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.

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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 6/17/10 at 15:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, FQXi should be open for any new foundational approach. As...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 6/17/10 at 10:18am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard, thanks. Yes,it could be that I am bit shy to suggest that...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 6/17/10 at 10:09am UTC, wrote Thanks Lawrence, I am going to read it. Cheers, Ch.

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 6/15/10 at 21:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, You might look at the attached file as to have an...

**Lawrence B. Crowell**: *on* 6/15/10 at 3:12am UTC, wrote Christian, With regards to the role of a gauge field and its back reaction...

**Lawrence B. Crowell**: *on* 6/13/10 at 23:52pm UTC, wrote Corda's paper is interesting, but I have to ponder the physical meaning of...

**Ray Munroe**: *on* 6/13/10 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote p.s. - My last paragraph sounds confusing on a second read. Perhaps the...

**Ray Munroe**: *on* 6/13/10 at 17:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Friends, I agree with Lawrence here. It is true that Liouville's...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Jim Snowdon**: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Georgina Woodward**: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Jim Snowdon**: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi BLOGS

May 27, 2019

The talks were relatively long with enough time allocated for questions which allowed an in-depth understanding of the topics at hand. In the first morning, there were philosophical presentations about the early history of quantum mechanics, and while I am not an expert by any stretch in the history of this early period, I could understand for example how von Neumann’s approach of introducing the Hilbert spaces was at that time superior to Jordan’s approach (although the later C* algebraic approach stemming in part form Jordan algebras is arguably the better approach).

In the afternoon the focus of the conference switched to black holes and the relationship between entanglement and entropy.

Black holes: amazing objects. Any object falling in is erased out of existence in a finite amount of time. Not unlike falling off the edge of the universe. So where did the information about the falling matter go? Is it really encoded in Hawking radiation? In the absence of the ultimate theory of nature, we don’t really know. But maybe we can perform experiments and ask nature instead.

Bill Unruh presented preliminary experimental direct observations of Hawking radiation of a “black hole”. Since creating a black hole is completely beyond our current technological abilities, what he was doing was simulating the event horizon of a black hole by waves propagating against a flowing liquid which was passing over a submerged barrier. What was remarkable was that the wave measurements provide the Bogoliubov coefficients in field theory and to the degree that the model is correct one does observe the actual Hawking radiation which is many-many orders of magnitude smaller than the environment temperature of 300K. Bill informally reported three tentative experimental facts: (1) Hawking radiations _is_ thermal, (2) the radiation originates in vacuum fluctuations before the event horizon is formed, and (3) after the event horizon is formed, the radiation outside and inside are and remain correlated after they start to move away from the horizon, although there is no communication possible between them. (The report is preliminary work in progress and should not be quoted officially as the analysis is not yet complete.)

From this, Bill stated provocatively that the real puzzle of information loss is why people consider this a problem. As evidence he presented an argument about how coherence can be lost _with_ energy conservation. Historically, the main argument against information loss in black hole evaporation is that coherence cannot be lost without a change in energy. The temperature of a black hole is inverse proportional to its mass, and in the final stages of evaporation one sees quite an explosion. And if information is not conserved, from vacuum fluctuations, one would expect random black hole formation and evaporation and consequently random explosions should be detected all over the place.

The argument Bill presented was the (old) argument of heating a lump of coal with a laser: A laser starts in a coherent state, heats the coal which cools down and gives away random thermal radiation while is returning to its original state. So what do we have? Loss of coherence with energy conservation. But the counter argument was made from the audience that the information lost by the laser is actually encoded in the phonons in the lump of coal. Therefore this argument is not transferable to space-time itself, unless the vacuum state has a microstate structure able to hide this information. (If at this point you feel that this is similar in nature with Verlinde’s entropic gravity proposal--described in this blog post and article--you are right.) To counter the phonon argument, Bill stated that the vacuum state should be unique and that measuring the actual information loss is physically impossible due to time-energy uncertainty relations.

Personally, I strongly disagree with Bill’s argument. Why? Because information preservation and unitarity is such a cornerstone of quantum field theory that it is simply inconceivable it is not obeyed, and any alternative looks like using voodoo to explaining nature.

On the other hand, Bill’s position is not insane at all. Let’s draw a parallel between what happens in real life and what happens in black hole physics. Taxes and death are the only certain things. For the atheist, death does cause the soul to be lost and information is not conserved. But how the rest of society deals with it? Through a grieving process which “sets things in proper order” and allow us to let go and carry on. What would be the “grieving process” for black holes? It is the event horizon and the red shifting process which gradually turns off (“let go”) the communication between us and the infalling objects. And despite our mortality and information loss in society, we are able to carry on our daily lives. So perhaps the doom and gloom picture of impossibility to create a valid quantum field theory with information loss is not true when the information loss occurs behind event horizons through “grieving” red shifting (no naked singularities). Do we really need the religious “immortal soul” idea to spare us descending into madness in our day to day activities? And do we need the church of unitarity under any condition? Hawking recanted and paid his information conservation bet which made Bill quip: Galileo recanted as well, we all know how these turn out over time. The answers may well be found in a tub of water.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Hello dear Florin,

Very beautiful article.......the thermodynamics always.

Thanks for the sharing

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Very beautiful article.......the thermodynamics always.

Thanks for the sharing

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

ps .....still a sphere .... Because as any center,it is a sphere .......

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

greater the volume of the sphere, the less will be its spinal speed .....thus more will be its mass.....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the kind words. I am only reporting on interesting talks. Please enjoy, more will follow.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the kind words. I am only reporting on interesting talks. Please enjoy, more will follow.

report post as inappropriate

Bill Unruh is right within a certain perspective. For entangled state in and out of a black hole they have equal entanglement entropies E(I) = E(O), but the total entropy is

S(I + O) = S(I) + S(O) – S(I|O)

which in a fine grained perspective is zero. Yet in general we do not have the joint entropy or information S(I|O), and so the quanta we detect tunneling out the black hole is estimated from a coarse graining of known entanglement entropies in the exterior. So we are left with Bogoliubov coefficients and the thermodynamics of black holes.

The holographic paradigm, with a stretched horizon and black hole complementarity, tells us that S(I|O) exists, but we don’t know how to compute it in general. Information is preserved, but we do not know the mechanism by which this conservation occurs so we can dynamically compute that.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

S(I + O) = S(I) + S(O) – S(I|O)

which in a fine grained perspective is zero. Yet in general we do not have the joint entropy or information S(I|O), and so the quanta we detect tunneling out the black hole is estimated from a coarse graining of known entanglement entropies in the exterior. So we are left with Bogoliubov coefficients and the thermodynamics of black holes.

The holographic paradigm, with a stretched horizon and black hole complementarity, tells us that S(I|O) exists, but we don’t know how to compute it in general. Information is preserved, but we do not know the mechanism by which this conservation occurs so we can dynamically compute that.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

As a postscript, The process by which information is preserved is not unitary. It is something else --- something else we don't entirely understand.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Do you think that nature might be shuffling around huge amounts of information with very close attention to "floating points"? In other words, do you think that nature might be performing massive parallel processing in ways that are not doable on computers?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Let me play the devil's advocate and ask: why do we need unitarity behind the event horizon? We cannot interact with the matter there anyway. What difference does it make for us?

Suppose another universe forms at the singularity and the information passes from our universe to that one. After the BH evaporates, do we have any problem? Then what difference does it make for us if the other universe was or was not there in the first place?

report post as inappropriate

Let me play the devil's advocate and ask: why do we need unitarity behind the event horizon? We cannot interact with the matter there anyway. What difference does it make for us?

Suppose another universe forms at the singularity and the information passes from our universe to that one. After the BH evaporates, do we have any problem? Then what difference does it make for us if the other universe was or was not there in the first place?

report post as inappropriate

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but, maybe everything is a black hole... (evil laugh)

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I refer to the Washington meeting.

Concerning Jordan, v. Neumann, conjugate variables, and unitarity I would like to ask:

Why did v. Neumann already in 1935 perhaps as a reaction to EPR confess not believing in Hilbert space any more?

Already Schwarzschild in 1916 with reference to Charlier, Mechanik des Himmels, 1902 dealt with canonically conjugate variables. Does careful work by Jordan add some new aspects? I did not yet read the mentioned paper.

The reason for me to partially trust Jordan rather than v. Neumann is my finding that conjugate variables need not at all to be complex if considered in IR+. In terms of matrices, one does not need matrices with Hermitian symmetry but only the half of elements below or above the diagonal.

To me it does not matter that Jordan had a persistent stutter and he was a Nazi.

In what did v. Neumann and Jordan disagree?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Concerning Jordan, v. Neumann, conjugate variables, and unitarity I would like to ask:

Why did v. Neumann already in 1935 perhaps as a reaction to EPR confess not believing in Hilbert space any more?

Already Schwarzschild in 1916 with reference to Charlier, Mechanik des Himmels, 1902 dealt with canonically conjugate variables. Does careful work by Jordan add some new aspects? I did not yet read the mentioned paper.

The reason for me to partially trust Jordan rather than v. Neumann is my finding that conjugate variables need not at all to be complex if considered in IR+. In terms of matrices, one does not need matrices with Hermitian symmetry but only the half of elements below or above the diagonal.

To me it does not matter that Jordan had a persistent stutter and he was a Nazi.

In what did v. Neumann and Jordan disagree?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard,

I am not sure why von Neumann stopped believing in Hilbert spaces. But in the historical context, at that time you have several QM thories on the table: Schrodinger, infinte matrix approach, Dirac's approach, Jordan's approach, and the question was: is there an unified theory of QM, and what is it? Both von Neumann and Jordan were after this goal, but they had very different motivations in their approach. The Hilbert space approach was general enough for their need at the time and won the day. Jordan's approach could not handle well the continous case and lost.

But the arrival of quantum field theory upsetted that state of affairs, because the Stone-von Neumann theorem of uniqueness breaks down in the infinite dimensionality case. This corresponds to an infinite number of irreducible representations, and the right way to cure this is in the algebraic C* approach and the GNS theorem. (To make matter worst, Haag proved that there is =no= Hilbert space in the interaction picture in field theory, so von Neumann was right about stopping believing in the Hilbert space.)

report post as inappropriate

I am not sure why von Neumann stopped believing in Hilbert spaces. But in the historical context, at that time you have several QM thories on the table: Schrodinger, infinte matrix approach, Dirac's approach, Jordan's approach, and the question was: is there an unified theory of QM, and what is it? Both von Neumann and Jordan were after this goal, but they had very different motivations in their approach. The Hilbert space approach was general enough for their need at the time and won the day. Jordan's approach could not handle well the continous case and lost.

But the arrival of quantum field theory upsetted that state of affairs, because the Stone-von Neumann theorem of uniqueness breaks down in the infinite dimensionality case. This corresponds to an infinite number of irreducible representations, and the right way to cure this is in the algebraic C* approach and the GNS theorem. (To make matter worst, Haag proved that there is =no= Hilbert space in the interaction picture in field theory, so von Neumann was right about stopping believing in the Hilbert space.)

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

So your position is that if one electron in an entangled EPR pair falls in a BH, then the wavefunction still contains the entanglement state, but we don't know how to extract the information out of it? What would happen on a Rindler's space then? (I have a hard time understanding this complementarity idea.)

report post as inappropriate

So your position is that if one electron in an entangled EPR pair falls in a BH, then the wavefunction still contains the entanglement state, but we don't know how to extract the information out of it? What would happen on a Rindler's space then? (I have a hard time understanding this complementarity idea.)

report post as inappropriate

The observer and thought are never eliminated from the observation. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, General Relativity, and astronomical observations

are demonstrating that the "experimental observations" are just not there, in comparison to the relative strength of the attending ideas. This means that the limits of predictability have been reached.

