There have been some dreadful events in Israel, with terrorists going door to door killing women and children, and more. Meanwhile sections of our media and community refuse to condemn such acts, and call the perpetrators “militants”. Such is the corruption in our society. As I was saying last time, honesty and decency are in short supply, so it’s no small wonder that so many people are suffering. These are troubled times, so much so that the trouble with physics is left in the shade. For example there was a press release on October 3rd 2023 from the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. They announced that they were awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz, and Anne L’Huillier. The prize was “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter”. However it didn’t feature in my daily newspaper, which is The Telegraph. Search the Telegraph for Nobel, and the 2023 Nobel Prize for physics just isn’t there:
Screenshot from a Telegraph search for Nobel
There’s mention of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Prize for Literature, and the Nobel Prize in Medicine. But not the Nobel Prize in Physics. Anyway, the press release I referred to was entitled Experiments with light capture the shortest of moments. It gave brief details of the prize winners, a precis of the work, a list of five illustrations, a popular science article, and a scientific article.
© Johan Jarnestad / The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences see NobelPrize.org
The press release also said “the three Nobel Laureates in Physics 2023 are being recognised for their experiments, which have given humanity new tools for exploring the world of electrons inside atoms and molecules”. In addition it said they had “demonstrated a way to create extremely short pulses of light that can be used to measure the rapid processes in which electrons move or change energy”. An attosecond is 1×10ˉ¹⁸ seconds. See the Wikipedia article on attosecond physics, where you can read that a light wave with a wavelength of 30 nanometres would have a duration of 100 attoseconds.
We’ve known that antimatter falls down for over sixty years
For myself, I was wondering who the Nobel prize would go to this year. I was hoping it wouldn’t go to particle physics for something useless, such as the “discovery” that antimatter falls down. That featured in Nature on 27th September 2023. It also featured in a number of news reports and popular science articles. See for example Jennifer Oulette’s Ars Technica article Einstein right again: Antimatter falls “down” due to gravity like ordinary matter.
Diagram of the Alpha experiment by CERN
Like I said in Lifters, we’ve known that antimatter falls down for over sixty years. See the Wikipedia antigravity article, which says this: “The issue was considered solved in 1960 with the development of CPT symmetry, which demonstrated that antimatter follows the same laws of physics as “normal” matter, and therefore has positive energy content and also causes (and reacts to) gravity like normal matter”. I wonder if the announcement was timed just before this year’s Nobel prize in order to stake a claim for next year. Clifford Will said it was a cool result, but I think the “discovery” is just an end to a big fat lie-to-children used and abused to promote CERN to a gullible public. Perhaps that’s why it only made one column inch in The Telegraph. When I search online I can find a Telegraph article about it by Joe Pinkstone, but I didn’t see it in the physical newspaper. Maybe I missed it on the day. Either way, what I think would be more worthy, would be solving the mystery of the missing antimatter. However I can’t see the current crop of particle physicists ever conceding that the proton rather than the antiproton is the antimatter. Just as I can’t see them ever admitting that the Standard Model is wrong on multiple counts. When people have peddled mystery and backed the wrong horse for way too long, they don’t like to admit they’re wrong. Instead they defend the mainstream with propaganda and censorship, hampering scientific progress in direct contravention of the scientific method.
They didn’t capture an image, they created an image
I was also hoping the Nobel prize wouldn’t go to anybody from the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration. I say that because they try to make people think that their computer-generated images are genuine images. See the article about Katie Bouman and note this: “There’s an infinite number of possible images that could have been created from the sparse measurements that we took”. They didn’t capture an image, they created an image. They created an image “under the assumption that Sgr A* is a Kerr black hole”. It was a retrofit that yielded an image in keeping with the Interstellar image of Gargantua, the Kerr black hole used for time travel:
Credit: Double Negative Visual Effects, Warner Bros CC by 4.0 M87* image by the EHT, see Wikipedia
The Science of Interstellar is one of my pet hates. It’s science fiction dressed up as scientific fact. It’s woo peddled by none other than Kip Thorne, co-author of the famous MTW. It’s said to be the bible of General Relativity, but it’s riddled with nonsense that flatly contradicts Einstein. Such as the hop skippety jump over the end of time on the way into a black hole, or the Kruskal-Szekeres time intervals of infinite duration. This is the Kip Thorne who peddles time travel. The same Kip Thorne who won a Nobel prize for LIGO in 2017. I have serious doubts about LIGO because I know how gravity works. That’s why I sigh when I read about black holes having “such strong gravitational attraction that not even light can escape their grasp”. A gravitational field is a place where the speed of light is “spatially variable”. That’s what Einstein said. Light goes slower when it’s lower. So a gravitational field is a place where the upward light beam speeds up. So a strong gravitational field is a place where the upward light beam speeds up even more. A black hole is black because it’s a place where the speed of light is zero. And that means there’s no gradient in the speed of light, and so no gravitational field. So we have a big problem with those inspiralling black holes.
The origin of this sideways shift remains unclear
Something else that featured in Nature on 27th September 2023 was a paper called Precessing jet nozzle connecting to a spinning black hole in M87. It concerns observations from the EAVN, the VLBA, the KaVA and the EATING radio telescope arrays. It wasn’t by the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, but it concerned the same kind of thing. It was to do with M87*, the supermassive black hole in the middle of the supergiant galaxy M87. The abstract said they observed the black hole’s famous 4,900 lightyear-long relativistic jet over 17 years, and plotted a shift in its transverse position. It also said “the origin of this sideways shift remains unclear”. However the associated press release said the relativistic jet was precessing, and this proved that the black hole was rotating fast. You can read more about that in the PhysicsWorld article M87’s precessing jet reveals black hole’s fast spin:
Artist’s impression of the black hole at the centre of M87, showing how the accretion disc and jet are misaligned with the rotational axis of the black hole. (Courtesy: Yuzhu Cui et al. (2023), Intouchable Lab@Openverse and Zhejiang Lab)
The article says “the relativistic jet emanating from the black hole at the heart of the galaxy Messier 87 (M87) is wobbling as it is dragged around by the spinning black hole, new radio observations have found. This is the first direct evidence that powerful jets from active galaxies are driven by black holes that are rotating rapidly, not slowly”. The article says this even though the jet precesses by only 10 degrees over about 11 years.
The rapidly rotating black hole is an inference, not a fact
Unfortunately somebody hasn’t done his homework. I say that because there’s a related paper on the arXiv called Transverse Oscillations of the M87 Jet Revealed by KaVA Observations. It doesn’t say the transverse observations are evidence of a rapidly rotating black hole. Instead it says this: “We propose possible scenarios of the transverse oscillation, such as the propagation of jet instabilities or magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) waves or perturbed mass injection around magnetically dominated accretion flows”. The rapidly rotating black hole is an inference, not a fact. And if you’re read about the M87* magnetic field or how a magnet works, you’ll be aware that there are other possible inferences. Especially if you also know that electron spin undergoes Larmor precession in a magnetic field.
