Mordred

It is intrinsic to the spin space itself, when something is intrinsic it is intrinsic to the state space itself. Swansont did allude to that earlier. To wit

Is he? ". Because it is not a classical properties, we cannot write spin in terms of position and momentum operator. The spin is dened in an abstract spin space (not the usual phase space)." https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-02-introduction-to-applied-nuclear-physics-spring-2012/lecture-notes/MIT22_02S12_lec_ch4.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj-2-GonezXAhUBRWMKHT4oDkkQFgguMAU&usg=AOvVaw1TBY59gANm3pXNerkxKdLY

I don't buy the backreaction as being sufficient to prevent the collapse.

It would certainly be a good arena to measure it. For other readers torsion applies to fluid hydrodynamics involved in the other entries of the stress tensor. The components involving stress flux and vorticity all involve torsion equations. This is true even in GR. density doesn't induce stress however pressure does, but there is further stress terms beyond stress pressure. These additional stress terms involve torsion as the vector directions require multiple rotations. Now in GR for free fall motion we initially set the stress tensor to zero to comply with the two conservation of energy/momentum laws. (linear and angular). This does not mean torsion does not apply, where it applies is when the stress tensor cannot be set to zero. In Cartan where you always modelling rotating fields the stress tensor is always involved ie will affect the pressure term of the previous The fundamental difference between the two metrics is in essence how you examine the system. This breaks down to the question of the differences between frame dragging and torsion. In frame dragging the stress tensor itself is unchanging and it is the metric tensor that undergoes change.( oversimplification to above) so don't take too literally. The difference can be understood by comparing the ds^2 seperation distance between the two line elements. [mathd{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2][/math] In Cartan theory the line element contains 1 additional term [math]\omega[/math] So your tensor organizations will reflect the additional term The line element identifies to the null geodesic equations involved and more complexely the Bianchi identities that apply in the geodesic equations. (the line element itself is not specifically the geodesic equation)

Good coverage Vmedvil, also very accurate. There is a extremely important key word in your last image that is fundamentally important to understand String theory. Harmonics. So here is a thought experiment lets consider the following. We have two fields. E and B (electric and magnetic) we identified our frequencies on those two fields with wavefunctions. However those waveforms are always consisting of multiple frequencies. (superposition state) regardless of how accurately we measure it. Now if we consider that E affects B then we need to map the connections as well. In order to do so we require extra fields beyond E and B. On these new fields are additional waveforms that affect the waveforms of the E and B fields. Every connection you make between Fields is another field with its own waveforms.. We need extra dimension ( independant variables) and extra gauge groups (organisation tool for symmetry relation, boosts and rotations) to track each and every seperate field we have identified. Hence your higher dimensions which are not seperate universes but are extra field manifolds.

Yes I agree on the misconceptions which arise from not fully examining the field equations to higher orders as mentioned and described in those papers. It is an excellent point to make others aware of However Gravity probe B does tighten the constraints on torsion with the final results found here. This is the 2011 paper on the G probe https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456 I don't have any doubt that you and I will agree on further tests are required. While the gravity Probe data currently favors GW as opposed to Cartan the results isn't conclusive enough. Just a side note BCrowell I highly respect on his knowledge on GR. He has several books on the topic with a Ph.D. PS all symmetric solutions are boring in any metric the fun is the assymetry.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ free textbook for SR

That looks good you doing these on the mathematica or Wolfram?

There arguments not mine so wish I could answer that one. Never looked too deep into the topic. The subject came up on another forum just prior to my joining this one that I became familiar with the argument. Though I can certainly see what I can dig up on the topic thats more recent. Found the original paper, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686 In essence the backreaction of Hawking radiation prevents further collapse and the reason we see a singularity is based on time dilation. (keep in mind I don't particularly buy into this idea myself

Well that paper describes what is called false singularities and not true singularities. So again its up to you, that was your best chance as the model is specifically designed for atoms in a solid. Guess your on your own to choose a mathematical methodology that you can agree on. Till then I can't help you further. Hence why I asked in advance. Its your model its up to you to choose a methodology so I can help you rather than guessing which method you want just so you can repeatedly accuse me of trying to sidelight. Just as you did on both the fractal and the Cellular automata models when I described how they work. I will not make a single choice for you. You Choose the Mathematical method

Actually in this particular instance the model used describes particles as a BH with charge as source/sink atttaction/repulsion. Yes I know this model enough to build model the paper and link above. Yes it is strictly classical. However if I show you how it works to provide your best bet at developing your model. Are you also willing that I can also show the BH interpretation as an artifact of the metric used? (solid lattice gauge theory) ?

