Gary A's Critique of the Universe

The following comments are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research.

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics from after 1998, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent, as claimed, and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, they admit that they had to apply an "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points.

The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adjustment to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students. Still, as professionals who certainly are good scientists, Permutter and Riess no doubt think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND effect (modified Newtonian dynamics) does not acknowledge that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r or hyperbolically, not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity.

The difference between the black hole hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the construction of the Dark Energy ediface to account for putative "acceleration".

So, given the doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength, statistical distribution and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100/4.5 = 22.2, that is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times bigger than we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive than conventional wisdom admits, it accounts for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy.

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, since I am lazy and a search based only on the information provided could result in many more papers than required as reference, an extended list of references would be appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Matter and energy are dark only to the yet to be enlightened.
Occam’s razor supports self-evident truth.

Bingo! You got something right.

def: levity
the opposite of gravity
syn: anti-gravity

def: aether
wimpy matter

theory of everything.101
force is inertial pressure differential
matter is energy in verse mass by spacetime constant
mass is attraction and gravity
energy is repulsion and levity even inflation

GaryA:
Do your sources reveal force as the drag and spin of the wimpy aether wind?
Or that a black hole is really closer to infinitely less than dense?

kind and well reasoned responses are always greatly appreciated.
ron


ignorance wields only insult and hostility

 

Relativity regards black holes as logical or mathematical singularities

James R:

Many workers have verified that General Relativity regards black holes as logical or mathematical singularities, which means that they are point masses having infinite density and infinitely deep gravitational wells or an asymptotic (to both the abscissa and ordinate) gravitational potential profile. As such, their overall geometry must be consistent with their nature as singularities, or else the term "singularity" has no meaning.

Their gravitational potential profile must be represented by a hyperbola. A Newtonian entity, however, must have a potential well that is represented parabolically, i.e. it must actually pass through the origin and extend outward so that gravity declines to as near zero as one may like as r approaches a very large value, as it does at and beyond the periphery of spiral galaxies.

A hyperbolic potential must extend symmetrically, it is just the very nature of hyperbolas. Then, the decline in potential varies as 1/r, not 1/r^2 as a Newtonian object would. I am echoing GR by saying that black holes do not exist in space, they define the space that they are in.

Milgrom and MOND say that galaxies must behave in a non-Newtonian way. I agree. That I agree is the gist of my post. Do you have a fundamental problem with MOND?

I just give a more parsimonous spin to the whole idea of MOND. In the bargain, I kill Dark Energy and Dark Matter as well as Milgrom's demand for a reform of Newtonian Dynamics.

As far as my citations or references are concerned, see http colon/doubleslash www dot lonetree-pictures dot net.

Perlmutter and Riess say that all previous research is a crock because theirs is the only good data that anyone has ever got. This is not supposed to be a joke.

Subsequent researchers just echo them because everyone must use the L/CDM model based on the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations (editors insist). They all use the model to predict the model. This is not mere retrodiction, it is circular reasoning yielding the curvature of the smallest draftsman's compass.

Alternative models have been developed, however, and the most faithful of these to general relativity do not support Dark Energy or Dark Matter. See my references.

Of course MOND has been criticised. This is one of my main points, for God's sake! MOND is unnecessary but I like to use the term "MOND effect" when referring to Milgrom's point concerning an additional very small residual gravitational acceleration constant that goes far beyond the peripheries of galaxies. Milgrom is a carefull worker. There is something here. If it is not a revision to Newton's Law of Gravity, then it is the hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential effect.

This effect, when extended beyond galaxies to the global, not local, universe, Dark Energy and Dark Matter disappear.

Fear not.

Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau

 

Critique of the Universe 2

This goes to the whole question of the exclusive use of a single model of the universe that depends on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. The consensus interpretation of the Lambda/cold-dark-matter model must clearly be flawed if it leads to the conclusion that the scientific method must be scrapped in order to save the model. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc "add-ons" that are trying to find theoretical justification. Dark Enegy, in particular, is being called a supernatural or "unfalsifiable" hypothesis because no experiment can possibly directly challenge it, just like the existence of God hypothesis.

