Asymptotic Freedom in QCD and...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by RajeshTrivedi, Sep 14, 2017.

  1. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    So you admit you have no literature to back up your claim about most of the MeV's being unaccounted for?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    Oops, you are playing!
    Pl let me know clearly what your argument is.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Post #11: I ask you to calculate through your own claim.
    Result: No calculation.

    Post #15: I ask you to share your calculations about the contributions of the gluon being insignificant.
    Result: No calculation.

    Post #17: I ask you again.
    Result: No calculation.

    Post #19: I ask you to provide evidence for your claim in #18, that the literature has not accounted for all the energy.
    Result: No references.

    Post #21: I finally call your bluff.
    Result: You somehow ask me what my argument is...?

    Erm, it's you how's throwing out claims, and thus need to provide the arguments. In the end, you have provided no evidence or calculations to back up any of these claims. As a wise man once said: that which is asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    What calculations you expect from me?
    I very clearly said that the rest mass of 3 quarks is around 12 MeV, so what happens to 940-12 = 928 MeV when a neutron is compressed due to gravity? I have not seen any literature which talks of this during gravitational collapse, if you have please share.
     
  8. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Since the particle can cross the event horizon just fine, its entire energy contribution gets added to the black hole. In other words, the black hole will grow with 940MeV (minus perhaps (very?) small contributions where some energy is radiated away); the energy can be converted to mass with the formula I hinted at earlier: \(E=mc^2\).

    This result is so obvious if you've ever done any black hole calculations in GR, I'm not surprised it's not explicitly pointed out in the literature.
     
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    If you are suggesting that inside event horizon the energy gets converted to mass, then thats your claim or misinterpretation of mainstream.

    The mainstream (no hair theorem may also help here) states that for uncharged non rotating Black Hole the only parameter is mass, that does not mean that energy getting inside event horizon gets converted into mass. Hope its clear.

    You still have not answered even after raising objection, where in literature 928 MeV (or any part thereof) is accounted for during gravitational collapse? Please note that for cores less than around 3 Solar mass there shall be compaction of neutrons even before they fall beneath their event horizon, means quarks bond weakening happens even when core is outside its event horizon, so for your objection to be tenable can you cite any literature which accounts for 928 MeV in such cases?
     
  10. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Since you bring up the no hair theorem... A neutron falls into a black hole. Let's figure out what contributions it will deliver to the BHs mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Assuming it falls in in a straight line; no change in angular momentum. A neutron is neutral: no change to electric charge.

    So either all of the energy of the neutron ends up as mass in the black hole, or some energy slips away somehow. There is no alternative. Unless you are proposing a (composite?) particle falling into a black hole violates energy conservation?
    In other words, tell me how (some of) the energy contained in the neutron does not ends up contributing to the black hole's mass.

    You still haven't pointed out to me that it isn't addressed. You are making that claim, not me. The burden of proof is on you. As far as I'm aware, the literature will show that all the energy will get converted (perhaps too sloppy: it will be treated as) mass.
     
  11. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    Not sloppy, incorrect.
    For mainstream inside event horizon is strict no-go. None claims anything inside event horizon, so your claim that energy gets converted to mass is not what the prevalent theory says.

    You have not clarified how for object < 3 solar Mass the 928 MeV accounted for in literature? For objects < 3 Solar mass, the neutrons will be compressed even when the object radius > Event Horizon.

    You claimed that the energy 928 MeV is well accounted for in literature (and we are talking about during gravitational collapse), so the onus to reasonably establish your affirmative objection is on you. I am saying it is not, it can be because of my ignorance, so in all fairness you share if you know, otherwise you are making a belief based statement.
     
  12. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Except not really. Since energy is not a parameter of a black hole (remember the no hair theorem), it has to be converted after crossing the event horizon. Or go magically missing, I suppose, but that would violate conservation of energy.

    Except that it does. I take it you've never heard of Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, which allow you to follow an object as it crosses the Schwarzschild event horizon?

    Please re-read post #23 carefully. You are the one making claims. Please demonstrate that the 928 MeV are unaccounted for in literature.

    Incorrect. I say it most likely is, and I want to know the source of your claim that it isn't. You have failed to provide any so far. Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    I want to see a calculation, taking into account all mainstream black hole knowledge, that this energy is unaccounted for. So far, you haven't provided that.

    Again, you are the one claiming there is energy unaccounted for in literature. Please demonstrate this claim.

    Wait, you have sneakily called it an "affirmative objection". It is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to try and shift the burden of proof in such an underhanded manner! The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the objector. The very fact you named it an "affirmative objection" demonstrates you know this.

    Stop being intellectually dishonest, and own up to your burden of proof. Or admit you cannot provide the requested evidence.

    Again again, you are "making a belief based statement", not me.
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    Thats belief based.
    And please no abuses, no calling names like intellectually dishonest. I have very frankly admitted that I may be ignorant about any such accounting for, since you are claiming such calculations exist, then show it. Since you admitted that your statement is "most likely is", so obviously you cannot show it.

