pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) ajb writes: If I may insert a few comments? Originally Posted by pywakit Or by far the most popular ... "Your model is in conflict with generally accepted string theory, and Hawking radiation." Well, string theory and Hawking radiation were not just "pulled out of thin air". The initial calculations of Hawking radiation were based on using thermodynamical arguments in semi-classical gravity (quantum field theory an a curved background). You can be excused for this comment. I can't expect you to remember the many times I have agreed that Hawking radiation had/has sound physics behind it. Later string theory gave a statistical mechanical description. So now we have evidence that SST/M-theory is real! I don't think so. I'm sorry. Anyway, both string theory and the now various approaches to Hawking radiation give a window in quantum gravity. If any model was in great conflict with the above ideas then questions must be asked and addressed. Actually, ajb, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't matter if either do exist. My model still works either way. But your last comment is quite over-reaching. It's a long way from black holes 'leak' to this is how they end their existence. And the same applies to strings. If you read my previous post ( The Case For 3 Dimensional Black Holes ) you would see the difficulties ahead even of they do exist. Is what we know about quantum field theory so wrong? And/or is what we know about thermodynamics so wrong? Is this "new model" wrong? It doesn't matter to my model if QFT or TD are right, or wrong. Which new model. Mine? Originally Posted by pywakit His only real issue was that it needed to be experimentally tested, and at that time he could not think of a way to do this. This is key. Any model must be able to be tested, at least in principle. As for cosmology two obvious things to check is the abundance of light elements and the isotropy of the CMBR. Right. Does my model predict something other than what we have observed? No. Originally Posted by pywakit I countered this with the fact that Hawking radiation ( also based on accepted physics ) could not be experimentally tested either ... yet it was still considered a viable theory. See ajb? Another example of me acknowledging the physics behind Hawking radiation. I can understand your reservations about the lack of experimental evidence Hawking radiation. But like I said, the ideas is based on many well established "stepping stones". Maybe your theory is, maybe it is not. Yes, indeed it is. It doesn't stop my model from functioning either way. ajb. My model is a modified BBM without the *magic*. How would mine NOT be based on well established stepping stones? Originally Posted by pywakit He either chose to ignore this reality, or was unable to rationally address this apparent contradiction. But the fact remains ... after 30 plus years, Hawking radiation is still experimentally untestable. I have paid close attention to the LHC website, and I have seen nothing on the subject of Hawking radiation ... yet. But Hawking radiation is in principle observable. It is possible that micro black holes will one day be observed in collides. Another place could be in cosmic rays. Yes it is. And on that point, I have rather bad news for you, and Hawking. The Fermi telescope went up in 08, fully expecting to 'prove' HR, and to date, this has not happened. Nor has the LHC announced Hawking radiation ... and Hawking's imminent Nobel. Yet. We shall see. I hope he gets it. Originally Posted by pywakit I am not a mathematician. Thats ok, most cosmologists and theoretical physicist would not consider themselves as mathematicians. But they are of course competent in using mathematics for their purposes. Lol. Ok. Thankfully, I am able to conceptualize the universe without the need of mathematical constructs. Originally Posted by pywakit ...or my inability to express it mathematically. I don't pretend to understand the math, so I research other opinions of those models from respected, and learned men from all over the world. My goal ( as I have also stated repeatedly ) is to get the scientific community exposed to this model. To get them to consider it's validity, or to falsify it. I think this is where you are going to struggle. You will get a few people to "humour" you, but most people are busy pursuing their own ideas. Without a well formulated mathematical model I doubt you will reach the scientific community. ajb, I have read many articles written by PHDs that lament the dearth of funding for non-stringy research. They believe strings have had their chance, and have been found lacking in substance. Others advocate for young people still in high school to NOT be recruited and/or indoctrinated by advocates for strings. They want these young people to come to the table with open minds. These scientists are also questioning ANY further research into such controversial theories, and have expressed the hope that the next generation of researchers might come up with some theories that DON'T need 'bizarre' or metaphysical solutions. As far as I know ajb, my model is the only one in existence ( and I have looked at many, many models ) that does not appear to require anything but GR, and QM to function. You are right though. Most will ignore my model. Some will not. You forget that I knew from the outset I was facing a huge struggle to get my model out there. I am a LAYMAN. Not a fool. Lol. My job is to get people to look at it. Why do you think I send it to individual grad students? Because they haven't invested their entire career already. Because they tend to be the mavericks. Because they tend to be open to new ideas. Because they are more inclined to believe in the principle of being RIGHT even if it puts them at risk. I have had 3 offers to put math to my model so far. I do not feel comfortable with either the people involved for their credentials, or their motivation. I have already had one nice cosmologist try to sabotage my model. Unsuccessfully, of course. I am promoting a new idea ajb. It will take time. But the right person will come along ... and my model will have the math behind it. It's understandable that you want to warn me that failure is my likeliest fate. But you do have a vested interest in my model being incorrect. So forgive me if I do not follow your advice, or take it too strongly to heart. I am a determined man. I have overcome many obstacles in life to reach this point. I am very confident my model is correct. I am not going to back down now. Not even close. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAll we can say is what we know is predicted by our currently working theories, which is that a singularity is predicted, this singularity is why GR is said to break down, the formation of infinities in theories is nearly always treated as a failure in the theory. So singularites are predicted but that prediction is a cause for concern, but we have no other basis from which to make any other statement. Saying anything else whether you believe it to be logical or not is not within accepted science, we just don't have the theory or evidence to support it. I respectfully submit you are entirely incorrect. You do not seem to be aware of the evidence to support the assertion that infinitely small does not exist. Like QM. It isn't just a matter of my 'logic'. My logic is based entirely on the evidence. As for our solar system being the only one with planets, until you get experimental evidence there is always the possibility that the predictions may be wrong. It didn't ignore nature, the nature of planet formation was largely unknown, it is still a vastly developing area of theory. This is spoken like a true mathematician. No offense intended. No Klaynos. There WASN'T a 'chance' in hades of our star having the only planets in the universe. This assertion is, and was ... as I said before ... borderline insanity. You simply stating otherwise does not make the assertion valid. Unless you want to count God, or magic as possible, valid reasons why our star would be the only one in the entire universe to have planets. Or I suppose some other as yet unknown physical mechanism that would have allowed planets to form here, but nowhere else in the universe. 40^21 stars. And only one has planets. Hmmmm. Wouldn't that make the mathematical odds 40^21 to one against that possibility? This is against nature Klaynos. That is being out of touch with the real universe. This is where math REALLY fails. You are right, that infinities are as we understand them against nature, they are considered "not physical" but we don't have any better theory yet so all we can say is "This is what is predicted, but we believe that prediction to be faulty" Yes we do have a 'better' theory. Mine. If you take some time to consider it .... maybe a few years ... lol ... I think you will finally accept the validity of it. Take care Klaynos. Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I respectfully submit you are entirely incorrect. You do not seem to be aware of the evidence to support the assertion that infinitely small does not exist. Like QM. It isn't just a matter of my 'logic'. My logic is based entirely on the evidence. You cannot apply quantum mechanics in this situation, it is not valid. The only physics we currently have that you can apply is GR which states you get a singularity so we are assuming that this breaks down. This is spoken like a true mathematician. No offense intended. No Klaynos. There WASN'T a 'chance' in hades of our star having the only planets in the universe. This assertion is, and was ... as I said before ... borderline insanity. You are not understanding how science or probability works then. Until observations are made there is a possibility your theory does not match reality, the more observations you make that are predicted by your theory you become more confident about other predictions. These predictions in modern physics are by their very nature mathematical. You simply stating otherwise does not make the assertion valid. Unless you want to count God, or magic as possible, valid reasons why our star would be the only one in the entire universe to have planets. Or I suppose some other as yet unknown physical mechanism that would have allowed planets to form here, but nowhere else in the universe. That was always a possibility all be it unlikely. 40^21 stars. And only one has planets. Hmmmm. Wouldn't that make the mathematical odds 40^21 to one against that possibility? This is against nature Klaynos. That is being out of touch with the real universe. This is where math REALLY fails. Not quite no, it is impossible to state what the odds are without knowing the mechanisim for planet formation and the likelyhood of that situation being common. We now know that you need planet formation discs around young stars, we observer these frequently. Yes we do have a 'better' theory. Mine. If you take some time to consider it .... maybe a few years ... lol ... I think you will finally accept the validity of it. Does it make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? If not it is not a theory.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Originally Posted by pywakit I respectfully submit you are entirely incorrect. You do not seem to be aware of the evidence to support the assertion that infinitely small does not exist. Like QM. It isn't just a matter of my 'logic'. My logic is based entirely on the evidence. Klaynos : You cannot apply quantum mechanics in this situation, it is not valid. The only physics we currently have that you can apply is GR which states you get a singularity so we are assuming that this breaks down. QM is not my only evidence. It is one piece of the evidence. And if the only evidence you have is 'not' evidence because it breaks down, you have no evidence at all. Originally Posted by pywakit This is spoken like a true mathematician. No offense intended. No Klaynos. There WASN'T a 'chance' in hades of our star having the only planets in the universe. This assertion is, and was ... as I said before ... borderline insanity. Klaynos : You are not understanding how science or probability works then. Until observations are made there is a possibility your theory does not match reality, the more observations you make that are predicted by your theory you become more confident about other predictions. These predictions in modern physics are by their very nature mathematical. Which is by definition a human conceptual construction. And may, or may not relate to the real universe. Mathematics are a tool. Nothing more. I doubt very much I don't know about how science works, or don't understand mathematical probability. I repectfully submit you don't understand the real universe. You have already shown to be ill-informed about the current status of black hole research. For anyone to have 'proposed' the theory that our star was the only one in the entire universe with planets shows a total lack of objectivity, an inability to reason, and an inherent belief system. Not good. Originally Posted by pywakit You simply stating otherwise does not make the assertion valid. Unless you want to count God, or magic as possible, valid reasons why our star would be the only one in the entire universe to have planets. Or I suppose some other as yet unknown physical mechanism that would have allowed planets to form here, but nowhere else in the universe. Klaynos : That was always a possibility all be it unlikely. No more than our universe was the result of fairies sprinkling dust around that formed the planets. No. Again, this is irrational, illogical, egotisical belief systems. Nothing more. Originally Posted by pywakit 40^21 stars. And only one has planets. Hmmmm. Wouldn't that make the mathematical odds 40^21 to one against that possibility? This is against nature Klaynos. That is being out of touch with the real universe. This is where math REALLY fails. Klaynos : Not quite no, it is impossible to state what the odds are without knowing the mechanisim for planet formation and the likelyhood of that situation being common. We now know that you need planet formation discs around young stars, we observer these frequently. I was generalizing based on 200 billion galaxies with an average of 200 billion stars each. Don't be silly. Please. Ok. Fine. Reduce the odds to 40^10 against the possibility. They are still stupid odds. Irrational odds. Against everything we already knew about our physical universe based on our studies of photons and the chemical composition of the ( at the time ) visible universe. A specious argument Klaynos. Originally Posted by pywakit Yes we do have a 'better' theory. Mine. If you take some time to consider it .... maybe a few years ... lol ... I think you will finally accept the validity of it. Klaynos : Does it make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? If not it is not a theory. Only if the BBT does. I am thinking the BBT DOES make mathematical predictions. Therefore, so does mine. It's a BBT minus *magic*. Minus new physics. So I guess it is a theory. (edit) Klaynos, I am going to say this one more time. Math is a tool. A Man-made tool that is very precise, and very effective in most situations. However, by your own admission it is a flawed tool. If you choose to rely solely on a flawed tool, to the exclusion of all other verifiable and germane evidence, you are not being rational. I hate to be so blunt, but this is the fact. Please don't take offense. I'm only reporting the facts. Objectively. Rationally. Logically. I'm sorry it does not sit well with you. ______________ Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 It doesn't matter to my model if QFT or TD are right, or wrong. Which new model. Mine? Any new model that addresses anything to do with black holes and similar. Lol. Ok. Thankfully, I am able to conceptualize the universe without the need of mathematical constructs. I believe one can only get a very superficial understanding. As far as I know ajb, my model is the only one in existence ( and I have looked at many, many models ) that does not appear to require anything but GR, and QM to function. I am not really sure what you mean by this. People do work on applications of semi-classical gravity. That is quantum field theory on curved backgrounds. One area of interest is applying this in the early universe. This is not my specialisation, my interest and very modest knowledge of semi-classical gravity is more "foundational" and mathematical. I am still worried that you don't really have a model in the sense that most of us here understand. This seems to be one of Klaynos' main objections. Lets see if you can clear this up. You state your model is based on general relativity + quantum mechanics. So, can you carefully explain to me what you are doing? Let me ask a few simple maybe nieve questions, assuming I know nothing of your work but you have claimed general relativity + quantum theory. 