Mitcher

Agreed on everything here. I could add that the holographic scenery looks very promising but the string theory has not resulted in anything for the last 30 or so years and looks more and more like a hopeless lane. Similarly it is possible that the complex plane would not be a simple mathematical trick to force results but an essential substrate to reality and perhaps able to explain action at a distance or probabilistic trajectories. At least the chartographers knew very well what the oceans they sailed on looked like.

I think you are absolutely right here. It one also take the arithmetic mean between the radius of the Universe and the Planck's scale we get about one or two hundreth of a millimeter, which is the size of a red cell. The most basc forms of life are inatvertently right in the middle of a gigantic span of - 35 to 26 = +-60 orders of magnitude.

Didn't they already conduct real experiments in the lab about this ?

Is this why you said earlier than the quantity that QM points to is a surface ? What about the omnipresence of the number i as almost always associated with h by the way ? Could it point to a Complex reality plane ?

Everything moves in the Universe, gaz clouds contracting will start rotating, then this rotation will increase when stars collapse. Around a BH, due to frame-dragging even spece and time will rotate while matter will whirl to around 95% of c, and then what ? There can be no classical BH, that's only for the class room. But what I mean is that even in the Q realm rotations are still some velocities of some sort. Absolutely correct by the way, it would be the hell of a mess. Could we consider the Universe radius as a large gravitational potential?

Thank you for your extremely interesting answers. Most of this discussion interest for me comes from examining Dirac's large numbers and holographic theories. I consider the Planck's lenghts and times as physical absolute limits while the Planck's mass is right in the middle of the wider mass spectrum, that's all. That's why the entropy of a BH cannot go to zero by the way, it is limited by Planck's surfaces. And probably in physical singularities too. I say probably but I'am personnaly 100% sure of it. Haramein has a good theory about the inside of a BH from that perspective. It is also interesting that spins cannot be expressed in terms of momenta since h dimensions are those of an angular momentum, what am I missing ? And just wondering here : if we had enough energy to downsize to the Planks's lenght, would we reach a substrate equivalent to the inside of BH's ? The repercussions would be staggering, that substrate would be ubiquitous and universal. I seem to be going obliquely here, but perhaps not that much. I'am sorry I make you repeat all those explanations, I do not express myself right sometimes. I mean I totally understood, and since long ago, the causal boudaries of the light cone concept but I try to get a clear-cut answer about which part EXACTLY stands the light path within this diagram. It has to be either along the cone's 3D surface representing a 4D space-time, OR on the 2D surface of the pond representing our 3D space. It cannot be both ways. If, according to this image, light follows the pond's surface then I totally agree with it.

In the gravity regime the caracteristic lenght is proportional to M while in the quantum regime it is inversely proportional, that's allowed Planck to construct his constants, just where the equations meet. From the Compton relationship (lambda).M = h/c does not give a meaningfull quantity since M does not cancel but maybe the Compton's wave lenght of the Universe itself corresponds to a very small quantum of mass and could play a role in the holographic principle since its volume would also be equal to a Planck's volume, surprinsingly. And for the most fundamental dimension, although h ultimately represents an angular quantum I think that it should rather be velocities, with time and space being only their apparent components. Everything is nothing but velocities and momenta. So the cone is supposedly formed by light ! That's exactly my understanding when I was saying that's it is not quite right. Light travels in pure space, not in time.

ok, take a few days leave

Sure but that's finesse. Singularity is the hedge of space-time and the end of worldlines. Whatever. Yes, so the pond's surface represents the 3D space and light is represented by the waves on it, yes ? That was my question. In that case the cone is virtual, it's called light-cone but light does not travel along it, right ?

You are absolutely right here, thank you for your patience. However you only wrote that omega.T = 1 basically. Now, say we had h/c^3 for instance, to be exactly equal to a particular linear momentum, this might hilight some missed but very real concept. And actually I think it does, too. Where does this 1.3 x 10^27 kg comes from according to you, it would just be an empty calculus artefact? So wormholes have central singularities, is that what you are saying ? Please disregard my prevous confused answer to this message, I would like to modify or erase it but unable. On your pond's figure what is the path followed by light according to it ? is it represented by the waves on the surface or along the cone's surface ?

c squarred and G are probably the most significant constants in Physics, surely their ratio cannot be an insignificant feature, it is at the heart of the BH fabric. Given that everything else like entropy, surface, temperature etc.. depend all on the mass, i think it's a hidden gem.