Heretofore, all hypotheses must adhere to the scientific method (the SM). Now, in order to admit Dark Energy, cosmologists insist that SM must be tinkered with and an unfalsifiable hypothesis allowed for the first time in history. If we do this, the Pope can re-ascend to the Throne.

All of the indirect "overwhelming evidence" for expansion rate acceleration and Dark Energy can be just as well applied to the concept that our inventory of matter and energy in our local universe is inadequate and that the mass of the global universe is at least 22.2 times as large as has been supposed (100%/4.5% = 22.2). The total mass of the universe has been and still is open to question. The Matter/Energy that we can inventory accounts for only 4.5% of the total needed to "flatten" the anisotropy pattern that is seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB). This proposed revision in the "total mass" and the General Relativity (GR) concept of the black hole hyperbolic field will save not only SM, but the Friedmann Equations and the FLRW metric themselves too!

The "inflaton particle" from which the universe may have sprung was the mother of all black-holes (MOAB). As such, it must have possessed an hyperbolic gravitational field that existed timelessly according to Alan Guth's quantum principles. During the instant of inception of the differentiated universe that we can now detect, this hyperbolic field must have begun to degenerate. Space with time came into existence during this instant. The implication here of the prior existence of a sort of meta-universe is not explicitly acknowledged in any of the scenarios we read, but it is nonetheless an unstated assumption.

This space-time bubble's surface traveled up the MOAB's hyperbolic field gradient at a velocity hundreds or thousands of times the speed of light. This is Allan Guth's "Inflation". Matter/Light could keep pace with the inflation of space-time only as long as its temperature was several exponential decades of degrees Kelvin. As soon as Matter/Light began to condense and the fundamental forces began to differentiate, the inflation era ended. The collapse of the infinite density hyperbolic field began. The hyperbolic field has been collapsing by means of a time-dependent process ever since. It is this ongoing transition from a hyperbolic black hole gravitational field to a parabolic Newtonian gravitational field underlying the global universe that is being mistaken for acceleration and Dark Energy.


This is not speculation. This is not my personal idea. This is but one example of a different logical meaning of Alan Guth's inflation theory and General Relativity according to Schwartzchild and many others. When guided by correct meta logic, mathematical physicists will be able to validate this or some other theoretical interpretation of GR, the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. Then, with the demise of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the scientific method will be saved.


Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau

 

Gary A, Post #1:

A good read . . . welcome to Sciforum - hope you continue to contribute to Sciforum discussions!!

wlminex

 

Critique of the Universe 1B

As far as dark matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies, and most other types, have supermassive black holes embedded in them. This makes a huge difference. Black holes and the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r<SUP class=bbc>2. Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied.

I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes.

This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies.

Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. It is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

One does not observe the rotation of galaxies directly against the background of other galaxies. They rotate too slowly. One observes red-shifts from stars in different regions of each galaxy. Plotting rotational velocities got this way versus distance from the center of a galaxy, one should see a monotonic drop in velocity to near zero as one approaches large r. Instead, velocity reaches a constant nonzero plateau. This contradicts Newton's Law of Gravity. Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes. Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.

Yes, Perlmutter and Riess both depended on the same Lambda/Cold-Dark-Matter model of the universe that uses the Friedmann equations as a basis. So, they really didn't have to coordinate their results. But, they did. And, they used the model to predict the model, the ultimate retrodiction. The same thing is done when cosmologists use the model to interpret gravitational lensing effects, the SZ effect and other observations that they say give credibility to dark energy and dark matter. I do not say there is any attempt at fraud here. In fact, I say that they are clearly acting as honest scientists. But, the scientists who reported positive cold fusion results were all honest too. They did not realize that there were inherent flaws in the neutron detection devices that they employed to observe "fusion" in deuterium oxide electrolysis cells using palladium electrodes. Honest scientists fall for pseudoscience too. But, fudge is fudge and no-one is immune to wishfull thinking. Perlmutter and Riess wished for a more exciting result and they got it.

Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau

 

Critique of the Universe 1A

The following comments concern Astronomy, Exobiology & Cosmology only. They are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research. This post segment and thread family was originally wrongfully titled, this is a correction.

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics from after 1998, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent (as claimed) and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to force the two data sets to conform, they admit that they had to apply a mutual "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of each set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points.

