black holes can't be made of matter (off-topic from Quantum Fluctuations/Foam)

[MarkE]

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

As to what happens inside a black hole; we don't know. You might be interested in this, though, as an alternative: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-fuzzballs-solve-the-black-hole-firewall-paradox-20150623/

Thanks for the article, I'll get into that.

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

But, certainly, there are non-matter particles with mass; W, Z and Higgs bosons.

It's a boson, so it's a SM particle, made of "stuff".
(So to rewrite my sentence: Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter SM particles.)

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, unless there is some alternative theory that says they can't have charge...

Well, only particles can have charge, but not only particles can have mass.

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hawking radiation is created at the event horizon. It exists even in the absence of matter around the black hole

This is the reason why I support the quantum fluctuation theory (which preceded the Big Bang), and the zero-energy Universe. Matter doesn't even need other matter to be created. Quantum foam describes pair production in the vacuum (false vacuum) of space. We actually observe some annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes. When the antimatter runs into matter in the Universe, it produces gamma rays of very specific frequencies, which we can then detect. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened.

This means that, to go from mass to energy is allowed by E=mc², is like saying to go from nothing to something, which is basically what the quantum fluctuations hypothesis states (Edward Tryon proposed the zero-energy universe hypothesis: that the Universe may be a large-scale quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy), and also what we observe during BH entropy, gamma ray bursts, quantum foam. There's also a non-scientific, but still interesting problem with mental causation, if you consider where a thought, or an idea, comes from, and that it actually violates the law of conservation of energy (see point 2.3 Conservation Laws of this article).

34 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

We don't know if dark matter is covered by the standard model, but we know it's matter. 

If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle. We need dark matter to describe the way in which celestial bodies are orbiting the BH in our Milky Way, but if we don't understand what a BH is in the first place, we might not need this dark "matter".

Edited May 24, 2018 by MarkE

[YaDinghus]

13 minutes ago, MarkE said:

33 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

We don't know if dark matter is covered by the standard model, but we know it's matter. 

If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle. 

1st of all, what do any of us know confidently about anything outside the standard model? 2nd of all, what are you trying to say with this?

[MarkE]

3 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

1st of all, what do any of us know confidently about anything outside the standard model? 2nd of all, what are you trying to say with this?

In short: that "nothing" can cause attraction. That a black hole is an actual hole in space, with negative attraction to particles (and we call this attraction "mass").

Edited May 24, 2018 by MarkE

[YaDinghus]

4 minutes ago, MarkE said:

In short: that "nothing" can cause attraction. A black hole could be an actual hole in space, with negative attraction to particles (and we call this attraction "mass").

That is pure conjecture, and it defies pretty much every law of Physics known to us

[MarkE]

2 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

That is pure conjecture, and it defies pretty much every law of Physics known to us

Have you read this whole thread from the beginning? Multiple observations and laws of physics support it (which I won't repeat here). Keep in mind that there is no established science on dark matter yet. This doesn't mean that this explanation therefore has to be right, but I'd like to hear from you what observation and/or law of physics irrefutably prohibits it. Could you provide me that?

[YaDinghus]

2 minutes ago, MarkE said:

10 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

That is pure conjecture, and it defies pretty much every law of Physics known to us

Have you read this whole thread from the beginning? Multiple observations and laws of physics support it (which I won't repeat here). Keep in mind that there is no established science on dark matter yet. This doesn't mean that this explanation therefore has to be right, but I'd like to hear from you what observation and/or law of physics irrefutably prohibits it. Could you provide me that?

Yeah I've read it from the beginning. This wasn't about a nothing without content having an attractive force. Unless you were misleading us the entire time. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

It's a boson, so it's a SM particle, made of "stuff".
(So to rewrite my sentence: Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter SM particles.)

OK, so you are using matter in a slightly unusual way. I would consider the fermions to be matter and not bosons. 

Obviously mass is not only connected with the particles in the standard model, because dark matter. And energy, of course. (And pressure, and momentum, and stress ...)

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Well, only particles can have charge, but not only particles can have mass.

Do you have any evidence for that?

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Matter doesn't even need other matter to be created. Quantum foam describes pair production in the vacuum (false vacuum) of space.