1) Are you working with a semi-classical theory of gravity? That is are you thinking about a curve space-time on which you are considering a quantum theory? Or are you proposing a quantum theory of gravity? 2) Lets be a little be more model specific. If you are using a classical background, what classical background is used? If you have a quantum gravity theory is it clear how it relates to classical theory? What is the content of the theory? I mean what fields, matter auxiliary fields etc. Can your theory be described by a classical Lagrangian? What assumptions about the universe have you made in constructing your theory? 3) As a model of cosmology, does the CMBR fit into your theory well? 4) Does your theory allow Hubble expansion? What about cosmological inflation? 5) In what sense is your theory different or better than the standard model of cosmology? 6) What open questions are there with your theory? Maybe I should point out I am not a cosmologist nor really a string theorist. My interest in cosmology is "amateur" and string theory is a motivator for me, but I do not have any real invested interest in string theory being a correct route to unification. For some very non-trivial reasons it is the best hope we have at the moment. Anyway, we don't wish to debate string theory here.
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 QM is not my only evidence. It is one piece of the evidence. And if the only evidence you have is 'not' evidence because it breaks down, you have no evidence at all. Hence my continued comment that it breaks down and we can't really say. Which is by definition a human conceptual construction. And may, or may not relate to the real universe. Mathematics are a tool. Nothing more. A tool that makes predictions that we can then compare to reality. Current science is our best mathematical model of the universe and the continued testing and adaption of that model. I doubt very much I don't know about how science works, or don't understand mathematical probability. I repectfully submit you don't understand the real universe. You have already shown to be ill-informed about the current status of black hole research. Well, no I think you'll find I said we didn't know how SMBHs were formed when I studied them, to the best of my knowledge this is still the case For anyone to have 'proposed' the theory that our star was the only one in the entire universe with planets shows a total lack of objectivity, an inability to reason, and an inherent belief system. Not good. It wouldn't in fact be a theory. The difference between science and a belief system is that science, is quite prepared to say "we don't know, it might be the case that..." in this case it might have been the case that our solar system was the only one with planets. This "we don't know" gets gradually refined as we conduct more experiments. No more than our universe was the result of fairies sprinkling dust around that formed the planets. No. Again, this is irrational, illogical, egotisical belief systems. Nothing more. How is that empirically testable? I was generalizing based on 200 billion galaxies with an average of 200 billion stars each. Don't be silly. Please. It's not silly, the events that create planets might have been infinitesimally small, we didn't know. We do now. Science changes. Ok. Fine. Reduce the odds to 40^10 against the possibility. They are still stupid odds. Irrational odds. The universe and science doesn't care much for whether humans think things are rational. Against everything we already knew about our physical universe based on our studies of photons and the chemical composition of the ( at the time ) visible universe. A specious argument Klaynos. We didn't have the knowledge to say with any kind of certainty eitehr way. Only if the BBT does. I am thinking the BBT DOES make mathematical predictions. It is a fundamentally mathematically predictive theory, so far these predictions have matched observational evidence. Therefore, so does mine. It's a BBT minus *magic*. Minus new physics. So I guess it is a theory. So... what are these mathematical predictions? What can we measure that will falsify your theory? (edit) Klaynos, I am going to say this one more time. Math is a tool. A Man-made tool that is very precise, and very effective in most situations. However, by your own admission it is a flawed tool. If you choose to rely solely on a flawed tool, to the exclusion of all other verifiable and germane evidence, you are not being rational. I hate to be so blunt, but this is the fact. It is the best tool we have by such a margin it is unbelievable, mathematical predictions are far more accurate. "I drop a ball it falls" gives very little information, if you apply maths to that you can find out how fast the ball falls, the time it takes etc... Please don't take offense. I'm only reporting the facts. Objectively. Rationally. Logically. I'm sorry it does not sit well with you. ______________ It doesn't not sit well with me. I to be honest don't care of your opinion on maths etc... that is how science works. Sorry.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) ajb, I will cover your issues later. First I am going to respond to Klaynos. Klaynos, it is with misgivings that I point out the irrationality of your statements. But I am going to do so, one by one. Then I must ask respectfully that you not post to my thread anymore, unless you want to address some specific point or feature of my model ( as in falsifying it ). Your statements make it clear that you do not have a full understanding of the situation. I do not have an 'opinion' about math. What I 'do' have is a great appreciation for all that it can do, and has done, and will do in the future. I also realistically accept it has limitations. Originally Posted by pywakit QM is not my only evidence. It is one piece of the evidence. And if the only evidence you have is 'not' evidence because it breaks down, you have no evidence at all. Klaynos : Hence my continued comment that it breaks down and we can't really say. Then you can't use it in certain situations. What point are you trying to make with this statement? Originally Posted by pywakit Which is by definition a human conceptual construction. And may, or may not relate to the real universe. Mathematics are a tool. Nothing more. Klaynos : A tool that makes predictions that we can then compare to reality. Current science is our best mathematical model of the universe and the continued testing and adaption of that model. This is an irrational, defensive statement at odds with my assessments of mathematics. You apparently don't read what I have written. Your bad. Originally Posted by pywakit I doubt very much I don't know about how science works, or don't understand mathematical probability. I repectfully submit you don't understand the real universe. You have already shown to be ill-informed about the current status of black hole research. Klaynos : Well, no I think you'll find I said we didn't know how SMBHs were formed when I studied them, to the best of my knowledge this is still the case Another irrational statement. You are not up to speed on black holes. I will not discuss black holes with you if you can't/won't take the time to be current in your knowledge. ( As it pertains to my model. I do not claim to know everything about them, either.) Originally Posted by pywakit For anyone to have 'proposed' the theory that our star was the only one in the entire universe with planets shows a total lack of objectivity, an inability to reason, and an inherent belief system. Not good. Klaynos : It wouldn't in fact be a theory. The difference between science and a belief system is that science, is quite prepared to say "we don't know, it might be the case that..." in this case it might have been the case that our solar system was the only one with planets. This "we don't know" gets gradually refined as we conduct more experiments. Since I am one of the few people I have ever met WITHOUT belief systems, I think I can safely claim I understand the difference between beliefs, and science. Let me ask you a question. Do you 'believe' people can be indoctrinated/imbued/conditioned with false information? Originally Posted by pywakit No more than our universe was the result of fairies sprinkling dust around that formed the planets. No. Again, this is irrational, illogical, egotisical belief systems. Nothing more. Klaynos : How is that empirically testable? Irrational again. You made the claim that God, and magic were possibilities. My statement was in rebuttal. I just logically, and rationally pointed out that those 'possibilities' had no more validity than fairy dust. And they don't. If you can't see that .... ! God, and magic are not 'empirically testable' either. So they are all on equal footing. Originally Posted by pywakit I was generalizing based on 200 billion galaxies with an average of 200 billion stars each. Don't be silly. Please. Klaynos : It's not silly, the events that create planets might have been infinitesimally small, we didn't know. We do now. Science changes. Sorry I got frustrated with you and used the word 'silly'. I meant irrational. At the time, we in fact had a lot of evidence ( as I already stated ) from our studies of photons. You are ignoring this reality to defend an irrational assertion. Originally Posted by pywakit Ok. Fine. Reduce the odds to 40^10 against the possibility. They are still stupid odds. Irrational odds. Klaynos : The universe and science doesn't care much for whether humans think things are rational. Of course the universe doesn't care. Science ( which is overseen by humans ) needs to take a hard look at 'rational'. Originally Posted by pywakit Against everything we already knew about our physical universe based on our studies of photons and the chemical composition of the ( at the time ) visible universe. A specious argument Klaynos. Klaynos : We didn't have the knowledge to say with any kind of certainty eitehr way. That is a statement in total denial of the facts. We COULD state with a high degree of probability. 'Certainty' was not necessary. Originally Posted by pywakit Only if the BBT does. I am thinking the BBT DOES make mathematical predictions. Klaynos : It is a fundamentally mathematically predictive theory, so far these predictions have matched observational evidence. Another irrational statement. I never said it didn't. You are not listening to, or comprehending what I have said. My model closely follows the BBT. So it's mathematical predictions would mirror mine. Originally Posted by pywakit Therefore, so does mine. It's a BBT minus *magic*. Minus new physics. So I guess it is a theory. Klaynos : So... what are these mathematical predictions? What can we measure that will falsify your theory? Really Klaynos. If you can't bring yourself to read all the posts, you shouldn't be weighing in. Again, my 'mathematical predictions' would be the same as the BBT. I just posted 20 ways my model can be falsified. Please read them. Originally Posted by pywakit (edit) Klaynos, I am going to say this one more time. Math is a tool. A Man-made tool that is very precise, and very effective in most situations. However, by your own admission it is a flawed tool. If you choose to rely solely on a flawed tool, to the exclusion of all other verifiable and germane evidence, you are not being rational. I hate to be so blunt, but this is the fact. Klaynos : It is the best tool we have by such a margin it is unbelievable, mathematical predictions are far more accurate. Far more accurate than what? *sigh* How many times must I say this? There is nothing 'unbelievable' about math. It's a great tool. It has a few serious limitations under certain conditions. That's all. Klaynos : "I drop a ball it falls" gives very little information, if you apply maths to that you can find out how fast the ball falls, the time it takes etc... Defensive, irrational, and in ignorance of my statements regarding the usefulness of math. Originally Posted by pywakit Please don't take offense. I'm only reporting the facts. Objectively. Rationally. Logically. I'm sorry it does not sit well with you. Klaynos : It doesn't not sit well with me. I to be honest don't care of your opinion on maths etc... that is how science works. Sorry. As I said at the beginning of this post ... I don't have an opinion. I just make observations. Science is great. Math is great. Neither one are perfect. (edit) Before someone screams that I just gave an 'opinion', I better clarify. By 'great' I mean I fully understand the usefulness of both, and have a deep appreciation for all they have accomplished, and what they will accomplish in the future. ______________ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAny new model that addresses anything to do with black holes and similar. I believe one can only get a very superficial understanding. I am not really sure what you mean by this. People do work on applications of semi-classical gravity. That is quantum field theory on curved backgrounds. One area of interest is applying this in the early universe. This is not my specialisation, my interest and very modest knowledge of semi-classical gravity is more "foundational" and mathematical. I am still worried that you don't really have a model in the sense that most of us here understand. This seems to be one of Klaynos' main objections. Lets see if you can clear this up. You state your model is based on general relativity + quantum mechanics. So, can you carefully explain to me what you are doing? Let me ask a few simple maybe nieve questions, assuming I know nothing of your work but you have claimed general relativity + quantum theory. 