The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adjustment factor to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the textbook experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students. Still, as professionals who certainly are good scientists, Permutter and Riess, no doubt, think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND effect (from modified Newtonian dynamics) does not acknowledge that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such field potentials decline as 1/r or hyperbolically, not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity.

The difference between the relativistic black hole hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's proposed residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the belabored construction of the "Dark Energy" ediface to account for Perlmutter's and Riess's putative "acceleration".

So, given the truly doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)? The easiest way is to postulate that the global universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength or amplitude pattern, the frequency nodes, statistical distributions and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100%/4.5% = 22.2. That is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times bigger than we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive than conventional wisdom admits, it goes a long way toward accounting for the CMB characteristics, the other red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and most SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy. If the universe's own global hyperbolic gravitational field effect, the transition from which must pervade the whole total universe (not just our local space) is acknowledged as a vestige from before the Big Bang inflationary era - even the sense of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect is explained parsimoniously.

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

 

MOND, Prelude to "Critique of the Universe" Part 2

A point mass having the size of many hundreds or even thousands or millions of suns will have a very different gravitational field from the normal star, planet or galaxy because its mass is not distributed in 3D space - it must exist as a 1D singularity. Singularities do not possess the usual parabolic gravitational field potential that is assumed by Newtonian Dynamics. Such a black hole field must have a shape that is infinitely deep as the origin or center of mass is approached since a black-hole has infinite density with all its mass compressed into a single point. An infinitely deep gravitational potential has the 2D profile of a hyperbola, not Isaac Newton's parabola.

The gravitational attraction around a black hole must fall off with distance from the center as 1/r, r being the distance. Newtonian Dynamics assumes that the field is parabolic, falling off as 1/r^2. The fact of this difference is huge.

So, when the centripetal acceleration of stars in the periphery of spiral galaxies is computed, it does not agree with ordinary Newtonian Dynamics because the centers of most spiral galaxies contain super-massive black holes. The mass of the galactic disk may actually contribute to the effective mass of the black hole in the nucleus, making the 1/r relationship even more pervasive.

The acceleration difference between the 1/r versus the 1/r^2 relations, at large r, is virtually a constant, just as Mordehai Milgrom observed in 1983. The MOND effect is real.

But, the inference of "Dark Matter" is unnecessary to explain the MOND effect, nor is a modification of Newton's Law. There is no Dark Matter. No WIMPs or "weakly interacting massive particles" will ever be found in any particle accelerator now or in the future. The theories of subnuclear physics do not have to be rewritten to accomodate an odd new particle. General Relativity does not have to be revised. Newtonian Dynamics survives with only the ADDITION of a footnote. When a black hole is involved, Newton's Law of Gravity must include a term in 1/r as well as, perhaps (as in galaxies) one in 1/r^2. That is all.

As far as Dark Matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies and most other types have supermassive black holes embedded in them. This makes a huge difference. Black holes and the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r^2. Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied.

I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes.

This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies.

Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. My comment is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

One does not observe the rotation of galaxies directly against the background of other galaxies. They rotate too slowly. One observes red-shifts from stars in different regions of each galaxy. Plotting rotational velocities got this way versus distance from the center of a galaxy, one should see a monotonic drop in velocity to near zero as one approaches larger r. Instead, velocity reaches a constant nonzero plateau. This contradicts Newton's Law of Gravity.

Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that general relativity says simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes.

Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.

Yes, Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess both depended on the same Lambda/Cold-Dark-Matter model of the universe that uses the Friedmann equations as a basis. So, they really didn't have to coordinate their results. But, they did. And, they used the model to predict the model, the ultimate retrodiction.

The same thing is done when cosmologists use the model to interpret gravitational lensing effects, the SZ effect and other observations that they say give credibility to the same dark energy and dark matter contained in the model.

I do not say there is any attempt at fraud here. In fact, I say that they all are clearly acting as honest scientists. But, the scientists who reported positive cold fusion results were all honest too. They did not realize that there were inherent flaws in the neutron detection devices that they employed to observe "fusion" in deuterium oxide electrolysis cells using palladium electrodes. Honest scientists fall for pseudoscience too. But, fudge is fudge and no-one is immune to wishfull thinking. Perlmutter and Riess wished for a more exciting result and they got it.

