Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

My mentors do not wish to be named, in actual fact they do not want me to waste time on forums.

There are three, USA, Africa and Moscow.

Still I'm looking for people who have lateral thinking and the ability to think ouside the circle.

I know that I have many years ahead of me reading and so on.

I do suffer from dislexia so thats a small problem. You may have noticed it in my explanations.

Lucky for spell check

 

[ramparts]

Oh, I don't care about their names I'm just curious what exactly they're mentoring you in. There are much better ways for someone who's not an expert in the field to spend their time than combing through the arXiv. A good physics book, for one!

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas wrote:

"...I understand what you say and yet my mentor directs me to read up on loop quatum cosmology, quatum cosmology and magnetic reconnection and trapping horizons amongst other topics ( no rest) search in arXiv or ADS..."

Harry, I've "read up" on just some of the papers to which you've provided links. In terms of subject matter, these papers are all over the map. In terms of volume, merely reading the words all your linked papers contain represents a time investment that exceeds what I would consider humanly possible within the time frame that this thread has been in existence.

The statements you've made in your posts lead me to believe that your ability to comprehend the terminology, math, and physical theories contained in these papers is about the same as mine - which is to say that we're both almost totally clueless. This, in itself, isn't anything to feel bad about. Everyone has to start from where they are and progress from there.

Your mentor is doing you a disservice by directing you to "read up" on papers you can't hope to understand with your present level of education. You'd be better advised to study - and understand - more basic subjects like the fundamentals of algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and classical physics before taking on the reading assignments your mentor has given you.

Reading the papers you've linked to only teaches me - and you - one thing: We both need to learn a lot more before we can seriously try to grasp what the authors of these papers are saying and why they're saying it.

Chris

 

[csmyth3025]

ramparts wrote:

"..."...The most recent observation shows that the central object [in the Milky Way] has about 3.7 million times the mass of our Sun (think about that for a second!), and a radius of no more than 6.25 light-hours..."

For the sake of keeping things in perspective, the constraining radius given above is about 45 AU (astronomical units). The orbit of Pluto (our recently demoted outermost planet) around the sun is elliptical - ranging from about 29 AU to about 49 AU. So we can all try to imagine how we could manage to cram 3,700,000 suns into a space no larger than our solar system - or at least what us old-timers thought was our solar system when we were in high school.

Now that would make for a really interesting computer simulation. I wonder how many months, weeks, days, or hours it would run before everything came crashing down on itself.

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello ramparts

I'm reading through the papers to become awear of the science and observations and the various alternatives.

The journey started years ago, to far gone to change. As for understanding my maths ain't so bad, but improving.

Hello Chris compact matter can be compacted into small areas.
Eg Neutron Star the same mass as the Sun can fit in a 10Km Dia,
a Quark Star with the same mass in a 3 m dia so to fit 3 Million Suns you can work out the size.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Forgot to post this link

Density Of Neutron Star
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AnthonyColgan.shtml

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas wrote:

"...Neutron Star the same mass as the Sun can fit in a 10Km Dia..."

Harry, I believe the reference you cited indicates a radius of 10 km. Regardless of the physical size of a neutron star, you have to remember that its gravitational effects are the same as our sun. It's the gravitational interaction of 3,700,000 solar masses within a space occupied by the solar system that makes such a system unstable (to put it mildly).

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Ding ding!

A neutron star with the mass of the Sun can be compacted that small - but a neutron star with 3.7 million solar masses?

Nuclear physics suggests that a neutron star more massive than about three times the mass of the Sun would collapse on itself anyway and form a black hole. This makes sense, since we've seen lots of neutron stars, but none more massive than a few times the mass of the Sun! It wouldn't be very difficult at all to see a 3.7 million mass neutron star if it were there...

 

[KickLaBuka]

but a neutron star with 3.7 million solar masses?

Oh now I get it. It makes perfect sense now. I was so foolish to think that binding charges had anything to do with it. I wasn't thinking about the 3,700,000 times the solar mass itself.

 

[KickLaBuka]

Nuclear physics suggests that a neutron star more massive than about three times the mass of the Sun would collapse on itself anyway and form a black hole.

