1

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 23:13:18 »

Halc is simply trying to explain the intricacies of black holes by taking quotes and explaining the relevant errors. Unless one has a good grounding in GR(which I certainly don't) many statements may seem counter intuitive and difficult to grasp. I have never found Halc to take pleasure in correcting errors and I have seen him go to great lengths when some posters fail to understand some critical point with way more patience than I could ever muster. 

Evidently that patience is understandably wearing thin.......   here are a few notes I would like to add in response to certain statements that I found to be intriguing and subsequently would like to highlight them here......

1,Einstein himself did not specifically define black holes in his equations; rather, the concept emerged as a consequence of his theory.

2, Einstein's theory of general relativity provided the mathematical framework that allowed for the possibility of singularities to exist, particularly in the context of black holes. However, Einstein himself was initially skeptical about the existence of singularities.

3, When Karl Schwarzschild found a solution to Einstein's field equations that described a black hole, it contained a mathematical singularity at the center. This singularity implied a point of infinite density, which was a concept Einstein found troubling and at odds with his intuition about the physical universe.

4, Einstein interpreted the singularity as a mathematical artifact, suggesting that it might be a sign that general relativity breaks down under extreme conditions rather than a true representation of physical reality. He famously referred to singularities as "naked" singularities, indicating a problem with the theory rather than a physical phenomenon.

OK, so it seems I and Einstein share something in common, however, I still reckon a black hole is just a very dense object and the singularity as I said before is a creation of math to justify the solution, and in a much more scientific way I believe that Einstein basically said the same thing.

2

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 20:48:57 »

HALC are you an expert on the contents of a black hole?  I mean you keep stating there is a singularity inside a black hole as if you know that for a fact?

And you are quite right, I do not have the academic expertise in physics which is why I am using this forum. You almost seem offended that I would wish to participate in a discussion about something I want to learn more about.

However I still don't understand why you state emphatically that there is singularity inside a black hole when we just don't know what is inside in reality. I have found all of your responses to unhelpful and in fact you seem to enjoy pointing out that I do lack knowledge as you have used this rhetoric in one of my previous posts. now I don't bother reading them as it appears you quote me on everything except the fact that what you state is essentially fiction regarding a singularity.

3

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 16:36:33 »

I am under the impression that it is not possible to state what is inside a black hole as we lack the tools currently to investigate. So it is a learning curve for me to discover that some people use theory as fact.  This is relating to the existence of a singularity or lack of and to take that concept further.  It has been highlighted during my responses that my idea seems speculative, and yet some people are telling me the physical aspects of a singularity as if it were fact and this is something I must consider when using this forum.

I value the expertise and insights from the responses and I very much appreciate the time people have taken in an attempt to try and answer my question.  I have learned a lot but also I feel I have learned that some scientists are blinded by theory and maybe have become a little blind or bias to reality.

I think the word "if" should be used more when relating to theoretical ideas rather than giving facts on theoretical ideas which are not proven or measured in anyway.

A black hole does have mass, we know that, we know how much mass it has due to the gravitational influence it has on other objects nearby.  We calculate the mass of a black hole using solar masses as a rubrik.  So we know the mass.  Density, all we know is that the mass calculated must exist within that region of space time beyond the event horizon, thats all we know. We don't know if there is a singularity, we don't know the density of said theoretical singularity.

And so that brings me back to my original question after side stepping the theoretical responses which to me seem far fetched to say the least.

Maybe a better approach would be for me to ask this......   a black hole has a given mass, we know the size of space it occupies.   I am sure it is possible to calculate the following.... given the mass we know for any given black hole and the physical size of the blackhole at what density would that mass need to be to fit inside the physical area?

I mean literally think of it as a sphere of matter condensed no further than it needs to be to fit inside that physical region of space we can observe where a black hole is present. If said matter cannot fit inside that region of space given our current understanding of physics then I will be more open to theory.

Best wishes and thanks again for taking time to respond, I find it fascinating.

4

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 03:39:34 »

...
Oh and btw isn't infinite mass the same as stating infinite energy? You guys really think that a singularity has zero size and infinite mass?  Really? Seriously? Your not winding me up or anything?

What infinite mass?

If an object has infinite density then it must have mass?  And for that density to be infinite so must mass/energy?

