Image: CERN
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
Within a sliver of a second after it was born, our universe expanded staggeringly in size, by a factor of at least 10^26. That's what most cosmologists maintain, although it remains a mystery as to what might have begun and ended this wild expansion. Now scientists are increasingly wondering if the most powerful particle collider in history, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe, could shed light on this mysterious growth, called inflation, by catching a glimpse of the particle behind it. It could be that the main target of the collider's current experiments, the Higgs boson, which is thought to endow all matter with mass, could also be this inflationary agent.
During inflation, spacetime is thought to have swelled in volume at an accelerating rate, from about a quadrillionth the size of an atom to the size of a dime. This rapid expansion would help explain why the cosmos today is as extraordinarily uniform as it is, with only very tiny variations in the distribution of matter and energy. The expansion would also help explain why the universe on a large scale appears geometrically flat, meaning that the fabric of space is not curved in a way that bends the paths of light beams and objects traveling within it.
The particle or field behind inflation, referred to as the "inflaton," is thought to possess a very unusual property: it generates a repulsive gravitational field. To cause space to inflate as profoundly and temporarily as it did, the field's energy throughout space must have varied in strength over time, from very high to very low, with inflation ending once the energy sunk low enough, according to theoretical physicists.
Much remains unknown about inflation, and some prominent critics of the idea wonder if it happened at all. Scientists have looked at the cosmic microwave background radiation—the afterglow of the big bang—to rule out some inflationary scenarios. "But it cannot tell us much about the nature of the inflaton itself," says particle cosmologist Anupam Mazumdar at Lancaster University in England, such as its mass or the specific ways it might interact with other particles.
A number of research teams have suggested competing ideas about how the LHC might discover the inflaton. Skeptics think it highly unlikely that any earthly particle collider could shed light on inflation, because the uppermost energy densities one could imagine with inflation would be about 10^50 times above the LHC's capabilities. However, because inflation varied with strength over time, scientists have argued the LHC may have at least enough energy to re-create inflation's final stages.
It could be that the principal particle ongoing collider runs aim to detect, the Higgs boson, could also underlie inflation.
"The idea of the Higgs driving inflation can only take place if the Higgs's mass lies within a particular interval, the kind which the LHC can see," says theoretical physicist Mikhail Shaposhnikov at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. Indeed, evidence of the Higgs boson was reported at the LHC in December at a mass of about 125 billion electron volts, roughly the mass of 125 hydrogen atoms.
Also intriguing: the Higgs as well as the inflaton are thought to have varied with strength over time. In fact, the inventor of inflation theory, cosmologist Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, originally assumed inflation was driven by the Higgs field of a conjectured grand unified theory.
See what we're tweeting about
199 Comments
Add CommentNice attempts to clean up the mess left by the invention of all these imaginary proxy elements and/or forces invented to fill the gap between established interpretations of observations and established theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I casually understand, the LHC cannot directly detect the presence of a Higgs boson, only their expected decay products. At any rate, as I understand, the detection of decay elements inferring the presence of Higgs bosons would most importantly provide some confirmation of the Higgs mechanism that is the process though to impart elementary particles with mass. As stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
"The simplest implementation of the mechanism adds an extra Higgs field to the gauge theory. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying local symmetry triggers conversion of components of this Higgs field to Goldstone bosons which interact with (at least some of) the other fields in the theory, so as to produce mass terms for (at least some of) the gauge bosons. This mechanism may also leave behind elementary scalar (spin-0) particles, known as Higgs bosons."
As I understand, the cosmic inflation hypothesis is intended to fill the gap between the initial singularity, inferred only by (radial) interpolation of observed (omnidirectional) universal expansion, and CMB and other observations constraining later characteristics of the universe. Alternatively, the universe might simply not have initially been as small as a singularity - it may have had a larger event horizon...
The fundamental issue that led to the establishment of the perceived requirement for galactic dark matter was that (especially spiral) galaxies' rotation curves (plots of rotational velocity as a function of radial distance) did not comply with Kepler's characteristic rotation curves derived from the laws of planetary motion. The rotational velocities of planets in the Solar system diminish as a function of their distance from the Sun.
continued...
(continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA seminal research report concluding 10 years of observations proved that galactic rotation curves definitely did not comply with Keplerian rotation curves. Please see Rubin, et al., (1980), "Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/ ", http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/158003
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ…238..471R
As stated in section VIII. "DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS":
"1. Most galaxies exhibit rising rotational velocities at the last measured velocity; only for the very largest galaxies are the rotation curves flat. Thus the smallest Sc’s (i.e., lowest luminosity) exhibit the same lack of a Keplerian velocity decrease at large R as do the high-luminosity spirals. This form for the rotation curves implies that the mass is not centrally condensed, but that significant mass is located at large R. The integral mass is increasing at least as fast as R. The mass is not converging to a limiting mass at the edge of the optical image. The conclusion is inescapable that non-luminous matter exists beyond the optical galaxy."
The simple approximations provided by the empirical laws of planetary motion (derived solely from observations of the Solar system, where the Sun contains 99.86% of total system mass) cannot correctly be applied to the vast spatial distributions of massive objects comprising galaxies. Only acknowledgement of this restriction invalidates the perceived 'evidence' for galactic dark matter. In no galaxy is the distribution of mass comparable to that of our Solar system - it should never have been presumed that they should rotate identically.
These proxy elements inferred by very particular interpretations of observations that had little basis in previously established theory are open to at least potentially valid alternative interpretations that would eliminate the requirements for imagined new elements. In these cases, No unified theory of imaginary elements would be necessary.
I assume that the numbers on the first page of the article are meant to be 10^26 and 10^50 respectively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould inflation be because the universe has more energy needed to explode? The accumulation and pressurization of energy shining on where a previous universe exploded would explode before the furthermost energy from of the last big bang arrives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple of questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) If the Higgs is the particle that gives everything mass, what gives the Higgs its mass?
and
2) The current accelerating expansion of the universe is generally attributed to dark energy. Could it have been responsible for inflation? We hear a lot about how the expansion is speeding up (velocity is increasing), but I don't recall hearing anyone talk about what the rate of acceleration is doing. Is acceleration constant, increasing or decreasing? If acceleration due to dark energy was higher at the big bang, wouldn't that explain inflation?
"Particle Underlying Both Mass and Cosmic Inflation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this?
... but what if the Higgs turns out to be an illusion?
This said, the article is about a possible combination of mass creation and management, which is boson business, with inflation, which is more like fermions getting away from each other. Should I understand that a certain particle would be a boson on one hand and a fermion on the other depending on circumstances? The hermaphroditic particle? Mr and Mrs Higgs?
From the pure logistics it would seem more practical if materialization and inflation were managed by two cooperating particles or forces. So I tend for the simpler logistics of "unified progress, separate management".
I try to see this practically. Attempting to create mass while expanding at full speed at the same time is a known recipe for disaster. But if I still need space anyway? I cannot indefinitely add mass to expand a structure or it will at one time collapse under its own weight ( bar end of u.). So the art of bigger space is mainly the art of "thinner" mass.
I would then believe that mass and cosmic inflation are managed separately but their efforts coordinated between whatever forces and particles.
Therefore I'd believe the two are not directly related and ultimately cannot be handled by a common particle.
Unless the article implies that the same particle can materialize/stabilize and inflate/expand?
The phenomenon of sub-particle exchange (the range of sub-particle is found to be atomic to astrophysical scale) in a common field of magnetic monopole/dipole, allows an unreal present core (free from mass) of self-expanding space time –PF (PF: prime form in no boundary condition) to be dragged by a small amount equivalent to a reduced magnitude (orbital ½ : hidden part of matter) of Newton’s third law of motion. Here we should know, Newton’s third law of motion could be reduced (dominated) only by an intrinsic-reaction or spin½.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore I claim that a new mechanical thrust ( i.e., new energy in between the gap of expanding universe) supplied by an accelerating unreal present core of Spacetime-PF via magnetic monopole or spin ½ is directly proportional to the reduced magnitude of Newton’s third law of motion.
It is well-known statement by Einstein that “Spacetime has an inbuilt tendency to expand.” Means due to a continual expansion of Spacetime--PF, a continual thrust could be supplied outward to orbital ½ via spin ½ or magnetic monopole.
Recently, the result was tested experimentally successfully on the background of sub-particle exchange in a common field of magnetic monopole/dipole. In connection of a magnetic monopole, it can relatively be exist in nature that I applied here. We must know, magnetic monopole is the origin of spin ½. However, now, first of all I am planning to utilize the new energy from new sources, i.e., Spacetime-PF and hidden matter. There are free and unending sources of new energy which is applicable everywhere in place of all other payable sources, such as petroleum, coal, hydro, nuclear, etc. Could you kindly help me to make this mission success?
The statement included here has been selected from experimental design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother possibility is that particle physics is founded upon a flatus field and the flaton is the quantum of the field.
Clearly they are making up the story as experimental results become available, or just inventing untestable pseudoscience [think "string/brane theory", no-show "WIMPs", no-show "supersymmetry", and the "multiverse"] that sounds erudite, so the flatus theory is as good as anything.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Re. your question 1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Standard_model
It states: "Fermions, such as the leptons and quarks in the Standard Model, can also acquire mass as a result of their interaction with the Higgs field..."
As I understand, in the Higgs mechanism it is more properly the Higgs field that imparts mass to particles: the Higgs boson is merely a predicted residual particle produced by that process.
IMO, the actual field imparting mass can only be effective in the extreme mass-energy density of the very early universe - as that density diminishes the quantity of mass that can be imparted to emitted particles necessarily also diminishes. In the present conditions of the universe, mass can only be imparted to newly emitted particles in extreme conditions of local density. As a result, most newly emitted particles (not produced by decay processes of massive particles) have little or no mass (i.e., photons).
@rloldershaw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I suppose you have a new and better theory to up end their flatus search? With relevent predictions, theorems, and can explain absolutely everything we've observed in the universe. I take it you are unaware of they hypothesizing part of science. You know the part where you "make things up" and then try to prove your "made up" idea with experiments and data. How would you prefer they go about this research or answer the questions they're working on?
There is no Higgs particle - they are looking for something that doesn't exist. Inertial mass depends on the "space energy level" of the particles (the energy level of the particles relative to absolute space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://novan.com/higgsboson.htm.htm
The inflation-particle (for inflaton) and the Higgs-particle (for giving mass), respectively generate repulsive ("-") and atracting gravity ("+"). Inflation, however, should have stopped, but after 7 billion years it seemed to start again by observing an accelerated space-time. Hence, Inflaton and Higgs might be the same particle! Sometimes acting like a "+" and somtimes like a "-". Such a new particle could be the equivalent for a force (a field) I described in the Double Torus Cosmology, the new dark energy force (see reference-link http://vixra.org/author/dan_visser).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: What does it mean for the universe to be the size of a dime? I thought that distance was a property of 4D space-time itself, not the nD (if real) area around it, and the question stands anyway: what is the "size of a dime" outside of space-time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good question - I have no answer, but consider that there is no evidence or observational requirement that the universe began as a singularity. As I understand, that's only the maximal interpolation of expanding spacetime. The only other initial requirement I'm aware of is that early mass-energy density support the nucleosynthesis of all the universe's hydrogen atoms and some of its helium atoms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ rlodershaw. Well stated! In fact your theory stinks as much as any I have heard. Maybe even more. Nobel prize headed your way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll these theories to me sounds like the 16.th century discussion on the nature of angels. Can they be in one and many places at the same time? Can they carry information from a different dimension into our world? How many of them can fit into a top of a needle, ie., mass issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Higgs boson has at last been detected, albeit indirectly via its predicted decay processes, then this is an important achievement for the LHC team and a further indication that the theoretical patterns predicted by the Standard Model are valid and need to be explained. On the other hand, however, there more than a few good reasons for us to temper our celebrations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative, but when I read insufficiently qualified praise for the merits of the Standard Model of particle physics, scientific integrity would seem to demand that the following well-known facts are also considered, so as to give a more balanced assessment.
1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.
2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).
5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Motivations For Discrete Scale Relativity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Natural Planck mass ( ~ 0.7 times the proton mass); Planck scale M, L and T are all closely associated with the proton
2. Resolution of the vacuum energy density crisis
3. Explains enigmatic physical meaning of the fine structure constant
4. Explains physical meaning of Planck’s constant – its numerical value and physics.
5. Definitive predictions for the dark matter mass spectrum - stellar-mass black holes
6. Offers a promising path to the unification of GR and QM
7. Retrodicts masses of baryons, leptons and mesons at the >99% level
8. Successfully predicted pulsar-planets systems before their discovery
9. Predicted the exoplanet abundance anomaly for the lowest mass red dwarf stars
10. Successfully predicted billions of unbound planetary-mass “nomad” objects in MWG
11. Makes over 35 successful retrodictions of fundamental physical parameters for systems ranging from subatomic particles to atoms, to stars, and to galaxies.
Predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts the dark matter mass spectrum: main peaks are at 8 x 10^-5 , 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses. The objects are ultracompact Kerr-Newman systems ( stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations). The dark matter is definitely not composed of subatomic particles.
2. This new cosmological paradigm has already successfully predicted [in 1987] the existence of vast numbers of unbound planetary-mass objects, which were discovered by Sumi et al [Nature, 19 May 2011].
3. Discrete Scale Relativity predicts an unusually low exoplanet abundance for the lowest mass red dwarfs, i.e., with masses of 0.1 to 0.25 solar mass. [Verified: Bonfils et al, AsAp 2012; http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5019 ].
4. Isolated neutron stars in low energy states are predicted to have radii on the order of 0.5 - 5 km, instead of 10 - 20 km.
5. Stellar plasma envelopes, when we can observe them with adequate resolution, will strongly resemble atomic wavefunctions, i.e., Psi^2 shapes. Planetary nebulae give us a preview of this in their ejected envelopes [spherical, toroidal, bipolar, crossed double-“propellers”, “butterfly” shapes, symmetric caps, etc.] .
6. The self-similar cosmological paradigm already successfully predicted pulsar-planet systems [1989], which were first discovered in 1994. Black hole-planet systems are also predicted.
7. The general properties of the Solar System will be reproduced to good approximation by the Schrodinger equation for a Li atom with n1 = 1, n2 = 5 (l ~ 0) and n3 = 168 (l ~ 160).
8. The stellar mass spectrum will be found to have preferred peaks in multiples of 0.145 solar mass. The dark matter mass spectrum will have discrete peaks at these same values.
9. Every star, planetary nebula and supernova will be found to have an ultracompact nucleus, since they are exactly self-similar to atoms in various states of excitation and ionization. The linear log-log , i.e., 1/R2, relation between the average global magnetic field strengths of Stellar Scale systems possessing global dipole fields and their average radii [e.g., neutron stars, magnetic white dwarfs, red dwarfs, giant stars and supergiant stars] is consistent with very strongly magnetized ultracompact nuclei within magnetic stars.
4 more, but exceeds limit
Isaiah 30 :26 appears to predict a 700% increase in solar output for 7 days. In this time period. Most likely in december 2012. anyone care to explain the mechanism of an event like this.?????? I would not be surprised if the sun can be "juiced up" by aliens. The prediction indicates high rainfall to follow. That one is easy to believe. Nostradamus and crop circles predicts the solar storm as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding all your predictions indicating that dark matter consists of low luminosity massive objects composed of ordinary matter (MACHOs), additional mass within visible galactic boundaries would not meet the fundamental requirement that the mass distribution of galactic dark matter compensates for the observed flat rotational curve of objects within visible galactic boundaries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs explained by the Vera Rubin et al. reference and quotation in my comment #3, explaining the observed flat rotation curve of spiral galaxies within the improperly expected context of Kepler's laws of planetary motion, an enormous distribution of 6-10 times the estimated ordinary galactic mass must extend several times the diameter of the visible galactic periphery. The expected distribution of dark matter required to fit observed galactic rotational velocities to the characteristic Keplerian rotational curves is illustrated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_expected_dark_matter_distribution_around_the_Milky_Way.ogv
Moreover, there is no evidence that unidentified dark or low luminosity massive objects of ordinary matter could possibly account for a 6-10 fold increase in total galactic mass. Such dark, compact massive objects would have easily observable effects on the motions of neighboring objects, producing significant perturbances in the motions of many if not all stars.
Regarding "9. Every star, planetary nebula and supernova will be found to have an ultracompact nucleus, since they are exactly self-similar to atoms in various states of excitation and ionization" are you seriously suggesting that stars are configured exactly self-similar to atoms? In that case, wouldn't the majority of stellar mass be concentrated within a tiny nucleus-like core surrounded at vast peripheral shell of some kind of electron analog???
@ jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You view yourself as an expert in these matters, but clearly your knowledge is limited.
Read the paper: "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter" by M.R.S. Hawkins if you want to educate yourself on Kerr-Newman utracompact objects as a viable and highly attractive candidate for the galactic dark matter.
Here is a link to his paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3875
2. Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the distribution of mass for any specific star is exactly analogous to its Atomic Scale counterpart. So a typical red dwarf star would have most of its mass in a central nucleus and that would be surrounded by a shell(s) of plasma whose distribution depends on the relevant quantum numbers.
Do I want a running debate with one whose knowledge is far more limited than his confidence in his knowledge: NOT!
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
1. I repeatedly explain that I'm no expert, but you have not addressed the very specific issues I raised - only questioned my qualifications! I referenced the seminal work of Dr. Vera Rubin, who is considered to be a top expert in the field, having nearly single-handedly established the perceived requirement for galactic dark matter within the astrophysical community. I merely cited the summary mass distribution requirements she specified. You have not responded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you chose to make this discussion personal, as near as I can determine you seem to be qualified as a (fractal) geologist, apparently no longer associated with Amherst College except as a tenant.
2. So, I presume that, like atoms, the Sun must consist mostly of empty space. Children usually prefer the analogy of the Solar system to an atom, since it much better reflects the atom's spatial distribution of mass and energy than stars do. However, unlike the fundamental particles specified in the standard model of particle physics, planets have widely varying individual characteristics, as do stars, for that matter.
BTW - do I hate it when people have to ask themselves the questions they want to answer? You bet!
Since you have chosen to ignore the specific issues I've raised with the idea of galactic dark matter halos comprised of MACHOs (particularly their perturbances imparted to especially the several hundred massive objects comprising the visible galactic halo), I will not respond to each of the arguments made in your singular reference except to quote the opening statement in its concluding paragraph:
"The results of this paper do not establish that dark
matter is made up of stellar mass primordial black holes."
Your argument is hardly compelling...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Rubin's paper is from 1980. That is 3 decades old!
2. Vera Rubin has published yearly summaries for the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics over those 3 decades. The dark matter problem is always discussed by her as a major unsolved problem.
3. Vera Rubin has always had an open-minded approach to the dark matter enigma. The need for dark matter has never been in dispute, except for MOND hacks. Rubin has never ruled out MACHO dark matter.
