Black Holes Don't Exist

I've been giving this issue some thought since my last posting. (Not the fine tuning part which is a topic in itself, but the normalization topic).The bulk of the references I can find online dealing with the vacuum catastrophe describe a problem, with some presenting solutions and not much agreement that the solutions are satisfactory. There also is not much critique of the solutions on line.The real objection I have is to your statement of the impact of the issue. To wit1. Dark energy has nothing to do with issues surrounding rotational energy in galaxies or any of the other problems that are resolved with dark matter. I'm not sure what causes you to conflate those issues.2. You complain about a missing effect of space curvature on What is the magnitude of the effect would you expect space time curvature to have on particle physics anyway? Is there some evidence that you can point to that would cause us to wonder about that? As an argument that it should not, let's consider that dark energy has essentially no local effect that we can measure within our own solar system. Planets behave at something very close to Newtonian mechanics, (i.e. minor deviations as predicted by GR without any Lambda. ) With regard to this point, let me suggest that a better critique of the idea that the problem is unsolved is a modern rejection of the solution and not decade old papers written by 'true authorities' who hadn't not seen the solutions. An honest review is that there simply isn't enough stuff within easy google range to assess what physicists currently think about the issue.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And yet even without taking into account any addition to the space time energy tensor at all, GR readily models gravity within the solar system. Surely something is completely wrong with your thinking.
The only reason for adding vacuum energy is to explain the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. The constant plays no role even in explaining the rotation rates of galaxies. None at all.

---

Nothing I have ever posted, in any forum has ever contradicted the complete conformation of GR (as if I could post such a thing). GR does model total energy and determines space time curvature. You observe a flat universe and show what the contribution of vacuum energy must be. I can not see how you extracted the preceding statement of yours from mine.At this moment we are not talking about other indications of a supposed dark matter exists.

quote:

---

What does not follow from your reasoning is that QFT is inaccurate in its description of physics.

---

My objection again, is the scale of QFT. It is accurate in the micro there is trouble with the macro. I do not deny

quote:

---

And in fact, the issue is one on which we've repeatedly asked you to explain yourself. The correct calculation of zero point energy indeed does involve avoid a vacuum catastrophe and has been argued to be consistent with Lambda. So what is the issue?

---

The observed can be determined, without cancelation of real vacuum energy, you have a vacuum catastrophe. Philosophically this is a fine-tuning from observations.One can claim that a student cheating on a test is just fine-tuning his answer to the question.Here is a example of a single virtual particle contributing to vacuum energy without said cancellations: Sorry i lost the link [ Found it at a number of websites, see for example Vacuum Energy Density, or How Can Nothing Weigh Something? ]

quote:

---

Totally BS. The value used in Einstein's equation is derived from observation, but the number calculated from particle physics is not. If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue.

---

The critical statement is If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue. The only separating the two are your assumptions on reconciliation.I gave it my best shot from my understanding now you can give me a good reason for that reconciliation.I might remind you at this time, that the subject of this thread contends against the formation of black holes from supernova. The only real understood mechanism for the creation of black holes. If you believe this proposition to be correct and black holes do not really exist, I suppose you can accept that the vacuum catastrophe is explainable also. that is just my opinion.Point one is not in the conversation at this time, point 2 will require a rehashing of my statements.With regard to this point, let me suggest that a better critique of the idea that the problem is unsolved is a modern rejection of the solution and not decade old papers written by 'true authorities' who hadn't not seen the solutions. An honest review is that there simply isn't enough stuff within easy google range to assess what physicists currently think about the issue.There is a lot, if you google hard enough, too much for me to handle (too deep in the minutia). I think you can say that it is a judgment call for what you can accept as real.Edited by Admin, : Provide missing link.

Are you asking why Son Goku is claiming that the prior 120 orders of magnitude error is now thought resolved? If so, that explanation has been offered many times and hasn't changed. The error identified in the 1970's used a naive model. Use of a more accurate model, as set forth in the 2012 paper Measurement of the flavour-specific CP violating asymmetry in decays resolved the discrepancy. We're still trying to understand how you can reasonably reject the paper without reading it. If someone were to ask me, "Why does Zaius reject the 2012 paper?" I'd be at a loss for what to say. You yourself seem at no loss for something to say, but your reasoning isn't yet apparent to anyone. Please recall this from Son Goku's Message 14:

quote:

---

The authors of this paper went further with the analysis of one aspect of stellar collapse with quantum matter than previous papers. They very accurately modeled the vacuum back-reaction. This is where a stream of particles are created from nothing due to the stars distortion of spacetime changing the definition of "empty"*. These extra particles seem to halt the collapse, although I know that there are approximations in the authors' calculations that others have questioned, so their paper isn't conclusive. Also note that they only accurately modeled one aspect of quantum matter (the vacuum back-reaction).

