Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

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

  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Making up bullshit = thinking outside to box. At this venue.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Theses threads are crankfests. Should be comical when he links his crank paper on vixra.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is the science forum, in last of couple of threads, Paddoboy, Brucep and OnlyMe has spread few incorrect notions about BH etc and continued camouflaging despite clear contradictions by the reference provided by them itself, moreover these guys claim to be the spokespersons of mainstream. It is unfortunate that not even a single expert spoke on the issue and clarified for the benefit of larger interested members...Some of these are again being highlighted to, so that false and misleading information does not remain rebutted..

    1. Paddo etc says that singularity of Kerr BH must be spinning..

    Truth : No, singularity is not a physical Object, and no physical value can be assigned. It is meaningless to assign any Physical value to singularity. It is maths at r = 0.

    2. Paddo/Brucep says that everything of Kerr Geometry Spins.

    Truth : We can only observe frame dragging in Ergosphere, because we have no means to observe anything beyond Event Horizon, so it cannot be stated that everything including inside of EH has frame dragging.

    3. Brucep Says that Angular Momentum has nothing to do with Frame Dragging..

    Truth : Frame Dragging has everything to do with the angular momentum only.

    4. Paddoboy : Something must be spinning thats why Frame Dragging

    Truth : This is true that something must be spinning, but we do not know anything about that something, that is why Angular Momentum and Rotational Energy is associated with the ErgoSphere, not directly with some Physical Object. Paddoboy's inability to appreciate the fact that Energy and Angular Momentum can be associated with the field is creating this stuck up in his mind.

    5. Paddoboy: Singularity is at Planck's Level.

    Truth : Absolute nonsense. As soon as we say that the singularity is at Planck's Level, we are eliminating singularity, it becomes deterministic. Moreover singularity in EFE and various invariances appears only at r = 0 in classical sense. Assign any non zero value to r, and no singularity. Moreover Paddo just makes a bland statement but he does not know which parameter of Planck's level (Lp or Mp). Many profs have said that the classical singularity, if at all, is at much lower level than Plancks.

    6. OnlyMe: 1/o is not infinity in this context.

    Truth : Thats the definition of classical singularity in the context of Black hole, Prof Kaku is wrong, Rpenner is wrong but OnlyMe is right. he fails to explain that if it is not x/o then how singularity appears.

    7. Paddoboy : GR predicts that once inside Schwarzchilds radius, the object must collapse.

    Truth : No GR does not predict this. This is simple Newtonian Mechanics.

    8. OnlyMe : Escape velocity of c is only significant if you assume there are any photons being emmitted

    Truth : Escape velocity has nothing to do with emission of Photons.

    9. Paddo / OnlyMe : Inside BH the Gravitational Force overcomes Nuclear Force.

    Truth : There is no nuclear force even in Neutron Star, Neutron Star itself is a dense matter/fermi Gas / Plasma / Superconducting material of almost all the Neutrons (True nature is not known). Almost all the protons capture all the electrons and Neutrons are formed in a so called reverse beta Reaction even during formation of Neutron Star. So there is no Nuclear Force inside BH ??

    10. Paddo : Charge inside BH gets negated by attracting opposite charge

    Truth : If we bring a positively charged sphere and Negatively charged sphere together, will the charge get negated or annihilated ?? First of all there is not much charge left inside BH as explained in Pt#9 above, on top of that such silly statement. Paddo is misunderstanding the Physics of ordinary matter with that of BH matter. He knows nothing about charge redistribution and charge neutralization.

    11. Paddo : Singularity will be resolved by QGT and thats the objective of QGT.

    Truth : This is speculation, we do not know anything yet. And the objective of QGT is not the resolution of singularity only.

    12. OnlyMe : Gravity propagates at the speed of light

    Truth : What of Gravity propagates at the speed of light ? He does not answer. We do not know about Graviton, we could not detect Gravity Waves, then what propagates at the speed of light ?

    I urge, experts on this forum, to objectively give their opinions on these points for the benefit of all others.

    And Paddoboy, do not further camouflage by copy paste....rebut in your language if you can.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Did Rajesh admit which journal is publishing his paper?