OMG, that's ludicrus

 

[csmyth3025]

ramparts wrote:

"...Nuclear physics suggests that a neutron star more massive than about three times the mass of the Sun would collapse on itself..."

Assuming an average neutron star mass of about 2 solar masses, I was thinking of the dynamics of a collection of 1,850,000 neutron stars contained in a spherical region with a radius of 45 AU. It seems unlikely that such a large population of neutron stars would find themselves in such a small region (an understatement, I'm sure). Compounding this improbability, I'm guessing that there's no known mechanism whereby they could form stable orbits.

Given that the physical size of these objects is probably on the order of 20 km in diameter, they could be treated as a big bunch of asteroids. The problem arises from the fact that each one of these "asteroids" has the gravitational power of two of our suns.

This is just my guess - if anyone thinks this scenario possible, I'd be most interested to hear about it.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Yeah, that's not exactly the most plausible idea in the world It's very hard (by which I mean almost certainly impossible) to have that many neutron stars in the same area and not collide into each other. And plus if there were neutron stars there (much less a million or so), we'd see them!

 

[yevaud]

Nuclear physics suggests that a neutron star more massive than about three times the mass of the Sun would collapse on itself anyway and form a black hole.

OMG, that's ludicrus

Well, no it isn't. A Neutron Star has the mass of between 1.4 and 3 times the mass of our sun. Over that limit, even Neutron Degeneracy is insufficient to support it, and it collapses to a Singularity.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Chris said

Harry, I believe the reference you cited indicates a radius of 10 km. Regardless of the physical size of a neutron star, you have to remember that its gravitational effects are the same as our sun. It's the gravitational interaction of 3,700,000 solar masses within a space occupied by the solar system that makes such a system unstable (to put it mildly).

Your right the paper does state a 10Km radius and yet it falls short, I will discuss the quark formation in Neutron stars later that is part of the "pasta".

Is it unstable or is the stability in control?
Once the compact matter becomes a Nucleon it becomes one of the most stable matter in the universe. This type of matter is able to seed stars as stated by papers that I have been reading.

As for a singularity being formed, thats very theoretical. The question is, what stops a singularity forming. Could it be the repulsion of particles or could it be that no two particles can occupy the same space. The folowing paper is related to the singularity being avoided.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0826
On the black hole singularity issue in loop quantum gravity

Authors: A. DeBenedictis
(Submitted on 5 Jul 2009)

Abstract: This paper presents a brief overview on the issue of singularity resolution in loop quantum gravity presented at the Theory Canada IV conference at the Centre de Recherches Math\'{e}matiques at the Universit\'{e} de Montr\'{e}al (June 4-7, 2008). The intended audience is theoretical physicists who are non-specialist in the field and therefore much of the technical detail is omitted here. Instead, a brief review of loop quantum gravity is presented, followed by a survey of previous and current work on results concerning the resolution of the classical black hole singularity within loop quantum gravity.

 

[MeteorWayne]

harry from oz....how do you know it says that the singularity is avoided? The abstract states nothing like that.

I suspect you post links without reading or understanding them, since they often do not support what you allege they are saying.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0826
On the black hole singularity issue in loop quantum gravity

Singularity resolution
It has long been thought that any viable theory of quantum
gravity should eliminate the singularities predicted by the
classical theory. Specifically, the space-like singularities of
black hole physics and standard cosmology should be removed.
If a theory is successful in this endeavor, a natural
question to ask is what replaces the singularity? We will
briefly outline progress and results within loop quantum
gravity on this front here.
Given the complexity of the situation, studies are generally
carried out in symmetry reduced models. That is, one
2We are making an assumption here regarding how the spinnetwork
pierces the surface S. The general case yields eigenvalues
which are slightly more complicated than (11).
first imposes certain symmetries at the classical level and
then quantizes the symmetry reduced model in the hope
that the essential features of the full theory are retained.