But only temporarily. It doesn't create any new matter. (Although we know that matter can be created from energy.)

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

We actually observe some annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes.

Huh? We observe matter-antimatter annihilation all over the place.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

This means that, to go from mass to energy is allowed by E=mc², is like saying to go from nothing to something

I wouldn't call energy "nothing"but it isn't a well-defined term.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle.

That is a bizarre statement. It could be a particle that is not part of the standard model. That is the basis of most hypotheses.

Quote

We need dark matter to describe the way in which celestial bodies are orbiting the BH in our Milky Way, but if we don't understand what a BH is in the first place, we might not need this dark "matter".

It has nothing to do with the black hole. That has almost no effect on the dynamics of the galaxy behind the small number of nearby stars orbiting it.

I think you would have a hard time modelling the effects of dark matter with a central point, but good luck!

 

48 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Have you read this whole thread from the beginning? Multiple observations and laws of physics support it

I have followed the thread and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "nothing" can be a source of gravity. 

49 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Keep in mind that there is no established science on dark matter yet. 

There is a lot of science around dark matter: multiple lines of evidence, its distribution, how it behaves, its necessity for large structure and galaxy formation, etc. Almost the only thing we don't know is what it is made of.

There is no science around "nothing" having gravitational attraction. I don't know how you define "nothing" but wouldn't this mean that empty space should be a source of gravity?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, MarkE said:

Have you read this whole thread from the beginning? Multiple observations and laws of physics support it (which I won't repeat here). 

How about stating them for the first time?

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

 

I wouldn't call energy "nothing"but it isn't a well-defined term.

 

Actually energy is extremely well defined " The ability to perform work"

 The problem is everyone wants to make it into something its not lol ie treat it as some form of seperate entity or seperate mysterious substance.

 On the topic of matter everyone wants to think of it as some solid lol. However solid is an illusion of perceptions. 

@Marke whatwhat I feel DM is doesn't matter, however my research gives me the impression the answer lies in 3 flavors of sterile right hand neutrinos via the Higgs seesaw mechanism. In this case the SM predicts that right hand neutrinos should exist however we have yet to identify any.

 However they could very well be something else that exhibits matter properties 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Actually energy is extremely well defined " The ability to perform work"

Yes, sorry. I meant "nothing" is not a well-defined term!

[Mordred]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, sorry. I meant "nothing" is not a well-defined term!

 Now that I agree with  lol absence of anything measurable or definable ?

Edited May 24, 2018 by Mordred

[beecee]

On 5/17/2018 at 10:15 AM, MigL said:

"...quantum gravity MIGHT say that it cannot be compressed beyond the Planck Density"
We just don't know.
You are assuming that at the Planck level, some new mechanism steps in to resist further gravitational collapse.
But we have no idea what this mechanism is, or if it even exists.

I would certainly assume that when most cosmologists say that a physics singularity should not exist, they would certainly be saying that some mechanism at the quantum/Planck level would stop further collapse. Yes, obviously we have no idea what that is at this time.

Quote

What we do know is that compressing SM particles beyond a certain point, sets up an event horizon, effectively separating space-time from the interior of the EH.

That's the way I see it.

 

Quote

 I'm not saying that the ultimate fate is necessarily a singularity, but, we know GR predicts that, at that point, nothing can stop the overwhelming crush of gravity.

GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached then an EH is formed, and further collapse up to the quantum/Planck level is compulsory. There GR fails us and probably then some mechanism should stop further collapse and prevent any singularity and associated infinities. But that's just our best guess.
 

Quote

IOW, I can only base predictions on what I know, not what I don't know.

Whatever happens, we have no reason to assume that somehow matter changes its nature. That's how I see it anyway from where I'm sitting.
 

[MarkE]

I’ve read the article you've provided. To argue that BHs are like fuzz balls is like saying dark matter is like silly putty. It could be the case, but I didn't read anything that convinced me. 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

21 hours ago, MarkE said:

Well, only particles can have charge, but not only particles can have mass.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Only particles can have charge because charge is a characteristic of QED and QCD. Charge immediately suggests that there are 2 charges, + and - , and there’s only 1 type of a ‘hole in spacetime. Nothing indicates that some black holes are opposite in their behaviour, compared to other black holes.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

21 hours ago, MarkE said:

Matter doesn't even need other matter to be created. Quantum foam describes pair production in the vacuum (false vacuum) of space.

