Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

I meant to say..

Higher order geometries come into effect because of dimensional compression, in the direction toward the object, or where the event horizon would form, and this creates a condition where non-commutative and non-associative geometries come into play. But reading what I said above I seem to have stopped making complete sense so I need to get some sleep.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Steve,

Wouldn't overall recycling necessarily be occurring on the galactic level, with these stellar mass objects gradually falling inward. How much literature is out there in fitting observations onto an infinite time frame, rather than all trying to squeeze everything into 13.8 billion years?

It would seem that unless there are those additional dimensions at both ends, of mass/energy falling into blackholes and originating in some cosmic singularity, then there has to be some overall recycling going on within the whole system.

So it would seem we might try modeling the whole system on a much longer time frame and it might provide the ways to tie up many of these loose ends.

Regards,

John M

Jonathan, Steve,

I think that in discussions of cosmology, there has to be some reconsideration of steady state models, if only as an issue of pure objectivity. They were initially rejected at a time when physics knew far less than it does now and much of the more extreme patches and projections are efforts to explain observations within the expanding universe model; Inflation, Dark matter, Dark energy, multiverses, etc. and as I keep pointing out, using the principle of relativistic spacetime to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion, while entirely overlooking the fact that the clockrate/speed of light would have to increase to remain constant to this expanded space, for it to even be relativistic! Meanwhile it would be entirely normal for us to appear at the center, if redshift is an optical/lensing effect and there are quite a few possibilities for explaining how this could be.

I think that once this particular door is opened up again, it will give cosmology a lot of tools currently disallowed, such as an infinite time frame to explain many of the processes that don't exactly fit in the current limits.

Is cosmology a science, or politics?

Regards,

John M

"Frequency is how many such periods in a particular timespan."

Good. So the meaning of 1 1 = 2 is therefore independent of the meaning of frequency, isn't it? Point is, John, a mathematical operation -- such as addition -- is always independent of its function. In this case, we say frequency is a function of the sum of oscillations in the unit time interval. Were it not true that the meaning in the result (frequency) is independent of the operation -- the process, as you say -- of the sum of oscillations, we could not define a function called frequency that guarantees a unique output on a variety of inputs.

Now you might say that this is "just mathematics" and you have no need of it, in fact you do need this independence of language and meaning to make any kind of consistent coherent statement. Natural language can be abused just as easily as mathematical language; the principles of logical coherence do not differ from one language to another.

Steve, all I am saying is that classical gravity is well understood up to diffeomorphism, without ad hoc assumptions.

I don't know what a quantomologist is, though it is quite evident that your ad hoc assumption of quantum gravity brings with it a number of other ad hoc assumptions that do not correspond to what we know about the large scale structure of spacetime:

Any experts on CMBR in the house to clear things up?

Peter, I too now better understand the reason for your inventing several bizarre sounding mechanisms. If the CMBR is as I describe then you will have to apply Occam's razor to DFM making it more economical to manage.

"Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation DOES include the energy from emissions billions of years ago"

No, I don't agree. The CMBR is the afterglow of the hot ambient environment in which the universe started (assuming there was a beginning since you don't believe there was a big bang). CMBR is NOT from any emissions billions of years ago, say from any quasar recycling activities, collapsing stars, evaporating black holes, etc. Of course, radiation from these CAN pollute the CMBR and is to be regarded more as noise to the background music played by CMBR. Also structure formation can result in unevenness (also noise), technically called anisotropy. Even though the screeching of a bad musical recording is part of the sound in the room, it is not to be regarded as part of the music but as artifact.

"and is 'RADIATION'. That means the emissions found at ALL frequencies (including light) and certainly not just 'microwaves'!"

Again, NO. At the current epoch, all CMBR is now watered down and is now mostly in the microwave frequency.

Even, in John's room and on his farm, CMBR is there but the noise from the Earth's radiation, Solar radiation, tractors and even from John's body heat cannot make this detectable. Remember the temperature of the radiation is only about 2.7K, easily masked by all that goes on around. You can use E = kT = hf to calculate the frequency.

