Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

Its OK I get worse then that, remember I suffer from dislexia, so it may seem that I'm here and there times.

Keep smiling I do not get offended.

As for the links, my main aim is to understand the possible phases of matter and how they trenscend and find the ulltimate state.

So, I keep reading and I find that we are years away from understanding, the main aim is to keep on looking.

These links that I read does not mean they are correct one way or the next, but it allows us to get a GIST of what the heck is going on.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4065
Quark Phase Transition Parameters and $\delta$-Meson Field in RMF Theory
Authors: G.B. Alaverdyan
(Submitted on 23 Jul 2009)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3075
A new possible quark-hadron mixed phase in protoneutron stars
Authors: G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, J. Schaffner-Bielich
(Submitted on 17 Jul 2009)

I'm aiming to understand and if it takes me another few more years so be it. I'm just lucky there are people helping me along.

 

[noblackhole]

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?

Now you're getting snotty-nosed with your nonsense ramparts. There is no matter in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. So there is nothing that can float around the "Sun", and there is no Sun, in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. You claim there is no matter where you are, floating around the Sun. That's nonsense, unless you're a magician, with a magic wand, because you're composed of matter. Anything that float's around the Sun is composed of matter. But such floating matter can't be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter; that's precisely what the astrophysical magicians claim; as my citations and quotations of their writings irrefutably attest (which you choose to ignore). Neither the Principle of Equivalence nor the laws of Special Relativity can manifest outside a "Sun" in the spacetime of Ric = 0 since there is no matter in the spacetime "outside" such a "Sun" (Ric = 0); the Principle of Equivalence and the laws of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses according to Einstein and his followers (see my previous citations and quotations - which you choose to ignore). Einstein and his followers maintain that the Principle of Equivalence and the laws of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field (again see my previous citations and quotations - which you choose to ignore). What causes the gravitational field "outside" a Sun "in" the spacetime of Ric = 0 where there is no matter? According to the astrophysical magicians, the Sun! And so that Sun, the cause of the gravitational field "outside" that Sun, must be described by an energy-momentum tensor, as the astrophysical magicians all claim; they claim that Einstein's field equations couple the gravitational field to its sources: I have cited and quoted them, so there is no doubt as to their claims (but you choose to ignore my citations and quotations). Schwarzschild spacetime contains no matter, because Ric = 0 contains no matter. There is no matter where the energy-momentum tensor is zero, and it is zero everywhere in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and there is no gravitational field in a spacetime that contains no material sources for a gravitational field. Spacetime and matter are causally linked in General Relativity - they do not exist as independent entities in Einstein's theory. The curvature of Schwarzschild spacetime bears no relation to a gravitational field, because it is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (and hence no sources either). Provide a proof that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Provide a proof that a gravitational field is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no material sources for a gravitational field.

Now, go and carefully study all of my three replies to you. You've made very many demonstrably false claims.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

This link gives us an important mechanism in the transition from Hadron to quark matter.

We know that magnetic reconnection of the magnetic fields create these collision extremely quick and the end result a more compact matter.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4843
A Summary of Bulk Dynamics from Quark Matter 2009

Authors: Derek Teaney
(Submitted on 28 Jul 2009)

Abstract: I review the recent progress in measuring elliptic flow in heavy ion collisions. These measurements show clearly how hydrodynamics starts to develop as the system size is increased from peripheral to central collisions. During this transition, the momentum range described by hydrodynamics increases as the system progresses from a kinetic to a hydrodynamic regime. Many of the systematic deviations from ideal hydrodynamics are reproduced effortlessly once the shear viscosity is included. In order to extract the shear viscosity from the data, kinetic theory can be used to determine which aspects of the elliptic flow reflect the details of the microscopic interactions, and which aspects reflect the underlying transport coefficients. I also review the identified hadron elliptic flow and the predictions of hydrodynamics for the LHC.

 

[yevaud]

/Mod Hat On

Noblackhole, cease commentary to other posters such as "snotty-nosed," etc. We do not tolerate this here.

/Mod Hat Off

 

[KickLaBuka]

magnetic reconnection

this is a contradiction of the divergence theorem. What you see pinched along magnetic field lines is the plasma, which may connect or disconnect. But the magnetic field holding that stuff does not. In fact, no scientist who discovered magnetic fields would dare such a fallacy.

