The Deist Objectivist

Science & Technology Physics and Mathematics
41

When we hear a Physicist talk of conservation of “information” as such, rather than physical quantities, I was understandably interested.  What is, in physical systems, information? Surely it has something to do with physical states or arrangements.  

 

But why should one consider information to be a separate quantity that needs to be conserved?  Is this from observation? Is it actually a physical quantity?

 

Precisely, it has to do with physical states or arrangements.

 

Why information needs to be conserved has to do with thermodynamics and the concept of entropy.  I will spare you the derivation here, but by Landauer’s principle changing one bit of information in an irreversible way requires a minimum amount of energy equal (to kT ln(2)) so effectively the principle of conservation of energy implies the conservation of information.  Eliminating bits of information from existence such was thought to possibly happen at black holes would be a violation of conservation of energy.

42

Sl, the answer to your questions above is central to the exchange we previously had, and to which I have not yet returned. My response will address both this error and that one.

 

I am very interested to hear your thoughts.

43

My apologies for being away from this thread for so long.  I have been defending my ideas on no less than 4 fronts while packing to move, doing research, and making edits.  Please allow me to re-post my original work with edits, I have added analogies to add clarification of some ideas and have added some predictions.  The rest is pretty much all the same.

 

1.  Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist. - Right now star S0-16 orbits within 600x the theoretical Schwarzschild Radius of Milky Ways SMBH, the glob of gas accreting into the Milky Ways SMBH will come much closer hopefully further allowing us to indirectly confine the Schwarzchild Radius and argument for the existence of black holes..

2.  Abductive reasoning suggests conserving physical information within the entropy of a black hole horizon is necessary otherwise it could lead to information destruction. - Whether by Hawking radiation or vanishing beyond the horizon forever.

3.  I am making a further inductive argument based on this previous abductive reasoning. Specifically that there are implied consequences to conserving physical information in the entropy of a black hole horizon.

4.  Everything else is my own deductive reasoning based on this previous inductive argument.

 

The number of possible quantifiable states of mass, entropy, and physical information within a black hole construct seem fairly limited from our perspective.

It may very well possible that the worst case turns out being the truth, that being, there is no hawking radiation, horizons do not have entropy nor do they preserve physical information, and that everything beyond the horizon is irretrievably lost. I have not yet resigned myself to that level of pessimism.

 

The path to understanding the rational universe

 

An argument for the objective observation, recording, and quantification of gravitational waves

 

The summation of human knowledge can be represented as a tree which sprouted out of nothing. As the tree has grown it has endured a perpetual cycle of growth, stagnated growth, and isolated death. One of the strongest roots from which this tree has grown is philosophy. The multiple sub philosophies of science represent the sprouting of new branches reaching out for new knowledge. Some older roots and branches die while others just continue to grow. Once in a while some pruning becomes necessary to keep things tidy. But there is one constant, the tree must grow together to live.

 

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 formally challenge with far reaching implications.  The universe is a riddle than can ultimately be expressed in the form of math, but first you must solve the riddle. 

 

There is currently a scientific consensus that black holes preserve physical information in the entropy of their horizons by some unknown method.  By “Physical information” I am referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators via some as of yet undiscovered method.  While I am unaware of the current leading theory for maintaining physical information in a black hole horizon, all seem to include concepts regarding quantum gravitational fluctuations of the horizon membrane as the primary method.

 

Even without a formal theory of quantum gravity, there is a huge problem looming even if we indeed had one. If black holes preserve physical information in the entropy of 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 ever changing entropy, physical information, and mass which is being represented.

Allow yourself to imagine the entropy and information of a black hole horizon as a simple dataset.  If black holes preserve datasets in their horizons, those datasets would be in a constant state of change. New data is constantly being added to the existing dataset maintained in a black holes horizon over time. Every black hole horizon dataset is a unique entity based on the black hole horizon’s ever changing dataset and the mass which is being represented.

 

Setting localization issues of the black hole horizons aside allow us to consider a black holes ever changing dataset taking the form of a sphere. What would be the point of maintaining a dataset in the form of a sphere be if the black hole was not representing something beyond the horizon boundary of the sphere?