1) Are you working with a semi-classical theory of gravity? That is are you thinking about a curve space-time on which you are considering a quantum theory? Or are you proposing a quantum theory of gravity? 2) Lets be a little be more model specific. If you are using a classical background, what classical background is used? If you have a quantum gravity theory is it clear how it relates to classical theory? What is the content of the theory? I mean what fields, matter auxiliary fields etc. Can your theory be described by a classical Lagrangian? What assumptions about the universe have you made in constructing your theory? 3) As a model of cosmology, does the CMBR fit into your theory well? 4) Does your theory allow Hubble expansion? What about cosmological inflation? 5) In what sense is your theory different or better than the standard model of cosmology? 6) What open questions are there with your theory? Maybe I should point out I am not a cosmologist nor really a string theorist. My interest in cosmology is "amateur" and string theory is a motivator for me, but I do not have any real invested interest in string theory being a correct route to unification. For some very non-trivial reasons it is the best hope we have at the moment. Anyway, we don't wish to debate string theory here. No, we have already been down that road, haven't we? Lol. ajb, I don't want to annoy you, but I am not going to re-state everything I have already posted, including every argument, and my rebuttals to date. Your questions can mostly be answered by reviewing the thread. There is only one main topic I have yet to address, and I intend to do that this evening. That is the topic of the accelerating recession. If you are referring to any Guth-derived inflation theories, I do not need to address any of those, as there is little, if any evidence that any of those theories/models have any basis in fact. There is zero evidence that space, or matter/energy, is spontaneously and continuously materializing in our universe and staying. All we know ... for the hundreth time ... is that distant galaxies are receding from us, and from each other at rates proportional to time/distance, and that those galaxies show little relative motion to CMBR. Logically, some mechanism is at work here, but we do not have a clear ... or even UN-clear idea of what that mechanism might be. We have guesses. That's all. So far. (edit) To anyone who would care to put a face to this 'crackpot' ... lol ... I have finally added some pics to my page. You are welcome to take a peek into my little world. Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 No, we have already been down that road, haven't we? Lol. Partly, but I am still not clear on what you have really done. ajb, I don't want to annoy you, but I am not going to re-state everything I have already posted, including every argument, and my rebuttals to date. Your questions can mostly be answered by reviewing the thread. I am not convinced of that, but ok. There is only one main topic I have yet to address, and I intend to do that this evening. That is the topic of the accelerating recession. If you are referring to any Guth derived inflation theories, I do not need to address any of those, as there is little, if any evidence that any of those theories/models have any basis in fact. Careful analysis of the CMBR suggests that inflationary cosmology is correct. So, in all you only have a list of ideas as you presented earlier. No theory.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 ajb writes: Careful analysis of the CMBR suggests that inflationary cosmology is correct. Correction. ( Assuming we are talking Guth.) That is one possible mechanism. It does not exclude others. So, in all you only have a list of ideas as you presented earlier. No theory. I am sorry you can not grasp my model. Your statements have already made this fact clear. You have repeatedly mischaracterized the features of the model. I am not going to repeat myself. If it makes you feel better to say I have no theory, fine. It does not live or die by your assessment.
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Correction. ( Assuming we are talking Guth.) That is one possible mechanism. It does not exclude others. Like? (Also many other people have work on various refinements of inflation, interestingly one gets good agreement with nature using very generic features. Ruling in or out specific models seems harder. ) I am sorry you can not grasp my model. Your statements have already made this fact clear. You have repeatedly mischaracterized the features of the model. I am not going to repeat myself. If it makes you feel better to say I have no theory, fine. It does not live or die by your assessment. Don't be sorry, do something about it. Your failing in explaining your model (mod questions of what a model and theory are) are not my problem.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Like? Like my model. (Also many other people have work on various refinements of inflation, interestingly one gets good agreement with nature using very generic features. Ruling in or out specific models seems harder. ) My model fits beautifully with nature. Don't be sorry, do something about it. Your failing in explaining your model (mod questions of what a model and theory are) are not my problem. I was just being polite. I am not really sorry. The basic tenents of the model are ridiculously simple. You do not understand them. It seems unlikely that further explanation would make it any clearer for you. The following was your second comment after reading my model. "You talk about black-holes, strain on space etc... So your model is based on General Relativity or similar? Plus what? (Not higher dimensions and strings and branes as you clearly state.)" You didn't grasp the model then. You don't grasp it now. You made the incorrect assumption that the model required something 'special' beyond GR. Understandable that you would jump to this erroneous conclusion since ALL models being promoted in the last 40 years have required something 'beyond' GR. Except mine. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedLook guys. I'm going to say this just once. If you don't get it ... not my problem. You have assumed from the start that I was clueless about the universe. About math. About physics. About everything. I'm a LAYMAN. What could I possibly know? You are incapable of acknowledging that I obviously DO have an understanding about many things. How do you think I created my model to begin with? You can defend inflationary models all you want. Sure. They work great. As long as you turn a blind eye to the lack of evidence supporting them, and to the fact that they all start with *magic*. Show me the evidence of space, matter, and energy spontaneously and continuously materialising in our universe. There is none. Show me the physical mechanism(s) that allow for such spontaneity that are supported by GR, or QM. You can't. Prove *magic* exists, and I will give serious consideration to those models. Until then, they have little more validity than 'God did it'. Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 aI do not have an 'opinion' about math. What I 'do' have is a great appreciation for all that it can do, and has done, and will do in the future. I also realistically accept it has limitations. You seem to feel that maths is not something that is required by modern science, that is an opinion. Then you can't use it in certain situations. What point are you trying to make with this statement? The statment I am making and have continue to make is that frankly, we don't know, the only current models show a singularity but we do not believe singularities to be real, any more comment than that about the size of the centre etc... are completely meaningless. Unless you have a quantum theory of gravity. Or some other unification method. You do not. This is an irrational, defensive statement at odds with my assessments of mathematics. You apparently don't read what I have written. Your bad. I thought that it didn't disagree with you too strongly on your statement that it was a tool, my issue was your comment that it might not match reality that is the point of maths so you can compare your ideas to reality with measurements. Another irrational statement. You are not up to speed on black holes. I will not discuss black holes with you if you can't/won't take the time to be current in your knowledge. ( As it pertains to my model. I do not claim to know everything about them, either.) I don't think you are being correct here, I have only read pop sci stuff about supermassive black holes outside galaxy centres, but we are still unsure of their origins, I talked to a researcher in this area today about this, the jury is very much still out. So any comment on max size, likely size etc... is pretty pointless at this stage. Since I am one of the few people I have ever met WITHOUT belief systems, I think I can safely claim I understand the difference between beliefs, and science. I am again unsure of this point you seem to not understand the importance of maths and comparison to reality which can only really be done using maths. Let me ask you a question. Do you 'believe' people can be indoctrinated/imbued/conditioned with false information? Yes, which is why I look for evidence in things. And compare that evidence with reality. There has been studies done on indoctrination it can be shown to be real. Irrational again. You made the claim that God, and magic were possibilities. My statement was in rebuttal. I just logically, and rationally pointed out that those 'possibilities' had no more validity than fairy dust. And they don't. If you can't see that .... ! God, and magic are not 'empirically testable' either. So they are all on equal footing. You mentioned faries et al, not me. God is by it's nature untestable and outside science this isn't a discussion for here. It is irrational to assume that us have humans have any idea about the universe beyond what we can measure, it is irrational to assume just because we cannot really conceive the probability being that small that it is still a finite probability and therefore is not a perfect uncertainty. Sorry I got frustrated with you and used the word 'silly'. I meant irrational. At the time, we in fact had a lot of evidence ( as I already stated ) from our studies of photons. You are ignoring this reality to defend an irrational assertion You are assuming that I am saying something like "it is likely that ours is the only planitary system" not "it is not 100% certain that ours is not" was a valid statement, the former is clearly outside the limits of what "likely" tends to mean in language whereas the latter is not. There was probably numerical probabilities at the time for this. I suspect a few people were working on it. Of course the universe doesn't care. Science ( which is overseen by humans ) needs to take a hard look at 'rational'. Science is very happy to change if the evidence tells it to. And that is what happens all the time. That is a statement in total denial of the facts. We COULD state with a high degree of probability. 'Certainty' was not necessary. See above. That is a problem with asking scientists things they don't like giving definite answers, everything is "we think" etc... because there is always the possibility that new evidence will give you a different answer. So I can understand how someone when asked would have answered that we might be the only solarsystem with planets the clue is the word "might". Another irrational statement. I never said it didn't. You are not listening to, or comprehending what I have said. My model closely follows the BBT. So it's mathematical predictions would mirror mine. If it is mathematically the same, then it is not a new theory and is philosophy not science. Really Klaynos. If you can't bring yourself to read all the posts, you shouldn't be weighing in. Again, my 'mathematical predictions' would be the same as the BBT. I just posted 20 ways my model can be falsified. Please read them. If they require measurements they must have some kind of mathematical bound or they are plucked from thin air, using "logic" counts as thin air. Far more accurate than what? Hand waving, coming up with words, I gave a ball dropping example *sigh* How many times must I say this? There is nothing 'unbelievable' about math. It's a great tool. It has a few serious limitations under certain conditions. That's all. Defensive, irrational, and in ignorance of my statements regarding the usefulness of math. No opinion on maths eh? As I said at the beginning of this post ... I don't have an opinion. I just make observations. Science is great. Math is great. Neither one are perfect. They use each other, maths is the language of physics. Without it we cannot make good predictions we cannot test and everything we say is useless, we can't do anything with it. (edit) Before someone screams that I just gave an 'opinion', I better clarify. By 'great' I mean I fully understand the usefulness of both, and have a deep appreciation for all they have accomplished, and what they will accomplish in the future. ______________
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Ok, so you are working in classical (3+1 d) general relativity as the basic mathematical framework? Your initial statements and ideas do not really seem to make this clear. So as you know the assumptions of 1) a metric theory of gravity like general relativity 2) homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (cosmological principle) 3) a simply connected universe give uniquely the FRW metric. This is independent of the precise dynamics, any metric theory will give the FRW metric upon the above assumptions. So, we really do seem to know the large scale geometry of the universe. Now, are you thinking about the universe being filled with a perfect fluid of black holes? Anyway lets have a look at some of your initial statments. 2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit. Please explain this. What do you mean by critical mass limit? A maximum mass of a black hole? Could you also say something about what is meant by mass here. 2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia ) What do you mean by this? 6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Infinite velocity? 7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons. Gravitons? So we are not working in classical general relativity? Thank you for your patients with me.