 

[ramparts]

Now you're getting snotty-nosed with your nonsense ramparts.

There is no matter in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. So there is nothing that can float around the "Sun", and there is no Sun, in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. You claim there is no matter where you are, floating around the Sun. That's nonsense, unless you're a magician, with a magic wand, because you're composed of matter. Anything that float's around the Sun is composed of matter. But such floating matter can't be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter; that's precisely what the astrophysical magicians claim; as my citations and quotations of their writings irrefutably attest (which you choose to ignore).

You have made these same claims for post after post now, and every time I try to explain why that's wrong, you just repeat the above. What I "ignored" was quotes from books; but the things scientists say about GR aren't what define the theory, the math is. The quotes are just how the math is communicated to others. What do those quotes matter? I know plenty about GR myself, so I can discuss it on its own merits. But wait - read on till the end, and I might satisfy you... for the sake of a good-faith discussion

What causes the gravitational field "outside" a Sun "in" the spacetime of Ric = 0 where there is no matter? According to the astrophysical magicians, the Sun! And so that Sun, the cause of the gravitational field "outside" that Sun, must be described by an energy-momentum tensor, as the astrophysical magicians all claim; they claim that Einstein's field equations couple the gravitational field to its sources: I have cited and quoted them, so there is no doubt as to their claims (but you choose to ignore my citations and quotations). Schwarzschild spacetime contains no matter, because Ric = 0 contains no matter. There is no matter where the energy-momentum tensor is zero, and it is zero everywhere in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and there is no gravitational field in a spacetime that contains no material sources for a gravitational field. Spacetime and matter are causally linked in General Relativity - they do not exist as independent entities in Einstein's theory. The curvature of Schwarzschild spacetime bears no relation to a gravitational field, because it is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (and hence no sources either).

You keep making these claims that there should be a stress-energy tensor in the Schwarzschild solution. What would that stress-energy tensor be?

Provide a proof that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Provide a proof that a gravitational field is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no material sources for a gravitational field.

Nothing ever gets proven in science. Putting the mass term into the Schwarzschild solution was a conjecture, but a well-motivated one, and one that has seemed to work. If you're looking for proofs anywhere in physics, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

-----------

Now, let's be civil about this. I know you think I ignored you because I haven't responded in detail to every quotation you've thrown at me, and some of the other arguments you've made, and by the same token you should recognize that I've asked some very legitimate questions which you haven't answered. The reason I haven't responded to your other points is that it took you three posts to make them, my full response would be at least three posts, and it seems silly to me to spend three, four, five posts each in responses, all of different questions. I don't want to spend my time that way.

So here's what I propose: let's take this one thing at a time, and then I promise you, I will in due time respond to every point you made, and we can have some hopefully very fruitful discussion.

You've said the same things over and over again, and they haven't convinced me, since I disagree about the interpretation of the math, so here's a very simple question to get us past the blockage: assume in a simplified system, we're orbiting the Sun. "We" are a very small test particle, and we can ignore the contributions of the other planets, etc., since we're close to the Sun and it's the dominant mass. You claim the Ricci tensor here shouldn't be 0, so the stress-energy tensor shouldn't be 0 either. So what should the stress-energy tensor be? The stress-energy tensor basically encodes pressure and density. What pressure and density do we use? The Sun's? The test particle's?

If you answer that question civilly and thoroughly, then I promise you this debate will continue for a long time and I will respond to a question of yours in turn. But if you won't even answer that important question (which I need so I can understand how you think the problem should be solved), then frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[csmyth3025]

noblackhole,

It's obvious that you've spent a great deal of time and effort responding to ramparts. I have no idea what the blazes your talking about.

I take it you think General Relativity is garbage and that there are no such things as black holes. That's okay by me. For the less sophisticated participants in this thread - such as myself - perhaps you and ramparts can ratchet your public disagreement down to a simpler level.

To start with, if you think General Relativity should be thrown out, are you proposing that we return to classical Newtonian physics?

Leaving aside the general conspiracy theory aspect of your argument, do you believe the observations reported for the orbital characteristics of the half dozen stars (+/-) orbiting close in to the central massive object in the Milky way?

