By AWT the gravity field of black hole behaves like density gradient of Aether, which results into fast disintegration of matter even at the case, when matter falls very slowly. Because during accretion most of matter will evaporate into energy, the pressure of radiation keeps the residual particles away from gravity field or it can even blow them away at the polar axis of black hole, where the ratio of gravity field and electromagnetic field becomes highest (polar jet of black holes may be considered as an exaggerated case of gravitational brightening observable at the case of giant spinning stars). This effectively prohibits the formation of giant black hole by accretion mechanism, and we are forced to consider primordial origin of giant black holes at the heart of most galaxies. Only black hole merging ("brane collision") can increase the mass of black hole at the moment, when it was created already. The excessive matter will be emanated in the form of less or more widespread polar jet of naked singularity or quasar, after then. Occasionally part of accretion radiation may condense at the equatorial plane of black hole, thus forming an accretion disk, which becomes the source of galactic matter and flat shape of most mature galaxies. After then, a similar process repeats inside of galaxies at stellar and planetary scales (Saturn rings), just in correspondingly faster way .
From the above mechanism follows, we can expect nested structure levels of event horizons inside of black hole, during which the character of radiated energy changes from weak to electromagnetic force. Only the most compact portion of hadron matter will survive the fall into black hole (axions and neutrinos) and these particles can pass event horizons rather freely like tachyons. The rest of matter in the form of photons, gluons and vector bosons will dissolve into graviton foam forming the interior of black hole. This foam can be perceived as CMB / Hawking radiation from outside.
We can consider, the matter of particle dissolved may condense inside of whole volume of black hole, thus restoring original entropy/information contained within particle. Ocassionally it could even reapear in the finelly divided form of CMB inside of our portion of observable Universe. But we could never follow such process in its entirety, because we would evaporate into accretion radiation a well before we could ever approach an event horizon. Which makes this description a somewhat abstract thing, testable only by dispersion of gravitational waves and/or neutrinos at distance.
Posts
27 comments:
Zepher,
I Like your ideas. My own theories have similarity to yours when it comes to matter falling into a black hole.
In time black holes will spin very quickly due to inflowing matter. Matter falling into a black hole would orbit the black hole at a very rapid speed, maybe 10% the speed of light. At this speed it would interact with the surrounding aether which would also be rapidly orbiting the black hole.
There would be a lot of matter interaction also including friction, and the resultant ionization of the orbiting matter (loss of electrons). Next the molecular bonds between matter would begin to break down. As you said, disintegration.
Lastly the strings that make up the matter would become disengaged and some broken. Nothing would be left excepting for field strings which is what the aether itself is made of. Black holes themselves are also just a compressed state of this same field aether material.
respectfully, forrest
Hi, Forrests,
the dissolution of matter at presence of strong gravity field can be explained in many mutually consistent ways, the AWT model of accretion radiation isn't the only possible one.
For example, we can imagine, strong gravity field would excerpt tidal forces, which disintegrate particles of matter. Here's a dynamic equilibrium between mutually dual gravity and electromagnetic field and matter and radiation. As the particles of matter are held together by electromagnetic field, strong gravity field will cause their dissolution into radiation. In strong electromagnetic field such equilibrium will be shifter to the opposite side and the particles of light (i.e photons) will condense into particles of matter back again (pair formation is the reciprocal process to annihilation).
From the above follows, the strong electromagnetic field of rotating black hole would keep particles together, which is consistent with the fact, the accretion radiation is concentrated in polar jets, where the gravity is compensated by centrifugal force in smallest extent possible.
Hi to everyone,
It's amazing to see how many simple models can be made using the framework provided by AWT, and how these models explain the nature in a simple way. I was very worried, because the modern theoretical physics are using very sophisticated math that I can't understand. I only want to understand the nature without studying these complex math structures. Thanks to AWT, I've got a feeling about the behaviour of the nature, without understanding sophisticated math at all.