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 I think the major issue of this idea is that we don't currently have the framework to state whether it is likely or impossible. I hope we will soon because it will mean a BIG step forward in our understanding of the universe... It hinges on several bits of physics that are not fully understood by a long long way. That is my closing statement.
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Look guys. I'm going to say this just once. If you don't get it ... not my problem. True. Then I have to ask why you are bothering to post about your ideas on this forum? You have assumed from the start that I was clueless about the universe. About math. About physics. About everything. I'm a LAYMAN. What could I possibly know? You don't seem to have said anything to make us think you well informed. You are incapable of acknowledging that I obviously DO have an understanding about many things. I accept you understand many things. However, I don't think you have a working knowledge of modern physics. How do you think I created my model to begin with? No point going over what a model is. You can defend inflationary models all you want. Sure. They work great. As long as you turn a blind eye to the lack of evidence supporting them, and to the fact that they all start with *magic*. To my knowledge, based on talking to cosmologists that inflation is now generally accepted. It cures the ills of the standard big bang and fits the studies of the power spectrum of the CMBR well. There is of course plenty of work to do here. *magic*? You mean we do not understand the initial conditions of the universe? Show me the evidence of space, matter, and energy spontaneously and continuously materialising in our universe. There is none. Show me the physical mechanism(s) that allow for such spontaneity that are supported by GR, or QM. You can't. I don't understand how this is related to modern cosmology. Prove *magic* exists, and I will give serious consideration to those models. Until then, they have little more validity than 'God did it'. You want to dismiss models because they are not complete? You should think about the domain of validity of models.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Klaynos, ajb, and any others who are interested: I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am still working on the restatement of my model ( using english ). Rather than continually and repeatedly trying to address your misconceptions about the model, perhaps you might just wait until I have posted the updated version. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this, and I am appreciative of the advice, and general good naturedness of the arguments. All of the input to date will help me better address issues where there seems to be mass confusion. My only complaint ... and it was not unexpected ... is the frequent attacks on me personally rather than taking specific issue with the model. It serves no purpose, and only tends to cloud the relevant issues pertaining to the function of the model. Please try to be more patient. I will try to do the same in return. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOMG. Lol. Ok. ajb, a total of 13 people have posted comments on my 'ideas'. So far there have been over 2,000 views. Unless you 13 are looking at it over and over, there are a boatload of people who have NOT weighed in. ajb, you are a nice guy I'm sure. But your opinion is just that. An opinion. Yes. I would fault a model that requires magic. I would not consider it 'incomplete'. I would say it's unfalsifiable. On that note, Witten, and Greene ... to name 2 ... have stated publicly that SST/M-theory ... is unfalsifiable. For inflationary theories to utilize imaginary mechanisms and then claim they 'fit' the known universe is sheer madness. Science was unable to solve the universe with known physics, and math. So it resorted to simply 'making up stuff' and then tried ( and is still trying ) to make the math fit the *magic*. You are right, ajb. I DON'T have a 'working knowledge' of physics. I have a general understanding of how physics apply to our universe. That level of understanding appears to be sufficient to allow me to consider the larger functions of our known universe. Insulting me may make you feel superior, and it does make me angry. So if those were your goals, you have succeeded. Fortunately, I don't stay angry very long. The BBT described ... in general ... our best understanding of how the universe operated in the large scale. It is a model. Mine ALSO describes ... in general ... how the universe operates on the large scale. Using the same laws of physics the BBT does. ( Excluding the *magic*.) If you want to insist it is not a model, go ahead. There is nothing 'philosophical' about my model. That would be because I am not a philosopher. I am an observer. Just that. Surely you would concede the fact that science has MISinterpreted evidence countless times. Surely you would concede the fact that many scientists, with excellent credentials, can look at the same evidence and come up with wildly different conclusions. Not a bad thing in itself, as it provides inspiration for a wide and varied approach to the problems we face. But you need to face the corollary. If one respected scientist ends up being correct, that ( by definition ) means all the other interpretations were WRONG. How many years went by before the Steady State universe died? Lol. It isn't dead yet! Einstein ... arguably one of the most intelligent, gifted geniuses to ever live ... went to his grave convinced black holes were a myth. This ... in total denial of Newtonian gravity, and his own GR. I can appreciate your viewpoint ajb. But I suspect that eventually, you are going to find that my 'model' sticks. Later. Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
ajb Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I would fault a model that requires magic. I would not consider it 'incomplete'. I would say it's unfalsifiable. You have to think about the domain of validity. Generally, mathematical models will only be "well related" to nature for a specified range of parameters. For example, as long as we are no where near the Planck scale, general relativity describes gravity very well. However, as you cannot consider general relativity at arbitrary high energies, remove curvature singularities and apply quantum theory to the gravitational field general relativity is considered incomplete. In relation to the big bang cosmology, we cannot use classical general relativity very close to the singularity, for the reasons above. This does not mean we invoke magic, we have to accept that we are asking too much of the theory we have at hand. To discuss cosmology near the singularity we have to do more. People think about stringy or loop quantum cosmology near the singularity. On that note, Witten, and Greene ... to name 2 ... have stated publicly that SST/M-theory ... is unfalsifiable. For inflationary theories to utilize imaginary mechanisms and then claim they 'fit' the known universe is sheer madness. I have definitely discussed the merits and potential verification of string theory. I am a little critical of phenomenology at times. I don't really understand what goes into fitting models to data. Science was unable to solve the universe with known physics, and math. So it resorted to simply 'making up stuff' and then tried ( and is still trying ) to make the math fit the *magic*. "making stuff up" I think of as "work in progress". You are right, ajb. I DON'T have a 'working knowledge' of physics. I have a general understanding of how physics apply to our universe. That level of understanding appears to be sufficient to allow me to consider the larger functions of our known universe. Insulting me may make you feel superior, and it does make me angry. So if those were your goals, you have succeeded. Not my aim to upset you. You did suggest that we thought you had no knowledge. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. The BBT described ... in general ... our best understanding of how the universe operated in the large scale. It is a model. Mine ALSO describes ... in general ... how the universe operates on the large scale. Using the same laws of physics the BBT does. ( Excluding the *magic*.) If you want to insist it is not a model, go ahead. The main features of the big bang can be written down in a simple equation, the Friedmann equations which come from a couple of simple assumptions and general relativity. Without some similar equations that we can work with I cannot see how it qualifies as a model. Surely you would concede the fact that science has MISinterpreted evidence countless times. OK. Surely you would concede the fact that many scientists, with excellent credentials, can look at the same evidence and come up with wildly different conclusions. We know of several well publicised examples. Not a bad thing in itself, as it provides inspiration for a wide and varied approach to the problems we face. But you need to face the corollary. If one respected scientist ends up being correct, that ( by definition ) means all the other interpretations were WRONG. People make mistakes, new results and ideas come forward, people chase up dead ends. That is all part of science. How many years went by before the Steady State universe died? Lol. It isn't dead yet! I do not know of any cosmologists who actively still work on this model. I am sure you can find some, but the generally accepted thought is that the steady state universe is not good. Einstein ... arguably one of the most intelligent, gifted geniuses to ever live ... went to his grave convinced black holes were a myth. This ... in total denial of Newtonian gravity, and his own GR. My understanding is that Einstein thought that singularities would not physically form. He believed that they were an artefact of higher degrees of symmetry. Indeed, all the early singularity theorems relied on high degrees of symmetry. It was Penrose in the 60's that with some other reasonable assumptions showed that singularities are not simply due to the high degrees of symmetries. He showed that singularities are an unavoidable part of classical general relativity. I can appreciate your viewpoint ajb. But I suspect that eventually, you are going to find that my 'model' sticks. You have a lot of work before you get it published
pywakit Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 Lol. Yes ajb ... I have a lot of work to do. But, my friend, I have already enjoyed much success. Because my goal was to expose science minded people to my model. Good or bad ... right or wrong ... primitively expressed ... I have accomplished this goal. I have defended major ( perceived ) issues/contradictions successfully. Overall, I could not be more pleased. Once a new idea is in your head ... such as my theory ... you can't make it go away. Your mind is going to work on it. ( Maybe not 'yours' in particular ... but you get the point.) You are going to try to tear it down ... falsify it, so you can drop it. Otherwise it will just keep knawing at you. ( Could that nutcase be right?) One thing for sure ajb. It won't get published until I find some intrigued ( and genuine ) mathematician to put the proper equations to the model. It will happen. I'm not worried, nor should you be. It's an excellent description of the very large universe we live in ajb. It doesn't require magical solutions. Which reminds me ... I didn't say the BBT required magic. It, to my knowledge, does not address the moments just before, during, or just after the BB. It's the 'inflation' addendums that try to address those moments, and yes. They do require something other than known, accepted physics. I call it magic because Witten calls it magic. I am not making any irrational, or false statements here. Just reporting my observations. Now that you both have exhausted me, I think I may wait until tomorrow to give the 'rational and logical' solution to the accelerating 'recession'. ( This is a more accurate description than 'expansion'.) Anybody enjoy my pics? No?
