Black Holes Don't Exist

No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by “superfluous ontological apparatus”. Formally it is known as the “vacuum catastrophe”. I asked Son to summarize all the minutia in formal objections, he did not, I still pose that offer.

(a) The paper I gave you is free to access.
(b) I have summarised it before, back in 2012. Guess what I got back then? Sarcastic one-liners. I am not going to summarise it again.

Summarising it was apparently too vague for you. However you have also told me you don't want detail. What kind of exposition do you want? A rough guide to the calculation or something like that?

zaius137 writes: You would think that I am the one posing a formal objection to a disagreement of predicted vacuum energy to apparent vacuum energy.

You're not qualified to pose a "formal objection", but who else besides you is basing their objection on a decades old rough approximation of the standard model?

quote: I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation. This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand. No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by “superfluous ontological apparatus”.

I was wondering about these summations that you have read that characterize the problem as unanswered, and then I noticed that in a later message (Message 117) you referenced the Wikipedia article on Vacuum Catastrophe. This article states:

Wikipedia writes: In cosmology the vacuum catastrophe refers to the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density as inferred from data obtained from the Voyager spacecraft of less than 1014 GeV/m3 and the zero-point energy of 10121 GeV/m3 suggested by a naïve application of quantum field theory.

First, notice that the discrepancy is given as 107 orders of magnitude, not 170. I do not myself know which figure is correct, but if you're going to claim 170 and then cite a Wikipedia article that claims 107, you might want to explain the difference.

Second, notice where it says "a naive application of quantum field theory". Son Goku will have to confirm, but this "naive application" may be what he means when he refers to a toy model from the 1970's.

This is the true “straw man” I have seen you use time and time again. Here he is! now you pick him apart. First problem is getting to a true particle/field relationship, The Higgs is never seen as a particle… FACT. The excuse is that it appears too fast to observe….

Son Goku addressed this already in Message 108, explaining that detection of the Higgs is following the same familiar track of progress as other particles:

Son Goku in Message 108 writes: The vast majority of subatomic particles are not directly detected. Although as the years go on they are. For instance the pions were originally detected via their effect on the decay channels of other particles, now they have been directly detected. ... The preliminary tests of the Higgs can only detect it via its decay products, then, as with other particles, eventual direct detection.

You continue:

The particle/field provides a framework in QFT to build a mathematical construct around the same. It is in all definition a speculation… Unprovable by definition.

Son Goku already answered this, too, in Message 103 and Message 108:

Son Goku in Messages 103 and 108 writes: The particle/field idea appears to be correct. The model that particles are excitations of fields (quantum field theory) has produced a theory (the standard model) that correctly predicts all sub-atomic interactions. ... No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?

You conclude:

In my opinion, the critics of the discovery of the Higgs particle will eventually win the day.

We know what your opinion is. What we're trying to understand is whether your opinion is based upon anything factual.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify the question about 170 versus 107.

Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Here, we report the combination of these two channels, which results in strong evidence for the direct coupling of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to down-type fermions, with an observed significance of 3.8 standard deviations, when 4.4 are expected.

What exactly is your criticism, zaius137 Surely you don't think the 3.8 vs 4.4 represents some kind of discrepancy? Further, your post completely fails as a response to Son Goku's request for a reason for "that you think bet random events being more statistically significant."

So exactly what is your point? Because it appears that you really don't have either a clue or a point.

Hi Zaius,

Without some sort of explanation from you, I don't think anyone understands why you find those excerpts unconvincing. (I assume you meant unconvincing, that your "very convincing" comment was sarcasm.)

--Percy

Second, notice where it says "a naive application of quantum field theory". Son Goku will have to confirm, but this "naive application" may be what he means when he refers to a toy model from the 1970's.

Yes that is what I mean. I'll explain a bit.

General Relativity, as most of you know, describes how matter couples to spacetime, that is how it distorts it, which we experience as gravity.

General Relativity contains a term (often called the cosmological constant) which describes how Vacuum Energy distorts spacetime. Vaccum Energy being the energy in empty space that is present even when no matter it there.

I've said before that in quantum field theory particles are excitation of the field. Another analogy, which is actually more accurate, is that if you think of the quantum field as a spring mattress, particles are vibrations of the springs. Vacuum energy can be thought of as the energy in the field when it is inactive, or in the mattress analogy, the potential energy present in the springs even when they are not vibrating.

Now, General Relativity cannot tell you what the Vacuum Energy is as it does not describe matter, it has no idea how much energy is in a field when it is inactive. You have to compute that energy in quantum field theory and then feed it into General Relativity.

From cosmological observations it appears that the Vacuum Energy is about one joule per cubic kilometer. That is, every cubic kilometer of empty space contains about a joule, even when no matter is present.

It is this Vacuum Energy that, according to General Relativity, is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, rather than slow down as it would without it.

