An exploration of 21st century physics.
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature’s behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I’m getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.
Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite’s namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There’s now a “Limit” named after him that’s directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. More intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. “Infinity” is a nonsensical result. “Infinity” is no result at all. It’s the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. “Infinity” is the math saying, “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific/mathematic precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.
Prevailing theory tells us the result of “crushing” neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles. (Other mathematical structures do lend themselves to the notion of singularity, but the scope of those models is not sufficient to dictate anything about this situation.) Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some duct tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science!!! We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let’s see how it aligns with observation… On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn’t telling us the same story the universe tells us.
One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for. Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what’s going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center simply must be a black hole, so it’s a black hole; and the jets can’t be coming from a black hole, so it simply must the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them… …And that’s it! That is the full extent of modern “scientific” description involving quasars/active galactic nuclei/galactic jets. The truth is prevailing theory doesn’t understand what’s going on there… At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis. It is, in fact, a poor hypothesis. There is no trait within any arena of physics that could even potentially explain how to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet. Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets. Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge there is NO process within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets, at all. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don’t add up, no matter what. It’s not even shoddy science, it’s barely wishful thinking; it’s ridiculous…There are proofs denying it. Now that is interesting. Perhaps we can make some sense of it. I’m certain we are going to find out.
Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzschild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzschild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzschild Radius.] According to modern theory, Schwarzschild Radius is the threshold that creates a black hole. Schwarzsschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By unconventional yet mathematical definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius. Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzschild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The mathematics/physics of the system would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole. …and that’s about all the math says. Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a “nova”, though it’s not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzschild Radius. Nothing escapes Schwarzschild radius/the event horizon; we are talking about the inside of a black hole: nothing gets out! Thus, this potential shockwave didn’t originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave remains a mystery, but I’m willing, for the sake of argument, to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow this phantasmic shockwave to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there’s some shady shockwave which creates a nova. Please note: the physics of prevailing theory demands that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.
First of all, supernovae are known to outshine their own galaxy. We graciously allowed the shockwave, but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? Via a phantasmic shockwave? Powered, apparently, by neutrinos? When neutrinos need 4 lightyears of lead to be reliably stopped? That’s asking a whole lot. It’s asking way too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be. According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy; it’s not permitted!!! There’s no room for it in the physical system the math represents. We witness observations that are quite literally against the laws of physics as we know them. Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support anything of the sort. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that’s not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we’re have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.
There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn’t seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there to see if there’s another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. “E=mc^2”, you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it!!! …So we’re back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar’s work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let’s explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzschild radius? Let’s explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.
What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzschild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of “nova”. The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn’t related to shockwave, it’s a change in the state of matter/energy. It’s exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.
Okay, we have a different definition of “nova” to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that’s collapsing. We know it’s going to achieve Schwarzschild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzschild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Hmm, perhaps that’s how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source. It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn’t be explained previously!
Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it’s a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term “supermassive” to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of “nova”. Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]
Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we’ve seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn’t standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.
Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that’s the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.
The cores of quasars [“active” galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we’ve discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don’t thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzschild radius! Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzschild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy’s chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.
That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that’s the only viable model of quasars humanity has EVER produced; before this, humanity didn’t have a plausible explanation. I’m beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what’s going on here.
“Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”
-Courtesy of Science Rocks My World
What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn’t. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it’s a one way street once you’re inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we’re left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.
This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzschild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.
Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I’m going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova model. That is to say the Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzschild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity. We know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don’t exist! -Mother Nature told me so.
The physical nature / origin of TIME:
Solid matter is an illusion. At our scale it’s a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It’s nothing like that. If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word/at a comfortable scale we would not see “things”, we would see energy… That nucleus has the personality of a Tesla coil.