Objective Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Mr. Pinkerton; I think you're on to something. And I really, really hope someone decides to put their ego aside and their skills to good use and apply the mathmatics needed to clarify and prove/disprove your model. I am to a layman on the subject - merely a philosopher, but my guts tells me you're right. So, for what it's worth; I believe in your model as if it was teached to me in high school by a teacher I respected.
pywakit Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) Originally Posted by pywakit I would fault a model that requires magic. I would not consider it 'incomplete'. I would say it's unfalsifiable. ajb writes : You have to think about the domain of validity. Generally, mathematical models will only be "well related" to nature for a specified range of parameters. For example, as long as we are no where near the Planck scale, general relativity describes gravity very well. However, as you cannot consider general relativity at arbitrary high energies, remove curvature singularities and apply quantum theory to the gravitational field general relativity is considered incomplete. In relation to the big bang cosmology, we cannot use classical general relativity very close to the singularity, for the reasons above. This does not mean we invoke magic, we have to accept that we are asking too much of the theory we have at hand. To discuss cosmology near the singularity we have to do more. People think about stringy or loop quantum cosmology near the singularity. Ok. Originally Posted by pywakit On that note, Witten, and Greene ... to name 2 ... have stated publicly that SST/M-theory ... is unfalsifiable. For inflationary theories to utilize imaginary mechanisms and then claim they 'fit' the known universe is sheer madness. ajb : I have definitely discussed the merits and potential verification of string theory. I am a little critical of phenomenology at times. I don't really understand what goes into fitting models to data. Ok. Originally Posted by pywakit Science was unable to solve the universe with known physics, and math. So it resorted to simply 'making up stuff' and then tried ( and is still trying ) to make the math fit the *magic*. ajb : "making stuff up" I think of as "work in progress". Ok. Lol. Originally Posted by pywakit You are right, ajb. I DON'T have a 'working knowledge' of physics. I have a general understanding of how physics apply to our universe. That level of understanding appears to be sufficient to allow me to consider the larger functions of our known universe. Insulting me may make you feel superior, and it does make me angry. So if those were your goals, you have succeeded. ajb : Not my aim to upset you. You did suggest that we thought you had no knowledge. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. No problem. Thanks. Originally Posted by pywakit The BBT described ... in general ... our best understanding of how the universe operated in the large scale. It is a model. Mine ALSO describes ... in general ... how the universe operates on the large scale. Using the same laws of physics the BBT does. ( Excluding the *magic*.) If you want to insist it is not a model, go ahead. ajb : The main features of the big bang can be written down in a simple equation, the Friedmann equations which come from a couple of simple assumptions and general relativity. Without some similar equations that we can work with I cannot see how it qualifies as a model. Use the same ones. That will work fine for now. Originally Posted by pywakit Surely you would concede the fact that science has MISinterpreted evidence countless times. ajb : OK. Originally Posted by pywakit Surely you would concede the fact that many scientists, with excellent credentials, can look at the same evidence and come up with wildly different conclusions. ajb : We know of several well publicised examples. Originally Posted by pywakit Not a bad thing in itself, as it provides inspiration for a wide and varied approach to the problems we face. But you need to face the corollary. If one respected scientist ends up being correct, that ( by definition ) means all the other interpretations were WRONG. ajb : People make mistakes, new results and ideas come forward, people chase up dead ends. That is all part of science. Absolutely. Originally Posted by pywakit How many years went by before the Steady State universe died? Lol. It isn't dead yet! ajb : I do not know of any cosmologists who actively still work on this model. I am sure you can find some, but the generally accepted thought is that the steady state universe is not good. The point was ... even extremely intelligent scientists can't accept evidence that conflicts with their world view, or belief system. This is very common, and is part of the human condition. Because I recognise this, I am not disturbed greatly when someone ( like you ) expresses an opinion. You are very intelligent ajb. But I think you, and others who have embarked on the 'string' universe may be interpreting the evidence incorrectly, or are so immersed in your specific discipline that you simply are unaware of the latest in BH research. Originally Posted by pywakit Einstein ... arguably one of the most intelligent, gifted geniuses to ever live ... went to his grave convinced black holes were a myth. This ... in total denial of Newtonian gravity, and his own GR. ajb : My understanding is that Einstein thought that singularities would not physically form. He believed that they were an artefact of higher degrees of symmetry. Indeed, all the early singularity theorems relied on high degrees of symmetry. It was Penrose in the 60's that with some other reasonable assumptions showed that singularities are not simply due to the high degrees of symmetries. He showed that singularities are an unavoidable part of classical general relativity. Yes. Originally Posted by pywakit I can appreciate your viewpoint ajb. But I suspect that eventually, you are going to find that my 'model' sticks. ajb : You have a lot of work before you get it published Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOriginally Posted by ajb Any new model that addresses anything to do with black holes and similar. Ok. ajb : I believe one can only get a very superficial understanding. Yes. You have made that point several times. ajb : I am not really sure what you mean by this. People do work on applications of semi-classical gravity. That is quantum field theory on curved backgrounds. One area of interest is applying this in the early universe. This is not my specialisation, my interest and very modest knowledge of semi-classical gravity is more "foundational" and mathematical. I am still worried that you don't really have a model in the sense that most of us here understand. This seems to be one of Klaynos' main objections. Lets see if you can clear this up. You state your model is based on general relativity + quantum mechanics. So, can you carefully explain to me what you are doing? My model takes us back to the BBT. It differs from BBT only in that it takes all currently available germane evidence/observations to produce a reasoned 'beginning' including the mechanism for the BB itself, plus what came before ... and what comes at the end of our local universe. ajb : Let me ask a few simple maybe nieve questions, assuming I know nothing of your work but you have claimed general relativity + quantum theory. 1) Are you working with a semi-classical theory of gravity? That is are you thinking about a curve space-time on which you are considering a quantum theory? Or are you proposing a quantum theory of gravity? No to all the above. I don't stray from acepted physics. The model functions on the large scale ( just like GR ) without a need to produce a quantum theory of gravity. QM, and particle research just lend support to my contention that black holes are an actual physical structure as opposed to an infinitely small/dense, zero dimensional object. ( of which there is no evidence after 40 years of intense research.) ajb : 2) Lets be a little be more model specific. If you are using a classical background, what classical background is used? If you have a quantum gravity theory is it clear how it relates to classical theory? What is the content of the theory? I mean what fields, matter auxiliary fields etc. Can your theory be described by a classical Lagrangian? What assumptions about the universe have you made in constructing your theory? Again, I am not proposing a new QGT. I'm sure this will be an exciting field of research for many more years. I have assumed that every bit of energy that makes up our local universe is exactly equal to the total mass of the black hole when it released it's energy in the event we call the BB. I have assumed energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I have assumed that our local universe is finite. I have assumed that it had a beginning. I have assumed that GR is correct in that space is uniform unless disturbed by mass/gravity. I have assumed that space is collapsed at the black hole ( whether or not it is an infinitely small, dense singularity ... and the degree of collapse is in direct relation to the mass of the black hole ). I have assumed that black holes beyond local galaxy groups will eventually merge. I have assumed that black hole merges will far outstrip any 'evaporation'. I have assumed that black holes will 'forever' move toward any gravitational source ( per Newton ), subject only to 'temporary' angular momentum. I have assumed that if the black hole undergoes critical mass point ... it will throw off a portion, if not all of that mass within planck seconds, and that all the collapsed space contained within the black hole will also uncollapse suddenly. I have assumed that a black hole can achieve either sufficient angular momentum ( per Einstein ) to overcome it's gravitational attraction, or ( and less likely ) that the black hole can reach a critical density that would cause a sudden and extreme expansion through unkown mechanisms. ( as in a 'chemical' reaction ) ajb : 3) As a model of cosmology, does the CMBR fit into your theory well? From what I understand about CMBR and redshift, it fits perfectly. It also fits very well with observed H2. As those observations fit ... to my knowledge ... with the BBT. ( without inflation ) ajb : 4) Does your theory allow Hubble expansion? What about cosmological inflation? Yes to the first question. It does not address Guth inflationary theories. These theories, if I am not mistaken allow for an infinite local universe, always expanding, always materializing matter/energy/space from some unknown, unproven, alternate dimension. ajb : 5) In what sense is your theory different or better than the standard model of cosmology? It completes the picture. Provides a beginning and an end. On the macro scales only. It does not attempt to address the actual form the universe allows for the smallest constituent particles. It does not attempt to explain the 'graviton'. It does not attempt to unify GR, and QM. It allows the universe to cycle without a need to explain the finer details of matter/energy. ajb : 6) What open questions are there with your theory? What inertial limits, if any, are black holes subject to if not tethered to an object in normal space. What is the actual maximum rotational speed of a black hole. In normal space, it would be c. Does a black hole have actual, physical, 3 dimensional volume. Is there an upper mass limit ( below the theoretical limit of infinity predicted in GR ) for the mass of a black hole. Is it well below the estimated total mass of the known, local universe. ( such as the 50 billion sol upper limit recently hypothesized.) ajb : Maybe I should point out I am not a cosmologist nor really a string theorist. My interest in cosmology is "amateur" and string theory is a motivator for me, but I do not have any real invested interest in string theory being a correct route to unification. For some very non-trivial reasons it is the best hope we have at the moment. Anyway, we don't wish to debate string theory here. Yes, you have said this before. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMr. Pinkerton; I think you're on to something. And I really, really hope someone decides to put their ego aside and their skills to good use and apply the mathmatics needed to clarify and prove/disprove your model. I am to a layman on the subject - merely a philosopher, but my guts tells me you're right. So, for what it's worth; I believe in your model as if it was teached to me in high school by a teacher I respected. How very kind. Thank you. Edited January 27, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
ajb Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I have assumed that if the black hole undergoes critical mass point ... it will throw off a portion, if not all of that mass within planck seconds, and that all the collapsed space contained within the black hole will also uncollapse suddenly. Is this your "magic"? I mean there is some part of your model that cannot be explained. The idea that black holes have a maximum mass is interesting. Something like 10 billion times the mass of the Sun, as based on observations (Natarajan and Treister 2008). I do not think this is encoded in general relativity as such. I expect it to be an astrophysical limit. There is some mechanism stopping black holes "eating" that much. Something like the radiation they emit as material in falls is sufficient to effect the gas and dust clouds they are feeding on. If I understand your claim right, you are proposing that the universe we see today came from a black hole that at some point released its energy in the "total universe" that has been around for ever?