4. I do not waste time arguing with pseudoscientists, especially those with fixed agendas, so I will not further respond to your endless series of misleading comments.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
The 1980 Rubin, et al., paper referenced is _the_ research report that 'finally' (after more than a decade of preceding research) established the perceived requirement for dark matter among astrophysicists - 3 decades ago!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated (sans references) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galactic_rotation_curves
"...Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Vera Rubin, a young astronomer at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings based on a new sensitive spectrograph that could measure the velocity curve of edge-on spiral galaxies to a greater degree of accuracy than had ever before been achieved. Together with fellow staff-member Kent Ford, Rubin announced at a 1975 meeting of the American Astronomical Society the discovery that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed, which implied that their mass densities were uniform well beyond the locations with most of the stars (the galactic bulge), a result independently found in 1978. An influential paper presented these results in 1980. Rubin's observations and calculations showed that most galaxies must contain about ten times as much “dark” mass as can be accounted for by the visible stars. Eventually other astronomers began to corroborate her work and it soon became well-established that most galaxies were in fact dominated by "dark matter"..."
I have nothing against Vera Rubin except that her and other physicists at the time incorrectly presumed that the laws of planetary motion must apply to spiral galaxies. I personally wish her well.
The rest of your latest 'rebuttal' again avoids the specific issues raised and is otherwise meaningless.
Since you still do not address the expected mass distribution required of a dark matter halo or any other specific issues, I too will not waste any more time "arguing with pseudoscientists, especially those with fixed agendas, so I will not further respond to your endless series of misleading comments." I do not falsely portray myself as a qualified physicist professionally associated with an academic institution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas "jtdwyer" ever done scientific research, come up with a novel idea, and published a paper on it in a peer-reviewed journal?
I seriously doubt it. His comments look more like those of a poser posing as someone well-informed.
If there are open-minded readers out there, I suggest that they let Discrete Scale Relativity speak for itself, and then judge it without allowing the misinformation of the "jtdwyers" of this world to bias the evaluation.
To his shabby ad hominem attack at the end of his last post, I counter that I have never misrepresented my studies, abilities, short-comings or professional status. If others have made bone-headed assumptions relating to my work at various academic institutions, that is hardly my fault.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
To jtdwyer and rloldershaw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am really distressed to read comments under these columns of SA where commentators are going personal in their approach and questioning the credentials of others - their qualifications, past experiences and scientific knowledge. Both range and depth of scientific knowledge of any aspect are not the monopolistic rights of any individual. Any person, whatever his/her credentials may be, can be wrong in his/her interpretation. Our purpose of discussions under these column is to arrive at correct interpretations and right perspective thro mutual discussions and any sort of self aggrandisement and personal attacks on others can be destructive. And this is possible if we leave set "fixation" to any ideas and approach the issues with open mind
To jtdwyer
"Alternatively, the universe might simply not have initially been as small as a singularity - it may have had a larger event horizon"...
In case of of BH event horizon, space/time exist both within BH event horizon and also outside the event horizon. Though there is substantial difference in the characteristics of space/time and matter/ energy within and outside the even horizon but existence is there both within and outside of event horizon.
In case of BB event horizon, presuming if universe was created from a supermassive BH, what was outside the event horizon of that BH. Further, what created that supermassive BH and what expanded that BH?
We do have no conclusive idea if universe is finite or infinite and have no knowledge regarding the total matter and energy contained in the universe. Therefore we can not arrive at event horizon of a primordial supermasssive BH from which BB might have been activated.
The problems which remain with BB singularity remain with event horizon also
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following theorem can be formally proven via a simple mathematical proof based on Cantor's famous matching argument.
If the discrete self-similarity of nature's cosmological hierarchy is exact, then the hierarchy must be unbounded in both the microcosmic and macrocosmic "directions".
In that case the Universe would comprise an infinite number of cosmological Scales [..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, Metagalactic, ...] and would have an infinite number of systems comprising each Scale.
The physics of all Scales would be exactly the same.
Cheers,
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
To jtdwyer ,rloldeshaw and others
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.0 Physicists and cosmologists state that basic difference between energy and matter is that an electron ( basic unit of matter) is localized energy, a sort of concentrated energy. An electron oscillation are to and froth movement of bundle of energy within De-broglie wavelength.In this way, it can be viewed that an electron is an entity - a bundle of energy in which many photons have been squeezed into too less space
A basic question arises what makes the energy to be localized into too little space. My speculation is that the field or process which makes the energy localized into an electron is also responsible for imparting mass to matter particles. On understanding this process of conversion of energy into matter, puzzle of Higg's field or mass shall also be solved.
2.0 Before going into the intricacies of an inflation field/Higgs field imparting rapid expansion to primordial space/time at BB by an incredulous factor of 10^26, it will be desirable and essential to have a credulous knowledge and understanding of space/time by addressing following issues :
i) Is space comprises of some physicality? If space has NIL physicality implying not comprising of any physical entity then why there should be any need for any field/force for its expansion. A field/force is required for creating movement in an entity which has some physicality i.e composed of some thing physical. In physical terminology, any existence not composed of any physical entity is NOTHING. No force should be required to produce motion in NOTHING
Above line of thinking should be applicable upon other concepts also viz any expansion force for normal Hubble expansion or dark energy for accelerating expansion
ii) If space has some physicality, then it can not be continuous, smooth and infinite one as demanded by Einstein's GR. Any entity which is a created one can not be continuous, smooth for infinite ends as a single integrated whole. This implies fabric of space might be discrete one comprising of some below Plank level atomic structure. Any such below Plank level atomic structure of space has yet not been detected
iii) If somehow atomic structure of space is established, further question which will arise :
From where the extra atoms of space emerge out during expansion?
Further to comment 30
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me following remedies appear probable solution to the above conundrum :
i) Physicality of space is NIL. It is self expanding in nature , as such, there should be no need of any inflation field or dark energy or expansion field.
ii) There is some physicality of space, most probably atomic in nature but SPACE is non-expanding. As such, there should be no need of any inflation field
iii) Space has some physicality having some atomic structure. It requires some field for rapid expansion, expansion field for normal Hubble expansion and dark energy for accelerated expansion. Whatever may be the field, there should be a single common field for all three expansions - rapid cosmic, normal Hubble and accelerated. Single field might be changing its nature during various stages of evolution of universe
iv) In scenario iii) above also, issue of source of extra atoms of space during expansion is not resolved. The only solution which seems feasible is that this physical world has a connect with some higher dimensional world from where space/energy/matter emerge out. This shall also pre-empt the requirement of any singularity or event horizon of a BH
Cosmic Expansion is an illusion based on the assumption that Red Shift is entirely due to the Doppler Effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe illusion that “the farther away things are, the faster they are going away” comes from the telescope measurements of Red Shift of light from far away galaxies. The measurements show that galaxies that are farther away have more Red Shift. By assuming that Red Shift is entirely due to the Doppler Effect, calculations conclude that galaxies are going away from each other, and accelerating in speed. The energy to power the expansion is unknown, so it is called Dark Energy.
An alternative theory is that Red Shift is due to some unknown phenomenon in addition to the known phenomenon of Doppler Effect. As a photon travels through space, its frequency will gradually fade from high to low. The total energy of the photon remains constant, and continues along the same path, but the energy distribution of the photon goes from “sharp” to “dull”.
The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, by the equation E = hv. As the original high frequency of the photon fades, a new low frequency is created so the total energy of the two frequencies remains constant. In this way, a photon that has a high amount of Red Shift will be accompanied by a low frequency photon equal to the energy “lost” to the Non-Doppler Red Shift so the photon pair will have the same energy as the original photon.
To test this theory, a machine will have to be able to measure photons for the simultaneous presence of high and low frequencies. If photons with high Red Shift are always accompanied by coincident photons of low frequency, then it will indicate that Red Shift is not entirely due to the Doppler Effect.
If Red Shift can be shown to have more than one cause, then Cosmic Expansion will be shown to be an illusion.
Thanks,
-Tony
PS. Congratulations to those guys for their Nobel Prize on the same subject.
I agree. I very much doubt the existence of the Higgs and of Dark Matter. Science Fiction so far. But a lot of wishful thinking. I guess it fun to make up stories that get published and result in continued funding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTony,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat causes one photon to become two photons. This violates QED. Are you saying QED is also wrong?
Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQED is about the interaction between photons and electrons, specifically at the beginning and end of the photon's journey.
What I am talking about is the interaction between photons and space over vast distances and time.
I don't see any conflict with QED. Why do you say it violates QED?
Thanks,
-Tony
Maxwell’s Equations and the Electromagnetic Wave Equation describe how light travels through space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaxwell’s Equations from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
Solutions to the equations are typically sine waves that have no beginning or end.
Real waves are finite. To describe their shape, waves are divided into an infinite set of component frequencies.
“based on the theory of Fourier decomposition, a real wave must consist of the superposition of an infinite set of sinusoidal frequencies.”
In this way, a photon is an assembly of multiple frequencies. Calling a photon by a single frequency or wavelength is a simplification. In the equation E = hv, the frequency is the “characteristic frequency” that describes the energy of the wave. It does not give any information about the energy distribution of the photon, or what the dominant component frequencies are.
If a photon is an energy distribution of various frequencies, then it seems possible that the energy distribution could change from one frequency to another within the photon. The characteristic frequency will fade from high to low as entropy increases. New frequencies will appear to carry the energy lost from the higher frequencies, so the total energy stays constant within the photon. These new frequencies could be called new photons, but since they are coincident and dependent on the original photon the new frequencies could be called new components of the original photon. I think it is a matter of preference of which way to say it.
Thanks,
-Tony
There could be some reasons why a photon would change its energy distribution as it travels through vast space and time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA common assumption is that the speed of light is the same for all frequencies. Any difference in speeds of frequencies will result in a redistribution of energy towards the slower frequencies. Also, the energy density of space is sure to vary along the path of the photon. Perhaps energy density gradients affect each component frequency of the photon by a different amount.
Another possibility is that waves in a medium made of discrete elements will not propagate exactly. The rate of decay of the original wave form depends on the nature of the discrete elements and the size of the wave relative to the discrete elements. If the size of the wave is much greater than its elements, then medium will appear homogeneous, the wave will appear smooth and will propagate without much change. If the size of the wave is comparable to the size of its elements, the medium will appear as grainy, the wave will not be smooth and will change shape as it propagates. In this way, Red Shift that is not created by the Doppler Effect could be an indicator of the Quantization of Space.
Thanks,
-Tony
In response to jtdwyer 07:15 AM 6/29/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I casually understand, the LHC cannot directly detect the presence of a Higgs boson, well we can study and interpret the Photographic plate sequence in slow motion, of the interactions that will be effectively lead to the theoritical presence of the postulated HIGGS PARTICLE, watch the effective sequence of the ANGULAR SWEEP during the precision TIME FREEZE when the Higgs Particle interaction impulsive shock appears,by transfering these "high resolution photographs Angular sweep "in order to observe the physical Higgs Particle production in Galatic structures.
We can locate a corresponding set of GALAXY with minimum 16 Celestial Bodies orbitals Template",we can infer the similar simultaneous corresponding Angular Momentum "TORQUE" (1-1-1......amongst celestial bodies in Galatic structures,if we scan the locations in the Synchronised fixed time in Phase space,Inertia Gravity ,TIME Reversal, Radial and Inertial Forces play a prime dominant role,in synchronization Locked with Time Reversal, in a slice of Five Dimensional Phase space.
The Gravitational Field Equations in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity-- its interpretation is incomplete on the RHS. The TORQUE of a set sequence of 1-1-1-......is the missing ingredient, and solving this problem is discovery of the missing "FIFTH DIMENSON Higgs FIELD" and its related Particle family interaction sites in space-time.
In response to jtdwyer 07:15 AM 6/29/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I casually understand, the LHC cannot directly detect the presence of a Higgs boson, well we can study and interpret the Photographic plate sequence in slow motion, of the interactions that will be effectively lead to the theoritical presence of the postulated HIGGS PARTICLE, watch the effective sequence of the ANGULAR SWEEP during the precision TIME FREEZE when the Higgs Particle interaction impulsive shock appears,by transfering these "high resolution photographs Angular sweep "in order to observe the physical Higgs Particle production in Galatic structures.
We can locate a corresponding set of GALAXY with minimum 16 Celestial Bodies orbitals Template",we can infer the similar simultaneous corresponding Angular Momentum "TORQUE" (1-1-1......amongst celestial bodies in Galatic structures,if we scan the locations in the Synchronised fixed time in Phase space,Inertia Gravity ,TIME Reversal, Radial and Inertial Forces play a prime dominant role,in synchronization Locked with Time Reversal, in a slice of Five Dimensional Phase space.
The Gravitational Field Equations in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity-- its interpretation is incomplete on the RHS. The TORQUE of a set sequence of 1-1-1-......is the missing ingredient, and solving this problem is discovery of the missing "FIFTH DIMENSON Higgs FIELD" and its related Particle family interaction sites in space-time.
I think what's described here is the detection of expected Higgs boson decay products, not the detection of Higgs boson particles themselves... Please see http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-find-new-particle-but-is-it-the-higgs-1.10932
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The signal was seen in the decay of a Higgs-like particle into two high-energy photons — one of the cleanest ways to glimpse a Higgs among the hundreds of trillions proton–proton collisions recorded in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The data contained “a significant excess" of collision events at a mass of around 125 gigaelectronvolts, the ATLAS researcher told Nature, which is the same value suggested by last year's data. The same signal is present in other Higgs decay channels, too, such as those in which the new Higgs-like particle decays into four leptons."
The "Standard Model" of particle physics [SU(2) gauge theory] originally predicted that particles have zero mass, which is clearly falsified by observation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo theoretical particle physicists tacked on the ad hoc "Higgs Mechanism" that involves a somewhat bizarre spontaneous symmetry-breaking that makes the particles have mass. It also involves introducing a new field and particle(s). The putative Higgs is supposed to be a spin=0 scalar particle. All of this is a bit weird and forced in my opinion.
So the question is: Do we have a Ptolemaic situation wherein the "mechanism" can roughly reproduce the observed phenomena, but has nothing to do with how nature actually works?
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
@tony
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA single photon has a specific wavelength. It doesn't change by itself. By Planck-Einstein equation, it is not possible for the photon's energy to remain constant while its frequency or wavelength changes. The energy is a function of frequency or wavelength.
You're mixing up Planck-Einstein equation and Planck's law. The former refers to a single photon, the latter to a stream of photons. A photon does not have an energy distribution. Light does because it is a stream of photons.
Tony, you said, "These new frequencies could be called new photons." This statement and many of the other statements you made in this context are completely wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be focusing mostly on classical physics and the wave nature of electromagnetic radiation. A photon is also a particle. It is either emitted or absorbed. In all cases an electron (or positron) is involved. You seem to be saying that one photon can split into two photons. No theory that I am aware of in physics gives this as being possible. If I am wrong, please provide the model/theory for how this can happen (and not your own theory -- give name of theory, author, and year). Or simply reference any Feynman diagram showing one gauge boson spliting into two.
Also, Tony, most of the redshift observed in the light of galaxies billions of light away is not caused by the Doppler effect but from the actual expansion of space itself. The light waves simply expand with space over billions of years. The Doppler effect for light is only significant in any red or blue shifts for stars in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies, expecially in our cluster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese mechanisms are called the Doppler redshift and cosmlogical redshift, respectively.
But please first address your two-photons-out-of-one theory.
To Tony-who
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Also, the energy density of space is sure to vary along the path of the photon"
What is meant by energy density of space? Are there empirical evidences for the grainy or atomic nature of space? If physicality of space is NIL, energy density of space carries no meaning
To jtdwyer and others
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read the article in Nature as refereed by you at comment 40. But somehow articles in Nature do no generate as much discussions as under comments column in SA. I am duplicating below the comments as given by me in Nature article
"The signal was seen in the decay of a Higgs-like particle into two high-energy photons — one of the cleanest ways to glimpse a Higgs among the hundreds of trillions proton–proton collisions recorded in the Large Hadron "
"The same signal is present in other Higgs decay channels, too, such as those in which the new Higgs-like particle decays into four leptons"
Does Higg's like particle decay into 4 leptons or 2 high energy photons? Do these decays pertain to different experiments? Is the energy of 2 photons equivalent to 4 leptons. Article does not mentions anything about these observations
If Higg's boson is responsible for endowing mass to the entire matter of universe,, why its presence is so rare — detection of one signal amongst trillion of proton-proton collisions
I can only guess that the different decay channels are thought to be produced by different experimental conditions. As I understand, even the expected decay products are hypothetical, since no Higgs boson has ever been detected...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for why is the Higgs boson so hard to find, I think the standard answer is that it's exceedingly unstable - we can only detect its fleeting expected transitory decay products (and those expected decay products can also be produced by other conditions).
In response to Mr.jtdwyer,thank you , The tentative discovery at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider of the Higgs boson -- among the key missing links in our fundamental theories of matter -- again shows the surprising power of Time Reversal Mathematics to illuminate nature’s secrets. But the discovery also points to an abrupt change the value of a "PHASE TRANSITION", that Metals and Fluids e.g. water at the bottom of Sea Floor & the OCEAN FLOOR can reflect in structural Homogeneity,properties as simple as we know nothing about, might turn out to be surprising Reversal in properties,similar to things we’re familiar with, and the unknown new Matter, indeed, the theory behind the Higgs boson owes as much to what’s already known about mundane things like iron magnets and metals as it does to exotic mathematics that's complete, and under further studies and its physical and experimental verification, in Nature's simplicity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can locate a corresponding set of GALAXY with minimum 16 Celestial Bodies orbitals Template",we can infer the similar simultaneous corresponding Angular Momentum "TORQUE" (1-1-1......amongst celestial bodies in Galatic structures,if we scan the locations in the Synchronised fixed time in Phase space,Inertia Gravity ,TIME Reversal, Radial and Inertial Forces, Phase Transition,Fluids etc.and a Host of Fine Tuned Parameters, play a prime dominant role,in synchronization Locked with Time Reversal, in a slice of Five Dimensional Phase space."Time" will Freeze in Phase space for a period dictated by the Perfect, pristine Triple Axis overlap symmetry,the period of Time Freeze, depends on the Galatic reference Frame Template chosen,as the Symmetry is physically effected by the Rotation and Revolution of Celestial Bodies,around the Galatic Black Hole Gravitational Dynamics center, we will finally Locate the beauty of the , "LOW ENERGY LIMIT" in a "CLASSICAL SYMMETRY"
@ Dr Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe specific wavelength of a photon is related to the “characteristic frequency” so it works with the Planck Einstein equation E = hv. The characteristic frequency is a simplification to make the math easy.
Planck’s Law is about Temperature and Black Body radiation. Why do you bring it up?
@ Cramer.
Not completely wrong. All the information is not available.
A photon is a wave packet with discrete energy. It is called a particle because it can be counted as a single item. It is made of multiple frequencies, and its energy distribution can be described by the amplitudes of its component frequencies.
The energy of a photon takes some space. It has wave characteristics. What is the shape of that? Has there been any work done to find the shape of a photon?
Fourier transforms are a way to describe real waves as an assembly of component waves:
“
Real waves are finite. To describe their shape, waves are divided into an infinite set of component frequencies.
“based on the theory of Fourier decomposition, a real wave must consist of the superposition of an infinite set of sinusoidal frequencies.”
“
The new frequencies that I am talking about are component frequencies of the original photon. People often equate frequency with photons, so I called it both ways. In this case, I am specifically talking about component frequencies of photons and how they might change over time and distance, not including interactions with electrons.
Cosmological Red Shift is an illusion. It is the calculated result from assuming that the measured Red Shift is entirely from the Doppler Effect.
@ Vinod,
By energy density of space, I mean the electromagnetic background radiation. It is not the same every where.
