Black Holes Don't Exist! (remix)

[Cinnabar]

That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.

Considering that for supermassive black holes the horizon is a very quiet boundary where the curvature isn't extreme, the mass energy converion, if it is taking place, should occur much closer to the center. I find it difficult to imagine that in very large and very hollow supermassive objects this extra converted energy would somehow get out and contribute to the accretion disk or jet's energy.

It seems more likely to me that if the proposed idea was true there would be some exotic physics happening closer to the boundary that would add some, but not all mass-energy to the external accretion event.

We don't have very precise observations on the exact amount and velocities of the infalling matter. So it's not that easy to calculate if the loss of angular momentum and kinetic energy is not sufficient. The problem of the missing energy may simply be due to our measurement uncertainty, or there is some exotic physics that does not necessarily contradict the classical idea, but requires further explanation.

 

[Quarkmaster]

real physicists don’t chose physics; they’re chosen by it.

I'm still trying to figure this one out. I don't think physics has the ability to choose. The word, "physics" derives from the ancient Greek word, Phusologia, and I would have to go back to one of my own books to re-research this, but in the beginning, it referred to "natural philosophers" or the Fusicoi, or maybe Phusicoi. You can do your own research on that. I wrote all about this in one of my books.
Of course, the many branches of natural philosophy diverged over the years, and I think all people who are drawn to natural philosophy are equally suited to pursue any branch. So perhaps I broke some rules and decided to choose physics - whether it wanted me or not.

 

[Quarkmaster]

makes me wonder what you make of "imaginary" numbers.

Well, if real numbers don't exist, then neither do imaginary ones.

Seriously, though, what number multiplied by itself gives you a negative number. Whatever it is ends with an i. For imaginary. A theoretical construct, as are all numbers and the concept of numbers.

 

[Quarkmaster]

You ain't just a

That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.

whislin' dixie.

e that if the proposed idea was true there would be some exotic physics happening closer to the boundary that would add some, but not all mass-energy to the external accretion event

I read a book many years ago on the prospect of time-travel, and it was heavy with the notion of "exotic matter", or basically matter that would have to have certain properties that no matter anywhere in the universe (that we know of) has. So that was the last time I heard or read the word, "exotic".

We know that quantum tunneling is real. We're fairly certain that black holes evolve over billions, perhaps even trillions of years. So the gravitational part of this whole idea is pretty slow (from an outside observers point of view). It could take millions or billions of years for the transit of a particle of matter from the event horizon the the core of a black hole. For the particle itself, it is very nearly instantaneous.

I really need to sit down and write a program or perhaps do some Mathcad simulations and even write some equations to show this. Start with one or two particles to begin with and start making things bigger and bigger.

I wrote a theorem once, that no two bits of fundamental matter can ever occupy the same space at the same time. You might look into Zeno's Arrow Paradox. As far as I can see, Zeno was right. As the arrow moves, the one part cannot be in the same place at the same time as the part in front of it, ergo the arrow cannot move. The ultimate conclusion to this is that nothing in the universe is in motion. Nor does anything in the universe have a contiguous form in three dimensions.

I really need to write some equations.

And also, some seller on Amazon named someone else as the author of my book, even though my name is plainly on the front cover as the author of the book, and I'm kinda pissed about that. I really need to do something about that.

 

[Rift Zone]

That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.

lol You may be a bigger geek than I am. =) So I question you: does spaghetti-factor really matter here? Your "supermassive" reference revolves around it. I say no. The only thing that matters is neutron degeneracy pressure...and then what happens to that mass. How 'gracefully' that happens is a minor concern. Realistically, the only concern here is what follows observation. Modern theory may be rooting for prevailing theory, but mother nature is backing this interpretation. Letting that soak in a little may be for the best.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.

All that is trying to imply is physics is written into one's history from a very early age.

Some of my best friends are INTJs, but they're all aware that theoretical physics (and astronomy) are the baliwick of INTPs.

...and you and your INTP master race are probably out of your league on this one.

Well, if real numbers don't exist, then neither do imaginary ones.

Seriously, though, what number multiplied by itself gives you a negative number. Whatever it is ends with an i. For imaginary. A theoretical construct, as are all numbers and the concept of numbers.

Not only are "numbers' real. They have at least 2 dimensions! Mother Nature lives where you apparently can't go.

