Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

double posting

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

double posting

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm a strong believer in Mach's principle properly implemented - relativity of spacetime (both space and time) is intrinsic from the outset there. So while you may have a more or less self-consistent mathematical model implementing absolute space and time, I'd have strong reservations as to it's philosophical underpinnings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hm, I have no sympathy at all for Mach's philosophy. For me, it is the guy who, if he would have appeared earlier, would have prevented the success of atomic theory, and we would do today "field theory" with the fields from thermodynamics, with any "atomic" interpretation of these fields forbidden as much as ether theories for GR and SM today.

Absolute time is a necessity if one refuses to give up much more fundamental key concepts of science like causality, with Reichenbach's principle of common cause, and realism, and all this only to save the fundamentalistic variant of relativity which forbids a preferred frame. So, I doubt that one can extract from Mach sufficient philosophical support, strong enough to be stronger than causality and realism.

An independent background structure for space is necessary for quantum theory too. This is the point of my quantum hole argument, http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 Roughly the problem is that in quantum theory there are simple experiments to destroy superpositional states by measurement. Let a test particle fly near the superpositional state. Does it destroy the superposition? This depends on how much the test particle is influenced differently by the two states whose superposition is considered. If the particle is, after interaction, at the same place independent of the question which of the two superposed fields was chosen, superposition remains. Else it is destroyed by the observation.

But this makes the notion "at the same place" for different gravitational fields a meaningful, observational notion. Classically this notion makes no sense - we always have only one gravitational field, what would be at "the same place" in another gravitational field is in GR simply not defined. In quantized Newtonian theory you have it, and have to use it to compute physical predictions - the Newtonian absolute space gives this information. And quantum gravity needs it too.

 

I understand his somewhat extreme positivist attitude had drawbacks in other areas sure but imo the Principle named after him was a brilliant insight.

Maybe you are thinking of a kind of 17th century Newtonian incorporation of MP where influences of distant matter are instantaneous. Not what I meant by MP properly implemented. Causality is fundamental to an implementation that, roughly analogous to distant magnets 'instantaneously' influencing moving charge via the local B field of said magnets, thinks in terms of local action of an inertial field. Not action-at-a-distance. GR folks have also butchered things with inane application (in particular re rotating systems) that falsely 'disproves' MP.

I don't follow the last bit but it seems to imply an underlying linearity of fields hence independence of sources despite the obvious non-linearity of gravity. But then I just know too little of your overall position and should think about reading more of your material. Too much else on the plate right now.

 

If you accept causality as fundamental, you have to accept fundamental absolute time, not because of some theory of gravity, but because of quantum theory, and the violation of Bell's inequality. Every causal explanation of the violation of Bell's inequalities requires a faster than light causal influence. If you accept realism, in the sense that there exists such a causal explanation that it points to something really existing, and that all these really existing causal influences follow some laws, which, in particular, forbid causal loops. then you have no alternative to a hidden preferred absolute contemporaneity/simultaneity, which has the property that no causal influence into the past is possible. This already means a class of possible absolute times, defined modulo simple monotonic transformations t'=t'(t).

The quantum hole argument is something not that easy, one has to know quantum theory to get this point, the non-linearity of gravity is irrelevant for the argument. The argument that the violation of Bell's inequality requires some absolute simultaneity is, in comparison, much simpler. So I would recommend to start with it.

 

Causality goes hand-in-glove with staying inside light-cones in my book. Superluminal signalling implies violation of causality owing to well known SR paradoxes.

I'm toying with studying Consistent Histories version of QM precisely because it claims to address such issues without requiring spooky action-at-a-distance: http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.html

 

Only if you don't accept a preferred frame. It allows to distinguish FTL causal influences from past to future, which are unproblematic, from those from future to past. There will be no SR paradoxes, because the preferred frame is not (and not supposed to be) Lorentz-invariant. Paradoxes appear only if one proposes Lorentz-invariant faster-than-light information transfer.

Not a good idea. (In)consistent histories is many wor(l)ds in disguise.

 

I certainly do and I have given reputable links supporting those obvious differences, so my claim is well supported.
All we have from you, is your say so.
I would also add that the BB singularity had no EH.

I can't comment on that actually, but even if that were the case, according to the scientific method, your theory needs to predict something more than the incumbent model.
Otherwise you are pissing into the wind.

Singularities do exist as defined by the break down of our theories. Singularities need not be infinite, although they may lead to infinite quantities.
I don't accept the point singularity as predicted in BHs. I do accept that when we have a validated QGT, a surface of degenerate mass in an unknown state should exist between the Planck/quantum level and the predicted point singularity.

I don't believe your theory holds up under scrutiny for many reasons.