If mass or anything else is represented beyond the dataset sphere of the horizon it implies a spatial separation between the dataset being maintained in the horizon and what it is being representing beyond it.  Black holes in this respect share the unique characteristic of maintaining a dataset or identity inside out from our perspective.  If this is the case there are two possibilities with regard to theoretical black hole coalescence events or merger attempts. 

 

Possibility One

 

In the event gravitational wave signatures of black hole coalescence and ringdown are discovered, I do not envy those attempting to complete the following task.  To describe binary black hole inspiral and eventual coalescence accurately we would need to do the following.  First it would be necessary to develop a formal theory of quantum gravity.  With a formal theory of quantum gravity we would then need to mathematically create a black hole using it.  This black hole would need to have a changing dataset in its horizon and mass beyond the horizon being represented.  Then we would need to mathematically explain how the unique datasets from the separate horizons would scramble, merge, or coalesce datasets without the mass being represented interacting since they are spatially separated from the horizon.  With datasets in the horizons scrambling or scrambled, we then must mathematically describe how the mass being represented merges and how this new entity sorts everything out in the end.

 

It seems to me black holes cannot have their cake and eat it too.  Intuition suggests this to be an utterly irrational and seemingly impossible event, too which I refer to as “Black Hole Merger Paradox” or “Black Hole Merger Problem”. It is also worth noting that Cosmological singularities will also need to be explained using the same quantum gravity theory generated in this paradigm of thought. 

 

Possibility Two

 

Black Holes can never merge and will opt for entropy and physical information conservation through reassignment over the corruption of coalescence.  Binary black holes must surrender entropy, physical information, and mass before their unique horizons can interact in this scenario.  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 cosmological singularity failure 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 (most likely at the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light) to conserve entropy and physical information maintained in their horizons at the expense of time. This process still occurs with every attempted black hole merger attempt albeit on a smaller scale since the first instance at the birth of the universe. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 5 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or ANY other “Standard Model” constant at this point. To further express this idea I am forced to throw every man made constant in history under the bus with the exception of the speed of light for now.

 

 “The Vick Principle”- A perceivable and rational universe is committed to conserving physical information even that within the entropy of a black hole horizon.

 

 “The Vick Limit” – Is the point at which binary inspiraling black holes fail based on their mass (likely occurring at the binary relativistic orbital velocity of the speed of light)

 

“The Vick Field” – Is the structure of the entropy and physical information maintained in the horizon of a black hole when it fails.

 

“Genesis” – The reassignment of entropy and physical information to mass at the expense of time based on the structure of “The Vick Field”

 

 “The Vick Effect” – The return of space time to a non-black hole state.

 

Singulosynthesis: Is the point at which two or more black holes fighting to maintain symmetry turn against each other.  During binary black hole inspiral once sufficient symmetry loss or instability is achieved the “Vick limit” is reached.  My leading suspicion is that the “Vick Limit” is reached when inspiraling black holes achieve the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light.  Simultaneous to the “Vick Limit” being reached the “Vick field” is formed. Both signal the end of the black hole and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. During Singulosynthesis contents of a failing black hole are ejected from the black hole environment through the horizon containing a distorted entropy and physical information distribution causing Genesis to occur.  This process occurs until the black hole of least mass is extinguished. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we describe as H/He/D/Li of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. This is the process by which the universe recycles entropy over time. Singulosynthesis ends with the “Vick Effect”.

This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, elevator diagrams, and math I quantifiably describe this process propelling mankind into a new paradigm. 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 current paradigm of consensus) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities in a new paradigm? 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 developed a unified physics capable accurately describing the two realities separated by the black hole horizon. 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

The detection of binary black hole events are on the very edge of our perception right now. Some unique patterns in gravitational waves must be observed and recorded (keep in mind gravitational waves have not been detected yet). 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 indirectly reveal the mass loss rate of a binary black hole during Singulosynthesis.

Researchers right now are using exact predetermined theoretic gravitational wave signatures based on numerical relativity to hunt for patterns in the collected data. Patterns based on the assumption that black holes do indeed coalesce.  This presents a potential problem for my idea requires the opposite method to be detected.

