|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total) |
| (44 visitors)
|
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,348 Year: 994/14,102 Month: 397/597 Week: 7/168 Day: 7/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Black Holes Don't Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I've been giving this issue some thought since my last posting. (Not the fine tuning part which is a topic in itself, but the normalization topic). The bulk of the references I can find online dealing with the vacuum catastrophe describe a problem, with some presenting solutions and not much agreement that the solutions are satisfactory. There also is not much critique of the solutions on line. The real objection I have is to your statement of the impact of the issue. To wit 1. Dark energy has nothing to do with issues surrounding rotational energy in galaxies or any of the other problems that are resolved with dark matter. I'm not sure what causes you to conflate those issues. 2. You complain about a missing effect of space curvature on What is the magnitude of the effect would you expect space time curvature to have on particle physics anyway? Is there some evidence that you can point to that would cause us to wonder about that? As an argument that it should not, let's consider that dark energy has essentially no local effect that we can measure within our own solar system. Planets behave at something very close to Newtonian mechanics, (i.e. minor deviations as predicted by GR without any Lambda. )
With regard to this point, let me suggest that a better critique of the idea that the problem is unsolved is a modern rejection of the solution and not decade old papers written by 'true authorities' who hadn't not seen the solutions. An honest review is that there simply isn't enough stuff within easy google range to assess what physicists currently think about the issue. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Nothing I have ever posted, in any forum has ever contradicted the complete conformation of GR (as if I could post such a thing). GR does model total energy and determines space time curvature. You observe a flat universe and show what the contribution of vacuum energy “must be”. I can not see how you extracted the preceding statement of yours from mine. At this moment we are not talking about other indications of a supposed “dark matter” exists. quote: My objection again, is the scale of QFT. It is accurate in the micro… there is trouble with the macro. I do not deny quote: The observed can be determined, without cancelation of “real” vacuum energy, you have a vacuum catastrophe. Philosophically this is a fine-tuning from observations. One can claim that a student cheating on a test is just fine-tuning his answer to the question. Here is a example of a single virtual particle contributing to vacuum energy without said cancellations:
Sorry i lost the link… [ Found it at a number of websites, see for example Vacuum Energy Density, or How Can Nothing Weigh Something? ] quote: The critical statement is “ If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue”. The only separating the two are your assumptions on reconciliation. I gave it my best shot from my understanding… now you can give me a good reason for that reconciliation. I might remind you at this time, that the subject of this thread contends against the formation of black holes from supernova. The only real understood mechanism for the creation of black holes. If you believe this proposition to be correct and black holes do not really exist, I suppose you can accept that the vacuum catastrophe is explainable also. that is just my opinion. Point one is not in the conversation at this time, point 2 will require a rehashing of my statements. With regard to this point, let me suggest that a better critique of the idea that the problem is unsolved is a modern rejection of the solution and not decade old papers written by 'true authorities' who hadn't not seen the solutions. An honest review is that there simply isn't enough stuff within easy google range to assess what physicists currently think about the issue. There is a lot, if you google hard enough, too much for me to handle (too deep in the minutia). I think you can say that it is a judgment call for what you can accept as real. Edited by Admin, : Provide missing link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19956 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Are you asking why Son Goku is claiming that the prior 120 orders of magnitude error is now thought resolved? If so, that explanation has been offered many times and hasn't changed. The error identified in the 1970's used a naive model. Use of a more accurate model, as set forth in the 2012 paper Measurement of the flavour-specific CP violating asymmetry
Please recall this from Son Goku's Message 14: quote: Son Goku says the study's approximations and focus on only one quantum aspect means the paper isn't conclusive, but it must be said that the authors' conclusions (beginning at the bottom of page 6) express no doubts, concluding thusly:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member (Idle past 27 days) Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined:
|
Unfortunately I have spent most of the thread asking Zaius why he still supports papers from 1970 that I haven't really reached a proper discussion of the cosmological constant. The problem is not solved, but the real problem is different to what Zaius keeps talking about. It is not an issue of it being hundreds of orders of magnitude off.
The cosmological constant, according to quantum field theory, (specifically the standard model) has two components:
Now, it turns out that this cancel almost exactly to produce the "correct" value for the cosmological constant. To be a bit more specific, quantum field theory calculations show that each field has a vacuum energy of: Now, if we take the heaviest particle in the Standard Model, the top quark, this value turns out to be ludicrously high, far larger than the observed value. Initially it was thought the Higgs component just added a It was also quickly realised that Now, the value I quoted above for each fields contribution to The most extreme assumption is that the Standard Model holds all the way up to Big Bang energies, the Planck scale, where General Relativity and the Standard Model, we know, must break down. This is quite an extreme assumption, for it is essentially stating that the Standard Model describes all of particle physics and works up until energies where the concept of particles breakdown. There is no new forces lurking in the energy range between the LHC's collider and the Big Bang, no new particles, nothing. This hypothesis is often known as "the desert". If you assume it, then However: Suggesting that As Steven Weinberg has said, the real question now is “Why they cancel so nicely” (see p.6 of the talk above), not this "hundreds of orders of magnitude" stuff from the 1970s. Edited by Son Goku, : rest are -> so is their sum Edited by Son Goku, : Terrible grammar, The Steven Weinberg!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Great. The point was to counter your complaint that the disjoint between vacuum energy and the cosmological constant meant that physics did not work in the two realms. And I did provide such an example. quote: That's fine. There is no problem finding pointers to the vacuum catastrophe. What I asked was whether you could find some commentary addressing proposed solutions. By the way, how about some bibliography on that cite of yours.