But only temporarily. It doesn't create any new matter. (Although we know that matter can be created from energy.)

The process I was describing can create real matter. Hawking radiation suggests that virtual particles become real particles So it might Be temporarily at one place (in my example), but at another location (near a BH) new matter can be created.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

Huh? We observe matter-antimatter annihilation all over the place.

Yes, you’re right, this isn’t limited only near a BH, but I was referring to the other type (the one close to BH), so I should have been clearer here ☺.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

21 hours ago, MarkE said:

If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle.

That is a bizarre statement. It could be a particle that is not part of the standard model. That is the basis of most hypotheses.

We have measured all particles up until the 12th decimal place. Nothing indicates that we are going to discover a new particle (other than smaller ones inside already existing particles, but this hypothetically particle-particle would be a fragment of an existing particle that is already known to exist, which is of course different from discovering a NEW particle).

20 hours ago, Strange said:

It has nothing to do with the black hole. That has almost no effect on the dynamics of the galaxy behind the small number of nearby stars orbiting it.

I think you would have a hard time modelling the effects of dark matter with a central point, but good luck!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that dark matter can’t be at one central point such as a BH, but should rather be distributed in the surroundings. I agree with that, but I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. If this hole in space, “nothing”, indeed causes mass/attraction, than that doesn’t account only for BHs, but also for particles. But we can’t measure it (and hence discover quantum gravity) because it’s too small. If you can't observe/measure something, it doesn't mean it can't exert an attractive force.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

I have followed the thread and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "nothing" can be a source of gravity. 

Firstly, I wasn’t addressing you ☺. Secondly, I’m merely applying reductio ad absurdum here, meaning that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them can’t be true, then the opposite must be true. We’ve already discussed that neutron stars are the densest form of matter (and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "Fermi gas" must be the likely remaining candidate), and neutron stars can’t exceed 3 Solar masses. Well, BHs are much larger than 3 Solar masses, so SM particles can’t be the source of mass inside a BH. If it can’t be matter, then it isn’t matter. We may have to revise our understanding of what mass is.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

There is a lot of science around dark matter: multiple lines of evidence, its distribution, how it behaves, its necessity for large structure and galaxy formation, etc. Almost the only thing we don't know is what it is made of.

There is no science around "nothing" having gravitational attraction. I don't know how you define "nothing" but wouldn't this mean that empty space should be a source of gravity?

There is a difference here: empty space is the space in between particles. An actual hole in spacetime itself is something else with other characteristics towards particles. If you assume that a particle is responsible for mass, caused by an excitation of a field (Higgs field), and this Higgs boson by itself has mass as well, and if there is another particle out there, which is responsible for gravity (graviton), and if there is yet another particle that is responsible for a totally different form of mass (dark matter), wouldn’t it make much more sense instead if all those forms of mass/gravity are one and the same thing?

Well, sense alone is not going to convince you or me, so let me elaborate a bit more about this. Mass is the DNA of every star. Two stars with the same mass share the exact same characteristics. Does this mean it therefore that something else, another kind of particle, has to be responsible for this mass, and is located between celestial bodies and BHs? Why can’t it be due to the nature of the black hole and celestial bodies themselves? What's happening in their centers? We don't yet fully understand the nature of normal observable SM matter. We haven’t yet been able to explain how the Higgs boson gets is mass, what quantum gravity is and whether the graviton exists or not, but we shouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of different form of matter, even though all observations indicate that there isn't such a particle, neither a MACHO nor a WIMP has ever been detected.