Finally, do you feel there is an upper limit to how massive and dense an astronomical object can get? I've read reports in Space.com of stars that are believed to be in excess of 100 solar masses. I've also read reports of compact objects believed to be "white dwarfs" that are estimated to be up to about 1.4 solar masses and other compact objects believed to be "neutron stars" that are estimated to be 2-3 solar masses. There are published reports that seem to have some rather well developed ideas about the structure of these stars and compact objects. Do you believe any of these reports?

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Sorry Chris! The discussion NBH and I are having is a pretty heavily mathematical one, and the only way for us to try to resolve it is by digging into the mathematics. But for the audience...

In Einstein's equations, there are two components - the Ricci tensor, a mathematical object describing the curvature of spacetime, and the stress-energy tensor, a mathematical object that describes a distribution of mass and energy. Both of these things have different values at every point in spacetime - so for example, if you're inside the Sun or the Earth, the stress-energy tensor tells you about the matter at that point. If you're in the vacuum of space, the stress-energy tensor is zero, since space is a vacuum (more or less - there's always radiation). Einstein's equation relates these two to each other.

Some of the simpler and more famous solutions to these equations are vacuum solutions - that is, solutions where the stress-energy tensor is set to zero. That means the Ricci tensor (which describes the curvature) is also zero - but that doesn't mean there's no curvature! In fact, the black hole solutions are all vacuum solutions, and they have lots of interesting curvature and features like event horizons. When solving these vacuum equations, you get some constants which determine the curvature of the space, and it's relatively straightforward to show that these constants boil down to familiar things - in this case, the gravitational potential. Why? Because if Einstein's equations are right, then that's what these constants have to be in order to match up with Newtonian mechanics. If Einstein's equations are wrong, then we have much bigger problems than the vacuum solutions

It's these vacuum solutions that NBH disagrees with - he thinks that a vacuum solution means there's no matter anywhere in spacetime. The point I'm making is that he's just misunderstanding the equations - since the stress-energy tensor and Ricci tensors have different values at different points, a vacuum solution means there's no matter at certain points in spacetime. So a vacuum solution can more or less describe the Sun's gravity, but only where there's no matter - so it doesn't work for the interior of the Sun, it doesn't work for the interior of Mercury (although there Mercury's gravity dominates anyway), etc. That's our disagreement.

Now my question to him (to which I'm still waiting for an answer) is this: he thinks vacuum solutions (Ric = 0, as he calls them, to mean the Ricci tensor is 0) mean there's no matter anywhere - in other words, he thinks that the stress-energy tensor at a given point should include the effect of matter from other places. I don't know how that would work, because that's not how the stress-energy tensor is defined, but if he wants to ignore the way the math is defined, good for him :lol: So that's where we're at, that's the sticking point: if he thinks the vacuum solution is wrong, then what should the stress-energy tensor be equal to at points where there's no matter?

 

[dangineer]

noblackhole,

I really don't understand why you are having such an issue over the way the Schwartzchild Solution is formulated. It's formulated essentially the same way that the electric field is formulated for electric charges -

When calculating the electric field around a point charge, you take Maxwell's equations in a vacuum and apply them around the point charge. You could use a charged sphere if you want to as well, but the result is the same. The resulting equation gives you the field strength in the vacuum outside of the charge, but doesn't give you the field inside the charge, as that would take a different approach. In fact, the field inside a uniformly charged sphere is very different from that outside the sphere - inside the field strength drops linearly and outside it drops inverse to r^2.

Now granted, the Einstein field equations (EFEs) give you spacetime curvatures and not fields in flat space, but the approach is the same. You must use a vacuum solution to describe the spacetime geometry outside of the planet or star or whatever, because there is no matter there. But you still attribute that curvature to the mass of the object.

Check out this website: http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/ ... Sec14.html

It has a very good derivation of the EFEs both inside the star and outside the star.

"There is no matter in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter."

Yes, but the spacetime that is being constructed is being affected by matter that is not in that spacetime! Like I said, you are constructing a solution in a region that does not contain the matter. You can also find a solution in a region that does contain matter if you want (see above).

Now with regards to all the quotes you posted about the equivalence principle, every single one of them basically state that in regions with sufficiently small curvature, the EFEs manifest themselves as the equations of Special Relativity - okay, nothing new. I don't see a problem with that, in fact that should be expected.