"The radiation propagates at c "

This can be misleading. It can be regarded as radiation but NO, it does not really propagate in the sense of travelling from one place to another. If you say propagate, where is it coming from and where is it going to? CMBR has no discernible source hence its being regarded as strong evidence that there was a hot thermal origin for the universe. It is better to regard it as ambient thermal energy rather than light travelling from a source to a destination. That may reduce the confusion. It is referred to as "fog" HERE, which is another good way to visualize it. Fog DOES NOT propagate, it is just everywhere. However, by means of Doppler effect, you can discern your motion through the fog, blue in the direction you are moving and red in the opposite direction. NOTE AGAIN that this Doppler effect is by THERMAL measurements not by direct measurement of frequency. Then because this fog is not associated with any particular direction, it can be used as a marker for Absolute motion.

See also this NASA description

and there was probably no 'big bang' anyway!

What if there was? Bye bye to DFM?

But I understand the confusion. See here for some Can the CMB be used as an absolute reference frame?

Doesn't cosmic microwave background radiation provide an absolute reference point for motion?

You can google "Absolute motion cosmic microwave background". Read between the lines because Absolute motion is understandably a taboo in Einsteiniana hence you will see a reluctance to clearly state what the rest frame of the CMBR represents. But Newton had formulated various arguments from causes, effects and properties and I am sure he will not be surprised that we now haver a marker for Absolute Space against which all measurement can be measured.

Interesting to discuss. Is this thread most appropriate?

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

I agree most 'fit' findings to theory. Call me contrary but I do the opposite. Data identifies a 2nd quasar and galaxy formation peak at z~5-6, but at that range it's weaker than at z~2 and it's inconsistent with theory so isn't yet rationalised or assimilated. Even SDSS-DR9 (88,000 QSO's) only looks back to z~4.5 as higher fidelity is needed.

All I do is identify a coherent ontology for a set of 'highly anomalous' data. I agree it's not much like 'mainstream theory', but the main difference is that it seems to be free of paradox and anomalies. Rees discussed the earlier peak in his 1995 book, and a 2010 Nature paper is here; Dust-free quasars in the early Universe.

You suggest the luminosity function (LF) depends on time, which is a horrible misunderstanding! Sure time is one factor, but other factors mean the LF CAN'T be used as a measure of age and it's only a distraction in this case which needs filtering out. I also didn't properly explain the problem with using time for 'countback'. The estimate 14Bn yrs is based on estimated expansion rate. Many say they don't agree expansion but then rely on the 14Bn yrs, which is nonsense! The only DATA we have is redshift 'z'. All else relies on assumptions so easily deceives because people always forget that!

Helium can only have been re-ionized in the later era and Hydrogen re-ionization (higher energies) co-incides with the earlier epoch model. On BH Radiation I'd add that while the Eddington formula gave ~4 x 10^8yrs (Salpeter) the common actual quasar re-ionization process lifetime is quoted by Rees as ~50 million yrs. However collimation can't explains the jets up to 10x that length as while pulse speed in the jet is c+flow the jet 'head' b must propagate at ~up to c.

Gaia will study 5000,000 QSO's, but only again to z~3. Fan et al (2006) showed the hint of reversal of the drop off, and this interesting recent presentation on Gaia even identifies the implication of QSO's as a 'link' between red (old) and blue galaxies! Gaia/QSO's. There were also a wealth of links in the references confirming the data I used. The common trumping of data with prior beliefs is NOT a method I follow. I suggest we must ALL be sure were not just dismissing all that doesn't fit our own pet model.

Best wishes.

Peter

Akinbo,

If radiation from opposite directions does c when approaching an Earth like planet in Andromeda moving at significant speed v wrt Earth, how fast are those signals moving;

a) wrt Earth?

b) wrt each other?

c) wrt light approaching Earth?

All simplistic models and assumptions have always broken down completely under logical analysis. There is only ONE possible solution which does not. It may not sound familiar' initially, but as philosophers and Sherlock Holmes said, when all other possibilities have been eliminated the one remaining is the truth.

We can't reduce nature with Occam's razor without reducing it to nonsense.

And I agree, if there really was absolutely nothing 'forever' before a zero dimensional Big Bang, then the recycling dynamic implied by the same model will be proved false. But I haven't found that a useful falsification.