No particle is just 1 particle by itself. Particles have spin and a wave function, so they have a kind of dualistic nature, as if something is "attached" to all particles that give them this dualistic/symmetric nature, because it is moving away from it. Is there any particle out there that is not moving? Is there a sedentary form of SM matter/energy? If it would be only 1 particle, not influenced by anything else, it wouldn’t have a wave function or oscilation in the first place. What causes this continuous moving particle behaviour? Well, it’s at least an attraction of some sort that has to be involved, don’t you agree? But what causes the attraction? To answer this question, you can apply reductio ad absurdum again: what gives mass to a particle? Let's assume it's the Higgs boson, a particle. So, what gives this Higgs particle its mass? "Yet another particle"? If you go further and further with this, eventually you have to conclude it can’t be a particle that gives mass. "A field perhaps?" OK, let's assume it's field. So what gives mass to that field? The same logic applies again, eventually you have to conclude that this field has to be subject to yet another field, which eventually can’t be made actual normal everyday energy on the SM, the “stuff” we can observe. In GR, photons are bent by the curvature of spacetime (in fact, this is how Arthur Eddington made Einstein famous, by making this observation). But a massless photon that is attracted by anything, that doesn't make sense if you think about it. Weren’t objects attracted by other objects? Yet, the opposite seems to be the case.

In conclusion: I don't think that objects are attracted by other objects, "stuff" is attracted by "not stuff". Could you explain me this one question in particular: why do attraction and mass have to be two different things?

Edited May 25, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, MarkE said:

We have measured all particles up until the 12th decimal place. Nothing indicates that we are going to discover a new particle (other than smaller ones inside already existing particles, but this hypothetically particle-particle would be a fragment of an existing particle that is already known to exist, which is of course different from discovering a NEW particle).

No, we haven't — we don't know masses to that many significant digits, for example. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any non-quantized (or null) particle property we've measured to 12 places. 

If we discover anything new it's likely in the realm of more massive particles. If they were smaller mass, then some larger mass particle would decay into it, unless some selection rule prevented it. (a new small particle would thus probably require some new interaction)

Smaller particles as constituents would be new particles. Quarks are new and distinct from the particles they comprise, for example. Anything new along these lines would be distinct particles.

Quote

Firstly, I wasn’t addressing you ☺. Secondly, I’m merely applying reductio ad absurdum here, meaning that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them can’t be true, then the opposite must be true. We’ve already discussed that neutron stars are the densest form of matter

You have claimed this without support, a number of times. It has not really been "discussed" as much as asserted.

Quote

(and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "Fermi gas" must be the likely remaining candidate), and neutron stars can’t exceed 3 Solar masses. Well, BHs are much larger than 3 Solar masses, so SM particles can’t be the source of mass inside a BH. If it can’t be matter, then it isn’t matter. We may have to revise our understanding of what mass is.

Invalid conclusion based on your assertion.

Quote

 Well, sense alone is not going to convince you or me, so let me elaborate a bit more about this. Mass is the DNA of every star. Two stars with the same mass share the exact same characteristics.

Nope. They could differ in angular momentum or charge but have the same mass.

Quote

 No particle is just 1 particle by itself. Particles have spin and a wave function, so they have a kind of dualistic nature, as if something is "attached" to all particles that give them this dualistic/symmetric nature, because it is moving away from it.

More non-mainstream assertions. Spin is a property, just like mass is. 

Quote

Is there any particle out there that is not moving? Is there a sedentary form of SM matter/energy?

Every particle is at rest in its own frame, but there is no absolute rest frame, so the question makes no sense in the light of relativity.

Quote

If it would be only 1 particle, not influenced by anything else, it wouldn’t have a wave function or oscilation in the first place.

More nonsense. 

Quote

What causes this continuous moving particle behaviour?

Acceleration needs a cause, but not simple motion.

 

[Mordred]

49 minutes ago, MarkE said:

 

Only particles can have charge because charge is a characteristic of QED and QCD. Charge immediately suggests that there are 2 charges, + and - 

 

The quark family has 3 charges, we call them color charges. There is also 3 flavor charges + - isn't the only charge possibilities.

 As far as mass is concerned I keep stating that mass is resistance to inertia change. How a particle of any type gains mass is due to how that particle couples to the fields it interacts with. 

 

54 minutes ago, MarkE said:

 what gives mass to a particle? Let's assume it's the Higgs boson, a particle. So, what gives this Higgs particle its mass?

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[MarkE]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, we haven't — we don't know masses to that many significant digits, for example. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any non-quantized (or null) particle property we've measured to 12 places. 