Public domain image by FbrG, see Wikipedia, caption: dependence of Larmor precession on gyromagnetic ratio
However that doesn’t seem to get any coverage, presumably because many science writers don’t know enough physics. And there was a great deal of coverage for this story. So much so that I’d say this is looking like next year’s Nobel prize. Unless of course the Event Horizon guys say the magnetic field rather than the gravitomagnetic field is more likely to cause the precession. We shall see.
He gave an explanation for gamma ray bursters
What we won’t see is Friedwardt Winterberg getting a Nobel prize for the original firewall. He gave an explanation for gamma ray bursters, which is what rekindled interest in General Relativity. The crucial point is that a gravitational field is a place where the speed of light is “spatially variable”. Hence the horizontal light beam undergoes a gravitational-lensing refraction, and bends downwards. The evidence for the wave nature of matter, pair production, annihilation, and spin tells me the electron is essentially light in a closed path, the horizontal component of which bends downwards. Hence the electron is displaced downwards, and so falls down. The same applies to protons and neutrons. So matter falls towards the event horizon, faster and faster, and all the while the local speed of light is getting slower and slower. The falling matter doesn’t slow down, so there has to be some crossover point where it would end up going faster than the local speed of light. Only that can’t happen, because as per the evidence, matter is in essence “made of light”. So something else has to happen. A gamma ray burst. Which means all the stories about the elephant being in two places at once are fairy stories.
Johnston called it right
There are other Nobel candidates of course. Hamish Johnston of Physicsworld talked about some of them in his article Who will win the Nobel Prize for Physics? Our predictions for 2023. He said Physicsworld had made plenty of predictions that didn’t come true in the year the prediction was made, but did come true in a later year. He referred to an “infographic” that charts the prizes by discipline, saying the Nobel committee tries to spread prizes around the various fields. He also said in three out of the past six years the prizes have gone to astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. Hence the 2023 winner will be in a different field, which rules out the James Webb Space Telescope. After some speculation about quantum computing, the Aharanov-Bohm effect, the Berry phase, photonics, and twisted graphene, Johnston said this: “one place to look for potential winners of the Nobel prize, is the list of winners of the Wolf Prize in Physics. The most recent winners were Paul Corkum, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier”. So while Paul Corkum missed out, I’d say Johnston called it right. At least this time – I’m sure the Nobel prize committee won’t take too kindly to the notion that they trot obediently behind the Wolf prize like some little lap dog.
Attosecond light pulses, produced from overtone interference, play the part of the strobe lighting
So, the Nobel prize winners were Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz, and Anne L’Huillier. As for what for, the Nobel press release gives the following potted history saying: “In 1987, Anne L’Huillier discovered that many different overtones of light arose when she transmitted infrared laser light through a noble gas”. It also says “In 2001, Pierre Agostini succeeded in producing and investigating a series of consecutive light pulses, in which each pulse lasted just 250 attoseconds. At the same time, Ferenc Krausz was working with another type of experiment, one that made it possible to isolate a single light pulse that lasted 650 attoseconds”. It also says this in the a popular science explanation: “high-speed photography and strobe lighting make it possible to capture detailed images of fleeting phenomena”. It gives a hummingbird example, saying “a highly focused photograph of a hummingbird in flight requires an exposure time that is much shorter than a single wingbeat”. It then says this is similar to the motion of electrons within atoms, where attosecond laser light pulses, produced from overtone interference, play the part of the strobe lighting. Here’s the illustration:
Image from the Nobel prize press release popular science explanation
The press release also included this: “We can now open the door to the world of electrons. Attosecond physics gives us the opportunity to understand mechanisms that are governed by electrons. The next step will be utilising them,” says Eva Olsson, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics. But note how the electron is depicted as being smaller than the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Even though it’s the wave nature of matter, and the electron’s Compton wavelength is 1837 times that of the proton.
The electron is depicted as being smaller than the protons and neutrons
It’s the same sort of depiction in the YouTube video Attosecond Lasers (2023 Nobel Prize in Physics) – Sixty Symbols. The electron is depicted as being smaller than the protons and neutrons. So one thing is for certain: nobody has been photographing an electron like they photograph a humming bird:
Still from Attosecond Lasers (2023 Nobel Prize in Physics) – Sixty Symbols
There’s no understanding of the physical processes at work here. It’s obvious that you can make an electron out of light in gamma-gamma pair production, then move it with say Compton scattering. Since the latter leaves you with a lower-wavelength photon and a moving electron, it’s blindingly obvious that a portion of the photon has morphed with the electron in an asymmetrical fashion. That’s why the electron changes energy and moves. Then an Inverse Compton does the opposite. An electron in an atom is similar, but it tends to be bound tetherball style, and ends up giving up the photon energy and ending up back in the atom. However this just doesn’t feature in attosecond physics aka attophysics. It’s the hole in the heart of quantum electrodynamics, and attophysics, “the branch of physics that deals with light-matter interaction phenomena”, doesn’t address it at all. It isn’t opening the door to the world of electrons. It’s flying blind.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
It wouldn’t be if John G Williamson and the late Martin van der Mark hadn’t been studiously ignored all these years. They wrote a paper about the toroidal electron, but Nature wouldn’t print it. They deserved a trip to Stockholm for that paper, but it never happened. It didn’t happen for Qiu Hong Hu either. So all in all, I’m not impressed. I think the Nobel committee are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This is thin gruel. That’s why The Telegraph didn’t cover it, and why the Express only gave it a brief mention. As I speak neither Peter Woit nor Sean Carroll have covered it either. Presumably because it’s totally underwhelming. Surely the Nobel Committee could have found something else more worthy? To hell with the Buggins turn approach, why didn’t they give it to the James Webb Space Telescope? But at least it wasn’t a prize for scientific fraud again. No doubt normal service will be resumed next year, provided World War III doesn’t get in the way. Because as anybody who has studied the science and the history knows full well, Alfred Nobel has caused far more harm with his prizes than he ever did with his dynamite.
A bit of optimism for you:
https://www.notboring.co/p/weekly-dose-of-optimism-63
Thank you Steve. Let’s see now…
.
1) WHO recommends malaria vaccine that will be rolled out next year: good stuff, though I am not a fan of the WHO. They seek supra-national authority. By the by, it looks like R21/Matrix-M is not an mRNA vaccine. Optimisim score +1 -1 = 0.
.
2) 2023 Nobel Prize Winners Announced, a Nobel prize for mRNA vaccines: whilst I am a strong supporter of vaccination, I am not convinced that the mRNA Covid vaccine is effective. If I give you with a vaccine, and you still catch the disease, is it really a vaccine? As for the symptoms being less severe, I’d like to see some hard evidence of that. Optimism score -1.
.
3) Focussed ultrasound: sounds good. Optimism score +1.
.
4) Poverty is back to pre-COVID levels globally, but not for low-income countries: and not for most people in high income countries either. Here in the UK we have a cost of living crisis, taxes are the highest in living memory, and there’s no salvation in sight. Optimism score -1.
.