Concluding remarks

We have briefly summarized here the status of black hole
singularity studies within loop quantum gravity. It should
be noted that at this stage it is not clear if the limitations
of the approximations above are serious enough to
disqualify all of the results. A discussion of the drawbacks
and strengths to various methods within the framework of
loop quantum cosmology may be found in the recent paper
[35]. However, it is encouraging that all the methods
indicate that the classical singularity is indeed avoided in
the evolution. One may say with some confidence that the
singularity may therefore be avoided within the full theory.
Future studies of interest would be to study other systems
which are singular in classical gravity as well as the
incorporation of higher order effects. Of particular interest
in all of these studies is what exactly replaces the classical
singularity. This is certainly one of the most engaging

 

[yevaud]

Er, Harry, LQG is itself highly speculative, so basing an objection about a fairly well-known physical process upon it is a bit of a stretch.

 

[noblackhole]

reply to ramparts (1 of 3)

ramparts: "noblackhole, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with you here. You claimed something, I responded to it. I would expect the same back. So tell me, in my last post, where the logic is wrong. For points outside (for example) the Sun, the stress-energy tensor is zero, so the Ricci tensor must be as well. What part of that is mistaken?"

Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter and hence no sources for a gravitational field. You ignore the claims of the relativists, cited and quoted in my previous post. Here again is what the astrophysical scientists claim. Einstein's field equations:

"...couple the gravitational field (contained in the curvature of spacetime) with its sources."
Foster, J., Nightingale, J. D. A short course in General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1995.

"Since gravitation is determined by the matter present, the same must then be postulated for geometry, too. The geometry of space is not given a priori, but is only determined by matter."
Pauli, W. The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981.

"In general relativity, the stress-energy or energy-momentum tensor T^a^b acts as the source of the gravitational field. It is related to the Einstein tensor and hence to the curvature of spacetime via the Einstein equation".
McMahon, D. Relativity Demystified, A Self-teaching guide; McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006

"Thus the equations of the gravitational field also contain the equations for the matter (material particles and electromagnetic fields) which produces this field."
Landau, L., Lifshitz, E. The Classical Theory of Fields, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, Massachusettes, 1951.

"Again, just as the electric field, for its part, depends upon the charges and is instrumental in producing mechanical interaction between the charges, so we must assume here that the metrical field (or, in mathematical language, the tensor with components g_{ik} is related to the material filling the world. ... we have, in following the ideas set out just above, to discover the invariant law of gravitation, according to which matter determines the components Gamma^a_{bi} of the gravitational field, and which replaces the Newtonian law of attraction in Einstein’s Theory."
Weyl, H. Space Time Matter, Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952.

Concerning the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" the astrophysical scientists also claim that the gravitational field "outside the body" is caused by that body; the very body they say is not present from the outset by virtue of their setting the energy-momentum tensor to zero (no source of a gravitational field).

"... the corresponding Newtonian potential is V = -MG/r, where M is the mass of the body producing the field, and G is the gravitational constant. ... we conclude that k = -2MG/c^2, and Schwarzschild's solution for the empty spacetime outside a spherical body of mass M is ..."
Foster, J., Nightingale, J. D. A short course in General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1995.

"... the constant of integration m that has appeared ... is just the mass of the central body that is producing the gravitational field."
Dirac, P. A. M. General Theory of Relativity. Princeton Landmarks in Physics Series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996.

"... the quantity m_o introduced by the equation m = km_o occurs as the field-producing mass in it; we call m the gravitational radius of the matter causing the disturbance of the field."
Weyl, H. Space Time Matter, Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1952.

