Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Just to further the support for my claim [and accepted mainstream cosmology] that gravity can and does overcome the strong nuclear force, here is another reputable link.........
    http://www.calpoly.edu/~rechols/6edastro102/astro112ch21sol8th.html
    where it says.........
    " Neutron degeneracy pressure arises when neutrons are so close that their quantum states begin to overlap. Since no two fermions, neutrons in this case, can occupy the same quantum state, a pressure results. The combined pressure from neutron degeneracy pressure and the strong nuclear force prevent further gravitational collapse of a neutron star if the remaining supernova core (neutron star) is less than 2-3 solar masses."

    Inferring of course that when the limit is exceeded, gravitational effects will overcome the NDP along with the strong nuclear force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Well, this is not at all what I asked for, it merely restates paddoboy's side of a personal wrangle with Rajexh. In other words more of the same boring shite

    I asked for the true point of contention AS TO SCIENCE

    Sorry I asked
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What you asked.....
    I answered the recent points of difference, while at the same time adding my summations as to the problem that does exist between himself and I at the final two points..

    To compress it some......
    Rajesh does not accept that BHs exist, yet is unable to explain the effects on space-time and matter/energy within the vicinity.
    Rajesh does not accept or read links of any sort as any sort of confirmation and continually writes them off.
    That sums it up.
    But we'll see what Rajesh has to say when he surfaces.

    ps: all my previous claims are factual, are all referenced, and I stand by all of them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Sigh. Still wanting to personalize it I see.
    OK. I am reasonably strong on differential geometry, and consequently the gravitational field equations hold no terrors for me. Please explain in your own words (no references) - use mathematics if you want - why these equations permit or even mandate the existence of so-called black holes.

    I take no particular stance at this point
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    On the issue of the strong nuclear force and gravity.....
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/stellar_ev/story/index11.html
    The collapsing core is so massive that the electrons are forced into the atomic nuclei where they combine with protons and become neutrons. Neutron stars are held in equilibrium with neutron degeneracy pressure (strong nuclear force) which provides the pressure to stop gravity from contracting the core any further.
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/stellar_ev/story/index11.html
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Not at all:
    Rajesh has stated he does not accept BHs :shrug:

    I'm not strong at all on differential geometry.
    Why do you insist on wanting them in my own words?
    Since when do people need to insist that reputable references not be used?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    BHs are thought to exist simply because of the effects we see on space-time and matter/energy within the vicinity.
    When any mass is confined within its Schwarzchild radius further collapse is compulsory.
    When any mass is squeezed to a density such that the escape velocity at the surface equals "c" we have what can be inferred as a BH, or a "Dark Star"in Newtonian mechanics.
     
  11. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Since the day that it cannot be assumed that by merely quoting a source means that one fully understands the theory

    Since the day that one is able to distinguish "good" sources on the internet from those that are less good

    Since the day that SciForums.com was established as a DISCUSSION forum, rather than an "exchange of rival links" forum
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Firstly I have never said I fully understand the theory, as a lay person [the same as Rajesh is] I openly admit my limitations, no qualms about it at all, but at the same time, after reading reputable stuff for a while [such as Thorne's "Black Holes and Time warps"] I have a reasonable knowledge.

    And yes, I'm sure in most circumstances, I am able to distinguish good sources from crap. I have plenty in this thread for you to review in that regard.

    Thirdly, I think you have misinterpreted the nature of this science forum...open discussions sure, and just as appropriate links and references supporting such views.
    Plus of course the other party has given no such links, so in that regard the rivalry you infer is non existent.
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy, first of all I am sorry for use of a not so decent (moron) word for you, I take that back.

    Now, again, as I have highlighted in the past about convenient statements and also QuarkHead tried to explain you about good reference and not so good reference, what is of prime importance is our ability to understand the intent behind various internet references. Many people who are good on the subject will understand and will not object to some not to rigorously correct statement if made for lay people to understand. This is what is amply demonstrated by your above link.

    With due respect to Chandra/Harvard etc.....these are just the tutorials sans exact mathematics just to convey the meaning.. The NDP has nothing to do with Strong Nuclear force, they are not at all related and it is easy to decipher if we understand the theory behind both of them, but the tutorial links Nuclear force with NDP, as most of the people are well conversant with Nuclear force but not with NDP...and it conveys the meaning. For your understanding I will attempt to throw some light and you will see that Nuclear force does not come into picture if we go in depth...