How much does the electromagnetic background radiation affect a photon as it travels? Is it known?
I don’t know if there is any empirical evidence for the grainy or atomic nature of space. So far, Quantization of Space is just a theory.
Thanks,
-Tony
You're certainly quite knowledgeable on the subject, but then as an uninformed lay person I sometimes have difficulty in assessing whether such complex information is correct, especially when it's not supported by some freely available references.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Quantum_theory
begins with the following paragraph which at least seems to me to conflict with some of your declarations.
"In 1900 Max Planck, attempting to explain black body radiation suggested that although light was a wave, these waves could gain or lose energy only in finite amounts related to their frequency. Planck called these "lumps" of light energy "quanta" (from a Latin word for "how much." In 1905, Albert Einstein used the idea of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, and suggested that these light quanta had a "real" existence. In 1923 Arthur Holly Compton showed that the wavelength shift seen when low intensity X-rays scattered from electrons (so called Compton scattering) could be explained by a particle-theory of X-rays, but not a wave theory. In 1926 Gilbert N. Lewis named these liqht quanta particles photons."
On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics#Superposition_and_interference
seem to support the idea of "characteristic frequency" but only in respect to multiple light waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_frequency
"The concept of normal modes also finds application in wave theory, optics, quantum mechanics, and molecular dynamics."
Try as I might, I don't find any source that describes how a single wave packet's frequency can vary. Can you refer me to some freely accessible online source that might help me understand?
Thanks in advance...
@rloldershaw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,"
So you make a post comparing everything they've done and everything that's being done at the multi-billion dollar LHC nothing more than searching for "Farts", yes you did mean to be disrespectful and excessively negative. Next time you make a post on "Flatus research" understand how disrespectful you are before feigning innocents.
Tony,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are literally on the eve of the annoucement of the discovery of the Higgs boson -- the last missing piece of the Standard Model -- and you are claiming that the photon is not a particle?
Why does shape matter for a photon to be a particle? Does a quark have a shape? Does a proton made up of 3 quarks have a shape? You've seem to have missed the point of particle physics. Physists do not think of them like dust particles. Shape and size are not known, only their mass, charge, and spin. That's somewhat the reason QED had problems with infinities in the 1930s and 1940s.
I made a very simple request and you replied by mostly repeating your knowledge on 19th century physics.
Please provide me the reference for a theory that one photon can turn into two photons.
1. It appears that the di-photon decay channel rate is at least a factor of 2 higher than "Standard Model" predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. It also appears that the WW decay channel is virtually missing in the LHC data, which should not be the case at all!
3. The combination of 1 and 2 was definitely not anticipated.
Are new epicycles going to be required to get the "right" answer?
Do theoretical particle physicists want the "Higgs Mechanism" so badly that they have lost scientific objectivity?
Sorry for asking inconvenient questions, but someone must and few seem inclined to do so.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
You said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The total energy of the photon remains constant, and continues along the same path, but the energy distribution of the photon goes from “sharp” to “dull”...
As the original high frequency of the photon fades, a new low frequency is created so the total energy of the two frequencies remains constant"
The Planck-Einstein equation does not allow the frequency of the photon to change while its energy remains constant. A single photon does not have an energy distribution. You must be referring to the energy distribution derived from Planck's law, which describes the electromagnetic waves emitted by a black body (an idealized model for stars). But this pertains to a stream of photons not a single photon.
To Anselm (48)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this("Time" will Freeze in Phase space for a period dictated by the Perfect, pristine Triple Axis overlap symmetry,the period of Time Freeze, depends on the Galatic reference Frame Template chosen,as the Symmetry is physically effected by the Rotation and Revolution of Celestial Bodies,around the Galatic Black Hole Gravitational Dynamics center, we will finally Locate the beauty of the , "LOW ENERGY LIMIT" in a "CLASSICAL SYMMETRY)
i) 1) What is meant by 5 dimensional phase space? If space has some sort of physicality then it can be appreciated to some extent, but if physicality of Space is NIL implying NOTHING, then how to appreciate it. By NOTHING , I mean actually nothing -- no quantum fluctuations, no quantum fields, no Hiesenberg Uncertainty.
ii) when Time will freeze in phase space, then what is meant by " for a period dictated by perfect pristine triple axis overlap..? Time freeze means no time which we can not envision while we ourselves being within Time. So what is the relevance of for a period within the "time freeze" stage?
To Tony-who, Dr Strangelove and jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTony-who has raised a quite innovative and revolutionary issue which previously never came to my mind so vividly though I had some vagueness about this idea.
1)I want to go straight to the question -- when an electron emits a single wave-front ( equivalent of a single photon), is the emission at a single fixed frequency in the classical manner OR there may be multiple frequencies in the quantum uncertainty ways
2) we have one problem or other in both the above ways. If we state that emission is at fixed frequency -- no multiple frequency, no superposition implying no wave function for a single photon. This will lead to violation of quantum uncertainty in its "totality and purity". This will lead to conclusion that there are limits on the operation of quantum principles on either sides -- at macro as well micro where quantum uncertainty fails. Further regime of quantum principles is not as all pervasive as it is understood. Like classical world, quantum world is also restrictive and uncertainty is not "pure" - it is bounded certain areas
2) If we subscribe to the view that an emitted photon may carry multiple frequencies conforming to the "pure and total" quantum principles, then detected photon will not carry fixed energy at all places and all times. On observation, on collapse of wave-function, a single photon may be detected carrying diverse frequencies and energies at different places and times. This will lead to lot of uncertainty at macro level.
So here is a conundrum. either we may choose "purity and totality" of quantum principles with lot of uncertainty in classical world OR restrictive nature of quantum world but certainty in classical macro world
1) The emitted photon has fixed frequency corresponding to the energy level of the electron's 'quantum jump' within an atom. But an electron can make multiple quantum jumps and emit multiple photons with different frequencies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to a particle's momentum and position. A photon can have fixed energy and frequency. No contradiction between classical and quantum physics there.
Dr Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The emitted photon has fixed frequency corresponding to the energy level of the electron's 'quantum jump' within an"
Exact above is the issue which tony-who has raised in his post and about which I had also been having some vague feeling. Are energy levels of electron (orbits) fixed the classical way or there is also in-built quantum uncertainties. I mean to say energy level of an electron itself may be a superimposed value of many energy levels. If it is so, how photon frequency on jumping from one energy level to other can remain fixed. Corresponding to multi energy values of one energy levels of electron, photons shall ALSO have multi values of frequencies and detected one may be the superimposed value of all frequencies. I am not saying that this interpretation is right. But if we insist upon fixed frequency of a photon, then we should also be ready to accept fixed energy level (orbits) of electron. Can we define the rigid trajectory (energy level) of electron. around nucleous in the classical manner the way planets move around Sun. Before concluding any aspect, we should be clear about all associated aspects.
One thing which I can not comprehend despite my best visualization and for which if you could help me in my conceptual understanding.
This is an observed fact that a photon can be at many many positions simultaneously at one time. What is meant by position and time? Within the duration of one Plank value, can a photon be at all the positions in space subject to speed of light? Or is it like the way that at one Plank moment, a photon occupies only one position and subsequently moves to to other positions on subsequent Plank moments. So within a second, which has some 10^34 plank duration, a photon can occupy many different positions but at different Plank timings but appears to occupy many positions at same time.
A last query : does a photon requires space (space-time?) for its existence and propagation? At the singularity in a BH, where time freezes to zero and curvature of space is infinite( implying nil space) can a photon survive or propagate. Or for that matter not a BH but any singularity say of BB or naked singularities, can a photon survive or propagate? What I want to know, what is the meaning of energy in the absence of space and time?
I agree - as I understand your comments on this issue have been quite clear, concise and correct - thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Vinodsehgal, you did not grasp the practical depth of my article 48,"IN A DYNAMIC SYNCHCRONISED SPACETIME ONLY, UNDER GEOMETRICAL SYMMETRY,TWO AXIS GROUPS INVOLVES TRIANGULATED INTERCONNECTED FORMATION OF THE FOLLOWING Parameters(1) Normal standard Forward Time (2)Time Reversal ,Phase space,Transition,Higgs Field,Torsion,Inertia Gravity,TORQUE (The missing Mathematical component on the RHS.of Einsteins Gravitational Equations)' Vertical Strings,and Winding Spiral Stings,and the Angular Width of Phase Space 4.669 Degrees , etc. are in the "Time Reversal"Group- Clockwise Orbitals of Celestial Bodies are our Forward time, as Looking down on the earth and the solar system from above the earth's SOUTH pole: The sun and earth and moon are rotating clock wise on their axis. "Earth", but the Anti-clockwise orbitals relative to Earths orbit,viz:Planet" Venus" direction is in Time Reversal,Venus rotates clockwise in "retrograde" -a minimum of 16 celestial bodies in 8 PAIRS on two axis are required to form a perfect SYMMETRY set, if they fullfill the 64 PARAMETERS,at one precise moment of time ,the two seperate "groups overlap "," THIS IS TIME FREEZE" once in 26,000 years , so wonder !!!! we missed it ,the scientific professionals WITH PROPER AND APPROPIATE DESIGNED TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTS,(BECAUSE THE OVERLAP IS VISIBLE ONLY IN 5 TO 9,10,11,DIMENSIONS DYNAMIC SYMMETRISED SPACETIME) and the human race missed a great opportunity and priceless spectacle after 26,000 years!opportunity lost for another 500 generations.,it lasted 72 Hours.tragic FOR MANKIND.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the theory of Fourier Analysis:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Wikipedia: Fourier Analysis)
The purpose is of Fourier Analysis is to mathematically approximate the shape of a generalized wave function. The approximation is typically a series of component sine waves.
Fourier Transforms are used for periodic functions that repeat indefinitely. To model a wave of short duration, the wave shape can be multiplied by a bounding envelope. This way, a Fourier Transform can model a wave of discrete energy.
Wavelet Analysis is similar to Fourier Analysis, but uses non-repeating wavelets instead of sine waves for the components of the series.
Here is the theory of Wavelet Analysis:
(Wikipedia: Wavelet Analysis)
“A wavelet is a wave-like oscillation with an amplitude that starts out at zero, increases, and then decreases back to zero.”
The Planck Einstein equation E = hv is an Empirical Relationship.
It fits the data, but does not show understanding.
(Wikipedia: Empirical Relationship)
“In science, an empirical relationship is one based solely on observation rather than theory. An empirical relationship requires only confirmatory data irrespective of theoretical basis.”
This reminds me of a quote:
“Everything is linear to a first-order approximation!”
What I hope to see is a mathematical description of the wave function of a photon based on fundamental principles of electromagnetism. Maxwell’s Equations are the differential equations relating electric and magnetic fields. By applying the initial conditions and boundary conditions to the differential equation, a solution can be solved. To satisfy the quantum nature of photons, the mathematical description will have to be able to handle waves of short duration and give a total energy for the wave. What is the shape of the wave?
It can still be a particle if it has a shape.
I’m interested to hear the new news from the LHC.
BTW, you can see the original particle accelerators at LHS in Berkeley.
Thanks,
-Tony
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you are speaking of some deep rooted innovative complex concepts of Physics/Cosmology which most probably are not popular in the mainstream scientific literature. At least, I was not aware of these concepts. Your elaborations have facilitated me in having some "feel" of your concepts. Thanks for same. However, candidly speaking I have yet not fully grasped the concept which is in your mind. A few days ago, under comments column of some other article on dark matter by George Musser in SA, you had also echoed the similar views. Under that article, I had echoed the views on another reality -astral world, which you recognized but could not grasp fully. Similarly, I recognize your concepts but I do not grasp fully.
I would like to take forward and widen discussions on your concept. I request you to please, send me a detailed write up, with briefing on all the fundamentals of your concept, on your deep rooted concept at my E mail ID vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com, if same is possible for you. Then after few discussions, I may be able grasp your concept fully. Please keep into consideration that though having a degree in Physics, I am not a practizing scientist in any University/Lab. However, I am conversant with the conceptual understanding of all the basic prevailing theories of contemporary and occidental Physics and Cosmology
Here are the links:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFourier Analasys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis
Wavelet Analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_analysis
Empirical Relationship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_relationship
Thanks,
-Tony
Thanks for the additional information, but I don't find any indication that a single photon/wave packet emission has varying or multiple wave frequencies. Dr. Strangelove's comment seems to explain clearly that each photon has a discrete frequency:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The emitted photon has fixed frequency corresponding to the energy level of the electron's 'quantum jump' within an atom. But an electron can make multiple quantum jumps and emit multiple photons with different frequencies."
All the links your provided seem to explain how to characterize a stream of many photons, potentially all from the same collective 'emission source' object...
What am I misunderstanding?
I am at a loss why you refuse to discuss the science, but instead attempt to educate us on simple undergraduate mathematical tools such as Fourier Analysis by cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. FA is so widespread that even Wall Streeters use it to price options that are better modeled with underlying Arrow-Debreau securities with significant non-Gaussian returns. Are you learning about Fourier analysis for the first time in your life and find it fasinating? That's great, but I have been well versed in Numerical Methods for the past quarter century from my education and professional experience in solving PDFs, etc. I do not need a lecture in FA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease discuss your theory of how you believe ONE PHOTON SPLITS INTO TWO PHOTONS. I can only guess that you couldn't find any established theories for this as I have asked for multiple times. And if continue to refuse to discuss it, I can only assume you do not have much confidence in your theory. Also, it would be nice if you could use quantum theory rather than only classical physics.
Hi Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought I answered your question when I said:
"The new frequencies that I am talking about are component frequencies of the original photon. People often equate frequency with photons, so I called it both ways. In this case, I am specifically talking about component frequencies of photons and how they might change over time and distance, not including interactions with electrons."
I used the words "photon" and "frequency" interchangeably when I should have used the word "frequency."
What I am talking about is interactions between component frequencies within an individual photon, happening without changing the total energy of the photon.
Photons are created when an electron goes from one energy level to another. The energy of the photon comes from the difference between the energy levels of the electron states. The energies of photons are quantized, meaning they have discrete amounts of energy that are measurable. Hopefully we can agree on that.
After a photon is made, how does it propagate through space? We know that light is an electromagnetic wave. A finite amount of energy will need some volume to move through space. All of its energy can't exist at a single point or else it would have infinite energy density. Infinite energy density is a no-no. Something else will happen before that. Is seems that you are trying to argue that all of the energy of a photon exists in a single point of no volume.
I’m interested to see a mathematical description of the shape of a photon similar to how there are mathematical descriptions of the shapes of electron orbitals in quantum theory. The shapes of orbitals in quantum theory are solutions to Schrödinger’s wave equation. I’m hoping to see an analogous solution relative to photons, based on Maxwell’s Equations, which are also wave equations. Perhaps there are different shapes for photons, depending on their energy level.
Here is Schrödinger’s Equation, one of the foundations of quantum theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_equation
“In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time.”
“To summarize, the Schrödinger equation is a differential equation of wave-particle duality, and particles can behave like waves because their corresponding wave function satisfies the wave equation.”
They have some interesting graphics of wave packets in the article.
Thanks,
-Tony
Congratulations to those guys for discovering a new particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks,
-Tony
Yes there are fixed energy levels for electrons defined by four quantum numbers. They are not like orbits of planets around the sun. You cannot visualize a matter-wave but it is described precisely mathematically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concepts of mass and energy are meaningless without space-time. Their exact definition is linked to space-time.
Tony, I did not say that a "photon exists in a single point of no volume." I said it's size is unknown. It can only be describe with a probability density. You can not use the Schrödinger’s Equation to describe a photon. SE is for a non-relativistic particle with mass. The Klein–Fock–Gordon equation also will not work. You could look into the Glauber Sudarshan P representation, but I do not think this is for a single photon. It sounds like you do not believe that a photon is an elementary particle. That is, it is made up of it's own component particles like quarks in a proton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRef.62. vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 11:01 AM 7/4/12,please read the Book by Dr.Christinaak, it will give you deep insight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote in response,"Beautiful Landscape & art in the few factual words you described,the "Lost Dice of Gravito-Magnetic " Phonon's, deciphered component of the Cascade of events in the LOG- thats what you factually expressed, if the interpretation focused from Time Reversal Pairing in Cosmology and Experimental- Mathematical Physics.Wish you a Nobel Price,keep it up".
In response to the Brilliant christinaak,I am writing EMPERICAL TESTED GEOMETRIES of Extended Version of the Mathematical Equation's of GR,you are puzzled and confused, you are trying to express your WISDOM, I will assist you in my humble mental ability,Grasp it,
The space-time geometry of baryonic matter has 3 strata comprised of 11 dimensions (8 space and 3 time,)and the 3 different time dimensions arise as a consequence of stratum-dependent "NO VARIATION" in the constant c , but add the speed of the GRAVITON--c 8-c9-c10,to the LOG of the speed of light, The geometry of dark matter has two strata comprised of integrated and combination simulultaneously in 9,10&11 " TORSION CREATING Dimensions", and the dark matter stratum,dark energy Torque etc. is the source of the missing link of the standard model ,THE HIGGS PARTICLE, Please study Einstein,GR.Equations,it is explicitly detailed on the structure and parameters applicable, and in accordance constructing ordered sequence (creating a chronology).when there is a Time freeze,the 5th Dimension appears in the Classical Symmetry.
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you.
You indicated baryonic matter has 3 starta having 11 dimensions (8 space+3time) PLUS 3 starta dependent differential time dimensions. What are these different starta of barynic matter and 8 space dimensions? Do these starta and dimensions manifest at quantum level only Or even at macro classical level indicating some deeper layers of nature behind this 3D physical world?
I have conviction from my study of last about 40 years of metaphysical and spiritual sources that behind the layer of this physical world reality, lies reality of nature in form of two worlds -- astral world and causal world. These astral and causal world are not quantum but macro, even more macro than physical world to the extent that physical is contained within astral and astral contained within causal in order like layers of onion. At the time of creation, nature emerges out from causal to astral to physical by cause-effect relation and stops at matter
Corresponding to 3 starta of baronic matter, I could have grasped 9 dimensions (with 3 space dimensions corresponding to each starta but I can not grasp 8 dimensions.
You have indicated 2 starta pertain to dark matter - integrated and combinational simultaneously in 9,10,11. Candidly speaking, I have not grasped yours this
statement.
To which starta dark energy belongs to?
Speaking the language of a Physicist, are there any strong evidence for the existence of graviton and dark energy. I think, before dark energy, issue regarding physicality of space should be settled. IF PHYSICALITY OF SPACE IS NIL, IMPLYING NOTHING AND BY NOTHING I MEAN ACTUAL NOTHING, WHAT IS THE NEED FOR ANY ENERGY DARK OR INFLATION FIELD OR EXPANSION FOR PRODUCTION OR EXPANSION OF SPACE? Do we need any energy for the creation or emergence of TIME? Does not Time flows at its own without any energy? So why can not space produce and flow at its own without any energy. Einstein's ideas of contraction or expansion of space or (space-time) thro application of force- speed -SR and mass- GR is the perception of observer. If you will treat those changes in space-time as actual, space and time shall become subservient to matter and energy which may have unconcievable implications
What is the source of book by Dr Christinaak. I am based in New Delhi, india.
