I think Roy Kerr’s recent paper is important. It’s called Do black holes have singularities? I think it’s important because it challenges an orthodoxy that’s been taken for granted, and because Kerr has the authority to get some attention. That’s because he was in on the Golden Age of General Relativity, and because the EHT collaboration described both M87* and Sagittarius A* as matching the Kerr metric. To set the scene, black hole physics has been around for a long time, but a major development was Karl Schwarzschild’s 1915 Schwarzschild metric. This is said to describe “the geometry of spacetime around an uncharged, spherically symmetric, and non-rotating body”.
A typical Schwarzschild black hole depiction, this one is from Universe review
The general idea of the Schwarzschild metric is that when you concentrate a lot of matter together, it all falls inwards. If you have enough matter, the result is a black hole with an event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius rs = 2GM / c². The G here is of course the gravitational constant, whilst M is the mass of the matter, and c is the speed of light.
It’s saying a black hole has a point singularity at its centre
There are said to be two singularities in the Schwarzschild metric, both of which are associated with a division by zero. I will play a straight bat for now, so here’s a quote from Wikipedia: “The solution contained terms of the form 1 − rs / r and 1 / (1 – rs / r), which becomes singular at r = 0 and r = rs respectively. The rs has come to be known as the Schwarzschild radius. The physical significance of these singularities was debated for decades. It was found that the one at r = rs is a coordinate singularity, meaning that it is an artifact of the particular system of coordinates that was used; while the one at r = 0 is a spacetime singularity and cannot be removed”. What it’s saying is the singularity at the event horizon isn’t a real singularity, but the point singularity at the centre is.
Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics
See the Wikipedia Kerr metric article where you can read that “the exact solution for an uncharged, rotating black hole, the Kerr metric, remained unsolved until 1963, when it was discovered by Roy Kerr”. The Kerr metric is said to describe “the geometry of empty spacetime around a rotating uncharged axially symmetric black hole”. Check out Kerr’s 1963 paper in Physical Review Letters. The title is Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics. It’s only a page and a half long, it doesn’t mention “black hole” or “singularity”, and it doesn’t describe the Kerr black hole as it’s currently described. There’s no mention of the outer ergosphere, the outer horizon, the inner ergosphere, the inner horizon, or the ring singularity:
CC by SA 4.0 Kerr Surfaces image by Yukterez (Simon Tyran, Vienna), see Wikimedia commons
Instead it refers to “the third-order Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann approximation for a spinning particle”. This relates to the Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations which describe “the approximate dynamics of a system of point-like masses due to their mutual gravitational interactions”. The equations are “valid in the limit where the velocities of the bodies are small compared to the speed of light and where the gravitational fields affecting them are correspondingly weak”. Interesting stuff. Follow the trail to the 1937 paper on The Gravitational Equations and the Problem of Motion by Einstein, Leopold Infeld, and Banesh Hoffman. This refers to “the ordinary Maxwell equations for empty space, in which electrical particles are regarded as point singularities of the field”. It also referred to “the well-known theory of Helmholtz on the motion of vortices”. I am reminded of the problem of infinities that plagued quantum electrodynamics because it employed Yakov Frenkel’s point-particle electron. What a pity Infeld didn’t lean on Einstein to use the Born-Infeld model, which talked about the electron’s inner angular momentum influenced by an external field. What a pity Einstein wasn’t working with Erwin Schrödinger who spoke of a charged particle as wave in a closed path.
Discovering the Kerr and Kerr-Schild metrics
But we are where we are. Kerr’s recent paper obviously refers to his 1963 paper. It also refers to two papers he wrote with Alfred Schild in 1965. One was A new class of vacuum solutions of the Einstein field equations, the other was Some algebraically degenerate solutions of Einstein’s gravitational field equations. I’m afraid I can’t find an online copy of the latter, it’s in an AMS symposia collection and it’s paywalled. But for some good background reading take a look at Kerr’s 2007 historical preprint Discovering the Kerr and Kerr-Schild metrics. See the footnote on page 2 and have a laugh at my expense, because Kerr said this: “There is a claim spread on internet that we were employed to develop an antigravity engine to power spaceships. This is rubbish!” Also see the footnote on page 8: “I spent many years trying to write up this research but, unfortunately, I could never decide whether to use spinors or a complex tetrad, and thus it did not get written up until Kerr and Debney (1969). George Debney also collaborated with Alfred Schild and myself on the Kerr-Schild metrics in Debney et al. (1970)”. You can find the titles of the papers in the bibliography. One was the 1969 JMP paper Solutions of the Einstein and Einstein-Maxwell equations by Kerr, Schild, and Debney. Another was the 1970 JMP paper Einstein Spaces with Symmetry Groups by Kerr and Debney. Yet another was the 1979 General Relativity and Gravitation paper Singularities in the Kerr-Schild metrics by Kerr and W B Wilson. I’m not sure what to make of these papers, because they’re all mathematics and no physics. And I’m not sure what a spinor has to do with a rotating mass, but nevermind that for now:
Spinor gif by John F Lindner from Spinors | Wooster Physicists.
What’s more important is that there are 21 instances of “singular” in the 2007 historical article, and 15 instances of “ring”. So you’d think Kerr is a total advocate of the ring singularity that’s supposed to be inside a rotating black hole. But see this on page 24: “any collapsing star can only form a black hole if the angular momentum is small enough: a < m. This seems to be saying that the body cannot rotate faster than light, if the final picture is that the mass is located on the ring radius a. However, it should be remembered that this radius is purely a coordinate radius, and that there is no way that the final stage of such a collapse is that all the mass is located at the singularity. The reason for the last statement is that if the mass were to end on the ring then there would be no way to avoid the second asymptotically flat sheet where the mass appears negative”. In 2007 Kerr was saying there’s no place where a mass appears negative, so there’s no ring singularity in a Kerr black hole.