 

MOND, Prelude to "Critique of the Universe", Part 1

There is a proof of the singular nature of black holes, but it is being ignored. This proof was mentioned in an old paper by Michael Rowan Robinson. It can be found in ArXiv sometime after 1998. I ran across it by accident and I do not remember the title or year of publicatiion. I e-mailed him to ask if he could remember the paper where he made the comment.

In his comment, he said that it has been suggested that black holes, precisely and only because they are relativistic singularities, must posess an hyperbolic gravitational field. A singularity, as a single point mass with infinite density, must have a gravitational field that also tends to infinity as one approaches the center. The 2D profile of such a field, therefore, can be represented by an hyperbola. Normally, when an object exists in spacetime, it presents with an overall parabolic field profile according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Such a field will fall off as 1/r^2. But, a hyperbolic gravitational field will fall off much much more slowly, as 1/r.

In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom announced that he had discovered a new twist in Newton's Law of gravity. He studied a statistically significant number of spiral and other types of galaxies that had redshift measurements made of the rotational velocity distribution of their component stars. When he plotted velocity of these stars versus distance from the center, velocity did not fall to near zero as it should have at large r. Newton's Law was wrong!

Of course it was. Milgrom's galaxies had supermassive black holes embedded within them. The central black hole and even also the associated matter in the disk induced a hyperbolic gravitational field in spacetime even very far from the center, that is, as r tended to infinity. A hyperbolic field will tend to zero only very slowly at large r compared to a parabolic field. In fact, there is a near constant difference between a parabolic Newtonian field and a hyperbolic field generated by the same mass, as r tends to infinity. This near constant difference accounts for Milgrom's very small residual centripetal acceleration constant that he used to mathematically summarize his findings as an addition to Newton's Law. Hence, he called his model "modified Newtonian dynamics" or MOND.

He did not respect the implications of supermassive relativistic black holes in the nuclei of his galaxies. In 1983, most scientists hardly even knew of them. So, Dark Matter was proposed to account for the MOND effect. But, Dark Matter is unnecessary. No enormous clouds of hypothetical "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs are needed to account for the MOND effect. But, neither is a fundamental modification of Newton's Law of Gravity. This has huge implications to the so-called Lambda/Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that is based on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric (the so-called "Standard Model").

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild and others. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as rock-hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to validate an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect. See http :// www lonetree-pictures net for more.

 

Do we really need six threads on what is essentially the same subject?

Posts reported.

 

Gary A:

You write well and coherently . . . . a failing of many on Sciforums!

wlminex

 

Given that Schwartzchild died in 1916, 70 years before Guth's inflation theory, it's interesting that he was able to comment on it.

 

Six Threads

I can't win.

In other forums, if I submit a very long and detailed post that constitutes a virtual paper like some that appear in ArXiv, my posts get labelled as spam. Simply because they are too long.

Yeah, I've heard it before. Too many words. Like Mozart wrote symphonies with too many notes.

I broke my original proposed post into segments because I thought it might be easier for people to comment on a more limited segmented edition. Many comments include the whole post as a quote. This would unnecessarily clutter any subsequent reader's screen.

Anyway, thank you for your consideration. Moderators at other forums might have censored such a long post. Thank you for re-assembling it!

I actually like it better the way that it now appears. I might quibble about the order. But, this is probably my fault. It is still segmented, so it is a tad bit easier to read, I think. Not such a regular project.

 

Actually, yes.

I have posted on other forums without segmenting my contributions and moderators have labelled my posts as spam simply because they are too long.

Then, those posts get removed with my having no recourse.

I love to write. Am I addicted? Yup!

 

I comment on Guth's use of a point mass or singularity as a quantum object that could have sprung into existence as a statistical necessity of quantum theory. Schwartzchild previously validated the idea of such a point mass or singularity having an enormous mass - a black hole. Guth says having such a huge mass and energy is actually advantageous to such a point mass's coming into existence because the statistical probability of a particle's having extremely high values of these quantities is vastly higher than that for having low values simply because of the zero-point limit.

Many of Guth's ideas are not new. Numerous other more ancient writers have had their say almost a century ago.

 

Thank you!

 

God and Moderator willing!