Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

"By your view, Darwin wouldn't qualify as a legitimate scientist. Genetics has been and remains a subject with many moral complications."

Except that Darwin's theory is not a theory of genetics. It is a theory of common ancestry. It's the theory whose absence in biology and subdisciplines, e.g., genetics, would render the whole field incoherent.

From my shallow knowledge, I contributed a paper in 2002 to the Karl Popper Centenary Conference demonstrating the importance of Popper's reversing himself on Darwinism: at first rejecting the science of common ancestry as unfalsifiable, Popper came to understand the correspondence of the Darwinian metaphysical framework to those theories that can be tested.

Genetics is in fact, morally neutral. Eugenics is not. Genetics is the study of biological characteristics inherited within the framework of common ancestry. Eugenics is the program to limit biological characteristics so as to obscure common ancestry -- it has nothing to do with the science of genetics or any other science.

"If all side effects can simply be dismissed, than of course science is a straight march to the revealed truth and a brighter future. I suppose the military spending which funded much scientific advancement and any resulting damage was simply social policy. How convenient."

Of course, military spending is social policy. Military science is a different subject. Until one is able to separate science from social policy, one is unlikely to understand how science works, or even what science is.

I want to expand on something that Jonathan said in the other thread (I agree with John R. that it is becoming unwieldy) and which deserves its own thread anyway:

Jonathan wrote, "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."

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

J. was addressing recent work of George Ellis, et al, suggesting a demarcation of space and time in the extreme of black hole conditions. My reply is based on a topological model concerning something Hawking said as far back as the 1970s, about "imaginary time." The metaphor that Hawking used is that if one proposed to go "north of the North Pole" imaginary time would not differ from our common timekeeping measurement and perception of time even though it exists in the imaginary part of the complex plane. That is, on the sphere there is no such thing as north of the North Pole.

The 3-sphere (Riemann sphere) with its one simple pole at infinity, meets Hawking's criteria for the measure of time.

Tom,

The topic is "Black Holes don't exist. claims ...". I started a belonging thread

including a "doubt whether there are at all actual singularities and any actual infinity in the real world".

For the third time I would like to ask you: Please give any example of an item, of a physical quantity, of anything that is tangible in reality and not just pure theory and has measure infinity or measure zero.

Do you think the proof of the eating is the pudding?

Eckard

Tom,

"Of course, military spending is social policy. Military science is a different subject. Until one is able to separate science from social policy, one is unlikely to understand how science works, or even what science is. "

The problem is separating social policies from science. Animal husbandry has a history much older than Darwin, that of selecting for fittest characteristics, as opposed to survival of the fittest and eugenics was the application of selection to humans.

My original observation is that progress, not science, or math, is often one step back, for every two steps forward. Often otherwise known as trial and error. If one can distill out the achievements alone, from both their causes and consequences, yes, humanity has managed to evolve a complex and dominant relationship with nature. But as I keep pointing out, my interests are in that larger picture and how it functions as a whole.

Animal husbandry has very much limited genetic selection, by creating human adapted species to accompany our march across the earth and replace much of original native forms. This is application of knowledge, not just the creation of that knowledge in the first place. So if you can arbitrarily dismiss all negative applications from consideration in the progress of science, wouldn't it necessarily be objectively fair to dismiss all positive applications as well? Wouldn't that remove the actual testing? Often wars have been testing grounds for technological advances.

I can understand your perspective, as a specialist, to view science and math in isolation, but like many conceptual relations, such as that between space and time, there is no real line between such topics and their context, only the perception of one.

Regards,

John M

" ... anything that is tangible in reality and not just pure theory and has measure infinity or measure zero."

I did give you examples. In order to understand why you think those examples do not hold, you have to define specifically what you mean by "measurement" and "reality."

"The problem is separating social policies from science."

Speak for yourself. It isn't a problem for me.

"Animal husbandry has a history much older than Darwin, that of selecting for fittest characteristics, as opposed to survival of the fittest and eugenics was the application of selection to humans."

Your opinion is based on the myth that Darwinian evolution implies survival of the fittest. In fact, this myth is easily debunked. Random mutation and natural selection do not necessarily select the fittest organisms in the general sense that you apply to animal husbandry and eugenics -- it selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing.