pywakit Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) Sorry to repeat myself. I insert comments along the way ... This latest from Universe Today http://www.universetoday.com 1/4/10 Astronomers have discovered 33 pairs of merging black holes in cosmic dances around each other, a finding that was predicted or 'choreographed' by Isaac Newton. "These results are significant because we now know that these 'waltzing' black holes are much more common than previously known," said Dr. Julia Comerford of the University of California, Berkeley, at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC. "Galaxy mergers are causing the waltzing, can use this finding to determine how often mergers occur. The black holes dancing towards us are shifted towards blue light, and those moving away from us are shifted toward the red. So it is like a cosmic disco ball showing us where the black holes are dancing." ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) There appears to be an upper limit to how big the Universe's most massive black holes can get, according to new research led by a Yale University astrophysicist and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the Universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centres of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. Galactic gluttony can overstuff black holes By Helen Altonn haltonn@starbulletin.com Overeating has consequences even for ultramassive black holes that feed on material from gas, dust and stars, University of Hawaii and Yale University astrophysicists have discovered. "Evidence has been mounting for the key role that black holes play in the process of galaxy formation, but it now appears that they are likely the prima donnas of this space opera." Priyamvada Natarajan - Yale astronomy researcher "Ultimately, they stunt their own growth," says Ezequiel Treister at the UH Institute for Astronomy. Monster black holes appear to stop growing when they are about 10 billion to 20 billion times the mass of the sun, Treister and Yale Astronomy researcher Priyamvada Natarajan found in a recent study. ( So? Which is it? 10? Or 20? ) "They get too big," Treister said in an interview, explaining an ultramassive black hole "keeps eating material, and when it's doing that - we call it a 'self-regulation method' - material is falling out. All this radiation is blowing away material so it cannot keep eating." ( Hmmmm. Maybe from the jets coming from the poles. This ... incredibly ... ignores every accretion disc ever discovered. Why aren't THEY being 'blown away'? ) Evidence for an upper limit on the biggest objects in the universe is being reported by Treister and Natarajan in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. They studied existing optical and X-ray data of ultramassive black holes and found "they shut off at every epoch in the universe," Natarajan said in an Institute for Astronomy news release. Once thought to be rare, black holes are known now to exist throughout the universe and can grow to super-large masses. Black holes termed "ultramassive" have masses a billion or more times that of the sun, the astrophysicists said. Natarajan said their findings could have implications for galaxy formation since many of the largest galaxies appear to develop with black holes at their centers. Every galaxy, including the Milky Way, appears to have a black hole "tightly coupled to the mass of stars in the central region," Treister said. The Milky Way's black hole, called Sagittarius A, contains about 4 million times the mass of the sun, according to astronomy studies. ( Interesting. We used to think the black hole at the center of the MW might be a few hundred THOUSAND sols. Before that, it never even occured to us that the MW might have a black hole at it's center AT ALL. ) Black holes start out as "small seeds and grow with time by feeding on gas" that is eventually replenished as galaxies merge, Treister said. A collision of two big galaxies with black holes also can create one super-huge black hole, he said. "But that is very rare. It can only happen two or three times over the lifetime of black holes." ( Is that a fact .... ? I don't think so. ) Other growth control mechanisms have been suggested for black holes, including one by Natarajan during doctorate work at the University of Cambridge. She said black holes might reach a point where they radiate so much energy as they consume everything around them that they end up interfering with the gas supply feeding them, and that might interfere with star formation in the region. ( Again, this is in direct conflict with accretian discs. This ignores merging black holes/merging galaxies. Assumes black holes are anchored in place. Assumes material in orbit around black hole will remain locked there forever. ) "Evidence has been mounting for the key role that black holes play in the process of galaxy formation," Natarajan said, "but it now appears that they are likely the prima donnas of this space opera." Treister said black holes could play "the starring role in galaxy formation by providing the switch that turns all the action off and, as a consequence, stunt their own growth. "The next frontier is to understand better the physics of the formation of the earliest black hole seeds in the universe in order to figure out who came first, the first stars or the first black hole seeds." Space.com 1/9/08 AUSTIN, Texas — The most massive black hole in the universe tips the cosmic scales at 18 billion times more massive than the sun, astronomers suggest today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. ( Uh oh. ) Even though researchers suggested black holes up to this mass might exist in quasars, this is the first direct confirmation of such a behemoth. The hefty gravity well is six times more massive than the previous record and is orbited by a smaller black hole, which allowed the measurement of the giant's mass. Black holes can't be seen, but astronomers detect them by noting how other objects are affected by the tremendous gravity created in tremendously small sphere of space. The binary black hole system powers a quasar known as OJ287, which is located 3.5 billion light-years from us in the constellation Cancer. The quasar — an overwhelming beacon of light associated with a developing galaxy — has been studied in .... NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com September 3, 2008 by David Shiga Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit. ( Uh oh again! ) Giant black holes sit at the cores of virtually all galaxies, and are thought to have grown from smaller seed black holes that swallowed lots of matter. The biggest well-measured one resides in the galaxy Messier 87 and has the mass of 3 billion suns, a measurement based on the speed of the gas swirling around it. Even bigger black holes are waiting to be found, say Priya Natarajan of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Ezequiel Treister of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. In a study to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the pair examined the "feeding habits" and growth of black holes. They used data from surveys carried out by other teams that observed the X-rays and visible light emitted by matter as it is devoured by black holes. The properties of this radiation can be used to estimate a black hole's mass and how quickly it is gobbling up its surroundings. The team analysed how many galactic black holes of various masses were present at each stage in the universe's history. The distribution of masses they found today and in the past can only be explained if there is a limit on how fast black holes can grow, the researchers say. Previous studies have also suggested this, and it may be due to the way radiation from infalling matter blasts the black hole's neighbourhood free of additional sustenance. "They self-regulate," says Natarajan. "They never grow beyond a certain mass in any epoch." ( This is no wrong. Lol. "... may be due ... " Yes. Let's just ignore the fact that we have zero evidence of a black hole having any limit. Let's ignore that GR allows for infinite mass. Let's ignore the fact that black holes are merging everywhere we look. Let's ignore the fact that we only have evidence of 'jets' of material coming from the POLES of the BH, and nowhere else. It amuses me that we can bandy such misinformation about as " QUASARS EMIT THE LIGHT/RADIATION OF SEVERAL TRILLION STARS!" Well, not exactly. That's if you were to assume that the intense radiation we measure is being radiated over the entire 'circumference' of the black hole, which is in contradiction to our findings on the polar jets. ) Knowing this growth rate allowed them to work out the modern-day size of the biggest known black holes that existed in the early universe. Back then, they are estimated to have had the mass of about a billion suns. According to Natarajan and Treister, a few black holes of this size may have bloated to "ultramassive" size by now, with between 5 and 50 billion times the sun's mass, at the most. Even a black hole at the lower end of this range would be gargantuan - more than 3 times as wide as our solar system. I assume they mean the Schwarzschild Radius. Wonder how big the actual 'object' is ... Zero dimensional? I don't think so. One ultramassive black hole may already have been spotted 3.5 billion light years away in the galaxy OJ 287, which is thought to harbour a pair of giant black holes circling each other at its centre. The larger of the two has been estimated to be 18 billion solar masses, based on the properties of radiation outbursts from the system, but astronomers disagree on how accurate this is. Yes they do 'disagree'. Mainstream science doesn't like black holes this big. Too bad the critics can't come up with a realistic method of limiting the size. Notice how they say things like " ... can only grow so fast ... " or " ... they can only get so big at any epoch ... ". .................................................................................................................................................... ajb, there seems to be a bit of a discepency here, doesn't there? So what's the limit? 10B? 18B? 20B? 50B? Lol. Newton would be so disturbed. Seriously ... he got it. All those years ago. And ever since, the only humans who realistically COULD have the capacity to 'think big' ( astrophysicists ) can't seem to get there. We continue to attempt arbitrary limits on black holes for at least a few reasons. 1. If we go with the 'infinite' upper limit described by Newton, and GR, we have an apparent HUGE problem. Because if infinitely small and dense is possible, then a black hole can swallow EVERYTHING. And the universe ends with us stuck ( crushed ) inside a black hole. 2. Our universe 'couldn't' expand forever like the BBT says it should. 3. 'New' inflationary theories ( ST/SST/M-theories ) contradict such possibilities. 4.. We just can't think that big! Our minds refuse to wrap around objects of this scale. They are too 'alien' to our thinking ... to our ability to visualize. 5. Sad to say ... but they conflict with 'beliefs'. Preconceived ideas of the shape and structure of our universe. So we resist accepting new observations indicating they could get much, much bigger than we ever dreamed possible. No ajb, I think you are not going to find BHs are 'limited to 10B sols'. My model predicts we will soon discover BHs in excess of 50B sols. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pywakit : I have assumed that if the black hole undergoes critical mass point ... it will throw off a portion, if not all of that mass within planck seconds, and that all the collapsed space contained within the black hole will also uncollapse suddenly. ajb : Is this your "magic"? I mean there is some part of your model that cannot be explained. The idea that black holes have a maximum mass is interesting. Something like 10 billion times the mass of the Sun, as based on observations (Natarajan and Treister 2008). I do not think this is encoded in general relativity as such. I expect it to be an astrophysical limit. There is some mechanism stopping black holes "eating" that much. Something like the radiation they emit as material in falls is sufficient to effect the gas and dust clouds they are feeding on. If I understand your claim right, you are proposing that the universe we see today came from a black hole that at some point released its energy in the "total universe" that has been around for ever? ajb, you make too many unsupported assumptions. You ignore the evidence that BHs merge. Big ones. You ignore emerging evidence of ultra-massive galaxies merging. You ignore emerging/new research suggesting that BHs formed much earlier in our universe than we ever believed possible. You ignore Newton. You ignore GR. You ignore QM. You assume that because a BH has stopped feeding, that it will never start feeding again. You assume that all material in orbit around a BH will remain tidally locked forever, while at the same time ask BHs to 'evaporate'. What happens to those galaxies that were orbiting the BH if the BH just evaporates away? You ignore that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Where do you have all this energy going? Absorbed into some mythical alternate dimension with an insatiable appetite for our energy? And presumably all the other 10^500 'alternate dimensional universes' are nice enough not to dump THEIR energy into OUR universe? Very convenient. And totally out in left field. *MAGIC* Most importantly, you ignore the reality that our universe ( when compared to a human life span ) is about .00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old. ( I just made up that number for purposes of illustration.) How can you base the entire future ( strucure, processes ) of our universe on such a tiny time frame? We know for certain that the universe evolves through 'stages'. What in the world would make you believe that our universe is in it's 'final' stage'? There is nothing 'magical' in my theory. It follows Newtonian gravity. It follows GR. It follows Einstein's ( admittedly incorrect ) assumptions about angular momentum causing a star to fly apart before totally collapsing. In this regard, Einstein could not accept his own calculations on maximum upper limits to mass, or angular momentum's relationship to the behaviors of objects with extreme mass/gravity. I assert that Einstein was right ... and wrong. They DO fly apart. Just not when he thought they did. No magic required. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS : ajb .... Make that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old if we make the 'total' lfe span of our local universe the number of years required to make the VERY LAST PARTICLE of the VERY LAST BLACK HOLE decay/dissolve back into the 'fabric' of space. ( Number made up for illustration only.) Edited January 27, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
ajb Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I have decided not to continue posting on this thread.