Fighting talk
Hence Kerr’s recent paper Do black holes have singularities? isn’t something new. He’s obviously been thinking about this for quite some time. Now at tender age of 89, he has decided to speak out. His abstract is fighting talk: “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”. What Kerr is saying is that light trapped inside a Kerr black hole does not necessarily end up in a singularity, and that this proves that Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are wrong.
There is no direct proof that black holes contain singularities
This is heavy stuff, because Roger Penrose was awarded a half share in the 2020 Nobel prize in physics. His award was for “the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity”. The blurb says “Einstein did not himself believe that black holes really exist”, but in 1965 Penrose “proved that black holes really can form and described them in detail; at their heart, black holes hide a singularity”. Check out the Nobel web page on The Singularity Theorem, Penrose’s paper, and Wikipedia for more. It says “light rays are always focused together by gravity, never drawn apart, and this holds whenever the energy of matter is non-negative”. Hence all the inward light rays allegedly end up at one point, the singularity.
NASA ESO black hole image from First Image of a Black Hole – NASA Science
Kerr says this just isn’t proven. See page 2 of his paper where he says there is no direct proof that black holes contain singularities. Just “papers by Penrose outlining a proof that all Einstein spaces containing a ‘trapped surface’ automatically contain FALLs”. Kerr then said “it was then decreed, without proof” that these finite affine length light-rays must end in actual points where the metric is singular. He went on to effectively say the Kerr black hole featured radial light rays which come down the axis through the North pole and die asymptotically on the inner horizon on the opposite side. So here we have light rays of finite affine length, and a scenario which refutes the claim that all black holes must contain a singularity.
He said he was going to get the Kool-Aid treatment
Kerr was similarly scathing on page 5 of his paper when he talked about a rapidly-spinning neutron star accreting mass and contracting. He described how you could initially launch a rocket from the surface, but as the mass increases and the radius decreases, an event shell and therefore a black hole forms. Kerr then said “Why do so many believe that the star inside must become singular at this moment? Faith, not science! Sixty years without a proof, but they believe!” These are strong words and Kerr knows it. That’s why he said he was going to get the Kool-Aid treatment at the end of this video. He even used the word “cult”.
Screenshot from the Elephant in the Room Zoom meeting featuring Roy Kerr.
Hence it’s generated a reaction in the physics community. See the video by Sabine Hossenfelder Backreaction: Black Hole Singularities “Faith, not science!” Prominent Physicist Claims. She was generally supportive of Kerr’s argument. So was Ethan Siegel, see Singularities don’t exist, claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr. I didn’t like the way he said “space itself is flowing: like a waterfall”, or the way he used the Penrose diagram showing the parallel antiverse, but IMHO he gave Kerr a fair appraisal. Another broadly supportive article was Unitary Flow: Roy Kerr vs. the singularities by Klaas Landsman. OK I didn’t like the way he spoke of the Hawking and Ellis “bible”, but that’s one for another day.
A Humpty Dumpty statement
Meanwhile when I search the internet I can see a question on Quora and a discussion on Cosmoquest that were both supportive of what Kerr was saying. Ditto for a brief article Then24 written by Peggy McColl. However a discussion on Physicsforums was not supportive. Mentor Peter Donis gave a Humpty Dumpty statement saying “the term ‘singularity’ is defined in the GR literature as ‘that FALL thing’”. He also said “the claim Kerr claims to be rebutting, as far as I can tell, is a claim that nobody in the GR community actually makes”. Answers to a question on Physics Stack Exchange were similarly negative, and thought-police moderator ACuriousMind deleted Kerr’s reply:
Screenshot from physics stack exchange
Peter Woit hasn’t said anything about it, nor has Sean Carroll, and nor has Matt Strassler. In addition I haven’t seen any news articles about it, or any statements from “experts in the field”. I will be interested to see how this one develops. Will Penrose pipe up? We will see, but don’t hold your breath.
Neither ray crosses the event horizon in the original Schwarzschild coordinates
What do I think of it? I feel very sympathetic towards Roy Kerr, and I wish him every success. However I say that with some sadness. Because on page 6 of his paper Kerr talked about the Schwarzschild black hole, saying it appeared to have two singularities, one at the centre where the curvature tensor was infinite, the other at the event horizon. He then said “for several years it was thought that the latter was real”, but “Eddington and Finklestein showed that this was false by writing the metric in different coordinate systems where the only singularity was at the centre. They also showed that any object that crossed the horizon would quickly fall to this point”. Then on page 7 he talked about inward and outward light rays, and said “neither ray crosses the event horizon in the original Schwarzschild coordinates”. Then on page 9 he said “many have said to the author “What about the Kruskal-Szekeres extension?” as if this makes a difference to any singularities”. Roy oh Roy. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates don’t make any different to any singularities, and nor do Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Take a look at page 828 of MTW where Box 31.2 says Eddington and Finkelstein used free-falling photons as the foundation of their coordinate system:
Screenshot from Gravitation by Misner Thorne and Wheeler
Now take a look at the Wikipedia article on Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates. It says this: “they are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington and David Finkelstein, even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. Roger Penrose seems to have been the first to write down the null form but credits it (wrongly) to the above paper by Finkelstein, and, in his Adams Prize essay later that year, to Eddington and Finkelstein”. Penrose again. All this is despite the fact that by 1907 Einstein was saying light curves in a gravitational field because the speed of light varies. He said it again in 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916. To ram it home he said it again in 1920: “the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. He reiterated the point in 1939 in his paper on a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses. That’s where Einstein said light rays “take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2. In this sense the sphere r = μ /2 constitutes a place where the field is singular”. Irwin Shapiro reiterated it again in 1964: “according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path”. However people who ought to know better claim it doesn’t. They flatly contradict Einstein by making the speed of light constant by definition:
Screenshot from Comments on “Note on varying speed of light theories” by Joao Magueijo,and John W. Moffat
Sadly Kerr was taught the incorrect Bergmann version, hence his 1969 paper said “units are chosen such that the speed of light c and the Newtonian gravitational constant G are equal to unity: c=G=1”. I say sadly because the speed of light varies vertically in a gravitational field, as demonstrated by NIST optical clocks. The more it varies, the stronger the gravitational field. The stronger the gravitational field, the more the ascending light beam speeds up, and the descending light beam slows down. This is the exact opposite of what Penrose’s partner-in-crime Hawking said in his 1966 paper singularities and the geometry of spacetime: “such a strong gravitational field that even the ‘outgoing’ light rays from it are dragged back”. Penrose and Hawking didn’t have a clue about how gravity works. They flatly contradicted Einstein, who spoke of “the refraction of light rays” in a gravitational field. Light curves like any other waves curve when the properties of the medium vary, causing the wave speed to vary. It varies because of a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star conditions the surrounding space, making it neither homogeneous nor isotropic in a non-linear fashion, which we label as spacetime curvature. Then matter falls down because it’s a wave in a closed path, like Schrödinger said. The horizontal component is refracted downwards resulting in a downward displacement.