I have read Einstein's SR and GR from conceptual point of view. Though I can follow simple mathematical equations and formulae but unable to follow complex mathematical treatments of GR. I shall read Einstein's SR and GR some times more
anselm, vino:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere can I learn more? You said, "the space-time geometry of baryonic matter has 3 strata comprised of 11 dimensions (8 space and 3 time)."
I have never heard of 3 time dimensions before. I know different variants of string theory require 10, 11, or 26 dimensions; but I thought each of those theories only have one time dimension (the remaining dimensions being space).
What is the name of this theory and where can I learn more? Thank you.
Ref.to Mr. Cramers interest,Please Read Blog No's- 48-60-70.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse to "I have never heard of 3 time dimensions "...
Explicitly Three distinctive Dynamical Space-Time Spherical Geometries,with integrated Harmonic's
a)Time Reversal.b)Forward Time c)Time Freeze.
The electromagnetic wave is the wave property of photons. The photon is the particle property of electromagnetic waves. It's a wave-particle duality. Two sides of the same coin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematically, Maxwell equations describe the wave property and quantum electrodynamics (QED) describe the particle property. Classical physics treats it as a wave. Quantum physics treats it as a particle.
In response to Cramer&vinodsehgal1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"During Time Freeze of Phase Space 5th. DIMENSION"-
The Dynamic Space-time Cosmology Hierarchy - " Schrodinger"s Equation is a depth. into the Inverse end of the "TIME TUNNEL" ,BASIC Base of the "Inverse LOG",The Potential Differential between the highest Kinetic Energy and the Lowest Potential ENERGY,MEASURED at the FIRST INSTANT of QUANTUM TIME & as " FIRST QUANTA OF Planck TIME" Quantized to the fifth Degree or higher ,is the moment of 'Time FREEZE ( if verified now ) , which can now be observed in the "FIFTH DIMENSION" THROUGH RELEVANT DESIGNED TELESCOPE'S AND INSTRUMENTS, THE SPEED OF LIGHT PHYSICALLY MEASURED in 5th dimension DYNAMIC SPACE TIME, IS THE "CUBE " C3! --- this is the variation in the stratum-dependent variation in the constant c ?
Please Analyse focused and deep thought the following,
Analogue of Newton's law is Schrödinger's equation for a quantum system, usually atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles; free, bound, or localized at a Fixed place at a Fixed Time.
Schrödinger's Equation still has the unsolved problem of TIME -the missing LINK COUPLING is time Freeze and the Fifth Dimension.
Anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that you may be more knowledgeble having deep rooted understanding of intricate realities of universe, but when one has to present one's concept to other, to which they are new, presentation should be straight, simple, to the point and in the language which they can easily understand. Your endeavor should be to make other people understand and comprehend rather to show off your knowledge in highly complex and technical language. I sense this from your post 76 against my post 71 and post 73 of cramer
Ref:vinodsehgal- My language was Basic with Clarity-Analysing & interpretig the physical image of the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchrodinger"s Equation is a imp.depth 0f BASIC PHYSICS ,study ,read, and concentrate I don't use high-Tech. language.to criticise, you should not display weakness but be courageous and spend time as I advised you to read " Specific two books " to first study through then get back to me on the Pages of SA.
All my Blogs are with maximum Clarity, to be concise and compact due to lack of Space.Hard work and persperation are the only way to Wisdom & Knowledge.
Ref:vinodsehgal- My language was Basic with Clarity-Analysing & interpretig the physical image of the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchrodinger"s Equation is a imp.depth 0f BASIC PHYSICS ,study ,read, and concentrate I don't use high-Tech. language.to criticise, you should not display weakness but be courageous and spend time as I advised you to read " Specific two books " to first study through then get back to me on the Pages of SA.
All my Blogs are with maximum Clarity, to be concise and compact due to lack of Space.Hard work and persperation are the only way to Wisdom & Knowledge.
"It's a wave-particle duality. Two sides of the same coin."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK.
Perhaps a super computer can do a finite element analysis of space relative to the electric and magnetic fields of Maxwell's equations find a solution to the wave equation that matches the measured quantized energy of a photon.
Somehow, I think the wave function of a photon can be described mathematically. It seems that the work on that hasn’t been done yet.
Thanks,
-Tony
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Instead of the Higgs it is possible that what has been found is an interstratum, intermediate boson that would fit in with a model of hierarchically stratified space-time geometry. In this model space-time consists of three strata comprising 12 dimensions (9 space and 3 time). Because of the stratum dependent variation in the constant c, there is a stratum dependent variation in the effects special relativity has on the the motion of particles as they oscillate through the tri-stratum structure."
Above are the comments of Christnaak at post 42 in a related article on Higgs Boson by John Matson appearing in SA ( July 4, 2012). This post by Christnaak indicates 9 dimensions corresponding to 3 starta. Under your post 70 in this article, you have indicated of 8 dimensions which appeared anamolous to me. I drew your attention to this anamoly in my post 71 but you did not respond.
Is mentioning of 8 dimensions by you in post 70 a typo or are you having some new idea in your mind? Is this Christnaak same fellow as Dr Christnaak whose book you referred in post 70?
Ref. 81 Vinod. This force (page 105)symmetry arises from a stratum-dependent variation in the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscontraction of space and dilation of time, operating within the two uppermost strata. In isolation, dark matter does not contract space and dilate time in the same manner as baryonic matter because of the stratum-dependent variation in parameters (for example, the constants c and G). Because the strengths of the gravitational force and the derived forces vary with distance, the dark matter stratum must contract disproportionately, more than the baryonic stratum, for bistratum symmetry between the forces to be achieved. The end result is that a dark matter particle is imbued with a great deal of energy and becomes unstable. Energetic particles have greater momentum and oscillate more rapidly through the strata. It is this which permits the exchange of mass (in the form of antimatter) or energy from the dark matter stratum to the baryonic stratum.
Under normal circumstances, dark matter oscillates only
within the two lower substrata, which has only eight dimensions of space-time. It is induced to oscillate into the baryonic stratum(and its twelve-dimensional space-time geometry) upon symmetry breaking between the forces of the two uppermost strata. This permits the momentum (which is conserved) of our energetic dark matter particle to be redistributed from two strata to the three in which baryonic matter oscillates. The combined action of the dark matter’s electroweak force and the electromagnetic and weak forces of the baryonic stratum forces makes this possible and induces re-expansion of both strata as well. Bi-stratum force symmetry ceases as parametric asymmetry operating within the two stratainduces this disproportionate re-expansion of both strata. It is in this manner that nuclear reactions produce positrons (as well as other antiparticles regardless how the bi-stratum force symmetry is achieved, whether in stellar processes or in collider experiments),
7. christinaak
05:12 PM 5/31/12
(page 106)which are created and permitted to annihilate with electrons in the solar plasma.
Contd.Ref. 81 christinaak 4/9/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that there must be an antigravitational force ,
(and I propose that in my book: The Short Range Antigravitational Force and the Hierarchically Stratified Space-time Geometry in 12 Dimensions),
and that it must have a subplanck length range (and must be more powerful than the G force at subplanck length distances). In fact, something like an antigravitational force must exist to eliminate the singularities that plague General Relativity with regard to black holes and the alleged singularity from which the big bang was initiated. Christina Anne Knight
Continued ref.Ques? 81 -.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this Article lines by Christnaak -
8 DIMENSIONS and she has given the answer -WHY?
Under normal circumstances, dark matter oscillates only
within the two lower substrata, "which has only eight dimensions of space-time."
It is induced to oscillate into the baryonic stratum(and its twelve-dimensional space-time geometry) upon symmetry breaking between the forces of the two uppermost strata.
The name of the book is in 83, its available in your city.
"In fact, something like an antigravitational force must exist to eliminate the singularities that plague General Relativity with regard to black holes..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlternatively, if particles accelerated to relativistic velocities as they are 'ingested' into a black hole are, similarly to particles in a collider, disintegrated - but maintaining relativistic velocities, the fundamental particles ejected from active black holes by their relativistic polar jets may represent all of the ingested dimensional material. Meanwhile, the ingested particles' mass-energy might have been extracted and applied to the black hole's gravitational effects imparted to spacetime, all directed towards a singular focal point - a dimensionless singularity containing no matter but retaining most of the ingested matter's mass energy.
It's otherwise difficult to explain all the matter ejected by a 'feeding' black hole while the black hole grows in its effective mass... In this scenario no imaginary 'other dimensions' are required to contain ingested dimensional matter - none is retained.
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you anselm. Now your posts at 82, 83 and 84 makes some sense to me. I shall revert after reading and contemplating over the book by Dr Christnaak
jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"all directed towards a singular focal point - a dimensionless singularity containing no matter but retaining most of the ingested matter's mass energy."
Dimensionless singularity means NIL space. Where will ingested matter's mass energy exist? Do you want to say that very large energy (theoretically even boundless) of ingested mass energy of ingested matter, jumping into BH, can concentrate at some point without any space dimension? A dimensionless singularity per se implies NOTHING. How large energy, which shall also be in some form either Photon or something else, can exist in NOTHING?
Can we visualize the existence of any entity without space ?
As I understand, black holes are usually required to contain the matter that provides the mass necessary to produce their observed gravitational effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA dimensionless singularity implies a point. I use the term dimensionless to stress that a point contains no space to contain any dimensional matter. As I understand, neutron stars contain the most dense forms of matter known - I know of no form of matter that could be dense enough to produce the enormous masses of black holes.
Obviously, I was explaining a black hole scenario. You don't suggest that a black hole does not exist within the larger universe, do you?
I'm only suggesting that the mass-energy of a black hole is not provided by dimensional material somehow contained with the necessary gravitational focal point of a hypothetical singularity, or dimensionless point. Instead, the gravitational energy contained within the spacetime curved by its gravitational field is directed towards a singular point. Black holes do exhibit gravitational fields consisting of curved external spacetime, correct?
The idea of an initial singularity containing the entire universe would seem to require that all its mass-energy be contained within. Don't ask me where the energy is!
As I've suggested before, the only rationalization for an initial singularity is the mathematical interpolation of the observed expansion of the universe. Other than that, I know of no other observational requirement for the minimum density of the initial universe except that it had to support big bang nucleosynthesis. In that case, how big was the initial universe? Could it have been a white hole with a peripheral horizon? I don't think we can prove that the universe began as a dimensionless singularity, but perhaps it began as a gravitational singularly-directed dimensional space...
At any rate, I might could visualize the existence of some [physical] entity without space, but I suspect that there's no need to do so. My intent was to explain how a black hole could exist without invoking some unknown extra dimension to physically contain all the ingested dimensional matter representing its apparent gravitational effects. Was that SO BAD???
85. jtdwyer in reply :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In fact, something like an antigravitational force must exist to eliminate the singularities that plague General Relativity with regard to black holes..."
Yes you are Right,antigravitational force must exist, they are a Result of TIME REVERSAL, the "Planet JUPITER's MOON IO" is in Time Reversal Mode and has Properties of Anti -Gravitation..........Surrounding Io (up to a distance of 6 Io radii from the moon's surface) is a cloud of neutral sulfur, oxygen, sodium, and potassium atoms. These particles originate in Io's upper atmosphere but are excited from collisions with ions in the plasma torus (discussed below) and other processes into filling Io's Hill sphere, which is the region where the moon's gravity is predominant over Jupiter.
Mr jtdwyer,why do you want to eliminate "Singularities"
they are required to undertake important Gravitational Functions,in the 5th Dimension whose Volume is Governed by the SCHRODINGER's Equation -and the Extended Version's of all the, Einstien' Gravitational Equations.
Cosmology has proven the Physical black hole in space,in the midst of Galatic Structures,FERMILAB has recently published Photographic plate's of "Dark Matter", please verify & read all my previous Blogs on SA,it wil give you a broader Landscape of Nature's humblest Design and Rotations,Periodicities,Resonance,Spectrum's structure in inter- galatic space .
85. Response contd .jtdwyer: Meanwhile, the ingested particles' mass-energy might have been extracted and applied to the black hole's gravitational effects imparted to spacetime, all directed towards a singular focal point - a dimensionless singularity .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease correct all directed towards a singular focal Volume - a FIFTH Dimension Singularity .
COSMOLOGICAL & ASTRO-PHYSICS MATHEMATICS.
I made no suggestion that gravitational singularities do not exist - I only dispute their containing ingest matter. But, never mind...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Jtdwyer and anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI start with some very simple and direct facts.
A BH develops when very large mass or energy creates such a high curvature in space/time, implying gravitational force, in some area of space, that no body even light can not escape from its event horizon. Regardless of the fact whether a BH has singularity or not, within event horizon there is limited zero vulume or limited volume. Within a limited event horizon volume, unlimited matter can not be pumped in. But fact is that BH sucks even large stars within its event horizon volume
jtdwyer has suggested a quite innovative way by suggesting that mass energy of ingested matter is extracted in providing curvature to space-time and gravitationally it is directed to some singular point . Substantially it does not affect much whether we are speaking of dimensionless singularity or a singular point except that singular point may have some discrete volume. Fact remains within the dimensionless singularity or singular point having discrete volume, enormous large energy ( we have get rid of matter from jtdwyer's solotion post 88) is contained either within zero volume or very small discrete volume
Now logically next issue which arises is : can infinite or very large energy be concentrated within zero volume or some discrete volume? In other words, is there any upper cap on the spatial density of energy?
I do not this answer in from some scientific theory or concept. Better anselm may be able to guide on this. But my strong intuition suggest me that there will be some upper cap on spatial energy density within a volume. Beyond some critical spatial density of energy, energy will not remain energy but be lacalized into concentrated energy bundles which we call matter. But the issue of unlimited ingestion of matter into BH remains as such. In my view, there could be following two solutions
i) After certain critical limits of gravity, at some discrete volume, some sort of anti -gravity develop which pre-empts the requirement of dimensionless singularity as suggested by anselm (post 89. It implies on development of anti gravity at some discrete volume, BH should not suck but repel the ingested matter.
2) A singularity shall develop but it will have some connect with some 5th dimensions ( as suggested by anselm post 89) whose volume is governed by Schrodinger equation and which also required for extended version Einstein's gravitational equation.
From 91
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few days back there was an article in SA by George Musser " Deeper Reality, dark matter " which had introduced the concept of " melting of space- time" by Eric Verlinde of Amestrdom University and a connect with some higher dimension . I do not know if 5th dimension as suggested by anselm is akin to higher dimension of Verlinde.
On examining singularity more closely from physicality point of view that though mathematically feasible, I suggest that in actual physical terms, it carry no relevance. What is the meaning of infinite density or infinite gravitation in physical terms? In fact, even if infinity might be existing actually in physical terms, but in human conception, it is in -comprehensable. As such, I suggest that immediately before achieving zero volume, on reaching the discrete atomic dimensions of space -atom, singularity is achieved and space-time melting takes place and connect takes place with higher dimension.
I do not know much of complex mathematics of Schrodinger equation. But my study of past about 35-40 years of metaphysical and spiritual reality has led me to conviction that behind this 3 D Physical world lies a physical reality, a non-quantum world which immerses within itself space of this world, having its own space-time, energy, matter and biological beings. In metaphysical terminology, that reality is called by various names but I am more familiar with the name Astral world. That physical reality manifest neither at quantum dimensions nor another universe of multiverse, beyond observable universe, but lies here itself infinitesimal close to this physical . I suspect " melting of space -time" as suggested by Verlinde might be creating an entry route to that reality
But up to date, there is no observational evidence for either anti gravity or higher dimension. As such, problem of limitless ingestion of matter and energy in BH remains as it is. Without invoking anti -gravity or higher dimension, any interpretation shall be forced interpretation. same is applicable upon BB singularity also
Here are some ideas that might help with the BH singularity problem:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom electrostatics,
Equation 1:
Coulombs Law:
F = Cq1q2/r^2
Theorem 1:
“A uniform spherical shell of charge behaves, for external points, as if all its charge were concentrated at its center.”
Theorem 2:
“A uniform spherical shell of charge exerts no force on a charged particle placed inside the shell.”
Notice how Theorem 2 says “inside the shell” and not specifically at the center.
From gravity,
Equation 2:
Newton’s Law:
F = Gm1m2/r^2
Coulomb’s Law and Newton’s Law share the same mathematical form, so Theorems 1 & 2 applies for Newton’s Law when charge is replaced with mass.
Theorem 1:
“A uniform spherical shell of mass behaves, for external points, as if all its mass were concentrated at its center.”
Theorem 2:
“A uniform spherical shell of mass exerts no force on a massive particle placed inside the shell.”
“The formal identity of the proof follows from the fact that the two fundamental laws, Eqs. 1 and 2, have exactly the same mathematical form.” (Page 539)
Proofs of Theorems 1 & 2 are done with calculus by integrating differential hoops.
Proofs are shown in the book:
Fundamentals of Physics, Third Edition
Halliday & Resnick
15-5 Proving the Shell Theorem
(Pages 335-337)
Perhaps a Black Hole has its energy and mass distribution in a hollow shell. External to the shell, forces act as if all of the mass and energy were located at a single point. Inside the shell, particles are unaffected by forces from the shell. The thickness and diameter of the shell result from the volume of the shell being at the maximum energy density allowable by space. As energy and matter are added, the thickness and diameter of the shell changes, so the maximum energy density limit is never exceeded. This way, infinities caused by singularities are avoided. Somehow there would have to be a gradient towards lower energy density on either side of the shell volume.
I think the surface of the shell is called the event horizon. I think there have been some theories published about Hollow Black Holes and what happens when approaching the event horizon from the inside or the outside.
Thanks,
-Tony
Please see
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
The types of compact stars are:
- White dwarfs, in which gravity is opposed by electron degeneracy pressure;
- Neutron stars, in which gravity is opposed by neutron degeneracy pressure and short-range repulsive neutron–neutron interactions mediated by the strong force;
- Black holes, in which the physics at the center is unknown.
"It might be thought that a sufficiently large neutron star could exist inside its Schwarzschild radius and appear like a black hole without having all the mass compressed to a singularity at the center; however, this is a misconception. Within the event horizon, matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light in order to remain stable and avoid collapsing to the center. No physical force can therefore prevent the star from collapsing to a singularity (at least within the currently understood framework of general relativity...)"
See wiki entry Supernova#Core_collapse
The key issue in the creation of a physical singularity is that, very generally, when normal stars of greater than about 10 Solar masses consume all their nuclear fuel, fusion is halted: the outward pressure of photon emissions ceases and the stellar mass collapses under the acceleration of suddenly unopposed gravitation.
Those collapsing stars of between about 10-25 and in some cases up to 40 Solar masses generally produce neutron stars: their electrons that take up so much space are stripped from atomic nuclei and combine with repulsive protons to produce essentially all neutrons. Their cores are thought to contain a quark-gluon plasma.
See wiki entry Neutron_stars
"Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously."
So the question remains: how can all the originally collapsed and subsequently ingested matter be physically contained within a singularity? There is no form of matter that would support the infinite material density required to contain the mass necessary to produce the observed gravitational effects of black holes (such as the extremely elliptical high velocity orbits of stars very near the Milky Way's 'supermassive' black hole.
In my proposal, only mass-energy and its gravitational effects are retained, directed to a singular focal point.
Hi jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the reading material and the careful review.
That makes sense except for the part:
“It might be thought that a sufficiently large neutron star could exist inside its Schwarzchild radius and appear like a black hole without all of the mass compressed to a singularity at the center; however this is a misconception. Within the event horizon, matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light in order to remain stable and avoid collapsing to the center.”