5

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 03:37:53 »

I have to add another little bit of research here and it must include the following paper:

"Do Black Holes have Singularities?
R. P. Kerr
There is no proof that black holes contain singularities when they are generated by real physical bodies. Roger Penrose claimed sixty years ago that trapped surfaces inevitably lead to light rays of finite affine length (FALL's). Penrose and Stephen Hawking then asserted that these must end in actual singularities. When they could not prove this they decreed it to be self evident. It is shown that there are counterexamples through every point in the Kerr metric. These are asymptotic to at least one event horizon and do not end in singularities".  https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841

The reason I added this reference to a recent paper by R. P. Kerr is that is seems anyone can pick and choose a side as we don't really know?  I am drawn to this paper as it seems to be a better approach to finding a solution than reverting to infinity in what seems a desperate attempt to continue with the current consensus which I and other top scientists disagree with.

Nearly all of the responses to my question have included information about a singularity being infinite and of zero size and yet one of the worlds leading scientists on this subject seems to feel that a singularity is a concept not found in real physics. And I would like to add that neither is infinity.  Infinity is a concept used to bodge the math to make it fit into a theory.   

6

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 03:15:12 »

Remember, all of the mass is concentrated into a singularity of zero size (this is why Halc says it doesn't have a meaningful density. Objects of zero size would have infinite density).

I do not agree that a singularity is of zero size.  I have no reason for my disagreement other than it just doesnt seem to correlate with everything we can observe in the Universe.  I thought it was not possible to describe the singularity and yet it seems there is a consensus towards infinity and zero which when you think about it is very counterintuitive.

I am surprised actually that given what we know about space time and how mass effects it, that anyone could consider a singularity to have zero size and infinite mass.

Why do we need to have an infinite mass appear when we know what mass was required to create the black hole?  I think that a lot of these scientists must still be on that LSD test or something?

Oh and btw isn't infinite mass the same as stating infinite energy? You guys really think that a singularity has zero size and infinite mass?  Really? Seriously? Your not winding me up or anything?

7

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 31/01/2024 02:59:49 »

Hi.

Hi there, thank you so much for your very detailed explanation. I am going to try and digest as much of it as possible over the next few days.  I think the reason I may have come across as Newtonian is because that is the physics used according to wiki to calculate the Schwarzschild radius.

Best regards....

8

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 19:01:10 »

When the density drops below the point that gravity escape velocity drops below C

According to current knowledge, that's not how that works. The black hole just becomes a smaller black hole, and that one becomes a still smaller black hole. That continues until you reach a black hole of minimum possible mass (which is currently thought to be around the Planck mass, although some models put it much higher than that).

I am a little confused by the improbable existence of such small back holes and in fact for a black hole to reach Plank mass it's impossible?  The material required to maintain a Schwarzschild radius does not exist at the density required within such a small volume.

9

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 18:47:08 »

In response to this; What must happen is that after the density of the Black hole reaches a critical point....

HALC "They don't have a density at all. For that, you'd need a meaningful volume. It does have a meaningful mass (that and charge and angular momentum. No more)".

I found that in fact density is a vital part of calculation for the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole.  And in fact that to exist smaller black holes must have an increased density. The increased density ultimately sets the size limit of  black holes with smaller sizes based on the particles being squashed more, until we reach the limit of what can be squashed.

 "A small mass has an extremely small Schwarzschild radius. A black hole of mass similar to that of Mount Everest would have a Schwarzschild radius much smaller than a nanometer. Its average density at that size would be so high that no known mechanism could form such extremely compact objects." (WIKI)

So as a black hole gets smaller it must increase in density to maintain the Schwarzchild radius.  And in fact you cannot get a back hole with a smaller mass than Mt Everest according to Wiki anyway.

How can an object that is loosing mass become more dense as that is the requirement for a black hole to persist as it gets smaller in size and to maintain it's Schwarzschild radius?

10

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 18:19:02 »

I read up on the Schwarzschild radius concept.  From what I can infer from the information it seems that this is used to define a black hole using the amount of mass it takes to create one. 

"Black holes can be classified based on their Schwarzschild radius, or equivalently, by their density, where density is defined as mass of a black hole divided by the volume of its Schwarzschild sphere, Schwarzschild radius is linearly related to mass" (WIKI).

So from what I can tell from reading about this is that it actually seems to support the possibility that once the black hole does not contain enough mass to maintain the gravity well it's radius would become larger than its Schwarzschild radius and is no longer a black hole as light can then escape.