At the event horizon, there is no gravitational field
Only guess what? At the event horizon, the speed of light is zero, and it can’t go lower than that. So that’s the end of your spacetime curvature. So at the event horizon, there is no gravitational field. So there is no collapse to a point singularity at the centre. So the black hole is a frozen star, like Wheeler said, and that’s the end of that. When light is stopped you can’t make it move via a coordinate transformation using time intervals of infinite duration that take you into some never-never land beyond the end of time. It’s a schoolboy error to think you can, and another schoolboy error to believe the black hole charlatans who tell you that “to an outside observer the contraction to r = 2m appears to take an infinite time”, and then tell you that “the body contracts and continues to contract”. It takes an infinite time for all observers. Or would do if the infalling body didn’t come to grief long before the event horizon. Because a falling body doesn’t slow down, and because matter can’t go faster than the light from which it’s made. That’s why we have gamma ray bursts. Poor old Roy. On page 15 of his paper he talked of rotation at near the speed of light. But that counts for nothing when the speed of light is zero. On page 14 of his paper he said physics is needed, not just mathematics. How right he was. We need evidence, not mathematical “discoveries”. He’s also right that there are no point singularities, but for the wrong reason. Unfortunately the right reason means there’s no Kerr black holes either. That won’t please people like Kip Thorne, who’s been peddling wormhole time-travel woo for decades. But it will please those of us who know that gravitational physics has been lost in maths for sixty years, and is a tottering tower of fantasy. Those of us who know that we are living in a dark age.
HAPPY NEW YEARS ! Another great, educational read John. I would love to know what Mr. Kerr’s stance on The Standard Model is? Perhaps when Mr.Kerr refers to Spinors and Rotating Masses, he might be hinting that The Standard Model isn’t sufficient to explain things ??? I went back to your own article on The Electron and found another GIF of said Spinors; and the surrounding paragraphs ties into everything nicely.
Thanks Greg. I would love to know what Kerr’s stance on that too, and on this article of course. Strictly speaking a spinor is a mathematical thing, I only brought it in because I wanted to emphasise the point that according to Schrodinger and Born & Infeld (and others), a charged particle like an electron is a wave in a closed path. I think this is of crucial importance when trying to understand why matter falls down, why the event horizon is not something matter falls through, and why we see gamma ray bursts. I think it’s really sad that Einstein missed all this. Maybe it was the Nazis that screwed things up, maybe it was something else. Anyway, since we have clear evidence from the NIST optical clocks that a gravitational field is a place where “the speed of light is spatially variable”, and we know light can’t go slower than stopped, we know that there is no gradient in the speed of light between the event horizon and the black hole centre. Hence Pernrose is definitely wrong. If matter does reach the event horizon, there’s no more gravitational field to pull it into some central point singularity.
I also got a real kick when you quoted Roy Kerr desperately distancing himself from the Babson/Brahnson funded anti-gravity crowd that worked at the U.T.at Austin/ U.N.C. Chapel Hill !
According to Wikipedia, Mr. Kerr also spent time here in Dayton at W.P.A.F. helping getting hush-hush programs “off the ground'” ; at Area B I naturally assume. The photo I tried to post of abodes, was of the 10 megawatt reactor that is currently encased in concrete and steel and that Uncle Sam wants everyone to forget what a ” hot site ” it still is. It is in Area B as well ,just downhill from the main avionics labs and uphill from the U.S.A.F. Museum.
Interesting stuff, Greg, you are a fountain of golden nuggets! You know, maybe I ought to look into that Babson/Brahnson-funded antigravity crowd. IMHO it is such a shame that antigravity is somehow tainted. Like cold fusion is tainted. Which I think is undeserved, because we can see a clear analogy in welding. An arc welder uses blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith uses red heat and tons of pressure, and cold welding is all pressure.
Thanks to the Cuban Missle Crisis, I rapidly learned at the tender age of 7, the Cold War nuclear concept of mutual mass destruction was not some fuzzy, hard to understand distant concept. Instead, even before I was conceived my entire family was already living in of the top 5 Ground Zeroes sites. See link :https://youtu.be/Lg9scNl9h4Q?si=Nwif7zGSLNw7_rJg.
Fast forward to these condrums :https://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage.php?&pos=-6272
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/ohio-has-long-costly-atomic-legacy/mFkyBFZj687zwQ4MUrCKyO/
That’s a Bert the Turtle cartoon, Greg. I can see the nukeworker picture of the entombed reactor. However when I try to access the last link I get Our apologies, unfortunately our website is currently unavailable in most European countries due to GDPR rules. Nobody ever said vote for me and I will push GDPR on you whilst letting Google watch your every move on the internet and put up intrusive adverts.
Do black holes have singularities or not?