Now, a good check of the Standard Model would be to insure that it predicts this one joule per cubic kilometer. However this was almost impossible to check in the 1970s as:
(a) The standard model has 14 fields, you would have to calculate the contributions of each.
(b) You cannot check each in isolation, as the Vacuum Energy of one field "back reacts" on the Vacuum Energy of all others. You really have to check the whole standard model at once.
(c) Spacetime itself back reacts on the vacuum energy and alters it. This was poorly understood at the time. This is a reasonably easy calculation, but the mathematical machinery didn't exist at the time. In fact it has really only been fully refined since the early 2000s.

In the above, it is really (b) that is the problem and the part that even today requires hundreds of hours of supercomputer run-time to calculate. (c) can be done mostly by hand.

So to cut it short, in the 1970s people reasoned:
The Higgs is probably the major contributor to the vacuum energy, so let's calculate the result in a world where only the Higgs exists.

The answer gives you joules per cubic kilometer. Which is obviously way off one joule. However, the approximation is extreme (universe with nothing but the Higgs).

Edited by Son Goku, : string -> spring

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.

If you're getting frustrated by an idiot, don't forget that there our others out here reading your stuff and learning a lot and really appreciating it.

So thank you.

Now was that so hard… I knew you could do it.

quote:

---

From cosmological observations it appears that the Vacuum Energy is about one joule per cubic kilometer. That is, every cubic kilometer of empty space contains about a joule, even when no matter is present.

---

What Son has just presented will not be a point of contention with me (even though I have some questions). What he has failed to mention is that the field (cosmological constant) is evolving with time in accordance with the BB history. You can calculate a cosmological constant for any epoch, but nothing the Standard model has presented actually demonstrates a realistic modeling for “dark energy” and its variance (also no WIMPS found for dark matter). Why does the dark energy change over time?

I am still getting an additional reply ready… Very exciting.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.

---

I am sarcastic, provoking isn’t it….

Well I guess if the expectation is not met by results, QFT can just adjust a parameter… no big deal. Your a smart participant and this is your field, explain why the expectation might not be met and what parameter might need tweaking. Keep it simple because you are talking to a “zero spinning Bozo living in a field”.

Just a quick side point…

CERN is a statistical engine, no sharp peaks for particles is necessary. What you can not obtain with a million collisions you can obtain with ten trillion collisions. I do have a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis as used in computational programing (a past life). Statistics can smear results that are not separated by significant deviations (that may be an objective in some models). That is just the nature of the beast, although it also depends on the statistical modeling. This might be an explanation why Fermilab was not particularly interested in the 125GeV mass. The claim was at the time that there “was a lot going on there”. I remember the reports well as I followed all the blogs with great interest. Just be prepared that one day this entire find might come to nought.

quote:

---

You're not qualified to pose a "formal objection", but who else besides you is basing their objection on a decades old rough approximation of the standard model?

---

You need to read more my friend. It is somewhat less than a TOE.

quote:

---

First, notice that the discrepancy is given as 107 orders of magnitude, not 170. I do not myself know which figure is correct, but if you're going to claim 170 and then cite a Wikipedia article that claims 107, you might want to explain the difference.
Second, notice where it says "a naive application of quantum field theory". Son Goku will have to confirm, but this "naive application" may be what he means when he refers to a toy model from the 1970’s.

---

I take the “naive” application to mean an application of QFT to the large scale universe and gravity. Stars are not excitations of universal fields, as Son would have it. Imagine what a proof for star formation or black hole formation would look like from the standard model (QFT).

You started this thread on a outrageous view developed from the standard model. Does anyone believe black holes don’t exist? If they do not come about in stars, how could there be so many in the universe?

quote:

---

Son Goku addressed this already in Message 108, explaining that detection of the Higgs is following the same familiar track of progress as other particles:

---

The first assumption of the particle/field principle is that the decays actually reflect a particle (this my be beyond scientific proof). Maybe the decay products that are observed are not indicative of a particle at all. Furthermore, these decays are assumed to be a zero spin boson in the case of a Higgs, that assumption is yet to be proved first, then the Higgs needs to be shown to impart mass to gage bosons. There is no other particle that acts like a Higgs is supposed to act, this is new ground. Yet the particle detected is still just another decay at this point, some research says this is a Higgs by statistical conformation, skeptics maintain the Higgs could still be a doublet impostor.

If it is a Higgs, what does it answer, the mass it does explain seems arbitrary to the particle. How many other mechanisms are required to explain the occurrence of mass of normal matter and black hole mass? The Higgs does not answer the preceding questions at all.

You might say, well you believe in black holes right, they can not be seen directly. This may be true, but black holes do not just blink into and out of existence (too fast to observe) that to me is nonsense.

quote:

---

We know what your opinion is. What we're trying to understand is whether your opinion is based upon anything factual.

---

To my frustration we have not reached the meat of this discussion… Yet.

What he has failed to mention is that the field (cosmological constant) is evolving with time in accordance with the BB history.