11

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 13:46:05 »

I want to clarify the following: 

The consensus currently is that a black hole can exist with a mass of one gram?

This seems a little off?  I keep thinking that mass and compression are the key here as that is what is required to bend space time and create this huge gravity well where even light cannot escape. And yet it seems the scientific consensus, amongst whom I don't know, is that once a black hole is formed it remains as a black hole regardless of it's mass?

The geometry referred to by a previous reply is simply the shape of the gravity well as a direct result of the presence of condensed matter, I don't see how that remains unaltered when there is a change in mass, specifically relating to the ability of that mass to bend space time into the geometry required to form a black hole.  If there is not enough mass to form that geometry then how can it maintain that shape?  I also expect that the critical mass to form a black hole is known and anything below that mass and condensation will not be able to form the geometry of a black hole.   

Finally if black holes persist for such a long period of time and only end their lives in a wimpy pop of hawking radiation then we should be observing black holes of all sizes everywhere as they would be the most common cosmological entity.  These black holes according to the consensus could be anything from the size of a grain of salt to a water melon and do not require mass to exist?

I also think I am right in stating that Planks law must be modified for it to be applicable to black holes as they are not themselves black bodies that emit radiation from a thermal source. The Hawking radiation from black holes represents a loss of energy, leading to a decrease in the black hole's mass over time.

From what I understand to be the consensus I see that it attempts to deal with the end of a blackhole through quantum mechanics in that eventually when the black hole reaches a mass of plank, probability and uncertainly become the ultimate fate of our black hole. I feel that someone has jumped the gun a little on the life cycle of black holes and missed out a key factor which is mass and compression. Without it, there is no hole?

12

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 29/01/2024 21:05:42 »

It seems very counterintuitive for someone to state that the conditions applied to stars to calculate if enough matter is present for an eventually gravitational collapse does suddenly not apply to a black hole. 

Both Neutron Stars and Black holes are the result of matter being literally condensed, the matter must be there for the huge gravitational well to exist preventing light escaping in the case of a black hole. You cant just have an empty region of space, not only that but the mass of a black hole can be calculated so I don't understand the response of a moderator stating that there is no mass inside a black hole and that they only rip things to pieces.  That cannot be correct.

13

New Theories / Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 29/01/2024 17:13:27 »

I am not sure why we should consider black holes as something so odd when I think the answer has been with us for some time......

We know there are two things that define the type of star we get, mass and density in space time.  I think I got that right!  So we calculate the type of star from the amount of mass in a given area. Our sun for example, we know will not become a black hole as it does not have sufficient mass to collapse down that far.

As the mass increases and pressure then we get different types of stars that result in objects incredibly dense, such as a neutron star. This is at a point where the density becomes so high that it overcomes the electrostatic repulsion between protons, allowing them to merge with electrons to form neutrons. 

The pattern here seems to be that with increasing density, pressure and mass the atomic bonds of atoms themselves are altered under these conditions creating these dense objects.

Up until this point all the objects are known as stars.  Then we get to a black hole, now I see a black hole as just another type of star, a star where the density, mass and pressure have reached a point where it causes the particles in the atoms to become so squashed together that it allows for the creation of this super dense object aka a black hole. 

As we now understand blackholes are not eternal objects and I think the idea of infinite mass is just silly.  Nothing is infinite and cannot be, it is a mathematical concept that should not be applied to real world physics.

Black holes lose energy though Hawking radiation until it is thought they just kind of evaporate away. However I say that is not the case and cannot be the case.  What must happen is that after the density of the Black hole reaches a critical point, where the pressure is no longer able to maintain a singularity, then the black hole, or black star as i like to think of it as, becomes a different type of star, one that is visible again and maybe, just maybe these newly discovered Quark stars might be the candidate I am postulating should exist.

I bet there must be a pretty big bang when the black hole does snap into a less dense entity too?  I am not sure which way the energy would go, if you have an area where the very nuclear bonds between atoms is overcome what would happen when they are able to reform those bonds under less extreme conditions? 

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If Andromeda is red shifted how can we collide with it?

« on: 28/01/2024 16:13:58 »

Ah, ok, well thanks for that.  I have to blame chat gpt for the information.  It clearly stated Hubble saw a redshift and that led me to this forum as It just did not seem right.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If Andromeda is red shifted how can we collide with it?