Well, I don’t think they have point singularities. The question then is this: is the event horizon a singularity? Einstein described it as a singularity, but I’m not sure I would. In black holes I described a black hole as a frozen star, wherein the event horizon (and all points within) is a place where the space/energy density is so high that the speed of light is zero. So I guess I would say the event horizon is no more a singularity than the surface of an iceberg. So in answer to the question do black holes have singularities? I would say no. No they do not.
To finish up on The Tomorrow Wars essay, I’d have to say the majority of the U.K.’s media and information problems are the direct results of having an Un-Codified Constitution, as compared to our American Codified Constitution. Our’s has the sterling 1st Admendment and there is literally no real government control of mass media. Your system actually invites strict censorship based on Who’s in control.( Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!). Which also brings me to A.J. Liebling’s famous quote : ” Power of the press only belongs to those that own one “.
As far as immigration goes, it appears that The Empire of the U K. has come home to roost; over here the USA is still viewed as the ultimate utopia for many escaping war, violence, crime,malnution, disease and yes : human over-population. I should know, all of my ancestors came here for those exact same reasons.
Photons & space are not the only things that wave, people do too. Let’s look at the British Isles : first were stone age non-Celts; stone & bronze age Celts; Anglos-Saxons-Jutes; Vikings ; Normans; and now modern Europeans and Asians. It isn’t going to stop anytime soon, on both sides of the Atlantic I’m afraid.
The good news is John, you do own your own press and I am not only very grateful, but much better educated as well. Keep up Tge Good Fight !
Thanks Greg. I’m not sure if the UK’s issues are caused by an uncodified constitution. I’d say it’s because of a creeping corruption that’s spreading to all walks of life, including government, education, the church, and the media. I think we are losing the do-unto-others Judeo-Christian ethic that distinguishes a first world country from a third world country. Migration plays a part in this, in that the percentage of dishonest people is higher amongst UK residents who were born in a third world country, or are the offspring of those who were. But it’s not just immigration. As far as I can tell young people are more selfish than they used to be, and more likely to be unpleasant to their peers. As to the cause, I’m not sure. I think social media and the media at large has something to do with it, something to do with power corrupts. Most people I know are appalled by the propaganda and censorship of the BBC. But there are parallels with your CNN and NBC etc. The recent Saturday Night Live “cold open” on the antisemitic Harvard/Upenn/MIT congressional hearings was just so dire. As for the USA being the ultimate utopia for people escaping war, violence, crime etc, let me repeat the phrase import the third world, become the third world. You are losing your country Greg, and so am I. As to what to do about it, I’m not sure, because I hear we are losing democracy too.
Thanks for explaining in detail what Roy Kerr was saying. I made little progress on reading his paper,
His 1963 paper didn’t say much, Dave. I found his other (co-authored) 1960s papers tough going because they’re all mathematics and no physics. I struggled to see how they actually related to what’s happening inside a black hole. Particularly because of the infinite time dilation, which suggests to me that nothing happens. LOL! Once you’ve got that in your head, it’s very difficult to engage in something that discounts it. However I liked Kerr’s 2007 historical article. I also like his spirit in standing up and being counted in his latest paper. Good man Roy! Somebody give that man a medal!
Mach’s Principle vs. Einstein’s Relativity
Steve: the issue with Mach’s Principle is that it requires instantaneous action at a distance. You know how I feel about that. Einstein’s relativity says the mass of a body is dependent on its energy content. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly. Electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. That works for me.
Fusion and variable speed of light:
A variable speed of light implies a variable permittivity which implies a variable coulomb force which implies variable fusion rates.
Noted Steve. I wonder if the variable fusion rates vary in line with the variation in c, which varies in line with gravitational potential. Most things do, which is why people talk of time dilation. But not everything. For example whilst the NIST optical clock goes slower in line with gravitational potential, as does a quartz wristwatch, the grandfather clock does not. The grandfather clock’s clock rate depends on gravitational force, which is the “local slope in gravitational potential”. Exceptions to variations in c are IMHO useful outliers that help people to appreciate that there is no actual thing call time going slower, just physical processes, many of which have an electromagnetic nature. You will be aware that I think the nuclear force is electromagnetic in nature. I think the strong force is too. So I’m not hopeful about those outliers.
I expect the forces vary smoothly but the actual fusion has plateaus and non smooth features as it is actually many processes. The binding energy might be less as well, reducing the energy released.
There are several papers concerning variation of the fundamental constants that cover the intricacies of modified fusion chains. Also note that at the outside of the galaxy, where gravitational potential from the rest of the galaxy is less, results in a stronger Coulomb force and then lower fusion for a given mass then inward. So the outer part of the galaxy is dimmer, making it appear to be less massive than its velocity indicates. Sound familiar? Or you could postulate undetectable dark matter. Vsl is simpler
Steve: noted. I would only expect a dramatic difference near a neutron star or black hole. But I tend to deal in fundamental physics only. I’ve only done one article where I’ve talked about elements, so this is not something I know much about.
.
As for galaxies, yes it sounds familiar. Einstein spoke repeatedly of a VSL. He also said “the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy”. That means inhomogeneous spatial energy has a gravitational effect. The raisin cake analogy then suggests to me that the space within the gaalaxies expands less than the space between the galaxies. Then conservation of energy suggests to me that the universe is full of inhomogeneous spatial energy. See “Does matter differ from vacuum?” by Christoph Schiller (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066). The answer is no. Space is vacuum, as far as I can tell it’s the same thing as energy, energy causes gravity, and space, of course, is dark.
More vsl consequences
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
Yes. See where it says Light’s wavenumber is proportional to frequency. It’s particularly relevant to what Einstein said: “an atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated“. When the ascending photon ascends, its E=hf energy does not reduce, and nor does its frequency. It doesn’t get redshifted at all. It was emitted at a lower frequency at a lower elevation. It might appear to you to have less energy at a higher elevation because when I lift you up I do work on you. I add energy to you. So to you, it looks like the photon has lost energy, even though it hasn’t.