I think all models are worth postulating and falsifying, perhaps even those apparently failing logic. I'm personally more with Spock, I prefer the ones that don't.

Best wishes,

Peter

PS. It may count for nought or less but according to the letters after my name I'm an accredited astronomer, perhaps the only one blogging here, so may be the nearest think to the "expert on CMBR" you ask for! However I point out that the long standing 'mainstream' model has also proved wanting, including logically.

Tom,

I'm very much aware that abstraction is foundational to thought. My point is that then arguing it is foundational to the reality being abstracted in the first place is not logical. There is no platonic realm of ideal form guiding the actions.

The abstractions are how our minds conceive the actions. We extract, distill, categorize, differentiate, judge, etc. Then we act on the bottom line conclusions, if our various subconscious impulses haven't already acted on their own.

That those who spend their lives immersed in the collective knowledge of humanity might feel this formalization represents some foundational essence of reality can certainly be excused that thought, but the evidence does clearly suggest that it is only a vast file and nothing more. If the library catches fire, reality doesn't go up in flames.

Regards,

John M

Akinbo,

From wikipedia;

" According to the Big Bang model, the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface called the surface of last scattering. This represents the set of locations in space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have occurred[25] and at a point in time such that the photons from that distance have just reached observers. Most of the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic microwave background,[26] making up a fraction of roughly 6Г--10в€'5 of the total density of the universe.[27]"

REgards,

John M

And nature also constantly creates forms, often repetitively, and math largely involves clarifying those most stable and or most constant forms, in an effort to try to understand nature. What is overlooked though, is one of the most constant and reliable patterns and that is that nature also likes to destroy and dissolve form. Information is constantly lost. This is the basis of our concept of time; Prior forms evolving and dissolving into subsequent forms. The concept of blocktime and the idea that information is never lost, except possibly by falling into black holes, overlooks one of nature's most overwhelming features.

John M,

Noted. In one form or another, be it as protons, electrons or neutral atoms, we both and even including Peter were part and parcel of that "surface of last scattering". It is not as if that surface were some distant place sending thermal radiation to us. Although I largely agree with the Big bang model, there are areas I believe it needs some tweaking and clarification. CMBR is not coming from the edge of the universe, it is the ambient energy that has always been there but previously very much hotter. That explains why it has no identifiable source or direction. It is like a dense fog that is clearing gradually.

For instance, was there no radiation before the last scattering? There was. This however is one area where Peter's beloved absorption and re-absorption process comes useful. Such process goes on till the ambient energy has cooled enough to leave behind 'relic radiation', the leftover of the meal eaten and vomited by primordial matter.

We still continue eating this meal till today but in less abundance, i.e. some of this radiation still gets absorbed and it is all around us.

As to "This represents the set of locations in space at which the decoupling event is estimated to have occurred". We are IN and ARE PART OF one of those locations in space.

Also that explains why one cannot be said to move nearer the 'surface of last scattering' and measure a temperature higher than the 2.7K at this epoch. With slight differences only, the temperature is almost uniform at 2.7K. You can however measure a difference in temperature by moving rapidly in some direction, as the fog gets thicker in that direction and lighter in the opposite, similar to but not same as the Unruh effect ascribed to ambient vacuum energy.

Peter,

Regarding your questions (a), (b), (c), I think we have discussed these before. We are in agreement with the only difference being that you propose absorption and re-emission mechanism, while I suggest the changes are due to the presence of matter, and how light propagates at different speeds in different types of matter.

Since you agree that the recycling dynamic model will be proved false if there was "absolutely nothing" at a beginning. That's fine. My model proposes there was absolutely nothing at a beginning which of course implies absolute zero temperature, at onset of the cosmogenic event in which the ambient temperature in the initial space appearing becomes 1032K. I have tried working out the thermal history of such a model and it correspond with the Big bang model without the latter introduction of 'inflation'. Certainly, all models are worth postulating and falsifying. Can you falsify a beginning from nothing? What was the ambient temperature at the beginning of your recycling model before cooling?