    1. Electron Degeneracy Pressure counters the Gravity in WD....No role of Nuclear Force...
    2. Then Neutron Degeneracy Pressure counters the Gravity in NS.....So what is FDP (EDP or NDP or QDP) ??

    The FDP is applicable only for Fermions because they follow Pauli's Exclusion Principle, no two fermions can stay in same energy state....what are those energy states ?? In the context they are Fermi Energy levels as derived from Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...due to Gravity the positional uncertainty tends to Zero (Dx -> 0) so, the momentum uncertainty tends to almost infinity and makes the Fermion relativistic (Approaching speed of light)...this gained momentum in turn provides various Energy levels of the Fermion and causes counter Pressure, which is called as Degeneracy Pressure...no where the Nuclear Force comes into picture..... moreover you will find it quite interesting that temperature also plays no role here in NDP, even if the temperature is Zero kelvin the FDP exists.......So, leave this personal wrangle with me aside and read the authenticated Books or papers on the subject to enhance the knowledge....thats what is the common intent.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    I am not a lay person in any subject, you may be. You can talk to me about solution of Fermat's Last Theorem, you can talk to me on Polymer Nanofibres, you can talk to me on Psychology of Learning and Motivation, You can talk to me on Rationality, You can talk to me on climate changes....and of course you can talk to me on Any kind of Waste Disposal...choose the subject you like.

    It is good you understand your limitations, and Thorne's Black Hole and Time warps, is good read but if you had pursued the individual topics after reading this Book, your knowledge would have been multifold. Moreover Thorne gets quite speculative also at many places in his Book, especially when he talks of the other half of the title.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Going on what you have misunderstood and going on your own admittance that you have had an interest in cosmology for 12 months, you most definately are.

    I'm speaking of BH cosmology, nothing else at this stage.
    Something you no doubt do not.
    I'm able to differentiate speculative scenarios, and fact, as well as the possibilities that are not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR.

    Now would you like to get back on track and refute my reputable links on the recent subjects of.....
    [1]Schwarzchild limit and compulsory collapse under GR
    [2]Gravity overcoming the strong force.
    ]3]How space-time curvature/gravity, inhibits space-time expansion in local arenas.
    [4] Photons emitted at the EH and just this side, will appear to hover never getting away and never secumbing.
    [5]And the total irrelevance of speaking of BH density.

    All are linked and referenced by reputable and well known sources, and all are accepted as reasonable scenarios as to BH cosmology.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Your job is then pretty simple.
    All you need to do is come up with more reputable references than I have, refuting what I and those references have claimed.
    I doubt you can ever do that, because in all the points I have mentioned, the links are correct [as am I] and that is what is accepted by mainstream cosmology.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If this is true then Einstein's GR is getting a slight correction of no importance now (larger time after the fireball stage) just like Newton's gravity got small correction when masses were extremely large, but of no importance for calculating how to send space craft to points within the solar system.

    If alive, and if this new theory is true, Einstein would be happy with it as he did not like QM's assertion that "God rolls dice." With Bohm's QM, the uncertainity princle just reflect that we don't have data (initial conditions) on the "hidden variables." Also many in Copenhagen, will be crying in the snaps if new theory is correct.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2015
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    The discomfort level among Physicist is increasing with respect to certain prevailing concepts like BB, Inflation, spacetime expansion faster than speed of light, concept of spacetime itself, Black Hole Singularity, Dark matter, Dark energy and the point that these concepts are at the forefront of cosmology is making the same all the more palpably uncomfortable. Next decade or so I expect a sea change in our perspective around these concepts.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    All these problems are connected to Physics using the wrong ground state of the universe. The speed of light is the ground state of our universe. This can be inferred by the observation of net mass to energy conversion; inertial to speed of light, in our universe. The potential is net lowering back to C.