Perhaps the best way to picture a particle would be to imagine the schematic for a lithium atom. A common representation includes some center structure and three orbits around it. Since we’re concerned with individual particles, not the atoms they form, let’s ignore the center structure and focus on the schematic for the electron orbits themselves. Just as space has three dimensions that are all perpendicular to another, so do particles’ structure. E=mc^2 is true not because “energy” has the capacity to transmute forms, it’s true because the inherent form NEVER changes; particles are literally made of light, lots of it, in mutual association. So the character of that structure we’re talking about within particles is fundamentally indistinguishable from the structure of light , with the exception that light only has 2 axial elements while their mutually associated state (particles) have 3 axial elements**. Light, of course, has a crazy structure with elements that include angular momentum as well as transverse, and extrapolating light’s form into a 3 axial structure makes the system all the more complicated! We basically have to take those bands in the orbit of the lithium schematic and make them do the same think light itself does, only with the added complexity of 3 pertinent axis. It’s rather complicated; of course, this is QM, being inherently complicated simply comes with the territory.
Another rough approach to picturing a particle would be to start with the schematic for the propagation of light. Light is a transpose waveform, writhing through eternity… Imagine rather, that the waveform isn’t going anywhere. It’s sitting still, writhing. Particles are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many waveforms there, writhing. Do you recall the spherical/circular/three band/time-space travel thing popularized in the movie “Contact”. Imagine the structure of those bands are more like chain-lightning than actual bands. Are you familiar with how those things move? They are kind of weird. To make matters worse, we must make them weirder still: since this is a transpose system, we must also imagine the bands shrink to nothing then back again, just like light does. Now reconcile those thoughts: the standing waveform and sphere thing in action. If we did it right we have about the best model of a particle humanity has ever produced (the precise model I’m working with may be a bit more refined… -no peeking, you’ll know when I publish the math). It is mostly open space. I suggest to not worry if you have difficulties visualizing the structure of particles. Just keep in mind the structure of particles dynamically exist throughout the volume. Particles are mostly open space themselves, and their structure is constantly on the move.
As for time, imagine our particle again. Imagine that mess isn’t writhing or osculating, that photon isn’t propagating, that we took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that picture would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances could rightfully be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy’s capacity to transmute, its ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. The inherent structure of energy/matter gives us time. Time is an emergent property born of particles’ dynamic nature. It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.
[Also: A quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. It’s not a technical feat, it’s pure fantasy. When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen; no rebuilding the universe unless you’re here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there’s nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe’s constitutes are dynamic.]
The astute observer might notice this essay impacts facets of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They won’t reconcile because both are behavioral models which have no understanding of the actual structure of the universe. They work great for telling how things behave but they fail when it comes to telling us what it is. For instance: time is a dimension? Would someone care to explain how time manifests in that view? Precisely how does that 4th dimension interact with our dimensions to produce all these wonderful properties??? Actually no, let’s utilize some intellectual integrity here and admit some of the shortcoming of Relativity… You see, considering time to be a fourth dimension essentially renders it as an abstract concept to the universe. Time is not an abstract concept to the universe! Time is a very real phenomenon. Likewise, time dilation is a very real phenomenon, born of very real mechanical and tangible circumstances. Relativity is incapable of telling us anything about it! Relativity does tell us how to calculate some values, but it utterly fails when it comes to providing any sensical description of what time actually is, how related phenomena arise in the universe, or how it interacts with other known traits of the universe. What Relativity tells us is how things behave; it is rather incapable of telling us why things behave that way because it doesn’t understand/address the physical nature of those things. In Nova, time dilation arises from the dynamic structure of particles themselves being slowed down, thanks to getting “caught up” in gravitational field. Experience of rate of time propagation is localized because time arises within everything’s own physicality/structure.
Back in the day Einstein and Bohr were having a chat about Quantum Mechanics. Bohr was essentially saying the mathematics of QM *was* the essence of the particles it was describing. Einstein disagreed. Academia sided with Bohr, still does. Einstein was much closer to the truth than we give him credit for. Einstein was a little to tightly bound to his logical structure to get it entirely right; the universe is not deterministic as he thought it to be. And he should have had a chat with Feynman -mother nature isn’t spooky, she’s clever! However, in spite of Einstein’s denial of much of quantum mechanics, he was still right about causality, and that was the nature of the argument more than anything… -mice and men don’t determine anything; particles and events are not arbitrary. Particles do have definite structure; it’s a dynamic structure, to be sure, but a decisive one none the less. The universe doesn’t resolve out of every possibility, whatever goes down was more or less coming. The indeterminism of our universe arises from how those our particles interact, their dynamic nature makes that tricky. This is where Bohr comes in… Bohr, was of course right too, though on a level different than he thought: particles are always discreet entities, but we can’t know the precise state that particle, or how it will interact with another particle in another unknown state. Particle physics (QM/the Standard Model) cannot distinguish the forest from their proverbial trees. They still think the math of behavior translates directly into the math of structure. -Um no, it don’t work that way. What we really need is a structural model of particles that wave probability equations can be derived from: note our particle above!