Modelling this is your responsibility not mine. So far you havent supplied anything supportive. Why would I waste my time modelling something I know will not work? Let me ask you a question How do you propose to explain the massive difference in decay rates between the proton and Neutron which is incredibly close in mass? Both are matter particles, The proton mean lifetime is well beyond the age of the universe. Ie we cannot detect any significant decay The neutron by itself (not in an atom ) is roughly 10 minutes. Answer that with your model proposal

By the usual definitions yes, but there was at roughly the same time that article was published that argued that the collapse wouldn't be as extensive as the BH descriptive and that it is viable to have neutron stars with an EH. At work atm but this article does mention some of issues involved. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9808035&ved=0ahUKEwjdsKPRl-nXAhWDyKQKHVPDCCIQFggrMAY&usg=AOvVaw3lw7EqGCYCoh_KQ9lOi7a2

See section 12.2 BH vs Neutron Star section, which explores the possibility that a BH is a Neutron star with an EH as opposed to a pointlike singularity of a BH.

You don't have a model till you have mathematical testability. No absolutely not. Are you not aware we have electron microscopes powerful enough to image atoms? We certainly do not see micro black holes in atoms. Wild conjecture incorrect to observational evidence enough said. I am done trying to help you out. You have your articles. Study them nothing about micro blackholes in those articles and they support my last post. They also include the Uncertainty principle in its mathematics. Enough said on your last two paragraps. They weren't intended to steer away from anything but provide you the aids to comprehend what your reading and answering your previous post. specifically this post https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154357.htm Here are images of atom. See any micro black holes? Secondly if your theory were correct, there would be no stable particles nor atoms as microblackholes would radiate away via Hawking radiation.

There is a handy memorization rule to use for QM (specifically)below but in QFT the fields are the operators. operator=local=particle or more accurately a field excitation has a finite waveform/function ie waveforms that restore to ground state of the field within finite return to ground state crossing points. All crossings of two waveforms either to the ground state or any other waveform are finite points. Planckian field=propagator=non local = ((global) = neighboring states within range of time dependant causality) neighboring states interact with one another via gauge vector bosons (virtual particles or more accurately field fluctuations (fluctuations waveforms with indeterminate amplitude boundariesOperator requires a unit of quanta=observable/measurable.sub planckian VERY IMPORTANT The uncertainty Principle applies to Both Fields and particles. All points of measure are affected. Now here is the thing, by the above one must recognize that nothing in the above describes a corpuscular (Solid like object) these are specifically waveforms. All principle particle quantum numbers have wave-functions that model the waveforms ( the excitations that define the particle) see here for the atom in regards to electron and orbitals. https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/general/quantum_numbers/Quantum_Numbers.htm#Principal So here is how this works. First off the purpose of QM and QFT aren't really the same. QM more concerns itself more so with particle collisions, So scattering effect in general from intersecting excitations. Whenever two waveforms overlap they cause interference with one another (destructive and constructive interference. QFT more concerns itself with the fields themselves as being the primary focus. to quote from following link under Principle of Superposition. Well defined in that article even though its a simplified link. ( includes interference of different lapping patterns. "When two waves interfere, the resulting displacement of the medium at any location is the algebraic sum of the displacements of the individual waves at that same location" Or due to Heisenburg uncertainty. This is your Stochastic state, it is this arena that statistical probabilities apply as this is your indeterminant state. Stochastic with definition {b]:randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely [/b] http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves Now once you have determined/measured a wave-function probability no longer applies to that wave function. Now consider the following logic argument from the above lemmas. Due to the interference nature of wave functions, via constructive inference we get higher amplitude than the ground state wave-functions that become sharply defined (excitations with a quanta of energy). The ground state for QM being the zero point energy state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Now as to the Uncertainty, well lets think above to all that interference. Is it any wonder that their will always be interference present? that it will be present in every point of measurement? In nature their is never truly a pure state, it will always have some overlapping waveforms. Even the very act of taking a measurement will cause interference. These articles that recommend the stochastic treatments to geometry are applying the above, where as under relativity the field geometry is determined to describe the particle geodesic. They don't apply the uncertainty principle mainly because at the macro scale, in particular the universe the effect is negligible to measurement error. Except over vast volume ( ie can contribute to cosmological constant). BOTH QM and QFT are indeterministic treatments ( all possible) General relativity is a deterministic treatment. By the way thanks on the above link, I love reading these types of articles. This one is quite good. Also excellent question above hope this helps you understand this article Here is an assist to all readers, A holomorphism is an overlap of fields either due to excitations overlap or to fluctuation overlap. This will correspond to the Neighbors descriptive above. Under Geometry the Manifold will have a boundary condition that provides the causality region from that manifold or state. This boundary condition also applies to its own range of influence as well as IR (infrared red Extremely low frequencies) or UV (extremely high frequencies) cutoffs. For Gaussian fields see Gauss Bonnet theorem which applies to Gaussian treatments to the above as well. https://math.berkeley.edu/~alanw/240papers00/zhu.pdf