Indeed, the interactive/related nature of thought and of the observer as well cannot be denied, in keeping with the fact that actual and theoretic/potential blend as well. "It is the theory that decides what we can observe." -- Einstein.

What merger, combines, and includes opposites must be sought as well, consistent with Bohr's agreement with the statement: "The opposite of one deep truth is another deep truth." Here will we find the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, experience, physics, and genius aligned and together/included.

Our partial and incomplete understanding of General Relativity, and of the idea of "black holes" as well, are certainly a part of what needs to be considered in light of this post.

report post as inappropriate

are demonstrating that the "experimental observations" are just not there, in comparison to the relative strength of the attending ideas. This means that the limits of predictability have been reached.

Indeed, the interactive/related nature of thought and of the observer as well cannot be denied, in keeping with the fact that actual and theoretic/potential blend as well. "It is the theory that decides what we can observe." -- Einstein.

What merger, combines, and includes opposites must be sought as well, consistent with Bohr's agreement with the statement: "The opposite of one deep truth is another deep truth." Here will we find the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, experience, physics, and genius aligned and together/included.

Our partial and incomplete understanding of General Relativity, and of the idea of "black holes" as well, are certainly a part of what needs to be considered in light of this post.

report post as inappropriate

How does the idea of space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy or light relate to "black holes"? Is the transparency of space related to the red-shift -- consider black holes as well, please? Thanks!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anon/FMD/?,

One could consider a "Black Hole" to be an object that produces maximum red-shift, such that electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies is literally red-shifted away. Of course, Lawrence has been working with Black Holes, and he inspired me to also consider their importance.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

One could consider a "Black Hole" to be an object that produces maximum red-shift, such that electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies is literally red-shifted away. Of course, Lawrence has been working with Black Holes, and he inspired me to also consider their importance.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

Don't you mean that photons moving away from black holes are redshifted? For the unlucky photon falling into the black hole, it will be massively blueshifted. Same with debris; when debris falls into the gravity well, it acquires more kinetic energy on the way down (into the event horizon). It experiences a continually decaying orbit. That decay in orbit should translate into more kinetic energy; sadly, it would be increased momentum towards the event horizon. Maybe there is a way to fall into the gravity well of a black hole and get slingshotted across the cosmos.

report post as inappropriate

Don't you mean that photons moving away from black holes are redshifted? For the unlucky photon falling into the black hole, it will be massively blueshifted. Same with debris; when debris falls into the gravity well, it acquires more kinetic energy on the way down (into the event horizon). It experiences a continually decaying orbit. That decay in orbit should translate into more kinetic energy; sadly, it would be increased momentum towards the event horizon. Maybe there is a way to fall into the gravity well of a black hole and get slingshotted across the cosmos.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason,

Yes, your interpretation is more correct, but would you even see the blue-shifted photon? Or would it simply be absorbed by the Black Hole horizon? Never to be seen again, and effectively 'shifted' out of existence.

Perhaps you could sling-shot off of a spinning Black Hole and pick up some of its rotational energy.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Yes, your interpretation is more correct, but would you even see the blue-shifted photon? Or would it simply be absorbed by the Black Hole horizon? Never to be seen again, and effectively 'shifted' out of existence.

Perhaps you could sling-shot off of a spinning Black Hole and pick up some of its rotational energy.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I have a black hole question. So I cannot extract energy from the black hole once it falls inside, right? I just figured out how satellites can slingshot around planets and suns. By falling towards a black hole, an object will get faster by converting gravitational energy into kinetic energy. By changing the object's trajectory, it can escape the black hole traveling faster than it came in, right? Is it possible to rob a black hole of its energy by slingshotting around it, but somehow escaping the gravity field in a way that produces a slingshot effect. If I keep doing this, can I make the black hole smaller by steeling its energy via gravitation?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Actually I leave at the same velocity I entered. Sigh.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Jason,

Yes, you are right. What happens in the slingshot maneuver with satellites is that if a satellite is approaching a planet from behind, it gains the speed of the planet orbiting the Sun, while if it approaching from the front, it is slowed down by that amount. Since energy is conserved, when satellites get accelerated by the slingshot method around planets, the planets are actually loosing speed and their obit is affected. But because the mass of the satellite is miniscule compared with the mass of the planet, the effect on the planet is completely negligible.

report post as inappropriate

Yes, you are right. What happens in the slingshot maneuver with satellites is that if a satellite is approaching a planet from behind, it gains the speed of the planet orbiting the Sun, while if it approaching from the front, it is slowed down by that amount. Since energy is conserved, when satellites get accelerated by the slingshot method around planets, the planets are actually loosing speed and their obit is affected. But because the mass of the satellite is miniscule compared with the mass of the planet, the effect on the planet is completely negligible.

report post as inappropriate

Florin and Ray,

I wrote here a rather long post in an attempt to address your questions.

It would seem that one should not be concerned with the interior of a black hole. And for a classical black hole in some sense that is right, unless you are the observer who wants to fall into the black hole. The issue does become of some relevance when the black hole is quantum mechanical. ...

view entire post

I wrote here a rather long post in an attempt to address your questions.

It would seem that one should not be concerned with the interior of a black hole. And for a classical black hole in some sense that is right, unless you are the observer who wants to fall into the black hole. The issue does become of some relevance when the black hole is quantum mechanical. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Thanks for your long answer. I just got Susskind’s book and I will read it carefully. The octonionic QM is not very convincing because of the non-associativity. But different observers do see different things and I think this is strong evidence for proton decay for example (and violations of barion number). I think the key to BH unitarity violation is in the singularity. The event horizon may hide the information, but information gets destroyed at the singularity. This is why I was asking about Rindler’s space where there is a horizon, but no singularity. If unitarity is indeed conserved, then the apparent violation of unitarity means that we are not properly counting degrees of freedom (at the singularity). This is similar to friction in classical mechanics, which is forbidden by Liouville’s theorem. In standard general relativity, the singularity is genuine and information does get lost. If quantum gravity avoids the singularity, then there is no problem. The question is how? I understand the CFT-AdS, but I don’t see how this can help. Take a physicist who crosses the event horizon of a large black hole (to avoid tidal forces) and suppose he discovers the TOE before getting crushed at the singularity. After the BH evaporates, can we recover his TOE or not? Unitarity says yes, event horizon says no.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your long answer. I just got Susskind’s book and I will read it carefully. The octonionic QM is not very convincing because of the non-associativity. But different observers do see different things and I think this is strong evidence for proton decay for example (and violations of barion number). I think the key to BH unitarity violation is in the singularity. The event horizon may hide the information, but information gets destroyed at the singularity. This is why I was asking about Rindler’s space where there is a horizon, but no singularity. If unitarity is indeed conserved, then the apparent violation of unitarity means that we are not properly counting degrees of freedom (at the singularity). This is similar to friction in classical mechanics, which is forbidden by Liouville’s theorem. In standard general relativity, the singularity is genuine and information does get lost. If quantum gravity avoids the singularity, then there is no problem. The question is how? I understand the CFT-AdS, but I don’t see how this can help. Take a physicist who crosses the event horizon of a large black hole (to avoid tidal forces) and suppose he discovers the TOE before getting crushed at the singularity. After the BH evaporates, can we recover his TOE or not? Unitarity says yes, event horizon says no.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

nice post!

I totally agree that "information preservation and unitarity is such a cornerstone of quantum field theory". There is no definitive evidence that unitarity is broken by black holes or by observers.

On the other hand, general relativity is a cornerstone of at least the same importance. Is it broken inside the black hole? I think that the "standard" conclusion that "classical" general relativity fails because of singularities is due to the misinterpretation of null geodesics convergence. In general, we can identify the convergence in norm with the topological convergence. But when the norm is in fact a seminorm, being defined by an indefinite metric, which even can be allowed to be degenerate, then we should not conclude from the convergence in norm that we have convergence in the topology of spacetime. Viewed in this way, the singularities can be "benign".

I attached a document in which is detailed a possible solution to Hawking's black hole information loss paradox, which allows both unitarity and general relativity to be maintained in the presence of singularities.

regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

nice post!

I totally agree that "information preservation and unitarity is such a cornerstone of quantum field theory". There is no definitive evidence that unitarity is broken by black holes or by observers.

On the other hand, general relativity is a cornerstone of at least the same importance. Is it broken inside the black hole? I think that the "standard" conclusion that "classical" general relativity fails because of singularities is due to the misinterpretation of null geodesics convergence. In general, we can identify the convergence in norm with the topological convergence. But when the norm is in fact a seminorm, being defined by an indefinite metric, which even can be allowed to be degenerate, then we should not conclude from the convergence in norm that we have convergence in the topology of spacetime. Viewed in this way, the singularities can be "benign".

I attached a document in which is detailed a possible solution to Hawking's black hole information loss paradox, which allows both unitarity and general relativity to be maintained in the presence of singularities.

regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

For some reason, the document could not be attached, so I provide a link:

Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox

report post as inappropriate

Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristi,

Thank you for your kind words, I am glad you liked it. (By the way I have three more posts coming about very interesting talks at the conference). I read your paper, and it is very interesting. But in the absence of equations I cannot really judge it. However, here is my cheap intuition about the finite geodesic, please correct me if I am wrong. BH is nothing but a massive star and if its radius is big enough, it may require only normal densities to trigger the gravitational collapse. Suppose there is no gravitational collapse. Then I can certainly travel from the outside to the center of the star in a finite amount of time, and I don’t see why adding a few concentric layers of mass to trigger the collapse can change this. In other words, it is perfectly fine that geodesics are finite for an object falling inside a BH.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your kind words, I am glad you liked it. (By the way I have three more posts coming about very interesting talks at the conference). I read your paper, and it is very interesting. But in the absence of equations I cannot really judge it. However, here is my cheap intuition about the finite geodesic, please correct me if I am wrong. BH is nothing but a massive star and if its radius is big enough, it may require only normal densities to trigger the gravitational collapse. Suppose there is no gravitational collapse. Then I can certainly travel from the outside to the center of the star in a finite amount of time, and I don’t see why adding a few concentric layers of mass to trigger the collapse can change this. In other words, it is perfectly fine that geodesics are finite for an object falling inside a BH.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

"it is perfectly fine that geodesics are finite for an object falling inside a BH"

that's what I said in the first part of the article. And I provided some new coordinates for the Schwarzschild black hole in which the information is preserved. I did this only by reparameterization, not by changing the distribution of matter. It is the same black hole. I also emphasized that we have a choice in defining the singularity, choice that can be used to restore the information preservation when the black hole evaporates.