Common people want to understand the reality on intuitive level by the same way, like illuminati of Voltair era. Formally thinking scientists tends to ignore - if not hinder - such approach obstinatelly from the same reasons, like Holy Church of Galileo and Voltair era due their fear from the lost of informational and philosophical monopoly in society.
It shouldn't be understood like my fundamental antipathy toward mainstream science - I can just see another level of analogies in social evolution here, which enables me to stand aside. Every other explicator of reality would face the same problems, like me under this situation - people are behaving in predictable way like silly particles here. After all, nested density fluctuations of Aether evolve in simmilar spirals along time dimension.
“... people are behaving in predictable way like silly particles here ...“
Because of this, you are not admitted in many blogs that have been created by professional physicists (Anonymous does often stress on this fact), and AWT ideas and others aether models are not contemplate as viable models to describe nature by the Orthodox School. Professional physicists, like string theorists, had to rephrase his intuitive model of vibrating strings using very complex math. So, they could decouple themselves of the rest of common people. Unfortunately, normal people often show very little interest on the behaviour of nature, otherwise, AWT would be much more accepted, and probably, you would be much more famous.
Well, formally thinking scientists aren't willing to admit, here exists many phenomena - even these quite trivial ones) - which are impossible to describe in formal math completelly, because such understanding limits their relevance in the eyes of the rest of society.
Furthemore they're not willing to admit, intuitive approach to physics could lead to fundamentally new finding, not saying about findings comming from layman area - these high minded people have spent too many years in learning of math formalism to learn a new way of thinking.
And finally, such peple are not willing to admit, their theories are based on incomplete - if not missleading - view of reality.
The refusal of AWT is often based on pure ignorance, these deniers and ignorants simply doesn't know about all connections and motivations, which have lead me to the understanding and acceptance of Aether concept. If they don't know about it, they can consider Aether theory a physically unmotivated quite easilly, because such view does fit nothing, which they personally know about Nature and formal models hide their emergent nature quite consistently.
I would react to this article: Complementarity or Firewalls? Why not both? These two animations (1, 2) are illustrating it clearly. Just the evaporation of massive object inside of black hole may be perceived as a complementary dual behaviour: the massive remnant of object is compressed and spaghettised, but the other part of it evaporates and expands. Mathematically these approaches indeed aren't consistent because they're switching intrinsic and extrinsic observational perspectives.
Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls? Susskind oposes.: The firewall concept is not quite new, Chapline and Laughlin promoted a similar concept before same time. In dense aether model the surface of black hole is sorta topological inversion of space-time: temporal dimension become spatial ones and vice-versa. It similar situation like during scattering of ripples at the water surface at distance: the surface ripples will disperse into underwater ones, portion of underwater ripples will appear at the surface instead.
Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes
Five proofs, four of which each prove that General Relativity does not predict the black hole
There are competing theories for how gas giant planets form around proto-suns. One proposes that the planets formed from slowly growing ice and rock cores, followed by rapid accretion of gas from the surrounding disk. The other theory proposes that clumps of dense gas form in spiral arms, increasing in mass and density, forming a gas giant planet in a single step
Black hole complementarity: The Elephant and the Event Horizon (original, czech version)
The horizon radius is related to the amount of mass inside, so when something crosses the horizon, the horizon has already expanded to gobble it up. There is a big hole in the mathematics that describe such a process. What happens first, the expansion or the crossing over? Once the mass is inside, the horizon has already expanded so when did the crossing over happen? They can't happen together because the horizon can't expand until the mass is inside.
So far LHC failed one of its main research targets, regarding the proof of extradimensions with production of black holes at LHC. But at the moment, when such black holes would be created, then their potential stability has been predicted with physicists itself. Such a black holes could therefore live infinitely by theoretical calculations and they could threat the civilization with gradual accretion of Earth. Another study proved, such an accretion could be quite fast, when magnetic field of black hole is involved. So we have scientific support for all steps required for destruction the Earth with LHC: 1) the prediction of black hole formation, 2) the prediction of its stability and 3) the prediction of its fast accretion based on standard peer-revived publications.