The gravitational waves I seek must be objectively observed and then quantified. However everything may work out, I suspect 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 during inspiral. It will be important to not lose track of the gravitational waves when they do.

If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply a gradient of gravitational wave signatures completely dependent on the mass of the black holes involved in the event leading up to the Vick Effect. At one of the scale would be binary black holes of equal masses and the other black holes of extremely disproportionate masses.  Equal mass black holes will shed mass evenly and create a gravitational wave reflecting this.  Larger mass discrepancies may lead to one low mass failing black hole shedding mass onto a larger one.  This may lead to one signature increasing while the other decreases proportionately.  In the most extreme mass discrepancy scenarios black holes may need to fail at or near the speed of light.  A possible explanation for low or no afterglow gamma ray bursts.

 

Since the process I am arguing for created the universe, there should be evidence of it present in the gravitational wave background of the universe.  While I cannot predict what this gravitational wave background will be, it will not be anything like the gravitational waves predicted by the Big Bang.  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 cosmological singularity failing alone but 2 or more black holes failing. Following this begins the Cosmic Respiration Cycle. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing black holes should have a correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and CGWB ((Cosmic gravitational wave background) (when it is detected)) of the young universe. With Singulosynthesis being a deterministic process, the BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations), the CMBR, and CGWB may aid us to creating theoretical black hole failure models on the smallest theoretical black hole possible.  This is of course aside from the indirect observations of more local failing binary black hole gravitational waves.  It is also worth noting that a scenario is created where discovering one set of failing black hole gravitational waves may help us find others.

 

Current Predictions

 

It is my sincere hope that Advanced LIGO and or LISA will detect some gravitational waves.  As of now I can only make the following two predictions.

  1. The predicted gravitational wave background produced by the Big Bang will not match what we will eventually observe.  Whatever is observed in the gravitational wave background will also not be the result of pigeon droppings.

  2. Black hole coalescence ringdowns will never be detected because they never occur.

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.  With accurate enough gravitational wave data in hand we can then reverse engineer the true sub Planck environment of a black hole using numerical relativity and to simulate it.  Once mass loss is accurately simulated we then add theoretical entropy and physical information structures to complete the model. This could potentially lead to a quantum theory of general relativity, an update to the second law of thermal dynamics, and countless more new knowledge.

  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. Create a numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulation in 3 stages

• Simulated black hole failure in the simplest scenario possible - This will require the creation of a sub planck particle generator to emulate the true mass density of the black holes being reverse engineered 
• Once black hole failure is achieved, add theoretical entropy and physical information structures, possibly holograms
• In later stages, add theoretical magnetism

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

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

  3. Once we are confident the computer has accurately reproduced a minimalistic black hole failure. Then run a large scale simulation through from Singulosynthesis to stellar Nucleosynthesis and back to Singulosynthesis again.  Continue to increase the scale of the simulation.

  4. 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. The demands made by both gravity and space-time on each other become too great. Mass 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 black holes are all equally infinite or equally infinitely approaching infinity. Binary black holes do not experience each other the same way we see them. Black holes are a timeless-state of matter, entropy, and physical information all being in a state as of yet undiscovered. Intuition suggests the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light could be the threshold at which a black hole could be excited out its timeless state based its mass.

Without any direct or indirect data I suspect a combination of 2, 3, and 4 would be most likely.

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 within 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 within the entropy of the horizon of black hole becomes a difficult task when confronted with the entropy and physical information of another black hole horizon. If spatial separation exists between the horizon’s physical information and the inner region containing the mass being represented; is it rational to assume the horizons can somehow scramble physical information and sort it out later?  There comes a time to put down the calculator and figure out what problem you are really trying to solve.  There is a Youtube video where Professor Kaku applies quantum mechanics to a theoretical black hole made with general relativity and the result is infinity. Kaku then takes general relativity and applies it to quantum mechanics. The result of this is a never ending series of infinity’s.

 

There is now a potential path around the illusion of this infinite stalemate.

