Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Lerok: on 10/6/17 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote I think it is very interesting continued

azad khurram: on 10/28/14 at 6:53am UTC, wrote More on the relationship between pight and mass; _______________ ...

John Merryman: on 10/21/13 at 16:16pm UTC, wrote That's light and mass....

John Merryman: on 10/21/13 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote More on the relationship between pight and mass; Quantum condensation was...

John Merryman: on 10/20/13 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote Tom, And one of those patterns are waves of complexity that build up...

Thomas Ray: on 10/20/13 at 13:24pm UTC, wrote " ... they are generally given a better perspective of the larger context...

John Merryman: on 10/20/13 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Ps, Even if they are not as informed of the details and minutiae within...

John Merryman: on 10/20/13 at 9:47am UTC, wrote Tom, Given the human proclivity for getting caught up in herd like...



FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2017

CATEGORY: Cosmology [back]
TOPIC: Chasing the black holes of the ocean [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Another great find by John Merryman:

In John's words: "Here is an interesting article on PhysOrg, about how "some of the largest ocean eddies on Earth are mathematically equivalent to the mysterious black holes of space." Given the extent to which the "firewall" issue has consumed

theoretical physics lately, it should be of interest that the same mathematical phenomena is being physically manifested in ocean currents."

From the article: "But at a critical distance, a light beam no longer spirals into the black hole. Rather, it dramatically bends and comes back to its original position, forming a circular orbit. A barrier surface formed by closed light orbits is called a photon sphere in Einstein's theory of relativity...Haller and Beron-Vera discovered similar closed barriers around select ocean eddies. In these barriers, fluid particles move around in closed loops – similar to the path of light in a photon sphere. And as in a black hole, nothing can escape from the inside of these loops, not even water."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-black-holes-ocean.html#jCp

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 02:42 GMT
Thank you, Zeeya!

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 18:14 GMT
Okay, John, now you can talk about 'theoretical patches,' and I won't say a word. :-)

I stand with Einstein and Hawking -- no firewalls. Let the games begin.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 03:02 GMT
Tom,

The point I think worth making here is this is a structure which emerges from and can be explained by basic thermodynamic, convective processes and any mathematical modeling is simply descriptive. So I think that when we really add up all the pieces of galactic processes, the mass falling in, the energy radiating away, etc. the shape is not due to the geometry(spacetime), the geometry simply describes the shape which emerged from those physical processes.

Does gravity really eventually collapse into a black hole? If you were to go to the center of the earth, would there be a small black hole there, or would the gravitational attraction balance out in all directions, since the mass would all be above you? Leaving only enormous pressure and heat.

Similarly, if you were to go to the center of the galaxy, would the gravity continue to pull you into a black hole, or would it actually balance out, like on the smaller scale of the planet? Leaving only the pressure, heat and rotational velocity to shoot whatever does fall in, out the poles as jets of cosmic rays.

It seems to me, the idea of a singularity models the form of the vortex to infinity, rather than seeing it as emergent structure of dynamic processes.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 09:53 GMT
" ... would the gravitational attraction balance out in all directions, since the mass would all be above you?"

Yes. The mass above is equal to the mass below.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
Tom,

So if this applies to galaxies, wouldn't the center of the galaxy be more the eye of a storm, then a mathematical singularity? That the mass and thus gravity is equalized in all directions, rather than a vortex vanishing into infinity?

Or is the gravity of galaxies somehow different from the gravity of planets?

Regards, John M

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
Tom,

"the formation of gravitational black holes...involves no force." Do we know that? Is not the intrinsic rotation of matter in space to some virial radius a 'force'?

A Lagrangian point is a 'centre of mass' position where toroidal gravitational field potential cancels to zero (we have 5 in the Earth/Sun/Moon system). The centre of Earth is another. The main difference with an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
"the formation of gravitational black holes...involves no force." Do we know that? Is not the intrinsic rotation of matter in space to some virial radius a 'force'?

We do know that, Peter. You are standing right now on a potential event horizon--were the Earth's matter compressed to a size which is precisely calculable by Schwartzchild's formula, you could not escape, nor could any light or other information. Hawking's signature accomplishment was to show by quantum mechanical rules that there is a nonzero chance that 1/2 of a particle pair does escape the event horizon, which appears as radiation to an observer outside the horizon.