"My original observation is that progress, not science, or math, is often one step back, for every two steps forward. Often otherwise known as trial and error. If one can distill out the achievements alone, from both their causes and consequences, yes, humanity has managed to evolve a complex and dominant relationship with nature. But as I keep pointing out, my interests are in that larger picture and how it functions as a whole."

So is my interest. Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience.

"I can understand your perspective, as a specialist, to view science and math in isolation, but like many conceptual relations, such as that between space and time, there is no real line between such topics and their context, only the perception of one."

In the philosophy of science, the problem of demarcation (the "real line" between what is science and what is not) is central. Popper solved it -- science is a wholly rationalist enterprise. Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational.

Tom,

Perhaps you should explain the difference between the 3-sphere and a 3-D sphere.

Just co-incidentally, in my foraging I just came across an arXiv item that might fit in here; ariv:1202.1321v1 [quant-ph] 7 Feb 2012 -- "Modified Schrodinger equation, its analysis and experimental verification" by: Isaac Shnaid. What he has done is to substitute a local time variable for 't' in the classical Schrodinger equation and also the same modification to deBroglie. It results in wavefunction propagation globally at a single magnitude of light velocity from an origin of t=0 as a continuously expanding sphere, instead of the instantaneous global propagation of conventional wavefunction.

I could follow the reasoning without actually doing calculus, which is rare for me and recommends the uncluttered presentation of the abstract. Topologically it might be another argument for Joy's framework, I think it's probably as difficult for many as for me to conceive of 'a simple pole at infinity' resulting from infinite radii reaching a maximal and then collapsing back to a point outside the maximal sphere (Riemann), which essentially makes the surface of the sphere a new origin. Correct me where I'm astray, with a straight face :-| jrc

Tom,

"It isn't a problem for me."

The issue is not so much being able to distinguish, but appreciating the spectrum of connections, distinctions, relations, etc, in all their myriad facets. You, for instance, cannot distinguish between time and space, once they have been reduced to measures, yet the chasm between science and its social context is wide and deep. Lol.

"it selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing."

Believe it, or not, but the needs of people, over time and varying situations, also changes and they can only select from the options nature provides.

"Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience."

You are obviously the best judge of your own biases.

"Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational."

Are multiverses rationalist philosophy, or science?

What we think of as religion today, was wholy rational to the peoples of thousands of years ago. What makes it seem logically irrational are those who cling to these views long after their logical assumptions have been proven false, but usually for quite rational reasons of tribal identity being more important than the particular details of their traditions. Now you of course, would never cling to any idea, whose logical underpinnings started to appear questionable, just because others in your community consider them necessary.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"all that is science, is rational."

There are other views.

"Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.[1]

The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies.[1] Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.[1] Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of "the worst enemy of science" from his detractors.[2]"

Regards,

John M

A 3-sphere is the analog of a 3 dimensional Euclidean sphere in four dimensions. Our usage was toward the 3-sphere manifold, or surface, where the Euclidean space R^3 is compactified by a point at infinity.

"Just co-incidentally, in my foraging I just came across an arXiv item that might fit in here; ariv:1202.1321v1 [quant-ph] 7 Feb 2012 -- "Modified Schrodinger equation, its analysis and experimental verification" by: Isaac Shnaid. What he has done is to substitute a local time variable for 't' in the classical Schrodinger equation and also the same modification to deBroglie. It results in wavefunction propagation globally at a single magnitude of light velocity from an origin of t=0 as a continuously expanding sphere, instead of the instantaneous global propagation of conventional wavefunction."

Pretty bold conjecture. Quick scan tells me that potential energy and time are identical at the initial condition, which implies equivalence of time dependent and time independent versions of the Schrodinger equation -- the novelty is in preserving time unitarity without quantum discontinuity. Thanks for the link; I want to give it a serious read. My gut feeling is that the treatment might have to discard advanced solutions to the Schrodinger equation, and thus give up global time symmetry, and I don't think I can live with that.

"I could follow the reasoning without actually doing calculus, which is rare for me and recommends the uncluttered presentation of the abstract."

Yes, I agree that even at a glance, it looks easy to read.