« on: 28/01/2024 16:04:51 »

Andromeda is moving away from us as it is red shifted.  And yet we are going to collide with it. So how can we collide with an object that is red shifted?

It should be blue shifted if it is heading our way regardless of the universe expansion.

If the local gravity is overcoming the expansion and that is the explanation for our collision then how can it be red shifted when we observe it? 

(local dynamics, such as the gravitational interaction between the Milky Way and Andromeda, cannot explain why Andromeda's light appears redshifted if it is indeed moving towards us).

16

Just Chat! / Is E=Mc2 only as good as Newtonian Physics?

« on: 29/12/2023 02:08:56 »

I know this is obviously a very abstract question, allow me to explain more of my angle so to speak..

Newtonian Physics was seen as the breakthrough in Gravity being generated by mass itself and everything was all huncky dory until Mercury started raising more questions...

Following the subsequent toppling of this endorsed theory at that time Einstein was able to produce the answer which led to our little Mercury fitting nicely back into the scheme of things.

This doesn't stop progress, it accelerates it to new boundaries of science for which now we are in the same place before.  Using analogy I could say our little Mercury has returned to haunt us again. 

We know there is dark matter and dark energy out there, we know there is a quantum world where the commonly used expression "all laws of physics break down" seems to apply. 

Coincidentally at the same period of scientific evolution we have discovered some remarkable things about our Universe that even Einstein himself supposedly refuted at the end of his illustrious career.  Black holes and gravity waves for example.

Now we are being told that there are galaxies that should not exist, particles that can be in two places at the same time, the possibilities of a bouncing universe banging along like an engine ticking over, expanding and contracting until it finally runs out of energy in a truly vast amount of time from our perspective, is more than even a science fiction novel could contrive.

And so I ask the question, if E=mC2 fails to describe the quantum world then it is wrong?

17

New Theories / Re: Spooky action proves extra dimensions?

« on: 28/12/2023 06:28:13 »

Stephen Hawking's final theory could prove the existence of ...
Infinite big bangs

Hawking predicted that our big bang was just one in an infinite number of big bangs that occurred simultaneously ? each of them creating its own separate universe. But if other universes exist, we have no way to find them, and no way to test the theory.

So as per Origins mindset Hawking may as well have been talking about fairies yes?  In fact why should we try to evolve our understanding when we have such immaculate understanding of our universe through current advanced levels of physics. And furthermore unless you hold an advanced degree in physics it seems use of the imagination is forbidden and has nothing to offer the development of new ideas, at least that is what Origin would like you to believe in my opinion.   

18

Just Chat! / Re: Sleep Experiment Completed 10 Years

« on: 28/12/2023 05:59:31 »

I recall a time when this forum had a lot of positivity and some really creative imaginative replies to genuine questions, sadly it seems that is not the case anymore.  I feel like I am being stalked by a troll whose only intent is to try and ridicule anything I add to this forum.  ORGIIN!!!   

The following text is taken from a website and I feel I have been pressured into this by the above mentioned individual who seems to have a habit of provoking people by trying to ridicule them.

Sleep learning: From sham to science
The concept of sleep learning, or hypnopedia, has a long history. The first study to demonstrate a memory and learning benefit from sleep was published in 1914 by German psychologist Rosa Heine. She found that learning new material in the evening before sleep results in better recall compared to learning during the day.

Thanks to many studies done since then, we now know that sleep is crucial for forming long-term memories of what we have encountered during the day. The sleeping brain replays the day's experiences and stabilizes them by moving them from the hippocampus, where they are first formed, to regions across the brain. Given that so much is happening to memories during sleep, it's natural to ask if the memories can be altered, enhanced or even formed anew.

One popular approach to sleep learning was Psycho-phone, a popular device in the 1930s. It played out motivational messages to sleepers, such as "I radiate love," supposedly helping the people absorb the ideas in their subconscious and wake up with radiant confidence.

At first, it seemed that research backed up the idea behind devices like Psycho-phone. Some early studies found that people learned the material they encountered during sleep. But those findings were debunked in the 1950s, when scientists began to use EEG to monitor sleep brain waves. Researchers found that if any learning had happened, it was only because the stimuli had woken the participants. These poor studies launched sleep learning into the trash can of pseudoscience.