The main problem is about what happens when the black hole evaporates. Then, the future infinity seems to be reached in a finite time, and then the time continues after the singularity. It is here where I applied the non-identification of points which appears to be at "zero distance". It is not correct to identify them, so pointing this should be enough to diminish the myth that is usually formulated like "general relativity predicts its own break down at singularities, and therefore should be replaced with something radically different, like quantum gravity". While I do not deny the necessity to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, I want to point out that the singularity theorems cannot be taken as proving the limits of general relativity - if we allow the metric to be degenerate. Palatini's and Ashtekar's formulations are two ways to do this, by removing the metric from its central place and replacing it with connections. I am currently developing a straightforward generalization of semi-Riemannian geometry which is based on metric, and allows the Einstein's equation to be formulated directly even when the metric is degenerate.

regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

"it is perfectly fine that geodesics are finite for an object falling inside a BH"

that's what I said in the first part of the article. And I provided some new coordinates for the Schwarzschild black hole in which the information is preserved. I did this only by reparameterization, not by changing the distribution of matter. It is the same black hole. I also emphasized that we have a choice in defining the singularity, choice that can be used to restore the information preservation when the black hole evaporates.

The main problem is about what happens when the black hole evaporates. Then, the future infinity seems to be reached in a finite time, and then the time continues after the singularity. It is here where I applied the non-identification of points which appears to be at "zero distance". It is not correct to identify them, so pointing this should be enough to diminish the myth that is usually formulated like "general relativity predicts its own break down at singularities, and therefore should be replaced with something radically different, like quantum gravity". While I do not deny the necessity to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, I want to point out that the singularity theorems cannot be taken as proving the limits of general relativity - if we allow the metric to be degenerate. Palatini's and Ashtekar's formulations are two ways to do this, by removing the metric from its central place and replacing it with connections. I am currently developing a straightforward generalization of semi-Riemannian geometry which is based on metric, and allows the Einstein's equation to be formulated directly even when the metric is degenerate.

regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

you say:

"But in the absence of equations I cannot really judge it."

But you manage very well to express ideas in physics without using equations (1,2) :)

Seriously now, if you suggest that my reasoning is not rigorous, please tell me where is the mistake. I will put here soon a very brief version of my reasoning.

report post as inappropriate

you say:

"But in the absence of equations I cannot really judge it."

But you manage very well to express ideas in physics without using equations (1,2) :)

Seriously now, if you suggest that my reasoning is not rigorous, please tell me where is the mistake. I will put here soon a very brief version of my reasoning.

report post as inappropriate

I would like to measure the time dialation of relative gravitational potential. I want to define a new measuring unit, the Spectrum. A Spectrum is the frequency difference between a high energy gamma ray (10^18Hz) and 1 Hz (or DC).

I want to measure from somewhere above the event horizon of some black hole somewhere to the gravity field of somewhere safe out of its reach. Here is how I will do the measurement. A gamma ray is emitted above the event horizon, it climbs the gravity well, losing energy in the process. Eventually, it will run out of energy at 1Hz, that is 1 Sp (one spectrum). At that position, another gamma ray is emitted and travels higher out of the energy well until it's depleted. How many spectra does it take to get from the event horizon to someplace safe? One or two spectra? Can we take the same measurement inside of the blackhole? How many spectra from the event horizon to the geometric center? I'm guessing maybe several hundred spectra.

It is these spectra that determine relative time dialation. The same measurement can be made for two objects passing each other at relativistic velocities. As they pass each other, it should be possible to measure the number of spectra between them.

I'll explain more later. But I want to call this Frequency Modulated Inertia (FMI).

report post as inappropriate

I want to measure from somewhere above the event horizon of some black hole somewhere to the gravity field of somewhere safe out of its reach. Here is how I will do the measurement. A gamma ray is emitted above the event horizon, it climbs the gravity well, losing energy in the process. Eventually, it will run out of energy at 1Hz, that is 1 Sp (one spectrum). At that position, another gamma ray is emitted and travels higher out of the energy well until it's depleted. How many spectra does it take to get from the event horizon to someplace safe? One or two spectra? Can we take the same measurement inside of the blackhole? How many spectra from the event horizon to the geometric center? I'm guessing maybe several hundred spectra.

It is these spectra that determine relative time dialation. The same measurement can be made for two objects passing each other at relativistic velocities. As they pass each other, it should be possible to measure the number of spectra between them.

I'll explain more later. But I want to call this Frequency Modulated Inertia (FMI).

report post as inappropriate

There should be some positions in the universe that are energetically the highest; other locations that are energetically the lowest. It should be possible to measure the difference in a unit called the spectra. From there, it should be possible to calculate time dialation effects.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Jason, nice try, it does not work in general in curved space-time. In general the universe is curved by mass. Let's take a simple analogous curved space: the Earth. On North Pole the highest point is the "lowest" point on Earth with respect to someone living at the South Pole.

Energy is related to time. Because the universe is curved, there is no universal definition of time and there is no universal notion of energy you can measure against.

Curvature is a measure of how things change when traveling along a closed curve. Take the Earth again: Start at the North Pole with an arrow in your arm poiting towards South Pole. Leave another arrow on the ground pointing in the same direction. Then travel south until you reach the equator while preserving the orientation of your arrow (towards the South Pole.) Then walk along the Equator for 1/4 of the circumference of the Earth, and continue to keep your arrow pointing in the same direction. Finally go back straight North toward your starting point with your arrow still pointing at the South Pole. You arrive at the point of departure and compare the orientation of your arrow in your hand with the one you left on the ground. The are no longer parallel. In fact, they are now perpendicular to each other. (the nice thing is that you can actully do this with a pencil and a large ball)

So curvature is a funny business preventing comparison results to be universal, and the final comparison depends on the path you travel from point A to point B.

report post as inappropriate

Energy is related to time. Because the universe is curved, there is no universal definition of time and there is no universal notion of energy you can measure against.

Curvature is a measure of how things change when traveling along a closed curve. Take the Earth again: Start at the North Pole with an arrow in your arm poiting towards South Pole. Leave another arrow on the ground pointing in the same direction. Then travel south until you reach the equator while preserving the orientation of your arrow (towards the South Pole.) Then walk along the Equator for 1/4 of the circumference of the Earth, and continue to keep your arrow pointing in the same direction. Finally go back straight North toward your starting point with your arrow still pointing at the South Pole. You arrive at the point of departure and compare the orientation of your arrow in your hand with the one you left on the ground. The are no longer parallel. In fact, they are now perpendicular to each other. (the nice thing is that you can actully do this with a pencil and a large ball)

So curvature is a funny business preventing comparison results to be universal, and the final comparison depends on the path you travel from point A to point B.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

Yes, I know about geodesics and the curvature of space.

I am noticing that gravity has a relationship to time (frequency) by virtue of energy. Specifically, If a photon climbs out of a graviational well, it does so by giving up its energy. Perhaps it starts at the bottom of the gravity well, by the time it reaches the top, it's a radio wave, and escapes the gravity well. If we look down into the gravity well, we wonder why everything moves so slowly around the event horizon. It's because everything we know about what is happening at the bottom of the gravity well comes to us with photons. But those photons loose energy when they climb out. In losing energy, they loose frequency. Because they lost frequency, they give the perspective that everything moves very slowly near the bottom of the gravity well.

There might be a very easy way to calculate the effects of time dialation using this understanding.

At this moment in time, we might share the same relative gravitaitonal potential with some other location in space. If so, our clocks would run at the same rate as the other location.

There is a little bit of awkwardness I'm trying to work out. I'm also trying to suggest that different inertial frames, whose clocks run at different rate, will be related to our clocks by some change in frequency. I'll try to clean up the wording.

report post as inappropriate

Yes, I know about geodesics and the curvature of space.

I am noticing that gravity has a relationship to time (frequency) by virtue of energy. Specifically, If a photon climbs out of a graviational well, it does so by giving up its energy. Perhaps it starts at the bottom of the gravity well, by the time it reaches the top, it's a radio wave, and escapes the gravity well. If we look down into the gravity well, we wonder why everything moves so slowly around the event horizon. It's because everything we know about what is happening at the bottom of the gravity well comes to us with photons. But those photons loose energy when they climb out. In losing energy, they loose frequency. Because they lost frequency, they give the perspective that everything moves very slowly near the bottom of the gravity well.

There might be a very easy way to calculate the effects of time dialation using this understanding.

At this moment in time, we might share the same relative gravitaitonal potential with some other location in space. If so, our clocks would run at the same rate as the other location.

There is a little bit of awkwardness I'm trying to work out. I'm also trying to suggest that different inertial frames, whose clocks run at different rate, will be related to our clocks by some change in frequency. I'll try to clean up the wording.

report post as inappropriate

Here is my reasoning, please correct me if I am wrong:

(1) The black hole information paradox is based on (A) the singularity theorems, and (B), the Hawking evaporation.

(2) The singularity theorems are based on the tacit assumption that we should identify certain points separated by a null distance.

(3) If we allow the metric to be degenerate, the assumption at (2) is no longer true. This degeneracy is allowed for example in Ashtekar's equations, but also in Plebanski's action, or in the metric-free formulation by Capovilla, Jacobson, and Dell.

(4) Hence, the information loss is proven to occur only if the metric is not degenerate. It is not proven for the case when the metric can be degenerate.

report post as inappropriate

(1) The black hole information paradox is based on (A) the singularity theorems, and (B), the Hawking evaporation.

(2) The singularity theorems are based on the tacit assumption that we should identify certain points separated by a null distance.

(3) If we allow the metric to be degenerate, the assumption at (2) is no longer true. This degeneracy is allowed for example in Ashtekar's equations, but also in Plebanski's action, or in the metric-free formulation by Capovilla, Jacobson, and Dell.

(4) Hence, the information loss is proven to occur only if the metric is not degenerate. It is not proven for the case when the metric can be degenerate.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

Thank you for your clarifications, I was going to re-read your paper, but now I can aswer withouth doing it.

You are right in your approach. If you give up the metric and replace it with something else, then you cure the singularity and there is no unitarity problem anymore. However, you are also killing the equivalence principle and/or Lorentz invariance and you have to recover them in the large distance approximation. To my knowledge LQG, while simplifying Einstein's equations in the connection formulation, cannot yet recover the large structure of space-time. Also, it is not clear how to construct in general a realistic BH in any theory yet.

There are other things one may try to break like the no-cloning of QM, or imposing an IR-UV connection, etc. As is stands, the BH theory is inconsistent and something has to give. Which one, nobody knows for sure. Probably not unitarity because AdS-CFT correspondence, and most likely the metric as advocated by LQG and non-commutative geometry. But nobody succeeded yet in constructing the large scale structure of space-time. (Although non-commutative geometry is I think closest to thos goal)

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your clarifications, I was going to re-read your paper, but now I can aswer withouth doing it.

You are right in your approach. If you give up the metric and replace it with something else, then you cure the singularity and there is no unitarity problem anymore. However, you are also killing the equivalence principle and/or Lorentz invariance and you have to recover them in the large distance approximation. To my knowledge LQG, while simplifying Einstein's equations in the connection formulation, cannot yet recover the large structure of space-time. Also, it is not clear how to construct in general a realistic BH in any theory yet.

There are other things one may try to break like the no-cloning of QM, or imposing an IR-UV connection, etc. As is stands, the BH theory is inconsistent and something has to give. Which one, nobody knows for sure. Probably not unitarity because AdS-CFT correspondence, and most likely the metric as advocated by LQG and non-commutative geometry. But nobody succeeded yet in constructing the large scale structure of space-time. (Although non-commutative geometry is I think closest to thos goal)

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

thank you for your answer.

I discussed here only the "classical" Ashtekar variables, not the quantized ones. I do not refer to LQG. The metric is replaced with a connection and a 3-frame, but it is recovered from them. When we recover it, we see that it can be degenerate. When the metric is not degenerate, his formalism is equivalent to Einstein's equation. But this is not the only example of formalism which allows degenerate metric.