"Topologically it might be another argument for Joy's framework, I think it's probably as difficult for many as for me to conceive of 'a simple pole at infinity' resulting from infinite radii reaching a maximal and then collapsing back to a point outside the maximal sphere (Riemann), which essentially makes the surface of the sphere a new origin. Correct me where I'm astray, with a straight face :-| jrc"

Well, Joy's mathematical tools are entirely different -- using the algebra of geometry generalized as topology -- while Schnaid is addressing field theory in the classical wave equation. Joy's framework is specifically designed to measure quantum correlations in a continuous measurement function, while Schrodinger's framework is for the evolution of a non-quantized wave function. Where the ideas intersect, however, is in the determinism of the result -- a statistical correlation like Joy's doesn't invoke a time parameter for the initial and end state, yet it does predict continuous covariance; the Schrodinger equation is natively covariant, dependent on boundary conditions. Joy's framework is stronger, because it eliminates the need for boundary conditions as well as a privileged coordinate system, while retaining the continuous measurement function of an analytical model, as permitted by the simple connectedness of the spherical manifold.

You have a bit of a misconception of the point at infinity. It's an analytical point, a way of saying that a curve is closed (a line is the special case of a curve). You've heard that old magician's patter -- "You'll notice that at no time does my hand ever leave my arm" -- same idea. :-)

Maybe more, later.

You do know that Feyerabend was Popper's rebellious student?

The question on which anti-rationalist philosophy (I decline to call it science) rests, is that of whether philosophical problems exist. If philosophical problems don't exist, as is the attitude of Wittgenstein and Feyerabend, why should scientific problems exist?

So from that, one gets your brand of philosophy, which cannot include objective science.

"You, for instance, cannot distinguish between time and space, once they have been reduced to measures, yet the chasm between science and its social context is wide and deep. Lol."

What are time and space besides measures? I don't have mystical delusions of existence and non-existence. I spoke of a demarcation between science and philosophy -- a line, not a chasm.

I wrote "(evolution) selects for the fitness landscape, which is continually changing."

You responded, "Believe it, or not, but the needs of people, over time and varying situations, also changes and they can only select from the options nature provides."

Since over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct, nature would seem to provide very little in the way of options, wouldn't it?

I wrote, "Based on facts, however, not myth or personal experience."

You responded, "You are obviously the best judge of your own biases."

I am. And so would you be, if you subjected your bias to objective criteria.

I wrote, "Not all rationalist philosophy is science; however, all that is science, is rational."

You responded, "Are multiverses rationalist philosophy, or science?"

Philosophy, I'd say, with the potential for science.

Tom,

It's not that I fully agree with any particular position. Your view tends toward the dogmatic and so I offer up an academic anarchist as contrast.

Consider it as a sailing ship, in which the hard frames of dogmatism are like ballast down in the hold, while his more free ranging views are like top sails, gathering faint gusts of wind. I see the entire range as necessary and functional, much as liberalism and conservatism balance each other.

There could be no science without society and trying to understand science in isolation from what which it springs is its own version of naivete.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Thanks for the prompt reply, though I'm still muddy about the point at infinity. Analytically, at an infinite distance I suppose it wouldn't matter to the sphere where its at. Also, in my first post I got ahead of my typing and meant to say of Shnaid's modification that it results in wavefunction propagating at 'c' locally. He does address time dependent and independent forms, and what struck me was that it would challenge non-locality. I don't know why that would be a problem for global time symmetry anymore than SR. Thanks again, :-) jrc

Tom,

"What are time and space besides measures?'

The measures in question are of duration and distance, which are attributes of time and space, not even fully descriptive of them. With duration, it is the state of what is present, as action creates and dissolves particular events being used as references. As such, it doesn't extend outside the "point of the present" and so treating it as a line is only representative, not fundamental. So there isn't even a physical "south of the north pole." It is effect, like temperature, which is also a measure of action.

As for space, if you can first examine the concept of time independently, than the concept of space as simply the void raises another set of issues. As I've argued, this lack of physical structure also means it has no limiting properties, but you are free to consider it as you wish. Just so long as you don't try to say it can expand relativistically, yet not have the speed of light increase proportionally, in order to patch another theory, because that would be self contradictory.

"Since over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct, nature would seem to provide very little in the way of options, wouldn't it?"