---

Son Goku says the study's approximations and focus on only one quantum aspect means the paper isn't conclusive, but it must be said that the authors' conclusions (beginning at the bottom of page 6) express no doubts, concluding thusly: --Percy

Unfortunately I have spent most of the thread asking Zaius why he still supports papers from 1970 that I haven't really reached a proper discussion of the cosmological constant. The problem is not solved, but the real problem is different to what Zaius keeps talking about. It is not an issue of it being hundreds of orders of magnitude off.The cosmological constant, according to quantum field theory, (specifically the standard model) has two components: is essentially the energy stored in all the quantum fields except the Higgs field, when they are in their "rest" state, i.e. no particles, i.e. their latent energy even when not excited or active. is the energy in the least active state of the Higgs field. Since the Higgs field is never at rest or inactive, we cannot look at the rest energy only the least active state.Now, it turns out that this cancel almost exactly to produce the "correct" value for the cosmological constant.To be a bit more specific, quantum field theory calculations show that each field has a vacuum energy of: to lowest order. Where is a numerical constant and is the mass of the lightest particle associated with that field.Now, if we take the heaviest particle in the Standard Model, the top quark, this value turns out to be ludicrously high, far larger than the observed value. is a sum of all these values, so if one of them is enormous, so is their sum.Initially it was thought the Higgs component just added a term to like the others. As I've said above, recent methods show that the Higgs does not contribute such a factor. Instead it has an entirely separate contribution in .It was also quickly realised that is negative, so the two terms cancel, possibly resulting in the observed value.Now, the value I quoted above for each fields contribution to is only to first order. A more detailed calculation is required, but requires some assumptions, the main one being:
To what energy is the Standard Model valid?The most extreme assumption is that the Standard Model holds all the way up to Big Bang energies, the Planck scale, where General Relativity and the Standard Model, we know, must break down.This is quite an extreme assumption, for it is essentially stating that the Standard Model describes all of particle physics and works up until energies where the concept of particles breakdown. There is no new forces lurking in the energy range between the LHC's collider and the Big Bang, no new particles, nothing. This hypothesis is often known as "the desert".If you assume it, then and cancel almost exactly, leaving roughly the observed cosmological constant:
http://www.ecm.ub.es/IRGAC2006/talks/110706/Shapiro.pdf
(See page 18 of this talk summarizing recent research)However:
(a) It is an assumption.
(b) The methods produce the answer, without really telling you "why" the cancellation is so exact. The mechanism is not obvious from the calculations (as can often be the case in QFT, we knew from calculations that QCD for example had the right mass for mesons for years, but it took another decade until we knew the physical mechanism)
Many find it suspicious that the cosmological constant is roughly: Suggesting that , the Higgs contribution cancels because the Higgs prevents any field other than the neutrino from affecting the cosmological constant.As Steven Weinberg has said, the real question now is Why they cancel so nicely (see p.6 of the talk above), not this "hundreds of orders of magnitude" stuff from the 1970s.Edited by Son Goku, : rest are -> so is their sumEdited by Son Goku, : Terrible grammar, The Steven Weinberg!

Great. The point was to counter your complaint that the disjoint between vacuum energy and the cosmological constant meant that physics did not work in the two realms. And I did provide such an example.

quote:

---

For the highest reasonable elementary particle mass, the Planck mass of 20 micrograms, this density is more than . So there must be a suppression mechanism at work now that reduces the vacuum energy density by at least 120 orders of magnitude.

---

That's fine. There is no problem finding pointers to the vacuum catastrophe. What I asked was whether you could find some commentary addressing proposed solutions. By the way, how about some bibliography on that cite of yours. Sigh.

quote:

---

Great. The point was to counter your complaint that the disjoint between vacuum energy and the cosmological constant meant that physics did not work in the two realms. And I did provide such an example.

---

If the physics is applied out of it’s scale, there are problems. The micro and the macro are still dominate domains of either QM or Relativity respectively.

quote:

---

That's fine. There is no problem finding pointers to the vacuum catastrophe. What I asked was whether you could find some commentary addressing proposed solutions. By the way, how about some bibliography on that cite of yours.

---

Son took care of that first part (no I still am not buying that used car).About there being a observable vacuum energy, well there is the rub. Things don’t just cancel nicely, do they?

quote:

---

CMB data combined with the measured Hubble constant do confirm the supernova data: there is a positive but small vacuum energy density.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

---

Carful, this is exactly what christians have been claiming for 2000 years. Although a deist, Einstein said God does not play dice with the universe.Albert Einstein - WikiquoteGod can be identified in science.

I think we have combined a few different arguments here refuting CP violations are not part of the issues for back-energy calculation in star collapse or the vacuum catastrophe.I am amazed that some of these calculations (like star collapse) can actually be attempted in the first place, others may require more computing power than is available or will ever be available.Ultimately, if you buy that black holes don’t exist from star collapse, that is the used Edsel at the back of the car lot Good luck with that.

Why? Can you just say why? Well and do. I would have thought you'd love this, a perfect cancellation, which if it didn't occur would result in no galaxies forming.Also 1000 posts! Here for nearly 10 years and I've reached the milestone!! I assume Percy that my luxury mansion with framed portraits of major EVC luminaries (e.g. onifre, nwr, Chiroptera, Rahvin and others possibly even more handsome and cool) is in the mail?Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : Grammar is hardEdited by Son Goku, : So is latex typesettingEdited by Son Goku, : One more time.......

quote:

---

Well  and  do. I would have thought you'd love this, a perfect cancellation, which if it didn't occur would result in no galaxies forming.
Also 1000 posts! Here for nearly 10 years and I've reached the milestone!! I assume Percy that my luxury mansion with framed portraits of major EVC luminaries (e.g. onifre, nwr, Chiroptera, Rahvin and others possibly even more handsome and cool) is in the mail?

---

It is not that they do It is they must. Grasshopper.It is a un-parsimonious cancelation.Congrats for the milestone.

With your usual imprecision you again seem to be implying something not supported by the evidence, that the consequences for cosmology are embarrassing if the conclusions of the Mersini-Houghton/Pfeier paper are upheld and we learn that black holes don't form after a supernova such as this one (SN 1604, Kepler's Supernova): The paper implies that very dense matter doesn't just slip quietly into a black hole, that it fights like hell through quantum effects.You have an exceedingly odd view of scientific discovery, as if discovering something new in science were a problem. You ran on through pages and pages of this thread about a 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy in an old vacuum energy calculation as if it were an embarrassment for cosmology that potentially called the whole field into question (you weren't actually specific about anything, but you made it clear it was very bad), then when it was shown to be reconciled you ran on about how suspicious that was, and now you're running on about this black hole calculation. For you, it seems, scientific puzzles and scientific discovery are awkward and embarrassing developments. You seem to believe that scientists should be mortified when they discover something new, especially if it doesn't fit well with current science.The reality is that scientific puzzles focus the attention of researchers, and this leads to new discoveries and new science that move science forward. This is what has happened and is happening after the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe and of the Higgs, and this potential discovery about black holes, if upheld, will do the same.--Percy

quote:

---

The reality is that scientific puzzles focus the attention of researchers, and this leads to new discoveries and new science that move science forward. This is what has happened and is happening after the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe and of the Higgs, and this potential discovery about black holes, if upheld, will do the same.

---

I am actually pleased that the universe exhibits a 55 order of magnitude preciseness. The only exactness a creator can impart. I can accept the evidence of a underlying symmetry but not necessarily the overlaying construct. To me the true reality must encompass the micro and macro universe (anything short of that is unsatisfying). By the wayThe very thing you disapprove of in me is the very thing that makes science great. Philosophical objection rejected all of the following bad theories/ideas before the formal proof came.phlogiston theoryThe Martian canalsLuminiferous AetherEinstein’s static universeFleischmann and Pons’s cold fusionhttp://www.toptenz.net/...es-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.phpScience must first find it’s limitation before it finds reality. Newton compared himself to a child standing on the shore of discovery with a vast ocean before him waiting to be discovered.Maybe science today lacks philosophical vigor. Because most of what I hear coming from macro science is that we are just about to confirm everything we believe about reality. So goes the utter self-regard in man.A tautology is not worth our support when it starts to explain nothing.

Right.How much variation is actually possible? What portion of that variation does '55 order of magnitude' represent?

I was listening to Quirks and Quarks the other day and heard a story about the Event Horizon Telescope project where they take a half dozen telescopes from around the world, some atomic clocks and a few computers and take a picture of the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Just a wee fellow with the mass of 4 million suns and 26k light years away. Even while the thing itself is totally black and emits no light it is surrounded by a cloud of billion degree gas that is the brightest thing around. Apparently we will get a look at the shadow of the thing in a year or so.Mind = blown.Anyway, my question is how do you see through that cloud of gas?

Radio telescopes. Not optical.

Of course but isn't the cloud of gas emitting the brightest radio signal? How do you see something dark that lies directly behind something that is very bright?Is this the same principle that is used to detect exoplanets only in reverse?