Thus, the claim that Ric = 0 describes Einstein's gravitational field is inherently contradictory and so it is false, and so your argument is false, and also that of the astrophysical scientists. According to Einstein and his followers, matter is the cause of a gravitational field, and the matter causing Einstein's gravitational field must be described by an energy-momentum tensor. Setting the energy-momentum tensor to zero eliminates all sources and all matter by construction, as the astrophysical scientists themselves assert, and so the gravitational field "outside a body" (including a "Schwarzschild black hole) which the astrophysical scientists claim is caused by the mass of the body which the "outside" is outside, isn't in fact present, by their setting the energy-momentum tensor to zero (no sources, i.e. no causes; and no matter). There is not one shred of physical evidence to suggest that a gravitational field can be generated by anything other than matter. A spacetime that by construction contains no matter can't describe a gravitational field. Schwarzschild spacetime is such a spacetime. The curvature of Schwarzschild spacetime bears no relation to matter, since it contains none by construction, and so the curvature of Schwarzschild spacetime is not the manifestation of a gravitational field. Schwarzschild spacetime is a non-Euclidean geometry that is not flat, nothing more. Here yet gain is the claim of the astrophysical scientists:

"Black holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein’s field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of General Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC
Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre....of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy.pdf

In my previous post I cited Einstein and his followers further, on his Principle of Equivalence and laws of Special Relativity, but you have chosen to ignore that too; so I'll reiterate. According to Einstein and his followers, his Principle of Equivalence and his laws of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and such regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field:

"Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are then, with respect to K, free from acceleration. We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-ordinates K', uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K' all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations; with respect to K' they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were unaccelerated. Overlooking for the present the question as to the 'cause' of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us later, there is nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that is, the conception that K' is 'at rest' and a gravitational field is present we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an ‘allowable’ system of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present. The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of coordinates, K and K', we call the ‘principle of equivalence’; this principle is evidently intimately connected with the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other. In fact, through this conception we arrive at the unity of the nature of inertia and gravitation. For, according to our way of looking at it, the same masses may appear to be either under the action of inertia alone (with respect to K) or under the combined action of inertia and gravitation (with respect to K').

"Stated more exactly, there are finite regions, where, with respect to a suitably chosen space of reference, material particles move freely without acceleration, and in which the laws of special relativity, which have been developed above, hold with remarkable accuracy."
Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Science Paperbacks and Methuen & Co. Ltd., 56–57, 1967.

"We may incorporate these ideas into the principle of equivalence, which is this: In a freely falling (nonrotating) laboratory occupying a small region of spacetime, the laws of physics are the laws of special relativity.”
Foster, J., Nightingale, J. D. A short course in General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1995.

"We can think of the physical realization of the local coordinate system Ko in terms of a freely floating, sufficiently small, box which is not subjected to any external forces apart from gravity, and which is falling under the influence of the latter. ... It is evidently natural to assume that the special theory of relativity should remain valid in Ko ."
Pauli, W. The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981.

"General Relativity requires more than one free-float frame."
Taylor E. F. and Wheeler J. A. Exploring Black Holes — Introduction to General Relativity, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000 (in draft).

"Near every event in spacetime, in a sufficiently small neighborhood, in every freely falling reference frame all phenomena (including gravitational ones) are exactly as they are in the absence of external gravitational sources."
DICTIONARY OF GEOPHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, and ASTRONOMY, Edited by Richard A. Matzner, CRC
Press LLC,, Boca Raton, USA, 2001,
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre....of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy.pdf

Clearly, according to Einstein and his followers, neither the Principle of Equivalence nor the laws of Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter - the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses. Now Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Therefore Ric = 0 violates the physical conditions required for Einstein's gravitational field, and so it is inadmissible. Hence Schwarzschild spacetime does not describe Einstein's gravitational field and so your related arguments are fallacious, as are those of the astrophysical scientists.

 

[noblackhole]

reply to ramparts continued (2 of 3)

ramparts: "Also, please stop quoting books at me. Besides all the space it takes up, I've spent a lot of time studying GR myself, reading papers and working out problems, and I know very well everything you're quoting. Rather than pull quotes out of books, why not look at the math? Math is far clearer than words I presented you with a mathematical argument, now go ahead and use math to show me why it's wrong."

I will cite and quote what the astrophysical scientists claim. I won't permit you to dictate to me that I can't cite and quote sources. Anybody here can verify my citations by referring to the sources directly - that's why I give them. As for your mathematical argument, I have dealt with it above, and in my previous posts. Your argument is fallacious.

ramparts: "I just explained to you why that's not true - as I said above, please explain to me why the logic I used is wrong. This is very simple - when you're outside a distribution of matter, the stress-energy tensor at that point is zero. So, then, must the Ricci tensor."


