Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

John Merryman

John C,

A lot of explicit physics and implicit politics in that post. What if you were to graph out the dynamics of both and overlay them? Say as the conservative tendency to gravitate inward and the liberal tendency to radiate outward?

I originally came to physics discussions out of the insight that social dynamics have a veneer of idealism over inherently physical processes. Then I get into physics and find the physical processes idealized as well, such as gravity being projected from a singularity to infinity, rather than as one side of a larger cycle.

So now to use Tom as an object lesson, he would seem to be a very gravitationally dense individual, with minimal gaseous atmosphere and energy being radiated out in very set patterns. Meanwhile you and I are probably more toward the other side of the spectrum, in some respects, though with fairly solid cores, given our interest in this topic.

Now project this on a galactic scale, in which Tom is quite evidently somewhere down near Sagittarius A, while you and I are out in various solar systems. Mine probably fairly close in, but with me as a small object on its perimeter.

My larger interest here is that eventually humanity will get over its current top down myopia, from monotheism as spiritual idealization rather than conscious essence, to secularism as social and professional atomization, in order to being able to look outside our own individual bubbles of awareness and see that larger cyclical dynamic at work. Then maybe we will become more one with our reality.

Sorry if this seems atopical and I realize society has a long way to go before being able to contextualize itself objectively, but I push in that direction whenever possible.

Regards,

John M

Akinbo Ojo

Well, Steve you did not address many of the questions I raised. Perhaps, you are still working things out. 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.

But from the bit you answered...

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

These answers will introduce wave-particle duality which merely reflects a deficiency in our current knowledge. Were it not so, we cannot be making statements like all "energies are masses". But since I don't claim to have in my custody what will make up the deficiency I can only point out the absurdities in the current approach. You are free however to pursue your line of thinking.

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. Equivalence of energy and mass was one of the rabbits (a good one) that subsequently came out from Lorentz invariance. It is a matter of speculation whether that rabbit could have subsequently hopped out from any other physics theory. Please note that 'Equivalence' does not mean they are to be taken as the same thing but that one can be converted to the other. Dollar is not Pounds. You cant spend Pounds in the US, neither can you spend Dollars in UK. An agent may however come to your aid in doing the conversion. That Agent is not yet fully understood in the mass-energy equivalence story. I will stop here since I want to take you up on your post on the Quantum Pet Store blog.

JRC,

I didn't quite get what you meant. But I am following your exchanges with Tom, whose responses this time are less mathematically coded and more with a natural philosophy taste. Maybe he too wants to go back to the old Newtonian way of doing science. In one of your posts you mentioned a taboo to Newtonian physics, i.e. "self-gravitation". What does that mean? Can a body react with itself? Or is it not parts of a body that react with each other to keep all the parts as one bigger body? According to Newton's laws you can't experience force unless you are acted on by another body. You remain at rest otherwise. In the circumstance that you are acted on by another body's gravity, such other body's gravity will be ineffective unless it can likewise be simultaneously affected by your own gravity. Now, you can see my problem with "self-gravitation", if it means a body exerting gravitational attraction force on itself, being both the recipient and the giver of gravity.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

" ... 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.

Thomas Ray

" ... contextualize itself objectively ..."

Only in a world where oxymorons are the rule.

John Merryman

Tom,

Very true. Yet in this world, dichotomies rule.

Regards,

John M

John Cox

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

Thomas Ray

" ... 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.

Thomas Ray

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

Thomas Ray

" ... 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.

Steve Agnew

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.

Thomas Ray

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

John Merryman

Steve,

"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."

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. and any effects of contraction or expansion would be measurements of these dynamics, not of some underlaying warping of space and or time?

Regards,

John M

Akinbo Ojo

"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.

Steve Agnew

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.

Steve Agnew

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.

Thomas Ray

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?

Steve Agnew

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

John Merryman

Steve,

The original relation was between energy and mass. So assuming mass and matter are the same, what is the relation between time and energy?

Is energy a component of time, or vice versa?

I would argue time is a component of energy. Let us assume the most basic example of pure energy is the wave. Now a wave has two primary features; amplitude and frequency.

I would argue that when we are measuring the amplitudes of lots of waves, the result is what we call temperature, because that is how energy amplitude expresses in our experience.

Now when we measure frequency, we don't do it en mass, because that is called "noise." So we tend to measure particular frequencies in isolation, because that is "signal."

When we measure time, we are measuring frequency. As in the rate of oscillation of a particular wave/cycling action.

Now consider the problems science has had with assuming and trying to figure out the universal rate of change, based on the assumption the point of the present travels that vector from past to future. What we have now, General Relativity, the speed of light is used as a base line, but of zero time, ie. no change. So the more we slow down from that parameter, the more change is possible and so the faster time can progress, but there is still that assumption of it as a vector from past to future and so the notion of a simultaneous present had to be discarded, in favor of blocktime, where time is treated like space.

