Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Deist Objectivist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Before this gets dumped in the trash, my "Topic Title" is not a contradiction and if you read you will understand why.  I have been an objectivist for years and followed reason to places few dare to go.  When the first "Black Hole War" ended few realized another had begun.  Now "Black Hole War 2: The Revenge of the Machnist" is on.  The following argument is the least philosophically offensive version I have available.   I would gladly debate my position, answer questions, or hear disagreements.  If you disagree, please stick to the higher forms of disagreement as they appear on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

 

History has proven that one of the great hubris’s of mankind has been consensus based on assumptions.  There is one consensus based on assumption that I am now going to now challenge.

Currently there is a scientific consensus that black holes must preserve physical information in their horizons somehow. "Physical information" is referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators via some as yet undiscovered form of quantum gravity.

 

Even without a formal theory of quantum gravity, there is a huge problem looming even if we did have one. If black holes preserve information in their horizons it would be in a constant state of change. Material is constantly being added to a black hole so the horizon would always be preserving new physical information over time. Meaning all black hole horizons are utterly unique entities based on the black holes mass.

 

In this case there are 2 possibilities with regard to theoretical black hole coalescence events or merger attempts. Either, we must discover a way to describe quantum gravity then use that theory to mathematically explain how the constantly changing horizons of 2 black holes can scramble unique physical information preserved in their respective horizons. Then mathematically explain how the new black hole somehow sorts this out later after the coalescence event. (Intuition suggests this to be an utterly irrational and seemingly impossible event. Which I refer to as "Black Hole Merger Paradox" or "Black Hole Merger Problem")

 

OR

 

Black Holes can never merge. Binary black holes must surrender mass before their unique horizons can interact. This implies a form of synthesis by an unknown process to preserve the unique quantum evolution operators being maintained in each black holes respective horizons. Singulosynthesis: Is a deterministic process by which binary black holes must synthesize each other based on their mass to preserve the physical information in their unique horizons at the expense of time. (My leading suspicion is this occurs at the relativistic velocity of C in the binary black hole system). What might synthesizing black hole synthesize you might ask? Well... what elements on the periodic table have no definitive method for creating them? Big hint here... the first 4.

 

So hang on just a second... If this implies how the universe began... How can we reconstruct and mathematically describe the process that created the universe? Black hole mergers still occur thankfully, albeit on a less frequent basis. This event is on the very edge of our perception right now. We must observe some unique patterns in gravitational waves (which have not yet been detected), I have four possible patterns in mind right now. They are unique patterns in the sense that nobody has thought of them and therefore nobody has bothered looking for them. Once these unique generic patterns can be located, we can focus our observations at pinning down the true signature of a synthesizing black hole precisely. This will reveal the mass loss rate of a binary black hole during Singulosynthesis.

 

With that information in hand we can then simulate the true sub Planck environment of a black hole, establish a quantum theory of general relativity, amend the second law of thermal dynamics, and figure out a great deal more. Otherwise the universe is inherently irrational.

 

Unfortunately, Houston has a problem. Right now gravitational interferometers are using exact predetermined theoretic gravitational wave signatures to hunt for patterns in the observed data. Patterns based on the assumption that black holes do indeed coalesce. My idea requires the opposite method to be detected.

 

The gravitational waves I seek must be observed then quantified. However all may be good... if I am right, black holes will likely be found using the predetermined theoretical match pairing signature method. If they are found, I predict they will deviate from their expected behavior drastically at some point. It will be important to not lose track of them when they do.

 

In the long version of my argument I make it clearer that either God exists or we exist in a simulation, since the process I am advocating for can only be simulated due to limits of our perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

---------

 

In the long version of my argument I make it clearer that either God exists or we exist in a simulation, since the process I am advocating for can only be simulated due to limits of our perception.

The existence of entities is not deduced without evidence.  You offer a false alternative.  "Limits of perception"?  How are you going to evaluate your simulation?  How did you grasp your current knowledge?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existence of entities is not deduced without evidence.  You offer a false alternative.  "Limits of perception"?  How are you going to evaluate your simulation?  How did you grasp your current knowledge?  

I will answer these last to first and thank you for your response.

 

How did I grasp my current knowledge?  In the purest sense I never stopped questioning everything at every level with the realization that contradictions do not exist.  When I considered that black hole horizons must have unique identities based on their ever changing mass, it seemed to me that the idea of black hole coalescence was fundamentally contradictory event assumed to occur.  This was considered in conjunction with many astronomical paradoxes, cosmological paradox's, incomplete theories, and the glaring contradiction of a universe capable of producing life being itself condemned to a fate of ever increasing entropy.