I didn' find how to contact you tru private messaging here, i have a gmail address yes

Would there be gravitational Doppler inside a BH or the solutions would be more like inside a hollow sphere ? Do you mean a Proton Mail ? Are those files so large ? If you are Admin you might have access to my e-mail... I have no Proton Mail. I agree but there is to be some kind of break-up. An observer just below the EH would see the Universe ending almost instantaneously, that's not quite equivalent to what observers on the outside would see.

As far as I know Hawking radiation has only be theorized, never measured. Actual measurments would be a chalenge to say the least. Wormholes, if they exist, would be unbounded regions, am I right ? Thank you but maybe due to my using a Linux Os i can expand but not download Yes, Hooke joints are used to couple rotating shafts at an angle, it's close but not quite since the piece is a deformable object, not a solid one. Gimbals are used in gyros and that could be used to control the rotations of a sphere with the help of eletromagnetic fields maybe or mini electric motors. I had some hopes the sphere could be made to rotate in such a way that it would return to its original position every 3 turns for instance, or one and a half. So that's a starting point. We are are speculating about the presence of a physical object inside the BH so indeed it would not be a pure vacuum any more. If you agree that light would not propagate properly how can you not agree that any signal slower than light (all of them then) would not propagate normally. I'am just trying to "prove" than matter could not survive as it is inside a BH, even ultra massive ones. As we are at it, space and time would be so much transformed as well that we could probably say that they would not survive either.

As you suggested it is possible that tidal forces might be linked to this phenomena but thinking about it I do not think so. In fact, our observer inside the BH not only would not see the mirror behing him but he would not see mirrors in front of him either, for the same reasons. Any light coming to him with the slightest radial component would not reach him at all and he would only perceive is a very thin ring of light around him, orthogonaly to his geodesic -but this has nothing to do with the mass of the BH or tidal forces. Possibly the EP would break down in this part of the Universe. Not only electronic signals would only propagate one way but certainly also sound velocity and strong forces, weak forces and so on. Matter itself would hence break down, if we negate this in the name of EP then we have to admit that some signals could still propagate towards the surface of the BH in a finite time.

So from what your are saying it seems it is impossible to have a sphere simultaneously rotating along 3 axis as it will always result in a rotation around a single axis. It's a fact that we never did observe any celestial sphere rotating around more than one axis to tell the truth. Too bad, I had hopes it could help explain half integer spins, orientations and such. Interesting but it's not the same as a sphere rotating around its own axis. That"s spot on, thank you. Do you know how to unload the document ? This representation is interesting, it shows that time has one dimension less than space where light propagates. If we keep the same diagram for a 3D space then time should be a surface ! But back to the pond image, I take it that light propagates along the surface of the cone, right ? To me this is not quite correct, light should be represented by the wave fronts themselves, while the sender of the stone is carried away on the time axis. I was meaning the EH, sorry, not the central singularity. Your point is that geodesics continue inside the BH undeterred below the EH, I know.

It's not mysterious but it is a physical constant altogether, with precise measurement and valid for BH of any size. If it is also valid for the Universe then BH's are invisible, I mean, linerarly, BH would go undetected, linear density would be constant everywhere whether there are BH's in the line of sight or not. All this theoretical of course. I agree but when locally and some distance becomes smaller than the subject of study itself then nothing goes. What could be considered local in those conditions ? 100 meters or the size of a nucleus ? The Planck's scale would be my guess.

If accordingly interiors of BH and exteriors are separated by a one way surface we clearly have a definite distinction between two parts of the Universe. Smooth ir not the EH constitutes an interface in some way. Yes, vector combination is quite basic. So, having sent a sphere into 3 separate rotations would have the same effect as a simple rotation along a single axis ? This is completely counter-intuitive. How a single axis would be selected in relation to the other 3 ones then ? I agree, your description makes sense but on the same time leads to contradictons. If mirrors cease to be mirrors inside a BH, then also electronic signals stop to be sent back. Everything is made of electronic signals. Not only space and time would not be quite normal but even matter itself. It cannot be both ways. Even in the absence of measurable tidal forces the inside of a BH would be a very strange place indeed.