It isn't, the cosmological constant is constant in time and space according to observations, hence the reason it is called a constant.

Well I guess if the expectation is not met by results, QFT can just adjust a parameter… no big deal. Your a smart participant and this is your field, explain why the expectation might not be met and what parameter might need tweaking.

It can't be tweaked. If the Higgs decays are not observed the standard model is false, no adjustment of its parameters to avoid the Breit-Wigner profiles for decays (these are the humps near 125GeV) would be possible. The location of the hump can be adjusted, but not its presence, and the location is not completely free to vary, it can only be located before 247GeV, i.e. the Higgs must be lighter than this and its decays must be present at detectable rates.

Just be prepared that one day this entire find might come to nought.

Except that every statistical analysis makes that seem more and more unlikely. The possibility of a Higgs is now estimated at 99.99%

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

zaius137 writes: quote: You're not qualified to pose a "formal objection", but who else besides you is basing their objection on a decades old rough approximation of the standard model? You need to read more my friend. It is somewhat less than a TOE.

You need only tell me where to read. You said it isn't you "posing a formal objection to a disagreement of predicted vacuum energy to apparent vacuum energy." If you're actually taking your lead from someone else, who is it besides you who is suggesting that the "vacuum catastrophe" that is based upon a decades old rough approximation of the standard model has any current legitimacy?

I take the “naive” application to mean an application of QFT to the large scale universe and gravity. Stars are not excitations of universal fields, as Son would have it. Imagine what a proof for star formation or black hole formation would look like from the standard model (QFT).

I don't understand this shift from vacuum energy to the formation of stars and black holes? Are you dropping your claim that the standard model's predicted vacuum energy value is off by over a hundred orders of magnitude?

You started this thread on a outrageous view developed from the standard model. Does anyone believe black holes don’t exist? If they do not come about in stars, how could there be so many in the universe?

The point of the research briefly described in Message 1 wasn't that black holes don't exist, but that we may be mistaken about their true nature. As I summarized at the time, "Their research supports Stephen Hawking's recent announcement that black holes are actually grey holes with a chaotic and very hot event horizon from which energy escapes. Hawking suggests a changing event horizon subject to quantum fluctuations inside the black hole, a sort of 'grey area,' hence the term grey hole."

The first assumption of the particle/field principle is that the decays actually reflect a particle (this my be beyond scientific proof). Maybe the decay products that are observed are not indicative of a particle at all. Furthermore, these decays are assumed to be a zero spin boson in the case of a Higgs, that assumption is yet to be proved first, then the Higgs needs to be shown to impart mass to gage bosons. There is no other particle that acts like a Higgs is supposed to act, this is new ground. Yet the particle detected is still just another decay at this point, some research says this is a Higgs by statistical conformation, skeptics maintain the Higgs could still be a doublet impostor.

No one minds if you find the current evidence for QFT or the Higgs or whatever unconvincing. That's your right. You decide what evidence and how much will convince you. But persuading other people that they should also find the evidence unconvincing is a significant challenge that would be more effective if it didn't include things like invalid objections based upon approximations from nearly a half century ago.

You might say, well you believe in black holes right, they can not be seen directly. This may be true, but black holes do not just blink into and out of existence (too fast to observe) that to me is nonsense. ... To my frustration we have not reached the meat of this discussion… Yet.

No one thinks that an implication of QFT is that black holes blink into and out of existence. You seem to feel that progress toward the "meat of this discussion" has been tortuous, so could I suggest that statements like this about black holes and previously about vacuum energy are a significant distraction. As the source of these distractions it is within your power to prevent them from happening.

--Percy

quote:

---

It isn't, the cosmological constant is constant in time and space according to observations, hence the reason it is called a constant.

---

Not that simple…

Originally the cosmological constant was a contribution of space itself to pose a balance in the universe. When the constant was assumed to be a contribution of energy then things changed. If the volume of the universe is increasing, dark energy must also increase. Since the evolution of the universe is more complex, a deceleration then a acceleration, the energy contribution has changed from the past epoch to the present one, that from vacuum energy.

"No technique has ever been able to probe this ancient era before," said BOSS principal investigator David Schlegel of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "Back then, the expansion of the universe was slowing down; today, it's speeding up. How dark energy caused the transition from deceleration to acceleration is one of the most challenging questions in cosmology." http://mdashf.org/...over-time-say-the-last-10-billion-years

Not that simple… Originally the cosmological constant was a contribution of space itself to pose a balance in the universe. When the constant was assumed to be a contribution of energy then things changed. If the volume of the universe is increasing, dark energy must also increase.

The cosmological constant is an energy density and observational studies show that energy density is constant in time and space. A change in volume does not imply a change in an energy density. Dark Energy can increase without the energy density increasing.

You just missed the main point, the evolution of the balance between vacuum energy and matter has changed over time (main point). Either matter is decreasing or vacuum energy is increasing. I would go with the latter.

You only imply a local constant… not the observed one.