 

How am I going to evaluate my simulation?  Ideally I would need to scale it so that I could simulate myself in order for it to be perfect.  Short of that, there are many steps that need to be taken.  Simulating a minimal mass black hole failure event would reveal the deterministic process.  I am still working on the boundaries and strategy for doing this.  Due to it being deterministic it must be reversible.  While I have 2 black holes, some known outputs, some failure thresholds, I do not have the mass loss rate nor entropy structure.  With the mass loss rate I will be possible to ascertain the true mass density of a black hole.  While they all look infinite to us, they do to each other.  Once a simulation of mass loss is achieved theoretical entropy structures will be added.  Once the simulation runs out of entropy synthesizing new material something extraordinary may or may not occur.   With the deterministic process in hand a more complete star formation theory can be achieved.  This should ideally still be deterministic.   Once when the second generation black holes form, they repeat the process, and begin recycling entropy that things get interesting.  As the simulation improves we should be able to compare it more to what we observe.  The Theory of Cosmic Respiration will be vindicated from both ends.

 

"Limits of perception"?  Well... I suppose it is not limited by my perception to conceive of the idea using reason.  I was speaking to a more interpersonal level... say you are orbiting a black hole and I dive in that puppy with my space suit on.  I cannot exactly communicate to you what my experience is due to the limits of reference frames.  You could come see for yourself if you wish.  I have also argued the process also precedes our concept of space time reality.  Cosmological singularities suffer from this same perception problem, but my process is unique in that I argue it is still occurring.

 

You offer a false alternative. If a simulation can be made proving reasonably accurate it would be your choice to deny reality if you so choose.  Otherwise you will be left with the following choices.  The universe as we conceive of it was created by a malevolent programmer that forces us to experience unnecessary pain.  The alternative is a deity that must allow unnecessary pain as a price for free will.  Or the universe is inherently irrational.

 

The existence of entities is not deduced without evidence.  When I produce the structure of the entropy of a failing black hole you will have your evidence and much more.  I actually may have had a break through yesterday but I am still working on it.  It is regarding low or no afterglow gamma ray bursts.  Any guess why you think I would be interested in those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"History has proven that one of the great hubris’s of mankind has been consensus based on assumptions.  There is one consensus based on assumption that I am now going to now challenge.

Currently there is a scientific consensus that black holes must preserve physical information in their horizons somehow. "

Wait, hang on there. I don't know much of the details about this off the top of my head, but I'm positive I've seen something before which said that Steven Hawking had for a long time said that the black holes did get rid of the information and this was pretty widely accepted. It was only after a long and contentious sort of debate with some other guy (I forget his name, sorry) a couple decades back over a long time that eventually Hawking and others were convinced that the information wasn't lost like that. So, it doesn't sound like this current scientific concensus is the result of failure to carefully examine the subject or consider alternatives. (There was an episode of Through The Wormhole on the science channel I saw this on. It's been a little while though, so I forget which episode it was exactly.)

 

"'Physical information' is referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators . . . "

K, you lost me here. D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive you are referring to Leonard Susskind of Stanford University (His free lectures on youtube are quite excellent) and the original black hole war.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

The problem is, if you rationally solve the original information paradox, you create another that nobody has considered.  Old sytle Hawking black hole mergers were really no big deal since they destroyed information.  The assumption that they can merge without consequences has carried forward into the new black hole paradigm which includes information conservation.  I would like to point out that under "Main approaches to the solution of the paradox" does not list my proposed solution.  That being, "information is preserved only to be reassigned later".

 

 

"'Physical information' is referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators . . . "

K, you lost me here. D:

 

In the black hole merger paradox link I listed above, refer to "Priinciples in action".  It will link to information to better your understanding.  I  need to get to work.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the guy! :D I just looked his name up and it was this episode of Through the Wormhole. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1669757/ It looks like the episode was from 2010, one of the really early ones. No wonder I couldn't remember the guy's name from watching the episode. I haven't heard it referred to as the "black hole war" before as far as I can recall. Now I know what you meant by the "black hole war" too at least. Hooray for information.

 

I'll see if I can get around to that link later. As a general rule, in discussions of math and science on this board I really wish people would always include definitions for any terms that the average American public school student wouldn't have heard of by middle school. (I would say "by high school", but by the time high school comes, people can take several different math and science classes, so things some people have heard of by then others haven't still.) I say this because, in my experience, when somebody will send me a link to explain what something means, that link then requires following more and more and more links to explain more and more unfamiliar terms used in those definitions. It could take me days or more trying to get to the bottom of what one word means due to all the unfamiliar terms in linked explanations while somebody else here who was familiar with it could probably have explained it without the special terms in a few minutes. :worry:

 

As an aside mostly though, you said, "Before this gets dumped in the trash, my 'Topic Title' is not a contradiction . . ." It *is* a contradiction though because atheism is part of the identity of Objectivism. That doesn't all on its own mean atheism is correct/theism is incorrect, but "Objectivism" is the name for a specific set of philosophic ideas, notions, principles and such, not just a word for "all correct ideas in the realm of philosophy." You certainly can argue for the position that theism is not inconsistent with the other parts of Objectivism, but if for any reason you changed atheism to theism even while keeping everything else the same it still would be another different, new idiology, not Objectivism. You could definitely say this new ideology was very, very heavily influenced by Objectivism, but it's still something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight: the next ten paragraphs explain how atheism and theism don't contradict each other?