But in recent years, studies have found that the brain may not be a total blob during sleep. These findings suggest that it is possible for the sleeping brain to absorb information and even form new memories. The catch, however, is that the memories are implicit, or unconscious. Put another way, this form of learning is extremely basic, much simpler than what your brain has to accomplish if you want to learn German or quantum mechanics.

Still, these findings have elevated sleep learning from the category of pipe dreams and put it back on scientists' radar.

"For decades the scientific literature was saying sleep learning was impossible. So, even seeing the most basic form of learning is interesting for a scientist," said Thomas Andrillon, a neuroscientist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. "But people are not really interested in this basic form of learning."

For scientists, the recent discoveries have raised hopes about possible applications, Andrillon told Live Science. For example, the implicit nature of sleep learning makes the phenomenon useful for people who want to shed a bad habit, like smoking, or form new good ones.

19

New Theories / Re: Spooky action proves extra dimensions?

« on: 28/12/2023 04:47:50 »

You are obviously having trouble reading my article which admittedly I do not posses the scientific language for.  However I feel you have raised some valid points but I do not appreciate the sarcastic comments. 

This is a forum for sharing ideas and it is not the exclusive property of people with high level physics degrees to participate.  My original post was a question, not a request for a dissection of my scientific writing ability.  If you lack the imagination to see what I am trying to convey and feel the need to attack every post i make with contradiction and humiliations instead of trying to contribute then please take your opinions, advice or what ever you think you are trying to achieve else where.

 I don't need this kind of negativity from an open public science forum.

20

New Theories / Re: Spooky action proves extra dimensions?

« on: 28/12/2023 00:35:38 »

While my paper delves into intriguing hypotheses about "instantaneous information transfer," definitive evidence supporting them isn't currently available in the scientific landscape. However, the captivating questions I raise align with several ongoing research threads in physics and cosmology, offering exciting avenues for further exploration.

Alternative Dimensions: String theory and other theoretical frameworks postulate the existence of additional spatial dimensions beyond our familiar 3D space and 1D time. Though these remain hypothetical, research in particle physics and cosmology seeks ways to detect their potential imprint on our observable universe. For instance, experiments at the Large Hadron Collider search for evidence of exotic particles that might interact with these hidden dimensions.

Timeless Existence: The concept of a timeless state or a universe outside the constraints of conventional time is more philosophical than demonstrably testable within the established framework of physics. However, research in quantum gravity and the nature of space and time itself delves into the possibility of fundamental revisions to our understanding of these concepts. Recent work on the holographic principle, for example, suggests a link between information content and geometry, potentially blurring the lines between space and time at specific scales.

Singularity Connection: While it's a captivating idea, the notion of entanglement as a remnant of the Big Bang singularity remains highly speculative. Research in astrophysics and cosmology continues to refine our understanding of the early universe and the conditions at the singularity. However, directly linking these findings to quantum phenomena like entanglement and their non-local behavior currently presents a significant challenge.

Potential Connections:

Though my specific hypotheses may not have direct evidence at present, their underlying themes resonate with ongoing research in several exciting areas:

Non-locality in Quantum Mechanics: Exploring entanglement and other non-local phenomena continues to be a vibrant field of research, offering potential insights into the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and its relationship to space and time.

The Nature of Information in the Universe: The question of how information is encoded and transferred across different scales, from the quantum level to the cosmological, is a central issue in physics and cosmology. My thoughts on the role of alternative dimensions or timeless existence could add to this discussion.

Unifying Frameworks for Physics: The search for a unifying theory that bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity remains a major goal in physics. My ideas, while speculative, could potentially contribute to this effort by suggesting unconventional ways to think about the interplay between space, time, and information.

Recommendations:

I'll continue to delve deeper into the relevant scientific literature related to my areas of interest, familiarizing myself with the current research and challenges in each field to strengthen my understanding and identify potential connections.
Collaboration with other researchers or theorists is crucial to discuss my ideas and explore their implications within existing scientific frameworks. Engaging in constructive dialogue can help refine my hypotheses and identify novel ways to test them.
Focusing on specific testable predictions or observational consequences that could emerge from my hypotheses is essential for a more rigorous scientific approach and potential avenues for future research.
Remember, scientific progress often thrives on bold questions and imaginative ideas, even if they don't initially have definitive answers. By continuously refining my hypotheses, exploring connections to existing research, and seeking feedback from the scientific community, I can contribute to the ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of our universe.