What is the explanation for “matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light”?
The quote reminded me of Frame Dragging. How does Frame Dragging affect the mass distribution of compact stars?
Frame Dragging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
The Schwarzchild radius is the event horizon. I said it wrong before. The boundary between space at maximum energy density and space that is not saturated with energy would be a different boundary with a radius smaller than the Schwarzchild radius.
Here is a quote about the gravitational field as a function of radius. It talks about how the effective mass decreases from the surface towards the center, tending to reduce the field, while the reduced distance to the center tends to increase it. It seems that a similar explanation could apply to stars.
“ If the density of the earth were uniform – which it is not – the gravitational force acting on a particle would be a maximum at the earth’s surface. It would, as we expect, decrease as we move outward. If we were to move inward, perhaps down a deep mine shaft, the gravitational force would change for two reasons. (1) It would tend to increase because we are moving closer to the center of the earth. (2) It would tend to decrease because the shell of the earth’s crust that lies outside the particle’s radial position would not exert any force on the particle; that is, less of the earth would be gravitationally active. For an earth of uniform density, the second influence would prevail, so that the gravitational force would decrease as we penetrated the earth.
For the real earth, however, the outer crust is so much less dense than the core that the second influence above is greatly weakened and no longer prevails. The gravitational force on a particle actually increases slightly as we lower the particle down a deep mine shaft. Eventually, of course, the force must reach a maximum and decrease to zero at the center of the earth.”
(Same book, page 337)
Thanks,
-Tony
Consider a spherical shell as a 3D arch structure. It can isolate the interior from external pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso consider the mass, radius and average density of the Sun:
Mass = 1.99 E+30 kg
Radius = 6.96 E+8 m
Density = 1.41 kg/m^3 = 1.41 g/cc
That means the average density of the Sun is 1.41 times the density of water. (Is my math correct?) This seems to indicate that the Sun is a relatively hollow shell of dense material.
By the Shell Theorem, it seems that even super-dense compact stars and black holes could be hollow shells.
Thanks,
-Tony
Maxwell equations cannot be used to find the energy of the photon because it is a classical theory that treats the electromagnetic wave purely as a wave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wave function of a photon follows Maxwell equations but interpreted as probability amplitudes of the photon.
"The wave function of a photon follows Maxwell equations but interpreted as probability amplitudes of the photon."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sounds about right.
It would be nice to know the wave function of a photon, and be able to calculate the energy from the theory electric and magnetic fields.
For reference,
The energy density of an electric field is:
ue = 1/2 eo E^2
Where eo is the electric permittivity constant of space.
The energy density of a magnetic field is:
ub = B^2/2uo
Where uo is the magnetic permeability constant of space.
Thanks,
-Tony
Hi Tony_Who - thank you. The shell theorem is interesting - it was crucial to Newton's application of the point-mass concept to the gravitational evaluation of distant astronomical objects, enabling the use of inverse-square law in his law of universal gravitation. However, the accretion of 'fluid' objects of mass naturally tends to produce increasing densities towards their center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the question about: “matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light,” the quote was from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
I interpret it to indicate that the BH's gravity accelerates matter to the speed of light (which is why I think that it must disintegrate colliding matter into its fundamental components), so that any matter existing outside the center point would have to be acted upon by some equal, opposingly directed force that accelerates matter to a velocity greater than the speed of light to prevent continued collapse.
For example, in the case of neutron stars, it is "neutron degeneracy pressure [per the Pauli exclusion principle] and short-range repulsive neutron–neutron interactions mediated by the strong force" that opposes further gravitational collapse. As I understand, in a BH the gravitational effects directed towards the center point exceed those effects. Any force opposing complete collapse would have to accelerate any matter remaining outside the 'singularity' to superluminal velocities since gravitation accelerates it to the speed of light directed to the singularity.
I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician & can't really evaluate frame dragging effects, but I understand that compact objects do rotate, including matter just outside the event horizons of BHs, sometimes at very high velocities. I don't know if or how that might effect mass distribution.
The quote from the book is interesting, but as you mention, it is the "effective mass" (actually I think, the net directional effect of gravitation) that varies as an observer moves within a distribution of mass. I think an simpler way to consider the effect is that, for example, a person half way to the center of mass is being 'pulled' very generally towards the object's center of mass (by most of the object's mass) but is also being 'pulled' in the _opposite_ direction by the mass laying further outside the observer's radial position.
I can't do the math, but I think that a BH simply produces an accelerating effect so strong that no force can effectively oppose it to prevent the complete ultimate collapse to a theoretical singularity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question as I see it is - what happens to the atoms as they are accelerated to the speed of light, rotating (and I presume colliding) into the black hole? In particle colliders, similar processes produce the disintegration of matter into its fundamental (unstable) particles and forces (that condense into unstable particles). If matter 'ingested' by a BH also disintegrates, the angular momentum of its fundamental particles might cause them to be accelerated out polar expulsion jets. However, while in an particle collider experiment there's nothing to prevent any mass-energy from dispersing, condensing and decaying, in a BH mass-energy should be affected by the BH's enormous gravitational effects, directed towards the collective center of mass-energy.
On to you last question:
"...That means the average density of the Sun is 1.41 times the density of water. (Is my math correct?) This seems to indicate that the Sun is a relatively hollow shell of dense material."
I don't do math, but such simplistic analyses ignore too many critical factors. I think there is a preponderance of observational evidence indicating that the mass distribution within stars tends to stratify with their most massive elements (up to iron) at their core and, generally, increasingly lighter elements located nearer their periphery.
As I understand, supernovae events tend to eject lighter elements, most or even all of the stellar material. This forms a shock wave and an enormous shell of gas and dust. However, this enormous expanding shell has little to do with any more massive elements of the stellar core that may continue to collapse, forming a neutron star or BH.
That the SN remnant gasses & dust are separate from any compact object produced is indicated by its continued expansion. So any shell of material in a BH would require some force to prevent its continued collapse.
If the idea that BHs contain no matter is correct, I think the shell theorem might be somehow applicable, but the gravitational effects directed to a singular focal point would be the product of self-sustaining spacetime distortions rather than the indirect product of any local material's mass-energy - producing spacetime distortions.
You cannot calculate photon's energy from classical theory because there is no photon in classical electrodynamics, only electromagnetic waves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe black hole is a singularity so it has infinite mass-energy density. The Shell theorem does not apply to black hole because it is not spherical. Singularity is an asymptotic curve.
Thanks, but regarding your definitive statement "The black hole is a singularity so it has infinite mass-energy density," that interpretation presents the problem of explaining what form of matter can produce an "infinite mass-energy density." That is the topic of this discussion. While some mathematical theories may require an "infinite mass-energy density", this by itself seems to be an impossible unphysical solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould the event horizon possibly qualify as a spherical shell and a singularity as a point mass in some treatments of some (perhaps non-rotating) black holes?
Your unqualified declaration that a "Singularity is an asymptotic curve" seems to require qualification. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
It is not the form of matter that produces an infinite mass-energy density. It is the curvature of space-time. Any form of matter will do. The black hole will not distinguish between hydrogen and plasma. It will crush both to a point of infinite density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShell theorem is for spherical masses. Black hole is a point mass in 3 dimensional space and an asymptotic curve in 4 dimensional space-time. Its mass is not distributed in a spherical volume though it has a gravitational radius.
In response to Ques ? jtdwyer & Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat form of matter can produce an "infinite mass-energy density." & 103 a "Singularity is an asymptotic curve"
The Orbitals of a minimum 16 Celestial Bodies or more in Sets,( can produce the required "infinite mass-energy density.")Symmetrised as Triads Group orbiting around a Star, or Galatic structures Orbitals etc.,with inter- connected mathematical smooth flow forms a Phase Space Synchronised Space -Time Lock,at a fixed Time and Location ,and we get a evolving DYNAMIC SOURCE ,converging into a Singularity which is home to a Conic Torsion Blackhole in a DYNAMIC TIME-LOCKED Space -TIME.
--Dr Strange -glove Text neeed a small correction
Asymptotic deep curvature Conicity Spiral is just one of the Parameters, that INFER's the Gravitational Dynamical Force ,in QUANTUM Field Theory,when we can observe the ORBITS of Celestial Bodies Classical Symmetry,over finite times,to get it Classically,ASYMPTOTIC CURVE's does play a dominant role in GRAVITATIONAL SCATTERING in Phase - Space-time & a dominant physical role in a Singularity.
vinodsehgal1957In response to Ques ? jtdwyer & Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat form of matter can produce an "infinite mass-energy density." & 103 a "Singularity is an asymptotic curve"
The Orbitals of a minimum 16 Celestial Bodies or more in Sets,( can produce the required "infinite mass-energy density.")Symmetrised as Triads Group orbiting around a Star, or Galatic structures Orbitals etc.,with inter- connected mathematical smooth flow forms a Phase Space Synchronised Space -Time Lock,at a fixed Time and Location ,and we get a evolving DYNAMIC SOURCE ,converging into a Singularity which is home to a Conic Torsion Blackhole in a DYNAMIC TIME-LOCKED Space -TIME.
--Dr Strange -glove Text neeed a small correction
Asymptotic deep curvature Conicity Spiral is just one of the Parameters, that INFER's the Gravitational Dynamical Force ,in QUANTUM Field Theory,when we can observe the ORBITS of Celestial Bodies Classical Symmetry,over finite times,to get it Classically,ASYMPTOTIC CURVE's does play a dominant role in GRAVITATIONAL SCATTERING in Phase-space-time -locked, & a dominant physical role in a Singularity.
Thanks for explaining, but the issue of the form of matter that could produce "infinite mass-energy density" is not one of what 'gets crushed' but what form it could take when crushed. For example, crushing a star's iron core to the mass-energy density of a neutron star required that the iron atoms' electrons be stripped from their atomic shell configuration and combined with repulsive protons to produce non-repulsive neutrons that can physically be densely packed. Again, the core of a neutron star is thought to consist of a quark-gluon plasma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA quark-gluon plasma is thought to have been produced in an LHC experiment but has not been confirmed. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-gluon_plasma
and http://newstate-matter.web.cern.ch/newstate-matter/Story.html
"We have recreated matter in a state we have never seen before, at energy densities twenty times higher than that inside the atomic nucleus [3-4 GeV/fm3]. The same conditions have only existed in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang (comparable energy densities, although at much lower temperatures, may also exist in the centre of neutron stars). Our understanding about how the universe was created, which was previously unverified theory for any time point before the formation of ordinary atomic nuclei (about three minutes after the Big Bang), has now been experimentally tested back to a point only a few microseconds after the Big Bang, the time at which we believe the hadrons making up those nuclei were created."
I'm not aware of any form of matter predicted by the standard model of particle physics that could produce greater densities, although some theories predict that quarks and gluons are composites of smaller particles. However, nothing but complete conversion of matter into energy could produce infinite densities.
Theoretically based mathematical treatments that result in a singular region containing all the black hole mass as some unspecified form of crushed matter producing infinite densities, 'spaghettification' of objects, closed timelike loops or (unstable) wormholes are all unphysical solutions that ignore experimentally observed quantum particle effects, even without mathematically integrating some form of relativity and quantum theories.
As physically produced in particle accelerator experiments, colliding particles of matter accelerated to velocities approaching the speed of light results in their disintegration into fundamental particles and force fields (that disperse, condensing into particles that often decay).
continued...
(cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe physical interactions among matter accelerated to relativistic velocities as they were either collapsed or 'ingested' into a black hole would most likely also produce its disintegration into fundamental components. As illustrated by the gravitational collapse of dense stellar cores produces specific forms of matter ranging from free electrons and nucleons, production of neutrons from the combination of protons and electrons and likely the production of free quark-gluon plasma in Neutron stars, it should be expected that similar processes occur in core collapse of stellar cores that produce black holes. 'Crushing' matter to even greater densities or energies would seemingly require that they further disintegrate the densest for of matter – quarks). I can only speculate that that would involve separating their mass-energy.
Unlike particle collider experiments, where force fields are allowed to disperse and decay, I suggest that the intense gravitational effects produced by a black hole would cause the local retention of free mass-energy. The observation of polar jets expelling fundamental particles at relativistic velocities when black holes are apparently being created or when they are ingesting external matter provides supporting evidence for the suggested disintegration of 'ingested' matter. While these relativistic jets most commonly considered to be produced the expulsion of matter that, for some reason, could not be processed, or fully 'ingested', their nature is not understood. In the material disintegration proposal even unstable particle residue accelerated to relativistic velocities would persist throughout the expulsion process, decaying only when their energy has been dispersed.
Relativistic effects and quantum particle dynamics should all be considered in evaluating the effects produced by black holes. I think that if all applicable effects are fully considered the retention of mass-energy 'within' or directed to a gravitational singularity could produce the observed physical effects without invoking imaginary elements, forms of matter or dimensions such as unphysical 'infinite densities'.
To Anselm, jtdwyer and Dr Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what is the meaning of "infinite mass-energy density" in physical terms? If we may treat space as granular having some atomic type structure, may be even lower than Plank scales, we can get rid of infinite mass -energy density on physical platform. Can't a singularity exist, when space curvature reaches at its atomic level. At that level, curvature shall be very very high, mass-energy density also very very high but NOT infinite
Your question in BLOG 109. vinodkumar- Ref 103-jtdwyer and Dr Strangelove Ref 104
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat form of matter can produce an "infinite mass-energy density." & a "Singularity is an asymptotic curve"
The Orbitals of a minimum 16 Celestial Bodies or more in Sets,( can produce the required "infinite mass-energy density.")Symmetrised as Triads Group orbiting around a Star, or Galatic structures Orbitals etc.,with inter- connected mathematical smooth flow forms a Phase Space Synchronised Space -Time Lock,at a fixed Time and Location ,and we get a evolving DYNAMIC SOURCE ,converging into a Singularity which is home to a Conic Torsion Blackhole in a DYNAMIC TIME-LOCKED Space -TIME.
--Dr Strange -glove Text neeed a small correction
Asymptotic deep curvature Conicity Spiral is just one of the Parameters, that INFER's the Gravitational Dynamical Force ,in QUANTUM Field Theory,when we can observe the ORBITS of Celestial Bodies Classical Symmetry,over finite times,to get it Classically,ASYMPTOTIC CURVE's does play a dominant role in GRAVITATIONAL SCATTERING in Phase-space-time -locked, & a dominant physical role in a Singularity.
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all the humble modesty, I want to repeat, Sir, that my query at 109 pertained to the meaning of " infinite mass-energy density" in physical terms. If infinity of mass-energy density is not achievable on physical paradigm, could we infer granular structure of space-time and development of singularity at lowest size of atomic levels of space-time instead of at zero level of space-time? Can't Einstein's gravitation equation operate in a granular sapce-time? After all, an em wave also comprises of connected wave packet, each packet corresponding to one emitted photon but it is treated as a continuous wave. if an e.m wave would have been purely continuous, there would have been no emission/absorption of discrete energy bundles (Photons)
I agree with what JT said in his last paragraph (7:56am, 7/10/12).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a thought regarding a gravitational singularity (infinite density): General relativity produces the singularity; maybe special relativity eliminates it. In other words, what appears to be a singularity to an outside observer of the black hole is not necessarily a singularity at that point. Think of a Lorentz contraction resulting from both gravity and velocity.
That's correct. The frame of reference inside the BH is different of the one outside it. The measurements of time and space will be different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jdt
Infinite density is not a property of particles. It is a property of space-time. Hence the Standard Model does not predict it but general relativity does. If Hawking is correct, BH will eventually evaporate by radiation. Its mass will become massless photons. A complete conversion of mass into energy.
Your assertion seems to contradict
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity
"The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities."
No contradiction with general relativity. Singularities are space-time property well-defined by the equations of general relativity. The contradiction is with quantum mechanics as far as particle interactions are concerned, which general relativity does not describe. The rest of the quote is speculation because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, your statement "Singularities are space-time property well-defined by the equations of general relativity" is consistent with the idea that black holes contain no matter, only mass-energy extracted from 'ingested' matter, expressed as spacetime deformations. The suggested disintegration mechanism is intended to explain how mass-energy can be separated from matter by the acceleration effects of black holes, producing effects similar to particle collider facilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrying to extract useful information about infinitely dense Matter from a Point Singularity is like trying to find a “soda pop button” on a “chocolate bar vending machine”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ.T., you're claiming that a black hole is a massless object with a gravitational field???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like J.T. Nordberg's Grand Unification Theory.
I'm not claiming anything, but suggesting that perhaps black holes do not contain matter - since no known form of matter is denser than that found in neutron stars, what form of matter could fit much greater mass within a singularity? I suggest that as particles are accelerated to near the speed of light they are disintegrated - similarly to particle collider experiments except that the BH gravitation locally retains separated mass-energy while relativistic polar jets expel particle residue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the BH discussion begins with comment #85...
I'm not doing any GUT's today...
Okay, my error. I will reword my last comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you suggesting that a black hole is a massless object with a gravitational field???
I have seen a lot of references to wikipedia. Please check out the first sentence for the description of matter: "Matter is anything that occupies space and has rest mass (or invariant mass)."
So since you suggested "black holes do not contain matter," would that not mean they are massless? And isn't mass required to produce a gravitational field?
Your "particle accelerator theory" sounds like a rational idea when a black hole is feeding, but I am unable reconcile it with the initial collapse of a heavy star resulting in the creation of a black hole.
The infinite density description is from the frame of reference outside the black hole. Inside it the particles do not feel as if they have infinite density. It's a different frame of reference. Remember singularity is a property of space-time not the particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe neutron star is not a good comparison since it's a very dense matter. Infinite density is something else. Dense matter is like a stiff cliff. Infinite density is falling off the cliff. The free fall is not a property of the cliff.
So, where'd the matter go?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPardon my spelling error. I mean steep cliff. The analogy is the denser the matter, the steeper the cliff. Infinite density is not the steepest cliff. It is a free fall, a gravitational collapse. Dense matters are gravitationally stable, no matter how dense they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so where'd the matter go?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasn't the density produced by the gravitational collapse of physical matter?
All the mass of the black hole is in the singularity. We don't know exactly what happens to the particles inside the BH because of information loss paradox.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I'm suggesting that a black hole is a materialless gravitational field, that since nothing, not even light waves, can escape the event horizon of a BH, presumedly physical, dimensional matter and its inherent mass must either reside within the singularity or it must have disintegrated during the black hole formation, and the residual, dimensional, fundamental particles ejected while the mass-energy produced a gravitational singularity or focal point of spacetime curvature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see comment #95.
The formation of Neutron stars essentially require a partial disintegration of matter, thought to even produce in its core a quark-gluon plasma - from the heavy atomic elements at the core of a collapsing massive star. I simply suggest that the process is completed in the formation of a BH.
Again, if not, what happens to the dimensional matter? It seems to me that the only other alternative is that the source material is converted entirely to energy. However, if that is case, the idea that the production of a new or 'feeding' BH is such a messy process that the ejecta of relativistic jets is collapsing atoms that for some unknown reason just didn't make it into the event horizon is not very convincing...
Why wouldn't atomic matter accelerated to nearly the speed of light be expected to heat up, collide and disintegrate, similar to atoms or nucleons in particle collider experiments? How could they not?