pywakit Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) I have decided not to continue posting on this thread. I am sorry to hear that. I am also sorry I said .... "You are ignoring ..... " I should have said .... "It appears to me as IF you are ignoring ...." No offense was intended ajb. I'm just defending my model to the best of my ability. If my arguments are irrational, illogical, or ignore evidence to the contrary, then someone needs to speak up and show me where I am in error. Isn't this what scientific debate is supposed to be about? Well, whatever you ultimately decide, you are a worthy adversary. Take care. By the way ... Great webpage, and I notice you are a junior member of the Isaac Newton Institute. What do you think his stance would be right now .... based on all the evidence we have accumulated? What would he be researching? Strings? Or black holes? I think we both can surmise the answer to that one. I didn't sign your guestbook because I assumed you would prefer I did not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making The Case For Overcoming Accelerating Expansion/Recession Ok. Now you get a chance to really tear my logic apart. Rather than delve into matters we can't begin to prove ... like the existence of Dark Energy, let's just go with what we are pretty confident of. We can say with confidence that the large gravitational structures in the universe within our purview are receding from us, and from each other at accelerating rates proportional to time and distance. We have no evidence ( to my knowledge ) that this mechanism ( force ) involved pushes/pulls less massive gravitational sources at higher ( or lower ) velocities ( rate of acceleration ) than the large masses, since the smaller masses do not seem to be driven/pulled apart at different rates, but instead remain gravitationally bound to the large mass. ( ie; local group of galaxies ) Even mass-less photons do not seem to be affected by this force at a different rate than the large masses. The properties of Space limit a photon's velocity to 300,000 k/s. But clearly they ( CMBR ) move in tandem ( essentially ) with the large masses, when it comes to measuring their recession. So we at least can feel confident that this process seems to only affect the largest masses in the universe in any material way. Predicted by General Relativity, and Newton ... and born out by observation, we can say with certainty that all mass has gravity, and that gravity is propagated in all directions at c. What this means is ... that all bits of mass are in communication with each other gravitationally. Because ( thankfully ) gravity is such a weak force, and propagates throughout the universe subject only to the inverse squared law, matter in the macro universe is only affected in any significant way by the strongest of competing gravitational fields. Making The Case : Ok, first, we have to remember that we do not know if the force is pushing the galaxies apart, or pulling them apart. But for our purposes it does not matter. We just have to deal with the reality. To better understand the big picture let's do 2 things. Reduce the universe down to a 2 dimensional object we can easily see. Like the surface of a round 4' diameter kitchen table. This will work fine for now. And lets make a circle in the center of the table that's 1' in diameter. This represents the outer boundary of our 'expanding' universe. The 2nd thing we need to do is wind the clock far into the hypothetical future. Once we understand what happens at the 'end' it will be much easier to grasp what happens before the end. Far, far into the future, we are down to the last 2 black holes. They have eaten everything they could find, and there is nothing left ... except these 2. They have no more accretion discs, stellar companions, or orbiting galaxies. They also happen to be as far away from each other as the accelerating recession allows. Essentially on 'opposite' ends of the universe, and receding from each other at velocities far outpacing c. Let's put down 2 quarters just inside the circumference of our little circle, equidistant from the center, as far apart as we can put them. Start sliding them farther apart, slowly ... Because there are no longer any other competing gravitational waves, we can say with certainty that the 2 quarters are going to be in direct gravitational communication with each other. This per GR, predicting that gravitational waves are infinite in scope. Yet, from what we are observing, Dark Energy is still pushing our quarters apart faster and faster, or space is pulling them apart ( it doesn't matter which ) faster and faster. Or is it now? Can the gravitational bond ever be broken? Not according to Newton, or Einstein. Gravity has won every small battle with DE/Space to this point. We see this in our everyday universe. But Space DEFINITELY isn't going to lose this last battle. Right? They are just too far apart from each other. Wrong. I think it is not going to win this one either. I hypothesize that since there are no longer any competing waves, the rate of acceleration will slow. Another way to say this is ... DE/Space has won these battles so far, due to all the competing gravitational fields ( waves ). As already stated, we know that all of the galaxies that are currently receding from us and from each other are within the purview of our mutual gravitational fields. They must be or we couldn't see them. And so far, the cumulative effect of DE/Space has been to take advantage of the galaxies' gravitational 'confusion'. But now these last 2 quarters will be 'tugging' directly on each other. And because there are no other competing gravitational waves this 'tug' should now overcome the weak ( but to this point, cumulative ) force that has been pushing/pulling them apart. The strength of this direct, unadulterated 'communication' should be so far beyond the 'force' acting against them that even as they continue to recede from each other, and their mutual attraction diminishes, it will still be strong enough to cause them to begin to 'fall' toward each other, eventually slowing each other's rate of recession to zero, and then reversing it. Our 2 quarters slow ... stop ... and reverse direction. And we already know what I predict will happen when those last 2 quarters 'merge'. So even if our 'quarters' are subject to the laws of 'normal' space, ( all velocities relative to CMBR limited to c ) we can apparently, hypothetically, solve this recession dilemma with just Newton, and Einstein. But it gets potentially more interesting. Our evidence appears to support Einstein's prediction that Space itself is not limited to c. ( BB's initial expansion, and current recession.) We know that the existence of tachyons is predicted. ( Don't we? ) These hypothesized particles also do not follow the laws of 'normal' Space. They have NO hypothesized/theorized limit to their velocity. Well, because of GR's prediction of curved Space, we can hypothesize also that the laws of Space do not apply if Space is collapsed. Broken. In support of this assertion, our latest measurements on super-massive black hole spin have them dangerously close to c already. If this is found to be true, then there just might be a 3rd structure NOT limited to c. Black holes. If this is the case, then the above process is ramped up dramatically. Assuming again, if the black holes are no longer tethered to structures occupying 'normal' Space, they hypothetically could also achieve velocities far beyond c. Just like Space itself. And not just rotational velocities, but inertial velocities. But back to our kitchen table. If this mechanism/process is what would happen at the very end of our local universe, then every possible variation ( with a big pocket full of change thrown into the circle ) of this process must have occurred before this point in time. And it is because of the 'pocket full of change' that the universe allows this process to begin. All those coins are a different mass. No 2 are alike. If we had 500 pennies situated around the circumference of our arbitrary circle, equidistant from each other ... Space would win. They would all get pulled apart forever. Sure is nice that there are no 2 black holes alike. And at the end? The last 2? No problem. Doesn't matter if they are exactly the same or not. We are already seeing evidence of this process in it's beginning stages in the astounding numbers of black hole 'candidates' we are discovering ... of the ever-increasing and varied masses of these candidates ... and we have evidence too, in the new realization that these black holes are already merging at rates far beyond anything we expected. Would this take a long time? Of course. But I bet if someone were to calculate the time required for this process to happen, we would find it takes far less time than waiting for a 10 billion sol black hole to evaporate. It also seems to me that this offers a far superior mechanism to 'solve' the accelerating recession than Turok's 'time reversal' which offers no explanation other than physics says it's mathematically 'possible'. And this mechanism would not be unduly affected by current inflationary 'theories' as even if it were proven that 'Space itself' expands, this would still not 'break the gravitational bond' of our last 2 black holes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have probably forgotten half of what I intended to say, and I likely have made many logical errors here, so please feel free to point them out. Lol. I AM brain-dead. I forgot the most important potential benefit of this scenario. If it DID end up 2 black holes of near, or equal mass, this would be a great ( possible ) catalyst for the BB. Imagine what would happen if these 2 behemoths each achieved near c velocities 'falling' toward each other. Dragging space with them. Colliding at near 2 times c would be an interesting collision. It would most certainly be a 'head-on' collision. Absolutely dead center. Wonder what kind of 'bang' that could produce? Initial faster-than-light expansion? Flat universe? Boggles the mind. I suppose it's a good thing to have 2 ways for the BB to happen, that are not in conflict with GR, or physics. But however the catalyst happens, angular momentum is going to play a big role. So ... I also forgot to make the most important point! Lol. Which is ... That this scenario works at any and all variables. From one monster black hole 'cleaning up' all the smaller black holes, to the simplified version above. At either extreme, the same process is in play. Less and less gravitational confusion means stronger and stronger gravitational attractions between any 2 remaining gravitational bodies. Too speculative? Edited January 28, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I can't find that article, do you have a direct link? The collision would not be faster than light, from each of the black holes rest frames the other would not be traveling faster than c because velocities do not add linearly. If I get time I will try and go through your comments at some point. But time is the restraint.