It is true, if we allow the metric to be degenerate, then at those points the Lorentz group should be replaced by a larger group. In the worse case, if the metric is g=0, then we obtain the general linear group. This happens only for the degenerate points. General relativity remains valid, except that the Lorentz group is enlarged at some points. The idea is that information can be preserved.

The solution I propose sacrifices Lorentz invariance at the points in which we usually consider there is a singularity. But at those points, Lorentz invariance was not respected anyway, in fact, they were usually cut out of the spacetime. We can bring them back.

So, I will condensate:

- this is classical general relativity, not quantum, with one of its assumptions relaxed (not with more hypotheses, but with less).

- it allows us to avoid the conclusion that spacetime or information necessarily breaks down at some points.

- at those points Lorentz group should be enlarged. But now we can deal with them in a similar way in which we deal with other points, they are no longer "paria".

report post as inappropriate

thank you for your answer.

I discussed here only the "classical" Ashtekar variables, not the quantized ones. I do not refer to LQG. The metric is replaced with a connection and a 3-frame, but it is recovered from them. When we recover it, we see that it can be degenerate. When the metric is not degenerate, his formalism is equivalent to Einstein's equation. But this is not the only example of formalism which allows degenerate metric.

It is true, if we allow the metric to be degenerate, then at those points the Lorentz group should be replaced by a larger group. In the worse case, if the metric is g=0, then we obtain the general linear group. This happens only for the degenerate points. General relativity remains valid, except that the Lorentz group is enlarged at some points. The idea is that information can be preserved.

The solution I propose sacrifices Lorentz invariance at the points in which we usually consider there is a singularity. But at those points, Lorentz invariance was not respected anyway, in fact, they were usually cut out of the spacetime. We can bring them back.

So, I will condensate:

- this is classical general relativity, not quantum, with one of its assumptions relaxed (not with more hypotheses, but with less).

- it allows us to avoid the conclusion that spacetime or information necessarily breaks down at some points.

- at those points Lorentz group should be enlarged. But now we can deal with them in a similar way in which we deal with other points, they are no longer "paria".

report post as inappropriate

Hi all,

Current extrapolated data give us about 2 to 3 millions of solar mass for our galactic Center.

If we take in distribution of mass within a radius of 1000 pc and with the analyze of speeds of gas and stars ...thus we see thus the system about 0.5 pc.

Now let's correlate with the sphere and the thermodynamics.

That becomes relevant.

Now let's imagine the schwart.rayon and the redistribution of rest of mass in a torus and the electromagnetics fields, the lines of forces show us the road.

We can calculate its mass, we have an approximative rayon ....we have thus its velocity of rot.....we have also the luminosity in watts.....we have the temperature also......the informations are conserved, sorted, redistributed....the tori with a r of swart.....linking the centers....becomes thus very relevant for the correct istribution of mass and the thus the relativity and curvatures.....

ps more we go towards the universal center more the volumes of centers increase......we have many kinds of BH , with different volume increasing towards the centers and the center.....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Current extrapolated data give us about 2 to 3 millions of solar mass for our galactic Center.

If we take in distribution of mass within a radius of 1000 pc and with the analyze of speeds of gas and stars ...thus we see thus the system about 0.5 pc.

Now let's correlate with the sphere and the thermodynamics.

That becomes relevant.

Now let's imagine the schwart.rayon and the redistribution of rest of mass in a torus and the electromagnetics fields, the lines of forces show us the road.

We can calculate its mass, we have an approximative rayon ....we have thus its velocity of rot.....we have also the luminosity in watts.....we have the temperature also......the informations are conserved, sorted, redistributed....the tori with a r of swart.....linking the centers....becomes thus very relevant for the correct istribution of mass and the thus the relativity and curvatures.....

ps more we go towards the universal center more the volumes of centers increase......we have many kinds of BH , with different volume increasing towards the centers and the center.....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

GRAVITY LASER:

A gravity laser will convert electromagnetic energy into propulsion gravity waves as the preferred way to relieve electromagnetic field stress.

If you stress electromagnetic fields in the right way, the energy will take the path of least resistance to dissipate that energy; they will generate a gravity wave. From gravity waves to hyper-drives, it is just the advancing technical implementation of electronics. The very fact that electrons have clouds is an indication that the laws of physics are not as precise as we expect them to be. If they were, everything would be classical. The laws of motion permit fuzziness, but they will work at the speed of light to dissipate regional stress points by moving energy around to ease the stress point(s). This is where we take the advantage. We have to generate electromagnetic fields that stress space time to the point where it is easier to convert it to a gravity wave. This is my understanding of how that works.

We need a long cylinder of quark-gluon plasma. We are going to turn it into a gravity laser. The quark-gluon plasma is highly responsive to the full spectrum of frequencies from 1 Hz all the way up to 10^18Hz (gamma rays). You have to pump a high voltage AC into the quark-gluon plasma. You are going to use a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) to generate a frequency range that goes from 1Hz to 10^18 Hz in a modified linear fashion. You are going to do this over and over again, like a sawtooth waveform. You are trying to generate the appearance of a photon that gains or loses energy as it would in a gravity field. You are looking for the stress-point at which energy will dissipate more easily as a gravity wave then it will as a photon. Photons operate in both the frequency domain and the k-vector domain (momentum). We can't build electronics that will truly operate faster than c. However, if we are driving the voltage at intervals all along the length of the cylinder, we might be able to force the electromagnetic spectrum into such a high stress point that it kicks out a gravity wave because that relieves the stress more easily. If we can do that, we make the major technological breakthrough.

report post as inappropriate

A gravity laser will convert electromagnetic energy into propulsion gravity waves as the preferred way to relieve electromagnetic field stress.

If you stress electromagnetic fields in the right way, the energy will take the path of least resistance to dissipate that energy; they will generate a gravity wave. From gravity waves to hyper-drives, it is just the advancing technical implementation of electronics. The very fact that electrons have clouds is an indication that the laws of physics are not as precise as we expect them to be. If they were, everything would be classical. The laws of motion permit fuzziness, but they will work at the speed of light to dissipate regional stress points by moving energy around to ease the stress point(s). This is where we take the advantage. We have to generate electromagnetic fields that stress space time to the point where it is easier to convert it to a gravity wave. This is my understanding of how that works.

We need a long cylinder of quark-gluon plasma. We are going to turn it into a gravity laser. The quark-gluon plasma is highly responsive to the full spectrum of frequencies from 1 Hz all the way up to 10^18Hz (gamma rays). You have to pump a high voltage AC into the quark-gluon plasma. You are going to use a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) to generate a frequency range that goes from 1Hz to 10^18 Hz in a modified linear fashion. You are going to do this over and over again, like a sawtooth waveform. You are trying to generate the appearance of a photon that gains or loses energy as it would in a gravity field. You are looking for the stress-point at which energy will dissipate more easily as a gravity wave then it will as a photon. Photons operate in both the frequency domain and the k-vector domain (momentum). We can't build electronics that will truly operate faster than c. However, if we are driving the voltage at intervals all along the length of the cylinder, we might be able to force the electromagnetic spectrum into such a high stress point that it kicks out a gravity wave because that relieves the stress more easily. If we can do that, we make the major technological breakthrough.

report post as inappropriate

If you want to generate something similar to a gravity wave laser the best way is to direct a laser beam at a black hole! Each photon is a perturbation on the black hole spacetime. The result is a gravity wave response, where for the mass-energy of the photon beam much smaller than the black hole mass the gravity wave will not be in a single lobe (beam) directed along your propagation of the laser beam. It will be quadrupolar and mostly directed away from the direction of laser propagation. However, the gravitational radiation will tend to focus in this direction as the mass-energy of the incoming laser photons becomes comparable to the BH mass. One might get a gravity wave laser by the application of a laser beam of considerable power on a quantum black hole. Given the tiny size of the BH a femptosecond or smaller pulsed laser is advised so you can localize the laser wave packet to the BH.

Actually there is some interesting physics that might be worked out here. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle such as laser beam will have lots of momentum (momentum uncertainty), and it is interesting to explore the physics of the gravity wave and whether it exhibits the same uncertainty and momentum spread.

As for another post you can use a black hole as a propulsion machine if it is rotating. The frame dragging of the rotating gravity field can be used to direct a mass M outwards with more mass-energy than M + m of the initial mass where the part with mass m is dropped through the horizon.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Actually there is some interesting physics that might be worked out here. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle such as laser beam will have lots of momentum (momentum uncertainty), and it is interesting to explore the physics of the gravity wave and whether it exhibits the same uncertainty and momentum spread.

As for another post you can use a black hole as a propulsion machine if it is rotating. The frame dragging of the rotating gravity field can be used to direct a mass M outwards with more mass-energy than M + m of the initial mass where the part with mass m is dropped through the horizon.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Hi Lawrence,

Black holes are too heavy to work with. Also, the nearest ones are at the center of the MilkyWay, which is 40,000 light years away. I have a better idea.

Let's start with a radar dish. The idea is to aim it at something that we want to grab and bring back. We are going vary the frequency from f_1 to f_2. We are going to vary it with a continuous stream of ramp functions going into a VCO. Sorry I don't have a more convenient way to describe this. But the effect is going to turn each photon into an acceleration field. That photon is going to have a length of c*Delta t, where delta t is the ramp period.

The energy of each photon is going to be E = hf + h(f2-f1); I might need to doublecheck this part. The photon will have a length = c(delta t). So the photon will carry an accelation field the will accelerate and induce an acceleration potential of U = mgh = h(f2 - f1). Obviously, you will need a lot of photons. I haven't work out the power consumption yet.

Feel free to check my math and my physics. Anyway, each photon is an acceleration field by virtue of its changing frequency. With this kind of technology, you won't need to use black holes. Just the right electronics.

report post as inappropriate

Black holes are too heavy to work with. Also, the nearest ones are at the center of the MilkyWay, which is 40,000 light years away. I have a better idea.

Let's start with a radar dish. The idea is to aim it at something that we want to grab and bring back. We are going vary the frequency from f_1 to f_2. We are going to vary it with a continuous stream of ramp functions going into a VCO. Sorry I don't have a more convenient way to describe this. But the effect is going to turn each photon into an acceleration field. That photon is going to have a length of c*Delta t, where delta t is the ramp period.

The energy of each photon is going to be E = hf + h(f2-f1); I might need to doublecheck this part. The photon will have a length = c(delta t). So the photon will carry an accelation field the will accelerate and induce an acceleration potential of U = mgh = h(f2 - f1). Obviously, you will need a lot of photons. I haven't work out the power consumption yet.

Feel free to check my math and my physics. Anyway, each photon is an acceleration field by virtue of its changing frequency. With this kind of technology, you won't need to use black holes. Just the right electronics.

report post as inappropriate

To get a range of 0 to 10^18 Hz, one way you could do this is to use 60 bits to switch between frequencies. Ten bits per 3 orders of magnitude, I need 18 orders of magnitude, that's 10bits time 6 = 60 bits. It would take some significant designing, but I might be able to generate machines that can pump frequency ranges into my quark-gluon plasma. A computer program would flip the bits to connect-disconnect each frequency in such a way that it traces out the full frequency range. Why would we get the "magic" of suddenly generating a graviton?

Gravitons and gravity fields are not point particles, they are acceleration fields. If I generate the acceleration field, I am hoping to generate the graviton.

report post as inappropriate

Gravitons and gravity fields are not point particles, they are acceleration fields. If I generate the acceleration field, I am hoping to generate the graviton.

report post as inappropriate

Strike two photons together at the right frequency, and whammo! A particle and antiparticle form. It's like energy falls into a keyhole and something magical happens!

