Cygnus47

Thank you Pan, and I agree with your perspective. This is precisely why I asked the question, to get people to think rationally about the alternatives............................Cygnus47

Thanks Sch......hat; Sounds reasonable but that leads to another question: If matter, "proto-matter" produces gravity, or in this case the Super Force which contains gravity along with the Strong, weak, electric, must we then assume that matter produces all four?

According to current theory, shortly after the Big Bang there existed a Super force which embodied all the different forces including gravity. This took place even before the formation of matter, only energy existed at this stage in universal evolution. If this theory is correct, gravity existed before any matter did. This leaves us with a problem concerning the Standard Model. Because at present, science believes that the presence of larger and larger concentrations matter increases the strength of the gravitational field. In effect, what they are saying is this; Matter is responsible for the generation of gravity. If this is true, where did the gravity come from when no matter existed? The only explanation is that gravity, along with the other forces creates matter. I believe that the universal fabric of space time creates matter thru the interaction of all the forces of which gravity is also one. I realize this is counter to contemporary belief so I ask the question: "If gravity existed before matter, how can matter give rise to the gravitational effect?"

True, ................the Schwarschild radius formula is: ro=2GMo/c^2 This describes the radius and mass compaction a body must achieve before escape velocity reaches the speed of light. In the case of the neutron/quark star, the strong nuclear force must be overcome to reach this compaction fraction. My question is; at what point does the neutron/quark star reach this threshold? Put another way; How large must the neutron/quark star become before collapse takes place?

Sorry that I didn't get right back with you my friend, got company last night. And today, I'm trying to get my Dodge ready to race this weekend. As to your suggestion; Let me be clear pan........, I don't have what could be considered a coherent theory as yet. I find myself vacillating between the standard model and my first love, the aether theory that began this journey into scientific wanderings many years ago. I mentioned earlier that my contribution to this thread was, for the most part, an invention in aether speculations. And because this is your thread, I sincerely don't want to hijack it and cause consternation between us. I found your post here very interesting and although I agree for the most part, there are still things about your theory that I have problems with. Make no mistake however, I'm not here to subject you to needless scrutiny just to find fault. I do have a sincere interest in your view of things. I've found thru my 69 years on this planet that we really only learn when we listen to others. Nevertheless,.....Let me say this: There are many things that I'm quite sure of and many more that I simply have not a clue about. I will get back with you pan..... and discuss these questions some time to marrow. Until I have a coherent view of what I consider absolute fact, I will not pretend to have a theory. Many people will tell you about their theories when in fact, all they have is a very weak hypothesis. .................................Cygnus47

It appears then that we may agree more than we first assumed. I think it fair to say that we both understand all particles to be nothing more than localized energy vortices. Whether it be a single proton or a large collection of matter, at the very root of it all lay these individual vortices of energy we call particles. Taking that position to it's limit, one must concede that solid matter is an allusion. If we can agree upon this fundamental idea, we can advance our speculation further. I'm pushing this concept because, if we can exclude the necessity for a material aether and settle for one composed of only energy, then I may return my attention to an aether theory. Remembering of course what I understand energy to be. Only the changing shape of a dimensionally diverse cosmos limited by the law of Entropy. I suppose one could accuse me of viewing the universe as only a geometric peculiarity and to this charge I must confess. A geometric peculiarity changing with the advance of time governed by the law of Entropy. That's why it's called space/time.

Understood my friend, but where we part company is what I believe your definition of this loop is. You would, as I understand it, call it a particle, a material object. I go much farther and define it as a vortex of energy, quite a different view of things than your own. From my own perspective, I consider the term; "particle" to be much too over rated. You see, I believe the so called particle is only Localized Orbital Energy Flux. This changing shape of space/time displaying to us what may look solid but in reality is only an attribute we call Energy.

