[timey]

What's the problem?

The problem being Alan, and this is straight from 'the physicist's' mouth:

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.

Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?

[alancalverd]

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.

[timey]

Your favourite Leonard Susskind made the remark that light with a wavelength longer than the diameter of a black hole would bounce off and not be trapped. Now I have no idea of the validity of this statement but it did get me thinking.

Going back to the 1 hertz wave. 1 second is to 1 Planck time as 1 light second is to 1 Planck length. However if we reduce our wave to match we have an insanely high frequency. Since the Planck mass has a Scharzschild radius of two Planck lengths then the wavelength has to be 4 Planck lengths or less to be consumed. So that whatever our lower limit for wavelength turns out to be will set a lower limit on stable black holes. For if a black hole cannot trap light then is it really a black hole?

Well Jeff - my notion would say that the light having been emitted at a particular energy and wavelength, that any gravitational change in that lights wave'length' is not distance related, but 'time' related.

But - I am not incapable of engaging in other people's alternatives...  What would a black hole then be?  And... When you run the implications of your notion into the future, or back to the past.  What kind of universe does this describe?

[timey]

Relativity does not give a full description of the universe, therefore it is likely that Relativity is not quite the correct description...

You are very attractive. That is not a full description. Therefore it is probably incorrect! There's a flaw in the logic, I feel.

Thank you Alan.  In return I can tell you that you that you are also attractive...although I don't see the merit of the analogy...

A theory of the workings of the universe that does not fully describe the universe is incomplete, and possibly faulty...

So...  Many physicists are considering that relativity might be wrong.

Am I wrong about this Alan?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Except that experimental and observational verifications of the postulates of relativity just keep on accumulating. That must be so annoying to its detractors.

[timey]

I wouldn't care to comment on how anybody else feels, but it's not annoying to me as I can see how to fix it...  My notion incorporates everything that works in GR and simply gives alternate mechanics for observation.

You didn't uptake my offer to engage in your notion I see...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

It is a speculation and doesn't go anywhere. I simply took what Susskind said to its logical conclusion. The only thing I have introduced is the idea of limits on the range of an electromagnetic wave's length. The idea of a lower limit for the mass of a black hole greater than the Planck mass is all my own idea. As for implications, I have not thought about it.

[timey]

This is the thing with speculations, they must conclude themselves meaningfully in implications that relate back to the observed mechanics of the universe relevantly.

I feel that I manage to adhere to this structure of logical progression within the premiss of my theory, and to say so it really is a bit saddening to me that no-one seems to recognise the fact.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

This web page just about sums up my viewpoint. Read in particular the part about primordial black holes. Note that this refers to observational data, the analysis of which produced the indicated conclusions.This is where folks like us are at a disadvantage. Not enough funds to develop or deploy measuring devices of the type required.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-smallest-black-hole-in-the-universe-e75c4b56e538

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Ant this is why I like Siegel.

http://www.chronline.com/toledo-astrophysicist-publishes-book-exploring-the-universe/article_a48d0e1a-0900-11e6-837a-3f1bf186bd1e.html

[timey]

This web page just about sums up my viewpoint. Read in particular the part about primordial black holes. Note that this refers to observational data, the analysis of which produced the indicated conclusions.This is where folks like us are at a disadvantage. Not enough funds to develop or deploy measuring devices of the type required.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-smallest-black-hole-in-the-universe-e75c4b56e538

I've read all this before.  It leaves open ended questions that my logic answers.

On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that...  A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.

Simply state the observation of differing rates of time as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate of time.  This then explains why the observation of a black holes temperature decreases with an increase in mass, (inversely proportional) and the mass of the black hole is now as hot as 'usual' physic's would expect of that mass being compressed to that extent. Very hot indeed, Big Bang plasma hot where light cannot shine.  The conservation of energy law is upheld.  All we can observe are thermal readings.

This explains why a smaller black hole is hotter than a bigger black hole and negates an upper mass limit on black holes.

The implications of time running faster in a greater gravity field result in time running slower out in space, leading me to looking at the observation, (in that we 'can' look at light as having 'no' mass), of light's wavelength being inversely proportional to frequency and the changes in wavelength due to gravitational shift then being due to a longer duration of time, and the length of the wavelength remains constant.

This then challenges Hubble's law, the measure of distance, and the premiss of an expanding universe...  If the universe isn't expanding is 'has' to be contracting and it must be doing so relatively slowly.  This leading to the notion of a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon.

In my model virtual particles that form during scattering, (when black holes eject particles via their accretion disks), due to the vastly slower rate of time in open space these virtual particles have 'the time' in which to become real particles.  The second law is upheld in that the universe is constantly increasing in size.

Take this notion of virtual particles in a slower rate of time and relate it to the uncertainty principle, and perturbation theory is unnecessary because the uncertainty of what position something is occupying when travelling at a certain velocity will be solved by calculating this 'distance' 'velocity' 'time' relationship when applying the 'appropriate' rate of time to the equation.

This is a basic synopsis of my take on an alternative...  and so perhaps you can see why I found your potential 1 hertz wave relationship interesting?

Edit: I'll read the other one...

[alancalverd]

On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that...  A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.

No. The gravity potential of a black hole is very low, not very high! Remember the term "potential well" - the very opposite to far space!