5) Towards Monosemanticity: Decomposing Language Models With Dictionary Learning. I stopped reading when I got to I’m not smart enough to understand the paper. Have none of these people watched Terminator? Or tried to get any sense out of a chatbot? Optimism score -1.
.
Bonus) Boats: have you seen the price of boats? I want to buy one, but they are stupidly expensive, even when they can’t fly. Optimism score -1.
.
As for the Crypto Startup School, I think there is nothing more absurd than BitCoin “mining”, and that crypto is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money. Optimism score -1.
.
The net optimism score for me was -4. So this was not as optimistic as I had hoped!
Well every silver cloud has a dark lining……or something like that!
https://www.piratewires.com/p/moral-inversion
A great article, Steve. Thanks. I have added Pirate Wires to my favourites.
.
I don’t agree with the idea that the internet is the cause of the malaise, but I still think it’s a great article.
Does e= mc**2 hold in a gravity well where c is slower?
Since special relativity is only valid in a non accelerated frame, it is not necessarily true.
Steve: I find it difficult to answer that. I you and I consider a brick on a desk in front of us, we would agree that E=mc² applies. But then I push the brick off the desk, whereupon it falls to the floor. As it falls, microscopic sub-atomic kinetic energy internal to the brick, which is mass-energy, is converted into the brick’s macroscopic kinetic energy. When the brick hits the floor, this gets dissipated. As a result, the mass-energy of the brick is reduced in line with the “mass deficit”. Now when we consider the brick on the floor, we would again agree that E=mc² applies. But E has changed, and so had m, and so has c. When we take this to extremis and let the brick fall into a black hole, then at the event horizon c=0. So we would then be talking about a brick with a mass-energy of zero, which doesn’t make sense. Hence like I said above, I think Friedwardt Winterberg deserves recognition.
.
Einstein said the special theory of relativity is “nowhere precisely realized in the real world”. He said it’s only valid “in the infinitesimal”. He didn’t say it was invalid, so I’m not sure what to say. Does E=mc² hold in a gravitational field? Yes, but not the way people say. See misconceptions in gravitational physics for more about what people say.
Thanks much John, I was fairly sure there was no clean answer. It does open the doors of perception some.
Just outside the event horizon c is tiny, so possibly m must be very large if we let E stay relatively the same.
And since c is tiny, if freq stays the same than wavelength approaches zero. Maybe that’s why Einstein didn’t like black holes at first. (If I recall correctly)
Einstein thought they couldn’t form, and IMHO missed the trick. See the black holes article where I refer to his 1939 paper. He said “it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles 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”. The point r = μ/2 is the event horizon. What he missed was falling bodies don’t slow down. He should have been able to work out that if you drop a 511keV electron into a black hole, its ever-increasing kinetic energy is being taken out of its mass-energy. There comes a point when so much gets taken out, that the electron can’t stay as an electron any more. There are no 411keV electrons. So it would turn into one or more photons. Einstein should have predicted gamma-ray bursts, and non-conservation of charge. But he didn’t. He didn’t achieve much after general relativity. I don’t know why. Maybe he lost heart somehow, what with Bohr and the quantum quacks, and the rise of the National Socialist party in Germany.
The only local and completely underwhelming media coverage about the Nobel DYN-O-MYTE physics award : was about a three days of stories simply because one recipient was an tenured prof at O.S.U.. Men’s collegiate football is the only one true religion/ bread & circus in OhighO…………..
Then the tsunami of the Mad Max War headlines took over. I’m still glued to mass media, following both major wars. Heavy bummer here. Historically it has been extremely hard to be Palestinian,Jewish,Armenian and Ukrainian : ad nauseum……….. All of these and other wars are directly derived from Human Overpopulation.
Luckily for me there is much hilarity to be found.
Overwhelming feeds of clickbait physics/ scientific bullshito that are quite hilarious indeed ! Such headlines of quantum break-throughs ,alice rings,monopoles,bumblebee arse-shots,
inaccurate computer generated graphics,celebrity scientists, and other U-Toob Wonders galore greatly brighten my day. Or at least until my Cafe DuMond wears off.
And thanks to a certain Lord Baden-Powell, I possess a leg-up on most of my neighbors if perchance any Mad Maxxery ever happened here. John, maybe the lads over at Brownsea Island could sell you a fixer upper of a boat ? Surely you possess the skills for such endeavors ?
I like to think I have some skills Greg. But rather than buying a boat, I think of what houses are like in Africa. I mentioned them in the previous article. They have bars on the windows and a safe room.
.
Alice rings? What are Alice rings? Uhnn. I just looked them up: Scientists Made a Quantum Object Called an Alice Ring. What Comes Next Is Much Weirder. Down the physics rabbit hole we go, they said. Like this: “It is from this perspective that everything seems to be mirrored, as if the ring were a gateway into a world of antimatter instead of matter”. Sigh. This is what Nature gives us these days. They don’t give us physics. They censor the physics. The give us fantasy instead.
Poor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson is probably spinning in his grave, having his beloved Alice’s fair name drug through the academic mud.
I stopped reading three different recent posts as soon I came across “monopoles” being mentioned.
As a scientific layman, even I immediately concluded that Alice rings are just another SM based gross misrepresentation/conflation of pre-existing phenomenon/ hypothesis/ theorems ???
Just like the Bell’s Theorem v. Malus’s Law brouhaha.
John’s and everyone else’s expert opions on what is actually being observed(or not), will be most appreciated.
Greg, check out the introduction to the paper:
.
“Symmetry-breaking phase transitions are ubiquitous in physics, appearing in contexts as diverse as the cooling of the early universe, the emergence of ferromagnetism, and the onset of superconductivity. As a phase transition proceeds, uncorrelated domains of the new phase grow and assume preferred field configurations where they meet. Topological defects appear where no uniform configuration can unite the domains, adopting the form of surfaces (walls), lines (strings and vortices), and singular points (monopoles). Strings and monopoles carry conserved topological charges which, depending on the physical properties of the system, can manifest as magnetic, electric, or even quark colour charges.”
.
That’s just specious Standard Model lies-to-children, with no understanding the early universe, electromagnetism, or charge. The electron has an electromagnetic field, not an electric field, so electric charge os a misnomer. So magnetic charge is based on misunderstanding. As for color charge, they can’t even spell it. What comes next? This:
.
“The Alice string is unusual among topological defects, appearing in certain grand unified theories as an element that converts a monopole into an anti-monopole as it travels around the string.”
.
None of the “grand unified theories” work at all, because they’re built on zero understanding of gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear force, and so on. There are no monopoles, just as there are no one-sided coins. So at most, what we’re talking about here is about as exciting as flipping a coin. Or a falaco soliton. Only we don’t even have that. I looked through the rest of the paper. I’d say it’s all smoke and mirrors plus handwaving, hype, and hot air, followed by the grand declaration that:
.
“Our experimental evidence and numerical analysis lead to the long-awaited conclusion that Alice rings exist in nature.”.
,
Aw it’s just bullshit.