Being a deist is the weakest form of theism.  A period of 306 years spanned from Galileo’s first arguments regarding the phases of Venus to the Theory of General Relativity explaining the perihelion of Mercury.  Right now I have a rational argument with two possible rational outcomes.  If observations are made irrefutably proving my idea irrational, I will apply my reasoning to another idea.  If however I am correct, the Atheist will have something new to think about. My proclamation of being a "Deist Objectivist" has less to do with not recognizing a contradiction than it does confidence in my own ability to reason.

 

Right now all I have is an argument, there is a great deal of work yet to be done and time is against me.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking the atheist or non-theist, along with theists have only one thing about which to think: that which is, a.k.a. as existence. Confidence in one's own ability to reason rests on learning the art of non-contradictory integration. Recognizing a contradiction is essential skill required to stay the path of rational ascent or the pursuit of knowledge. Contrast this with the use of rational descent.

 

Welcome to OO.net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome vickster.

Weird, I was reading an article on black holes earlier today and specifically mentioned Leonard Susskind, who I totally forgot about until today. And speaking of Through The Wormhole, I'm really fascinated by some idea mentioned a few episodes back about perception, reality, and how to grasp all that. Plus something on the holographic principle. I don't want to start out with a tangent, but I want to convey that I have thought about these details in order to write a short science fiction story about it. If anyone is interested, I'll send it to you.

I'll leave criticism of what you mention about black holes to those more savvy in cosmology than myself, but I see no philosophically unsound premise mentioned. For one, I don't see why it's a problem that black hole horizons are utterly unique entities. Everything is utterly unique, so I don't know what you mean. Now if you mean the sheer amount of information/energy/anything else is unexplained by mathematical models, you're right that it's a problem to be solved. Possibility 1 is probably unlikely, but you can't start off with saying that what's in a black hole is never coming out. Of course, looking for the "magic" equation can be fruitless if scientists assume what a black hole is - and black holes as a concept almost have no explanation, so it's all uncertain. Possibility 2 I have no special comment, except it sounds more amenable to current lack of knowledge.

Now, I don't see what this has to do with deism. I don't even detect a hidden or implied premise that a creator is part of it at any point. Nothing so far suggests a god, let alone a simulation, and certainly not any kind of intelligent design with less power over the universe. You didn't even pull the "it's so complex so of course god did it" argument. So, I'm not seeing a connection.
 

 

"'Physical information' is referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators . . . "
K, you lost me here. D:


I started to read that link, but it's confusing to me. I think it basically means "where there's smoke, there's fire". That is, if you see smoke, you can in principle know there is a fire, and if you're observant enough, where the fire is, how hot it is, and so on, basically figuring out the state of something earlier in time. In that sense, everything has information, except when (according to some) black holes destroy information preventing you from figuring out the earlier state of something. So, deterministic process; reversible in the sense of thinking if A-> B, then I know A came before B in all cases; and operators as in how all that is manipulated (whether it's quantum gravity as vickster said, or anything else).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking the atheist or non-theist, along with theists have only one thing about which to think: that which is, a.k.a. as existence. Confidence in one's own ability to reason rests on learning the art of non-contradictory integration. Recognizing a contradiction is essential skill required to stay the path of rational ascent or the pursuit of knowledge. Contrast this with the use of rational descent.

 

Welcome to OO.net.

 

I have been an atheist/agnostic wavering  back and forth type most of my life.  When I came up with my argument it lead to two rational possibilities, I chose the least terrible and rational of the two possibilities.  Are we talking rational dissent or rational descent?  Any insights regarding my argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome vickster.

Weird, I was reading an article on black holes earlier today and specifically mentioned Leonard Susskind, who I totally forgot about until today. And speaking of Through The Wormhole, I'm really fascinated by some idea mentioned a few episodes back about perception, reality, and how to grasp all that. Plus something on the holographic principle. I don't want to start out with a tangent, but I want to convey that I have thought about these details in order to write a short science fiction story about it. If anyone is interested, I'll send it to you.

I'll leave criticism of what you mention about black holes to those more savvy in cosmology than myself, but I see no philosophically unsound premise mentioned. For one, I don't see why it's a problem that black hole horizons are utterly unique entities. Everything is utterly unique, so I don't know what you mean. Now if you mean the sheer amount of information/energy/anything else is unexplained by mathematical models, you're right that it's a problem to be solved. Possibility 1 is probably unlikely, but you can't start off with saying that what's in a black hole is never coming out. Of course, looking for the "magic" equation can be fruitless if scientists assume what a black hole is - and black holes as a concept almost have no explanation, so it's all uncertain. Possibility 2 I have no special comment, except it sounds more amenable to current lack of knowledge.

Now, I don't see what this has to do with deism. I don't even detect a hidden or implied premise that a creator is part of it at any point. Nothing so far suggests a god, let alone a simulation, and certainly not any kind of intelligent design with less power over the universe. You didn't even pull the "it's so complex so of course god did it" argument. So, I'm not seeing a connection.

