Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

All disturbances are energies and all energies are masses. Ergo, sound has mass.

"Sound and light are disturbances, they are not particles."

I understand what you mean when you say sound is not a particle, but sound is a disturbance or energy and therefore a mass. Although photon binding energies like the Rydberg are very small masses, the gluon exchange of nuclear force is most of the mass of a proton and neutron. So in a sense, particles like protons are mostly disturbance, i.e. bosons, binding the much less quark matter.

The equivalence of energy and mass is a fundamental truth of the universe and that equivalence principle is what leads to Lorentz invariance. If you disagree with these precepts, then really we do not have to go any further. That is simply how the universe works and discourse about how the universe works without these principles is not very productive.

"How on earth can the same photon mediate attraction between the electron and proton and repulsion between the electron/electron and proton/proton?"

Photon mediated force is a general principle of QED. The Rydberg is the binding energy of an electron and proton and results in mass loss or defect, not mass gain. Other photons mediate repulsion and it is the phase of the interaction that determines attraction or repulsion, mass loss or mass gain.

Just like the spin direction or spin phase between electron and proton determine hyperfine splittings, there is a corresponding concept of phase for charge called isospin that folds spin and charge together. With isospin, a particle has a charge spin and a magnetic spin, just not really in space.

Spin and charge are usually dealt with separately until the high energies of spin orbit coupling for heavy elements or neutron stars come into the picture.

Akinbo and Steve,

re: "All disturbances are energies and all energies are masses."

Mass is only a 'mass' (a quantity) of energy until a unit quantity of energy specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. :-| jrc

Characteristics of matter = mass, charge and angular momentum?

Tom,

Mass is measured in terms of inertia, but we only have an operational definition of inertia in terms of interaction of two 'masses'. The same can be said of charge. And as Pete keeps ignoring, to have angular momentum one first needs to designate a moment of inertia, I might easily do so by simply putting a paint mark on the rim of a flywheel.

What is it about inertia that is the same thing for any mass such that any two masses experience the same acceleration of gravity? Would it not be a density of the energy existing at a universal proportion to energy quantity? It would not require all the energy quantity to exist at that density, in fact the greater the whole quantity it could be argued that the resulting higher proportional density would require a smaller volume of lesser relative quantity. A unified field approach based on energy density distribution would then ascribe characteristics of matter to density parameters. Those being akin to: inelastic, elastic, fluid and aetherial; each a range across a 'c' magnitude of proportion. :-) jrc

"What is it about inertia that is the same thing for any mass such that any two masses experience the same acceleration of gravity?"

The equivalence principle. Inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.

"Would it not be a density of the energy existing at a universal proportion to energy quantity?"

It would not. Global energy is zero, while energy/mass density fluctuates locally.

"It would not require all the energy quantity to exist at that density, in fact the greater the whole quantity it could be argued that the resulting higher proportional density would require a smaller volume of lesser relative quantity."

No, if the sum of all energy were not zero, neither energy nor time would be conserved quantities -- and because time is not independent of spacetime, all the conservation laws would be violated.

"A unified field approach based on energy density distribution would then ascribe characteristics of matter to density parameters."

You're in good company, because Einstein almost made the same mistake. It seems reasonable that because both electromagnetic and gravitational field influences are infinite, that entangled field influences would be unitary. However, electromagnetic energy is symmetric and gravity is not. So it was that Einstein titled his paper that most called "the unified field theory," The relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field. Field symmetries -- as Einstein's failed attempt shows -- have to be fundamental; they do not emerge from non-symmetric relations. (Peter should take a lesson from this.) As a personal side, I am confident that Einstein would approve of the topological symmetries in modern quantum field theory (Witten, et al).

"Those being akin to: inelastic, elastic, fluid and aetherial; each a range across a 'c' magnitude of proportion."

The speed of light is the constant of proportionality over the entire cosmos.

Tom,

Does all that mean that an electron can't be a finite volume of energy with a zero boundary radius of lower density bound at (let's see, I dug that out from 1987, Canadian copyright does not require a deposition of text) 'oh yes! here it is!... gravitational limit of a free rest electron would be; 2.5178^1 cm. in a regime of background independent measure. Magnetic influence would extend to a radius of 4.2074^-4 cm. // electrostatic influence extent at radius 7.0309^-9 cm. // the kinetic or inelastic sphere would exist at 1.1749^-13 cm. radius //and the core volume of a constant density of 7.3584^14 erg/cm^3 would have a radius of 6.4724^-18 cm.

(Happy now, Fort Mead?) jrc

Sorry, John R, I don't know what your first post has to do with the second. Are we talking about gravitation, or rest energy? Two different things:

The rest energy of a free electron is way too small to have a measurable gravitational effect. The numbers you cite are explaining why electromagnetic effects overwhelm gravitation, at a very tiny limit.

Fort Meade? Never worked there, though I have participated in test events at Aberdeen Proving Ground many times. :-)

Tom,

My point is that inertia is inherent to any singular mass, ie: self-gravitation which translates across a range of continuous density change. The apparent asymmetry of gravitation is explainable simply as a greater density having the characteristic of translating the response of a lesser density but not the other way around. Matter conserving space in an energy super-saturate universe. Matter has an equal tendency to accelerate into a pure energy state at 'c'.

This is perhaps more along the lines of MOND, but still relativistic. Density in a free rest mass relates to velocity and if the spatial volume is taken as constant it is the temporal term that exists as a continuous rate of change from nil to 'c'.

And, 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. Those fields in a realistic model would be in a background of fields in proximity being subsumed in the larger volume of combined field volumes. Even an elastic density could intertwine with another discrete field at the elastic density and in a fluidic state density at equal viscosity an actualized mixing could occur. I'm not saying that such a model is simple, but in clinical psychological terms we do instinctively seek to distinguish reality as discrete 'pieces' and that makes QM simply easier to compute.

Oh, yeah, George did spell his name with an 'e'. Kind of ironic given the politics of his historical diminution that Fort Meade now hosts NSA. Uncle Sam is a jealous prince (eh?) and I'm still P-O'd at being harassed in my legitimate intent to immigrate to Canada, finally losing Grampa's cabin does NOT make me want to be so stupid as to give back shit I never stole. Maybe I should just do 'modern art' if I don't get remediation. :-/ jrc