I also believe that the light-cone concept is wrong, or rather does not suitably describes what's going on in reality. The light path should be orthogonal to the time translation, not slanted 45 degres in relation to it, to start with. Another reason/consequence is that light should not remain in the plane of simultaneity of the observer who has sent the light ray. Light is like a frozen instant from the past and does not syncronizes with the observer any more, it will always lag in relation to him. I'am probably not being clear enough. It's just a simple concept I invented, divide the BH mass by its radius, it will always be around 10^27 kg/m, either for the Sun or the Universe, or very close to. I read the wiki article but unable to see if those 3 rotations descriptions could be simultaneous and how to derive the trajectories of points at the suface from them. I just have the premonition that some points on the suface could be static, or probably only rotating. Might be completely wrong. Yes. But depending on the model geodesics might not continue inside the BH either, that was my point. Yes, thanks, that theory seems really attractive (humour). Another one I read is that due to massive Hawking radiation a star would not have the opportunity to collapse beyond the 2m radius. That would really sort all the disputes isn't ?

In regard to the more general question I noted that the linear density (kg/m) or temporal density (kg/sec) of a BH is a constant, furthermore it seems to be very close for the Universe itself and itt could well be exactly the same, meaning that in terms of linear density the Universe would be indiscernible from any BH, the interface between them and the Universe would not exist. It would not have been the case in the past if the expansion theory holds true. Yes, I understand, but surely it cannot be right. Something is wrong, or else time itself and the speed of light have to stop. But if he sends a light signal to a mirror attached to a pole behind him (above him), surely at some point the signal will cease entirely to come back, even if he shortens the pole more and more. At that point everything will stop being functionnal inside the starship.

A singularity is created inside a BH if one insist to have space and time to trade place, but these do not necessarily have to. They could become undifferentiated, or even merge with matter itself into a new dimensional entity. Even this odd hypothesis would be less strange than a physical central singularity. Euler's equations is only about a main axis of rotation isn't ? I never found anything about more than one axis. And yes, in regard to a perfect sphere of course, it would already be sufficiently complicated like that.

No problem, thanks for your time and detailed explanations here. I was specifically speaking about matter and BH more than mass and GR though. Some scientists are studying wormhole structure trough the observation of nanotubes, which is fine due to the impossibility to observe real BH but they will have no real matter in their observations, contrarily to the teams at the Large Hadron collider working on real stuff at least. To me the Horizons are not only a virtual concept, there really exists a limit under which light will not escape, we cannot escape that but any theory which concludes with an inescapable central singularity is a doomed dead-end. I'am looking for theories that avoid it. the Mermin Ho theorem posits singularities will vanish but i cannot comprehend it.

I gave the pole exemple for the central singularity, not the one at the EH. Where did I say it is not possible to go around ? These are hairy subjects indeed, thanks, will take me awhile to go trough it. It reminds me of a question I asked myself long ago, I might need to open a new thread but to briefly summarize it was about whether a solid sphere was made to slowly rotate simultaneously around its 3 orthogonal axes. What would be the trajectories of points on its surface then, or would there be fixed points somewhere (at faster rates the moments of inertia would probably create uncontrolable vibrations i guess) but by using particular ratios between the 3 rotation rates maybe some combinations would result in all points of the surface to follow geodesics simultaneously (in relation to coordinates on an external fixed sphere of course).

On the contrary I keep saying that geodesics are not bounded at the EH. And the Earth sphere is an apt exemple since its Poles are not a central singularity either. What's the point of those sophisticated geometries since most seem to possess one inside, which it is completely unphysical. It cannot be real that billions of stars will keep falling endlessly at the speed of light into some sort of Gabriel's horn or something.

Yes, my interest here was purely in terms of observed intervals of space-time and what it implies as a fundamental level. We definitely have a huge problem there since space and time, which are the bases of all our units, are circular defined. There are no intrinsic definitions for them.