    Also, do reputable journals charge money for publishing a submitted paper?
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Incorrect, as the online evidence shows in at least thre threads, it is Rajesh that is spreading misinformation, misinterpretations, and lies.

    Only one person has spoken of the classical point singularity as factual...Rajesh
    Most physicists and all online members have supported the scenario of the mass having a finite surface of sorts, probably at the Planck/Quantum level.
    All links, which Rajesh refuses to read, as well as every member that has replied, and at least three professors, conclude that it is a reasonable assumption to assign angular momentum to the Kerr BH, including the spacetime/gravitational field that makes up the majority of it, and the mass.

    While that is true, at least three professors, and all the reputable links, have concluded that to be a reasonable assumption.
    Frame dragging by definition requires a rotating mass.
    Rajesh refuses to recognise that fact. Obviously the 12 months casually reading about BH's is far from adequate.

    I will not speak for brucep, but Rajesh has just admitted that he is in gross error, by recognising frame dragging [in the ergosphere] is caused by angular momentum of the BH and mass.
    Wow!! What a contradiction! Perhaps Rajesh in his eagerness to manufacture fairy tales about BH's, while ignoring most links [except the isolated cherry picked phrases] has been blinded to his obvious stupid contradiction.

    Perhaps Rajesh needs to forget about paddoby, and his own inflated ego, and realise that it has already been established, that even though our models fail within whatever goes on inside the EH, scientific assumptions are quite reasonable and logical to make. He virtually admits this himself in his previous diatribe.

    GR breaks down at the Planck/Quantum level, and by definition is the Singularity. That has also been confirmed in links and despite the confusion Rajesh is under, that is the beginning of the Singularity.
    When we have a observationally validated QGT, that most probably will reveal a surface of sorts, so eliminating the Planck/Quantum Singularity.
    The Singularity which most do not believe exists is Rajesh's classical point singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature.

    I wont comment on this and will leave it for those concerned, suffice to say the arrogance from someone unqualified in this field is staggering to say the least...yet typical of the disguise he has started with these BH threads. Which reveals a probable agenda.
    The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as thegravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object where the mass is within its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once astellar remnantcollapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass.TheSchwarzschild radius was named after the Germanastronomer Karl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory ofgeneral relativity in 1916.

    Rubbish. The escape velocity of a BH's EH, is "c".
    "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons are particles of light.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Any object falling into a BH will feel the critical tidal effects of gravitation. This has an immediate effect we have [the cosmological community] labeled "spaghettification", or being stretched apart more and more as we approach the Singularity [in whatever form]
    As the tidal forces get stronger and stronger, the atoms themselves making up the body, will start to be stripped apart...first electrons will be torn away, then the protons and neutrons making up the atomic nucleus and held together by the strong nuclear force, will be torn apart......Possibly even taking it further, the quarks that make up protons and neutrons will also be torn apart.
    "How far the above scenario would advance would depend on where the mass actually will stop collapsing, taking into account that the infinite density and spacetime curvature and gravity that eventuates with regards to the classical point singularity, should not be reached, according to most reputable cosmologists today"

    OnlyMe was correct. You are [as usual] wrong.
    Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole.

    A validated QGT objective is certainly to resolve both the BB and BH singularities and will almost certainly do that, despite what our confused friend says.
    What else it will do I'm not sure.

    OnlyMe again is totally correct. Gravity most certainly propagates at the speed of light. Gravity reveals itself when spacetime warps or curves in the presence of mass. To answer rajesh's question, it is the curvature of spacetime which propagates at "c"

    What??? Havn't you had enough rebuttal?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now stop carrying on, and realise that your 12 months studying BH's or whatever, coupled with your obvious agenda, severely inhibits you and your knowledge on this subject

    I'll rebut any damn way I like. If you are not happy with that, then cease your ignorant crap.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2015
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    I believe I provided a link to support my comments on that. Division by zero is none sense.

    Do a couple of Google seaches and bring back a link that supports your claim. A singularity in physics is where the math begins to predict infinite mass densities and either infinite gravitational force or curvature of spacetime... The only way division by zero comes into it is trying to explain it to an uneducated lay audience..., and using zero to describe the volume of a point. But by that time the math makes no sense anyway, so again division by zero is meaningless.