If we discover anything new it's likely in the realm of more massive particles. If they were smaller mass, then some larger mass particle would decay into it, unless some selection rule prevented it. (a new small particle would thus probably require some new interaction)

Smaller particles as constituents would be new particles. Quarks are new and distinct from the particles they comprise, for example. Anything new along these lines would be distinct particles.

You have claimed this without support, a number of times. It has not really been "discussed" as much as asserted.

Invalid conclusion based on your assertion.

Nope. They could differ in angular momentum or charge but have the same mass.

More non-mainstream assertions. Spin is a property, just like mass is. 

Every particle is at rest in its own frame, but there is no absolute rest frame, so the question makes no sense in the light of relativity.

More nonsense. 

Acceleration needs a cause, but not simple motion.

You’re arguing in opposition of what I’m suggesting, not in favour of a counter-explanation. It’s not the most convincing way to claim that you’re right, and that somebody else is wrong. You’re telling me that I’m thinking the wrong way, that’s fine, but you aren’t targeting any of my specific thoughts, which I find unfortunate, because this way I'm not learning from you.

So I really appreciate the fact that you spend time to comment on my words, but if you understand why Fermi gas is a likely candidate for a denser form of matter than a neutron star, you would have explained why, if you understand how the Higgs boson gives mass to particles, you would have explained why, or if you understand why mass has to be different from attraction, you would have explained why. Not by copying words from a scientific paper, but by describing your own thoughts, and why you personally believe this is right. This is what I’m doing, I’m describing my own thoughts, and I want to be proven wrong, I’m looking for irrefutable counter-arguments why my explanation can’t be right. That’s why I’m here on this forum. If I would think that I’m right, whatever you say, I would feel like a science God every day, and I wouldn’t take the time to share my superior thoughts with all of you, right?

Edited May 25, 2018 by MarkE

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Only particles can have charge because charge is a characteristic of QED and QCD. Charge immediately suggests that there are 2 charges, + and - , and there’s only 1 type of a ‘hole in spacetime. Nothing indicates that some black holes are opposite in their behaviour, compared to other black holes.

Sorry, but I don't find arguments from "common sense" very compelling when compared to scientific theories.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

The process I was describing can create real matter. Hawking radiation suggests that virtual particles become real particles So it might Be temporarily at one place (in my example), but at another location (near a BH) new matter can be created.

Those particles come from the mass-energy of the black hole. It is just the another case of one form of mass-energy being converted to another.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

We have measured all particles up until the 12th decimal place. Nothing indicates that we are going to discover a new particle

Apart from the fact that we don't know what dark matter is made from.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

but this hypothetically particle-particle would be a fragment of an existing particle that is already known to exist, which is of course different from discovering a NEW particle

When the particles inside protons and neutrons were discovered (quarks) they were NEW (previously unknown) particles.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

If this hole in space, “nothing”, indeed causes mass/attraction, than that doesn’t account only for BHs, but also for particles. But we can’t measure it (and hence discover quantum gravity) because it’s too small. If you can't observe/measure something, it doesn't mean it can't exert an attractive force.

If it exerts an attractive force, then we can measure it. I'm not sure what "too small" means because all fundamental particles are thought to be of zero size, so it can't really be "smaller" than that.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Secondly, I’m merely applying reductio ad absurdum here, meaning that if there are only two possibilities,

False dichotomy rather than reductio.

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

Does this mean it therefore that something else, another kind of particle, has to be responsible for this mass, and is located between celestial bodies and BHs? Why can’t it be due to the nature of the black hole and celestial bodies themselves? What's happening in their centers?

You seem to be suggesting that perhaps we need to change the way we model / describe how gravity works. (Is that right, your statement is a bit vague?)

Attempts to model dark matter that way haven't been successful so far. The evidence for it being a form of matter is pretty overwhelming.

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

We haven’t yet been able to explain how the Higgs boson gets is mass

I am not aware of any problem with that.

Quote

but we shouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of different form of matter,

The evidence for it being a form of matter is pretty overwhelming. But no one has stopped investigating other possibilities.

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

To answer this question, you can apply reductio ad absurdum again: what gives mass to a particle? Let's assume it's the Higgs boson, a particle. So, what gives this Higgs particle its mass? "Yet another particle"?

