on ahead, for over 40 years!....but slowly came to a grinding halt.

Only when they re-traced their steps for the explanation of anomalous findings did they re-discover the old quasicrystals. Shecktmann won last year Nobel Prize for chemistry.

There are also cases in astrophysics of peripheral vision and a reverse gear being essential, NONE of which proved to be a wrong move. Most are 'disguised' as forward motion but in a 'different direction'.

Jonathen,

I agree with most of your analysis, but disagree with your analysis of 'time'. I've found it's a simple category error to assign it with ANY of the characteristics we use for space and matter, because ALL the effects found can be reproduced by simply applying classical dynamics, refraction and Doppler shifts of wavelength to to EM "SIGNALS", or accelerative effects to mechanical contraptions and oscillators we designate as 'clocks'.

If you can think of anything you feel may NOT be explainable in that way please do identify it.

Eckard,

I hadn't noticed your post re-gravity peaking at Earth's surface prior to my post above. I agree entirely and find our points consistent, and far more important than most assume!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, thank you also for making my point. The failure to accept a theory for social recognition is not an example of science moving backward. Yours and John's idea of science is social consensus based on subjective criteria, prizes and funding -- that isn't how science works,

Tom,

"...I can only understand in a formal way that if it (time) is an emergent phenomenon, the consequence is quantized space that is independent of time, which implies that (continuous) space is independent of time."

Very good point, Tom, (the parentheses are mine). I was reminded while reading up on Pilot Wave Theory and reviewing basic wavefunction, that all quantizing obtains in a manner that is dependent on an electron physically orbiting a nucleus like a tiny planet, but the wavefunction was invented because it was determined that if all the mass of an electron was in a hard sphere it would either spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom or fly off into surrounding space. Quantizing space, independent of time, is not really justifiable on those obviously ad hoc arrangements. jrc

p.s. this is a pretty small club and this thread is now long of tooth, for convenience, how about somebody pushing the reset button.

Thank you, John R. It is so refreshing to have commentary based on actual science with historical precedent.