In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration (that is unless of course the inspiration declines):

“The Vick Principle” will become the “The Susskind Principle”

“The Vick Limit” will become the “The Hawking Limit”

“The Vick Field” will 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 true 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 space time in a non-black hole state (potentially creating a strange, quark, or neutron star).

Welcome to Black Hole War 2: The Revenge of the Machinist

© 2013 Jimmy Vick

 

I will do my best to go through responses and give replies to those worthy of them.

44

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: 

 

 

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.”

I have updated my argument in a new post to make things a little more clear and I have omitted my philosophical conclusions regarding them allowing you to make your own choice.  As far as the Neutrino going faster than light, it was debunked.

45

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).

I reposted my argument and made a few edits.  I added some analogies that people may find helpful, added some predictions, and removed the philosophical crap allowing individuals to make up their own minds.  Susskind is the man… I was a Hawking black hole guy from age 10 on… Susskind led me out of Hawking’s camp and eventually I found my own.  A few observations and failed predictions forced my hand.  The Big Bang is nothing more than another ugly step sister and the pain from wearing the glass slipper for so long is beginning to show. 

46

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.

I do not know what makes what I am doing easier and yet harder at the same time… Scientists covet the second law of thermal dynamics to the point of irrationality while at the same time applying quantum theory to black holes from the wrong perspective.  Failing black holes create quantum effects by recycling entropy, mass, and physical information at different times over time through the deterministic process I am arguing for.  A process so complex to our perception of reality that what we perceive seems semi-deterministic or indeterministic in nature.  Susskind has a email waiting for him when class starts, it is my hope he gets it and takes it seriously.

47

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 >_>

It was actually a remnant of a jab at the concept of Hawking radiation.  The idea that information destruction could exist in a perceivable rational universe.

48

Woot shameless plug time, before more responses… check out http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ScalogramOfGravitationalWaveFromABinaryBlackHoleInspiral/

 

If you download the player and dork with some of the stuff, it is quite impressive.

49

*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 mentioned this in another replay, it was a jab at the idea of Hawking radiation and the concept of information destruction.  It is still a concept highly debated among some.

50

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.

Third reply to this, it was a jab at the concept of hawking radiation and information destruction.  A concept which is still highly debated, I have obviously taken a side in this.

51

vickster:

 

 

Do black holes in their current theoretical form conserve all physical quantities other than “information” as such?

 

If so why was something theorised to exist in a particular way which violates conservation of physical quantities?  What permitted such theorization?

52

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

I like the thinking here.  Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct.  Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct.  I mentioned earlier that alleged SMBH at the center of the galaxy has been pinned down to with 600x the schwarzchild radius based on star orbits and soon a gas blob accreting into this dense mass with further our ability to pin it down.  Mind you this is a large mass, with high mass density, that emits NOTHING.  We do not know what is really at the core of a star when it forms or when it dies.  Current stellar theory predicts in massive stars the core will collapse when the hydrostatic equilibrium fails based on the stars mass.  Protons crushed into electrons, electrons crushed into neutrons and neutrons crushed into who knows what based on star mass.  Neutron stars 15 years ago were figured to be 10-15km in diameter, Cornell has them down to 6-7km in diameter.  At this mass density a neutron stars escape velocity is 2/3 the speed of light.  If Neutron degeneracy pressure does not halt the collapse nothing known does.  Consider this as a preamble to the following.

 

Big Bang cosmology is shackled to the fact that all the hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium that has ever existed in our universe was created in this one event.  Metallicity discrepancies between what the big bang predicts and what we observe over the history of the universe are off by 50%, a staggering proportion.  The G dwarf, K dwarf, and M dwarf problems have haunted astronomers for decades.  Both of these problems and a few others strongly imply hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium has to have been produced since the supposed Big Bang.  There are only two currently known theoretical ways to achieve the mass densities necessary to synthesize hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium a cosmological singularity (Big Bang singularity) or a Black hole.  I clearly do no subscribe to the notion of black hole singularities being infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinity.  I do want to know what neutrons are crushed into, at what mass density they stop, how far sub Planck scale it is when they stop, and more importantly how two of these objects synthesize hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium.