I have dealt with this above, and in my previous posts. Your argument is fallacious. Ric = 0 is inadmissible.

ramparts, you quote me: "The astrophysical scientists nonetheless claim for the "Schwarzschild solution" that the gravitational field "outside a body" is caused by that body, which they have eliminated from the equations in the first place. There is no transformation of matter from Minkowski spacetime into Schwarzschild spacetime."

ramparts, you responded with this: "Well, no. Minkowski spacetime and Schwarzschild spacetimes are different things. That being said, Minkowski spacetime is asymptotically flat, meaning if you set the mass to zero, or take r to be very very large, it becomes Minkowski spacetime"

You are incorrect. The astrophysical scientists do claim that the "Schwarzschild" gravitational field is caused by the mass m they stick into it post hoc, as my citations and quotes from sources attest (see above and my previous posts). Also, I never claimed that Minkowski spacetime is not different to Schwarzschild spacetime. And there is in fact no transformation of matter from Minkowski spacetime into Schwarzschild spacetime. In other words, also in my previous post, Schwarzschild spacetime is not a generalisation of Special Relativity, contrary to what the astrophysical scientists would have us all believe. Schwarzschild spacetime is just a generalisation of Minkowski spacetime, nothing more. The appearance of mass in the "Schwarzschild solution" is effected by means of a post hoc insertion of Newton's expression for escape velocity. The remainder of your remarks are irrelevant to the points I made.

ramparts, your quote me: "Minkowski spacetime is not Special Relativity. Thus, when the astrophysical scientists get their line-element for Schwarzschild spacetime there is no matter present, so they simply stick in mass by using Newton's two-body relation for escape velocity in an alleged one-body situation (which is in fact a no-body situation). Schwarzschild spacetime is not a generalization of Special Relativity at all."

ramparts, you responded thus: "They don't use the escape velocity at all. They use the gravitational potential, which only requires one body to exist. You seem to be somewhat well-read in GR, which is great, so take a look at one of those books. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, at least make sure you know what was done. In the weak field limit, the time-time component of the metric is related to the gravitational potential, not the escape velocity."

You are incorrect. The astrophysical scientists do use Newton's two-body escape velocity relation in an alleged one-body problem (which is in fact a no-body problem). Consider the usual expression they use for "Schwarzschild's solution":

ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^(-1)dr^2 - r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 theta d phi^2).

In this expression the astrophysical magicians use sleight of hand, by having set c = 1 and G = 1, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, as in Minkowski spacetime, and G is Newton's universal gravitational constant. Now writing this expression explicitly in c and G gives

ds^2 = (c^2 - 2Gm/r)dt^2 - c^2(c^2 - 2Gm/r)^(-1)dr^2 - r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 theta d phi^2)

wherein m is the alleged mass causing the gravitational field "outside the body" of mass m. Newton's expression is immediately recognized, since 2Gm/r is the square of Newton's expression for escape velocity from a spherical mass m of radius r. It is from this expression that the astrophysical scientists claim the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum, c, by setting Newton's escape velocity to c, and hence at the radius of a sphere the surface of which they call the "event horizon" of their "Schwarzschild" black hole; the said radius they call the "Schwarzschild radius". Furthermore, your claim that Newton's potential requires only one body to exist is false. Newton's potential function is defined as the work done per unit mass against the gravitational field in moving from some radius r out to infinity:

potential function (r) = - integral ^(r)_(infinity) F/m dr = - GM/r

where F is Newton's force of gravitation between two bodies, of mass m and M respectively, separated by the distance r between their centers of gravity. Newton's gravitational field is defined in terms of two masses, F = GmM/r^2. Just because the resultant mathematical expression for Newtonian gravitational potential contains only one mass does not imply that only one mass exists. Similarly, Newton's expression for escape velocity contains only one mass, but it is still a two body relation: one body escapes from another body: and it too can't be derived without recourse to Newton's force of gravitation between two bodies, one way or another.