Have a look at near / far fields
. A. Near field gravity wave would be much stronger than far field
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Regions_according_to_diffraction_behavior
Could strong force be gravity near field
Could strong force be gravity near field
.
http://thestrongforce.canalblog.com/
.
Slope = -6
Gravity is a wave right?
Not really, I think of it as a residual force which has a secret electromagnetic nature. I think the near field close to a radar transmitter is a gravitational field of sorts. See the last paragraph of https://physicsdetective.com/lifters/. I talked about Bernard Schaeffer in https://physicsdetective.com/the-nuclear-force/. it’s pretty clear that the nuclear force is electromagnetic.
Just thinking out loud here, but if we try to relate this to the example your hypodermic needle infusion of mass/energy into the gin-clear ghostly elastic solid, causing conditioning of the space to be ‘denser’ around it. So a huge star burns through its fuel and fuses into heaver and heaver elements from helium to carbon to magnesium and eventually iron. It then supernovas and blows off its outer layers and the remaining iron core collapses down. For a normal mass like earth, gravity is strongest at the surface of the mass, while deeper in the center of the mass there is little to no gravity right? So there could still be energy moving and movement in the core. Now the protons and electrons fuse into neutrons and the neutrons just get so compacted down, I don’t think to a point singularity, but what about to something like the size of a bowling ball. They could also become aligned or into a new state of energetic matter, or even more exotic take your trefoils, and what if they get compacted down into a crystalized energy structure?? Now this bowling ball is so so dense that it has the same external space conditioning and gravity as something that is usually much much larger in size. So the new maximal gravity boundary (event horizon) is where the edge of the mass would be if expanded out into normal mass density. The space or ether in between is distorted wildly because there should be mass there but there is not.
My view is that the black hole maintains its spin from the original star and core and so due to conservation of angular momentum as it compacts into a black hole its rotation speeds up tremendously. This spin creates a distortion or field so powerful it can spin a galaxy. (I think this intuitively must be because galaxies are clearly rotating around supermassive central black holes). However, the space between the bowling ball core and the event horizon is so distorted that no energy or light can emanate out from inside the event horizon.
Regarding energy or light coming externally and approaching the event horizon, your analogy of the lattice lines of space being compressed makes me think, can you ‘compress the lattice lines’ so much that there is absolutely no movement of light? I am not sure, I think the surrounding space just gets compressed so densely that the speed of light is infinitesimally slow, so literally would take infinite time to cross event horizon, but there there is still some infinitesimally slow speed of light as it is approaching the event horizon.
Main question is how does it grow or consume more to become bigger. I like the hailstone analogy, perhaps mass and energy that gets ‘stuck’ at the event horizon just adds to its mass and effect?
I don’t know if this makes as much sense, but hey at least I am not predicting time warps and alternate dimensions and portals to parallel universes!
Andy: much of what you said sounds pretty reasonable. A huge star burns through its fuel converting everything into iron, then goes nova and you’re left with a small dense remnant spinning fast. We call it a neutron star. As to its makeup, I’m not sure. Sometimes I wonder if its like a Bose-Einstein condensate. Or some other form of exotic matter. However it’s much bugger than a bowling ball, and there is no event horizon. A black hole, resulting from the collapse of a bigger star, does have an event horizon, It’s smaller than a neutron star, but I don’t think it’s as small as a bowling ball. That’s because the event horizon is not a maximal gravity location. That’s because the force of gravity at any one location is directly proportional to the local gradient in what’s usually called “the coordinate speed of light”. At the event horizon this is zero, and it can’t go lower than that. So there is no gradient in the coordinate speed of light at that location. So there is no gravity at the event horizon. Moreover this coordinate speed of light is just the speed of light. Einstein talked about the speed of light varying with gravitational potential for year after year.
The black hole angular momentum is something of a problem. People tend to say “the black hole is spinning at half the speed of light”. But the speed of light at the event horizon is zero, and matter can’t travel faster than the light from which it’s made. I presume this also applies to exotic matter. I have to disagree with you on “the space between the bowling ball core and the event horizon is so distorted that no energy or light can emanate out from inside the event horizon”. I think it’s simpler than that, such that the speed of the vertical light beam is zero. Maybe the speed of light is infinitesimally slow rather than zero, but I don’ think that matters much. The main thing is that the speed of light varying with gravitational potential means that just about everything you read about black holes in the popscience press has to be wrong.
Yes, I think it grows like the hailstone. Check out the firewall article about gamma ray bursts. A falling body falls faster and faster because the speed of light is reducing, and it can’t fall faster than the local speed of light. So it breaks up into gamma photons and neutrinos. When a photon moves towards a black hole it goes slower and slower until it ends up like a water molecule joining the hailstone. Something like that.
All in all, most of it makes sense. A lot more sense than time travel and trips to the parallel antiverse. I’m sure Roy Kerr would agree. Ah, isn’t physics fun?
“But the speed of light at the event horizon is zero”
Careful, sir. This is incorrect. The speed of light at the event horizon is not zero, it is always, well, the speed of light. A photon cannot stop. To make a photon stop would literally require infinite energy.
There is no mathematical paradox, here, because relativity requires a frame of reference. What’s weird about general relativity is that the photon never enters a black hole (our own POV) or it does enter the black hole from its own POV. Either way, the photon is always travelling at C, everywhere, at all times.
To follow on, this is the “symmetry” of special relativity, namely that C is always the same across the “space-time” coordinate system. The Symmetry Group of SR has C as its “invariant”.