I would think that a gaff as big as you are claiming would have been noticed by the thousands of people who have studied GR.

 

[ramparts]

Such a gaffe would certainly have been noticed - I think NBH's claim is that the scientists (the "astrophysical magicians", as he calls us) know this and ignore it, for the reasons of some ill-defined conspiracy. Of course, as any of the books he's quoted show, it's perfectly simple for us to solve the EFE's in the presence of a stress-energy tensor like a perfect fluid, which works fine for most astrophysical sources. So I suppose NBH's claim is that this conspiracy is trying to not do something even though it would be very easy for us to do it, for absolutely no purpose. Hmm...

 

[dangineer]

"Neither the Principle of Equivalence nor the laws of Special Relativity can manifest outside a "Sun" in the spacetime of Ric = 0 since there is no matter in the spacetime "outside" such a "Sun" (Ric = 0); the Principle of Equivalence and the laws of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses according to Einstein and his followers"

I really don't understand this statement. The Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity are defined and used in spacetimes that contain very little mass and no acceleration. Your statement above seems to be trying to say the opposite. Special Relativity has equations for mass and energy, but they only apply when that energy isn't enough to generate a significant gravitational field.

 

[dangineer]

"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."

Hmmm... Interesting. So for ever higher chosen values of r, the curvature seems to decrease, exactly the same way as when you increase the radius of a sphere, its curvature also decreases. I wonder why that is?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I'm just sitting on the fence reading Ramparts and noblackhole, very interesting.

Kicklabuka said:

this is a contradiction of the divergence theorem. What you see pinched along magnetic field lines is the plasma, which may connect or disconnect. But the magnetic field holding that stuff does not. In fact, no scientist who discovered magnetic fields would dare such a fallacy.

Mate you may be right, can you explain a bit further.
You may also need to reed these links:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare

Authors: N.S. Meshalkina, A.M. Uralov, V.V. Grechnev, A.T. Altyntsev, L.K. Kashapova
(Submitted on 4 Aug 2009)

Abstract: The goal of this paper is to understand the drivers, configurations, and scenarios of two similar eruptive events, which occurred in the same solar active region 9973 on 2002 June 1 and 2. The June 2 event was previously studied by Sui, Holman, and Dennis (2006, 2008), who concluded that it was challenging for popular flare models. Using multi-spectral data, we analyze a combination of the two events. Each of the events exhibited an evolving cusp-like feature. We have revealed that these apparent ``cusps'' were most likely mimicked by twisted magnetic flux ropes, but unlikely to be related to the inverted Y-like magnetic configuration in the standard flare model. The ropes originated inside a funnel-like magnetic domain whose base was bounded by an EUV ring structure, and the top was associated with a coronal null point. The ropes appear to be the major drivers for the events, but their rise was not triggered by reconnection in the coronal null point. We propose a scenario and a three-dimensional scheme for these events in which the filament eruptions and flares were caused by interaction of the ropes.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0487
Successive Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections on 2005 September 13 from Noaa Ar 10808

Authors: Chang Liu, Jeongwoo Lee, Marian Karlicky, Debi Prasad Choudhary, Na Deng, Haimin Wang
(Submitted on 4 Aug 2009)

Abstract: We present a multiwavelength study of the 2005 September 13 eruption from NOAA 10808 that produced total four flares and two fast coronal mass ejections (CMEs) within 1.5 hours. Our primary attention is paid to the fact that these eruptions occurred in close succession in time, and that all of them were located along an S-shaped magnetic polarity inversion line (PIL) of the active region. In our analysis, (1) the disturbance created by the first flare propagated southward along the PIL to cause a major filament eruption that led to the first CME and the associated second flare underneath. (2) The first CME partially removed the overlying magnetic fields over the northern Delta spot to allow the third flare and the second CME. (3) The ribbon separation during the fourth flare would indicate reclosing of the overlying field lines opened by the second CME. It is thus concluded that this series of flares and CMEs are interrelated to each other via magnetic reconnections between the expanding magnetic structure and the nearby magnetic fields. These results complement previous works made on this event with the suggested causal relationship among the successive eruptions.