There are three quarks in a hadron. If you use energy to try to discern the precise nature of the quark, you create two more quarks. That is another keyhole-like phenomena.

Is is so hard to postulate that another "keyhole" might exist for gravity waves/gravitons? I don't think it would be energy at a point. I think it would be an energy distribution spread over a length as I've described.

Is this so farfetched?

report post as inappropriate

There are three quarks in a hadron. If you use energy to try to discern the precise nature of the quark, you create two more quarks. That is another keyhole-like phenomena.

Is is so hard to postulate that another "keyhole" might exist for gravity waves/gravitons? I don't think it would be energy at a point. I think it would be an energy distribution spread over a length as I've described.

Is this so farfetched?

report post as inappropriate

Florin,

This ended up being a bit on the long side.

The octonionic approach to quantum mechanics is one approach I take with these problems. To be honest I see no problem with a set of field operators in an S-matrix having nonassociativity, so the ordering of fields has this extra “freedom.” The problem comes with the current algebra of measured fields, where nonassociativity...

view entire post

This ended up being a bit on the long side.

The octonionic approach to quantum mechanics is one approach I take with these problems. To be honest I see no problem with a set of field operators in an S-matrix having nonassociativity, so the ordering of fields has this extra “freedom.” The problem comes with the current algebra of measured fields, where nonassociativity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Thanks for the large message, I have a lot to assimilate here. I will study Frances' paper in detail to get your points, but I do have reservations about the CTC space and the Hausdorff's violation. In particular I think this violates the micro-causality relationship and the existence of a Hadamard state which would guarantee renormalizability (see B. S. Kay, M. Radzikowski, and R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys. 183, 533 (1997)).

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the large message, I have a lot to assimilate here. I will study Frances' paper in detail to get your points, but I do have reservations about the CTC space and the Hausdorff's violation. In particular I think this violates the micro-causality relationship and the existence of a Hadamard state which would guarantee renormalizability (see B. S. Kay, M. Radzikowski, and R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys. 183, 533 (1997)).

report post as inappropriate

Florin,

I just wrote within that cluster of posts (15 or so) a bit on the issue of how moduli space is nonHausdorff, and this precludes unitary quantum gravity. Zariski topology is a bit scary, but such spaces support discrete group systems which are interesting. This is the part about the time operator, which I wrote about on the 26th. This fails to permit a Hermitian Hamiltonian (equivalently unitarity), but the Taub-NUT spacetime will give a time operator that functions on a discrete set --- an orbifold of discrete sequences of operator values which work.

As for CTC's, I agree they don't exist, along with faster than light travel, worm holes and warp drives and so forth. As yet I am not sure how to show this. I think quantum gravity should clean house on general relativity and remove these things.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I just wrote within that cluster of posts (15 or so) a bit on the issue of how moduli space is nonHausdorff, and this precludes unitary quantum gravity. Zariski topology is a bit scary, but such spaces support discrete group systems which are interesting. This is the part about the time operator, which I wrote about on the 26th. This fails to permit a Hermitian Hamiltonian (equivalently unitarity), but the Taub-NUT spacetime will give a time operator that functions on a discrete set --- an orbifold of discrete sequences of operator values which work.

As for CTC's, I agree they don't exist, along with faster than light travel, worm holes and warp drives and so forth. As yet I am not sure how to show this. I think quantum gravity should clean house on general relativity and remove these things.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Is it so crazy to wonder/suspect that artificial gravity can be generated by transducing electric/electromagnetic energy?

Gravity is an acceleration field.

Photons red shift or blue shift through gravity fields.

What if we use a special voltage controlled oscillator to generator AC voltages with sawtooth frequencies. In other words, voltage V_0cos[w(t)t] where w(t) is a saw tooth. The frequencies would range from 1 Hz to 10^18 Hz (gamma rays).

If we could generate high voltages with frequencies that go from 1 Hz to very high frequencies, every second, we might be able to generate an acceration field.

An anti gravity field.

Is this idea impossible?

report post as inappropriate

Gravity is an acceleration field.

Photons red shift or blue shift through gravity fields.

What if we use a special voltage controlled oscillator to generator AC voltages with sawtooth frequencies. In other words, voltage V_0cos[w(t)t] where w(t) is a saw tooth. The frequencies would range from 1 Hz to 10^18 Hz (gamma rays).

If we could generate high voltages with frequencies that go from 1 Hz to very high frequencies, every second, we might be able to generate an acceration field.

An anti gravity field.

Is this idea impossible?

report post as inappropriate

C'mon! Is there so little interest in an anti-gravity field generator?

Is there any interest at all in electronics that can generate gravitons?

I'm getting lonely out here! HELLO!!!

report post as inappropriate

Is there any interest at all in electronics that can generate gravitons?

I'm getting lonely out here! HELLO!!!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason,

Check out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304026

If Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory is correct, and a thermal equilibrium exists between various GUM (Grand Unified Mediating) bosons, then we should be able to convert photons into gravitons. If I understand Amrit properly, I think he is saying that photons cannot reveal quantum gravity events to us. If that is the case, then this conversion process may be tricky...

Your earlier posts sounded something like the 'Star Wars Death Ray' that the U.S. military supposedly made ~30 years ago.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Check out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304026

If Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory is correct, and a thermal equilibrium exists between various GUM (Grand Unified Mediating) bosons, then we should be able to convert photons into gravitons. If I understand Amrit properly, I think he is saying that photons cannot reveal quantum gravity events to us. If that is the case, then this conversion process may be tricky...

Your earlier posts sounded something like the 'Star Wars Death Ray' that the U.S. military supposedly made ~30 years ago.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

I have this idea that if photons fall into a gravity well, their frequency increase; if they come out of well, their frequency decreases. But if we use electronics to generate electromagnetic fields with frequencies that increase or decrease with a gravitational-like appearance, is there a possibility it could convert into a graviton on its own? Is there any common sense reason why this wouldn't work? Basically, coupling E&M to gravity might work using photons with large frequency shifts of many orders of magnitude.

Here is the money question. Is this something that the United States government might spend hundreds of millions of dollars on to build and test in the hopes of developing anti-gravity capability? I keep thinking of the movie, "The Philadelphia Experiment". I hope nobody reads this and thinks I want to create a wormhole time machine. That part was make believe. But the radar jamming, invisibility and eventual removal from space-time might be logically justifiable.

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

I have this idea that if photons fall into a gravity well, their frequency increase; if they come out of well, their frequency decreases. But if we use electronics to generate electromagnetic fields with frequencies that increase or decrease with a gravitational-like appearance, is there a possibility it could convert into a graviton on its own? Is there any common sense reason why this wouldn't work? Basically, coupling E&M to gravity might work using photons with large frequency shifts of many orders of magnitude.

Here is the money question. Is this something that the United States government might spend hundreds of millions of dollars on to build and test in the hopes of developing anti-gravity capability? I keep thinking of the movie, "The Philadelphia Experiment". I hope nobody reads this and thinks I want to create a wormhole time machine. That part was make believe. But the radar jamming, invisibility and eventual removal from space-time might be logically justifiable.

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

By the way, Ray, I did look at the article. It is good to know that someone is looking at microwave to graviton conversion. I think my idea of varying the frequency of a photon so it thinks it's passing through a gravity field is an attempt to look for a "built in" relationship similar to electric and magnetic fields in Maxwell's equations.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ray,

"Your idea of varying frequencies to duplicate the effect that gravity has on light might also produce gravity waves (the same general idea of the Equivalence Principle, but relating red-shift and gravity rather than acceleration and gravity),"

Yes! I am looking at the equivalence principle for the reason why it should work.

Gravity is an acceleration field. So coupling photons to gravity or to acceleration is the same thing.

You bet the electronics would be hard to build. As it turns out, there are engineers who I work with who design ultra high frequency wave generators and oscilloscopes. What I don't know is the minimum frequency I would need to generate a measurable acceleration field.

report post as inappropriate

"Your idea of varying frequencies to duplicate the effect that gravity has on light might also produce gravity waves (the same general idea of the Equivalence Principle, but relating red-shift and gravity rather than acceleration and gravity),"

Yes! I am looking at the equivalence principle for the reason why it should work.

Gravity is an acceleration field. So coupling photons to gravity or to acceleration is the same thing.

You bet the electronics would be hard to build. As it turns out, there are engineers who I work with who design ultra high frequency wave generators and oscilloscopes. What I don't know is the minimum frequency I would need to generate a measurable acceleration field.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason,

I clipped this out of my book:

"Other confirmations might include efforts by Chiao [27] and Podkletnov [28] (see arXiv:physics/0108005v2). Raymond Chiao's transducer is designed to convert photons into gravitons by using a superconducting material, then to convert these gravitons back into photons, and use interferometer techniques to measure any changes. Chiao and his colleagues have not succeeded thus far, but they are using low-energy microwaves, and should consider that they may need to overcome or quantum-tunnel through a chemical potential of ~ 71 GeV (from Section 5.4). Although other scientific arguments expect a geometrical coupling of the electron's intrinsic spin with the graviton via spacetime's curvature, and particularly when superconductors are involved [29], Equations (8) and (14) – (15) specify the dynamics between photons and gravitons. The Podkletnov effect claims to produce a gravitational field via electromagnetic fields on a superconducting apparatus that is similar to a Van de Graaff generator, and is proportional to the mass it is acting on as a gravitational field should be, and seems to increase exponentially with electric potential up to the 2 MeV to which it has been tested. This increase in the effect is consistent with the possibility that this is quantum-tunneling from an apparatus operating far below its threshold energy (of 71 GeV). Is the Podkletnov effect an electric dipole effect, or are photons being converted into gravitons or WIMP-Gravitons?"

I suspect the frequency [E = hv(nu)] needed is related to this threshold energy of ~71 GeV.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I clipped this out of my book:

"Other confirmations might include efforts by Chiao [27] and Podkletnov [28] (see arXiv:physics/0108005v2). Raymond Chiao's transducer is designed to convert photons into gravitons by using a superconducting material, then to convert these gravitons back into photons, and use interferometer techniques to measure any changes. Chiao and his colleagues have not succeeded thus far, but they are using low-energy microwaves, and should consider that they may need to overcome or quantum-tunnel through a chemical potential of ~ 71 GeV (from Section 5.4). Although other scientific arguments expect a geometrical coupling of the electron's intrinsic spin with the graviton via spacetime's curvature, and particularly when superconductors are involved [29], Equations (8) and (14) – (15) specify the dynamics between photons and gravitons. The Podkletnov effect claims to produce a gravitational field via electromagnetic fields on a superconducting apparatus that is similar to a Van de Graaff generator, and is proportional to the mass it is acting on as a gravitational field should be, and seems to increase exponentially with electric potential up to the 2 MeV to which it has been tested. This increase in the effect is consistent with the possibility that this is quantum-tunneling from an apparatus operating far below its threshold energy (of 71 GeV). Is the Podkletnov effect an electric dipole effect, or are photons being converted into gravitons or WIMP-Gravitons?"

I suspect the frequency [E = hv(nu)] needed is related to this threshold energy of ~71 GeV.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

"Raymond Chiao's transducer is designed to convert photons into gravitons ...then to convert these gravitons back into photons, and use interferometer techniques to measure any changes. Chiao and his colleagues have not succeeded thus far,..."