Regards,

Akinbo

PS. I am not expert so I am just discussing and accepting what seems to make more sense and falsifying those that don't, so expert astronomers welcome.

What happens mathematically if we presume the existence of a second Higgs field, a different Higgs field. Can we get subtle interactions? Can we get wave-function to wave-function interactions? While particles might not interact, maybe the wave-functions of quantum systems, one from each Higgs field, can interact? A typical wave-function can hold a set of eigenstates, but what if those eigenstates are affected by another wave-function, from an unknown Higgs field, that can impose a particular kind of behavior? Is this possible? If you don't think it's possible, can you explain why not without a trivial explanation of saying, "it's unlikely"?

Thanks,

Jason Wolfe

Higher order geometries are something that math instructors write down on whiteboards. I think in nature, a Higgs field is something that exists that has a set of standard model particles associated with it. If a second Higgs field exists in the same space as our detected field, particles and energy might not interact between them, but what about the wave-functions? Could the wave-functions between them interact?

To take things a step further..

Eddington's "Space, Time, and Gravitation" is a book I read repeatedly, as a young man, and one thing that jumped out at me was that a difference of Einsteinian with Newtonian gravity is that the lines of force - forming a gravitational well - converge not to a point, but to a ring the gravitational radius away from the exact center. But this latest work by George F.R. Ellis and colleagues suggests a further generalization that makes sense of the rest.

What if the sphere defined by the gravitational or Schwarzschild radius has no spatial volume, no space-like interior to speak of, and is purely a sphere or ball of time? This sphere that contains a parcel of time could be what sets the duration of mass-bearing objects, in general! It could be said that, in all cases, the existence of mass will cause a sphere of time to arise, which is a place keeper allowing it to persist with locality in space.

This, of course raises questions about whether photons or gravitons, usually thought to be massless, must actually have a minimal rest-mass to fulfill their function - but I'll leave that aside. The real question is how what Ellis calls the formation of an IMOTS or Marginally Outer Trapped Surface, which is purely time-like, might hold the door open while not actually allowing anything to enter - forbidding a Black Hole event horizon from forming. This has the effect of giving ECOs the property of duration in time, or allows them to persist in our universe. In effect; the event horizon contains a finite piece of eternity. This is the embodiment of an old saying from Plato, often attributed to Diogenes, 'Time is the Image of Eternity.'

All the Best,

Jonathan

On some level...

A large subset of the inflationary multiverse theories actually are a kind of steady-state universe, only with the continuous creation usually occurring beyond the horizon of observability or Hubble radius. On some level; it's also about where you are looking at it from, John. My work deriving cosmological models from the Mandelbrot Set shows me that a single model can appear to have a cold dark end, and be cyclical, and be steady state - all at once - if a God's eye view of reality is allowed.

The Wheeler-Dewitt equation implies a God's eye view, according to Fotini Markopoulou, and sometimes viewing the universe that way can be helpful. However; it is not going to be realizable by any physical entity, so it can be argued it's not really Physics. On the other hand; there are serious approaches that do not require a Big Bang, Inflationary, or Multiverse scenario, to reproduce what we see. I particularly like Fractal universe cosmologies, and I think Dr. Mitra has also been looking at this lately.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John, if you think information is not conserved, you're going to need something a bit more substantial than personal incredulity to support your claim.

On the surface..

Talking of higher dimensions, and higher-order geometries associated with them, might appear to be irrelevant to this discussion. However; what is being discussed is a kind of dimensional boundary. What is this event horizon thing?

Does it lead to another dimension? Is it 4-d, 5-d, 7-d space inside - or none at all? I'm leaning now toward the hypothesis it contains only time, and no space at all. But between us and that dimensional boundary, there is likely an energetic region that exceeds the binding energy of particles.

Perhaps the lines of space actually wrap around a Black Hole, instead of entering it. Is it possible that this puts the interior of a Black Hole outside of space, and beyond the reach of a Higgs field or field structure from multiple Higgs mechanisms?

Regards,

Jonathan

Thanks Steve,

See my comments below about the gravitational radius defining a sphere containing a parcel of time, in relation to the Matter-Time discussion, the subject of duration, persistence of objects in time - and so on.

All the Best,

Jonathan