Sigh. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: If the physics is applied out of it’s “scale”, there are problems. The micro and the macro are still dominate domains of either QM or Relativity respectively. quote: Son took care of that first part (no I still am not buying that used car). About there being a observable vacuum energy, well there is the rub. Things don’t just cancel “nicely”, do they? quote:
Carful, this is exactly what christians have been claiming for 2000 years. Although a deist, Einstein said ”God does not play dice with the universe”. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein God can be identified in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
I think we have combined a few different arguments here… refuting CP violations are not part of the issues for back-energy calculation in star collapse or the vacuum catastrophe.
I am amazed that some of these calculations (like star collapse) can actually be attempted in the first place, others may require more computing power than is available or will ever be available. Ultimately, if you buy that black holes don’t exist from star collapse, that is the used Edsel at the back of the car lot… Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member (Idle past 27 days) Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined:
|
Why? Can you just say why?
Well ![]() ![]() Also 1000 posts! Here for nearly 10 years and I've reached the milestone!! I assume Percy that my luxury mansion with framed portraits of major EVC luminaries (e.g. onifre, nwr, Chiroptera, Rahvin and others possibly even more handsome and cool) is in the mail? Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given. Edited by Son Goku, : Grammar is hard Edited by Son Goku, : So is latex typesetting Edited by Son Goku, : One more time.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: It is not that they do… It is they must. Grasshopper…. It is a un-parsimonious cancelation. Congrats for the milestone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19956 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
With your usual imprecision you again seem to be implying something not supported by the evidence, that the consequences for cosmology are embarrassing if the conclusions of the Mersini-Houghton/Pfeier paper are upheld and we learn that black holes don't form after a supernova such as this one (SN 1604, Kepler's Supernova): The paper implies that very dense matter doesn't just slip quietly into a black hole, that it fights like hell through quantum effects. You have an exceedingly odd view of scientific discovery, as if discovering something new in science were a problem. You ran on through pages and pages of this thread about a 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy in an old vacuum energy calculation as if it were an embarrassment for cosmology that potentially called the whole field into question (you weren't actually specific about anything, but you made it clear it was very bad), then when it was shown to be reconciled you ran on about how suspicious that was, and now you're running on about this black hole calculation. For you, it seems, scientific puzzles and scientific discovery are awkward and embarrassing developments. You seem to believe that scientists should be mortified when they discover something new, especially if it doesn't fit well with current science. The reality is that scientific puzzles focus the attention of researchers, and this leads to new discoveries and new science that move science forward. This is what has happened and is happening after the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe and of the Higgs, and this potential discovery about black holes, if upheld, will do the same. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I am actually pleased that the universe exhibits a 55 order of magnitude preciseness. The only exactness a creator can impart. I can accept the evidence of a underlying symmetry but not necessarily the overlaying construct. To me the true reality must encompass the micro and macro universe (anything short of that is unsatisfying). By the way… The very thing you disapprove of in me is the very thing that makes science great. Philosophical objection rejected all of the following bad theories/ideas before the formal proof came. phlogiston theory The Martian canals Luminiferous Aether Einstein’s static universe Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion http://www.toptenz.net/...es-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php Science must first find it’s limitation before it finds reality. Newton compared himself to a child standing on the shore of discovery with a vast ocean before him waiting to be discovered. Maybe science today lacks philosophical vigor. Because most of what I hear coming from macro science is that we are just about to confirm everything “we” believe about reality. So goes the utter self-regard in man. A tautology is not worth our support when it starts to explain nothing….
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Right. How much variation is actually possible? What portion of that variation does '55 order of magnitude' represent? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 222 days) Posts: 1814 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I was listening to Quirks and Quarks the other day and heard a story about the Event Horizon Telescope project where they take a half dozen telescopes from around the world, some atomic clocks and a few computers and take a picture of the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Just a wee fellow with the mass of 4 million suns and 26k light years away. Even while the thing itself is totally black and emits no light it is surrounded by a cloud of billion degree gas that is the brightest thing around. Apparently we will get a look at the shadow of the thing in a year or so.
Mind = blown. Anyway, my question is how do you see through that cloud of gas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 5581 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Radio telescopes. Not optical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 222 days) Posts: 1814 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Of course but isn't the cloud of gas emitting the brightest radio signal? How do you see something dark that lies directly behind something that is very bright?
Is this the same principle that is used to detect exoplanets only in reverse?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021