 

 

I started to read that link, but it's confusing to me. I think it basically means "where there's smoke, there's fire". That is, if you see smoke, you can in principle know there is a fire, and if you're observant enough, where the fire is, how hot it is, and so on, basically figuring out the state of something earlier in time. In that sense, everything has information, except when (according to some) black holes destroy information preventing you from figuring out the earlier state of something. So, deterministic process; reversible in the sense of thinking if A-> B, then I know A came before B in all cases; and operators as in how all that is manipulated (whether it's quantum gravity as vickster said, or anything else).

 

Here is a more comprehensive version of my argument.  Due to the scale of what I am working on, I am still evaluating the problem before creating a final strategy to solve it. Once my ducks are all in a row you will get your elevator diagrams, math, simulation, and such.

 

The path to understanding the Rational Universe (Objectivist site version)

 

The universe is a riddle than can ultimately be expressed in the form of math, but first you must solve the riddle.  The following is an argument based on rational dissent regarding the implied consequences of conserving physical information (Quantum determinism and Reversibility as maintained by the quantum evolutionary operators) in a black hole horizon via some unknown form of quantum gravity.  A paradox will be made clear and the most rational solution to it currently possible proposed, if the universe is indeed rational (a universe that does not contradict itself).  I argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Luminiferous Aether and that our universe is a living universe.

 

Any effort to preserve physical information in the horizon of a black hole via an entropy hologram or other unknown means creates a horrible problem in the event of a black hole merger.  Any physical information contained in the horizon of a black hole is in a quasi-state of equilibrium where no two are identical.  Black holes are trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material is constantly added.  A constant change to the black hole’s horizon containing physical information amounts to a change in black hole identity.  Built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the horizons containing the constantly changing physical information of two black holes from merging.  A rational universe is committed so conserving physical information (see Thought experiment "Black Hole Billiards").  This is true regardless of what form the physical information contained in a black hole horizon may take.  Be it an entropy hologram of or some other unknown state.  This is the “black hole merger paradox” or “black hole merger problem”.  How do you prevent a black hole merger paradox?  The “Standard Model” says you don’t, they merge, and just get bigger over time.  This is an irrational assumption. 

 

How then are you to prevent the irrational black hole merger event from occurring?  The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, physical information, and situation creating the problem between two black holes will ultimately solve it.  If black holes must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational to do so, you can see exactly where I am going with this.  The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing black hole (I am doing the “Standard Model” a favor here, this is one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more black holes.  Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception.  Binary black holes will fail based on their mass and conserve physical information at the expense of time.   I argue this process still occurs with every attempted black hole merger albeit on a smaller scale over time following the initial event.  To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or ANY other “Standard Model” constant at this point.  Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs.  “The Vick Principle”, “The Vick Limit”, “The Vick Field”, and “The Vick Effect” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.

 

Singulosynthesis: “The Vick Principle” states that in a perceivable and rational universe the physical information of a black hole must be preserved.  In a binary black hole merger once sufficient symmetry loss or instability (there is more on ideas behind this in the section “Black Hole Failure Speculation”) is achieved (likely based on black hole mass) the “Vick limit” is reached (likely occurs when the relativistic binary black hole system reaches C) and simultaneously the “Vick field” is achieved.  The Vick limit signals the end of the black hole and the beginning of Singulosynthesis.  It is the point at which the binary black holes turn against each other.  During Singulosynthesis contents of the former black hole are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted physical information (Genesis – the dynamic of restoring physical information at the expense of time).  This physical information distribution could possibly be in the form of an entropy hologram.  The distribution of the physical information of a black hole when it fails is the Vick field.  The Vick field is maintained until the black hole of least mass is extinguished.  Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any black hole reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail.   On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now “describe” as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe.  It is done by preserving physical information in a black hole horizon at the expense of time from our perceived perspective.   It is also the process by which the universe recycles matter, energy, physical information, and entropy periodically over time.  Singulosynthesis ends with the “Vick Effect” signaling the return of space time to a non -black hole state.

 

This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propelling mankind into a new paradigm….. I want us to stop and ponder that idea… Is that rational?  You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a black hole (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities?  Is that rational?  The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario.  The physics of the binary failing black hole scenario presupposes our perceived reality.  It is not a mystery now why human kind has not described the physics of a black hole accurately, let alone described the physics that exists outside of a black hole.  I argue that Singulosynthesis is the most logical candidate for the deterministic process Einstein always believed existed and you can guess what governs this process.

From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most.  The unknown realm of black hole physics presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down on the illusion to our perception.  How then shall we proceed?

 

Gravitational Wave Detection (this area is still very speculative and I am coming up with new stuff to research all the time)

 

Then Vick Effect may represent the most powerful gravitational wave signature in the universe or not based on black hole mass.  The effect would signal the end of a black hole and the return of space time to a non-black hole state potentially creating a powerful gravitational wave signal from which the other currently unknown binary black hole gravitational wave signatures could be found.