If photon -> graviton -> photon produces changes that the interferometer can see, that is BAD. That means there is energy gain or loss in the process; that means there is an unaccounted for sub-process involved. Did they convert a photon into a graviton, at all? I guess not.

"The Podkletnov effect claims to produce a gravitational field via electromagnetic fields on a superconducting apparatus that is similar to a Van de Graaff generator, and is proportional to the mass it is acting on as a gravitational field should be, " Is that the experiment with the spider floating in the magnetic field?

All you physics wizards have far more mathematical prowess than me; please allow me a simple one dimensional gravity experiment.

I have some vertical distance where the gravity field changes from g(i) to g(f). The change in gravity matches Newtons gravity equation F = GM1M2/r^2. I use a laser with a known frequency v(i). I want to either calculate or measure a table of frequencies as a function of elevation: f(elevation). I also want to calculate or measure the gravity field at these same points: g (elevation).

Next, I want to program a computer to generate (interpolate) these frequencies.

Next, I want to use a radar dish to repeat this frequency pattern continuously, at high voltages.

Finally, I want to aim this field at at something that can measure an acceleration field.

There is one caveat. I might have to use multiple radar dishes to generate f_i such that the set of i spans a range of frequencies. Let's pretend that the starting frequency is f(start) = 100 MHz.

If I only have 3 dishes available, and I use 5% increments, I would have

f_1(start) = 100 MHz;

f_2 (start) = 105 MHz

f_3 (start) = 110 MHz; ...etc...

For proof of concept, I am hoping for a tractor beam/repulsion beam effect.

What say you?

report post as inappropriate

"Raymond Chiao's transducer is designed to convert photons into gravitons ...then to convert these gravitons back into photons, and use interferometer techniques to measure any changes. Chiao and his colleagues have not succeeded thus far,..."

If photon -> graviton -> photon produces changes that the interferometer can see, that is BAD. That means there is energy gain or loss in the process; that means there is an unaccounted for sub-process involved. Did they convert a photon into a graviton, at all? I guess not.

"The Podkletnov effect claims to produce a gravitational field via electromagnetic fields on a superconducting apparatus that is similar to a Van de Graaff generator, and is proportional to the mass it is acting on as a gravitational field should be, " Is that the experiment with the spider floating in the magnetic field?

All you physics wizards have far more mathematical prowess than me; please allow me a simple one dimensional gravity experiment.

I have some vertical distance where the gravity field changes from g(i) to g(f). The change in gravity matches Newtons gravity equation F = GM1M2/r^2. I use a laser with a known frequency v(i). I want to either calculate or measure a table of frequencies as a function of elevation: f(elevation). I also want to calculate or measure the gravity field at these same points: g (elevation).

Next, I want to program a computer to generate (interpolate) these frequencies.

Next, I want to use a radar dish to repeat this frequency pattern continuously, at high voltages.

Finally, I want to aim this field at at something that can measure an acceleration field.

There is one caveat. I might have to use multiple radar dishes to generate f_i such that the set of i spans a range of frequencies. Let's pretend that the starting frequency is f(start) = 100 MHz.

If I only have 3 dishes available, and I use 5% increments, I would have

f_1(start) = 100 MHz;

f_2 (start) = 105 MHz

f_3 (start) = 110 MHz; ...etc...

For proof of concept, I am hoping for a tractor beam/repulsion beam effect.

What say you?

report post as inappropriate

I'm trying to answer two questions.

First: can inertia be modulated to create an acceleration field? In other words, Frequency Modulated Inertial (FMI).

Second: if so, what kind of frequency ranges, energy requirements, frequency spans permit the effect?

report post as inappropriate

First: can inertia be modulated to create an acceleration field? In other words, Frequency Modulated Inertial (FMI).

Second: if so, what kind of frequency ranges, energy requirements, frequency spans permit the effect?

report post as inappropriate

Ray,

Do you understand why this works and what the physics community left out?

Answer: photons carry causality. Equations do not treat causality properly. They're still stuck on time traveling wormholes. Leave them to their fantasies.

Time travel is not real; not possible. ALL CAUSALITY is transmitted by photons (virtual or real). Nothing happens unless something causes it to happen. That cause is done with photons.

If you take a radar dish, and you vary the frequency like a sawtooth wave with a frequency of 1Hz (one sawtooth per second), where the sawtooth is the range of changing frequency, this is what you do:

1. You're photon is one light second long (OK, maybe it's too long).

2. As that photon is absorbed by the target, the changing frequency will push or pull the target object. It will grab on to whatever oscillates at those frequencies. I think microwaves might grab on to molecules (which is a little hazardous). Perhaps a lower frequency.

report post as inappropriate

Do you understand why this works and what the physics community left out?

Answer: photons carry causality. Equations do not treat causality properly. They're still stuck on time traveling wormholes. Leave them to their fantasies.

Time travel is not real; not possible. ALL CAUSALITY is transmitted by photons (virtual or real). Nothing happens unless something causes it to happen. That cause is done with photons.

If you take a radar dish, and you vary the frequency like a sawtooth wave with a frequency of 1Hz (one sawtooth per second), where the sawtooth is the range of changing frequency, this is what you do:

1. You're photon is one light second long (OK, maybe it's too long).

2. As that photon is absorbed by the target, the changing frequency will push or pull the target object. It will grab on to whatever oscillates at those frequencies. I think microwaves might grab on to molecules (which is a little hazardous). Perhaps a lower frequency.

report post as inappropriate

I'm sorry, Jason. My brain isn't working very well today. I need to think on it...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ray,

I suck at math. I'm trying to articulate that F = dp/dt, change in momentum versus time. I'm trying to show that the photon, by changing its frequency, it will generate a change in momentum. But I can't keep track of where delta f goes or where delta t or dt... I'll try to clean this up. Is that more in your "easy" zone?

report post as inappropriate

I suck at math. I'm trying to articulate that F = dp/dt, change in momentum versus time. I'm trying to show that the photon, by changing its frequency, it will generate a change in momentum. But I can't keep track of where delta f goes or where delta t or dt... I'll try to clean this up. Is that more in your "easy" zone?

report post as inappropriate

SOLVED IT! Welcome to Tractor Beam physics

Momentum p = h/lamda = hf/c.

We are going to use frequencies that vary as sawtooths or ramps. The lowest frequency is f_1. The highest frequency is f_2. The difference in frequency is Delta f.

The sawtooth signal will repeat with period Delta t.

The momentum at p_1 = (h/c)f_1.

The momentum at p_2 = (h/c)f_2.

The change in momentum Delta p = p2 - p1 = (h/c)(f2 -f1).

The change in momentum Delta p = (h/c)Delta f.

The sawtooth repeats ever Delta t seconds.

Force = dp/dt = Delta p/delta t.

In other words, a change in frequency produces a change in momentum.

In other words, I can use a radar dish with a changing frequency to push or pull my target. That's called a tractor beam.

Any questions?

report post as inappropriate

Momentum p = h/lamda = hf/c.

We are going to use frequencies that vary as sawtooths or ramps. The lowest frequency is f_1. The highest frequency is f_2. The difference in frequency is Delta f.

The sawtooth signal will repeat with period Delta t.

The momentum at p_1 = (h/c)f_1.

The momentum at p_2 = (h/c)f_2.

The change in momentum Delta p = p2 - p1 = (h/c)(f2 -f1).

The change in momentum Delta p = (h/c)Delta f.

The sawtooth repeats ever Delta t seconds.

Force = dp/dt = Delta p/delta t.

In other words, a change in frequency produces a change in momentum.

In other words, I can use a radar dish with a changing frequency to push or pull my target. That's called a tractor beam.

Any questions?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jason,

I made a pdf because I hate the equation editor here.

attachments: jason.pdf

report post as inappropriate

I made a pdf because I hate the equation editor here.

attachments: jason.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dr. Ray,

That would be the momentum per photon. The force per photon can be increased with a wider frequency range or a shorter sawtooth period. If all else fails, use a bigger power source.

But do you get it? In the movies, this is the scene where the government arrests me, takes me away and the visitors start showing up.

report post as inappropriate

That would be the momentum per photon. The force per photon can be increased with a wider frequency range or a shorter sawtooth period. If all else fails, use a bigger power source.

But do you get it? In the movies, this is the scene where the government arrests me, takes me away and the visitors start showing up.

report post as inappropriate

Historically, this is also the time when a new technological revolution occurs. We can use tractor beams to move satellites into orbit, and leave rocket propulsion behind.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Maybe the term ramp function should replace sawtooth function. How does "ramp period" sound to you?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Florin & Cristi,

To F: What I derived was primarily special relativity. The nonseparability is what I derived there, which is the non-Hausdorff condition. What this means is that the moduli spacetime for gravitation is nonHausdorff. The connection coefficients I derived are based only on the Lorentz group. For general relativity this basis for this group is only local, and each local region will have its representation (basis) for the SU(1,1). In greater generality this is worked with Dirac matrices and quaterions.

To C: I have only read the first couple of pages of your paper. I may not really get to it until next week. I am on vacation for the 3 day period here, so I will not be getting to any of this until the middle of next week.

I might have more to comment on later today, or maybe in the early morning tomorrow. But I am heading off to the wilderness for a little while.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

To F: What I derived was primarily special relativity. The nonseparability is what I derived there, which is the non-Hausdorff condition. What this means is that the moduli spacetime for gravitation is nonHausdorff. The connection coefficients I derived are based only on the Lorentz group. For general relativity this basis for this group is only local, and each local region will have its representation (basis) for the SU(1,1). In greater generality this is worked with Dirac matrices and quaterions.

To C: I have only read the first couple of pages of your paper. I may not really get to it until next week. I am on vacation for the 3 day period here, so I will not be getting to any of this until the middle of next week.

I might have more to comment on later today, or maybe in the early morning tomorrow. But I am heading off to the wilderness for a little while.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

When you say "non-Hausdorff", does this suggest that two points from different, but local neighborhoods, can be related somehow? I guess I garbled that a bit. It sounds like the non-Hausdorff condition would accept the idea that space itself has quantum mechanic properties? Or in other words, for any point in space, it's possible that it might have a correlation with something nearby.

Anyway, have a fun time in the wilderness. Watch out for bears. Don't get eaten.

report post as inappropriate

When you say "non-Hausdorff", does this suggest that two points from different, but local neighborhoods, can be related somehow? I guess I garbled that a bit. It sounds like the non-Hausdorff condition would accept the idea that space itself has quantum mechanic properties? Or in other words, for any point in space, it's possible that it might have a correlation with something nearby.

Anyway, have a fun time in the wilderness. Watch out for bears. Don't get eaten.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin, dears all,

you could be interested that, together with my colleague Herman Mosquera Cuesta, I recently found an exact solution to Einstein field equation which remove black holes singularity at the classical level, i.e. WITHOUT quantum argumentations. In our work, we have also given a new integration of the famous Oppenheimer-Volkoff Equation for the gravitational collapse.

The paper has been accepted for publication in Mod. Phys. Lett. A by the Editor of the Gravity Research Foundation D. V. Ahluwalia.

You can find the pre-print in http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3298

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

you could be interested that, together with my colleague Herman Mosquera Cuesta, I recently found an exact solution to Einstein field equation which remove black holes singularity at the classical level, i.e. WITHOUT quantum argumentations. In our work, we have also given a new integration of the famous Oppenheimer-Volkoff Equation for the gravitational collapse.