You have already said that you agree that a theory is not wrong within its zone of applicability...now you say it is wrong??
GR is as near certain as one could wish, accepting it breaks down at the quantum/Planck level.
When someone comes up with a theory covering the "whole world" including the quantum/Planck realm where GR fails, then he will be Nobel material.
Why are you saying we do not know where a theory fails? Of course we do.
GR fails at the quantum level.

What certain assumptions? You seem to be fabricating non existing problems with GR. GR does not exclude Inflation as far as I know.

But that's exactly what your entire theory is, and from what I can see, the rest of your papers.....that is highly speculative scenarios.

sheesh! I'm saying what you are theorising is totally speculative, as distinct from the facts that GR is supported near totally particularly after GP-B and that time dilation is factual and has observational evidence supporting it, and can not be written off as "clock time"or some other equally absurd cop out.

 

GR predicts the dying pulse train. That's what been observed. Everything else you said is a contrivance to get around the fact that GR predicts the dying pulse train and GLET doesn't. The prediction of the dying pulse train has been confirmed.

 

Without having read the paper he referenced and only from what has been posted, his theory predicts an end state of matter that does not include a singularity or an event horizon. From what I have seen he has several peer reviewed papers, that does not mean his theory is correct, but a theory does not have to be correct to be valid.

Singularities by definition cannot exist. They represent conditions where no phiscal characteristics apply and the laws of physics as we understand them do not apply. Really paddoboy, in another thread you have seen responses from a number of professors of physics that have said as much.., that singularity do not represent anything real. The whole idea of even bringing up the plank scale is that, it is where some believe a QTG will begin.., not end. In all likelihood a successful QTG will not be limited to the plank scale and will also resolve issues that start at the event horizon.

GR fails at the predicted singularity of a black hole and is unprovable at or near the event horizon. It also fails at subatomic scales... And has problems temporarily resolved only by the place holders we call dark matter and dark energy. Terms easily redefined as meaning things we don't yet understand.

I don't agree with much of what it seems Schmelzer's theory involves, but that does not mean it is not a valid theoretical exploration of the problems he is attempting to address.

Too, often in these lay oriented discussions anything that is not dead center mainstream ideology, is rejected out of hand. A sad state of affairs, as sometimes the best understanding of dead center mainstream ideology, can be had by discussions originating with minority interpretations.

 

All Schmelzer's theories are highly theoretical concepts with no physical or observational evidence and that is all I have said.
GR and the BB by comparison are supported by much evidence.
I also do not believe the point singularity exists, but it is also defined that a singularity begins where a incumbent theory breaks down. GR breaks down totally at the Planck/Quantum level...That was supported by one of tashja's Professor's a while back.

At this time my main argument with Schmelzer is his contorted view of time dilation and clocks.

 

He's trying to ride the coat tails of GR. His theory is not GR. He's arguing in a public science forum because nobody is any longer interested in citing his ether theory of gravity in the literature.

 

GR describes the gravitational field all of the way to the singularity, assuming there is a singularity. All solutions that predict an event horizon become unprovable at or very near the event horizon, because there can be no information transfer from inside the event horizon. For practical purposes GR begins to breakdown at the event horizon, because nothing beyond that point can ever be confirmed or proven. The plank level comes into the discussion, as I said.., only because that is where it is expected that a QTG of gravity will begin and GR cannot describe gravity between fundamental quantum particles.

The discussion about time is confused on both sides of the discussion because it confuses, what is science with what is philosophy, ideology and classical experience.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While that is essentially true, GR does predict total collapse and we can reasonably and logically apply properties to the BH metric [such as spin] on other observations.
But let's not get into that again, otherwise.................

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's the typical cop out of somebody who doesn't actually understand the predictions of the theory. We can't really make any predictions about what goes on inside because we can't really know. The only good solutions to Einstein Field Equations are for spacetimes outside the event horizon. Yada yada yada. So boring. Common theme from one member.

 

Paddoboy, You don't object to your friend Brucep, although he is very careful not to bump you even if you make wild statements, but at the end of the day science prevailed.

 

Wild statements Rajesh? Why do you continue to lie?
You know that was confirmed by all professors don't you.
Let's give you a couple I have at hand this time again......
Andrew's answers are in red: My questions in bold:
Andrew.Hamilton@colorado.edu
Barry,

> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.

Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

> Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

> Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

Indeed you have a rotating mass.

> And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

Yes.

> Other questions that have arisen are...
> Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?

A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

Hope this helps,
Andrew
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

and ......
Mitch Begalman:
mitch@jila.colorado.edu
This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

 

Direct your assertion based on Prof's response to your pal !! I have given up on you....

 

You need a brain transplant Rajesh. LOL. It wouldn't actually be a transplant since that would require you to have a brain at the moment. All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. The Eagles.