 

[harrycostas]

Giday from the land of ozzz

Another link on magnetic reconnection:

Look I'm just sharing the papers that I read, that does not mean I agree with them. But! it's good to be awear of what people are working on. The main magnetic reconnection that I'm interested in is in the core of the Sun in it's probable play in the main dipolar jets produced periodically.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3968
Reconnection Electric Field and Hardness of X-Ray Emission of Solar Flares

Authors: Chang Liu, Haimin Wang
(Submitted on 23 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Magnetic reconnection is believed to be the prime mechanism to trigger solar flares and accelerate electrons up to energies of MeV. In the classical two-dimensional reconnection model, the separation motion of chromospheric ribbons manifests the successive reconnection that takes place higher up in the corona. Meanwhile, downward traveling energetic electrons bombard the dense chromosphere and create hard X-ray (HXR) emissions, which provide a valuable diagnostic of electron acceleration. Analyses of ribbon dynamics and HXR spectrum have been carried out separately. In this Letter, we report a study of the comparison of reconnection electric field measured from ribbon motion and hardness (spectral index) of X-ray emission derived from X-ray spectrum. Our survey of the maximum average reconnection electric field and the minimum overall spectral index for 13 two-ribbon flares show that they are strongly anti-correlated. The former is also strongly correlated with flare magnitude measured using the peak flux of soft X-ray emissions. These provide strong support for electron acceleration models based on the electric field generated at reconnecting current sheet during flares.

 

[ramparts]

The Sun produces dipolar jets?

 

[vividasday]

An alternative view...my view. Where there are holes - there are passages. An opening to a cooler place gives a new source of flow.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Vivivasday

You are saying something in line with convection currents create by a change in temp/pressure, from low to high and so on.

or

????

 

[vividasday]

I imagine pressure or maybe even force will lead to the easiest entry...yes.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

There are many may "bees".

One that comes to mine is a potential difference in charge thus creating an electric field from two points.

Once a manetic field is created than it is able to transport radiation and so on.

 

[ramparts]

I imagine pressure or maybe even force will lead to the easiest entry...yes.

You should know pressure and force are the same thing - pressure is force applied over an area. Just sayin'

 

[vividasday]

Fair enough. The two then have a direct link into an opening and expand.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

On the same topic this paper is quite interesting. Sorry for posting links, some people do not like it.
The process can explain a recycling process for matter changing from one phase to the next.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0206
Major Surge Activity of Super-Active Region NOAA 10484

Authors: W. Uddin, P. Kumar, A.K. Srivastava, R. Chandra
(Submitted on 2 Mar 2009)

Abstract: We observed two surges in H-alpha from the super-active region NOAA 10484. The first surge was associated with an SF/C4.3 class flare. The second one was a major surge associated with a SF/C3.9 flare. This surge was also observed with SOHO/EIT in 195 angstrom and NoRh in 17 GHz, and showed similar evolution in these wavelengths. The major surge had an ejective funnel-shaped spray structure with fast expansion in linear (about 1.2 x 10^5 km) and angular (about 65 deg) size during its maximum phase. The mass motion of the surge was along open magnetic field lines, with average velocity about 100 km/s. The de-twisting motion of the surge reveals relaxation of sheared and twisted magnetic flux. The SOHO/MDI magnetograms reveal that the surges occurred at the site of companion sunspots where positive flux emerged, converged, and canceled against surrounding field of opposite polarity. Our observations support magnetic reconnection models for the surges and jets.

 

[yevaud]

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.

That is not true. Gravity Probe B did, in fact, detect both frame-dragging and Geodetic effects in close conformance with theory. I don't know where or who you got that it failed from, but whomsoever they are, they're simply wrong.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

On the same topic this paper is quite interesting. Sorry for posting links, some people do not like it.

We have no problems with you posting links - we only have a problem when you don't explain why you are posting them, what their conclusions are, and what those conclusions have to do with the topic we are discussing.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speed freek

I do not mine sharing the reading I do.

But! If I have to spend time away from my reading to the explain every paper. The number of papers that I read are countless, some are quite interesting and others that I do not agree with I still post, because they are main stream thinking and I think they are good reading.

So! That means I will not post any papers.

Do not get me wrong, I respect your opinion.