[jeffreyH (OP)]

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in inter-galactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...

[alancalverd]

A theory of the workings of the universe that does not fully describe the universe is incomplete, and possibly faulty...

Incomplete is not necessarily wrong.

Very few caterpillars ever get to be butterflies, and they tend to hide when they pupate, so an incomplete observation could fully and correctly describe the behavior of both without finding the connection. Gravity poses interesting problems as we don't have a quantum model for unipolar action at a distance.

[timey]

On the premiss that a clock runs faster in the higher gravity potential, (which it does), this 'can' lead to the line of logic that...  A black holes clock will run at a ridiculously faster rate than a clock on earth will, because a black holes gravity potential is that much greater.

No. The gravity potential of a black hole is very low, not very high! Remember the term "potential well" - the very opposite to far space!

I understand Alan that what you say is the current theory... and re-iterate that I am making an alteration to GR in this proposition...

In defence of my proposition...  If you think of a clock running faster in elevation to earth at a certain distance, and then (hypothetically) transpose this scenario to the black hole, it becomes a logical conclusion that the gravity potential that the clock experiences at elevation to the black hole is greater than the gravity potential that the clock elevated from the earth is.  Thus suggesting that the possibility that a black holes rate of time time 'can' be greater than that of the rate of time on earth...

[timey]

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in inter-galactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...

This logic requires you to view the phenomenon of time as energy related. (I can say a lot more on this but don't wish to cloud the issue).

It also requires you to look at light as having no mass.

The function of change in frequency for light is the gravitational shift for light, whereby the velocity related aspect of Doppler shift for light 'can' be transposed into time, instead of distance.

Because light travels through space emitted at a whole spectrum of different frequencies that suffer Doppler shift, calculating the inverted time dilation exactly via light would not give us the exact measure, but as Hubble's candle is used for redshift...?

If the hypothetical graviton exists, then it can be attributed energy and frequency that would suffer changes according to its distance from mass.

The frequency in relation to a time related wave'length' would be inverted time dilation.

The reason anything possessing mass increasing in time at elevation being due to adding gravity potential.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

There are always unknowns in physics. Nothing special there. What makes your time dilate in inter-galactic voids? There has to be a cause. The function would start at a dense mass and have a positive gradient but at some unspecified point the gradient is zero and then becomes negative. Minima and maxima can indicate a connection to symmetries and conservation laws. So you have my attention...

This logic requires you to view the phenomenon of time as energy related. (I can say a lot more on this but don't wish to cloud the issue).

I am unsure of what 'time as energy related' means.

It also requires you to look at light as having no mass.

Well it doesn't have rest mass.

The function of change in frequency for light is the gravitational shift for light, whereby the velocity related aspect of Doppler shift for light 'can' be transposed into time, instead of distance.

Because light travels through space emitted at a whole spectrum of different frequencies that suffer Doppler shift, calculating the inverted time dilation exactly via light would not give us the exact measure, but as Hubble's candle is used for redshift...?

If the hypothetical graviton exists, then it can be attributed energy and frequency that would suffer changes according to its distance from mass.

The frequency in relation to a time related wave'length' would be inverted time dilation.

The reason anything possessing mass increasing in time at elevation being due to adding gravity potential.

The rest is difficult to interpret.

[timey]

What makes your time dilate in inter-galactic voids? There has to be a cause.

Trying desperately to keep it simple - in answer to your question:

It is the gravitational shift itself that is the function that is inverted time dilation, and it is the changes in energy in the gravity field causing the change in the dilation/contraction of inverted time.  The rate of this inverted time is linear to the gravitational gradient.

Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable.  Lights wavelength decreases as it moves towards earth, indicative of travelling through reference frames that are linearly increased in the rate of their local time.

A clock (which has mass) elevated above Earth is located in the weaker gravity field and 'is' affected by gravity potential.  Therefore gravity potential energy must be added and this 'increases' the frequency and rate of time of the clock (not the location of elevation it is elevated at), and that of the atomic structures of the physical make up of an observer and his belongings in the reference frame with the clock.  If we place clocks at further elevated positions in the higher gravity potential, but weaker gravity field, more gravity potential energy is added and the frequency further increases.

(This logic requires another method of dealing with KE for a velocity related dilation of time and a reduced energy and frequency.  But...this only applies to structures of mass)

When considering that an atom (such as the caesium atom of the atomic clock) must be cooled to negate any thermal shift in its frequency, and that Planck's h constant has a direct relationship with thermal shifts in energy and an indirect relationship with gravitational shifts in frequency, then the possibility exists, (remembering that physic's does not have a comprehensive theory of time), that the phenomenon of time is related to energy.  A 'byproduct' of energy if you like... placing the concept of time as a mechanical phenomenon that has cause as part of the universe, and is calculable via the energy of a system.

Planck's h constant then becomes indicative of an energy time relationship...

What you say here is really relevant...

Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

[PmbPhy]

Light, when looked at as having no mass, is then not affected by gravitation, and gravity potential energy is not applicable.

But light does have mass via its momentum. What it doesn't have is rest mass, aka proper mass. Since light has momentum and anything that has momentum has, by definition, relativistic mass. It's the relativistic mass that makes it respond to gravity. This is all explained by Feynman in his "Lectures."