Very true my friend.................Even though I once was captivated by the aether theory but have since adopted the standard model as my point of security, I still have room in my imagination to speculate on the finer points of these theories. As a side to your last post which BTW, I find very provocative, allow me to submit one possible aether scenario of my own. I find the notion of a material universe to be somewhat suspect. I realize that statement may shock you along with many others but allow me to explain. The closer we look at nature and the smaller the objects we observe, the line between matter and energy starts to get very blurred. We've all become acquainted with the formula: E=Mc^2, the matter/energy equivalence formula. I personally think the distinction between the two is made way too much of. My personal view of the universe is one where matter is only; Localized orbital energy flux. So plainly spoken, I really don't see much difference between the two. Only the very small difference we see between the humid air we breath and a funnel cloud. One has no structure to it and the other has, if not solid by absolute definition, a very violent and focused shape. I've made this point to preface my next one, that I see little if no difference between matter and energy. And because I view both to be virtually the same, I'll choose Energy as my point of focus. This leaves us with the question: What is Energy? String theory makes great issue about numerous dimensions which have yet to be proved. But, IMHO, the greatest contribution these theories have presented is the importance they place on the shape of things. This is where I see Energy and The Shape of things coming together. In truth, Energy is the attribute of change which the law of Entropy says has a direction. That direction is the advance of time and our changing universe. In a nut shell, before I bore everyone to death. If I were to invent an aether theory, I would define the aether as the changing shape of the universal field. This field is not material, it has only the attribute of Energy which is only the changing shape of space/time. Because dimensions are not material, the aether need not be either. This eliminates the need for one to establish proof of a material aether, which has to date, stymied all attempts at it's development. Just my two cents.....................................Cygnus47

I agree imatfaal...............I was under the impression that a neutron star, or quark star if that scenario is ever proven, was the last stage before gravitational collapse occurs leading to the formation of the singularity. I, like you, find it difficult to accept the notion that a neutron/quark star could escape collapse and suddenly go supernova. The question is; At what point in total mass will this neutron/quark star meet the threshold leading to black hole formation? There is a limit after which the last neutron being added to this body will initiate collapse. This is the limit I'm searching for................Cygnus47

I don't understand. If this hypothetical neutron star reaches the critical mass at which an event horizon is formed, wouldn't that preclude a supernova event? When the last bit of matter is added to the total mass of the neutron star and the collapse takes place and the event horizon is formed, wouldn't the resulting black hole overcome any tendency toward ejecta? I was under the impression that neutron stars were stable, however I could be mistaken. According to what you've told us, as the neutron star assimilates mass, it will reach a point where a singularity is formed. This suggests the formation of a black hole. But how could there be enough material left over for a supernova plus a black hole. I can understand one or the other but not both happening to this neutron star if we are only adding small amounts of mass at a time...........................Cygnus47

Energy is an attribute of the photon just like energy is an attribute of all matter including the proton. Now, if the electron were pure energy, we would have to assume the same for the proton because both have this attribute. Because the proton and the electron have vastly different characteristics, namely different charges and different masses, this can't be true. Energy is the attribute that alters the state of being, and can't be thought of as a particle or a wave. Energy can produce a wave in the fabric of space but the wave itself is not the energy. The wave is the result of energy changing the shape of space. So you see, the cause for the change and the resultant shape are not the same.

Not so naive in my opinion Sch-hat, although one must also remember that the angular momentum at the equator is somewhat balanced by the flattening at the poles. Not sure exactly what the dynamics of this equal out to but it's obvious that this flattening at the poles will help reduce the effect of overall support against collapse. Nevertheless, you make a very valid point sir.................................Good call!

Thank you Chris,...............evidently, there remains much work to define more precisely this limit that I'm looking for. It is quite plausible that an exacting figure relative to baron count can establish the threshold responsible for this transition from, neutron or quark star, to black hole. It may be such a precise figure, discounting and or limiting any perturbations in the process, that it could be limited to as little as just a few neutrons or quarks. If and when this measure can be exactly defined, it may qualify as a universal constant. There is another limit, commonly referred to as the "packing fraction". This has been theorized by some to have taken place shortly after the big bang resulting in the formation of mini black holes. If the Large Hadron Collider can recreate these conditions, we may be able to assign a value to this limit also. But this limit is distinctly different than the one I'm proposing. This limit is induced with the aid of external pressures and the one I am looking for is one that occurs only thru the natural compression of gravity. I patiently wait for these results.................................

The protons are forced under the pressure to combine with other electrons resulting in the formation of more neutrons. As for the physics of the black hole, this is where classical understanding breaks down. According to present theory, the singularity has no constituent parts other than the singularity itself which manifests it's presence as only a gravitational influence. But this is only speculation at the present, we have no way of observing any information from inside the black hole and that will probably not change for a very long time. Some scientists are convinced we will never be able to see inside nor ever be able to prove one way or the other what lies within.