The trouble with that, James, is that it’s not in line with Einstein. See black holes where I give the Einstein quotes in paragraph 3. The paradox you referred, wherein the photon never enters a black hole from our point of view, but does enter the black hole from its own point of view, is IMHO an error in modern general relativity. The photon can’t do both, so which is it? I think it’s the former. Einstein also thought that. However I think he missed the trick wherein a frozen star grows like a hailstone, and thought black holes could not form. I think he also missed a trick in that he didn’t predict gamma ray bursters. The discovery of them is what re-awakened interest in general relativity in the 1960s, and led to what Kip Thorne described as the “golden age of general relativity”.
But, my dear fellow, what the photon is doing depends on one’s POV. That’s the “RELATIVITY” of both SR and GR. SR says what it’s doing depends on our speed and location. GR says, what it is doing depends on gravity.
And the photon is doing different things for anyone with a different POV (frame of reference).
Your own intuition is classical intuition, but classical intuition is contradicted by the equations of both SR and GR.
Kerr’s summary states: “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”.
Kerr’s statement lacks vital context. This is not true in solving GR models mathematically, assuming no QM, and assuming GR models physics all the way down, and is not superseded by a different law of physics at, say, Planck energy. It has long been known that quantum effects interfere with the formation of a singularity, e.g. the Planck Length is the smallest physical length allowed, physically. (Though GR is incompatible with QM, and QM seems, to me, to be more fundamental.
James: apologies, your comments were held pending for some reason. I had to approve them before they appeared.
Hi there, mighty gumshoe. Thanks for having me. How are you doing?
“challenges an orthodoxy that’s been taken for granted”
That singularities exist has never been taken for granted! Einstein didn’t like them, and nor does anyone else in physics. Sure they’re a solution to GE, but it’s not “orthodoxy” in physics to suppose that this solution holds up in our Universe. For example, we know that the Planck length forbids singularities.
That’s where Einstein said light rays “take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2. In this sense the sphere r = μ /2 constitutes a place where the field is singular”.
To put this simply, what this says is, from the POV of us, blackhole singularities do not exist. That’s because, from our general-relativistic POV, it takes an infinite amount of time for matter to reach the event horizon. So, again, no singularity can exist from our POV. This has also been known since Schwartzchild discovered GE predicts black holes.
The debate is only about what happens from the POV of something falling towards the blackhole.
As for “the debate is only about what happens from the POV of something falling towards the blackhole”, I would offer this:
If you drop a brick into a black hole, it erupts into a gamma ray burst. See Firewall! It refers to Friedwardt Winterberg’s 2001 paper. He’s the guy who came up with the idea for GPS.
If you direct a photon towards a black hole, it approaches the black hole slower and slower, until at the event horizon, it stops. See what I said above about the frozen star black hole growing like a hailstone.
It all starts with Time, Jim. Once you know that a clock doesn’t actually measure the flow of time, one thing leads to another.
It all starts from the equations of symmetry of the relativistic equations. These state that C (light speed) is the invariant. Given photons travel at C at all times (Maxwell) then this mathematically contradicts your remark that photons slow down. They do not. Photons, and any massless particle, always travel at C (the max speed of any particle), even from the POV, for ALL observers.
That’s the mathematics, and the mathematics trumps the classical-physics intuition you are applying.
You can set C as a value equal to 299,792,458 meters per second representing the speed of light in a vacuum and in absence of gravity.
.
You can also calculate c as the speed of light in a media. In a vacuum, light travels at exactly: c=299,792,458 m/s
In a medium, the speed is: v=c/n where n is the refractive index of the material (e.g., for glass, n≈1.5). So, in glass: v≈c/1.5≈200,000,000 m/s
.
Einstein himself suggested in his 1911 paper “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”, that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential.
C=Co(1+ Φ /Co^2 ). Where Φ is the gravitational potential and Co is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity ( Special Relativity). This formula implies that light appears to travel slower in regions of stronger gravitational fields and assumes that the velocity of light is not independent of the gravitational potential. Einstein noted that this view was incompatible with the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which had been a cornerstone of his earlier work in special relativity. This led him to reconsider the universality of the speed of light in the context of general relativity.
.
One interpretation is that in full GR the coordinate speed may vary depending on space curvature, but the local speed measured by any local observer is always exactly c=299,792,458 m/s
.
An alternative interpretation is that the speed of light actually slows down in a gravitational potential according to Einsteins equation C=Co(1+ Φ /Co^2 ). Why is this impossible? and you can’t just say speed of light is constant ‘because it is’, that is dogma. This is such an interesting website and series of articles exploring alternative theories, so its ok to disagree, but I’m more interested in exploring reasoning, formulas, and logic, not regurgitation of dogma.
@Andy I have an MSc in physics (specialising in Quantum Optoelectronics). So, I respectfully claim to have a far stronger understanding about what is dogma, and what is not. 😃
The point is this. Special Relativity (SR) states that C is constant for different observers (ignoring a possible variation of C over the lifetime of the cosmos, which observations show must be small). What GR says is, Gravity “bends” spacetime. “Bends” here poetically refers to affecting the parameters of the Lorentz equations, like so: (Δx,Δy,Δz,cΔt)=(x2−x1,y2−y1,z2−z1,c(t2−t1)). Δs2=(Δx)2+(Δy)2+(Δz)2−(cΔt)2.
Note that, here, C does not change, it is invariant. If you want to claim that C is not invariant, then you are dealing with some kind of MOND (adhock tweaks to General Relativity (GR) used to try to “explain” dark matter and that, but, so far, unsuccessfully.
Henri Poincaré showed that gravity waves travel at C (All massless particles travel at C, including the graviton force carrier).
What GR does is show how gravity affects SR, by incorporating the idea that Gravity and Acceleration are indistinguishable as reference frames. Note, here, C is still C. If you are accelerating, C is still C!
And, the equations of GR feature C as a constant, not a variable.
That is what the mathematics says, it’s not dogma. The mathematics have been tested to be consitent with all observations, with no exceptions to date.
So, if you want to claim C varies, you have to show where experiment differs from the equations of GR (and hence SR), which, as i say, assume C is constant, an invariant of the associated symmetry groups.