Thanks John, the intro really was too much U-Toob low level “word salad” for all to digest. More lies to children indeed !
However, Steve’s link is much greatly appreciated.
You’re welcome, Greg. Yep, Steve’s was a good one. Outside of the “Big Science” that dominates Nature and the like, there are physicists doing good work. The trick is getting through to them.
Let me correct you here….not “terrorists” but “freedom fighters”. Not “Israel” but “terrorist state”.
There……ur welcome.
They are terrorists. They murdered over a thousand innocent people. Freedom fighters don’t set fire to babies or cut their heads off in front of their parents. The terrorist state is the one where they celebrated as their terrorists drove around with the bodies of raped and murdered women in the back of their pick-up trucks. The terrorist state is the one where they fired a rocket that landed near a hospital, and then tried to say it was an Israeli air strike that had killed 500 people.
https://www.tuni.fi/en/news/accelerating-waves-shed-light-major-problems-physics
Thanks for that Steve. That’s an interesting article. Matias Koivurova is in for a bit of a surprise, methinks.
.
Fun fact: the movie Dual was filmed on location in Tampere.
I noticed Koivurova made a noisy point that he is NOT talking about change of c in vacuum. Mustn’t go anywhere near a sacred cow. In another field, statins saves lives and must not be questioned. John maybe a title for an article, sacred cows? Greg, it is (yelled out loud) ohhh. \H\. The sound hated everywhere in the Midwest outside Columbus. lol
I agree whole heartily Steve. Even as a pround native Buckeye and diehard feetball fan, I too tire very quickly with all the O-H -I-O yelling in public places. I call it : O-H-Why-O ? Give it a bloody rest please , at least until that team up north’s game comes around.
Also an updated list of groovey science blogs, along with a top ten list of current hot SM bullock flavored hypothesiss would be neato too John.
Steve: we will see about that c. As for statins, I was talking to a chap last week who is on statins. He told me he was suffering from one of the side effects, which was depression. He said it’s caused by low testosterone levels. I didn’t know about that, so I thought I’d have a look. What do I find? People with penises. FFS. I am sick to the back teeth of all this woke crap. I witnessed an incident a few weeks ago concerning menstruation, whereby some bloke wearing lipstick and a frock successfully claimed that the word “women” was an offensive harmful hate crime. Meanwhile it would seem that screaming for the genocide for all Jewish people somehow is not. Grrrr.
.
All points noted Greg. But I’m afraid my next article will be about something else. Mind you, if you find any groovy science blogs, do let me know.
for some reason my comment is being blocked.
Too long?
Or did anything (I can’t figure out what it could be) trigger some algorythm ? ? ?
It isn’t in the spam folder, C G. Why don’t you email it to me and I will take a look. Maybe it’s your URL which contains the word spam.
No worries, no hurries John.
Sacred cows … it’s what for diner!
First of all I gotta say, that the physics nobel prize this year does not compare to the travesty of last years award (i); which may explain, why a good chunk of this article of yours is centered around “possible disappointments that did not actually happen, but may still come true, next year”; i.e. drama that only happened in your own head so far (no offence!).
As such, the article is not your best, tbh. At the same time, the technical details, which made these winners deserving or not, are not really interesting for most people (at least not me), despite the fact, that there seems to be a laudable earnestness (by the committee) about this years choice.
No offence taken CG. With 96 articles so far, they can’t all be the best.
ok… lets try the “slice up [rest of] the big ass comment into smaller chunks”(3 maybe?) -method.
( 1 / 3 )
I do take strong issue with this following paragraph of yours (shortened):
“… A gravitational field is a place […] big problem with those inspiralling black holes.”
esp. the following sentence doesn’t sit right with me:
“[…] So a strong gravitational field is a place where the upward light beam speeds up even more.[…]”
That shoud, atleast, be desrving of a re-write.
A strong gravitational field, if described like this sentence does, would hint at faster-than-light photons being the result of that ominous thing (ii). O/c that’s not your intention, but it still is one point in a chain of bad logical conclusions.
… and that chain ultimately leads us to this bit:
“[… And that means there’s no gradient in the speed of light, and so no gravitational field.] So we have a big problem with those inspiralling black holes.”
NO! – that does not follow!
Inspiralling black holes can spiral inwards – no problem – as the the gravitational field does not become nonexistent (zero). There still very much is a gravitational field. The question is: where is it? – well… everywhere but at the event horizon!
With this, Black holes can still very much merge to the point when their “surfaces” (in lack of a better word:) “touch”; if all you wanted to say was, that there is no “falling further inside”, then I am totally with you.
Schwarzschilds findings suggested two singularities, am I right?
It always disgusts me, seeing the audacity of established physicists (and their loyal entourage of science-educators… if I am not being too audacious here, I’d file them under “desperates Studententum”, in accordance to Nietzsche (iv)), to ignore that very important “outer singularity”, and do all kinds of sophistry to “explain it away”, like calling it an “mathematical artifact” (over and over again), and pretending, that a “change of the coordinate-system” would have it disappear.
Well — can’t the same thing be said about “the other” singularity, just in reverse?
— even more so when considering, that the existence of the first one basically “blocks” any further access to “the second”, making it highly doubtful, that there could be any additional matter or energy whatsoever, from the point of it’s creation going forward? – or ever?
It often irks me, anyway, that we keep looking at gravity, when seen through a more Newtonian lense, as a point-source (as ist the unambiguous approach of most high-school education on that topic; i.e. the very entrance point that shapes any further curiosity of the developing mind; fwiw, by my intuition, this still plays massively into the perception of the science-educators and lauded astrophycists who perpetuate that even when talking relativistic physics).
( 2 / 3)
Would this entire conundrum be avoidable, if the idea was well established, that this is only ever “approximately true” (or rather “viable”) within the context of those Newtonian equations, and only as long as we do not get too close to the gravitational source?
How often do I find well esteemed physicists elaborate, that digging into a massive object, should not actually increase the gravity felt by the subject in question, but would lower it? — could the whole confusion about “dark matter” be mostly avoidable, if we were more geistesgegenwärtig (“in the presence of mind”?), more aware of this, at all times? – quaeritur.
Once we consider, that the highest any gravitational “pull” can ever get is, when we are closest to it’s source but NOT already part of it (submerged with[in] the massive body), atleast (!) in the framework of Newtonian physics (!), as part of the mass that caused the problematic “force” is now outside of the vector in question, as felt by the observer? (v)
Why would it be any different in relativistic physics?