The probability is classically random. Thus the unification of quantum rules with general relativity and the possibility of eliminating singularities from the theory, which are what keeps it from being complete.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Tom,

You appear to be confusing theory with 'fact'. You may subscribe' to some theory but you seem to be forgetting that only makes it a belief not a fact! You seem to be ever abandoning the 'singular' importance of correspondence with findings? and the only fundamental truth, that "all theory is provisional."

Do your beliefs now also exclude that?

Lets' look at nature. When any mass or massive system is put in space it starts to rotate, on some virial radius. This is 'intrinsic rotation'. Are you really suggesting there is no 'force' which causes this? I'm really curious! Note that I consider the concept 'force' rather inadequate in all cases, but here let's use the present general paradigm.

One reason I'm curious is that in a model which removes singularities (and other anomalies) a cause for this rotation emerges, which comes under the description above.

It also agrees with John, a black hole energy 'is' rotation, which is Orbital AM. It does not exist without it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 12:32 GMT
"You appear to be confusing theory with 'fact'."

No danger of that in physics, when a fact is correspondence between theoretical prediction and observed phenomena.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
Tom,

"Involves no force."

It's just the curvature of spacetime, right?

Previously you agreed that as a quantum of light, a photon is not necessarily a point particle, but can expand and contract. As bosons, presumably you can have lots of such quanta of light overlaying each other, creating a holographic model of light, where each is an image of the whole, not just an infinitesimal particle. True? Or at least possible.

Now how would such a model work in reality? Somewhat like a fluid, with wave dynamics. And eddies.

What is gravity, but shrinking space and how does physics define space? As measurement between points. So if the points move closer, that's shrinking space and if your points are in a medium which can contract, then space contracts. As I keep pointing out, when you release light from mass, it expands and this creates pressure. Think atomic bomb. So if that energy is contracting, then physics would model it as collapsing space. And the actual, physical effect would be a vacuum.

Now that energy doesn't cease to exist, either it condenses into mass, or it gets ejected out the "bottom" of the vortex.

So while math may not need force, physics does.

"were the Earth's matter compressed to a size which is precisely calculable by Schwartzchild's formula, you could not escape, nor could any light or other information."

Has anyone ever actually measured/observed a non-rotating black hole? They are interesting in theory, but do they exist in nature?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT
Peter,

In the latest post on Peter Woit's blog, this comment coaght my eye;

"The almost inconsistent SM parameters have an interesting analog in statistical physics. In the 1940s Onsager showed that critical exponents have to satisfy certain inequalities. Twenty years later people realized that these inequalities are in fact equalities, i.e. critical exponents are on the border of inconsistency. The underlying reason is scale symmetry.

By analogy, the fact that the SM Higgs mass is on the verge of inconsistency could be a sign that a symmetry principle is at work here too. If so, there probably isn’t any BSM physics to be found, apart from gravity which is a different matter altogether."

It made me think of your observation above;

"The foam is being continuously propagated by the shear 'plane' as the surface water rotates, accelerates and 'enters' the vortex.."

A vortex forms on the boundary between frames/fields, so what boundary is the Higgs forming on? Between motion and inertia?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
caught

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 13:05 GMT
John,

Thanks. Motion and speed are indeed only relative concepts. There can be no 'shear surface' or consequential rotation without relative motion.

The only reason an 'ether' state of motion (frame) was banned was because it was assumed it must be one 'absolute' state of motion. What hierarchical 'discrete fields' do is show is's not absolute. So everywhere can have a local background frame (we just then need the 'domain limit' mechanism, borrowed from optics).

Now we can have the QV, dark energy, dark matter, the Higgs field or whatever we wish, but WITH a relative 'state of motion'. (Of course we don't 'know' what is is moving and won't until we give it some name, but that can't matters).

So that answers your very important question. Anything that moves in the background causes compression, relative motion and eddies, always known as fermion conjugate 'pair production', most of which instantly annihilate, but some (Cooper pairs, Majorana fermions,{arXiv} Protons etc.) combine and make the basic plasma ions. (Also the Unruh effect, pretty big around comets, on re-entries! at at LL Orionis - see my '2020 Vision' essay fig.).

All quite simple really. Does it make sense to you? I'm not sure where the main party is. Should we wait for them to catch up? How long?, ...2020? I did pass round piles of maps! Actually I'm happy here, as I've just posted two of the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle 'evidence' verifying the DFM dynamics on my essay blog. Bob and Alice's toroid spin detector field particles DO have a consistent spin-axis orientation subject to setting! There comment was right, it;

"promises to untangle a theoretical logjam about key elements of the interstellar medium."