JT, I am glad you have used the particle accelerator analogy because that is where I believe the answer lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's related to the Lorentz transformations in the theory of special relativity. How does length disappear in length contraction? Where does time go in time dilation? Where does the "extra" mass come from in relativistic mass? These are not simple illusions -- the GPS and LHC prove that.
The LHC is designed to operate at 7 TeV. It takes this amount an energy to accelerate one proton to 0.999999991 c. This is at a Lorentz factor of 7500. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a proton to the speed of light. It takes infinite energy because from our frame of reference, the proton would have infinite momentum (and infinite mass) at the speed of light.
When you ask where the matter goes in a black hole singularity, to me, it is like asking where the mass of that proton comes from at the LHC.
A black hole does not have infinite mass, but think of the singularity as approaching infinite density in the same way a proton approaches infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light. And there's much, much more energy in a black hole resulting from a collages star than there is at the LHC.
correction: "collapsed star" not "collages star."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJT, just for clarification, so we are on the same page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never said that atomic matter doesn't "heat up, collide, and disintegrate as it approaches or crosses the event horizon (or anywhere within the event horizon). And I never said that relativisitic jets are produce from matter that did not make it to the event horizon. I AGREE WITH YOU. [note: think of ALL CAPS as a bold font, not yelling.] That being said, I still believe a black hole is NOT massless (or not matterless) -- which why I joined this thread.
Many things are going on in a black hole just like in a star (a star is not purely a process of nuclear fusion, there is also convectional, magnetic and other processes happening, but it is nuclear fusion that creates the star.)
JT, I don't know what you mean by "materialess." Look up "material" in wikipedia. A piece of wood or plastic is a material (it is made up of matter). Yes, I agree; a piece of wood could not be floating around inside a black hole. It would be burnt up long before even reaching the event horizon. Please ask yourself why you keep playing around with semantics: claim vs suggest, mass vs matter vs material. To me these are just red herrings or defensive mechanisms (not necessarily tactics) that take away from what should be a thought provoking discussion. I am just trying to learn something knew here by trying to understand the ideas of others. I do not have a PhD in physics. There are people like JT Nordberg that say the same thing. I just wanted to dig deeper into your idea, but have not been able to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismmmm, glad of that first paragraph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissecond sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe. comment 129 - First off, I try to be precise as I can be in my statements because when discussing difficult subjects its too easy to be misunderstood. If I seem contentious or argumentative to you I apologize - it may be because I spent a career explaining complex technical issues to financial analysts and corporate executives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould I not object to being characterized as making a claim? I purposely would not use the word claim unless I thought I knew all the facts. I don't know what happens inside a black hole and I'm not attempting to make any claim that I do - I'm simply suggesting a possible solution to a problem - GR specifies an unphysical condition of infinite density.
To again quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity
"The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities."
And I never said that you said that relativisitic jets are produce from matter that did not make it to the event horizon - I was attempting to reference to what seems to me to be a commonly held view; please see
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/01/10/astronomers-catch-black-hole-spitting-out-material/
for an example.
JT, this entire dialogue has evolved around one simple statement that you made about a black hole not containing mass (or matter). And with each reply you continue to evade that point. Do you still stand by your statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe a black hole contains matter -- that's what give the black hole it's gravity. I don't know what type of matter it is (quarks? preons?). And I don't know if an actual singularity exists (maybe the supermassive bh in the center of the Milky Way is the size of a basketball or a city rather than a singularity -- I guess the event horizon is estimated to be 7 million miles in diameter). I agree it would take quantum physics to solve that problem.
And maybe you are correct -- maybe a BH contains NO matter. I would just like to hear more why you believe this but you refuse to discuss it. So I can only assume it is something you said just from the gut, off the top of your head.
Maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
The key word being "matter."
Re. comment 127 - I don't know, can length contraction apply to quantum particles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQualitatively, I suspect that the gravitational energy of a black hole makes the LHC's magnetic fields pale in comparison...
Particle colliders like the LHC accelerate two beams of charged particles using powerful magnetic fields in opposite directions, then direct them at each other hoping that some will collide. When protons collide in the LHC, they disintegrate. As I understand, they decay, producing a spray of unstable particles that eventually disperse. It's thought that some represent the particle's mass-energy, which must also disperse.
If I understand correctly, the proton's mass-energy is effectively separated from the decaying fundamental particles during disintegration. I suggest that, in the LHC the separated mass-energy is eventually freely dispersed, much like the detected decaying fundamental particles.
It seems that colliding particles accelerated by a black hole (during its initial collapse or after) should be similarly disintegrated. However, any separated mass-energy must interact with the total collective mass-energy of the black hole. The residual unstable particles would be affected by time dilation effects of their velocity to allow them to persist throughout the ejection process.
As you say, black holes contain far more energy than can be produced by the LHC. Producing a singularity of 'infinite' density is an unphysical conception. However, the retention of enormous amounts of mass-energy redirected to a singular focal point could produce the equivalent effects of a massive object of infinite density. Once mass-energy extracted from collapsing or ingested matter reaches the event horizon, like EM energy it could presumedly not escape.
IMO, the only physical solution for producing a dimensionless singularity of 'infinite' density is that all collapsing /ingested dimensional matter is completely converted to gravitational energy, or that (as suggested) the dimensional material residue is ejected and only gravitational energy is retained. Otherwise some unphysical solution such as a wormhole or hidden destination dimension for the dimensional matter is required.
Can you direct me to a statement where I said that a black hole does not contain mass? If I did I assure you that was an error. I have made it perfectly clear that I suggest only that black holes do not contain any dimensional matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou initially asked me in comment #118:
"J.T., you're claiming that a black hole is a massless object with a gravitational field???"
To which I replied in comment #119:
"I'm not claiming anything, but suggesting that perhaps black holes do not contain matter..."
You say: "And with each reply you continue to evade that point" and "I would just like to hear more why you believe this but you refuse to discuss it."
Are you kidding??? Since you are repeatedly misrepresenting my statements (as evidenced above) I will now refuse to discuss it with you.
You stated:
"And I don't know if an actual singularity exists (maybe the supermassive bh in the center of the Milky Way is the size of a basketball or a city rather than a singularity..."
One last time I'll repeat a wikipedia quotation (although it is of course not an authoritative source):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
"It might be thought that a sufficiently large neutron star could exist inside its Schwarzschild radius and appear like a black hole without having all the mass compressed to a singularity at the center; however, this is a misconception. Within the event horizon, matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light in order to remain stable and avoid collapsing to the center. No physical force can therefore prevent the star from collapsing to a singularity (at least within the currently understood framework of general relativity)..."
You said, "Producing a singularity of 'infinite density' is an unphysical conception." This is no different than a proton having "infinite mass" if it could be accelerated to the speed of light. But it can approach the speed of light. Do you not understand the analogy that I gave? I am not claiming a BH becomes a dimensionless point, but it could approach it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know what a dimensionaless pure gravitational energy that is not produced by matter is. I am just trying to work with existing science. If something is hypothetical, it's theory must still be base on prior theory. Would this energy fit into the standard model or would we have to wipe a century of research off the map?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "I have made it perfectly clear that I suggest only that black holes do not contain any dimensional matter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere we go again. I thought we were on the same page that all matter has mass. No? Didn't I give you a link to the wikipedia defintion of matter? No?
If you re-invent your own language/terminology of "matter without mass," it becomes impossible to interpret what you say; and therefore impossible to misrepresent your statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
Matter is anything that occupies space and has rest mass (or invariant mass).
In otherwords, matter must have mass and can not be dimensionless. Please use the definitions that all physicists use. Do not create your own definitions. That's how communicating with language works.
You said, "Otherwise some unphysical solution such as a wormhole or hidden destination dimension for the dimensional matter is required."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to only be able to work within the concepts classical physics. I thought you would understand the concepts of relativity. There is no reason to invent hidden dimensions where the matter must go so it can disappear.
To cramer and jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been observing with interest your online discussions for some time regarding the pumping in of endless material in a BH. I think instead of going into semantics and referring to wikilinks, best course should be to focus directly on the crux of issue namely : Where does the in-falling material goes in a BH?
jtdwyer has suggested a quite innovative solution to endless fall of matter within a BH by proposing the conversion of matter into mass energy and extraction of the same for providing infinite curvature to space-time in order to have infinite mass-density It is a matter of semantics that instead of using the term singularity, he has used the word focal point of gravitational force.
Let me make a quick query . Obviously, within a dimensionless point of singularity, unlimited mass can not reside. But question arises : can unlimited energy reside within a zero volume at singularity point or within a a very very infinitesimal small volume? In other words, like matter (mass), is there any cap on the upper spatial density of energy? Though I do not know any scientific theory which may put a cap on the spatial density of energy at any point but my strong intuition states that there should be a cap simply due to reasons
since matter and energy being two forms of same physical entity, if there is cap by mass, there should be a cap by energy also
Further, what is the physical significance of infinite density of mass-energy? Within a BH this is possible if at singularity, if space becomes zero, since matter can not be infinite at a dimensionless point. If space becomes zero at any point, universe at that point, containing matter, energy and all the physical laws, shall also vanish at that point
Ref. 142. vinodkumarsehgal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a matter of semantics that instead of using the term singularity, he has used the word focal point of gravitational force.
Mr VKS please re-correct the Structure of the sentence in context to your subject matter under investigation ---"SINGULARITY" IS ALWAYS "FOCAL CONICITY" & "Semasiology".
NATURE LOVES TO BE PHYSICAL AND PRACTICALLY ACCESSIBLE,
THE CREATOR 'S DESIGN IS NOT HIDDEN.but a Manisfestation.
Ref. 142. vinodkumarsehgal:It is a matter of semantics that instead of using the term singularity, he has used the word focal point of gravitational force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr VKS please re-correct the Structure of the sentence in context to your subject matter under investigation ---"SINGULARITY" IS ALWAYS "FOCAL CONICITY" & "Semasiology".
NATURE LOVES TO BE PHYSICAL AND PRACTICALLY ACCESSIBLE,
THE CREATOR 'S DESIGN IS NOT HIDDEN.but a manifestation.
Hi Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your input, but the crux of the dialogue was NOT "where does the in-falling material go in a BH?" This was the one of the first things I brought up in comment #120 when I asked JT if he was referring a "FEEDING" black hole. In comments 118 & 120 I attempted to direct the conversation to established theories such Grand Unified Theory and special relativity.
Your "in-falling material" has to be attracted by some force, which for a black hole is gravity. The real crux of the dialogue is "What causes that gravitational force?" JT invented some sort of dimensionless energy (non-matter) to account for this gravitational force. I can only guess that he wanted it dimensionless because a singularity is dimensionaless.
A singularity is a violation of quantum mechanics (not GR). Any type of energy or matter has to have a wavelength in quantum mechanics. JT simply invented dimensionless energy (i.e. with zero wavelength). There is no basis for such a theory.
However, we did both agree several times that black holes may not contain an actual singularity (e.g. see his wiki references in comment 133). [please note the contradiction. i.e. why the need for dimensionaless energy if there is no singularity.] So the existence of an actual singularity was really not the central issue in our dialogue.
I am not interested in discussing the made-up theories of non-physicists, such as inventing dimensionless energy at the center of a BH. I am unable to find the rules of this SciAm forum but at the physicsforum.com, this is prohibited:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
I attempted to direct the dialogue to GUT (where a BH could be a reverse Big Bang) and to special relativity.
Dr. Strangelove completely understood the special relativity (SA) concept, but nobody else would touch it. It is possible that Dr. Strangelove and I have misunderstood SA, but at least it is an established theory and I am open to being wrong about my interpretation of SA in relation to a BH.
To Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your views. So where does the problem of "feed in" of endless matter in BH stands with or without singularity?
In my post 142, I had invited your considered opinion, supported by some established scientific theory, on one specific issue : Just like matter, can there be an upper cap on the spatial density of energy (e.m. energy) in any area of space?
One thing you may please consider. When matter shall fall within a BH due to gravitational force of BH, it will be accelerated and may either reach C or approach C the way it behaves in a collider. Now if it reaches C ( Is it possible in a BH? I am not sure.), its mass will be converted into mass energy. I do not find any problem in this proposal as suggested by JT. Obviously, as per GR, mass of in-falling matter or energy of the mass shall create curvature in Space-time which as per definition is gravitation.
Your quote given below
The real crux of the dialogue is "What causes that gravitational force?"
If matter gets converted into e.m. energy in a BH, it can provide necessary input for gravitational force. What could be problem in this? But the issue which requires to be addressed and resolved is whether e.m. energy can be accommodated endlessly within a BH either at singularity or or without singularity? That is why I have raised the issue upper cap on the spatial density of e.m. energy.
Your quote given below
Your "in-falling material" has to be attracted by some force, which for a black hole is gravity.
In-falling material will be attracted by existing gravity of the BH which in turn will reinforce the gravity. Reinforced gravity will attract more and more matter which will further reinforce gravity. In-falling material and gravity will be mutually reinforcing. Is there any problem in this solution?
In GR space is considered continuous, smooth and at zero space singularity is obtained. If quantum singularity has to be obtained, we shall be required to consider space as discrete composed of some below Plank level atoms. When space shall reach at its lowest stage of volume i.e. at a single atom stage, a quantum singularity shall be developed which will be equivalent to zero level space singularity of GR. The problem with singularity in GR is that though mathematically achievable but physically it is not conceivable since some parameters requires to attain infinite limits. But in quantum singularity, we get rid of infinity since space volume of 1 single atom (of space) shall is achievable without resorting to infinite value of other parameters.
To anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your suggestion. I personally believe that there is no solution to the BH conundrum without invoking 5th dimension or anti-gravity. With either of 5th dimension or anti-gravity only we can find some logical solution to endless in-falling of matter in a BH. But some people do not subscribe to these views and they want to find solution within the existing paradigm which leads to forced interpretation.
REFERENCE TO 147. Mr Vinodkumarsehgal, one voice of advice,you are intelligent,and striving for practical application's of NATURE,to be explicit- you should have exactly an enviable facility in mathematics,geometry,algebra,etc. Einstein took as a fundamental for unified field theory, was a geometry with Riemannian metric, vanishing curvature, and non-vanishing torsion, named “absolute As in Euclidean space, in the new geometry these 4-beins can be "Parallely translated to retain the same fixed directions everywhere".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, again, a degree of absoluteness is re-introduced into geometry parallelism”, “distant parallelism”, In place of the metric, "Tetrads are introduced as the basic variables".
As in Euclidean space, in the geometry these 4-beins can be parallely translated to retain the same "fixed directions everywhere". Thus, again, a degree of absoluteness is re-introduced into geometry .
In any case, Einstein’s motivation came from the wish to generalise Riemannian geometry such that the electromagnetic field could be geometrized:
“therefore, the endeavour of the theoreticians is directed toward finding natural generalisations of, or supplements to, Riemannian geometry in the hope of reaching a logical building in which all PhysicalFfield Concepts, are unified by one single viewpoint.”he permitted himself to interpet the physical meaning of geometrical structures,“Let us say simply that mechanical phenomena are of a purely affine nature whereas electromagnetic phenomena are essentially metric; therefore it is rather natural to try to represent the electromagnetic potential by a not purely affine vector.”
The split, in first approximation, of the Tetrad field accordingly lead to homogeneous wave equations and divergence relations for both the "Symmetric" and the "Antisymmetric" part (ANTI-GRAVITY), identified as metric and electromagnetic field tensors, respectively.
In an investigation concerning spaces with simply transitive continuous groups,Einstien had found the connection for a Manifold with distant Parallelism ,
but due to Mathematical Techniques still in infancy ,and requiring further improvements in the physical thought Processes & APLLICATIONS TO COSMOLOGICAL SCALES, AS WELL AS THE LOW ENERGY LIMITS,Einstien's work on DISTANT PARRALELISM REMAINED INCOMPLETE.
Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes "feed" regardless of whether or not a singularity exists. GR tells us there is a singularity, but that does not mean GR is correct. All we know for sure is that the mass of a BH is entirely contained with the event horizon (point at where photons can not escape) or at least the photon sphere. That is, we only know the mass based on stars orbiting the BH.
Quantum mechanics gives an "upper cap on spatial density of energy." The cap is the wavelength of that energy, which is limited by Planck energy. This then gives Planck density. According to the wiki article Planck density is equivalent to 10^23 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. This is definitely dense enough for a BH, but it still isn't a singlarity (dimensionaless). Reconcile that with GR and you will have the "Theory of Everything."
JT did not merely say that "mass is converted into mass-energy." He said mass is converted into DIMENSIONALESS mass-energy. Is there any such thing as a photon or other energy particle without a wavelength??? Yes, according to JT. That is essentially saying quantum mechanics is total wrong and GR is totally correct (i.e. a singularity does exist). See his comment 136 plus other comments before that.
I really have no idea where the bulk of the mass resides in a black hole: at the "singularity" or between the singularity and the event horizon or the photon sphere?
I've been trying to direct this dialogue to special relativity because that seems to contain a lot of answers (correct or incorrect?). Time dilation will slow down time for a particle (photon) approaching the event horizon. Here's a piece from the wiki article on black holes:
"To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole. Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it. At the same time, all processes on this object slow down causing emitted light to appear redder and dimmer, an effect known as gravitational redshift."
In other words, can particles actually fall into a BH and reach the "singularity" if it takes them infinite time (to an outside observer) to reach the event horizon???
[Note: I am not suggesting any of my comments are correct (I am not a physicist). This is just my personal interpretation of existing theories. However, I am NOT creating my own theories, like JT's DIMENSIONALESS ENERGY.]
To Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your detailed comments. I really appreciate your comments on upper cap of spatial density of energy.
Your quotes :
Black holes "feed" regardless of whether or not a singularity exists. GR tells us there is a singularity, but that does not mean GR is correct.
I really have no idea where the bulk of the mass resides in a black hole: at the "singularity" or between the singularity and the event horizon or the photon sphere?
Unquote.
The problem of endless feed in of matter in a BH, at singularity or between singularity and event horizon, remains quite complex to solve and remains all elusive. As far as I know, at the photon sphere i.e. at the surface of event horizon sphere, it is the information which is left out by in-falling matter or energy. I think Sussikund and other have dealt with these issue where they have projected that before matter falls into BH, it leaves information at the event horizon surface.
Now, within existing paradigm, if we are not able to resolve the issue then what is the problem in invoking new concepts of anti-gravity or 5th dimensions? At point of anti-gravity, in-falling matter will be repelled and feed-in will stop. May be repelled material may appear in the form of jets of gamma rays which have been reported from some super massive black holes. At the 5th dimension, space-time may break down, either at the lowest quanta level (QM) or at zero level (GR), time freeze may take place and than time may flow in reverse direction in 5th dimension. The in-falling matter or energy may have a connect with the 5th dimension. This time reversal shall be with respect to our 3D space and not with respect to 5th dimension. In 5th dimension, time shall flow in as forward direction as it flows in our 3D space
I agree with you that SR may also provide some solution to the issue of unlimited in-falling matter in a BH. But then one should be ready to accept concepts of Time freeze, Time reversal and 5th dimension. At the point of singularity, a phase transition may take place in space and time
I am not staking any claim in any way regarding the correctness of above conception. What I want to convey is that if the existing scientific understanding is incapable of resolving the issue, there is all the possibility of other scenarios of anti-gravity or 5th dimension
To Anselm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your advice to have some knowledge of mathematics. I also feel that to comprehend some scientific aspects in right perspective, it is not only desirable but also necessary to have some basic knowledge of Geometry and Algebra. I have studied Mathematics up to Graduation level. Now I am trying to understand various concepts of differential Geometry viz tensor, manifold, Riemannian Geometry, curvature, torison etc as are used in Relativity to the extent possible. I am 57 years, as such, it is not possible to have systematic studies by attending any college or university. However, having studied Maths. at college level, I can pick up the concepts with some efforts.