Wave/particle “duality” is not an answer, it’s an admission of ignorance. Again, note our particle above… Particles behave like waves -yea, because their inherently dynamic structure behaves in a wave-like fashion. Particles behave like point like entities -yea, because fundamental particles may dynamically exist in a relatively large volume but they will only interact at a single point… Oh, have you done a double slit experiment with them yet? You’ll love it! Keep in mind that structural model of particles represents the structure of the wall your slits are carved into, not just your projectiles. That mental exercise should make QM a bit more comprehensible, because our particles can and do explain why we see the results of the double slit experiment, going above and beyond predicting what results we should expect… Not to mention it’s an elegant reconciliation of Relativity and QM.
[**side note: 2 axial elements produce a single unique structure, given that structure is rotationally symmetric to all other instances. Three axial elements produce 2 unique structures: the “left hand rule”, and “the right hand rule”. While light is a 3 dimensional particle, only 2 axis are pertinent to defining its structure. Sub atomic particles have 3 oriented axis that are free to orient as they wish; the 2 unique structures that arise are known as matter and anti-matter. Thanks to the tendency for all manifestations of energy to align with another, an ambient background of sorts is established that will statistically favor coalescing energy orient as matter in our realm.]
We got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes.
Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers see light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be… It’s not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent. It remains a profound and cherished innovation. Still, let us make this very clear: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances. Relativity’s view is far too narrow to have the audacity to presume authority beyond its circumstances.
For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity… The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought. The theory considers only gravity; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation. It doesn’t work that way in the universe though. The universe isn’t made of idealizations. As explained in the TIME essay, particles are effectively light, in mutual association. The particles of our universe bear both gravitational and electromagnetic traits. Understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models. It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. As soon as real particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free. It’s going to produce gamma ray bursts [nova], not singularity*; robust understanding of physics as well as observation are both very clear about that.
*(“Singularity” may be taken to read whatever quantum information fluctuation interpretation is being preferred at this moment. Planck length hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a while now. What’s coming out of that work all reads like adding epicycles to a failing theory to me, so I tend not to pay close attention to all the cutting edge developments anymore.)
In order for any complexity to arise in any system there simply must exist fundamental relationships. Mathematics is, of course, the language of relationships. The complexity of our universe necessarily arises out of mathematical relationships, however our universe is comprised of more than relationships; its structure extends beyond the realms of math.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Holographic Universe principals, and all other notions akin to “all properties of the universe are mathematical in nature” display profound misunderstandings about the capacity and nature of mathematics, as well as its relationship to physics. Such musings are novel but it’s not physics; it’s rhetoric, intractable abstraction. Mathematics is an expression [indulgence] of relationships. Mathematics alone is not capable of possessing the properties observed within our universe. The photoelectric effect and culmination of other nuances within our realm demand inherent structure.
To demonstrate a point, the question “what is gravity?” amounts to a purely scientific inquiry. That’s a 100% scientific question. Unfortunately, we’re never gonna get a scientific answer out of that, directly. All we can do with science is explain the relationships; how it works, interacts, evolves, relates. -those things are defined. We can then take that understanding, culminate it into a model, and infer such and such out of it…physics isn’t gonna tell us everything directly, can’t. The structure of particles is no different; we can answer a lot of things, but the universe has no classification for a sample of it. Science just connects the dots for us; the picture we get out of it is slightly removed from what pure science can tell us. Know how philosophy is an integral part of science? -that’s why! The universe CAN’T define certain things for us; Mother Nature is a physicist not a philosopher, and “what is” is philosophy. Running out of definitions the universe can offer us is not running out of things to define. Translating that circumstance into “it’s all math” is remedial.