Maybe the “time-dilating” effect would, in the presence of even denser and ever denser matter, still increase, yet, much slower so than before. But that would already suggest, that the combination of matter and even more matter (energy and more energy) is not the be-all-end-all factor to determine gravitational pull on any object or light beam; density in and of itself (!) would have to be considered, as a factor of its own. I am of the opinion, anyway, that the surrounding (!) gravitational field does have huge implications on the math of any of the processes and effects happening within, including such extreme things like Type-Ia supernovae, happening either far out or deep within a given galaxy! (vi) — which would have huge implications for the “well established” distance-ladder that is so vital to all our models of [the history of] the universe ((and then there’s the blind groping in the dark that is [the problem of so called] „quantum gravity“))…
Anyways… what I am trying to say is this:
– if we set the point of maximum-gravitation to be at the “shell” of a given massive object (a 2-sphere (no “d”), rather than a point source or 3d-sphere), then a model of BHs, that has the EH to be THE ACTUAL [and ONLY] “singularity”, would become a whole lot more intuitive, and much of the silly misconceptions about their magical effects and metaphysics (e.g. time and space switching roles) may fall by the wayside. And, if I am not mistaken, we both go d’accord [anyway], when it comes to the impossibility of point-singularities, right? – to me they seem like the most ludicrous inventions (“mathematical artifacts”, to borrow the phrase from the apologists) in all of astrophysics! – this includes the “primeval atom”, just to be clear!
In such a model, BHs would not actually be point particles of any kind or intensity. They’d be super-hollow spheres (wether that be 2-spheres or 3-spheres (still no “d”), I dare not answer!), that are in fact “edges of the universe”. Space there would be bend to its outmost extreme, that there would be no possible paths remaining that would NOT lead back into the “plain” that is the EH. “All paths lead to rome”… (it would also do away with the phantastic notion, that bigger BHs had lower density (often ridiculously low, when naively estimating said value) than smaller ones; the density of said field would always be “the same”; and in strong (/absolute) correlation with the surrounding space-time-field (its [energy-]density))
And: with such a fabric – why should it not be re-combinable, in the case of a merger of two BHs, like if you were cutting up two balls, and stitching them back together, to form one single larger ball?
But with that I am already well outside of what the “authorities” and esteemed incumbents of physics, would deem acceptable theorizing. — and maybe even you will refuse to follow me in those speculations.
Anyways…
The way you articulated your paragraph — to me — seems lacking.
At the very least I would like there to be a clear distinction from the “last parsec” problem; as, clearly, that cannot be what you wanted to be getting at; yet, just by wording it the way you did, it would be the most natural assumption.
I hope, that you take no offence with me being picky about this, and that the articulation of my own thoughts wasn’t too clumsy or unintelligible!
Have a good day!
That should, at least, be deserving of a re-write.
.
I’m sorry C G, I meant what I said. Read the Gravity and cosmology articles. I talk about time, then in the second article I quote Einstein on the speed of light varying in a gravitational field, then in the next article I quote him saying gravity bends light via a refraction. Not because light follows the curvature of spacetime. Then I explain how gravity works, and say an electron falls down because of the wave nature of matter – it is in essence a 511keV photon in a closed path. Later on in the black hole article I quote Einstein again and point out that at the event horizon the speed of light is zero. Then in We have to talk about LIGO I say the mechanism by which matter falls down is not present in a black hole, so there’s a problem.
.
A strong gravitational field, if described like this sentence does, would hint at faster-than-light photons
.
There are no faster-than-light photons!
.
NO! – that does not follow!
.
You need to read the various articles to understand that it does follow.
.
With this, Black holes can still very much merge to the point when their “surfaces” (in lack of a better word:) “touch”; if all you wanted to say was, that there is no “falling further inside”, then I am totally with you.
.
I’m saying more than that. I’m saying black holes don’t fall down. Perhaps a black hole’s path would bend like a light path, but if I had a black hole in my hand and let it go, it would not fall to the ground like a brick falls to the ground. Note that this breaks conservation of momentum, so I don’t say it lightly.
.
Schwarzschild’s findings suggested two singularities, am I right?
.
It did to some. But Einstein thought of the event horizon as the singularity, at which the speed of light and matter is zero.
.
It always disgusts me, seeing the audacity of established physicists (and their loyal entourage of science-educators… if I am not being too audacious here, I’d file them under “desperates Studententum”, in accordance to Nietzsche (iv)), to ignore that very important “outer singularity”, and do all kinds of sophistry to “explain it away”, like calling it an “mathematical artifact” (over and over again), and pretending, that a “change of the coordinate-system” would have it disappear.
.
I agree whole-heartedly with that.
.
Well — can’t the same thing be said about “the other” singularity, just in reverse?
.
No, because the event horizon is where falling stops. So there is no point singularity. Hawking and Penrose were wrong.
.
even more so when considering, that the existence of the first one basically “blocks” any further access to “the second”, making it highly doubtful, that there could be any additional matter or energy whatsoever, from the point of its creation going forward?
.
Agreed.
.
It often irks me, anyway, that we keep looking at gravity, when seen through a more Newtonian lens, as a point-source (as ist the unambiguous approach of most high-school education on that topic; i.e. the very entrance point that shapes any further curiosity of the developing mind; fwiw, by my intuition, this still plays massively into the perception of the science-educators and lauded astrophycists who perpetuate that even when talking relativistic physics).
.
I don’t like the point-source approach either. But note that Newton also talked of gravity as a refraction. So a Newtonian lens is totally apt!
Would this entire conundrum be avoidable, if the idea was well established, that this is only ever “approximately true” (or rather “viable”) within the context of those Newtonian equations, and only as long as we do not get too close to the gravitational source? How often do I find well esteemed physicists elaborate, that digging into a massive object, should not actually increase the gravity felt by the subject in question, but would lower it?
.
I think the entire conundrum is avoidable if physicists read the Einstein digital papers. Then they’d realise that MTW was full or seat-of-the-pants garbage that flatly contradicted Einstein.
.
could the whole confusion about “dark matter” be mostly avoidable, if we were more geistesgegenwärtig (“in the presence of mind”?), more aware of this, at all times? – quaeritur.
.
I think so. Einstein said a gravitational field is a place where space is “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”. He also said “the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy”. So a gravitational field is an example of dark matter. Only it isn’t matter. It’s spatial energy. See my dark matter article.
.
Once we consider, that the highest any gravitational “pull” can ever get is, when we are closest to it’s source but NOT already part of it (submerged with[in] the massive body), atleast (!) in the framework of Newtonian physics (!), as part of the mass that caused the problematic “force” is now outside of the vector in question, as felt by the observer? (v) Why would it be any different in relativistic physics? Maybe the “time-dilating” effect would, in the presence of even denser and ever denser matter, still increase, yet, much slower so than before.
.
The problem with that is that black holes are black. Because the speed of the upward light beam is zero. It can’t go slower than that, so that’s that.
.
But that would already suggest, that the combination of matter and even more matter (energy and more energy) is not the be-all-end-all factor to determine gravitational pull on any object or light beam; density in and of itself (!) would have to be considered, as a factor of its own. I am of the opinion, anyway, that the surrounding (!) gravitational field does have huge implications on the math of any of the processes and effects happening within, including such extreme things like Type-Ia supernovae, happening either far out or deep within a given galaxy! (vi) — which would have huge implications for the “well established” distance-ladder that is so vital to all our models of [the history of] the universe
.
I think they’re broadly correct. The issue I have is that time dilation just doesn’t feature in Big Bang cosmology. Hence I favour the “static coasting universe”. See The Big Bang.
