Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

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

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

J.B. Merryman,

When I try to visualize your description of Time, I get an image of a universe-sized film screen made out of stationary and minute "pixels" that "light up" or become "real" in a simultaneous NOW, like a series of light-second fast snapshots that give the illusion of movement. Except that instead of a 2-dimensional screen it is 3 dimensional.

Is that anywhere close to what you're describing, or has my question just lowered the IQ level of this entire forum?

Lyle,

I'm more of an analog person, but we are our brains and we see things in the forms we have educated them in. Never dismiss your own perspective.

Yes, it is a good way to think about it, as there are no past and future images off to the sides, waiting their turn to flash in the present.

It is not that the movement is illusion, as the energy is inherently dynamic. The problem is that our brains function as a sequence of perceptions and so it is foundational to our thought process to progress from one thought to the next, rather than be able to get outside our own minds and watch these impressions form and hatch the next thought, while dissolving.

A possible model of our thought process to consider is not a sequence of thoughts, but more of a constantly peeling onion, in which the thought is like a skin, expanding and shredding, to reveal the next.

One point I keep making is that time and temperature are two aspects of the same process and we have a brain with two hemispheres. The left is considered the serial processor and it is the logical, sequential side. While the right is considered the emotional, intuitive side. Basically it is a scalar process, like a pot of water, in which all sorts of connections are being made, waves are passing through and pressures and temperatures are building and receding. So plug that concept into your impression of a pixelated picture.

Then consider that the sequential side is a narrative effect of our individual movement. As such a navigational tool. Which would explain why plants don't need one. They simply absorb energy to expand and shed material.

So we exist as one of those dots, as it is constantly moving about and bouncing into other such digits. Remember that in a thermal medium, the motion of one molecule is being canceled by the cumulative motions of the rest. So as Newton said, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In a sense then, the past is being canceled, while the future doesn't exist. Think of the process as cyclical, in that it's like a three dimensional tapestry being woven from threads being pulled out of what had already been woven.

Hope this isn't more confusing.

Regards,

John M

John, Lyle

Our universe may indeed be analog, but suppose it is digital? Lyle, your question may not belong to this thread but the IQ content is high.

Imagine yourself as omnipotent and omniscient, how will you create the illusion of movement such that man thinks he moves whereas he remains in his place? It will take time to complete the design but this link out of the digitalphilosophy site will be useful. Click on RUN/STOP. I think you can also make it 3-dimensional but can't locate the command. You can also reduce the number of moving objects for easier design. I think you should take your 'pixel' as the Euclidean point of non-zero dimension.

Regards,

Akinbo

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

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I think of analog and digital as a dichotomy. There is quantization and distinction inherent in everything and when your paradigm is measurement, it is these characteristics which provide the points of focus. Then there is the fact that all these parts fit and flow together. Consider the uncertainty principle, where one set of measurements necessarily obscures others, is it causes change, ie. flow.

In fact I suspect a lot of what we think of as digital are more like phase transitions, spectrum changes, flow quantifications, such as the loading theory of light etc, where it is analog, but interactions create distinctions.

As such, I only prefer analog because digital has become such a public mind set, so I take the other direction. As it is, I like trying to make conceptual connections where others might have missed them.

As for movement, what I'm trying to do is to distinguish between time and space, because it has become so politically correct to mash them together. We do move in space, which creates change and time is an effect and measure of that change. The problem is that what we measure is only the most discrete changes, because anything above that becomes chaotic, noisy and fuzzy. Which goes to another aspect of these discussions, about how there is no preferred frame and information is a function of distilling a particular action/signal from all the others. In a sense then, omniscience is an oxymoron. The more information you have, the more noise and "uncertainty" you have. The way of comprehending masses of information is to consider ever broader implications, ie. to generalize. The ultimate state of the absolute, is where everything fully cancels out to complete neutrality. The absolute is basis, not apex.

Regards,

John M

J. B. Merryman said:

"In a sense then, the past is being canceled, while the future doesn't exist. Think of the process as cyclical, in that it's like a three dimensional tapestry being woven from threads being pulled out of what had already been woven.

Hope this isn't more confusing."

I don't think we need have any doubt that, regardless of 'dilation' or velocity or voyeuristic twins....that every instant of the universe is a brand new and unique creation event for you and for me, and that the past exists only in the memory of we conscious participants. Not to imply that the world was made for US - just the opposite -- that our mental faculties are modeled on, and a subset of, that woven tapestry.

"Then consider that the sequential side is a narrative effect of our individual movement. As such a navigational tool. Which would explain why plants don't need one. They simply absorb energy to expand and shed material."

From the moment I discovered that SPONGES, one of the earliest and simplest animal ancestors of all earth-life, contained the genetic scaffolding necessary to build a neural network, I've been convinced that consciousness and physics could never be explained separately. Life exploits every facet of physics: the camera eye can detect a single photon at a hundred yards; bio-luminescence, photosynthesis, sonar...every physical advantage is explored..... but the hardware necessary to store past information (memory)and then to imagine a future that has not arrived, though a distinctly human advantage, are the very same tools that were there at the very beginning - before sight, before smell, before even a central nervous system that could employ them. To consider this pre-adaptive teleology a fortuitous accident - is modern politically-correct blindness.

"...but we are our brains and we see things in the forms we have educated them in. Never dismiss your own perspective."

'Course not. Nor should I dismiss the topic: I heard a recent story describing the 2-D surface area of a black hole as if it could display all of the information contained within....sort of like a hologram. Then my uneducated imagination transformed the old luminiferous aether into virtual pixels. And matter in constant motion (energy) is complex information transferred pixel to pixel. And so every time I hear you describe Time...I see snapshots moving.