James: EInstein said what he said, repeatedly. See The speed of light is not constant. For example in 1920 he said this: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. In addition we have hard scientific evidence that NIST optical clocks go slower when they’re lower, and there is no time flowing through those clocks. I’m afraid Einstein and the evidence trumps your mathematics and symmetry groups. Do note that the locally-measured speed of light is constant because of a tautology wherein we use the local motion of light to define the second and the metre, and then use them to measure the local motion of light.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay. Note the quote by Irwin Shapiro.
Dear John, the equations of relativity have C as a constant, C is an invariant in the SR and GR symmetry Lie groups.
John, you seem to think Einstein was infallible. He wasn’t. Einstein died having no students, because his research programme was a failure after GR. Einstein was also wrong about Quantum Mechanics, Bohr won their famous debate, and Einstein was wrong ever since. Heck, Einstein was even wrong about black holes, the first non-trivial solution found to his own theory of GR.
You claim: “I’m afraid Einstein and the evidence trumps your mathematics and[sic] symmetry groups”
My counter-claim is, given the mathematics agrees with experiment to a staggering level of accuracy, then I’ll accept the equations as gospel, not the word of Mr E. Note also, as I mentioned above, Einstein was wrong all the time.
Hey James, tons of respect. Thank for the kind response. I have advanced degrees as well and also use particle physics therapeutically so this is more than an academic exercise to me and really about gaining a deeper understanding about my field.
.
So I totally agree, what you described regarding SR, GR, bending of space, time dilation is the standard accepted view which has been experimentally tested and validated in part. I think probably 99% of physicists ascribe to this. I fully ascribed to it as well before I started reading alternative views such as the one laid out by John here. Frankly it takes a lot of balls to straight up state that the current GR model is ‘not complete’. Some might call that person crazy which could be an understandable initial reaction since GR is so established and tested. It reminds me though of the three stages of truth that you may have heard about in science where: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” 🙂
.
What John has laid out here is a deeper philosophical and scientific discussion about the nature of time, and what is time. If I understand him correctly he is saying that the speed of light is how we measure time. So would you agree that it is somewhat of a circular and recursive argument to say that time slows down for the local observer and THAT is why the speed of light is constant? Because if time slows down, then the light has more “time” to go 299,792,458 meters. So in other words if you say that light travels 299,792,458 meters/sec, but then if you define a second as the time it takes light to travel 299,792,458 meters, then those units can cancel out and you are left with a unitless constant of 299,792,458. This is why when measuring the light speed (m/sec) in that slowed down local time the speed is constant. I get it and this is consistent, but would you agree that it is somewhat of a circular argument?
.
Another deeper concept that I think John is making (if I understand him correctly) is that the movement of light is actually time itself. So the local speed of light directly dictates what we experience as time. The movement of our atoms and particles, electrons and protons depends on the speed of light. This is more profound and would mean that the speed of light and thus time is variable in our solar system and in the actual room we are in. I read closely the NIST atomic clock experiments which have undeniably validated that an atomic clock that is 1 foot higher runs faster than an identical linked atomic clock that is 1 foot below in the same room. This was done way back in 2010, check it out: (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale). This result is not validating or invalidating John’s theory because GR predicts that change is due to time dilation, John is just saying that the speed of light dictates our measurement of time, so I think both these theories would predict the same change.
.
The big question is: if we wanted to test the hypothesis that the speed of light is variable in gravity due to gravity altering the ‘density’ of space resulting in the light wave traveling more slowly in a ‘denser’ space medium. How would we go about doing that? And by ‘denser’ space scientifically I mean altered electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. The speed of light (c) in vacuum is related to the electric permittivity (ε₀) and magnetic permeability (μ₀) by the equation: c = 1 / √(ε₀μ₀). It’s not a rhetorical question, I’m actually interested in exploring how you would test or interrogate this hypothesis. Great discussion, thanks.
Andy: this isn’t my theory, what I’m saying about the speed of light varying with gravitational potential is what Einstein said, repeatedly, year after year. Something happened after Einstein died, and this variable speed of light was removed from General Relativity. Perhaps because the mathematics employed the local speed of light rather than the coordinate speed of light.
John, don’t discount what you have put together here. It is one thing for one famous person to say something and another famous guy to say another thing, but putting it together systematically into a cohesive and coherent treatise as you have done here is a quite remarkable body of work. It’s disruptive, so of course you will have people attacking you, but I haven’t found any fatal flaw in your articles or theory. I really think you should be out there giving lectures. Not trying to blow smoke up your arse , but you do really have unique knowledge, insights, and perspectives. I have never seen these concepts being presented so comprehensively, and frankly unified.
Thanks Andy. I shall sleep well!
I fully agree with you about John’s fundamental physics. Outside that, maybe not.
With this website, John is achieving more than anyone else, so I wouldn’t want him to divert his attention too much.
Dear Dave, I would take what John says with a huge pinch of salt. Bear in mind, he has no physics or mathematics qualifications (correct me if I am wrong, John), and John uses classical intuition, when modern physics (relativity and quantum mechanics) is counter-intuitive.
James: you dismissed Einstein, you ignored the Irwin Shapiro quote, and you did not reply to the point about the absence of time flowing through a NIST optical clock. You are now posting multiple comments advocating mainstream orthodoxy, with no thought for crucial matters such as there is no motion in spacetime. I’m all for free speech in science, but you are also becoming abusive again, so it’s goodbye once more.
Thanks Dave.
Andy S; in order to explore permittivity vs gravity, start with Robert Dicke 1957, where you will find an expression linking the two. You can then plug permittivity (eps) into Maxwell’s eq to get the velocity of light and then Snells law to get gravitational lensing , then Shapiro time delay. Next plug eps into the Rydberg constant to get Pound and Rebkas gravitational redshift in line with Einstein 1911 paper.