Black Holes May Feed On Quantum Foam Potentially Resolving a Cosmological Paradox.
The "eating of quantum foam" is somewhat desperate attempt how to save the Big Bang model. In AWT the steady state Universe model is more relevant: the large galaxies evaporate into dark
matter clouds and condense from them somewhere else like the giant density fluctuations of gas. That is to say, in dense aether model the black holes with event horizon larger than the wavelength of CMBR can really absorb the CMB radiation instead of radiating it. But this process is immensely slow and large black holes were formed with collapse of dark matter clouds instead of some quantum foam feeding (top to bottom mechanism).
[url=]Not everything gets sucked into a black hole.[/url] The latest research says gases can actually be repelled from black holes, according to an article in the international journal Physical Review Letters.
A reddit user RobotRollCall posted a second-person narrative of what happens as someone falls into a black hole.
There’s a black hole in a galaxy 22 million light-years away that’s incredibly bright and energetic. Astronomers assumed it was a supermassive black hole. But new observations show it’s actually quite tiny, throwing much of what we thought we knew about these things out the window.
On the Current Situation Concerning the Black Hole Problem
The energy density of Hawking radiation depends on the diameter/curvature of particle. When some tiny particle appears in strong gravity field near event horizon of black hole, it will evaporate in the same way, like the black hole of the same diameter. The consequence of this behavior is, if we place a tiny particle into gravity field of black hole at it proximity, it will radiate the Hawking radiation and it will evaporate fast. As the result, the black holes aren’t so opportunistic eaters, as the classical theory considers. Most of matter will evaporate into radiation before it could even reach their event horizont, which does behave like the firewall in this way. Due the radiation most of mass of infilling matter will get spread across interior of event horizon, thus solving the informational paradox.
In 1939 Einstein published a paper with the title ON A STATIONARY SYSTEM WITH SPHERICAL SYMMETRY CONSISTING OF MANY GRAVITATING MASSES, in which he investigated the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric system consisting of a large number of gravitating particles of equal masses moving in concentric circular orbits, randomly oriented in space, under the influence of the field produced by all the particles together. His object was to show that Schwarzschild-like singularities do not exist in cases which have physical reality. In a paper published in 1964 Misra claimed that the field equations set up by Einstein were «mixed up and erroneous » but that Einstein’s final results were valid. It is shown in the present paper that, although Einstein’s paper is extremely confusing and contains some mistakes, Misra’s criticisms are completely unfounded. A general and clear derivation of Einstein’s results is given in this paper.
The schematic evolution of ideas about black holes. As we can see, both surface of internal singularity, both event horizon are becoming fuzzy, turbulent and they do converge against each other.
arxiv.org/abs/1309.1067: On Quantum Contributions to Black Hole Growth
Black holes are like neutron stars. When I said here before few years, that the black holes do behave like giant dense stars, I was just downvoted and occasionally deleted. Now, just a few months after firewalls and Hawking article such an idea suddenly doesn't look quite strange for anyone.... The black holes aren't very different from dense stars in this extent (the firewall is nothing else, but a physical surface of this artifact). For example, here you can see a black hole with asymmetric jets. Such a black hole doesn't differ very much from giant pulsar, which has its radiative beam different from axis of rotation. Such a geometry implies, that the black holes aren't so simple and they can radiate their mass into outside in wider extent, than the physicists believed. If they could radiate with accretion only, then the axis would be identical with jet.
The physicists are getting slowly into understanding, that 1) the galaxies represent the fuzzy surface of black holes (fuzzballs) 2) the same dark matter structures which govern the exterior of galaxies apply to their interior as well - just in inversed way. While I do applaud the application of turbulent fluid models here, the fractal turbulence of fluids doesn't imply the fractal character of black holes automatically. You should be quite sure with fluid model of space-time for being able to say something like this.
Sun's fractal surprise could help fusion on Earth (PDF)
Post a Comment