Again, I pray that I'm not wasting anyone's patience.

here is the link, if the text box fails... http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000506

Lyle,

"that every instant of the universe is a brand new and unique creation event for you and for me, and that the past exists only in the memory of we conscious participants."

Yet it emerges from the shell of the previous moment. It has physical memory, as structure is sustained. What I see is that energy and information are a dichotomy and so as long as the energy maintains form, it exists and as we know from Moore's Law, that lots of information is contained in minute quantities of energy. Whether it is in our minds, star light that has traveled for billions of years, or everything from rocks to cultures on this planet, the energy has some form and is constantly rearranging it. So there is a relationship of energy constantly pressing outward, as form draws inward. Like radiation expanding and mass contracting, or youth pushing out, as age presses in. So energy moves toward the future, as form moves toward the past. The most generalized expression of this being where it becomes most evident, that of galaxies, as mass falls inward, while energy radiates outward.

The question then becomes how does this manifest and define biology and consciousness?

Essentially consciousness relates to how the energy functions, in that it is what is present and always pushing forward. Meanwhile thoughts are the forms it takes and either we are constantly generating new thoughts and shedding the old like breaths of air being expelled, or we are obsessing over particular ideas and constantly pushing them onward, like fuel pushing a rocket. Or, for most of us, somewhere in between.

Biology expresses itself by constantly moving onto new generations and shedding the old, as these forms are born, expand, stabilize and are propelled onward, until they too wear out and fade into the past.

Now it is assumed in scientific circles that consciousness must have arisen from material processes, yet does that reductionism apply, or is it the other way around? Does it make more sense to think of the basic element of consciousness as the seed of life and we are simply a concentrated, distilled and complex form of it? Not like we fully understand matter either.

It's not simply that the basis of neurological systems can be found in the most elemental organisms, as that is a top down view, but that our form of awareness is a complex expression of basic principles. Consider that we have a central nervous system to process form/information and digestive, respiratory of circulatory systems to process energy, so that dichotomy is elemental and a sponge would have some inherent need to relate on an informational level with its surroundings. Meanwhile our brain is divided into two hemispheres and I would argue the left, rational, linear side equates to a clock, while the right, emotional, intuitional, parallel processor is a scalar function, like a thermostat or pressure gauge. Thus we can both coordinate our internal environment with the external one and navigate an individual, linear path through it. Obviously non-mobile organisms have much less need for the linear function, but are very developed in the thermodynamic functions and are constantly probing their environments and processing the feedback, much as we do intellectually. Looking at everything from current cosmology to current economics and how we treat the environment, overall intelligence is not necessarily a given, from mere complexity.

As it is our concentration of attention creates these conceptual entities, but quickly overlooks any issues with their foundations and builds cultures around them, much as gravity concentrates to the most central point. Thus cultural belief systems from monotheistic religions to Big Bang Theory quickly gain adherents and resist questioning.

To paraphrase DesCartes, I am, therefore I think.

Regards,

John M

This thread wanes, but still there is one more note. The Schrödinger metric mentioned prior provides not only spiral a real decay solution outside of the event horizon, but also a periodic solution inside of the event horizon.

The matter-time boson star-eternally collapsing object, BSeco, yields periodic solutions that have very interesting consequences. First of all, the fundamental energy is mp/alpha, which is 128.5 GeV/c2, very close to the Higg's boson energy, 125 GeV/c2. That's cool.

This means that the Higg's energy could actually be a BSeco mode since He-4 is 3.7 GeV, the Higg's mode would be mp / alpha minus He-4. So that would mean that the Higg's energy should show up in the black hole gamma ray spectrum.

Sure enough, the measured Milky Way gamma spectrum cuts off in the range 100-130 GeV, which is same resonance observed in the Hadron collider for proton-proton collisions at 7 GeV total energy.

This suggests that the Hadron collider has indeed found evidence for a terrestrial "black hole". Moreover, gamma ray spectra from galaxy AGN's show evidence of the hydrogen they consume. Way cool...

May I add this recent science news on ECO in Daily Galaxy:

November 02, 2014

Black Holes are Actually "Eternally Collapsing Objects" --Indian Physicist Refutes Hawking

Regards

Abhas

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/11/black-holes-are-actually-eternally-collapsing-objects-indian-physicist-refutes-hawking.html

Thank you!

Regards,

JJD

Abhas,

Very interesting. Unfortunately there is the politics of physics, but there is also the physics of politics. Given the field seems to be circling around a particular model, which is seeming to be inexorably collapsing in on itself and only those already at the center of attention are going to attract attention, those further away from the center need to function accordingly and take the broader view of what truly is valid observational phenomena and what are the increasingly baroque theories drawn from it and the various subconscious assumptions long buried in the conceptual tools and framework.

One would think that in the not too distant future, there will be sufficient dissident voices in cosmology, physics and the related fields, to start a blank slate symposium, in which literally every idea, from spacetime to multiverses can be objectively held up and examined, no matter how much credibility they hold and not have participants reputation and credibility be threatened for skeptically examining the canon.

As someone with both the knowledge and history to sense what a circus it has become, it might be one of those back of the mind ideas to test among colleagues and see if there might not be some as yet unspoken agreement on such a move.

Regards,

John M

Perhaps John,

It is time for the Alternative Cosmology Group to convene another Crisis in Cosmology Conference. CCC-2 was very much like what you describe.

All the Best,

Jonathan