    If we use an earth-centric reference, since this is how we observe the universe and this is easier to visualize, we are not referencing the universe from the POV of its lowest potential, but from a place of higher potential. The analogy is calling the top of a mountain the ground state, instead of using C-level. If we accept that reference as zero, we can glide from that reference, which is something we can't from a C-level ground state. This reference assumption adds extra potential to the universe that is not really there, accept as an artifact of the assumed zero point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Inflation and space-time moving faster than the speed of light is easy to explain from the C reference. To use an analogy, at the speed of light, the fabric of space-time separates into separated threads of space and separate threads of time. These threads allow one to move in space without time and move in time without space. Inflation is an example of threads of space that act apart from time. One is not breaking the speed of light, because speed is d/t and assumes space and time are connected. This is just distance potential apart from time.

    The way this distance potential appears for inflation, is due to conversion of time potential (threads) into distance potential. This is analogous to motion blur that is done in photography. A still photo will stop time, but it allows the distance/positions to be retained. With motion blur, the shutter speed is slower than the action speed. With time stopped, in the photo, the difference in time, between shutter and action speed, shows up as uncertainty in distance. The Big bang point becomes inflated into a volume of uncertainty, due to time to distance potential conversion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In the case of the BB, the stopping of time, to snap the photo, is an artifact of our quantum universe. Things are not continuous, but move in steps; snap shots. The C-level reference acts as the motion, while inertial is the shutter speed that takes a quantum picture. Inertial shutter always moves slower that C-action. The time gaps in our quantum universe, appear as motion blur; time to distance potential conversion.

    The size of the initial inflation, from the BB point, reflects a huge increase in uncertainty. From this we can conclude the original separation between the C-level action (separated time and distance threads) and the inertial (shutter speed of space-time) has the highest separation or potential. This creates a giant fuzzy inflation state of the universe, that comes into increasing clarity, as the inertial shutter speed get faster (space-time expands) and the potential with C-level lowers. This is the direction of lowering potential also.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    As I have said, we know nothing about anything before t+ 10-43 seconds, which is where GR fails.
    I agree that many physicists would be happy if the weirdness of QM could be some how invalidated.
    There are many scientific papers based purely on theoretical concepts, the recent Hawking one on BH firewalls being one that created some unacceptable conclusions by some.
    Not sure though how many will be crying if any of the concepts are shown to be correct. :shrug:
    I prefer to think that they will take it on board and move along.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    I very rarely read your posts wellwisher....Reasons? You post tracks of unsupported claims and philosophical concepts all as supposed facts, coupled with whole paragraphs of sheer gobblydook lunacy, and then never reply when someone either takes you to task, asks a question, or makes any comment whatsoever about your stuff.
    You just seem to post and run, never to be seen again [with regard to any one particular matter]
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Is it?
    I don't believe so. Sure there are many areas where many aspects of refinement are taking place, but some of the aspects you raise are not really a part of that.
    The BB for instance is among the top echelon of cosmological theories that are near certain. Even any potential QGT will most probably not invalidate the BB, but just extend our knowledge beyond the present parameters of the BB. GR for instance did not invalidate Newtonian mechanics. We could in effect use GR for all present Newtonian calculations and obtain highly precise accuracy that is not really needed when compared to the time and effort needed for the more complicated maths, and when Newtonian does an acceptable job that gives acceptable results anyway.
    Inflation of course explains observational data that was not explained by the BB. Space-time?? Not sure what you are questioning there, but again space-time is an integral part of GR, and its warping and frame dragging has been effectively measured. Expansion FTL has also been verified and measured many times. BH Singularities....well yes they are regions where our present models break down, but again a QGT will almost certainly throw light on that.
    DM was originally a "fudge factor" to explain anomalous galactic rotational curves, but it is far more than that now. Evidence is such now that we are near sure it truly exists. Check out the "bullet cluster"findings.
    DE, again a recent additive to explain recent further observations of accelerated expansion of space-time., but still a mystery as to its exact nature and type.
    So why would any of that be making anyone uncomfortable?
    Cosmology has much to explain as yet, and much to refine as far as present models and observations go, but all that is doing is giving cosmologists the reasons to keep searching, to keep explaining as new observations become available, to keep up with the "reputable" hypothesising and theorising based on those observations.
    It's then up to NASA and the many space orginizations, to approach governments to keep up the funding, and get them to realise the importance of such research and the importance of the probes and the state of the art equipement necessary to carry out these experiments and observations.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're like some cartoon charicature of an Internet crank.
     

Share This Page