pywakit Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) I can't find that article, do you have a direct link? The collision would not be faster than light, from each of the black holes rest frames the other would not be traveling faster than c because velocities do not add linearly. If I get time I will try and go through your comments at some point. But time is the restraint. I was actually going to ask about the c x 2 issue. I was thinking I was forgetting something critical. Thanks for pointing it out. Still, a collision at just under c would be pretty spectacular, would it not? Since space would be collapsed at the point of collision, the near instananeous release of angular momentum ( spin, kinetic energy ) would be in keeping with the 1st planck seconds of the BB as we understand it. My reasoning for this ( < c x 2 ) potential velocity had to do with the black holes' special relationship to space. I reasoned ... incorectly it appears ... that with no other competition, the time available for acceleration, and the masses involved ... that although from a specific frame ( each back hole's frame of reference ) it would APPEAR that c was not exceeded, both individual BHs would have had the potential to achieve near c on it's own. Essentially, a reversal of the recession we appear to be currently measuring at cumulative velocities exceeeding c. As with every scenario I have hypothesized, achieving c ( in any regard ) does not appear to be necessary for the model to function. It only affects the length of time involved for the entire process to unfold. I'm sure I must have made a dozen other errors, too. I don't know what you mean by 'time is the restraint'. Your time? Or are you referring to the universe? Link to article? Which article? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHmmm. Well, as long as I'm waiting for arguments ...... My thoughts on Dark Matter: It is interesting that DM has been 'discovered' about 50 times in the last 5 years. Yet it never quite seems to stick. Just heard last month, once again, that it has been 'proved' to exist. Which we already knew. Just can't find it! I think that, once again, we have been looking at things the wrong way, based on incorrect assumptions. We cant see DM directly since it is 'dark'. But we are certain of it's gravitational effect. I think ... that our assumptions about galaxy formation are a little skewed by preconceptions. We base our conclusions about the existence of dark matter on the motion of galaxies. They rotate much too fast around a central point than can be explained by what we 'believe' to be the mass of the central black hole, and the mass of the orbiting galaxy ( based on luminosity ). But it seems to me that the likeliest solution is the most obvious. And the most simple. Dark Matter is nothing more than ( additional ) black hole mass. And the black hole must have formed long before we think it did. This easily explains why there is no luminosity. The mass was in the black hole way before the galaxies formed. In fact, it is quite likely that the black hole's mass was instrumental in the formation of the visible galaxy. If the black hole formed very very early ... from the sudden expansion of matter/energy from the BB, it seems this expansion might not have been all that uniform. Lots of plasma, lots of dense areas, and everything in between right from the start. So ultramassive black holes might have been the norm rather than the exception in our early universe. You see, DM has 2 choices. It can either be part of the mass ( all mixed together ) orbiting a larger central mass ... and helping to drive angular momentum ... Or it can be part of the central mass. And in all probability, spinning rapidly. As in the black hole spinning rapidly. It seems we have yet to find a non-rotating BH. We can find galaxies that have non-feeding black holes ... like ours ... but how do we know they are not spinning? Certainly, stars are orbiting the central mass at enormous velocities. But because we don't see the accretion disc, and there are apparently no visible jets emanating from the poles, we just assume it must not be rotating. So what do you suppose is causing the extreme orbital velocities of the stars at the Milky Way's core? Lately we have discovered a lot of black holes. We can verify that most are spinning. Very fast. The ones we can't verify as spinning from jets, we can still see that the stars orbit close to the core at extreme velocities. Anyway,as I said, DM already IN the BH seems to be the far simplest solution. And if DM was already a part of the BH, it wasn't really dark at all. Just plain old ordinary matter. Again, the process of black hole formation simply happened significantly earlier than we thought. This solution ( I think ) does not conflict with observed motion of galaxy clusters. And I think this also can explain the observations of the Bullet Cluster. From Wiki : The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and visible material are found together, as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107– 108 Kelvin gas, or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas. Because dark matter does not interact by electromagnetic forces, it would not have been slowed in the same way as the X-ray visible gas, so the dark matter components of the two clusters passed through each other without slowing down substantially. This accounts for the separation. Unlike the galactic rotation curves, this evidence for dark matter is independent of the details of Newtonian gravity, so it is held as direct evidence of the existence of dark matter. Couldn't ultramassive non-feeding black holes at the the cores of these clusters cause the same effect? We are quite sure, at this point, that all galaxies all have massive ( stellar, SM, UM ... at least ) black holes. I think the reason we may have gotten their masses wrong is because we have been using the wrong measuring sticks ... luminosity ( visible light, microwaves ) to determine their mass, instead of just going with the velocity of the visible stars in orbit. Again, if the mass has been there in the BH long before the luminous galaxies formed, then we would not expect to see any radiation from that ( extra ) mass. And they would exert a uniform gravitational effect ( which is observed ) on the orbiting matter/energy, and additionally would be an excellent mechanism for the evolution of luminous matter ( star formation ) by stirring up the gasses and matter. This solution would still be in keeping with observed gravitational lensing, I believe, and it could also explain the lack of EM interaction. And, of course, it would explain why we can't actually 'find' dark matter. All that 'extra' mass ( or at least the majority of it ) that our observations tell us must exist ... the extra 23%? ( WMAP 2005 ) ... could just as easily already reside in black holes. But I acknowledge the reality that I could be missing some important issue here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is a good example of what I mean. This article makes the assumption that the dark matter is 'outside' the black hole. There seems to be no objective reason to make such an assumption, other than 'guessing' the SMBH was a function of stellar collapse AFTER the formation of the galaxy, as opposed to the black hole having existed long before the galaxy formed. Supermassive Black Holes Can’t Swallow Dark Matter Ian O'Neill in Black Holes, Dark Matter on March 9th, 2008 at 2:18 am | http://www.astroengine.com Apparently, black holes and dark matter don’t play well together. Broadly speaking, black holes can be considered to be a significant portion of the “missing mass” in the universe, but dark matter is distinguished as “non-baryonic matter”. It seems that this mysterious non-baryonic matter is being used to explain a huge number of unexplained cosmic mysteries, but in the case of supermassive black holes, dark matter plays a very small role insofar as being used as black hole food… I was pointed in the direction of an interesting paper complied by a French research group entitled “Dark Matter Accretion into Supermassive Black Holes“. In a nutshell they look into dark matter as a possible fuel to make supermassive black holes, well, supermassive. There has been much debate over to what extent dark matter may have to play in the evolution of black holes, so a complex numerical model was used and compared with observations. This is the cool bit. It turns out that non-baryonic dark matter (a.k.a. dark matter), as opposed to baryonic matter (a.k.a. protons, neutrons, atoms, “normal” stuff), is highly collisionless. This means that dark matter, in its nature, is highly non-interacting. It can be easily scattered by stars and gas clouds, and it is very hard to imagine the stuff create a compact accretion disk around black holes. Black hole accretion disks generate a lot of radiation, so much so that galactic cores can be observed as quasars. This radiation is produced as “normal” baryonic matter accumulated in the accretion disk falls to its death in the black hole event horizon. The matter has been accelerated to relativistic speeds and about 10% of the mass falling into the ‘hole is converted into energy (i.e. E=mc2). A massive quantity of energy is blasted into space as X-ray emissions. By taking observations of galactic core quasars (the location of supermassive black holes) and using theoretical models to predict the rate of accretion disk “feeding” into the black hole, a rough estimate on how much dark matter is falling into the black hole can be found. For baryonic matter, the amount of X-rays generated by the quasar is proportional to the amount of matter falling into the black hole. Dark matter on the other hand (theoretically) does not generate X-rays as it falls into a black hole. So, from logical reasoning, if the predicted rate at which mass is falling into the black hole is more than the observed energy emitted, then perhaps some of the mass of the accretion disk is in fact dark matter. Well, the details are sketchy, but it is looking unlikely that dark matter has any large part to play in the evolution of supermassive black holes. Less than 10% of the mass of the accretion disk will consist of dark matter; the other 90% can be easily accounted for in the form of baryonic matter. As you can see, he makes a lot of asumptions here, that are not supported by the facts in evidence. We are now becoming aware that black holes can evolve/grow through several different mechanisms. ( collapsing gas/dust, stellar collapse, sporadic feeding by matter in orbit being perturbed, merges, etc.) And of course, the real possibility that SMBHs/UMBHs were formed shortly after the BB. And as I have stated before, we continue to make observations that indicate BH formation happened much earlier than previously thought. Naturally, my hypothesis regarding dark matter fits flawlessly into my model. What else could you expect? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhich came first: galaxies or black holes? From Cosmos Wednesday, 7 January 2009 by Katie Lee http://www.cosmosmagazine.com An exerpt : BRISBANE: Supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies may form before the galaxies themselves, a new study has found. The central bulge of a galaxy usually has a thousand times more mass than the black hole at its centre, but that this isn't the case in very young galaxies, an international team reported yesterday to a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, California. Efficient growth Instead, the black holes are relatively much larger in baby galaxies, hinting that the holes came first. That changes the way astronomers will think about the growth and evolution of galaxies, according to team member Dominik Riechers. "Our findings show that… a simple regulating process that allows simultaneous growth cannot be the only reason for the relationship [between black holes and bulges]," said Riechers, an astronomer at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, USA. "Even if we look at the most extreme, rapid star-forming events in the universe, those are less [fast and] efficient than the growth of massive black holes," he said. To make the discovery, Reicher's team studied conditions during the first billion years of the universe using the Very Large Array radio observatory in New Mexico, and the Interferometer at Plateau de Bure It seems that each new discovery challenges our preconceptions about galaxy formation ... and the formation and behaviors of black holes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore .... Which came first - black holes or galaxies? Scientists solve cosmic riddle Last updated at 10:13 AM on 07th January 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk Edited January 29, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Recommended Posts