.
((and then there’s the blind groping in the dark that is [the problem of so called] „quantum gravity“))…
.
I am confident that quantum gravity is handwaving horseshit from people who a) don’t understand gravity and b) don’t understand electromagnetism.
.
Anyways… what I am trying to say is this: – if we set the point of maximum-gravitation to be at the “shell” of a given massive object (a 2-sphere (no “d”), rather than a point source or 3d-sphere), then a model of BHs, that has the EH to be THE ACTUAL [and ONLY] “singularity”, would become a whole lot more intuitive, and much of the silly misconceptions about their magical effects and metaphysics (e.g. time and space switching roles) may fall by the wayside. And, if I am not mistaken, we both go d’accord [anyway], when it comes to the impossibility of point-singularities, right? – to me they seem like the most ludicrous inventions (“mathematical artifacts”, to borrow the phrase from the apologists) in all of astrophysics! – this includes the “primeval atom”, just to be clear!
.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also think point-particles are bunk.
.
In such a model, BHs would not actually be point particles of any kind or intensity. They’d be super-hollow spheres (wether that be 2-spheres or 3-spheres (still no “d”), I dare not answer!), that are in fact “edges of the universe”. Space there would be bend to its outmost extreme, that there would be no possible paths remaining that would NOT lead back into the “plain” that is the EH. “All paths lead to rome”… (it would also do away with the phantastic notion, that bigger BHs had lower density (often ridiculously low, when naively estimating said value) than smaller ones; the density of said field would always be “the same”; and in strong (/absolute) correlation with the surrounding space-time-field (its [energy-]density))
.
I don’t share that view. I think of them as frozen stars. I think of a black hole as just a massive big lump of frozen-space-energy that grows like a hailstone.
.
And: with such a fabric – why should it not be re-combinable, in the case of a merger of two BHs, like if you were cutting up two balls, and stitching them back together, to form one single larger ball?.
.
Maybe. But I don’t think they inspiral like the LIGO guys say. And I don’t think supermassive black holes form from mergers. I think they are fragmented remnants of the early universe.
.
But with that I am already well outside of what the “authorities” and esteemed incumbents of physics, would deem acceptable theorizing. — and maybe even you will refuse to follow me in those speculations. Anyways… the way you articulated your paragraph — to me — seems lacking. At the very least I would like there to be a clear distinction from the “last parsec” problem; as, clearly, that cannot be what you wanted to be getting at; yet, just by wording it the way you did, it would be the most natural assumption. I hope, that you take no offence with me being picky about this, and that the articulation of my own thoughts wasn’t too clumsy or unintelligible! Have a good day!
.
No problem C G. It’s good to talk. But not right now. Right now, it’s time for tea! I will look at your third comment tomorrow.
( 3 / 3 )
PS: I really hope you did not overlook footnote no. 3 (“iii”)
– – – – –
i ) The real bomb went off in another category, medicine to be exact.
For anyone who doesn’t know, I’d strongly recommend (YT-channel) “Dark Horse Podcast Clip”s take on this, in their video “DNA contamination in COV vaccines leads to nuclear integration (from Livestream #194)” (it’s almost 50minutes long, though, but there is much to unpack, that they are just better than I ever will be; please give the video a try, non the less!)
I’d link it here, but I always try to err on the side of caution, when it comes to being GHOSTED for avoidable things like this.
ii) i.e. it suggests a speed of light, that is universal at whatever “starting condition” there may be at the bottom of the gravity-well, across all such wells, no matter how deep, leading to the dilemma, that the end-result of such a “speeding up” would be different in accordance to said difference in depth & intensity (of the gravitational field), for each such well in the entire galaxy.
If this was articulated in reverse (like “the descending photon SLOWS DOWN”), the issue could – mostly – be avoided. But again: it highlights a generally akward (if not erroneous) approach to that whole matter…
Btw.: you seem to have a habit of repeating your own sentences from older articles [often verbatim], which I guess is meant to hammer the point home/hammer it into the brain of the reader (repetition as a tool of lecture); sometimes this has an obnoxious effect, but I do not mind too much. But maybe it also leads to this bumby elaboration of yours, here… (iii)
iii) speaking of quoting your [own] sentences: did you ever get around to have a look into that youtube-channel, that I mentioned in that Conza-article (“something ‘s rotten in the state of QED”?) of yours? – “Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core” – by the channel “See the Pattern”.
In the meantime, I stumbled over other video[s] of said youtuber, that also seem to have a habit of copying your exact words and the layout of your arguments, as if he was lurking RIGHT HERE, to present it as his own.
Not that I particularly care about treating scientific inquiry and critique as a piece of intellectual property that was subject to copy-right protection (I think that mentality is real poison to scientific progress, open debate & education and an insult to human dignity & “individual” thought. I am more of an “guerilla open access manifesto” (Aaron Swartz) kinda guy); but I do detest it when people (a) do not pay credit to other peoples work (b) do not quote properly, as it should be standard in science and (c) try to come across as more inspired than they truely are (as those are just borrowing other people’s insight) …. also: [d)] it does not help further inquiry, if the sources of a particular finding/deduction/critique are hidden. Ego should take second seat after honesty, curiosity, progress of science, open access et al.
Just have a look at said guys video on “Einstein’s Variable Speed of Light”; when he quotes lines from AEs workbooks (2minutes into the video), they are one-to-one the same as within your article on it (in fact, the entire first chapter of his, after the introduction (0:30-4:00) seems like more than just “Inspired” by your “Einstein’s VSL attempt in 1911” paragraph; he did, however, put in the extra work of putting the quotes on screen from the larger context of his workbooks, rather than just copying the word-excerpt; it’S the EXACT set of quotes you used. Only with the 1916 quote he did add the next sentence into the final product). It is so similar, that one were to guess you were one and the same person (if no other evidence is given), re-releasing “their” written article in a video-format, 5 years later.
iv) “Es sind nicht die Schlechtesten und die Geringsten, die wir dann als Journalisten und Zeitungsschreiber in der Metamorphose der Verzweiflung wiederfinden; ja, der Geist gewisser, jetzt sehr gepflegter Literaturgattungen wäre geradezu zu charakterisieren als desperates Studententum. “, from “Über die Zukunft unserer Bildungsanstalten” (1872), fith lecture.
Long story short: we have too many people going through higher education for which there is no need. Those poison higher education, ruin it to its very core, both in those who actually make it at the academy despite middling talent, and those who do not , and try to invent the need for their own services via blogs and other articles. Also: they perpetuate misconceptions, which is probably their worts influence…
v) in fact, as much mass as is now to the other side of the force vector felt, is now actually working against said vector; as such, an equal part “within” the vector would have to be substracted, just to balance out that bit of the equation. At the center of any heavy object would, as such, feel as weightless (even more, if not factoring in orbital motion) as “in outer space”
vi) — or far out or deep within the well of time!?! — it does not make sense to me, to look into the past and not considering to be looking into a [smaller and thus] DENSER universe (not just by presence of more densely clustered matter, but the field itself, the oft dreaded “Aether”), at the same time; which leads to denser surroundings to any and all physical processes, with implications for all kinds of findings, including cosmological redshift and the flow of time. I read very recently, that for a certain redshift (can’t remember the “z”-value), observed galaxies were – from our perspective at least – going in slow motion, which does not surprise me the least.
