Gravitational-Bubble Theory

[Richard West]

This Theory (link removed), is one I have devised which could possibly help to better explain the geometry and behaviour of Black Holes, as well as also acting as the potential bridge we have all been looking for which finally relates Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.. But of course, it is 'Mostly' Theoretical, and although it aligns with most-all of the widely 'proven'/'accepted' theories and laws in physics as of yet, it still requires your willingness to 'consider' its plausibility (i.e. open your mind to 'new' ideas, and not limit it to 'current beliefs')..

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no)

 

I have highlighted the relevant parts. IOW post your idea here, and not by uploading a word doc

 

[Richard West]

sure thing, thanks for the note, I'm still new to this whole forum thing.

Just to clarify, how exactly am I expected to post it? because this theory is something I would really like to share with the world, in an acceptable way..

Edited October 23 by Richard West

[exchemist]

23 minutes ago, Richard West said:

sure thing, thanks for the note, I'm still new to this whole forum thing.

Just to clarify, how exactly am I expected to post it? because this theory is something I would really like to share with the world, in an acceptable way..

Perhaps you could post a summary, or abstract, as text, on the forum. 

[Richard West]

okay sure, I could do that

Abstract:
The Gravitational-Bubble Theory presents a groundbreaking redefinition of black
hole mechanics. It posits that black holes do not collapse into infinitely dense
singularities, but instead, spacetime curves into a 4D hypersphere at the black hole's
core, called a gravitational bubble. This hypothesis eliminates the problematic notion
of infinite density while maintaining consistency with both general relativity and
quantum mechanics. The event horizon, traditionally seen as a boundary beyond
which no information escapes, is reinterpreted as the 3D shadow of the 4D
hypersphere. By incorporating exotic matter and energy into the theory, the
Gravitational-Bubble Theory offers new insights into quantum gravity, black hole
thermodynamics, and cosmic evolution.

[Mordred]

For starters spacetime is already a 4d metric with space itself being 3d.

Secondly dimension is an independent degree of freedom not some alternative reality.

3rd the event horizon is an artifact of a metric not a true singularity condition so there are plenty of peer reviewed accepted methods showing this details its well covered in numerous textbooks of GR.

Lastly no physicist actually believes in the infinite density as it's known nonsensical hence it's a mathematical singularity. 

Hopefully your theory has relevant mathematics as it's required both as a theory and a rule included above in the pinned threads for rules and guidelines of the Speculation forum.

The format for latex on this site uses

\[latex\*] for new line 

\(latex\*) for inline simply remove the * I used to prevent activation.

Edited October 23 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Lastly no physicist actually believes in the infinite density as it's known nonsensical hence it's a mathematical singularity. 

Isn't it true that "infinite density" can also be called mass with zero volume? The mass is measurable, not infinite, but it's in a space with no volume. Is that right?

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Isn't it true that "infinite density" can also be called mass with zero volume? The mass is measurable, not infinite, but it's in a space with no volume. Is that right?

I've come across that before so it is one of the considerations I've seen before I would have to dig to find that paper I had read that on . If I recall it was related to a center of mass conjecture.

I believe Roveilli also had a similar grain of thinking with regards to 5d to 4d Star paper but will have to double check on that (I can't recall if he was looking at BH as the star itself )

Edited October 23 by Mordred

[joigus]

ST geometry is usually said to take place in a 1+3 dimensional geometry. Meaning that one of the dimensions is singled out as time (by means of the so-called signature of the metric), and the other three constituting sections of the geometry at given times (so-called space-like surfaces). So what the OP is suggesting, it seems, is that a new dimension appears inside the BH when gravitational collapse occurs. Is that the case? Otherwise, GR's geometry already is 4D, as Mordred said.

Or has this additional spatial dimension been there all along, like a dummy, that only acquires importance in the case of gravitational collapse?

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Isn't it true that "infinite density" can also be called mass with zero volume? The mass is measurable, not infinite, but it's in a space with no volume. Is that right?

I had a better chance to this over and recall we had a very lengthy discussion on this forum several years back.

The conclusion was any descriptive beyond singularity condition regardless of whether one thinks of it as infinite density, infinite mass density or simply infinite mass will still return garbage answers upon closer inspection.

 Strange as I recall back then pointed out the space and time components switching places as part of that argument which is based off the Rachaudhuri equations.

[Markus Hanke]

20 hours ago, Richard West said:

while maintaining consistency with both general relativity

How so? The singularity theorems of GR guarantee that the region below the horizon must be geodesically incomplete.