 

If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply 2 separate forms of gravitational wave signatures leading up to the Vick Effect.  The first would be two binary black holes of equal mass creating a dual gravitational wave signature that would decrease over time as they both performed Singulosynthesis to the point of the Vick Effect.  The second would involve a binary black hole scenario where there is a large mass discrepancy between the two black holes.  One black hole would potentially gain mass and have an increasing gravitational wave signature while the black hole performing Singulosynthesis would lose mass having a decreasing gravitational wave signature leading up to the Vick Effect.  Finding these binary black hole gravity waves is critical to determining the true mass density of a black hole and the rate of material loss due to Singulosynthesis.

 

Gravitational waves during black hole failure may also influence the wave form of the product being synthesized if black hole failure does occur at he relativistic binary orbital velocity of C, I am still researching things.

 

Einstein's Deterministic Universe Project

 

Mankind must simulate binary failing black hole scenarios until they teach us what black hole physics should be and the underlying description completing our understanding of this physical reality.

1.  Set aside the “standard model” It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants’ Guide had they known what was to come.  At least to begin with, it will come into play later.

2.  Make no assumptions about anything

3.  Create a numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulation in 3 stages

       • Simulated black hole failure

       • Add theoretical physical information holograms

       • Add theoretical magnetism

4. Get some computers – Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.

5.  Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like “standard model” H/He/D/Li and make sure it is reversible.

6.  Once we are confident the computer has taught us what our new physics should be.  Reproduce the “old standard model Nucleosynthesis” with the newly generated “Singulosynthesis physics” and verify.

7.  Simulate the universe until the simulation simulates you… 

 

Black Hole Failure Speculation

 

What is it about the presence of two black holes that makes them not get along very well?  On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is.  Gravity and Space-time seem fairly committed to their individual tasks.  So here is the big list as it sits right now.

 

1. Space-time while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit).

 

2. Gravity can no longer perform the role it must in the binary black hole merger scenario.  When you consider the extreme gravitational effects and symmetry necessary to create a black hole I cannot see how symmetry loss does not have a role with possibly undoing a black hole.  With space-time behaving normally, the effects created by gradually increasing gravitational tidal effects over time may eventually lead to the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  Gravity becomes unable to meet the demands of gravity.

 

3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability when they reach relativistic binary orbital velocity of C.  The demands made by both gravity and space-time on each other become too great.  Matter, energy, and physical information do whatever they can to exit the system, following the path of least resistance.

 

4. It is a perfectly natural and deterministic process that occurs based on black hole mass.  While our perception leads us to think they are all equally infinite or equally infinitely approaching infinity. Binary black holes do not see each other the same way we see them.  Black holes are a timeless-state of matter, energy, and physical information all being in a state as of yet undiscovered.

 

My gut leans toward a combination of #2, #3, and #4. Reason suggests strengths will become weaknesses in this scenario.  My other speculation is that plasma generated from this event would resemble Gamov's theoretical Standard Model Big Bang Plasma.  An exception being it would cool naturally in space without all the crazy inflationary Big Bang and it is likely very benign in some cases.  In other cases black hole failure may occur at C based on black hole mass discrepancies.

 

Cosmic Singulosynthesis

 

I argue the initial recombination epoch of the “Standard Model” which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one black hole failing alone but 2 or more.  Following this begins the Cosmic Respiration Cycle.  The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing black holes should have some correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and the young universe. With Singulosynthesis being a deterministic process, the BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations) and the CMBR may allow us to create theoretical black hole failure models with known physical information.  This could potentially be translated into a series of theoretical entropy hologram distributions attempting to produce the expected outcome.  At no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.  Combined with gravitational wave data the process should be replicable on the smallest theoretical black hole possible.

 

Theory of Cosmic Respiration

 

The first event of Singulosynthesis gets it started.  This is followed by a period of high Cosmic Respiration where Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis. By recycling physical information and entropy the universe develops rapidly.  As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases.  The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results.  My suspicion is that not discovering Singulosynthesis has less to do with it not existing and more to do with nobody looking for it because nobody has thought of it.  Or knowing what it was when they saw it.

 

Thought experiment "Black Hole Billiards"  

 

Man has found a stellar mass black hole and has constructed a double sided mirror in a sphere around it in order to perform an experiment.  Nothing is allowed in the black hole and nothing is allowed out.  Once the double sided mirror sphere over the black hole is finished man waits a few million years just to be sure the black hole is in some fairly stable state of equilibrium.  

 

During the wait, man has discovered several other black holes moving around our galaxy.  FedEx is then hired to accelerate our double sided mirror black hole to as close to the speed of light as possible and collide it into the other black hole with no double sided mirror.  The target none double sided mirror black hole will also have a welcoming committee commissioned to bombard it with material constantly as the collision event occurs.