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 22:18 GMT
Peter,

The Higgs presumably imparts mass. What is mass, other than inherent inertia? Not just inertial motion, but total inertia, as in unmoving. So when you drag something which is "unmoving," it would drag on you, therefore imparting "mass." Yet the Higgs has energy and thus must have motion. So is its field one of absolute "un-motion," and the Higgs is the vortex stirred up by something moving through this state. Think vacuum fluctuations being stirred up like dust by a passing car.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
John,

Push 2 gyroscopes when one's spinning and one not. You'll discover where the power is in the IQbit in my essay, and why 'unmoving' is wrong. Inertia IS momentum, but orbital angular momentum (OAM), and symmetrically balanced in a toroid (two opposing 'vortices') not a sphere. Particles 'spin' or do not exist at all!

And I agree. 'Higgs', 'Marjorana fermions', 'Cooper Pairs', electrons/positrons, whatever condenses from the QV background does so, and due to relative motion.

The 3D gyroscope is the 'Sagnac ring' which is a toroid. They're essential on spacecraft as they can sense 'yaw' as well as the basics. They work on a principle consistent with the DFM and the postulates of SR, NOT the 'interpretation' of SR now embedded is Tom's and so many psyche's. That seems to be the true trouble with physics'.

Peter.

PS; Applause for your 'space-time' definition. It's an effect not a cause.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Peter,

(two opposing 'vortices')

It's not conveniently measurable, but doesn't the possibility of a neutral state fit in there somewhere? What is zero? Physics treats it as a point, but wouldn't it logically be the blank paper/empty space/the vacuum? Space does seem defined by its content, but the opposite is true as well, the content is defined by the space it occupies.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 22:35 GMT
Light as matter

As the photons enter the cloud of cold atoms, Lukin said, its energy excites atoms along its path, causing the photon to slow dramatically. As the photon moves through the cloud, that energy is handed off from atom to atom, and eventually exits the cloud with the photon.

"When the photon exits the medium, its identity is preserved," Lukin said. "It's the same effect we see with refraction of light in a water glass. The light enters the water, it hands off part of its energy to the medium, and inside it exists as light and matter coupled together, but when it exits, it's still light. The process that takes place is the same it's just a bit more extreme – the light is slowed considerably, and a lot more energy is given away than during refraction."

When Lukin and colleagues fired two photons into the cloud, they were surprised to see them exit together, as a single molecule.

The reason they form the never-before-seen molecules?

An effect called a Rydberg blockade, Lukin said, which states that when an atom is excited, nearby atoms cannot be excited to the same degree. In practice, the effect means that as two photons enter the atomic cloud, the first excites an atom, but must move forward before the second photon can excite nearby atoms.

The result, he said, is that the two photons push and pull each other through the cloud as their energy is handed off from one atom to the next.

"It's a photonic interaction that's mediated by the atomic interaction," Lukin said. "That makes these two photons behave like a molecule, and when they exit the medium they're much more likely to do so together than as single photons."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.ht
ml#jCp

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 16:59 GMT
Putting this in the right thread,

No, the horizon is not a physical object, but an effect of subjective perception. As such, it is also fuzzy, as an actual physical phenomena, not just mathematical concept. Just as the present is physically fuzzy and not clearly distinguishable from past and future.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 17:10 GMT
" ... the horizon is not a physical object, but an effect of subjective perception."

So the horizon you perceive isn't necessarily the horizon I perceive?

Justify your answer.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 17:12 GMT
I can't find a source for it, but Hilbert is reputed to have something like, "Some people have a mental horizon of measure zero, which they call their point of view."

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Here is the intro and first chapter of a book on ancient Egypt, that while it is a lot of anthropology, gives a very interesting exposition of the origins of formal math and organized religion, as the mutual search for and explanation of order in the cosmos. It shows on a very primitive level, the tendency to assign agency to pattern, which, in the present context, is what "the fabric of spacetime" amounts to.

On a further note the various deities amount to the various fields/mediums/concepts, such as sky, earth, fire, etc. and how they interact, ie. relate. Consider that while monotheism replaced such forms of polytheism, it has no properties, other than agency, because there can be no other fields for it to relate. At best it is described as absolute and infinite. The variations on this theme do tend to assign some features, such as the Christian Trinity, which might possibly be construed as an analogy for past, present and future, since the Father is the prior incarnation, the Son the current and the Holy Ghost as amorphous potential to those still suffering.