    You still have not answered the question. Should I try again? I think it would make no difference.

    Rajesh, if the physics of matter inside of an event horizon does not allow light to be emmitted, you could not see anything inside the event horizon even if the escape velocity were not the speed of light. Just like you cannot see the light of a flashlight in a dark room, if it is turned off. The question is like asking how do you know there is light trying to get out?

    I never said that! You misread and misquote others a lot!

    What I did say is that you cannot know that the force of gravitation ever overcomes the strong nuclear force. If the collapsing mass reaches a stable composition before the force of gravitation becomes greater than the forces holding mass in that stable state, there would never be a singularity... But we will have to wait for a successful QTG, to know.

    There is little difference other than phrasing between the strong force and strong interaction. The two Wiki quotes below should demonstrate that the strong force (I use strong nuclear force to emphasize the connection with QM), is not just the force between nucleons, it is also what binds quarks. There is obviously both the strong force and even electromagnetic forces in neutron stars, since it is generally accepted that they include a crust of even normal matter and the core is only believed to consist of mainly neutrons, packed together.

  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    But as he openly admits, he ignores links. [unless of course there is a sentence or words that he perceives support his stance.

    Good luck!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    For our emotional friend Rajesh....and his infatuation with the classical point singularity, which most agree does not exist.
    I learnt a long time ago, from a reputable source, not burdened in anyway with any agenda, religious or otherwise, that any Singularity need not be Infinite. They may though lead to infinite quantities.
    This of course supports the concept of the Singularity coming into vogue where our theories and models break down, which obviously is at the Planck/Quantum level, and which should most likely be resolved with a validated QGT .
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2015
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Some more relevant information....

    What happens if a stellar remnant is too massive to be a neutron star, but not massive enough to become a black hole? Actually, until recently, astrophysicists didn’t think there was a grey area between neutron stars and black holes; stellar remnants from a massive star’s death had to be one or the other.

    Now, it is thought there is another bizarre creature out there, more massive than a neutron star, yet too small to collapse in on itself to form a black hole. Although they have yet to be observed, ‘quark stars’ should should exist, and scientists are only just beginning to realize how strange these things are.

    The Birth of Strangeness
    First things first, neutron stars, quark stars and black holes are all born via the same mechanism: a supernova. But each of the three are progressively more massive, so they originate from supernovae produced by progressively more massive stars.

    So, what if a star exploded, producing something a little too massive to be called a neutron star? Well, neutron stars resist collapsing under their own gravitational pull by a characteristic of matter known as neutron degeneracy. This produces an outward force called neutron degeneracypressure.

    What if the neutron star born after a supernova is too massive for this neutron degeneracy pressure to hold up against the neutron star’s own gravity?

    In this case, it’s up to the quarks that make up the neutrons to take over, preventing the body from collapsing any further. Single neutrons are composed of three quarks (two “down” quarks and one “up” quark).

    When quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, a quark star may be produced; the free “up” and “down” quarks get converted into “strange” quarks. Therefore, a quark star (also known as a “strange star”) is made up of strange matter.

    An Unconventional Discovery
    Conventional thinking so far has been that quark stars should be smaller than neutron stars (this seems reasonable, as the matter should be crushed closer together, therefore making them more dense, taking up less volume), but according to new calculations made by an international collaboration of scientists, quark stars might actually be larger than their neutron star cousins. But how can this be?

    Aleksi Vuorinen of the University of Bielefeld in Germany and collaborators from Switzerland and the US carried out sophisticated calculations on the “equations of state” for neutron stars and quark stars. Their results suggest that a quark star 2.5 times the mass of our sun should swell larger than a neutron star weighing in at twice the mass of our sun.

    These findings are very interesting for the potential discovery of quark stars. If astronomers spot something that looks like a large neutron star of 2.5 solar masses, perhaps they are actually looking at a ball of strange matter in the form of a quark star.