 

It would seem to me that preserving physical information in the horizon of black hole becomes a difficult task when confronted with the physical information of another black hole.  While there are many unknowns, there is a spatial separation between physical information in a black hole horizon and the unknown inner region containing the material that is being represented by the physical information.  Is it rational to assume the horizons can somehow scramble information and sort it out later?

 

This argument based on rational dissent and man-kinds best current observations can only lead to 3 possible conclusions:

 

1. The universe is inherently irrational if black holes do not conserve physical information in their horizons.

 

2. The universe is inherently rational if black holes do conserve physical information in their horizons, which leads to a paradox or problem in the event of a black hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (The Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created [Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown physical information distribution (possibly an entropy hologram)],  which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies intelligent design by omnipotence and omnipresence.

 

3. The universe is inherently rational if black holes do conserve physical information in their horizons, which leads to a paradox or problem in the event of a black hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (The Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created [Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown physical information distribution (possibly an entropy hologram)],  which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies we could exist in a simulation.

 

In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration:

"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"

"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"

"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.

“The Vick Effect” will become "The Einstein Effect"

“The Rambo” The state of matter and energy inside a black hole, singularities only exist from our perspective.

"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" for obvious reasons moreover it is the effect produced by the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan.

"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter, energy, and physical information to a non-black hole state (potentially creating a strange, quark, or neutron star) not sure yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest: I don't understand your argument and I'm doubtful it's rooted in science many of us will understand. Maybe you'll have better luck discussing its implications on a forum of physicists that discuss black holes, or possibly even a scientific / philosophical journal.

 

You assert one of three conclusions: A) The universe is irrational, B) The universe has a designer that is intelligent, C) The known universe is a simulation. I can think of at least two objections which, if true, would render your conclusions invalid. 1) You have a flaw in your logic or understanding of the physics involved. 2) The physics/theories you cite are incorrect in some way.

 

As far as what I do know; we're learning new stuff about physics every day. While you MAY have come up with a legitimate proof, it seems much more likely to me that either you have misunderstood the physics OR the theories of physics currently held are in some manner incorrect. As you tell us: 

History has proven that one of the great hubris’s of mankind has been consensus based on assumptions.

 

 

 

I remember hearing about the neutrinos that had been clocked at going faster than the speed of light. For a breif moment, I considered that it might be possible and I was super excited. Then I remembered my physics lessons and Occam's Razor; how the speed of light was determined by Maxwell's theory and how our whole model of physics was based on it. "Sure," I said to myself, "it might be that all of physics is wrong and that these neutrinos are going faster than we thought possible. But," I reminded myself, "that's much less likely than the possibility that the guys at the research stations are making some kind of error."

To you I say, "Sure, it might be that the universe was designed by an intelligence and that all evidence that points to the contrary is false. But it's not as likely as the possibility that there's a fallacy somewhere in your argument or a falsity in your facts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You assert one of three conclusions: A) The universe is irrational, B) The universe has a designer that is intelligent, C) The known universe is a simulation. I can think of at least two objections which, if true, would render your conclusions invalid. 1) You have a flaw in your logic or understanding of the physics involved. 2) The physics/theories you cite are incorrect in some way.

Before I respond to Vickster's larger post directed at me, I want to point out that a rational or even irrational universe doesn't make sense. Rational or irrational refers to thinkers, or more specifically, intentionality. To say the universe could be either rational or irrational basically assumes the universe is "supposed" to look a particular way and if it doesn't conform to your expectations, it's irrational because it behaves as it shouldn't. What would a rational universe even be? In my mind, you have to assume there is a creator that puts it all together in a rational way, i.e. accomplishes its goal. Even if that were the case, rational according to whom? I would bet Vickster has some hidden premise he didn't realize.

 

*edit* I thought you were Vickster somehow, so... I edited wording >_>

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background reading: The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics [Paperback] by Leonard Susskind

 

The latest on controversy about the physics of black holes is about whether the event horizon has a physical counterpart or not, and if it does would it be a "firewall" - a barrier made of energetic particles.  A New York Times article attempts to covers the topic, complete with excruciatingly awkward analogies.  A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox

 

The idea that space, time and gravitation are emergent phenomena from a more fundamental level of existence implies alternate methods of resolving several paradoxes, so the alternatives being posed by the vickster339 do not actually exhaust all the possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Grames!

 

That book looks pretty interesting. I recently read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. Is this book similar, or is it of a more technical variety? Ever since the Krauss book I've been wanting to get my hands on more layman explanation level physics books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I respond to Vickster's larger post directed at me, I want to point out that a rational or even irrational universe doesn't make sense. Rational or irrational refers to thinkers, or more specifically, intentionality. To say the universe could be either rational or irrational basically assumes the universe is "supposed" to look a particular way and if it doesn't conform to your expectations, it's irrational because it behaves as it shouldn't. What would a rational universe even be? In my mind, you have to assume there is a creator that puts it all together in a rational way, i.e. accomplishes its goal. Even if that were the case, rational according to whom? I would bet Vickster has some hidden premise he didn't realize.