Rift Zone:

Limitations of Mathematics​

In order for any complexity to arise in any system there simply must exist fundamental relationships. Mathematics is, of course, the language of relationships. The complexity of our universe necessarily arises out of mathematical relationships, however our universe is comprised of more than relationships; its structure extends beyond the realms of math.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Holographic Universe principals, and all other notions akin to “all properties of the universe are mathematical in nature” display profound misunderstandings about the capacity and nature of mathematics, as well as its relationship to physics. Such musings are novel but it’s not physics; it’s rhetoric, intractable abstraction. Mathematics is an expression [indulgence] of relationships. Mathematics alone is not capable of possessing the properties observed within our universe. The photoelectric effect and culmination of other nuances within our realm demand inherent structure.

To demonstrate a point, the question “what is gravity?” amounts to a purely scientific inquiry. That’s a 100% scientific question. Unfortunately, we’re never gonna get a scientific answer out of that, directly. All we can do with science is explain the relationships; how it works, interacts, evolves, relates. -those things are defined. We can then take that understanding, culminate it into a model, and infer such and such out of it…physics isn’t gonna tell us everything directly, can’t. The structure of particles is no different; we can answer a lot of things, but the universe has no classification for a sample of it. Science just connects the dots for us; the picture we get out of it is slightly removed from what pure science can tell us. Know how philosophy is an integral part of science? -that’s why! The universe CAN’T define certain things for us; Mother Nature is a physicist not a philosopher, and “what is” is philosophy. Running out of definitions the universe can offer us is not running out of things to define. Translating that circumstance into “it’s all math” is remedial. ‘Relationships having relationships with relationships begets our universe is humor, not science.

More about dimensions:

IQ & Dimension of thought.​

We have linear thinkers among us… (2D) They process information much like a formal logical structure: by line item. They’re fully capable of coming to know complicated systems, thus forming their 2D picture, but it is a somewhat tedious process and things do get lost in translation.

The bright people of the world are the “systems thinkers”, 3D. They take in more than a line item at time. They’re able to see how entire systems work, understanding the nuances at play. More so than just a "picture", they can see into it and readily understand the nature of the system in fundamental ways.

There are also 4Ds; it’s simulation capacity. Are you familiar with Fermat’s Last Theorem? Euler’s Identity, and the profusion of his works? Gauss? How about Relativity? Einstein’s "thought experiments" were physics simulations, literally! -pretty good ones. All of those things and most other profound innovations humanity has produced throughout the ages came from 4Ds. Operating within existing parameters will keep you there. Shit like that never pops out an equation. They have to know it, they have to understand it; they saw that shit: how it works, interacts, evolves, relates, they saw it. In very pure and intimate ways, they saw it; they generated it. Of course, the vast majority of humans can draw up and run scenarios in their minds, but only these guys are doing it in strict accordance to mathematical and physical law. The world’s best computers are still organic; we’re quantum, of course we’re gonna smoke chips for a good while longer. 4Ds are what humanity calls genius; that’s what it is, that’s how it works.

The linear scale of IQ is fairly informative for 2 and 3Ds, however, that type of classification quickly breaks down concerning 4Ds. The most you can really distinguish between 4Ds is how it manifests. The path it takes could amount to intimate command of mathematical equations. -Stephen Hawking was this type of genius; his gift was manipulating equations. He worked as a physicist but his gift was more mathematical in nature. There are also those with excellent command of mathematical structure; they’re walking 3blue1brown youtube channels: translating mathematical expression into mathematical structure, that they can then fuck with. -Here is where we find the likes of Fermat, Gauss, Euler… Humanity’s math is symbolism, those guys work with the real thing! Closely related to mathematical structure but still distinct enough to warrant its own category is physical structure. Here are our pros with reconciling observation with mathematics: Einstein, Feynman, Faraday… Symphonic would be another path, as would Michelangelo type artistry. There are many paths. Newton stands as one of the bright ones of that crowd only because his gift manifested in both mathematical and structural ways, enabling him to cross reference. DaVinci was cool like that too: multiple paths.

 

[John K]

Well, at least we can't watch them eat. =)

Funny thing about neutron stars is they basically exist hovering just clear of Schwartzchild radius. I mean, in practice they have crusts of iron and are not pure "neutronium". However, the difference between a compact ball of pure neutronium and potential event horizon is a Planck Length.

Another point is that event horizon is asymptotic. Relativity doesn't necessarily produce a black hole at schwartzchild radius, it produces infinities. That's the math freaking out and saying it doesn't know what's happening anymore. What the math shows even neutrons have their breaking point. They too will get destroyed given enough pressure.

Then we make assumptions/interpretations. -At that point, there's nothing to prevent collapse of the system and singularity will result,,,is an interpretation. A fine, fair, and consistent interpretation, certainly; but still just an interpretation. Again, infinities at the event horizon = math cannot pass. So now we take that interpretation: collapse and all that, and build a parallel set of mathematics to explain that system. All good; as long as we're clear relativity ends once we start breaking neutrons.