The search for order(in pattern) continues.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 9, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
One more example of the nexus of math and religion.

Describing order and trying to understand it.

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
No, the horizon is not a physical object and as an effect of subjective perception, it is also fuzzy. Just like the present.

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Hey, I got a quote on the front page of Nautilus!

POPULAR ON NAUTILUS

The best comments from the most lively recent discussions.

While many flowering plants emit scents for the purpose of attracting the right pollinators, this article introduces yet another reason for certain flower smells--VOCs.

— Comment by earthling

BIOLOGY

Learning to Speak Shrub

At risk of getting semantically obtuse: Upon contemplating the concept of a multiverse, does it not become just another aspect of the universe?…

— Comment by Rich Dailey

MATTER

Beyond the Horizon of the Universe

It's not that the present "moves" from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what is, turns future into past.

— Comment by John Brodix Merryman Jr.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 17:32 GMT
Congratulations, John. That certainly underscores their promise to be "a new kind of science magazine."

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
I liked Laura Mersini-Houghton's take on what "multiverse" means. She explains that we know the universe is finite ... though, "If I have a collection of objects, and the entirety of that collections is infinite -- that would be the multiverse."

This is perfectly legal mathematics. A "finite set of infinite things," as I explained in my last essay's end-note -- and covered quite well by Hermann Weyl's little book, *The Continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis.* That book was written almost a hundred years ago.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Tom,

" we know the universe is finite"

?

You can't even qualify that with a "we think the universe is finite?"

At what point does our knowledge of the universe go beyond conjecture into the realms of complete certainty? I think if you examine the history of human speculation, that is the point where one slides off the edge of vital conjecture into stale dogma.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 00:53 GMT
More interesting work on vortices:

How Earth's rotation affects vortices in nature

New theory points to 'zombie vortices' as key step in star formation

It will be interesting to see how long before these sorts of insights start leaking into the cosmological model and start "destabilizing its spin."

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 01:09 GMT
What if the principles of thermodynamics were applied at the quantum level?

Quantum particles find safety in numbers

"However, in their new study, instead of using a simple system such as an isolated electron or ion, Barthel and his colleague Dr. Zi Cai consider a "many-body system", such as the electrons in a solid, which consists of very large numbers of particles. "We found that, in this case, the time-dependence of the coherence decay can be qualitatively different," Barthel explains. If the system is made up of a very large collection of particles, the interactions between these particles can alter the coherence decay from the typical exponential behavior of simpler systems to a much slower power law decay."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-quantum-particles-safety.html#j
Cp

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
"What if the principles of thermodynamics were applied at the quantum level?"

That's the only domain to which they *are* applied, John.

Research into the many body problem is an attempt to derive classical principles -- such as Mach's principle -- from quantum theory.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 16:32 GMT
Tom,

Not really starting a debate here, just thought it was some news worth keeping an eye on.

The actions of the single body, vs. the actions of a multi-body system are much like the organism vs. the ecosystem. The mass balances the particular. As Newton put it, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." What he forgot to mention(since it is obvious) is that while an action is necessarily linear, the reaction is non-linear.

I think that in the long run, we don't need super symmetric particles to balance the existence of particular particles, but that it is feedback loops within the context. While context might seem merely effect of the actions of the particulars, the underlaying nature of balance that creates this feedback is fundamental to the particulars.

Wait and see how the physics community shakes out in the coming years, given HEP seems to have reached experimental limits, so anything new might have to arise from theory first.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
"What he forgot to mention(since it is obvious) is that while an action is necessarily linear, the reaction is non-linear."

Nothing obvious about that, John; in fact, it isn't true. Imagine that the recoil of a rifle butt against your shoulder could go randomly up or down or sideways. You'd have a hard time holding onto the weapon or predicting where it will end up after you fire it.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
More on the relationship between pight and mass;

Quantum condensation was predicted in the 1920s by Bose and Einstein, who theorised that particles will form a condensate at very low temperatures. The first experimental demonstration of the quantum condensate followed in the 1990s, when a gas of atoms was cooled to just a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-273°C). The need...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
That's light and mass....

report post as inappropriate


azad khurram wrote on Oct. 28, 2014 @ 06:53 GMT
More on the relationship between pight and mass;

_______________

[url=http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.p
hp]http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php[/url]

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.