 

*edit* I thought you were Vickster somehow, so... I edited wording >_>

*raises hand*  'Scuse me! I think by "the universe is irrational" what is meant is that the law of identity would not always hold true, thus leading to the actual existence of contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*raises hand*  'Scuse me! I think by "the universe is irrational" what is meant is that the law of identity would not always hold true, thus leading to the actual existence of contradictions.

I didn't think of it in those terms, so thanks for pointing it out. However, it's also quite open to misinterpretation and perhaps expectations beyond the law of identity. In a metaphysical sense, rational or irrational would be mostly arguments for god by means of asserting a metaphysical rationality. In an epistemological sense, expectations are rational/sensible to humans, or at least, that's the most viable way to set standards. Irrational would be about a lack of a standard that does any good. As for how the universe is "supposed" to look, that's the law of identity, and the only facts people should take as a given are the axioms. But I shouldn't say that black holes are "supposed" to be a certain way other than they are supposed to have an identity. So, I'm thinking Vickster might have a hidden premise from the start that the law of identity is falsifiable meaning that indeed contradictions might exist, or perhaps that some principles of physics are axiomatic making any violation of them (such as some aspects of black holes) as proof against the law of identity.

I still find (ir)rational universe to be awkward phrasing, given that inanimate objects have no kind of intentionality ("aboutness" to thinking) or rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the Oist defending the black hole unicorn are ok with the idea of an existent with infinite density?

Edit: The real black hole war:

"The notion of black holes voraciously gobbling up matter, twisting space-time into contortions that trap light, stretching the unwary into long spaghetti-like strands as they fall inward to ultimately collide and merge with an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, has become a mantra of the scientific community, so much so that even primary school children know about the sinister black hole, waiting patiently, like the Roman child’s Hannibal, for an opportunity to abduct the unruly and the misbehaved. There are almost daily reports of scientists claiming black holes again found here and there.

It is asserted that black holes range in size from micro to mini, to intermediate and on up through to supermassive behemoths. Black holes are glibly spoken of and accepted as scientific facts and that they have been detected at the centre of galaxies. Images of black holes having their wicked ways with surrounding matter are routinely offered with reports of them. Some physicists even claim that black holes will be created in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider, potentially able to swallow the Earth, if care is not taken in their production.

Yet despite all this hoopla, contrary to the assertions of the astronomers and astrophysicists of the black hole community, nobody has ever identified a black hole, anywhere, let alone ‘imaged’ one. The pictures adduced to convince are actually either artistic impressions (i.e. drawings) or photos of otherwise unidentified objects imaged by telescopes and merely asserted to be black holes, ad hoc.

No Escape

The alleged signatures of the alleged black hole are an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and an event horizon. Scientists frequently assert that the escape velocity of a black hole (from its event horizon) is that of light and that nothing, not even light, can escape the black hole. In fact, according to the same scientists, nothing, including light, can even leave the event horizon. But there is already a problem with these bald claims (black holes are also alleged to have ‘no hair’).

If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light, then light, on the one hand, can escape. On the other hand, light is allegedly not able to even leave the event horizon, so the black hole has no escape velocity. If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light, not only can light both leave and escape, material objects can also leave the event horizon, but not escape, even though, according to the Theory of Special Relativity, they can only have a velocity less than that of light. This just means that material bodies will leave the black hole and eventually stop and fall back to the black hole, just like a ball thrown into the air here on Earth with an initial velocity less than the escape velocity for the Earth. So the properties of the alleged event horizon of a black hole are irretrievably contradictory.

What of the infinitely dense point-mass singularity at the heart of the black hole? It is supposed to be formed by irresistible gravitational collapse so that matter is crushed into zero volume, into a ‘point’, a so-called ‘point-mass’. One recalls from high school that density is defined as the mass of an object divided by the volume of the object. If the mass is not zero and the volume is zero, as in the case of a black hole, one gets division by zero. But all school children know that division by zero is not allowed by the rules of mathematics. Nonetheless, black hole proponents are, by some special privilege, somehow permitted to flout the rules of elementary mathematics and divide by zero! No, the scientists too cannot divide by zero, despite their claims to the contrary.

Einstein Violated

Furthermore, black holes are allegedly obtained from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is called the General Theory because it is a generalisation of his Special Theory of Relativity. As such, General Relativity cannot, by definition, violate Special Relativity, but that is precisely what the black hole does.

Special Relativity forbids infinite densities because, according to that Theory, infinite density implies infinite energy (or equivalently that a material object can acquire the speed of light in vacuo). Therefore General Relativity too forbids infinite densities. But the point-mass singularity of the black hole is allegedly infinitely dense, in violation of Special Relativity. Thus the Theory of Relativity forbids the existence of a black hole.