This is why I keep arguing we need to consider it, not as a progression from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past. Then it doesn't matter that all these clocks move at different rates, because the only consequence is the particular signal is lost in the noise of all the change that is simultaneously occurring, because only what is present is physically real.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Matter time is a discrete continuum,"

So is the 'DFM.' I don't know what 'discrete continuum' or 'discrete field' can mean.

"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."

Steve, where is the physics? I mean, one can show by correspondence of theory to result, a spacetime continuum with measurable curvature, meaning that particle motion is changing in time at the rate of curvature measured proportionate to the gravity influence with which the particle is exchanging energy.

I see no such measurement parameters in your framework description. Action time obeys what limit? Varies relative to what? -- relative to proper time which is global and assumed to be length 1? -- then under what physical influence is the value of action time changing instantaneously as a local portion of length 1 and how is the value calculated?

Steve Agnew

You use a lot of words with slightly different meanings from me, but what you say has a grain of truth.

"Is energy a component of time, or vice versa? I would argue time is a component of energy. Let us assume the most basic example of pure energy is the wave. Now a wave has two primary features; amplitude and frequency."

The reason to stick with matter and objects is that energy takes on some many different forms and those different forms can confuse the discourse. Is a disturbance energy? And is that energy equivalent to mass?

So rephrase what you said to:

"Is matter a comonent of time, or vice versa? I would argue time is a component of matter. Let us assume the most basic example of pure matter is the matter wave. Now a matter wave has two primary features; amplitude and frequency."

Time is a component of matter, but time is also an object that results from action. Time therefore has two components; a matter moment, like the ticks of clock, and the action that is the accumulation of those moments, i.e. the hands of a clock. So time is indeed a part matter (or energy) but time is also part action (as the accumulation of moments to make an object of the past.)

Matter waves do have two dimensions or features, but amplitude is related to sqrt of frequency through the Planck constant. It is the phase and amplitude of the matter wave that determine its destiny, not the amplitude and frequency.

Okay, next you want to measure temperature.

Steve Agnew

Now the problem with the equivalence of matter and energy is that it definitely means that moving clocks are different from stationary clocks.

"Now consider the problems science has had with assuming and trying to figure out the universal rate of change, based on the assumption the point of the present travels that vector from past to future. What we have now, General Relativity, the speed of light is used as a base line, but of zero time, ie. no change."

The speed of light is a constant in space time, but the speed of light does vary according to refractive index and so on. The central issue of Lorentz invariance is time and not really the speed of light per se. Notice I am avoiding spatial metaphors. You mentioned a point that represents the present, but before you agreed time was made of moments of matter, i.e., a component of matter.

Now you see the basic problem. You are using spatial metaphors to describe time, but time is matter and action, not space. The base case in GR is the rest frame and the time in the rest frame is the best thing that we have along with rest mass and inaction. Our rest frame has no action.

Of course, the universe is always in action and that motion we ascribe to a proper time. While we use the rest frame as our baseline, that is not really true. We are in motion and it is our motion against the proper time of the universe background CMB that defines our speed of light in this epoch.

Each moment of time contributes to an object that we call the past. We imagine that there will be another moment added to the object in the future, but that is just one of many possible futures. So the past is a superposition of moments, but the future is a superposition of possibilities, not moments.

Steve Agnew

Now this is really the other part of time...

"This is why I keep arguing we need to consider it [time], not as a progression from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past."

The process by which the future becomes the past is action. So what you have said is that time is composed of moments of matter that accumulate into the actions of the past. That is the process by which future becomes past.

So as long as I can make matter equivalent to energy, we end up with different clocks for moving objects. Does this matter? If we want to predict action in the moving frames, it is important to know their clocks are all running slow. And that they will all think that our clock is also running slow. We can all agree on this proper time and so can predict each other's actions better than we could otherwise.

John Merryman

Steve,

"So what you have said is that time is composed of moments of matter that accumulate into the actions of the past."

What I'm saying is that energy is conserved. Remember that for light there is no time, no change, because it is pure energy, so it is always present, always conserved. So the past doesn't accumulate, it only affects the shape of the current forms of the energy that is present. It is residual. The energy that was yesterday has been reconfigured to be today. Duration doesn't exist as some dimension outside of what is present, but is what is present, as it forms and dissolves the events being used as markers. This makes time an effect of these forms changing.

Matter is energy as a stable form, so it does sustain its shape, or at least slow down the rate of perceived change, though all its atomic internal activities are still vibrating at high rates and we perceive it as a function of the light bouncing off of it, but all of these are effects of the light and how it acts. So while the light is the present, change, time and matter are effects of what it is doing.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, I am taking my response to the Ripping Einstein Apart section as it may be inappropriate and a distraction here.

Akinbo

John Merryman

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

Thomas Ray

"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.

Thomas Ray

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.

Steve Agnew

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »