Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Hi all, Regarding the graviton theory I've found an interesting description: It is proposed that the photon is the sole elementary particle in nature; energy consists of helical wave photons and matter of orbital interlocking photons; gravitons are spinning linear wave photons which are emitted at a constant rate to preserve matter; the uneven transmission of gravitons causes the gravitational force and that the gravitational lens is a misnomer. I've found an article that in a simplistic way gives an overview of matter, energy and gravitational force. This article is a bit old but helps to understand the graviton subject. http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap3.html It seems that gravitons are a form of photon emission different from the one that is defined as energy waves and the one that defines mass. Is this logical? Well, at least I think it is a good start for discussion. Cheers, Ron McFarland [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 17/02/2004 05:35:31 Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ron McFarland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Black Holes and Gravity Carrier Greetings again to the list. It has been a while since I posted something to think about, and in that case I did a lot of arguing for my cause! I enjoyed it a lot, and I hope others did too. But I again must stress that I do not rise to the level where I can appreciate deep mathematical discussion, and so I hope that discussion on this topic that I will now raise can be expressed by logic (I have argued before that logic includes mathematics as a subset of logic but that logic also includes all things that mathematics seems to have no good way to define -- because mathematics is ultimately digital and so mathematics by its nature can only approximate the analog). Ok, on to the topic! :) Some experiments have indicated that gravity is associated with a force carrier, and that this force carrier moves somewhere below or at the speed of light. Experiments continue as the indications have not been absolutely proven. Perhaps I will be corrected on this, but it is my understanding that a force carrier is generally thought of as some sort of particle that transfers mass/energy between other particles. This presents a logical problem relative to black holes. Beyond the event horizon, nothing with mass can escape there from and make itself known to our observable universe. Apparently every particle has at least some mass, however tiny, else a black hole would be seen to radiate for reasons other than absorbsion of half of a virtual particle pair. (I always had trouble with that absorbsion mechanism of black hole evaporation, since it seemed logical to me that on the average 50% of what gets absorbed would be matter as we know it and 50% would be anti-matter, with an average net gain of zero absorbsion). The only logical way that I can fathom for energy to escape from a black hole, and express itself as gravity, is if the force carrier particle has absolutely no mass. Again, perhaps I will be corrected, but it is my understanding that gravity can only affect particles that have mass. But a particle expressed only as energy does not equate with e=mc^2 (e=0 * [the speed of light squared]) because e must then = 0. If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? Or could it be that gravity is, in reality, pure nothing -- that gravity is an expression of the case where e really does = absolutely zero? Is gravity really just an attempt by matter to interact with an absolute nothing? If so, then is a black hole really -- nothing? Could it be that gravity is expressed relative to the *inverse* of e=mc^2? Ron McFarland * The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. BAA, the world's leading airport company - http://www.baa.com **
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
On 28 Feb 2004 at 15:13, John M wrote: snip Dear Ron, allow me to reply to SOME parts of your long post (including my remarks and your remarks on them) by just quoting the appropriate The orig. message is available on the list. John M Agreed, let's try to save some bandwidth where possible. On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote: snip Please, stop thinking about the world as an elite-scientist, sitting in his armchair and looking at that darn world. You and your mind are part of it and if you (just) envision sthg in your mind it IS in this world. 180: constructed? by??? -- True or false is our judgement, culture etc. based, upon info we interpret from the world (nature) in our mind. The #'0' is not nothingness, it is a concept with content = a somethingness. It may stand in your mind for nothingness - not in my thinking though. It stands for a distinct value. (like 12 or 102). Have you ever REALLY tried, very hard, to think about nothing? Our individual society of minds does not allow for it unless one turns a deaf ear to the constant inner chatter - or one has gone flat line. We are constantly trying to model in our minds what our limited senses and what data from our investigative devices report to us. This model is not reality, it is a very filtered approximation of reality, and one limited at best to processes performed within and based upon a very real nature. Insufficient processes, every time, as the model is always lacking succicient data. But it doesn't much matter because nature doesn't much care about how our minds model nature, and nature will consistently do its thing regardless of a modeling process. True or false is not our judgement, it is our interpretation of an actual reality. The interpretation is very likely to be flawed in some respects, and therefore not itself a complete model of reality. If it is not complete then its premise is not proved via self consistency. The number zero is a model of a reality, its attribute is the lack of anything measurable. Putting brackets around nothingness is like trying to eat with an ear instead of with a mouth. Yes, you can stick something in either model but only one model results in acceptable repercussions. Perturb nothingness? as long as it doesn't?? I am sure you have a better wording. Virtual particles (imagined?) are sthg sci-fi, especially within 'nothingness'. It is one type of fantasyland (narrative), There is pretty good experimental indication that virtual particles really do pop in and out of our experiencable universe. To do away with them requires some sci-fi explanation that I've not yet seen be proven as decription of reality. But I can not claim that virtual particles do or do not, or maybe just somethimes they do exist in our universe. For now, it's the best model for me and many others. The general concept really does seem to model very well with experimental evidence. I wrote another one, which you rightfully scrutinized below. Read on. But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability). [JM]: I don't know about probability. It depends on the model we cut for application. Cut it wider: Prob. will change. Same with the statistical truth: depending on the (maybe wide) pattern we counted. Eternity is a temporal (nonsense) concept - I try to stay away from temporal thinking (don't state: I can) so 'eternity' IMO is sthg atemporal. Infinitely short, e.g. Not 30,0...00+ years. Matter/energy are terms in reductionist explanations of the reductionist observations in the physical domain. Cf: modeling. The does and does not does perturb me. Well, that's because I allude to 2 entirely different frameworks? One that is composed (or is not composed, take either viewpoint) of nothingness = eternity? And another one where matter/energy = finite? A little Alice in Wonderland conceptualization problem with this? What I argue is very difficult to conceptualize, but it can be done. I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations... SNIP i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate... SNIP That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe? What causes existence of stress-seeds? [JM]: In my narrative I use the Plenitude as a necessary prop to 'get to a universe' - nothing more. Not describable features, no 'info' to circumscribe or define. It is sthg outside our mind and everything would be fantasy. Aha! So if one does not perceive then the thing does not exist? Does it exist if
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Dear Ron, allow me to reply to SOME parts of your long post (including my remarks and your remarks on them) by just quoting the appropriate phrase of your 'musings' with my reflection. The "orig. message" is available on the list. John M - Original Message - From: "Ron McFarland" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:21 AM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote: If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes it already into "somethingness". I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists does so because the universe is so constructed as to have made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in order for something to be true or false. Imagining the number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute. [JM]: Please, stop thinking about the world as an elite-scientist, sitting in his armchair and looking at that darn world. You and your mind are part of it and if you (just) envision sthg in your mind it IS in this world. "180": constructed? by??? -- True or false is our judgement, culture etc. based, upon info we interpret from the world (nature) in our mind. The #'0' is not nothingness, it is a concept with content = a somethingness. It may "stand" in your mind for nothingness - not in my thinking though. It stands for a distinct value. (like 12 or 102). Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?(SNIP solipsism) But yes, I did speculate to "outside" factors; I impute to the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe (the nothingness). [JM]: See, your 'nothingness has a boundary! an end, where your universe 'starts'. Like the folklore chap who sat down at the rim of the flat Earth and let his feet dangle intonothingness. Zero energy does not rule out perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those perturbations cease to exist. [JM]: Perturb nothingness? as long as it "doesn't"?? I am sure you have a better wording. Virtual particles (imagined?) are sthg sci-fi, especially within 'nothingness'. It is one type of fantasyland (narrative), I wrote another one, which you rightfully scrutinized below. Read on. But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability). [JM]: I don't know about probability. It depends on the model we cut for application. Cut it wider: Prob. will change. Same with the statistical "truth": depending on the (maybe wide) pattern we counted. Eternity is a temporal (nonsense) concept - I try to stay away from temporal thinking (don't state: I can) so 'eternity' IMO is sthg atemporal. Infinitely short, e.g. Not 30,0...00+ years. Matter/energy are terms in reductionist explanations of the reductionist observations in the physical domain. Cf: modeling. The "does and does not" does perturb me. I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations... SNIP i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate... SNIP That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe? What causes existence of stress-seeds? [JM]: In my narrative I use the "Plenitude" as a necessary prop to 'get to a universe' - nothing more. Not describable features, no 'info' to circumscribe or define. It is sthg outside our mind and everything would be fantasy. A bit more can be seen in the central part of TA62 (Karl Jaspers Forum, Sept 2003) http://www.douglas.qc.ca/fdg/kjf/62-TAMIK.htm All attributes I use are goal-oriented: to get to our worldwithoutany 'other' narrative of e.g. perturbations of nothingness etc. G I don't think in 'equilibria' for visualizingunlimited interconnectedness and changes vs the clean-cut models of quantized formalism, so necessary for equilibria. (Again: "in so few words...). SNIP What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet understand why you disagree, as those questions are not resolved to my benefit. [JM]: In this I agree. Even if 'satisfaction' instead of 'benefit'.What causes emergy to do work? What IS energy? Mass? etc. et
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote: Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that very question. I currently do not believe that any type of gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova) accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that direction. But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and I further believe that our entire universe is a rather improbable but possible collection of virtual particles. Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti- particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I think of this second type of virtual particles to be a localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100% nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of zero energy. Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time and matter/energy as being `universally localized' expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure. For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking' phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is only measurable within its own framework against something that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the context of infinity it never really existed, because an equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That thought is quite difficult to fully explain. And I've certainly been wrong before! But the thought of virtual particles appearing and disappearing (and so on the average never having existed) affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary of our universe in order to explain our universe. Ron McFarland
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text John - Original Message - From: Ron McFarland To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote: Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes [RMcF]: Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that very question. I currently do not believe that any type of gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova) accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that direction. [JM]: Agree, but it is a great idea and many awards, tenures, prixes were accelerated with it. Hubble was a genius, just did not consider other (less plausible?) explanations for the redshift than the fashionable optical Dopler. So you don't believe the 'real', only the 'virtual' which shows appreciation in imgination. (Read on) [RMcF]: But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and I further believe that our entire universe is a rather improbable but possible collection of virtual particles. Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti- particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I think of this second type of virtual particles to be a localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think... [JM]: If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes it already into "somethingness" . [JMcF]: of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100% nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of zero energy. [JM]: Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only? Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism? [RMcF]: Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time and matter/energy as being `universally localized' expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure. For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking' phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is only measurable within its own framework against something that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the context of infinity it never really existed, because an equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That thought is quite difficult to fully explain. And I've certainly been wrong before! But the thought of virtual particles appearing and disappearing (and so on the average never having existed) affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary of our universe in order to explain our universe. [JM]: I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs, i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries of our universe. The dissipating "stress-seeds", however,, are called 'energy' in the reductionist physics. So I d
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote: Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text John Mine be not teachings, but only musings. Your thoughts impress me as fully 180 to those musings and I am not so sure that either of our musings are lacking in substantial basis of experiment! If you just think about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes it already into somethingness. I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists does so because the universe is so constructed as to have made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in order for something to be true or false. Imagining the number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute. Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to get started. Do you assign that to outside factors only? Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism? No, I've not meant to infer that the self is the only reality, nor do I mean to infer that values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. But yes, I did speculate to outside factors; I impute to the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe (the nothingness). Zero energy does not rule out perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those perturbations cease to exist. The difficult thing to confer is the thought that space/time and matter/energy are 2 different things, unrelated to each other, and both are constrained within the boundary of the perturbation. The other side of the boundary, the domain of zero energy, seeks for the perturbation to cease existence; it seeks for the virtual particles to annihilate so that the average condition of zero energy is maintained over eternity. But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability). I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs, i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries of our universe. That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe? What causes existence of stress-seeds? The dissipating stress-seeds, however, are called 'energy' in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy startup and only the endup is such when universe also disappears in the Plenitude. What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet understand why you disagree, as those questions are not resolved to my benefit. Ron McFarland === The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole (John Holland) ===
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes - Original Message - From: Ron McFarland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier Combine my response to 2 responses grin... On 17 Feb 2004 at 21:39, Fred Chen wrote: Nice link, great topic. This does beg the question, is there an event horizon for gravitons, and presumably the answer for that would be the singularity. Here is something to ponder: do virtual gravitons generate more virtual gravitons? Consider a planet in circular orbit around its star. Consider the gravitational force of this system on an external body far away, e.g., a comet. The force on the comet would be due to the mass of the planet, plus the mass of the star, plus the gravitational energy of the star-planet system. So the gravitational field, an exchange of virtual gravitons, would be the source of new virtual gravitons to be exchanged with the comet, or in fact anything outside this system. This could extrapolate ad infinitum, as we take into account each virtual exchange of gravitons generating another virtual exchange of gravitons. Fred Interesting conjecture! I alludeto it, below... And also heard... From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier Ron McFarland writes: If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query relating to relativity and QM. See question 6 in part 2 of the sci.physics FAQ, How does the gravity get out of the black hole?, at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part2/ The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles; and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape from black holes. Hal Finney Yes, but particles are not virtual if they do not recombine and annihilate. SNIP
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Combine my response to 2 responses grin... On 17 Feb 2004 at 21:39, Fred Chen wrote: Nice link, great topic. This does beg the question, is there an event horizon for gravitons, and presumably the answer for that would be the singularity. Here is something to ponder: do virtual gravitons generate more virtual gravitons? Consider a planet in circular orbit around its star. Consider the gravitational force of this system on an external body far away, e.g., a comet. The force on the comet would be due to the mass of the planet, plus the mass of the star, plus the gravitational energy of the star-planet system. So the gravitational field, an exchange of virtual gravitons, would be the source of new virtual gravitons to be exchanged with the comet, or in fact anything outside this system. This could extrapolate ad infinitum, as we take into account each virtual exchange of gravitons generating another virtual exchange of gravitons. Fred Interesting conjecture! I alludeto it, below... And also heard... From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier Ron McFarland writes: If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query relating to relativity and QM. See question 6 in part 2 of the sci.physics FAQ, How does the gravity get out of the black hole?, at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part2/ The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles; and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape from black holes. Hal Finney Yes, but particles are not virtual if they do not recombine and annihilate. If they do not recombine then matter is being continually created out of nothing and the universe is increasing in density over time. If they do recombine then they do not exist long enough as a mechanism to convey the transference of gravitational energy at a cosmological distance. The evidence seems to be against a universe that is increasing in density. Thank you for the comment. My silence was in hope that others might also pick up on this thread (I see that Fred Chen seems the only other one to have done so, so far). Unlike my previous (and other than this one, my only) topic in this forum, I'm not in this topic presenting and defending a postulate. In this topic, I'm just looking for points of view. :) I do have a problem with virtual particles being able to perform just about any way that they like, including moving faster than light. In one case (in one of the 4 sections of the above link) the argument is made that *all* particles are virtual particles. I have no problem with that per se, and I believe the statement to be true against reality, but I can not agree that it follows that all (or any) particles are able to move faster than light! Forwards and backwards in time, perhaps, but not faster than light within a measurable frame. We've never observed anything moving faster than light (to do so would convey information faster than light, and that seems to be forbidden). Indeed, one could argue that if anything did move faster than light then we could