Btw.: have you ever heard [of] & thought about the implications of the so called “angular diameter turnaround point”?
I stumbled across this phenomenon on some rather noisy [and pseudo-funny] youtube-channel and found it fascinating. Yet, the explanation of said youtuber (science asylum) seemed very lacking, still deeply entrenched in “well established” misconceptions about the workings of the universe, which he could not escape…
What’s footnote number 3?
.
For anyone who doesn’t know, I’d strongly recommend (YT-channel) “Dark Horse Podcast Clip”s take on this, in their video “DNA contamination in COV vaccines leads to nuclear integration (from Livestream #194)” (it’s almost 50minutes long, though, but there is much to unpack, that they are just better than I ever will be; please give the video a try, non the less!) I’d link it here, but I always try to err on the side of caution, when it comes to being GHOSTED for avoidable things like this.
.
I’m no anti-vaxxer, but I am not convinced that mRNA vaccines even work. And I have seen The Omega Man.
.
ii) i.e. it suggests a speed of light, that is universal at whatever “starting condition” there may be at the bottom of the gravity-well, across all such wells, no matter how deep, leading to the dilemma, that the end-result of such a “speeding up” would be different in accordance to said difference in depth & intensity (of the gravitational field), for each such well in the entire galaxy. If this was articulated in reverse (like “the descending photon SLOWS DOWN”), the issue could – mostly – be avoided. But again: it highlights a generally akward (if not erroneous) approach to that whole matter…
.
Sorry, I’ve lost you. Yes, descending photons slow down. At the event horizon they stop. That’s what Einstein said, and I think he was right, because NIST optical clocks go slower when they’re lower, and there ain’t no time flowing through them.
.
Btw.: you seem to have a habit of repeating your own sentences from older articles [often verbatim], which I guess is meant to hammer the point home/hammer it into the brain of the reader (repetition as a tool of lecture); sometimes this has an obnoxious effect, but I do not mind too much. But maybe it also leads to this bumby elaboration of yours, here… (iii)
.
Guilty your honour. I am constantly referring to earlier articles and reiterating bits and pieces. That’s because I try to make each article as free-standing as possible, such that the reader doesn’t have to read those earlier articles. But I link to them so they can if they want to.
iii) speaking of quoting your [own] sentences: did you ever get around to have a look into that youtube-channel, that I mentioned in that Conza-article (“something ‘s rotten in the state of QED”?) of yours? – “Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core” – by the channel “See the Pattern”.
.
I’m not sure. I will take a look.
.
In the meantime, I stumbled over other video[s] of said youtuber, that also seem to have a habit of copying your exact words and the layout of your arguments, as if he was lurking RIGHT HERE, to present it as his own.
.
I will definitely take a look!
.
Not that I particularly care about treating scientific inquiry and critique as a piece of intellectual property that was subject to copy-right protection (I think that mentality is real poison to scientific progress, open debate & education and an insult to human dignity & “individual” thought. I am more of an “guerilla open access manifesto” (Aaron Swartz) kinda guy); but I do detest it when people (a) do not pay credit to other people’s work (b) do not quote properly, as it should be standard in science and (c) try to come across as more inspired than they truly are (as those are just borrowing other people’s insight) …. also: [d)] it does not help further inquiry, if the sources of a particular finding/deduction/critique are hidden. Ego should take second seat after honesty, curiosity, progress of science, open access et al. Just have a look at said guys video on “Einstein’s Variable Speed of Light”; when he quotes lines from AEs workbooks (2minutes into the video), they are one-to-one the same as within your article on it (in fact, the entire first chapter of his, after the introduction (0:30-4:00) seems like more than just “Inspired” by your “Einstein’s VSL attempt in 1911” paragraph; he did, however, put in the extra work of putting the quotes on screen from the larger context of his workbooks, rather than just copying the word-excerpt; it’S the EXACT set of quotes you used. Only with the 1916 quote he did add the next sentence into the final product). It is so similar, that one were to guess you were one and the same person (if no other evidence is given), re-releasing “their” written article in a video-format, 5 years later.
.
Interesting stuff, C G. I have been talking about this stuff for years, it would be odd if other people didn’t catch on. And I’m not the only guy who has read the Einstein digital papers. And don’t forget that a lot of what I talk about is work by other people.
.
Long story short: we have too many people going through higher education for which there is no need. Those poison higher education, ruin it to its very core, both in those who actually make it at the academy despite middling talent, and those who do not , and try to invent the need for their own services via blogs and other articles. Also: they perpetuate misconceptions, which is probably their worst influence…
.
I don’t think too many students have poisoned academica. I think academics have done that.
.
v) in fact, as much mass as is now to the other side of the force vector felt, is now actually working against said vector; as such, an equal part “within” the vector would have to be subtracted, just to balance out that bit of the equation. At the center of any heavy object would, as such, feel as weightless (even more, if not factoring in orbital motion) as “in outer space”.
.
Yes. If you were in a habitable chamber at the centre of the Earth, you would float around inside it.
.
vi) — or far out or deep within the well of time!?! — it does not make sense to me, to look into the past and not considering to be looking into a [smaller and thus] DENSER universe (not just by presence of more densely clustered matter, but the field itself, the oft dreaded “Aether”), at the same time; which leads to denser surroundings to any and all physical processes, with implications for all kinds of findings, including cosmological redshift and the flow of time. I read very recently, that for a certain redshift (can’t remember the “z”-value), observed galaxies were – from our perspective at least – going in slow motion, which does not surprise me the least. Btw.: have you ever heard [of] & thought about the implications of the so called “angular diameter turnaround point”?
.
No. But I think the space of the early universe was very “dense”. So much so, that it was akin to a black hole.
.
I stumbled across this phenomenon on some rather noisy [and pseudo-funny] youtube-channel and found it fascinating. Yet, the explanation of said youtuber (science asylum) seemed very lacking, still deeply entrenched in “well established” misconceptions about the workings of the universe, which he could not escape…
.
I don’t like having to sit through YouTube videos. I usually find them tedious and too slow to deliver the message.
https://www.sciencealert.com/350-year-old-theorem-reveals-profound-connection-between-properties-of-light
Ureaka ! I finally learned to transfer links !
Thank G.O.D.( he,she,or it) for miniscule miracles…….
https://youtu.be/xaC_aKqjCXU?si=neXyAoYglDnAHabj
Hopefully this is the See the Pattern video CG mentioned.
I watched it Greg. I thought it was good.
You write that there is no mechanism for black holes to fall down. When I think about it, a black hole is made up of everything that falls into it. If they’re frozen stars, where the speed of light approaches zero in the limit, then matter is constantly falling into it without ever reaching the event horizon.