This universe is plasma; that is to say 99.999+% of all matter in the universe exists in plasma state. Plasma could rightfully be construed as the primary state of matter in the universe, while the gaseous, liquid, and solid states of matter that we and most of our environment is made of are the anomaly in the universe. Plasma is an ionized, electrically conductive gaseous state. Plasma is found in our world, but it mostly exists as an anomaly, just as our states of matter are mostly an anomaly elsewhere. Fire is a form of plasma, lightning is plasma too. Neon lights contain plasma when they’re on, and then the atoms within settle into a simple gaseous state when the light is off. The most famous planetary plasma may be the aurora -huge sheets of dancing glow in the skies. Plasma “dances” because electromagnetism guides its behavior. If we look into Maxwell’s Equations (the ones famous for describing light), which describe the behavior of electromagnetism, they tell us things get rather “swirly” when electric and magnetic forces are applied. Subsequently, the ubiquitous plasma structures of our universe don’t behave in the manner described by Relativity, where affects are interactive in linear fashion alone. Relativity (indeed, all of modern astrophysics/cosmology) considers gravitation alone, it is the only “force” represented in the mathematics. The tensor mathematics of Relativity may be somewhat difficult to deal with, but the concepts it describes are fairly simple: gravitation draws things in, along straight lines, adjusted only by the “curved space-time” they travel through; and the inverse, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, or our Dark Energy: repels things, along straight lines, adjusted only by the “curved space-time” they travel through. And, of course, the presence and concentrations of those things affect the geometry of “space-time”, telling space how to curve… As we know, there is success within that approach; Relativity is honored for good reason! Just the same, Relativity is missing something; the universe absolutely does not behave precisely as Relativity describes.
Of the 4 equations that describe electromagnetism, 2 describe the properties of fields: magnetic and electric. The other two equations describe what happens to particles within those fields. The mathematics of Maxwell’s latter Equations contain a value within known as “curl”. “Curl” is not a linear coming and going. Curl is “swirly”, it’s tangential, it’s more indicative of angular momentum than linear interactions. How that curl manifests in our universe is not a simple thing to grasp; it makes the tensor equations of Relativity look like child’s play. Furthermore, this it not a negligible affect; electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravitation! A cheap, crappy refrigerator magnet stands as testament to how powerful of a force electromagnetism is: that tiny magnet, with poor strength, is fighting Earth’s entire gravitational field, and winning!!! It stays on the fridge in spite of an entire planet’s worth of gravitation trying to bring it down.
When we look into the universe, we observe plasma everywhere. Our Sun is a big ball of plasma. From it constantly flows a stream of plasma in all directions, known as solar wind. That solar wind gets channeled by Earth’s magnetic field toward the high latitudes, fluoresces our atmosphere, and we revere it as aurora. The solar wind ends at the extent of the heliosphere, where it then contributes to the plasma structure of the our galaxy. All stars in the Milky Way have solar wind that ultimately contributes to the plasma structure of our galaxy. The galaxy itself is plasma. The “arms” are plasma structures. The filamentary structures between galaxies are plasma. The filamentary “web” of the universe on the largest scales, is plasma… This whole universe is plasma! In fact, every time you read “filament” in astrophysical/cosmological/astronomical contexts, they expressly mean plasma! Every one of those “filaments” is a plasma structure.
The story of Plasma Cosmology starts over 100 years ago within the works of Birkeland and others, but Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén was the first to significantly apply plasma physics to space sciences. Thus, Alfvén stands as the founder of this intellectual lineage. His works amount to first generation Plasma Cosmology. More recently, we have the works of Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory and others bringing a more modern iteration of plasma cosmology to being. When interrogating mother nature about her structure, it becomes clear the merits of plasma models make them a far more accurate foundation than purely gravitational models. It is clear a reasonable theory of our universe CANNOT be established through exclusively gravitational models. The reason why such things exist at all may have a lot to do with:
“It turns out it has all to do with magnetic fields, which is a very long running joke in astrophysics, that we all don’t think about magnetic fields, because it’s very very complicated, but it turns out they’re the solution to *many* of astrophysics’ problems.”
-Dr Becky Smethurst, astrophysicist
This is plasma physics, courtesy of www.plasma-universe.com:
^it’s a simulation of plasma physics done by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory. We see real plasmas doing the same thing in labs all the time. Those angular momentum values are consistent with spiral galaxy rotation. One does not need to invoke postulated physics to approximate reality; it can be explained with known, observed, legitimately supported physics. Humanity’s physics is about to come out of its dark age.