The paper has been accepted for publication in Mod. Phys. Lett. A by the Editor of the Gravity Research Foundation D. V. Ahluwalia.

You can find the pre-print in http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3298

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

Great news! I only had a quick glance at the paper and looks very interesting. I'll take a closer look when I'll have a bit of free time.

report post as inappropriate

Great news! I only had a quick glance at the paper and looks very interesting. I'll take a closer look when I'll have a bit of free time.

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations dear Christian, it's very interesting like says Florin.I didn't know this equation, very relevant.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Christian, I will look at your paper. Thanks.

How do your see this idea of yours: "I recently found an exact solution to Einstein field equation which remove black holes singularity at the classical level" compared to the ideas in this post? The ideas listed below are reinforcing/compatible with your new idea(s), are they not?

Are these further (below) ideas also "philosophically excellent" -- to quote you on DiMeglio's prior article/ideas?

Dreams add to the integrated and interactive extensiveness of quantum phenomena, gravity, electromagnetism, being, experience, and thought in (and with) time. This is in keeping with (and it is demonstrative of) our growth and our becoming other than we are -- from conception to adult dreaming experience. Thoughts and quantum phenomena are both shifting and variable.

What about the invisible/transparent dimension in the eye? Isn't that gravitational/electromagnetic space/feeling/energy? Isn't gravity one dimensional, and two dimensional, and three dimensional?

The fourth dimension is larger space AND smaller space. It averages to a third dimension. Dreams are 3D. The great strength of DiMeglio's understanding is that it explains distance and the size (or sizes) of space by uniting gravity and electromagnetism/light on the basis of relatively constant energy/feeling as it relates both gravity and electromagnetism/light to the size and distance of space -- as an "average" or "typical approximation" in relation the experience of space that is typically/ordinarily attended to/seen.

The fourth dimension is equivalent to any ONE of the other dimensions.

"Seeing from/with the [relatively] increased feeling/energy (at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense) allows one to see farther, as if in an inherently larger space (such as outer space). However, this [relative] REDUCTION in gravitational experience/feeling also pertains (on balance) to an inherently reduced ability to see as far; since INCREASED gravitational feeling is associated with seeing farther in conjunction with seeing/experiencing the end of VISIBLE space at the earth/feet." -- to quote DiMeglio. To me, he has successfully unified gravity and electromagnetism/light in this paragraph alone. Is this idea also "philosophically excellent" to you, in keeping with your prior assessment of DiMeglio's ideas in this matter?

The above paragraph seems to decisively prove DiMeglio correct in asserting the manifestation of space as electromagnetic/gravitational energy in dreams.

Do you not agree? Do you agree that General Relativity is incomplete or inaccurate to the extent that it fails to successfully incorporate electromagnetism and/or quantum phenomena?

report post as inappropriate

How do your see this idea of yours: "I recently found an exact solution to Einstein field equation which remove black holes singularity at the classical level" compared to the ideas in this post? The ideas listed below are reinforcing/compatible with your new idea(s), are they not?

Are these further (below) ideas also "philosophically excellent" -- to quote you on DiMeglio's prior article/ideas?

Dreams add to the integrated and interactive extensiveness of quantum phenomena, gravity, electromagnetism, being, experience, and thought in (and with) time. This is in keeping with (and it is demonstrative of) our growth and our becoming other than we are -- from conception to adult dreaming experience. Thoughts and quantum phenomena are both shifting and variable.

What about the invisible/transparent dimension in the eye? Isn't that gravitational/electromagnetic space/feeling/energy? Isn't gravity one dimensional, and two dimensional, and three dimensional?

The fourth dimension is larger space AND smaller space. It averages to a third dimension. Dreams are 3D. The great strength of DiMeglio's understanding is that it explains distance and the size (or sizes) of space by uniting gravity and electromagnetism/light on the basis of relatively constant energy/feeling as it relates both gravity and electromagnetism/light to the size and distance of space -- as an "average" or "typical approximation" in relation the experience of space that is typically/ordinarily attended to/seen.

The fourth dimension is equivalent to any ONE of the other dimensions.

"Seeing from/with the [relatively] increased feeling/energy (at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense) allows one to see farther, as if in an inherently larger space (such as outer space). However, this [relative] REDUCTION in gravitational experience/feeling also pertains (on balance) to an inherently reduced ability to see as far; since INCREASED gravitational feeling is associated with seeing farther in conjunction with seeing/experiencing the end of VISIBLE space at the earth/feet." -- to quote DiMeglio. To me, he has successfully unified gravity and electromagnetism/light in this paragraph alone. Is this idea also "philosophically excellent" to you, in keeping with your prior assessment of DiMeglio's ideas in this matter?

The above paragraph seems to decisively prove DiMeglio correct in asserting the manifestation of space as electromagnetic/gravitational energy in dreams.

Do you not agree? Do you agree that General Relativity is incomplete or inaccurate to the extent that it fails to successfully incorporate electromagnetism and/or quantum phenomena?

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

I have given your paper a rough first reading. I think your calculations are of value. However, I question whether you have really done this in a purely classical way. The quintessential density term might well be providing a sort of “quantum pressure,” which is in a semi-classical form, or an averaging which appears classical, that is preventing the occurrence of the classical singularity. I ponder that this quintessential density is somehow related to the deBroglie-Bohm-Vigier quantum potential in that sort of interpretation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I have given your paper a rough first reading. I think your calculations are of value. However, I question whether you have really done this in a purely classical way. The quintessential density term might well be providing a sort of “quantum pressure,” which is in a semi-classical form, or an averaging which appears classical, that is preventing the occurrence of the classical singularity. I ponder that this quintessential density is somehow related to the deBroglie-Bohm-Vigier quantum potential in that sort of interpretation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

thanks. You and Ray think that quintessential pressure could have a quantum origin. This is an interesting point and I think that it could concern the origin of various electrodynamic Lagrangians, comprised the standard ordinary Maxwellian one. My computation is "classical" in the sense that I used non-linear electrodynamic by solving in a classical way Einstein field equations.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

thanks. You and Ray think that quintessential pressure could have a quantum origin. This is an interesting point and I think that it could concern the origin of various electrodynamic Lagrangians, comprised the standard ordinary Maxwellian one. My computation is "classical" in the sense that I used non-linear electrodynamic by solving in a classical way Einstein field equations.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

It's interesting all that, the ether, the quintessence, the DE ...the 5éme forces...the quest of....

My opinion is this one.

The quintessence is rather disturbing, as ether.

This dark energy seems difficult and relatively noticeable.

The equation of state appears in a sea of trouble.

I think that only dark matter exists, and that this energy is only apparent in the dynamics of whole evolutionary series.

We have matters with or without rotation, so with or without mass.If we insert the light with the gravity , 3 kinds and perhaps the neutrinos, and if we insert the gravity which fractalises, that becomes relevant for a correlation with special relativity....the light is fractalised by the mass and decreases its linear velocity with different volumes....the spinal velocity also decreases....the mass thus increases for the baryons.....if the dark matter is matter in wait.....that becomes relevant in my humble opinion.

In conclusion, the Dark energy like the quintessence exists only in its evolutive perception, and the dark matter is matter in wait.....the light /gravity fusion....

This energy is in fact a reflection of a progressive evolutionary energy growing.

This is explained by the increase in mass, fusion (light / gravity) is on the road of optimisation, and activation of the dark matter (and its rotations encoded).

Let's resume...the baryons continue to increases the universal density......the pressure and the activation of Dark matter is intereting and the fusion with light where the universal baryons continues ,the neutrinos and the correlation with the fractalisation of the light by gravity is relevant.

Lagrange, Dirichlet,Gauss,Galois,euclid,.........the series seem finite! and other essential is the intrinsic cause of mass and the code of polarizations....the rotations of the entanglement imply this increase of mass and thus the energy is towards the Planck quantum scale.It's totaly different and it is a proof of the necessity to have an intrinsic cause of mass, the rotations and their specificities in my humble opinion.

The energy is in the two senses, there if we consider this universal link between the quant and cosm dimensions....that becomes very interesting for the lattices between particles, sphericals of course.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

It's interesting all that, the ether, the quintessence, the DE ...the 5éme forces...the quest of....

My opinion is this one.

The quintessence is rather disturbing, as ether.

This dark energy seems difficult and relatively noticeable.

The equation of state appears in a sea of trouble.

I think that only dark matter exists, and that this energy is only apparent in the dynamics of whole evolutionary series.

We have matters with or without rotation, so with or without mass.If we insert the light with the gravity , 3 kinds and perhaps the neutrinos, and if we insert the gravity which fractalises, that becomes relevant for a correlation with special relativity....the light is fractalised by the mass and decreases its linear velocity with different volumes....the spinal velocity also decreases....the mass thus increases for the baryons.....if the dark matter is matter in wait.....that becomes relevant in my humble opinion.

In conclusion, the Dark energy like the quintessence exists only in its evolutive perception, and the dark matter is matter in wait.....the light /gravity fusion....

This energy is in fact a reflection of a progressive evolutionary energy growing.

This is explained by the increase in mass, fusion (light / gravity) is on the road of optimisation, and activation of the dark matter (and its rotations encoded).

Let's resume...the baryons continue to increases the universal density......the pressure and the activation of Dark matter is intereting and the fusion with light where the universal baryons continues ,the neutrinos and the correlation with the fractalisation of the light by gravity is relevant.

Lagrange, Dirichlet,Gauss,Galois,euclid,.........the series seem finite! and other essential is the intrinsic cause of mass and the code of polarizations....the rotations of the entanglement imply this increase of mass and thus the energy is towards the Planck quantum scale.It's totaly different and it is a proof of the necessity to have an intrinsic cause of mass, the rotations and their specificities in my humble opinion.

The energy is in the two senses, there if we consider this universal link between the quant and cosm dimensions....that becomes very interesting for the lattices between particles, sphericals of course.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

The action for the nonlinear electrodynamics (eqn 8)

L = -1/4F^{ab}F_{ab} + c1(F^ab}F_{ab})^2 + c2 δ_{abcd}F^{ab}F^{cd}

defines a unit of action associated with c1 and c2 which emulates the quantum uncertainty

ΔH^2 = ( H^2 ) – ( H )^2.

The c1 and c2 parts of the action have a constant action which by the Liouville theorem this volume in phase space is constant and can’t be squashed away. The quintessence density is written according to c1. So I think that by a type of classical argument on the form of the action this term has a form similar to the quantum potential of Bohm or defines a unit of action that acts in a quantal manner.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

L = -1/4F^{ab}F_{ab} + c1(F^ab}F_{ab})^2 + c2 δ_{abcd}F^{ab}F^{cd}

defines a unit of action associated with c1 and c2 which emulates the quantum uncertainty

ΔH^2 = ( H^2 ) – ( H )^2.

The c1 and c2 parts of the action have a constant action which by the Liouville theorem this volume in phase space is constant and can’t be squashed away. The quintessence density is written according to c1. So I think that by a type of classical argument on the form of the action this term has a form similar to the quantum potential of Bohm or defines a unit of action that acts in a quantal manner.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Paradoxes are perhaps too valuable as to be interpreted away with elegant rather than appropriate sophistication. I would prefer using them as an alert: Let's look what foundational mistakes might still to be found.

Denied paradoxes, e.g. the twin paradox, are perhaps even more valuable, and if the fathers of a theory admit being worried seriously or no longer believe in the commonly accepted basics, then this could provide a hint to unseen fallacies on a so far neglected "deep" level. Mathematicians as well as physicists have nowadays to swallow so much that it they face increasing difficulties to critically digest it within a lifetime.