[Richard West]

Well, I can try to explain it all, but for now (as I don't have my laptop with me at this current moment) I can briefly mention the fact that yes, GR does predict that beyond the event horizon it must be geodesically incomplete, and it is.. in 3+1 Dimensions (assuming you consider spacetime as a 4 dimensional concept where 'time' is the 4th dimension..) because 'geometrically' space is 3d.. however a hypersphere, caused by GR's prediction of bent spacetime due to a mass, which we then call 'gravity', bends 'into itself' causing a '4d hyperspherical structure to form, encasing the mass of the collapsed star', and so as it is a 4d shape, it would have a 3d surface, (just as a 3d shape has a 2d surface, and a 2d shape, would have a 1d surface(or edge)), and so from 3+1 dimensions (or 3d spacetime), beyond the event horizon would appear geodesically incomplete, as predicted by GR, but from 4+1 dimensions (or 4d spacetime), it would form a 'loop' around the 4d hyperspherical structure, around its '3d surface'..

As for the pre-existance of higher spatial dimensions, yes theoretically they could exists, even though we cannot 'directly see' them, as we are 3dimensional creatures, who can only truly comprehend up to 3 spatial dimensions.. but the 4d structure formed during the gravitational collapse results from the curvature of spacetime 'not just bending down into a sort of 'hole', but rather, being curved 'around' the 'center' of the mass itself, until it reaches a point when spacetime 'curves back into itself', forming a higher dimensional structure (as we and most-all objects exist in 3 spatial dimensions, this structure would then theoretically exist within 4 spatial dimensions, or 4d) which based on it 'curving around' the 'center' of mass, as it becomes ever-more 'densly compacted', it would form a sort of 'higher dimensional sphere', or a 'hypersphere'..

 

As for the Mathematics of the Theory, yes, I admit, I am still in the proces of refining it further and translating it into mathematics that make sense, but so far, although it has been (and still is) quite a lengthy process, I haven't run into any real 'dead-end problems as of yet', and so once I have some of the equations ready for 'peer review', I will happily provide them here.

But in the meantime, please also feel free to request for me to 'focus' upon any particular Mathematical aspect of the theory, as, once again, I really just want to share this theory with the world in the best, and most logical and reasonable sense possible

(Is it appropriate for me to keep repeating that, or is that point already been made??)

[Mordred]

Nothing to out of the reasonable it will of course depend on those mathematics given the dimension definition I provided above. It does have familiarity with Roveilli"s Planck stars from your descriptive.

[Markus Hanke]

23 hours ago, Richard West said:

so from 3+1 dimensions (or 3d spacetime), beyond the event horizon would appear geodesically incomplete, as predicted by GR, but from 4+1 dimensions (or 4d spacetime), it would form a 'loop' around the 4d hyperspherical structure, around its '3d surface'..

I’m afraid that makes little sense…spacetime (however many dimensions you give it) is either geodesically incomplete, or it isn’t. This is not an observer-dependent notion.

23 hours ago, Richard West said:

As for the pre-existance of higher spatial dimensions, yes theoretically they could exists, even though we cannot 'directly see' them

Extra macroscopic dimensions would be easily noticeable in the effects their existence has on the laws of physics. For example, in a (4+1)D universe, radiation fields would fall off with distance according to an inverse cube law, rather than an inverse square law. This is evidently not what we see in the real world.

23 hours ago, Richard West said:

but the 4d structure formed during the gravitational collapse results from the curvature of spacetime 'not just bending down into a sort of 'hole', but rather, being curved 'around' the 'center' of the mass itself, until it reaches a point when spacetime 'curves back into itself', forming a higher dimensional structure

This isn’t what happens in GR, so what you are attempting to formulate is a modified law of gravity. That is good and well, but the major problem is of course that such a modified theory must also correctly model all other gravitational scenarios, not just gravitational collapse. This is where all known modified gravity theories (and there are many at this point) ultimately fail - some do very well in specific scenarios, but fail miserably in other situations. Right now only GR provides the best fit for the largest set of available data.

On 10/23/2024 at 10:48 AM, Richard West said:

This hypothesis eliminates the problematic notion
of infinite density

This is actually a pop-sci misconception - collapse processes don’t lead to “infinitely dense point”. 

But that aside, when it comes to avoiding singularities, this is really not so hard to do; for example, simply allowing torsion on your spacetime does the trick (the resulting theory is called Einstein-Cartan gravity). The trouble with all those modifications is that they have other consequences too; for example, the above model leads to extra terms in the Dirac equation, making it non-linear, and there’s currently no observational evidence of any deviations from the standard form of the equation.

Thus - proposing models that fix specific issues is quite easy, but making these models also agree with all other available data, that’s hard.

[Richard West]

Oh, i see.. hmmm, well, in that case i'm gonna have to re-examine it a bit more, thanks for the heads up =/