The mantra of applying the proper definitions under physics to understand the complexity behind any physics model ? If so a whole heartedly agree Dubbelosix raised an interesting question on if the accretion disk dynamics can reveal any details on the internal workings of a BH. There is a research paper that raises this possibility http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Dis

There ya go a well presented argument and a good basis for a solution. That's all I was asking from you. Well done. Well now you found a way to present your arguments in a decent and understandable way that anyone can chip into without dealing directly with misconceptions and poor terminology to focus on a viable examination of the issues you wish to address. This is by far easier and more productive to a good discussion and examination that complies within our rules and guidelines. I tip my hat to you Well now you found a way to present your arguments in a decent and understandable way that anyone can chip into without dealing directly with misconceptions and poor terminology to focus on a viable examination of the issues you wish to address. This is by far easier and more productive to a good discussion and examination that complies within our rules and guidelines. I tip my hat to you edit: the article above is one of my favourites on Cellular automata, I highly recommend it.

Finally a method from you I can agree on. Well done you provided something that can be built on. Nothing wrong with applying this method. +1

Roflmao its too bad you can't even see how fractals are being used with regards to ADS/CFT to also address the issues with the uncertainty principle in that article. It even demonstrates how D-Branes arise from the mathematics It is an excellent tool for him to build his model. Too bad you can't see it roflmao... That is precisely what I provided the scientific method to properly model build. Not la la land guess work based on wild conjectures. Physics uses mathematics to model build not wild fantasy land dreams. If you knew anything about physics you would know it requires math. Yeesh it even involves Mandelbrot sets and you can't even see it. Here you were asking for the tools to provide the math to your imagery and when it is provided accusing me of not providing the methodology under math. Your too much, ! Moderator Note http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ See specifically the following sections on our rules for participating on this Speculation forum "- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions. V = IR is a simple model in electricity. All of the terms represent something physically measurable. Systematically choosing two of the variables allows you predict the third one, which can be compared with the measurement." 3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that. The whole purpose of model building is to make predictions and that provides testability. That REQUIRES math as per the rules on this Speculation Forum

I am addressing the OPs question not your lack of understanding of the math Vmedvil has posted. While correcting your reply as being wrong to that question. Here read Hauusdorff Dimension and see for yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_dimension And here is an example application to ADS/CFT. No dividing of Planck lengths grrr. We have repeatedly told you how that is incorrect so quit adviing that. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3267&ved=0ahUKEwih1J39jOfXAhXDMGMKHWsPAOkQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw2QG6Dw0WHZLmRarxLWAbdd You should be happy though its fractals in practical application. If you had ever learned physics including the math you would have been able to express it properly. Note how the D branes arise from this.... ( no FTL before you mention it lol)

No please stick to what the mathematics describes. This is a recursive function with a range zero to infinity. In order to loop it back to the function it must jump from end to start to feedback to the fuction to comply to how Mandelbrot sets work.

Sorry I should have read the last two posts closer. ignore my last post, I completely misread your last two posts (at work and glanced on phone during break) I have to look over the Mandelbra set but the zero value can in some literature use that as the symmetric configuration. Do you have a link to the particular literature for me to confirm. Sigh no the the Mandelbra set uses the Haussdorf equation which specifically sets infinity as the start point. Remove that and the Hausddorf equation won't work. Recall an earlier conversation this thread where I mentioned the Haussdorf jump from Infinity to zero? Read back a few days ago.

You have to be careful what dimensions are defined within a tensor. The metric tensor specifically only deals with 3 spatial dimensions. It does not contain within the tensor itself any other independant variable. No degrees of freedom corresponding to motion or even configurations add to the number of dinensions that the symmetry , convariant or contravariant terms don't add to the number of independant variables. Those are determined by other tensors that provide the configuration to apply. In other words all configurations dont simultaneously apply at the same time.

Yep on this we both agree.