ramparts, your quote me: "But all alleged black hole solutions pertain to one mass in the entire universe. There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be claimed that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. So upon what solution to the field equations does Hawking rely for his claim. None! He just made it up, out of thin air - he's a magician. So is Einstein, who too talks of planetary motions around the sun in Schwarzschild spacetime in a gravitational field caused by the sun (see my previous post for Einstein's claims); but it's a spacetime which by construction contains no matter and has no gravitational sources."

ramparts, you responded thus: "It's definitely true that Einstein's equations haven't been (and prbably can't be) solved exactly for a two-body system. As I said in my last post, the Kerr metric is not perfect for describing spacetime around our Sun, because there's also gravity from other planets, other stars, galaxies, etc. But near the Sun, the Sun's gravity is the major contributor. At Alpha Centauri, that breaks down :lol:

"It's the same with Newtonian gravity. The Earth feels gravity from the moon, Mars, Venus, you, me, and everything else, but by far the strongest field it experiences is that of the Sun, so we can effectively ignore all the other contributions when, for example, solving the Earth's orbit."

Like the astrophysical magicians you use an analogy with Newton's theory. However, the analogy is false; entirely misleading. You talk of planets and stars outside the Sun in Kerr spacetime. But Kerr spacetime contains no other masses outside the Sun, by construction. There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be claimed that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All alleged black hole solutions pertain to one alleged mass in the entire Universe, by construction, and so there are no other masses in the Universe with which the black hole can interact. All claims for black hole interactions are fallacious. What then do the astrophysical scientists talk about when they claim discovery of black holes all over the place? There is no theory that predicts black holes in multitudes. In fact, there is no theory that predicts a black hole in a Universe that contains no other masses. Black holes are not in fact predicted by General Relativity or Newtonian gravitation. The theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton's theory is not a black hole. One cannot claim, by an analogy with Newton's theory, that black holes can exist in multitudes, collide or merge, be components of binary systems, or gobble up surrounding matter. The Principle of Superposition, which applies in Newton's theory, does not apply in General Relativity.

 

[noblackhole]

reply to ramparts (3 of 3)

ramparts: you quote me thus: "And like the astrophysical magicians ramparts you talk of r in the Schwarzschild spacetime as if it is radial distance, which you apply to the sun. But the irrefutable fact is that this r is not even a distance let alone a radial one in Schwarzschild spacetime. The "Schwarzschild radius" is therefore not the radius of anything in Schwarzschild spacetime. That is another fantasy pulled out of the magician's hat by the astrophysical scientists, using Newton's two-body expression for escape velocity."

ramparts, you responded with: "I think you're confusing r in a spherical coordinate system and the Schwarzschild radius. The r I talked about is a radial distance - it's a coordinate used to describe points in spacetime. Surely you'd agree we can do that, right? We can make a spherical coordinate system, and center it at the center of the Sun. The coordinate r is a point's distance from that origin. Nothing to do with the Schwarzschild radius."

I'm confusing nothing. The astrophysical scientists claim that the Schwarzschild radius is

r = sqrt(2GM/c^2)

by application of Newton's two-body relation in an alleged one-body problem (but which is by construction a no-body problem). They therefore clearly conceive of r in the "Schwarzschild solution" as the radius in Schwarzschild spacetime. You too claim that this r is radial distance by the same means. But you and the astrophysical scientists are wrong again. This "Schwarzschild" r is not even a distance in "Schwarzschild spacetime", let alone a radial one. It is a radius in Newton's expression for escape velocity. But Newton's two-body relation for escape velocity can't appear in an alleged one body problem (but which is actually a no-body problem). So this r is not a radial distance in Schwarzschild spacetime. The proof that "Schwarzschild" r is not even a distance, let alone the radial distance in Schwarzschild spacetime, is simple. Consider the spatial section of Schwarzschild spacetime (using c = 1 and G = 1):

ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)^(-1)dr^2 + r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 theta d phi^2).