Next , plug eps into Coulomb’s law and Dybye length for influence on nuclear fusion which you will see becomes much more probable in a gravity well. For instance stars near the center of the galaxy experience more gravitational potential than those on the outskirts.
Which results in less fusion at the far edge of the galaxy which result in observers mistaking the reduced fusion as due to less mass. This is explained by an unseen ”dark matter” to account for rotation curve anomolies.
.
So, Dark Matter is due to erroneously forcing c to be a constant.
.
Please forgive the formatting, I’m using word 365 on an ipad
Dear Andy,
Respect right back at ya!
It’s doesn’t “take balls” to question SR and GR, it’s business as usual 😃
SR and GR were never revered as foolproof descriptions of nature. Einstein himself objected to his own theory, because it made predictions he abhorred. In addition, GR cannot be “quantised” (so far) and doesn’t meld with Quantum Mechanics, so people have always said that one or the other (or both) are incomplete theories.
On top of that, Dark Energy + Dark Matter have invoked men to modify Relativity (MOND) to try to explain those phenomena. MOND itself doesn’t seem to work, though.
Andy (part 2)
The equations require C to be constant. The best way to see this is to look at the “Symmetry” groups of relativity. Symmetry in physics is central. Newtonian physics, as well as Relativity physics, obey symmetries. For Relativity, those symmetries work only if C is constant, and transformations between elements of the groups leave C exactly the same. So, C is a constant. Sure, you can try to make C variable, with its variations getting cancelled out by another variable. But that achieves exactly nothing, and Occam’s razor warns against making something more complicated, when simple suffices. Newton (THE GREATEST SCIENTIST OF ALL TIME) himself said so: saying Nature is pleased with simplicity and abhors the pomp of superfluous causes (if I remember).
Note that, in addition to this, we have Quantum Mechanics. QM states that any particle with zero mass travels at C. (Such a particle does not experience space or time). And, given photons are always massless, they always travel at C, no matter how fast you, the observer, are moving. (That’s the “relativity”).
“The movement of our atoms and particles, electrons and protons depends on the speed of light”.
It’s far more complicated than that. For example for the Weak Nuclear Force, the force carriers are massive (W & Z bozons). Unlike force carriers like the photon, graviton and gluon, the W and Z travel more slowly than the speed of light. There are many variables at play, anyway. And, if we solve the equations, we get the speed of light always at the same speed, and, when we measure the speed of light, it agrees with experiment. So, it’s constant. (During the lifetime of the universe, C is also measured as constant, but, there’s some wriggle room for a tiny degree of variation, at least during the era we can observe).
@All, a notice on Spacetime. We have the Poincaré and Lorenz symmetry groups that describe the properties of non-Euclidean space. With “Spacetime” this is a 4D block, with axes x, y, z, (sqrt(-1))time. What this means is, what is a “straight line” traced by light – the shortest distance between two points, often looks curved (in 4D), to us, when gravity affects light. An analogy is the Earth always falling into the sun, but it ends up going around in a circle. It’s analogous to a marble rolling in non-straight lines on a parabolic surface, a curved surface.
This is what I think confuses John. Because these geodesics are often not “straight” (to us), it creates an illusion (a failure of intuition) of the speed of light not being constant (i.e. C of being variable, when it’s not, C is a hard constant).
Whether or not you take it literally or just poetically about the “curvature” of spacetime is philosophy. However, the equations are bulletproof, they agree with all observations.
A note on the speed of light varying in a medium.
Photons always travel at C. So, a beam of light slowing down in, say, water, is due to photons being absorbed, and re-emmited, by electrons in the water. This absorbtion-re-emmission (quantum mechanical excitation and relaxation of the electron) is not instant. There’s a delay, and this delay slows down the beam. The photons themselves are always moving at C.
It’s not the same photons that end up at the destination of the beam, as those that entered the water.
It’s mind-blowing, how much frenzied activity goes on in the subatomic world!
The same is true for other media, even the virtual particles of the vacuum of space.
James, sorry but you are just regurgitating and parroting everything that we were all taught and you can read about that in any text or website. You don’t need to spam post about 4D spacetime and how the fastest path through a curved space is not necessarily a straight line. We have all heard that and understand it. You didn’t address any of my points about the circular argument for measuring light speed, nature of time itself, and how to test the different hypotheses. Oh well, don’t worry about it…
Andy, what I am saying is what the mathematics says, and experiment 100% matches the mathematics. (Newton, Maxwell, QM, SR, GR, the Dirac equation).
So,
1) John agrees the mathematics is correct, in which case, I am correct. Or,
2) John disagrees with the mathematics. If John is disagreeing with the mathematics, then where are John’s NEW mathematics? What are his new testable predictions? Because if he has none, then it’s pseudo-science.
I have no new mathematics. Which according to you means that everything I’ve done here is just pseudoscience?
Sigh.
At possible risk of reigniting a dead ember, what exactly is curvature? Would it be erroneous to use modifies space as a synonym for curves space. I think the advantage of modifies is that it treats space as something that is real. Aka aether.
I agree Steve. Curvature is often misunderstood. People will tell you that a “straight line” traced by light looks curved to us, and it’s analagous to the way a marble rolls in non-straight lines on a parabolic curved surface. It’s wrong. The gravitational field relates to the first derivative of gravitational potential – the slope, as it were. The tidal force relates to the second derivative of gravitational potential – the change in slope, as it were. Imagine being in a small room on the surface of the Earth. The force of gravity is detectable in that room, but the force of gravity at the ceiling is measured to be the same as the force of gravity at the floor. So the tidal force is not detectable. This means spacetime curvature is not detectable. But your pencil still falls down, and light still curves downwards. The correct analogy is to say light curves downwards due to the spacetime “slope”, not the change in slope. However it is sometimes difficult to get people to appreciate this. People can be very convictional, even people who consider themselves to be scientific and rational. See The psychology of belief.