    “The main conclusion of our work is that there is a clear signature for the possible detection of quark stars — and thus stable strange quark matter,” said Vuorinen.

    The discovery of such an object could have some incredible benefits not only for astronomers, but for physicists working at CERN; they could gain a lot of information about naturally occurring “strange quark matter.” This state of matter cannot be created in the lab (whereas hot “quark gluon plasmas” can be generated by accelerators such as the LHC), so the discovery of quark stars would be beneficial for astrophysicists and particle physicists alike.

    But it doesn’t stop there; quark stars could be even stranger than that.
    A Big Bang Laboratory?
    In research carried out by another group of physicists, led by De-Chang Dai of the State University of New York in Buffalo, the quark star is examined and pushed to its limit. An interesting question arises: What happens to the most massive quark stars? Is there another phase beyond a quark star before this bizarre object collapses as a black hole?

    Using what we know from the Standard Model of particle physics, a massive quark star may have enough gravitational energy to start ‘burning’ strange matter. The quarks inside the core of the quark star may be abused so badly by gravitational pressure that the quarks will be converted into pure energy and neutrinos.

    The fascinating thing with this scenario is that the quark star matter will be so dense that even the neutrinos cannot escape. However, this release of energy and generation of neutrinos creates an outward pressure countering the relentless inward gravitational pull.

    Dai calls this extreme strange matter-burning quark star an “electroweak star” and the calculations suggest that these ultimate stars could be stable for approximately 10 million years, destroying strange matter in the core. The electroweak star core would be as big as an apple, but as massive as two Earths.

    Saving the best till last, the electroweak star’s core would therefore be as extreme as the universe was only 10-10 seconds (that’s 0.0000000001 seconds) after the Big Bang. These extreme objects would be like mini-Big Bang laboratories, maintaining a pressure where the electromagnetic and weak forces are so intertwined, they cannot be distinguished.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    when gravity overcomes the nuclear force - carl sagan
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Rather ironic I must say, since all here have disagreed with you.
    I simply accept the scientific method and proper peer review, and remain open for change based on further observations.
    Again, as appears to be the case with most alternative hypothesis pushers, I don't need to wear my ability to think for myself, or outside the box, like a badge of honour, nor have I an inflated ego.
    I accept I'm a learner, I respect those that are professional, even if I disagree with them, and I certainly accept the validity of reputable links, as well as professional replies to questions asked.

    Let me finish with the following statement....
    There is certainly the possibility and a non zero chance of the next revolution/change in cosmology, to appear from someone out in left field, or even someone like myself who has no professional qualifications.
    But considering the technological advances and state of the art satellites, probes, including ground based equipment as well as the myriad of space craft, that are only accessed by professionals, that chance is very small.
    Like it or not, those are the facts and I suggest we all accept that.
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Still incorrect..........write down the EFE and some of the invariance expressions which I gave you in the last the r approaches zero due to gravitational collapse, how the related parameters approaches infinity.

    This is irrelevant and meaningless. Escape velocity of any object does not have anything to do with photon or speed of light. Similarly visibility of any object also has nothing to do with emission of photons by it. We are able to see moons or many planets (they in general do not emit photons) due to reflection, not because they emit light.

    Thats good if you are correcting yourself, but see how Paddoboy, changed track from formation of BH to now material falling towards Black Hole. In the formation of BH, there is per say no Nuclear force. Paddo is still struggling.

  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    non sense continued....Meaningless statement.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Let me just elaborate some on that.....
    Nothing gets out of the EH from any BH.
    Any light that is emitted by an object just this side of the EH, will arc back and secumb to the BHs EH......Except for any photons of light that are emitted directly radially away.
    In that case they will appear to hover just above the EH, never getting sucked in, and never quite getting away.
    To use an analogy, imagine a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr against a current of 10kms/hr.
  19. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    boom !! Another gem by Paddo..
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    And what will happen to these Photons ??
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    No, not in the least. A singularity is where our models break down and that is at the quantum/Planck level. It need not lead to the infinities of your pet classical point singularity, and a QGT should reveal that in all its glory.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Do you have another model of gravity?
    Or are you just trolling as a few others have mentioned?
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


Share This Page