My interpretation is the event horizon never forms. Black holes seem to operate from the premise that once you have that compact ball of neutronium that it CAN be compressed more. That once you reach that neutron degeneracy pressure and they can't hold out any more the volume they occupy shrinks, somehow...get that planck length, bam, black hole. I disagree; the volume they occupy does not compress. If the neutrons can't hold their structure then they get destoryed on the spot. It's a fundamentally different intrepretation, beginning at those infinities. Modern theory reads beyond them to mean collapse, while on the other side of my asymptote is phase change. ...annahilation, poof!

Cuz of those infinities, Relativity favors neither approach. It's all a matter of what mother nature seems to prefer at this point. ...and needless to say If you ask me I'd be inclined to tell you observation is incompatible with the collapse interpretation.

Sorry to be so slow in replying @Rift Zone - I've been away for a couple of weeks and I'm only just getting back into the forum in earnest. I'm not sure if I understand your theory well, but it sounds very interesting.

As far as I understand it the issue of intensely gravitating objects needs to be split into a number of distinct questions about existence. I doubt there is any serious opposition among scientists to the idea that there is no singularity at the centre of a conjectured black hole. Whatever it could possibly be is beyond the major established theories, and lies outside their scope. On the other hand the existence of a possible black hole, in the sense of a closed finite boundary beyond which nothing can escape, is another matter entirely. I understand it is this which you are challenging. Does that mean you are saying that physical processes prevent such a thing, or that the general relativity mathematics that predicts their possible existence is in error? I can see where the former of these may be true for stellar mass black holes, but surely only the latter could be true for the super-massive sorts.

Let me ramble a bit to see if I understand what Einstein's theory implies. A super-massive black hole could be formed - according to the theory - while the matter just at or within the Schwarzschild radius is still in atomic, (relatively) low density form. At that radius, spacetime becomes so bent that time and space are interchanged, so anything that falls within it would have to go backwards in their own proper time to escape - and that's true at every point nearer to the centre, so you can never move further from the core wherever you are within it. That's what makes it a black hole and it could form (at least initially) at galactic mass scale without any extreme atomic physical reactions. So the only way I could see that such a hole couldn't form is if Einstein is wrong about how spacetime is warped by mass. Judging by the observed speed of stars orbiting around hyper-massive galactic core objects, the masses and sizes of these objects implied suggest they are well beyond the mass and the radius of anything other than a black hole unless general relativity is wrong.

The trouble is that general relativity makes exquisitely accurate predictions that are used with great precision every day - for example using GPS kit for satnav positioning. That doesn't mean his theory is correct when it comes to these extreme circumstances of course, but I don't see that electromagnetic forces could counter the development of a galactic mass black hole in the way that it could do plausibly for a stellar mass one.

But then physics is weird isn't it, in the sense that very accurate predictions that we use with great precision in everyday engineering, come from theories that are incorrect in their fundamental understanding of the world. Newton's concepts of an absolute and universal time and space are a good example - they are completely wrong, yet Newtonian mechanics is perfectly well able to serve most of our engineering needs. I often think that it's a mistake to take the predictive power of a scientific theory as evidence that its premises regarding universal fundamentals are correct. If ever we come up with a TOE it'll probably tell us yet again that time and space are nothing like they are envisioned in our current theories. After all, the theories are only anthropomorphic models of a reality that may not be fully expressible in that sort of way.

Really interesting stuff! Apologies if some of these points have been picked up already in the thread - I'll catch up with the more recent posts in the next day or two.

 

[Rift Zone]

@John K
Relativity freaks out and produces infinities at this point of contention. It says nothing! The only thing it can do is imply something crazy is going to go down.

Then we make assumptions, like the whole system then collapses into "singularity" and forms a black hole. Okay sure. And how does your model power all these wonderful things we find in the universe? What's that academia? Your dog ate your homework? You got no clue how to power any of it? You can't actually legitimately explain any of the discussed structures! Bottom line is, academia, you dont know what you're talking about. You don't actually have a viable model with any explanatory power. All you have is splattering of faulty presumpsions that's gonna land your latest fantasy on the shelf of failed science, right next to perfect platomic crystalline spheres and their epicycles.

Meanwhile, there stands Nova. A real theory -one that fully explains its physics because it understands them. ...it's mathemathatically consistent, and it flawlessly aligns with observation. All the post-doc and Nobel Laureates in the world are not gonna be able to change that.