Non-event on the Horizon

What now of the event horizon of the black hole? According to the proponents of the black hole it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to watch an object (via the light from that object, of course) fall into the event horizon. So it therefore takes an infinite amount of time for the observer to verify the existence of an event horizon and thereby confirm the presence of a black hole. However, nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time in order to verify the presence of an event horizon and hence the presence of a black hole. Nevertheless, scientists claim that black holes have been found all over the place.

The fact is nobody has assuredly found a black hole anywhere – no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon. Some black hole proponents are more circumspect in how they claim the discovery of their black holes. They instead say that their evidence for the presence of a black hole is indirect. But such indirect ‘evidence’ cannot be used to justify the claim of a black hole, in view of the fatal contradictions associated with infinitely dense point-mass singularities and event horizons. One could just as well assert the existence and presence of deep space unicorns on the basis of such ‘evidence’.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

It is also of great importance to be mindful of the fact that no observations gave rise to the notion of a black hole in the first place, for which a theory had to be developed. The black hole was wholly spawned in the reverse, i.e. it was created by theory and observations subsequently misconstrued to legitimize the theory. Reports of black holes are just wishful thinking in support of a belief; not factual in any way.

Another major and fatal contradiction in the idea of the black hole is the allegation that black holes can be components of binary systems, collide or merge. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that black holes are predicted by General Relativity. The black hole is fundamentally described by a certain mathematical expression called a line-element (which is just a fancy name for a distance formula, like that learnt in high school) that involves just one alleged mass in the entire Universe (just the alleged source of a gravitational field), since the said distance formula is a solution for a space-time allegedly described by Einstein’s equations in vacuum (or, more accurately, emptiness), namely Ric = 0.

One does not need to know anything at all about the mathematical intricacies of this equation to see that it cannot permit the presence of one black hole, let alone two or more black holes. The mathematical object denoted by Ric is what is called a tensor (in this case it is Ricci’s tensor, and hence its notation). The reason why Ric = 0 is because in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity all matter that contributes to the source of the gravitational field must be described by another tensor, called the energy-momentum tensor. In the case of the so-called vacuum field equations the energy-momentum tensor is set to zero, because there is no mass or radiation present by hypothesis. Otherwise Ric would not be equal to zero. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing, not even an ‘observer’. Ric = 0 is not a two body situation, only, allegedly, a one body situation (and hence quite meaningless).

One cannot just introduce extra objects into a given solution to Einstein’s field equations, because his theory asserts that the curvature of space-time (i.e. the gravitational field) is due to the presence of matter and that the said matter, all of it, must be described by his energy-momentum tensor. If the energy-momentum tensor is zero, there is no matter present. Einstein's field equations are nonlinear, so the ‘Principle of Superposition’ does not apply. Before one can talk of relativistic binary systems it must first be proved that the two-body system is theoretically well-defined by General Relativity.

This can be done in only two ways:

(a) Derivation of an exact solution to Einstein's field equations for the two-body configuration of matter; or

(B) Proof of an existence theorem.

There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for the interaction of two (or more) masses, so option (a) has never been fulfilled. No existence theorem has ever been proved, by which Einstein's field equations even admit of latent solutions for such configurations of matter, and so option (B) has never been fulfilled either. Since Ric = 0 is a statement that there is no matter in the Universe, one cannot simply insert a second black hole into the space-time of Ric = 0 of a given black hole so that the resulting two black holes (each obtained separately from Ric = 0) mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter.

One cannot simply assert by an analogy with Newton's theory that two black holes can be components of binary systems, collide or merge, because the ‘Principle of Superposition’ does not apply in Einstein's theory. Moreover, General Relativity has to date been unable to account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. So from where does the matter allegedly associated with the solution to Ric = 0 come, when this is a statement that there is no matter present? The proponents of the black hole just put it in at the end, a posteriori and ad hoc, in violation of their starting hypothesis that Ric = 0.

No Solution

Finally, the fundamental solution to Ric = 0 is usually called the "Schwarzschild solution". Despite its name, it is not in fact Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution forbids black holes. The frequent claim that Schwarzschild found and advocated a black hole solution is patently false, as a reading of Schwarzschild’s paper on the subject irrefutably testifies. False too are the claims that he predicted an event horizon and that he determined the "Schwarzschild radius" (i.e. the alleged ‘radius’ of the black hole event horizon). Schwarzschild actually had nothing to do with the black hole, but attaching his name to it lends the notion an additional façade of scientific legitimacy. "

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/061108_sjcrothers.htm

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vickster:

 

What do you mean by the "event horizon" preserving information?

 

Firstly I was never under the impression that the "event horizon" itself was ever postulated as an existent rather than merely a phenomenological consequence of the black hole itself, that is if the term "horizon" refers to coordinates of space as such (relationships between existents).

 

Second what do you mean by "information" do you mean something from information theory or that physical quantities (linear momentum, angular momentum, charge, strangeness etc.) must be conserved?

 

Third: assuming something like black holes or at least massive bodies whose gravitational force overcomes all Electroweak and strong forces, exist, has any physical mechanism been discovered (not just postulated)... which causes actual "loss" of information or violates laws of conservation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...