When the curvilinear coordinates theta and phi are constants, this metric reduces to differential radial distance, thus:

ds = (1 - 2m/r)^(-1/2) dr

This is not r! Carrying out the integration, the result is not r! The astrophysical scientists don't even know what r is in the "Schwarzschild solution". Here are a few of their many and varied and incorrect notions of what "Schwarzschild" r is: its the radius; its the radial coordinate; the coordinate radius; the radial-space coordinate; the areal radius; the reduced circumference; the radius of a 2-sphere; the distance; a gauge choice that defines what r is. Since they don't even know the geometric identities of the mathematical entities they are talking about they don't know what they are talking about. Since this r is not even a distance let alone the radial distance in "Schwazschild space", what is it? To determine the geometric identity of r consider again the spatial section of "Schwarzschild" spacetime (again using c = 1 and G = 1):

ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)^(-1)dr^2 + r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 theta d phi^2).

Let r be constant. Then the metric reduces to

ds^2 = r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 theta d phi^2).

This is immediately recognized as the 1st fundamental form of a surface (and this surface is a spherical surface: why?). The variables are the curvilinear coordinates theta and phi; r is a constant. Consider the equation of the straight line: y = mx. Here m is a constant. The mathematicians say y here is a function of x. And the constant m is the slope or gradient of the straight line. Similarly, r in the foregoing surface has a definite geometric identity. Furthermore, the intrinsic geometry of a surface is entirely independent of any embedding space, and so r in the expression for surface in the spatial section of "Schwarzschild" spacetime maintains its geometric identity even when embedded in the higher dimensional "Schwarzschild" spacetime. Now what is a spherical surface? According to the mathematicians, a surface which has a constant positive Gaussian curvature is a spherical surface. Moreover, Gaussian curvature is an intrinsic property of a surface. In the case of a 2-D surface, such as the one above, the Gaussian curvature K is given by

K = R_(1212)/g

where R_(1212) is a component of the Riemann tensor of the first kind for the metric for the surface, and g is the determinant of the metric tensor. Applying this formula to the surface in the spatial section of "Schwarzschild spacetime" gives

K = 1/r^2.

This is positive and constant, and so the surface is spherical. Thus, r in "Schwarzschild" spacetime is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section. This is not a distance in the surface; it's a bending invariant. It's not a distance in "Schwarzschild spacetime" either, and so it's also not a radial distance, already proven above in the calculation of radial distance. So the astrophysical scientists are wrong about r and so are you. All their claims for black holes, their escape velocities and "Schwarzschild" radii, etc. etc, are claptrap. They don't know what the hell they are talking about. They arbitrarily stick in Newton's two-body escape velocity relation into the "Schwarzschild" solution, misinterpret the r of Newton's expression as radius in Schwarzschild spacetime, determine from it the "escape velocity" and the "Schwarzschild radius" of a black hole, in a spacetime that by construction contains no sources and no matter, in ignorance too of the true geometric identity of r in their "Schwarzschild" solution and of the actual radial distance in that spacetime. Furthermore, they are ignorant of the fundamental fact that their "Schwarzschild solution" is not even Schwarzschild's solution. Schwarzschild's actual solution is well-defined for 0 < r < infinity, and is singular only at r = 0. Schwarzschild's solution does not contain a black hole. Here is Schwarzschild's actual paper (English translation):

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

ramparts, you quote me: "The astrophysical magicians are up the creek without a paddle. They are talking nonsense. LIGO and LISA are destined to detect nothing - they've detected nothing. Gravity Probe B was destined to detect nothing - it detected nothing.

ramparts, you responded with: "Well, I would imagine LIGO and LISA haven't detected anything - LIGO's still collecting and analyzing data, and LISA hasn't even been built yet :lol: Meanwhile, I wonder if you have friends at Stanford who have told you that Gravity Probe B hasn't detected anything, since they're still analyzing the data over there

"Honestly, NBH, I'm puzzled as to why you're stuck on this black hole/vacuum thing. It's very easy to solve Einstein's equations in the presence of a matter distribution like the Sun's. Why would the "astrophysical magicians" set up some giant conspiracy to use invalid vacuum solutions when they can easily do what you claim is the right way?"