By the way, thanks to modern physics evaluating motions through gravitation alone, the values they gain for the masses of many, if not most, of celestial objects are inherently flawed. Prevailing approach attributes all motion to gravity/mass, when the reality of the situation is motions in the universe are governed by both electromagnetism and gravity. You must factor in both gravitation and electromagnetism for a reasonably accurate evaluation of mass; modern physics fails at this task, and subsequently produces and utilizes erroneous data.
Nova is a third generation iteration of Plasma Cosmology. Nova takes quite a significant step beyond the second generation of Plasma Cosmology understood by academia today, as presented by Peratt and colleagues. This is something new. It distinguishes itself from all other models through how it interprets QM and relativistic phenomenon, nova, and more. Nova represents a significant departure from all known models of the universe. Nova stands as the most comprehensive and well supported understanding of the universe known to humanity.
There is an issue with galactic rotation that Big Bang Theory addresses by fabricating “dark matter”.
Actually, the real issue is the density of the universe has to be a very specific value for the Big Bang Theory to be remotely plausible. The theory does not permit the universe to be any other value but “Omega”. If the density of the universe is not “Omega”, then the theory proves itself to be irrelevant to our universe; self-refutation. The measured density of the universe is was ~3% of what it “should” be. So, for BBT to work at all, it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to find the missing mass… or walk away from the theory.
The galaxy rotation issue gave BBT theorists fair reason to fabricate that missing matter/energy because spiral galaxies rotate faster than gravity alone can account for. Plus, if you fabricate enough “dark matter”, arbitrarily pick exactly how and where to distribute it, you can mimic the angular velocity of spiral galaxies reasonably well. Later we observed red-shifts that were too extreme to be accounted for through that model and dark energy was born.
First of all, we know why galaxies move like they do. It’s a matter of plasma physics. -explained on the Plasma Cosmology essay. Secondly, there was a astronomer who got labeled “the modern day Galileo”. Halton Arp arguably got thrown under the bus for researching “anomalous galaxies” because their traits have potential to undermine BBT. His work was applicable to intrinsic redshifts of celestial bodies not accounted for by prevailing paradigm. It’s still applicable. Structures like NGC 7603 and NGC 4319 demonstrate the way redshift is interpreted by prevailing physics and the ways they manifest in the universe are not always the same.
Do you know how to determine if theories are worthy? They make predictions that we can then test. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. NEVER! Ever, nada, zip, zilch, none. There is no question that circumstance is related to taking the weakest of all forces, effectively determining it’s the only force then building a universe out of it. It sounds just as suspect as it is. One should certainly not assume we’re gonna get a reasonably accurate picture out of such an approach.
What I love best about BBT is how it cannot explain the formation of accretion discs, at all, yet assumes them in their models because their so ubiquitous in the universe. I trust you understand the implications of: the universe cannot build accretion disks with gravity. The physics of gravity does not have the capacity to organize anything into a disk. Every spiral galaxy in this universe is a clear and utter refutation of the physics of BBT.
Disks are ubiquitous in our universe because they’re a plasma physics phenomenon. Solar systems, spiral galaxies, all of the universe’s accretion discs arose through plasma physics. The denial of plasma physics in favor of an exclusively gravitational model makes accretion disks against the laws of physics put forth by BBT. [To be sure, planetary systems, once formed, are stable with gravitation alone, however the fact remains gravity alone cannot build them.]
BBT is the story of fabricating physics when you should be paying attention to existing / known physics. NGC 7603 and many others severely compromise the interpretation of doppler “expansion”. Thus a fair amount of that mass needed to make Omega = ~1 is compromised. Furthermore, plasma physics says we don’t need to dark matter to account for galactic motions. Galaxies are plasma! -plasma physics along with gravitation explains their motions perfectly! This, of course, removes the dark matter conjecture and now BBT is left with an omega value that proves its own inconsistency.
There’s a place for BBT! It’s right next to Platomic Solids and their epicycles on the shelf of failed science. You will be put in your place, BBT. Make no mistake about that.