However, nevertheless the complex mathematics, ultimately it is the truth at physical level which matters. For example, GR speaks of curvature of Space-time in abstract mathematical terms and as far as I know, it is the mathematical results which establishes the curvature of space-time. Now if are incapable of comprehending the reality by transpose of truth from mathematical equations to the Physical level, the mathematical reality shall not be of much significance. I am not questioning the validity of mathematical abstractions but only stating that comprehending the reality at physical paradigm is also of equal importance if not more.
To Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to my post 150.
In the context of spatial density of energy, Is wave length of e.m. radiations really reflects some spatial oscillation in space or it is merely a way to manifest some reality in mathematical terms or on paper? Wave length is reciprocal of frequency and frequency is nos. of times electric field or magnetic field oscillates per sec in space. Now when we say that electric field oscillates so many times per sec in space in some polarized direction. What does it means? Does it really reflect oscillation of some spatial fixed entity in some specified direction or reality is something else and oscillation of field in some polarized direction is merely a way of expression.
Why I am raising these questions? If an electric field really oscillates spatially in some polarized direction then we should be ready to accept some spatial geometry of field also. Since without some spatial geometry, no entity can actually oscillate in some specified direction in space.
Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask, "What is the problem in invoking new concepts?"
There is no problem with invoking new concepts. But the concepts have to have some type of basis in science that should stand up to a reasonable amount of rigorous evaluation of others. How much time one spends in trying to interpret someone else's concept depends on many factors including: the reputation/background of person with the concept; how much that concept has already been studied (e.g. has it been published in a respectable journal?); how much time the person with the concept spent on their own concept, etc.
If some layman (such as a non-physicist like myself) comes up with a concept off the top of their head that requires all of quantum mechanics to be eliminated (e.g. DIMENSIONALESS ENERGY), others have the right to reject that concept.
Just because any concept is rejected doesn't mean that all concepts must be rejected. All ideas should be subjected to critical review. If the person with the idea simple starts arguing semantics and using other logical fallacies such as non sequitur in response to questions, then I guess the person with the concept has not spent much time evaluating their own concept. So why should anyone else (especially when it makes no sense)?
The random thoughts from a layman don't even reach the level of pseudoscience, junk science, fringe science, or cargo cult science. At least with pseudoscience, some attempt (i.e. work) has been made to make sense of the concept.
Why should someone waste their time on JT's DIMENSIONALESS ENERGY when they can study other concepts by practicing scientists such as Leo Susskind who write entire books on their concepts?
Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe event horizon is at the Schwarzschild radius. The photon sphere is one and a half times the Schwarzschild radius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I am understanding your question, you seem to be asking if an ether exists. I have no idea how light might interact with a vacuum (such as with virtual particles or unknown/undetected particles), but light has only been observed to travel at c in a vacuum, regardless of the speed of the source w.r.t. the observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
One additional comment regarding the either:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Does it really reflect oscillation of some spatial fixed entity..."
If there was "some spatial entity," there would be no reason for special relativity. The failure of the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887 lead to Lorentz transformations and Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. These theories were simply attempts to explain how light could always travel at c in a vacuum (i.e. how the speed of light is independent of reference frame). What followed is that SR has been proved; the existence of an ether has not.
correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne additional comment regarding the ETHER (not either).
I also meant to quote "some spatial FIXED entity." I left out the word FIXED which is the most important word since that would assume a FIXED ether.
"Is wave length of e.m. radiations really reflects some spatial oscillation in space or it is merely a way to manifest some reality in mathematical terms or on paper?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make it sound so mysterious. Of cource e.m. waves oscillate in space. If they are just mathematical abstraction then your radio wouldn't work. E.m. waves do not need a material medium, they oscillate in empty space.
Black holes have mass so they contain particles with mass. There is nothing in general relativity and quantum mechanics that say the mass is converted to pure energy. The hypothesized Hawking radiation is from virtual particles outside the event horizon. They do not emanate inside the BH but they can deplete the mass of the BH.
Cramer and Dr Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had started by discussion centered around two points :
i) How limitless in-falling matter can reside within a BH, with or without singularity. Obviously, within zero volume at singularity or some fixed volume within event horizon, limitless matter or even pure energy can not be accommodated
ii) Irrespective of the fact whether ether exist or not, what is the meaning of spatial oscillation of an electric/magnetic field in space in physical terms.
Let us confront these issues from the front. Despite a lot of discussions , we are not finding any satisfactory solution within existing theories of Physics. It is quite obvious that endless (infinite) matter or energy can not reside within limited volume of a BH. ( with or without singularity) After all where matter or energy disappears? This leads me to think that Science seems to have some missing link about which it is yet to be known. Otherwise what is the solution?
About second query, Dr Strangelove has had some "feel" about which I wanted to convey. In order to Cramer to appreciate my point of view, let me paraphrase my query once again.
When an e.m. wave propagates in space, its electric field and magnetic field oscillates alternatively in specified directions depending upon polarization. ( Plane- H or V and Circular - L or R). Am I right about my interpretation of polarization? If not please correct me. Now my first query was - whether these oscillations are actual spatial oscillations in space or reality is something else and spatial oscillations are merely mathematical or pictorial way of representation of some unknown reality. To this Dr Strangelove has indicated ( post 158) that oscillations are real spatial oscillations in space. Question of whether Space is having some ether or not is irrelevant in this context. Now the next query which is a natural corollary to first is : If fields really oscillate spatially in space in some specified direction depending upon direction of polarization, there should be some spatial geometry of fields. What is the spatial geometry of a fields? If we say fields do not possess any spatial geometry then actual spatial oscillation of a field in space and that too in some polarized direction does not carry any meaning.
Dear friends, I am also a non-Physicist and non-Scientist though I studied Physics at Master level long ago during first half of seventies. However, I have a urge to understand the reality at physical paradigm by going to the bottom most level to the extent possible.
i) There's no limitless matter or energy within a BH. It has finite mass. Zero volume is from the reference frame outside the BH. Inside it, your ruler also shrinks so it's still 12 inches long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisii) Electromagnetic waves are the oscillation of the electric-magnetic field. The electromagnetic field is governed by Maxwell equations. Interesting trivia, if the field is written in 5-dimensional metric tensor, you can get both Einstein's gravitational field and Maxwell's EM field using the same metric tensor! But physicists did not know what to make of it so it was demoted to a mathematical curiosity.
Ref:151. vinodkumarsehgal, Read , In Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy and Electromagnetic dark energy it is proposed, that a phase Transition occurs, so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about 1.7 THz, are gravitationally active whereas above that they are not. If this is the case, then the dark energy problem is solved: NOTE THAT ,Dark energy is the low frequency gravitationally active component of zero-point energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero-point photons continue to exist above the 1.7 THz phase transition, consistent with measurable QED effects such as the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift, etc. The proposed phase transition should be Testable in the very near future when the Koch et al. experiment is extended from 0.6 Tz to the proposed cutoff.
In the 1960s British physicist Trevor Marshall and, separately, American Timothy Boyer were two of the principal investigators who essentially took up the abandoned approach and pushed it much farther by asking the question: which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy? This became the discipline known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED, earlier sometimes referred to as random electrodynamics). In the SED representation the zero-point field is taken to be a given, and is treated as an ensemble of ordinary electromagnetic plane waves having an energy 1/2 hf in each and every mode. There is no quantum physics involved.
Cont'd from 161 : From its ontological aspirations of possibly doing away with quantum physics in favor of solely classical physic's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo noteworthy successes of SED are its derivation of the Planck blackbody function, without assuming quantization and its suggestion that the Bohr orbit of hydrogen could arise without a quantum law. In the latter case, the ground state electron is assumed to emit Larmor radiation, which causes it to spiral inward, but this does not lead to collapse of the orbit because the electron also absorbs zero-point energy. The calculation of the absorption was done by Boyer and later by Puthoff by treating the electron as undergoing harmonic oscillation rather than true motion in a Coulomb potential. This Phnomena will shortly be resolved, but nonetheless it is striking that the Larmor emission and harmonic-oscillator-type absorption prove to be in balance exactly at the BOHR RADIUS. The fact that the orbital angular momentum is zero in the quantum ground state, is mirrored in the SED orbiting-electron interpretation by random changes in the orbital plane (due to the zero-point fluctuations) yielding a time averaged zero net angular momentum,but with a Parodox that will also be Empirically Tested in the near future,and that's "ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED IN CELESTIAL BODIES AND GALATIC CLASSICAL DYNAMIC SYMMETRY."
CONTD FROM 162:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCONNECTION TO "HIGGS FIELD (INERTIAL MASS AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
The connection in SED theory between Zitterbewegung and the zero-point fluctuations have led to speculative investigations of a possible mass-generating role for the INERTIAL DRIVEN "Higgs field" WHEN ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED IN CELESTIAL BODIES OF DYNAMIC SYMMETRISED SPACETIME OF PHASE SPACE. The Higgs field was first proposed in 1964 and is still a key element of the Standard Model of particle physics; it is needed to confer the property of mass on the fundamental particles. In the theory, all particles are intrinsically massless until acted upon by the Higgs field. The quantum of the Higgs field is the Higgs boson. Attempts to detect the verify the Higgs field in CLASSICAL PHASE SPACE as the mass-generating mechanism of the Standard Model,will be proven on integration of Cosmological, and the Higgs Field
if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered, however, that will explain the origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter. The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model,though the mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms, in a HIGGS FIELD the MASS WILL BE NEGATIVE,due to the Phase TRANSITION ,THEREFORE THE NEW BATCH OF UNKNOWN PARTICLES EILL REPLACE,THE PROTONS AND NEUTRONS IN THE HIGGS FIELD IN SYMMETRISED GALATIC AND CELESTIAL BODIES UNDER A DYNAMIC PHASE LOCK.
"which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy? This became the discipline known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a contradiction since zero-point energy is derived from the Uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. SED is fundamentally flawed. Von Neumann presented mathematical proof that this uncertainty cannot be derived by statistical approximation from deterministic classical mechanics. This view is confirmed by experimental proof of Bell's theorem.
RE. comment #158 - conversely, you make it sound so certain!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou stated:
"Black holes have mass so they contain particles with mass."
Isn't it more correct to say that black holes exhibit gravitational effects, which are commonly described in terms of equivalent mass? Doesn't general relativity also support the principle of mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2)?
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity
"The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
states that "the physics at the center [of black holes] is unknown."
Don't these and other factors argue against definitive declarations regarding the presence or absence of dimensional matter within a black hole's hypothesized singularity?
"There is nothing in general relativity and quantum mechanics that say the mass is converted to pure energy. The hypothesized Hawking radiation is from virtual particles outside the event horizon. They do not emanate inside the BH but they can deplete the mass of the BH."
Is there something in general relativity or quantum mechanics that precludes the conversion of mass accelerated to extreme velocity (approximating mc^2?) directly into gravitational energy (curved space made persistent in the locally dilated time of an effective singularity)? As I understand, experiments conducted to test for the existence of Hawking radiation have not produced verification much less confirmation.
I'm merely suggesting that quantum particle interactions at the event horizon of a black hole are critical factors determining the physics occurring within a black hole - very similar to Hawking's comparatively minor proposal, although I cannot offer any mathematical proofs... Considering the paucity of convergence between GR and quantum theories, I should hope this suggestion warrants more serious consideration that out-of-hand dismissal!
To Dr Strangelove (160)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi)"There's no limitless matter or energy within a BH. It has finite mass."
If matter continues to fall within a BH, how mass or energy shall be within limit? When matter will approach event horizon, due to very high gravitational force, it will gain mass. As it will approach singularity or some focal point, due to increased gravitation, it will gain more and more mass. After all basic idea behind SR/GR is that wherever, there is concentration of energy either due to increased velocity or increased gravitation, this will lead to increase of mass. My straight, simple and direct question is : Unless in-fall of matter does not stop to a BH, how its mass shall remain within limits?
2)My 2nd query also did not pertain to 5 dimensional tensor or a common equation for e.m radiation and gravitation. I am speaking of the existing 3 D dimensional space within which e.m. radiations propagate. Here my simple and straight query related to :
a) Does oscillation of electric/magnetic fields in space pertain to actual spatial propagation of field (something?)?
b) When we say that a wave is polarized implying field oscillate in specified direction ( of polarization), does field actually oscillate spatially in that direction
c) If spatial oscillation and specified directional oscillation are physical realities, then how it is possible without assigning some spatial geometry to field. What is that spatial geometry of field?
One more aspect to which I want to draw your kind attention. If field is a physical reality - a tangible existence, it should also be comprised of something -- some element, some physical entity.
b)
To Anselm (161,162,163)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for providing many new inputs. I was previously unaware of SED.
Zero point photons? Zero point field? Zero point energy? What is the physical meaning of all these concepts which somehow Physicists have invoked to explain some observations.
Zero point should be also zero existences of anything whether in this 3D space or in 5th dimension or some higher dimension.
I understand and believe in quantum uncertainty but that should be quantum uncertainty pertaining to attributes of some physical entity -- some realistic existential entities. If there is nothing in vacuum, and nothing means actual nothing, on what existence quantum uncertainty will operate. Interpretation by some Quantum Physicists (Lawrence Krauss and others) that quantum uncertainty may allow emergence of some energy/matter particles ( virtual or real) from NOTHING is not only weird but also forced interpretation. Yes, one probability can be there : Pure vacuum may be "something" from which virtual particles may emerge out (Casimir effect). However since we do not know about that pure vacuum, some Physicists have nomenclatured that as NOTHING. And Then they have extended quantum uncertainty concepts to extract some energy particles from NOTHING.
Inability of Physicists to know something should not lead to senseless and forced interpretations that quantum uncertainty concepts may allow emergence of entire universe from actual nothing. Same is true for 5th and higher dimensions also.
It is my conviction that Physicists so far have explored a small slice of nature. There are many unknown supersized dimensional layers of nature about which Physicists have yet to know. Our 3D Physical space is a meeting point between two broad layers of nature. In language of Science, I can say that this is the point of transition. Now some Physicists, instead of admitting this, try to justify all the physical observations, within the existing knowledge of this slice. For this justification, they invoke weird concepts and sometimes forced interpretations
I think that NOTHING is not NOTHING, not SOMETHING but EVERYTHING since it is from that NOTHING a very very huge universe has to emerge out
To anselm(163)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered, however, that will explain the origin of inertial mass of ordinary matter. The Higgs field applies only to the electro-weak sector of the Standard Model,though the mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms, in a HIGGS FIELD the MASS WILL BE NEGATIVE,due to the Phase TRANSITION ,THEREFORE"
If Higgs field is to endow mass to all the matter particles why this Field should be a quantized field with one Higgs quanta having a mass of 125 GEV. There is no uniform pattern in the mass of matter particles. An electron possesses mass of 0.511 Mev while a top quark is as massy as 171 GeV while an electron- nutrino is as light as only about 1 eV. If Higgs Field would have been a non-quantized, all particles could extract the required mass to the extent required. It is also an ubiquitous Field, therefore, required mass could have been assigned to matter particles( Is it correct to say matter particles before assigning mass?). Assignment of mass per se establishes that before assigning of mass, particles can not be strictly called matter particles. I think before assigning mass, particles were energy packets with each packet having differential energy contents. Assignment of mass to each energy packet probably might be in proportion to energy content in each energy packet.
Even if this hypothesis is correct ( I am not sure), what mechanism created energy packets with varrying amounts of energy. ( A road block ?)
Further all quantized field in nature also exhibit wave
character. Photons exhibit e.m waves, Gravitons exhibit gravity waves but what about Higgs Boson?
In my 9th standard in 1968, my text book of Science mentioned that there are three fundamental quantities in Physics -- Mass, Length and Time. At that time and during many subsequent years, even while was studying Master in Physics in college, I never realized the implications of these fundamental quantities. Now after so many years, I realize that a large mystery of physical universe lies in grasping the depths of Mass ( matter), Length (space) and Time
(1) the energy from the big bang (if the theory is right) could have converted to the higgs mass
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(2)good point,yes however why would the dark energy level diminish?
There are many rules that must not be violated when theorizing about black holes. This is why we do not yet have a Theory of Everything. If these rules are broken, you must also theorize what type of physics would replace those rules. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Here are three rules:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) From QM, all matter-energy are waves (zero wavelength matter-energy does not exist).
2) From 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of a closed system never decreases.
3) From Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, conservation of energy can only be violated over a short period of time.
More about energy and wavelengths:
In forming a neutron star, protons and electrons are force out of existence by combining to form neutrons. In forming a black hole (and/or a hypothetical quark star), neutrons are force out of existence leaving quarks. Quarks MIGHT then forced out of existence to form something else such as hypothetical preons. Whatever new form of matter-energy is created, it still has a non-zero wavelength. If some type of matter-energy exists that has a wavelength on only one Planck length (~10^−35 meters), then 10^23 solar masses could fit into the nucleus of an atom. The BH at the center of the Milky Way is only 4.3 million solar masses. The largest known BH's have around 200 billion solar masses.
Max mass for a white dwarf (electron degenerate matter) is ~ 1.4 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).
Max mass for a neutron star (neutron degenerate matter) is 2 to 3 solar masses (Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit).
Then we can go on to quark degenerate matter, etc; but matter-energy always has a wavelength.
The wavelength of a quark bound in a proton is 2.2x10^-18 m. This is still 10^17 times larger than Planck length.
Is zero wavelength different from infinite wavelength? They seem to be one and the same to me. However, approaching them is not the same. Energy approaching zero wavelength is not the same as energy "approaching" infinite wavelength.
Zero wavelength energy has zero energy -- it's not energy. Otherwise, you must replace Quantum Mechanics.
Anselm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your comments 161, 162, 163 you forgot to reference the website from where your cut & paste came.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Author:
Bernard Haisch
Calphysics Institute
Zero Point Energy and Zero Point Field
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your reply to Anselm, you said the following was a contradiction:
"which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy? This became the discipline known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED)"
It is not Anselm who wrote this. Anselm had cut and pasted (exact words) that statement from:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
see 2nd paragraph under the heading "STOCHASTIC ELECTRODYNAMICS THEORY."
Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour replying to comments taken from
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
See 2nd paragraph under the heading "SPECULATIVE CONNECTION TO INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS."
One of the characteristics of black holes is their mass. So they do have mass. There's nothing controversial about that. If your speculations are consistent with established scientific theories, no problem. If not, you're free to speculate just the same. But don't feel bad if others disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Mass is finite because the particles with mass do not reach the speed of light. Their speed is limited by the amount of energy available which is finite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2.a. yes
2.b. yes
2.c. the lines of force of magnetic field has geometric shape. Faraday conducted these experiments in 1820s
Force is a physical entity but it's not material substance. Well in quantum physics it's mediated by particles.