You are right about LISA - it's not yet built. But it is destined to detect nothing. LIGO has detected nothing - it is destined to detect nothing. NASA has canceled all further funding of Gravity Probe B. It is already known that the Lense-Thirring effect (so-called spacetime drag) was not detected by it. Gravity Probe B has no data - only noise. Gravity Probe B was destined to detect nothing (NASA wasted $750 M on it). There is no such thing as Einstein gravitational waves and no such thing as spacetime drag. Since Ric = 0 is inadmissible, Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so are in conflict with the experimental evidence on a deeper level. Einstein's pseudo-tensor, which he made up out of thin air in order to save his theory from this catastrophe, is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols because it implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant (i.e. an invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives); but such invariants do not exist! (See my previous posts).

 

[ramparts]

Alright, let's take this one topic at a time. Noblackholes, for the last time:

The Ricci tensor and the stress-energy tensor are defined at each point in spacetime. So at a point where there is no matter, the stress-energy tensor is zero. At a point where there is matter, the stress-energy tensor is something besides 0.

Here's my question to you: if you disagree with what I just said, then what should the stress-energy tensor be at a point where there's no matter? Say you're floating around the Sun, and you're 1 million km from the Sun's surface. There isn't any matter where you are, but obviously there's a gravitational field. What values should the stress-energy tensor take there?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day yevaud

Your right about the link and yet all information about Black holes fall into the same.

Trying to understand what other scientists think may give us some idea of the options. Many papers talk about transients and yet most do not show the actual mechanism in how matter transcends down from normal matter to Neutrons to quark composites and so on to Neutrino matter.

Could the Quark pasta be the final state or are we looking for Neutrino matter or some form of preonparticle matter. Or could all these phases play a part in the mimic of black holes with the ability to prevent EMR from escaping and also have the ability to form jets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1929
QCD against black holes?

Authors: Ilya I. Royzen
(Submitted on 10 Jun 2009)

Abstract: Along with compacting baryon (neutron) spacing, two very important factors come into play at once: the lack of self-stabilization within a compact neutron star (NS) associated with possible black hole (BH) horizon appearance and the phase transition - color deconfinement and QCD-vacuum reconstruction - within the nuclear matter. That is why both phenomena should be taken into account side by side, as the gravitational collapse is considered. Since, under the above transition, the hadronic-phase vacuum (filled up with gluon and chiral $q\bar q$-condensates) turns into the "empty" (perturbation) subhadronic-phase one and, thus, the corresponding (very high) pressure falls down rather abruptly, the formerly cold (degenerated) nuclear medium starts to implode into the new vacuum. If the mass of a star is sufficiently large, then this implosion produces an enormous heating, which stops only after quark-gluon plasma of a temperature about 100 MeV (or even higher) is formed to withstand the gravitational compression (whereas the highest temperatures of supernovae bursts are, at least, one order lower). As a consequence, a "burning wall" must be, most probably, erected on the way of further collapsing the matter towards a black hole formation.

 

[ramparts]

Harry, how many of the terms in that abstract do you even understand? There's nothing wrong with saying "very few" - there's quite a lot there I've never heard of myself. Here's a few:

compacting baryon (neutron) spacing, color deconfinement, QCD-vacuum reconstruction, hadronic-phase vacuum, gluon and chiral $q\bar q$-condensates, the "empty" (perturbation) subhadronic-phase one, quark-gluon plasma

But if you don't really understand what's happening in the abstract, imagine how difficult it will be to get the full significance of the paper - or more important, how difficult it will be to judge its merits.

As I've said before, I recommend you spend less time on the arXiv, and more time doing reading geared towards non-scientists that will be very interesting and far more informative - but that's just my advice, take it or leave it

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

The problem is that I do understand what they are saying. Whether I agree with them is another issue.

I have been studying compact matter for the last few years and it getting better and better.

Please do not assume what people know and what they do know.

Those words may look complicated and yet they are simple.

 

[ramparts]

Apologies if I'm mistaking your background, Harry I'm just basing my conclusions on your previous posts. But I could, of course, be wrong - I frequently am :lol: Again, take my advice above for what it is.