never in principle measure it. If we can not measure it, at least in principle even if the technology to do so does not exist, then it is not part of measurable reality. If all of reality is not measurable then all of reality can not, even in principle, be proven to exist. I also take issue with normalization; to me that seems a statistical mathematical trick akin to a description of an immovable object meeting up with an irresistible force. The process does not describe an instantaneous point in time (a measurement is not possible). I mean that we never observe an average response to a system measurement, we always observe a focused and localized measurement response. And if we are measuring something then it is not normalized (because the measurement is always localized). Just because so much agrees with current theories and measurement does not mean that there is total agreement in all the disciplines. Perhaps, in light of continuing new development in theory and observation, the fundamental questions of physics are rightfully worthy of a FAQ followed by deep re-examination and discussion of *all* its premise. Until we really do have a Theory of Everything! So, based on all that, I'm left to consider that no measurement has ever confirmed any action with re-action that occurs faster than light. Instead, we have indications that particles can exchange localized (even at cosmological distances) information with themselves, apparently instantaneously, but that the localization never includes the rest
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Ron McFarland writes: If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query relating to relativity and QM. See question 6 in part 2 of the sci.physics FAQ, How does the gravity get out of the black hole?, at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part2/ The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles; and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape from black holes. Hal Finney
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Nice link, great topic. This does beg the question, is there an event horizon for gravitons, and presumably the answer for that would be the singularity. Here is something to ponder: do virtual gravitons generate more virtual gravitons? Consider a planet in circular orbit around its star. Consider the gravitational force of this system on an external body far away, e.g., a comet. The force on the comet would be due to the mass of the planet, plus the mass of the star, plus the gravitational energy of the star-planet system. So the gravitational field, an exchange of virtual gravitons, would be the source of new virtual gravitons to be exchanged with the comet, or in fact anything outside this system. This could extrapolate ad infinitum, as we take into account each virtual exchange of gravitons generating another virtual exchange of gravitons. Fred - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier Ron McFarland writes: If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query relating to relativity and QM. See question 6 in part 2 of the sci.physics FAQ, How does the gravity get out of the black hole?, at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part2/ The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles; and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape from black holes. Hal Finney
Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Greetings again to the list. It has been a while since I posted something to think about, and in that case I did a lot of arguing for my cause! I enjoyed it a lot, and I hope others did too. But I again must stress that I do not rise to the level where I can appreciate deep mathematical discussion, and so I hope that discussion on this topic that I will now raise can be expressed by logic (I have argued before that logic includes mathematics as a subset of logic but that logic also includes all things that mathematics seems to have no good way to define -- because mathematics is ultimately digital and so mathematics by its nature can only approximate the analog). Ok, on to the topic! :) Some experiments have indicated that gravity is associated with a force carrier, and that this force carrier moves somewhere below or at the speed of light. Experiments continue as the indications have not been absolutely proven. Perhaps I will be corrected on this, but it is my understanding that a force carrier is generally thought of as some sort of particle that transfers mass/energy between other particles. This presents a logical problem relative to black holes. Beyond the event horizon, nothing with mass can escape there from and make itself known to our observable universe. Apparently every particle has at least some mass, however tiny, else a black hole would be seen to radiate for reasons other than absorbsion of half of a virtual particle pair. (I always had trouble with that absorbsion mechanism of black hole evaporation, since it seemed logical to me that on the average 50% of what gets absorbed would be matter as we know it and 50% would be anti-matter, with an average net gain of zero absorbsion). The only logical way that I can fathom for energy to escape from a black hole, and express itself as gravity, is if the force carrier particle has absolutely no mass. Again, perhaps I will be corrected, but it is my understanding that gravity can only affect particles that have mass. But a particle expressed only as energy does not equate with e=mc^2 (e=0 * [the speed of light squared]) because e must then = 0. If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? Or could it be that gravity is, in reality, pure nothing -- that gravity is an expression of the case where e really does = absolutely zero? Is gravity really just an attempt by matter to interact with an absolute nothing? If so, then is a black hole really -- nothing? Could it be that gravity is expressed relative to the *inverse* of e=mc^2? Ron McFarland