But this matter that falls into a black hole has a mechanism to fall down. Isn’t it possible that the black hole will eventually fall down because there is matter present around the event horizon that can fall down?
Thus, the combined action of all the matter around the event horizon could cause the black hole to move in the direction that the matter around the event horizon is moving.
If they’re frozen stars, where the speed of light approaches zero in the limit, then matter is constantly falling into it without ever reaching the event horizon.
.
That’s what Einstein said in 1939. But I think he was wrong, because falling bodies don’t slow down. They fall faster and faster because there’s a vertical gradient in the speed of light. They can’t fall faster than the local speed of light. so I think it’s like Friedwardt Winterberg said: matter gets destroyed in a gamma ray burst.
.
But this matter that falls into a black hole has a mechanism to fall down. Isn’t it possible that the black hole will eventually fall down because there is matter present around the event horizon that can fall down?
.
Anything is possible, I could be totally wrong about all this. But I don’t think the event horizon is surrounded by slow-falling matter, falling slower and slower. There’s still a vertical gradient in the speed of light, so if you were near the event horizon and you dropped a brick, it would fall down faster and faster just as it does anywhere else in a gravitational field.
.
Thus, the combined action of all the matter around the event horizon could cause the black hole to move in the direction that the matter around the event horizon is moving.
.
Sorry Vit, I just don’t think that fixes it.
Thanks for the link Greg. John, I wonder if c never quite gets to nought. Call it a very dark hole. Why? If matter is made of space, possibly structured into whirls, worbles or something, then matter would cease to exist at zero c. Now since the potential well is no longer infinitely deep it must get wider as more matter gets added. As evidence I offer that the size of the central black hole is related to the size of the galaxy.
Steve: if c was not zero, the upward photon would move faster and faster as it ascended. The same will apply to a zillion other photons. As a result, the black hole wouldn’t be a black hole. Would it be a very dark hole? I don’t think so, because it would emit long-wavelength photons. It would be a radio source.
https://www.google.com/search?q=central+black+hole+related+to+galaxey+size&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Wow, first ever captcha that needed every square selected!
The supermassive black holes are a bit of a mystery. The relationship between supermassive black hole sizes and galaxy sizes looks like it’s evidence for something. But I don’t think it’s evidence that black holes are not black. Maybe it’s evidence that the early universe was once a superdupermassive black hole that fragmented into supermassive black holes plus all the other stuff. Or maybe not – IMHO the physics of the early universe is a lot tougher than the physics of things like electrons because the evidence is scant and you can’t do experiments to back up your theories.
Thanks John, here are some links you may find interesting, I did not read them all the way thru, too long!
This
https://daily.jstor.org/when-gravity-sucked-according-to-the-plutocrats/
And
https://physics.unc.edu/home/department-history/section-ii/
Thanks Steve. I liked the first article. Very interesting. What a shame that here we are seventy years later, and gravity research has not moved forward at all. Au contraire, I’d say it’s moved backwards. The second article perhaps shows why. I noted this paragraph: “In many ways, then, Babson’s GRF was used as a foil, highlighting things to adopt but (more importantly) things to avoid. A lengthy exchange of letters between Bahnson and several senior physicists (especially John Wheeler, whom Bahnson clearly admired a great deal) set to work on eradicating any aspects that might lead to claims that the institute was for crackpot research”. What is crackpot about an artificial gravitational field? Coming from Wheeler, that is rich. The guy invented all sorts of nonsense in MTW that had nothing to do with Einstein’s general relativity, and more importanlty buried Einstein’s variable speed of light. That’s the link between gravity and electromagnetism, because c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀).
Steve, the first article on Plutocrats was
an equally interesting and humorous read.
I need to stop at a grocery first to stock up on Catalina and Roquefort dressings in order for me to attempt the second article comprised mostly of Word Salad………..I’ll give my opinion after much consumption and digestion.
Piled
Higher and
Deeper
.
https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf
from Robert Dicke on page 51 the Etovas experiment showed that EM waves are equivalent to proton and neutron mass.
I paraphrased it badly, it wouldn’ t let me cut and paste.
He was an interest guy was Dicke. Sadly I think he missed the trick with his VSL, because he didn’t read the Einstein papers. Nor did Wheeler. Wheeler just made it up as he went along. Darn, that pdf is protected, I will have to do a snip:
A few things I finally gleaned from the 2nd article :
1. It actually was very well researched and well written; but of course by a long winded professional tenured professor. (Steve’s P.H.D.s)
2. Wright-Patterson A.F.B. here at home in Dayton was briefly mentioned. Home of many more P.H.D.s.
3. Babson and Bahnson were obviously projecting their neurotic fears/hates onto gravity itself. Lots of cherrypicking for sheeple P.H.D.s. went on, didn’t it !
Methinks Darwin should get most of the credit for the rapid demise of both individuals and their respective families.
4. The most negative outcome out of all was That Higgs Guy quickly went from unknown assistant proff, to unfortunately a worshipped demigod.
More P.H.D.s to add to the SM slagheap.
John, how did you do the snip.
Slick how you highlighted spatially variable “principal of equivalence”!
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22
I did the snip via a snipper tool accessed via Window/Shift/S. Then I copied and pasted the result to create an image, which I uploaded to the physics detective website. This gave me a URL for the image which I inserted into the comment keyed into wordpress using an image tab. The result is this string in chevrons:
” alt=”” /
.
img src=”
.
However this comment facility doesn’t support this method. I will look for an alternative. The highlighting on the spatially variable is done by the Einstein digital papers website. Go to https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu then search for “spatially variable”. You will see a list of hits. Click on the second item and you will see the highlighted spatially variable in the relevant page. Note the URL at the top.
Spatiallly variable in your article “principle of equivalence”
I tried the “DCO Comment Attachment” plugin but got a firewall issue when I tried to attach an image.
I have added the “Embed Images in Comments” plug-in.
.
Just insert the URL of your image, and the image is displayed. Like this but with no space in https:
.
h ttps://5p277b.n3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/DickeEotvos.jpg
.
Dicke writes something like stream of consciousness. He starts out with an idea or observation, for instance a ripple in a teapot, then extrapolates it to the entire universe.
Medicine is a bit off topic but he calls out science/ publication circle …
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
Wow, thanks Steve. That was a good article. Why have I never even heard of the “Quality and Outcomes Framework” aka QOF? That explains why my mate Andy’s wife was on 11 different medications, which was doing her no good whatsoever. She stopped taking them all and was much better. It also explained why my GP was trying to say I was diabetic even though my blood test results said I was not, and why they were trying to put my wife on statins. There was me thinking it was “big pharma” pushing doctors to prescribe lifetime medication, when actually it’s my own NHS. But as ever, nobody is accountable, nobody gets fired, and the right-on woke bureaucratic cancer grows ever bigger as the NHS gets ever more useless, and ever more expensive. It’s the same hubristic story everywhere I look, be it government, climate change, or anti-semitic hate mobs. Like I was saying, the Trouble with Physics truly is left in the shade by all this.