Yes and note the quote below from "Speculative connection between to inertial and gravitational mass"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It should be noted that this unorthodox approach to mass based upon electrodynamics is not taken very seriously by the mainstream physics community"
SED is an attempt to explain quantum phenomena using statistical classical theory. I go with the prevailing view, von Neumann and experimental results.
More definitive declarations ignoring potential uncertainties - from what authority?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no direct evidence that black holes actually contain any material mass - only that they impart gravitational effects to external objects. As I stated, black hole mass almost always represents an approximation derived from the observed gravitational effects attributed to them. For an example, please see http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q14.html
http://astronomyonline.org/stars/blackhole.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
"Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with light and other electromagnetic radiation. Matter falling onto a black hole can form an accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe. If there are other stars orbiting a black hole, their orbit can be used to determine its mass and location. This data can be used to exclude possible alternatives (such as neutron stars). In this way, astronomers have identified numerous stellar black hole candidates in binary systems, and established that the core of our Milky Way galaxy contains a supermassive black hole of about 4.3 million solar masses."
In response 171. Cramer-vinodkumarsehgal -Dr. Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comments 161, 162, 163 is not cut and Paste, but the entire context advises in response to Ref:151. vinodkumarsehgal,to further Read ,Mr Vinod KS is following all my Blogs, and they are interconnected, Zero -Point Energy is presented as an ANALOGY, for comparision and Teachers purpose ,but all my TEXT are CLASSICAL ORBITS OF CELESTIAL BODIES, I use 5th Dimension with a VOLUME of APPROX. 4.66 DEGREES,and a Length CONICITY in "MM".its mentioned in my previous BLOGS SA,
From where did you read this Para. it is my ORIGINAL WORKS "The fact that the orbital angular momentum is 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, in the quantum ground state, yielding a time averaged "1" net angular momentum,but with a presently marked "Parodox" that will also be Empirically Tested in the near future,and that's "ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED IN CELESTIAL BODIES UNDER GALATIC CLASSICAL DYNAMIC SYMMETRY PHASE."
Investigations of a possible mass-generating role for the INERTIAL DRIVEN "Higgs field" WHEN ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED IN CELESTIAL BODIES OF DYNAMIC SYMMETRISED SPACETIME OF PHASE SPACE. The Higgs field was first proposed in 1964 and is still a key element of the Standard Model of particle physics; it is needed to confer the property of mass on the fundamental particles
Attempts to detect the verify the Higgs field in CLASSICAL PHASE SPACE as the mass-generating mechanism of the Standard Model,will be proven on integration of Cosmological, and the Higgs Fields Scales.
if the Higgs field is experimentally discovered in CLASSICAL PHASE SPACE, however, that will explain the origin of inertial mass .
though the mass of ordinary matter is overwhelmingly due to the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms, in a HIGGS FIELD the MASS WILL BE NEGATIVE,due to the Phase TRANSITION ,THEREFORE THE NEW BATCH OF UNKNOWN PARTICLES EILL REPLACE,THE PROTONS AND NEUTRONS IN THE HIGGS FIELD IN SYMMETRISED GALATIC AND CELESTIAL BODIES UNDER A DYNAMIC PHASE LOCK.
Dr Strangelove (175)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) A BH has a limited life span and within this limited period, in-falling matter can not be unlimited. I agree to this extent. But if matter shall continue to fall within a BH, to what extent BH can accommodate the matter. A BH has a limited volume, therefore, after some limit of matter accummulation, what will happen?
2) You have agreed that an electric field actually oscillates in some specified direction in space which may be the polarized direction. Regarding Spatial Geometry of field you have illustrated thru magnetic lines of force.
Do you think, an electric field has also lines of force like a magnetic field? Further, magnetic lines of force operate between poles but spread around all the 3 D space.
If electric field has also lines of force ( if they exist), similar to magnetic lines of force, these lines shall also spread in space
In view of above, how an electric field can oscillate actually in specified polarized direction unless field is also not aligned in that direction.
3) "Force is a physical entity but it's not material substance. Well in quantum physics it's mediated by particles."
Particles of force (e m force) i.e. photons shall come in picture in a moving field which we term as an e.m. wave. and that too at the stages of absorption and emission. Now when we speak of a stationary charge then around the charge a force field exist which operates without any particle of force( photon). This field should also be composed of some physical entity. In fact, this field is more fundamental than moving field.
Can you or any other person put some authentic ideas regarding composition of this stationary field
In response to 164. Dr. Strangelove 04:58 AM 7/16/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy?
Using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a possible mass-generating role for the INERTIAL DRIVEN ........"Higgs Field" CONICITY WHEN, " ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED"! IN EIGHT OR MORE TRAID SETS OF SYNCHRONISED CELESTIAL BODIES, OF A SLICE OF 4.66 DEGREES DYNAMIC SYMMETRISED SPACETIME forming a slice of PHASE SPACE.........Read futher details in my previous Blogs.
IN my ORIGINAL WORKS "The fact that the orbital angular momentum is 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, in the quantum ground state, yielding a time averaged "1" net angular momentum,since Angula Momentum is not Conseved in this Space-Time Lock.
Anselm asks, "From where did you read this Para. it is my ORIGINAL WORKS."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI already gave you the website which has the identical text of your comments 161, 162, 163:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Are you accusing Bernard Haisch of Calphysics of plagiarizing your "blog?" Your English grammar skills from your other comments appear much different from 161, 162, 163.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Response to REF.Cramer 181 .
My comments 178, 161, 162, 163 is not cut and Paste, but the entire context advises in response to Ref:151. vinodkumarsehgal,to further Read ,Mr Vinod KS is following all my Blogs, and they are interconnected, Zero -Point Energy is presented as an ANALOGY, for comparision and Teachers purpose ,but all my TEXT are CLASSICAL ORBITS OF CELESTIAL BODIES, I use 5th Dimension with a VOLUME of APPROX. 4.66 DEGREES,and a Length CONICITY in "MM".its mentioned in my previous BLOGS SA,
From where did you read this Para. it is my ORIGINAL WORKS "The fact that the orbital angular momentum is 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, in the quantum ground state, yielding a time averaged "1" net angular momentum,but with a presently marked "Parodox" that will also be Empirically Tested in the near future,and that's "ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED IN CELESTIAL BODIES UNDER GALATIC CLASSICAL DYNAMIC SYMMETRY PHASE."
Using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a possible mass-generating role for the INERTIAL DRIVEN ........"Higgs Field" CONICITY WHEN, " ANGULAR MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED"! IN EIGHT OR MORE TRAID SETS OF SYNCHRONISED CELESTIAL BODIES, OF A SLICE OF 4.66 DEGREES DYNAMIC SYMMETRISED SPACETIME forming a slice of PHASE SPACE.........Read futher details in my previous Blogs.
IN my ORIGINAL WORKS "The fact that the orbital angular momentum is 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, in the quantum ground state, yielding a time averaged "1" net angular momentum,since Angula Momentum is not Conseved in this Space-Time Lock.
CONTINUED from 182- A Blog is to discuss Scientific matter's,and Teacher approach, the unfortunate ,the weak, and those ambitious to gain Knowledge in new and currant advances in Science and Technology,since the majority of super-intelligent human beings,cannot afford even to go to a college or a reputable university for Scientific further education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA majority of the worlds greatest Scientific inventions and discoveries, were made by ordinary practical aptitude people, who applied their WISDOM to the workings of Nature
just by reading and observing NATURE,their concentrated efforts paid off.
To anselm, cramer and Dr Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are at the public forum of SA to refine and enhance our scientific conceptual understanding and not to test the knowledge of others. Even, if some parts of comments by some person are cut and paste, how does it affects us. After all, we can gain knowledge from cut and paste also. Some parts of anselm's comments (148) appeared to be copied from http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2& amp;page=articlesu15.html. I knew this. But it should hardly affect me since anselm has given me an opportunity to learn more from those sources about which I did not know earlier. For this, I should be thankful to him. Nevertheless, some of the aspects of comments of anselm appear original to me and fit well in my conceptual understanding.
In one of his post, anselm had mentioned that he has been reading SA since last 65 years. I am not even 65 and have been reading SA since 4 years only. In view of this it is obvious that depth of his understanding should be definitely much higher than mine. Further, we have not on this forum to compare and compete with each other. My endeavour is to comprehend the reality at physical paradigm. Mathematical formulations and theories could be one way of expression and understanding the nature BUT reality does not reside in Mathematics and Theories. It lies on the physical plane.
Now I invite you to see my comment at 179 and address the issues which I have raised particularly issue of the composition of a static field. Around a charge, a static electric field exist. My speculation is that this field should also be comprising of some discrete element the way matter is composed of discrete elements. In this regard, I request you people to add your inputs, either original or from any source
Ref. 184. Mr Vinodkumarsehgal, Comment's reflect your Wisdom,your respectable Flow Chart- HUMILITY will TRUIMPH. And I will make every ENDEAVOUR to source specially Scientific Knowledge my any means,to educate the unfortunate and downtrodden,We should be HUMANE...educated people should not display their apathy..keep room for CHARITY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow effective can a dialogue be if it involves a significant amount of plagiarism? How can it evolve? It's essentially a fake dialogue. Are you really condoning plagiarism?
I agree with you that we are here to discuss science in an effort to enhance our knowledge. However, an healthy discussion requires trust which requires integrity. We are all strangers and all lay persons here. If I can not trust the person in a dialogue, it reduces the amount of time that I take to understanding what he is saying -- possibly down to zero time.
Everyone refers to the works of others here (naturally--we are all lay). Most reference wikipedia. Now, Anselm is denying cut-and-pasting, even after clear evidence. How can I trust anything else he says; meaning I come here to learn -- how do I know he's not BS'ing. I just move on to the next comment and ignore his. And the integrity of the entire community has just been lowered.
It's about the integrity of the dialogue. Your assumption of my motives is an insult to me (I am not saying that was your intent). This is not about "testing the knowledge of others" to me. It is not about one upmanship. It's about understanding the science. Most people post here anonymously, including myself. Nobody knows who I am -- there are many Cramers in this world. So I have nothing to gain by appearing intelligent. It sure does not help my ego.
Plagiarism and condoning plagiarism hurts this community. Let's ask SA if they condone plagiarism. I can't even believe why I have to defend why plagiarism is not good in science, in education, or in this SA forum of dialogue.
I am dismayed that Scientific American does not effectively moderate their discussion forum. SA's Terms of Use is purely a document to limit their liabilities. There are not rules which help create a productive forum. I spent time posting here a few years back. Now I remember why I stopped. There are essentially a dozen or fewer posters that dominent these dialogues with 100s of posts per year. Much of their posts are political (AWG deniers, etc) or pseudoscience (promoting their own non-scientific theories). This should be prohibited as it is at physicsforum.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the idea of space being quantized and made of space elements. The space elements are close packed making a crystal structure. Within the medium of the space elements, light is a vibration relative to the electric and magnetic fields. The speed of light comes from the stiffness of space relative to the fields. Similar to light, matter is also a wave form within the medium. The difference is that light is a propagating wave, while matter is a standing wave. Both are composite wave packets of multiple frequencies. Particles are wave packets that are quantized in energy and space. They have shapes and their properties are related to their energy and shapes. They can be called particles if they can be counted as single items. Particle physics is a schematic representation of how the wave packets interact.
The luminiferous ether seems to be the same concept, but descriptions of it are different than how I imagine. I'm not sure if I'm convinced of the Michelson-Morley experiment, since the path length of the light was only 11 meters. I hope to read more about existing theories of this. Also I hope to read more about alternate theories, the currently accepted theories and related experiments.
For reference,
c = 1/(sqrt(eo/uo))
c = speed of light [m/s]
eo = Permittivity constant = 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m
uo = Permeability constant = 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m
A Farad is a unit of capacitance and is related to the electric field
1 F = 1 A*s/V
A Henry is a unit of inductance and is related to the magnetic field.
1 H = 1 V*s/A”
(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 37, Section 2. Maxwell’s Equations: A Tentative Listing)”
The speed of light raises the question of space being made of something or not. How can space have stiffness if it is not there?
Thanks,
-Tony
To Tony-who
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Within the medium of the space elements, light is a vibration relative to the electric and magnetic fields."
You stated Light is a vibration relative to electric field and magnetic field. But vibration of what? I have not understood. I understand that propagating oscillating electric and magnetic field in an e.m wave per se is light.
Anyhow, if you have some different ideas, please elaborate the same
A few months back( I think it was Feb 2012) there was an article in SA that a Physicist Craig Hogan, Director Fermi Lab at Batavia near Chicago has designed an experiment to establish the discrete nature of space. Since than I have not heard any thing about the study of the proposed experiment. If you get some details on that study, please appraise me.
My understanding dictates me that real space is Pure Vacuum MINUS all zero point field (ZPF) and zero point energies (ZPE), which quantum Physicists state as vacuum fluctuations. ZPFs and ZPEs are not the products of pure vacuum but they merely reside in pure vacuum
If discrete (atomic) nature of space is established, this may raise a question on the constancy of light since speed may be dependent in space depending upon density of space elements in any area.
Since permittivity constant (eo) and permeability constant (eu) have non-zero values, this fact per se establishes that space is composed of some discrete element-- some sort of atoms which offers resistance to propagation of oscillating electric and magnetic field, which itself light . If space would have not composed of any element, there would have been NIL resistance to propagation implying zero eo and zero eu
To Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am neither encouraging plagiarism in any manner nor in favor of condoning the same. It will be preferable that any commentator when refers to verbatim contents of any source, link reference of that source should also be given . But kindly appreciate the context also. We do not give our comments as part of any thesis or any research project. As such, kindly do not consider such minor cases under the category of plagiarism. Our primary objective of participating in these online discussions is to refine and enhance our understanding on mutual basis. Let us concentrate on our primary objective and other extraneous issues may not make us astray
Ref. 189. Mr Vinodkumarsehgal, read this Article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe period and amplitude changes of Polaris ( UMi) from
2003 to 2007 measured with SMEI
Spreckley S. A.1⋆, Stevens. I. R.1
1School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
Contd. from 191
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(i) An Interview With Kurt Gödel
October 31, 2011
tags: Einstein, Godel, P=NP, P≠NP, SAT, time travel.
Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP
(ii A Brilliant Idea In Publishing
November 27, 201
tags: AMS, diagonalize, Fermat, Proofs, recurrence
by rjlipton .
A GLL exclusive
My primary objective of participating in discussions in a forum is to learn from the benefits of having a dialogue (similar to having a tutor). It not purely about reading monologues to gain knowledge. I read SciAm articles, books, and journals to study the ideas of others. When I have a dialogue with someone, I expect it to be with that person where I have access to that persons intellect. Someone cutting-n-pasting and pretending it is there own words destroys that. It becomes impossible to have a conversation -- the mind of the person who actually wrote those words is not with us. That's not a dialogue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I realize plagiarism is an academic term. Call it what you want. I understand you do not condone plagiarism, but it appears you condone people misrepresenting themselves and duping others into believing they are having a conversation with the person who actually wrote the words they post. Your reply suggests you have no problem with dishonesty and dishonesty does not have significant negative effects in dialogues.
To Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Friend,
We people are strangers, not having even the slightest idea of the background and personality traits of others. Without knowing me, it will be unfair on your part to state that I encourage dishonesty in any manner. I attach utmost significance to personal value system having honesty, fairness, openness and transparency as integral part of the system. But I suggest that SA forum is not the appropriate forum to discuss all this things. These attributes come at their own in one's personality and can not be enforced externally thru others.
With so much said, I request you to kindly concentrate on scientific issues of mutual benefit. I am struggling to understand some issues as raised by my post 179. You please see if you could add some value and facilitate me in having a better understanding to those issues
Vinod, I'm just going by what you said. You seem to have little problem with dishonesty. Or maybe it's that you just like being argumentative -- I don't know. I.e. Since another commenter (myself) found the dishonesty to degrade the quality of a scientific dicussion forum, you chose to have the opposite view. I don't know why you said what you said -- I just know what you said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should examine your own motives of why you would condone dishonesty. Why did you find the need to defend dishonest behavior? Why say anything? It's like if someone complained about some stranger cutting in line at the grocery store; and you chose to defend the line cutter. Strange behavior. I have never witnessed that before.
Hi Vinod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo your question in post #189:
The idea is that light is a vibration of space elements. The forces between the space elements are electric and magnetic. This is analogous to quantized mechanical vibrations in solids, phonons.
Phonons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Gravity Probe B appears to be the latest experiment to test the properties of space and the effects of frame dragging.
Gravity Probe B:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Thanks,
-Tony
Yes, Guth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom Earth.
Time to accept reality...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy-Mass Poles Of the Universe
Again and again:
The universe is a two-poles entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.
Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both energy and mass, even if all of them are inert mass just one smallest fraction of a second at the pre-Bing Bang singularity. All mass formats evolve from gravitons that convert into energy i.e. escape their gravitons shatters-clusters, becoming mass formats in motion, i.e. energy. And they all end up again as mass in a repeat universal singularity.
Universe expansion and re-contraction proceed simultaneously.
Graviton is the elementary particle of the universe. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, inert, with zero distance between all of them. This state is feasible and mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.
The Big Bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang, since the annealing-tempering of singularity and the start of resolution of gravitons. The release of gravitons from their shatters-clusters proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
Gravity is propensity of energy reconversion to mass.
Inflation and expansion are per Newton.
Since the Big Bang galactic clusters are losing mass at constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other. Plain common sense.
A commonsensible conjecture is that the Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) deliver their thrust to other particles and are collected by and stored in black holes at very low energy levels steadily leading to the re-formation of the Universe Singularity, simultaneously with expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
The conjectured implications is that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Wow! Alternatively, there are no gravitons - because gravity is not a property of matter at all, but a property of vacuum energy. Material objects of mass responds to vacuum energy just as they responds to the directed application of any kinetic force: they are accelerated. That is why the effects of gravity are identical to acceleration - it IS acceleration!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPotential mass-energy is another matter, so to speak, independent of gravitation.
I won't go into the whole hypothesis here, but if it is correct, then the rate of quantum fluctuations (the physical annihilation of virtual particle/antiparticle manifestations) vary to some extent in relation to external gradient fields of vacuum energy density - as a very indirect measure of its kinetic force. As a result, quantum fluctuations should vary to some slight extent as a function of distance from the Earth's center of mass, for example.
The force of gravity being imparted by kinetic vacuum energy would best explain its local 'weakness' in comparison to material forces - and its effectiveness over vast ranges of distance.
BTW, the kinetic vacuum energy that is locally contracted by the process of material accretion is also, in the absence of matter, responsible for the universal expansion of spacetime.
There are other explanations I also won't go into here that better explain how particles selectively acquire their property of mass, but the disintegration of bound particles of mass certainly may produce trace residue of bound energy fields manifested as bosons - that prediction of the Higgs mechanism may necessarily be correct in the context of particle physics, even though the unexplained Higgs field may not quite be right...
It's good that gravitons are not necessary in this conception of gravitation, since they do not exist!
I should have mentioned that this conception that gravitation is caused by gradient fields of vacuum energy density can provide the causal physical basis for the effects very precisely described using abstract dimensional coordinates within spacetime geometry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise, without directly representing a surface or other physical entity, abstract geometries cannot affect motion in physical objects... Kinetic vacuum energy density gradients can be very precisely represented by spacetime geometry.
Of course I'm referring to the effects of gravitation as described as the 'curvature' of dimensional spacetime in general relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this