 

Meh, I need to sleep I will get to more replies tomorrow.

53

Vick said:

“1. Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist…Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct. Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct”

A valid concept is a green light to induction. A valid concept black holes are not.

The inference of extreme mass density is an artifact of the gravity centric cosmology denying the orders of magnitude greater force of electromagnetism at work in the interstellar plasma so pervasive in the universe. ( 99.99% of the universe)

Edit: Also where is the predicted lensing surrounding the SMBH’s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

54

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-space-time-magnifying-glass.html

http://www.google.ca/search?q=hubble+gravitational+lensing&tbm=isch

 

 

http://www.scienceinthebible.net/

 

“Dr. Dowdye is an independent researcher and is Founder of _ Pure Classical Physics Research _ where he focuses in depth on the Truth and the Profound Fundamentals and Pure Laws of Nature, all first set in motion by the Devine Creator , the Almighty Lord God. Dr. Dowdye is a recognized and leading expert on the theories of both General and Special Relativity, Electromagnetism and Gravitation. He is a member of the _ American Physics Society _ and a member of several other nationally and internationally recognized Physical Science organizations. He frequently gives lectures and seminars at conferences, university Physics Deportments, churches, schools and at on-line video web-broadcast physical science conferences. Dr. Dowdye is the author of a book, Discourses and Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle…, a challenge to Einstein’s Relativity, as well as a number of other important papers published in some renown refereed journals. Dr. Dowdye’s book and theory on the Extinction Shift Principle was recently chosen at an elite status university in Germany, Universität Karlsruhe, as a seminar project assigned to the bright young graduate students in Mathematics and Physics.”

55

Yeah, its a great opportunity to separate facts from compartmentalized fiction… :geek:

 

Edit: As to the magnifying glass article. Dowdye does not claim that no refraction happens. Does the image shown include the lensing farther out from the plasma lem that Dowdye claims is missing ?

 

Edit:Lets not forget tha BB cosmology was invented by a catholic priest. His religious status is obviously a strawman in this regard. That being said I did not know he was religious. The fact that most are, means we need to deal with their claims in particular separately from this. To dismiss BB cosmology for this fact would be ridiculous.

 

Also this is a perfect time to remind oneself that a picture is not an argument.

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/108/a-picture-is-not-an-argument-mp3-download

56

Updated links.

 

Does Dowdy also disbelieve evidence of time measurements of atomic clocks at different altitudes which have been used to verify general relativity?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

 

Does Dowdy also disbelieve time dilation confirmed by direct measurement in many contexts including muon particle decay? 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

57

SL do you believe that the experiments that have taken place could in any possible way lead to the idea that time is the type of existent that can dilate or bend? If so we can just simplify all this to an epistemic discussion.

58

As we must first rely on perception to understand reality I merely raise the experimental observations of “time dilation” … simple things like a muon travelling fast decays slower, while a muon travelling slow decays faster.

 

I assume you allow yourself to refer to “time” in at least some sense.  So irrespective of the technical epistemic considerations, quite simply we observe motion of an existent is correlated with passage of time (again whatever time is or whatever the concept “time” means) associated with the existent. 

59

Sl said:

“As we must first rely on perception to understand reality I merely raise the experimental observations of “time dilation” … simple things like a muon travelling fast decays slower, while a muon travelling slow decays faster.”

This is a common mistake. The entire experiment was designed with CONCEPTIONS of what time is and how said conception directs interpretation of results. You cannot even raise the issue of confirmation of “time dation” without pressupposing a position on what time is, unless you have done so as a floating abstraction.

Edit:

In other words if one doesnt know what one means one has no epistemelogical right to that concept, i.e. its stolen…

60

So scientists cannot measure seconds and meters in the context of observation without a philosophic foundation of what “space” and “time” “REALLY” is?

 

Were men of all levels of intellect who used concepts of time and space in every day speech, in solving problems, in designing the wheel or the first steam engine morally corrupt for not first having an epistemological agreed definition of what time and space were… and in fact should have delayed all such speech and discovery before any progress were made?

 

I do not quite agree with that…