    My claim is based on simple premises that such accounting for is not present in mainstream, your claim is that it is. So why not dig out any reference and prove me wrong/ignorant. Making a statement that, it most likely is, is not sufficient.
     
  14. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    It's based on what I know of mainstream science and its internal consistency. If you call that "belief based", then yes, it is.

    I'll do my best to refrain from "abuses" and "name calling" if you do your best to refrain from being "intellectually dishonest". Deal?

    So you have no idea what mainstream science says in this? Why don't you look it up then? Why do I have to do your homework?

    If I have done that, that was a mistake. They certainly may exist; I don't know of them though, and have spend no effort looking for them, or producing them myself.

    Right now I can indeed not show it. I however have made an argument that it has to be that way, unless the unaccounted-for energy either magically disappears or is radiated away in some fashion. This argument is based on the principle of conservation of energy, with which both GR and QM are compatible. In other words: all mainstream science based calculations will show this argument to work.

    I have given my argument why I'm pretty sure this energy will turn out to be accounted for. I have already given you two reasons why simply comparing (rest) masses is not acceptable in this scenario. I have already given you a very good argument that nothing special happens at or around the event horizon according to a particle falling into a black hole. You however seem to reject/ignore all this on no valid grounds, to return to your claim without any evidence.

    How in your mind is my argument in favor of mainstream scientific consistency, backed by admittedly hand-wavy, but valid argumentation not stronger than your invalid comparison of rest masses?

    Please show the calculation or derivation that states that the mainstream accounting is wrong. The absence of this accounting is not evidence of mainstream being wrong.

    No, I am doubting your claim by showing that mainstream science cannot make such a claim and remain consistent. In other words, my refutation is that mainstream science cannot claim this(, unless the unaccounted-for energy either magically disappears or is radiated away in some fashion). I trust/belief that mainstream science will be shown to be internally consistent in this regard.

    That is why I can be so certain of my correctness. Because if I'm wrong, you (or whoever shows this to be the case) can go to Sweden to pick up your Nobel prize.

    Why don't you? I mean, you're the one asking about all this, right?

    You said in your very post: "that I may be ignorant about any such accounting for". Even if my argumentation is insufficient, yours is even more so.
     
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    Thank you.
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    I assume you're still working on a response to the rest of posts #29 and #31?
     
  17. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Never mind, I see you've implicitly admitted you were wrong.

    From: https://www.academia.edu/34549343/Gravity_causes_release_of_Energy_in_Neutron_Star
    "The mass of a Neutron is around 939 MeV, as per our standard model a Neutron consists of two down quarks and one up quark. The rest mass of the down quark is around 5 MeV while that of up quark is just 2 MeV, so the total rest mass of the constituent quarks is just 12 MeV out of 939 MeV. The balance 927 MeV is on account of kinetic energy of quarks and Gluonic field energy which is the integral part of a Neutron mass."
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464
    You should have copy pasted the continuation text from the link as follows->

    ........The pertinent argument is what if gravitational compactness threatens to squeeze the Neutron in such a manner
    that even the distance between constituent quarks reduces to zero. When the gravitational compactness goes beyond
    Extremal Neutron Packing that is even the Neutron Degeneracy Pressure is also overcome, then these quarks of individual
    Neutrons are compacted beyond their equilibrium position in Neutrons, as the distance between these Quarks decreases the
    asymptotic freedom (Gross & Wilczek, 1973) of these quarks ensures continued reduction in energy and this energy is given
    away, thus leading to a massive release of energy and subsequent loss of mass of the star. This loss of mass prevents star from
    getting inside its own Schwarzschild radius and if it is already inside its Schwarzschild radius like in case of SMBH, then it
    ensures exposure to the universe again as the mass reduces over a period of time. Under Quantum Chromodynamics, asymptotic
    freedom ensures free quarks as the distance between them tends to zero, suggesting release of energy. The gravitational
    compactness ensures reduction in distance between these quarks of a Neutron.


    Now please tell me what I have admitted implicitly or explicitly?
     
  19. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Nowhere here are you talking about accounting for the supposedly missing energy of a neutron (that isn't in extreme environments).

    Well, if you look at what I quoted, you are clearly saying a part of the neutron's energy comes from the rest mass, but the rest from the kinetic energy of its quarks and gluons. You literally say: "... 927 MeV is on account of kinetic energy of quarks and Gluonic field energy ..."
     
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464

    Now a question for you. The rest mass of 3 quarks of a Neutron is 12MeV, then from where does a Neutron get 940 MeV as its mass?
     
  21. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Erm, you've already answered that question yourself: "... 927 MeV is on account of kinetic energy of quarks and Gluonic field energy ..."
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,464

    So where does it go, when quarks bond is weakened?
     
  23. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    You tell me; it's you who is making that claim.
     

Share This Page