Nature would seem to care very little for the immortality of form/information.

"if you subjected your bias to objective criteria."

In other words, yours?

"Philosophy, I'd say, with the potential for science."

Yet arguing for time as a measure and effect of action and not part of some foundational fabric is not philosophy with the potential for science, because I'm not properly accredited and it would conflict with the fabric of spacetime being physically real, which is beyond falsifiablity.

Regards,

John M

In my first FQXi essay..

I posited that there is a causal chain in Physics, where one can establish the existence of a hierarchy in the natural principles, by looking at the antecedents and prerequisite conditions for any process or object. This suggests that Matter is the last to emerge, and that its existence is dependent upon the presence of Energy, Space, and Time. One could say that matter is something comprised of energy, that occupies space, and has duration or persistence in time.

Similarly; I stated that energy is emergent from space, and that space is emergent from time - which I regarded as the most primal or essential. A space-like dimension that does not persist in time, is purely virtual or imaginary, as there is no consistent nature to it. Likewise; energy can take on its properties only when it has both time and space to propagate in. And once all these properties exist, only then can matter be what it is.

But of course; Physics describes relations in the physical world, which implies the presence of matter - as well as energy, space, and time. So it is arguable that some of the above is only philosophically relevant. However; I feel that there is a need to consider such things to answer the issue in this forum - because an ECO or Black Hole creates an environment that extends well into the matter-free regime of pure energy.

More sooner,

Jonathan

About the matter-free regime..

What happens when all of the matter in a region is converted to energy? One can cite the example of a quark gluon plasma, where the energy density is too high for matter to form - such that you need to allow the energy ball to occupy more space for particles to exist. But what happens if you squeeze things further still, or raise the energy to a higher level instead?

As it turns out; a collection of energy needs to occupy at least a minimum amount of space. But even pure energy also exhibits self-gravitation. This is what Abhas Mitra is talking about, when he describes the phenomenon of radiation trapping that causes collapsing objects to become ECOs. This way; there is a layer of pure energy trapped forever between the inner and outer ergosphere.

Enough for now,

Jonathan

On the 3-sphere..

What is conventionally assumed JRC, is that the space we inhabit is like a 3-dimensional sphere - only exceedingly large and expansive. But if the space we inhabit is better described by the 4-d 3-sphere, this creates a condition where the universe and its objects are simultaneously rightside and inside-out, such that there is a continuous mapping between the two aspects. One could say that a 3-sphere is like a Möbius strip or Klein bottle, because top and bottom or inside and outside surfaces are connected - and are a single surface.

If we are talking about the universe; this means local and global frames of reference are connected too. This is the 'point at infinity' comment's meaning, that global properties appear to be coming from everywhere. But it is hard to think of 'out there' and 'in here' as being continuously connected. I guess this is why most people have a hard time visualizing Joy Christian's model.

But the FQXi essay and writings of Michael Goodband describe a model that also posits the space we are living in is a 3-sphere. And as I recall; his model includes astronomical objects that are like a Black Hole, sort of, but more closely resemble the ECOs of Abhas Mitra, having an inner and outer ergosphere as a trapping region - but otherwise being a hollow shell with no interior whatsoever! So if you believe Goodband's version; there are no black holes (with a singularity at the center) in a 3-sphere universe.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Peter,

You commented above as follows. "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 organizes' (against the 2nd Law) to a helical 'winding' around the toroid body. Radiation is at the poles, which is allowable if not foreseen 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."

I agree whole-heartedly with most of this, but I think you are being misled if you feel that self-organization works against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Of course; that's how the editors of Scientific American described it on their cover, several years back, but the article inside by J. Miguel Rubi clearly informed the reader that the 2nd law is never broken, in non-linear entropic systems where order is emergent out of chaotic motion. Instead; this indicates the appearance of hidden degrees of freedom in certain energetic regimes.

Once you add in those extra degrees of freedom, and use Onsager's reciprocity rules properly, it is seen that order is emergent NOT because the 2nd law is broken, but because it is preserved! What is seen is a situation where some of the energy that would be seen as an increase in temperature or motion (for example) instead gets invested in an exchange of modes of action. So there are then regions where inward collecting and outward pressing forces balance to create stable order.

All the Best,

Jonathan