It is the Higgs field that gives mass to particles, including the Higgs boson because of the self interaction of the Higgs field.

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

But a massless photon that is attracted by anything, that doesn't make sense if you think about it.

That might be true if gravity were an attractive force. However, the idea that a photon shouldn't follow the curvature of space-time is pretty odd.

(Actually, even Newton calculated that light should be affected by gravity.)

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

In conclusion: I don't think that objects are attracted by other objects, "stuff" is attracted by "not stuff". Could you explain me this one question in particular: why do attraction and mass have to be two different things?

What is "not stuff"?

And I don't think mass and attraction are different things. What causes the attraction? The curvature of space-time. What is mass? The curvature of space-time.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, MarkE said:

You’re arguing in opposition of what I’m suggesting, not in favour of a counter-explanation. I

Yes. I have made no secret of this.

Quote

t’s not the most convincing way to claim that you’re right, and that somebody else is wrong. You’re telling me that I’m thinking the wrong way, that’s fine, but you aren’t targeting any of my specific thoughts, which I find unfortunate, because this way I'm not learning from you.

I have only argued that you were wrong, or at least, that you have no physics to back up your contention. And I have targeted specific claims of yours.

Quote

 I’m describing my own thoughts, and I want to be proven wrong, I’m looking for irrefutable counter-arguments why my explanation can’t be right. That’s why I’m here on this forum. If I would think that I’m right, whatever you say, I would feel like a science God every day, and I wouldn’t take the time to share my superior thoughts with all of you, right?

You need to do more than that, though. You own the burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have to convince people that you are right.

And you aren't presenting yourself in a "show me where I'm wrong" style. The holes in your position have been pointed out, and you have largely ignored that.

[MarkE]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need to do more than that, though. You own the burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have to convince people that you are right.

And you aren't presenting yourself in a "show me where I'm wrong" style. The holes in your position have been pointed out, and you have largely ignored that.

Perhaps I didn’t give enough evidence to cover absolutely everything, fair enough, but does this allow everybody to accept the current explanation on what mass is, and how it is caused? Why don’t these explanations need any defence in their own behalf, what makes them so superior? Let me put it into one simple question then:

Could you give me one law/rule/equation/observation/anything that proves that mass HAS to be a particle, and that it can’t be anything else than a particle?
(Which automatically would mean that it rules out the possibility that a hole in spacetime, (NOT stuff, NOT a particle) could be responsible for mass/attraction/gravity).

Edited May 25, 2018 by MarkE

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, MarkE said:

does this allow everybody to accept the current explanation on what mass is, and how it is caused? Why don’t these explanations need any defence in their own behalf, what makes them so superior?

Vast amounts of theory supported by mountains of evidence.

46 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Could you give me one law/rule/equation/observation/anything that proves that mass HAS to be a particle, and that it can’t be anything else than a particle?

Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. 

47 minutes ago, MarkE said:

(Which automatically would mean that it rules out the possibility that a hole in spacetime, (NOT stuff, NOT a particle) could be responsible for mass/attraction/gravity).

But with no theory or evidence supporting this vague idea, it doesn't have much going for it.

You seem to think that some idea you made up should have equal weight with a scientific theory?

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MarkE said:

Perhaps I didn’t give enough evidence to cover absolutely everything, fair enough,

That's a generous summary.

Quote

but does this allow everybody to accept the current explanation on what mass is, and how it is caused? Why don’t these explanations need any defence in their own behalf, what makes them so superior? Let me put it into one simple question then:

They work. They've been tested countless times as part of a well-established theory. The standard model didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Quote

Could you give me one law/rule/equation/observation/anything that proves that mass HAS to be a particle, and that it can’t be anything else than a particle?

As Strange has said, that's not how it works. But our best theories/models show this. If you think otherwise, you need a model of your own and evidence to support it. 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, MarkE said:

In GR, photons are bent by the curvature of spacetime (in fact, this is how Arthur Eddington made Einstein famous, by making this observation). But a massless photon that is attracted by anything, that doesn't make sense if you think about it. Weren’t objects attracted by other objects? Yet, the opposite seems to be the case.

It's not an attraction though.Simply the act of photons following geodesics in spacetime. Worth noting also that photons, due to their momentum, also warp/curve spacetime albeit ever so slightly.