Christian, I did not manage downloading your paper. Could you please explain as concise as possible how you get rid of singularities? As an engineer I consider singularities merely valuable fictions like point, line, zero, and infinity. I see the problem with Einstein's field equations in possibly inappropriate philosophy behind the assumed anticipating spacetime.

Incidentally, is it correct that the negative outcome of the Michelson/Morley experiment was a mistake? Reading "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" I am admiring it but I am also loosing trust in its full correctness.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Denied paradoxes, e.g. the twin paradox, are perhaps even more valuable, and if the fathers of a theory admit being worried seriously or no longer believe in the commonly accepted basics, then this could provide a hint to unseen fallacies on a so far neglected "deep" level. Mathematicians as well as physicists have nowadays to swallow so much that it they face increasing difficulties to critically digest it within a lifetime.

Christian, I did not manage downloading your paper. Could you please explain as concise as possible how you get rid of singularities? As an engineer I consider singularities merely valuable fictions like point, line, zero, and infinity. I see the problem with Einstein's field equations in possibly inappropriate philosophy behind the assumed anticipating spacetime.

Incidentally, is it correct that the negative outcome of the Michelson/Morley experiment was a mistake? Reading "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper" I am admiring it but I am also loosing trust in its full correctness.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

we proposed a way to remove black hole singularities by using a particular nonlinear electrodynamics Lagrangian (NLED) that has been recently used in various astrophysics and cosmological frameworks.

The effects arising from a NLED become quite important in super-strongly magnetized compact objects, such as pulsars, and particular neutron stars. Some examples include the so-called magnetars and strange quark magnetars. In particular, NLED modifies in a fundamental basis the concept of Gravitational Redshift as compared to the well established method introduced by standard general relativity which uses the standard linear Maxwellian Lagrangian. Unlike general relativity, where the Gravitational Redshift is independent of any background magnetic field, when a NLED is incorporated into the photon dynamics, an effective Gravitational Redshift appears, which happens to depend decidedly on the magnetic field pervading the pulsar. An analogous result has also been obtained for magnetars and strange quark magnetars. The resulting Gravitational Redshift tends to infinity as the magnetic field grows larger, as opposed to the predictions of standard general relativity.

What it is important for extending the analysis to black holes is that the Gravitational Redshift of neutron stars is connected to the mass–radius relation of the object. Thus, NLED effects turn out to be important as regard to

the mass-radius relation, and one can also reasonably expect important effects

in the case of black holes, where the mass-radius ratio is even more important

than for a neutron star. Then, from a physical point of view, the formal analysis presented in our Letter displays a correct procedure to estimate the crucial physical properties stemming from NLED effects in presence of super strong magnetic fields. In fact, the formal discussion developed in our Letter shows that the quintessential density term permits to construct a model of star supported against self-gravity entirely by radiation pressure.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

we proposed a way to remove black hole singularities by using a particular nonlinear electrodynamics Lagrangian (NLED) that has been recently used in various astrophysics and cosmological frameworks.

The effects arising from a NLED become quite important in super-strongly magnetized compact objects, such as pulsars, and particular neutron stars. Some examples include the so-called magnetars and strange quark magnetars. In particular, NLED modifies in a fundamental basis the concept of Gravitational Redshift as compared to the well established method introduced by standard general relativity which uses the standard linear Maxwellian Lagrangian. Unlike general relativity, where the Gravitational Redshift is independent of any background magnetic field, when a NLED is incorporated into the photon dynamics, an effective Gravitational Redshift appears, which happens to depend decidedly on the magnetic field pervading the pulsar. An analogous result has also been obtained for magnetars and strange quark magnetars. The resulting Gravitational Redshift tends to infinity as the magnetic field grows larger, as opposed to the predictions of standard general relativity.

What it is important for extending the analysis to black holes is that the Gravitational Redshift of neutron stars is connected to the mass–radius relation of the object. Thus, NLED effects turn out to be important as regard to

the mass-radius relation, and one can also reasonably expect important effects

in the case of black holes, where the mass-radius ratio is even more important

than for a neutron star. Then, from a physical point of view, the formal analysis presented in our Letter displays a correct procedure to estimate the crucial physical properties stemming from NLED effects in presence of super strong magnetic fields. In fact, the formal discussion developed in our Letter shows that the quintessential density term permits to construct a model of star supported against self-gravity entirely by radiation pressure.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

You might look at the attached file as to have an impression how I prefer to possibly directly assimilate important original papers and where I suspect very basic mistakes.

Thank you for your effort to explain your approach. I have to admit being not even able to put the missing ")" in your equation 1 on the correct place. As a layman I got the impression you are a bit shy to suggest that some "common opinion" is wrong, and you offer a better solution.

Eckard

attachments: 891897.doc

report post as inappropriate

You might look at the attached file as to have an impression how I prefer to possibly directly assimilate important original papers and where I suspect very basic mistakes.

Thank you for your effort to explain your approach. I have to admit being not even able to put the missing ")" in your equation 1 on the correct place. As a layman I got the impression you are a bit shy to suggest that some "common opinion" is wrong, and you offer a better solution.

Eckard

attachments: 891897.doc

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

thanks.

Yes,it could be that I am bit shy to suggest that some "common opinion" is wrong, and I offer a better solution. But the point is that black-holes are a very controversial issue, where lots of scientists obtained glory and fame.

Thus, we have to be very careful to claim results that could deviate from the standard main board of this research field.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

thanks.

Yes,it could be that I am bit shy to suggest that some "common opinion" is wrong, and I offer a better solution. But the point is that black-holes are a very controversial issue, where lots of scientists obtained glory and fame.

Thus, we have to be very careful to claim results that could deviate from the standard main board of this research field.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

Energy is a concept for the mind of the observer and is a dimension of knowing something, but not a dimension of the universe. For example...

A dripping faucet may liberate a tera joules over some eons.. in which case you may have to change the sink.

But if you liberate one tera joule in one pico second … you just changed the whole neighborhood.

You see that “energy” means nothing unless you specify the delivery time. It is not only a question of meaning …. the results ( sink vs neighborhood) are totally different, and the universe is about results. “Power” is what the universe is about.

Take “space” for example. As observer we see the whole ruler all at once. This is our point of view. But the fact is that the universe requires some time to effect some operations between the two ends of the ruler. Therefore, for the universe, the two ends of the ruler are not, in an operational way, at the same moment. In the universe and for the universe, there is no “space”. Space is a concept for a spectator! The universe is the actor and it has no use for space.

So, all those of you who use the words of “space” and “energy” pretending to describe the universe as it is… only describe their own point of view of the universe. If anyone wants to understand the universe (really), they have to see it in the operational way of the universe, without the excess baggage of the spectator…. Save the empirical description for last.

Cheers,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Energy is a concept for the mind of the observer and is a dimension of knowing something, but not a dimension of the universe. For example...

A dripping faucet may liberate a tera joules over some eons.. in which case you may have to change the sink.

But if you liberate one tera joule in one pico second … you just changed the whole neighborhood.

You see that “energy” means nothing unless you specify the delivery time. It is not only a question of meaning …. the results ( sink vs neighborhood) are totally different, and the universe is about results. “Power” is what the universe is about.

Take “space” for example. As observer we see the whole ruler all at once. This is our point of view. But the fact is that the universe requires some time to effect some operations between the two ends of the ruler. Therefore, for the universe, the two ends of the ruler are not, in an operational way, at the same moment. In the universe and for the universe, there is no “space”. Space is a concept for a spectator! The universe is the actor and it has no use for space.

So, all those of you who use the words of “space” and “energy” pretending to describe the universe as it is… only describe their own point of view of the universe. If anyone wants to understand the universe (really), they have to see it in the operational way of the universe, without the excess baggage of the spectator…. Save the empirical description for last.

Cheers,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel,

Each is unique and thinks, everyone has his own point of view, this said, there is only one reality!!!

The confusion should never change our principles.

Interesting ideas Marcel.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Each is unique and thinks, everyone has his own point of view, this said, there is only one reality!!!

The confusion should never change our principles.

Interesting ideas Marcel.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian, Lawrence, Ray

Lawrence said:

"However, I question whether you have really done this in a purely classical way."

I think that the interesting theory proposed by Christian and his colleague is indeed classical: it is based on a classical Lagrangian. It is not obtained as a (semi-)classical limit of QM. (Of course, there is the possibility to construct a quantum theory which, in the classical limit, works like this one.) If from the non-linear electromagnetic Lagrangian can be obtained something similar to Bohm's potential, this only means that more birds can be killed with the same classical stone (including an apparently quantum bird).

I think that an indicator of the power of a theory is the number of birds killed with the same stone, and this non-linear electrodynamics solution has the positive aspects that it has been used in other astrophysics and cosmological situations, and it also works to remove the black hole singularity, when the electromagnetic field is important. On the other hand, it seems to me that it's applications to the black hole singularity problem (and to Bohm's potential problem) only work when the electromagnetic field is present and significant.

Regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence said:

"However, I question whether you have really done this in a purely classical way."

I think that the interesting theory proposed by Christian and his colleague is indeed classical: it is based on a classical Lagrangian. It is not obtained as a (semi-)classical limit of QM. (Of course, there is the possibility to construct a quantum theory which, in the classical limit, works like this one.) If from the non-linear electromagnetic Lagrangian can be obtained something similar to Bohm's potential, this only means that more birds can be killed with the same classical stone (including an apparently quantum bird).

I think that an indicator of the power of a theory is the number of birds killed with the same stone, and this non-linear electrodynamics solution has the positive aspects that it has been used in other astrophysics and cosmological situations, and it also works to remove the black hole singularity, when the electromagnetic field is important. On the other hand, it seems to me that it's applications to the black hole singularity problem (and to Bohm's potential problem) only work when the electromagnetic field is present and significant.

Regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

I think that the c1 and c2 terms in the nonlinear EM Lagrangian are "quantum-like," in that they determine some volume of action in phase space which is invarant in a way that prevents further collapse. This is what we might expect quantum mechanics to do to prevent the collapse of matter beyond a certain curvature ~ 1/L_p^2. So while this is formally classical the form of the theory seems to hide a quantum aspect in the form of the quintessence density.

After all, QED is a nonabelian and linear field theory, and electrodynamics is only nonlinear if there are certain nonlinear media with a dielectric that depends on field strengths. So maybe something similar is happening here, where as a collapse reaches smaller radii or greater curvature this is renormalizing the fine structure constant in some way, which is QED physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I think that the c1 and c2 terms in the nonlinear EM Lagrangian are "quantum-like," in that they determine some volume of action in phase space which is invarant in a way that prevents further collapse. This is what we might expect quantum mechanics to do to prevent the collapse of matter beyond a certain curvature ~ 1/L_p^2. So while this is formally classical the form of the theory seems to hide a quantum aspect in the form of the quintessence density.

After all, QED is a nonabelian and linear field theory, and electrodynamics is only nonlinear if there are certain nonlinear media with a dielectric that depends on field strengths. So maybe something similar is happening here, where as a collapse reaches smaller radii or greater curvature this is renormalizing the fine structure constant in some way, which is QED physics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

With regards to the role of a gauge field and its back reaction to gravity there is this paper here. This seems somewhat related to your idea here.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

With regards to the role of a gauge field and its back reaction to gravity there is this paper here. This seems somewhat related to your idea here.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.