Quote

but we shouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of different form of matter, even though all observations indicate that there isn't such a particle, neither a MACHO nor a WIMP has ever been detected

MACHO's = BH's Brown Dwarfs etc...or any object of baryonic mass that emits little or no EMR.  MACHO's have been eliminated as being able to explain ALL the "missing mass" we call DM.

WIMPS = Bullet Cluster observation.

Quote

Not by copying words from a scientific paper, but by describing your own thoughts, and why you personally believe this is right. This is what I’m doing, I’m describing my own thoughts, and I want to be proven wrong, I’m looking for irrefutable counter-arguments why my explanation can’t be right. That’s why I’m here on this forum. If I would think that I’m right, whatever you say, I would feel like a science God every day, and I wouldn’t take the time to share my superior thoughts with all of you, right?

I to as an interested amateur at this game, have seen the need to sometimes question mainstream findings. But in the end, and after further reputable readings, I inevitably agree that I'm probably wrong, and that the mainstream explanation/model seems the most likely. Part of that reasoning is that obviously science, particularly cosmology is a cut throat game, and just as obviously any up and coming young physicist would dearly love to be able to "overthrow" or improve on GR and/or the accepted standard model. 

Quote

Could you give me one law/rule/equation/observation/anything that proves that mass HAS to be a particle, and that it can’t be anything else than a particle?

Well discounting the obvious in that science is not about "proof" the best explanation/definition I have seen for mass was by another just ahead of this post, and that being that mass is simply a resistance against inertia, or words to that effect.

 

[Mordred]

 Tell me Marke if I were to post the mathematics on how the Higgs boson gains mass from its interaction from the Higgs field would you be able to follow it ?

 Here is the thing every statement I make I can back up either with peer reviewed works or with mathematics from my own understanding.

 Countless times I have informed you mass is a resistance to inertia change.

Nothing more.... Think of an analogy to propogation delay of a electronic signal as it passes an electric field. This is a perfect example of a signal delay due to an interaction with a field.

 Mass is precisely the same phenomena..in point of detail e=mc^2 is fundamentally involves Newtons laws of inertia. However under GR we map the freefall motion as opposed to force.

 All forms of energy or matter can curve spacetime and subsequently is a mass contributor. You have been told countless times that matter is not the only source of mass. A photon has variant ( inertia mass) it does not have an invariant (rest mass) however photons can generate a mass density in high enough a density. Even a gravitational wave can generate a mass density term.

All forms of energy or matter can contribute to mass....

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mordred

[MarkE]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

As Strange has said, that's not how it works. But our best theories/models show this. If you think otherwise, you need a model of your own and evidence to support it. 

Let's get back to the physics. What’s the best evidence we have that Fermi gas is be responsible for the mass in the center of a black hole?

Do you agree that, if it can’t be Fermi gas, a neutron star is the densest form of matter (degeneracy pressure being the best evidence for that statement), and therefore a black hole can’t be an object?

If you don’t think this is the right conclusion to make, does that mean you think that a yet undiscovered particle has to be responsible?

On 5/18/2018 at 4:34 AM, Mordred said:

There is a set of theories that takes this further on fermionic gases. As far as I know its still in thee strictly theoretical stages however here is a relevant MIT paper discussing quark degeneracy with the relevant formulas. Whether or not the theory borne's out to be accurate is AFIAK anyone's guess t this stage.

Edited May 26, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Let's get back to the physics. What’s the best evidence we have that Fermi gas is be responsible for the mass in the center of a black hole?

Stop deflecting the discussion. What is the evidence for it not being SM particles? 

6 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Do you agree that, if it can’t be Fermi gas, a neutron star is the densest form of matter (degeneracy pressure being the best evidence for that statement), and therefore a black hole can’t be an object?

There has been no evidence presented to support that contention. The assertion that neutron stars are the densest form of matter is simply wrong, since quark degeneracy would represent a denser material.

6 minutes ago, MarkE said:

If you don’t think this is the right conclusion to make, does that mean you think that a yet undiscovered particle has to be responsible?

I haven't seen any evidence presented that suggests a new particle is necessary, or, if it existed, that it would not count as matter.