Thread: What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In some way or another, this is certainly always true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations or make elaborate descriptions just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, what if if they are already merged as best they can be?

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

Much less than mass, there is no implicit validated account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ...

*****

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

Suddenly, it decays. Necessarily it decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life, as usual. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this very same universe (somewhere "else").

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle. The daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. It would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would indeed result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being studiously ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are.

*****

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.

1) The Higgs boson doesn't give mass to anything. The Higgs field does.
2) Self interaction gives the Higgs boson its mass.

3) The Higgs field only provides fundamental particles with mass. Macroscopic objects get their masses largely by other means, so maybe asking for a full derivation of gravitation from the Higgs is not a viable idea (I'm just guessing here, you probably know more about it than I do).

1. Higgs boson interacts with its very own Higgs field, resulting in its mass, just like for any other massive particle
2. The Higgs boson is a mathematical consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying Higgs field. It was not introduced artifically at all
3. The origin of gravity in GR is simply the presence of any form of energy ( not just mass !! ), described by the Energy-Momentum-Tensor in the field equations
4. Gravity merges will the other fundamental forces in very high energy environments. An example for this would be the immediate vicinity of a black hole singularity. In order to describe the dynamics there a TOE is needed - this is very real indeed, and has measurable consequences, e.g. in how to calculate the life time of a black hole, or the nature of spacetime within the event horizon
5. Under a theory of quantum gravity no more singularities will occur in a black hole - what will happen could be something along these lines :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)

This avoids all the pitfalls introduced by ( unphysical ) singularities. Remember that GR does not incorporate quantum effects, so is not valid in the interior of a black hole.

6. I am not aware of any solutions to the Einstein Field Equations which yield gravity potentials in the order of 1/r. In fact to the best of my knowledge the existence of such a gravity potential can actually be formally ruled out via topological arguments, as described here :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The outside of a black hole is mathematically described either via a Schwarzschild Metric ( static ), or via the Kerr Metric ( angular momentum ) :

Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In both cases the gravitation field follows an inverse square law in the low energy approximation.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)

Oooh. Thanks for that. I hadn't come across that idea before. (Your link was a bit broekn; the final brace is outside the link)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Fuzzball (string theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oooh. Thanks for that. I hadn't come across that idea before. (Your link was a bit broekn; the final brace is outside the link)

Sorry

At the very bottom of the Fuzzball (cool name!) article there are four links to videos on the CERN document server. The videos are of lectures given by Samir Mathur - one of the workers who proposed the Fuzzball - with the title "The black hole information paradox and the fuzzball proposal".

Originally Posted by Zwirko

At the very bottom of the Fuzzball (cool name!) article there are four links to videos on the CERN document server. The videos are of lectures given by Samir Mathur - one of the workers who proposed the Fuzzball - with the title "The black hole information paradox and the fuzzball proposal".

Yep, this proposal is pretty interesting indeed, but still it is only a proposal at this stage because it assumes that such a thing as a string exists and is the basic building block of matter. There is no experimental evidence for this as per yet. Nonetheless, the whole idea is certainly very intriguing and elegant.

Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Re: the standard model particle physics.

Lots of good stuff there but I think the general perspective of it is all "pudded" up I would bet $100.00 to a six pack that the whole model will someday be entirely different.

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

This is a great question and I consider the Higg's to be ad hoc also. I believe mass can be described simply as the physical characteristic of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity. As for myself, I don't believe there are any such things as "magical pulling forces" (a priori forces) either, not in particles that "carry" forces or characteristics such as the mass characteristic carried by the Higgs. In the case of force carrying particles, instead such presently described particles I believe are only very short lived particles that are created by or involved in physical interactions which we presently explain by a priori forces. Einstein's idea of warped space also seems to me to be ad hoc, but at least it gets away from the idea of "a priori" forces or particle carrying forces like gravitons. Warped space might be considered a step higher than particle carrying forces but still distasteful concerning logic, in my opinion. Logic may not always be the best yard stick, but I believe now-a-days it seems almost absent from many mainstream explanations. The Higg's is a prime example in my opinion.

It seems that they're gearing up to claim evidence in support of the Higg's. If they do make such a claim, I think it will simply be based upon misinterpretations of observations.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

It seems that they're gearing up to claim evidence in support of the Higg's. If they do make such a claim, I think it will simply be based upon misinterpretations of observations.

Do you have any evidence for this claim ? What is it that leads you to believe that forces are not carried by vector bosons ? These force carrying particles are an integral part of the Standard Model - saying that this mechanism is wrong amounts to claiming the entire model is invalid. Now, no one here would dispute the fact that the Standard Model is incomplete, nor a very elegant solution, but on the other hand many predictions made by this model have been experimentally well proven over the years. I think saying that the entire model is wrong is an untenable statement; it's just that it's not very elegant, and certainly not complete, but at the same time it's a good foundation that permitted some valid predictions.

Do you have a suggestion for a better model to explain force interactions ?

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no?

Not in the Astronomy & Cosmology forum, no.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Acknowledged to be for real, by whom? (apart from yourself, that is)

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

I really don't understand why we are even wasting time on this. It can be easily shown mathematically that a spacetime with 3+1 macroscopic dimensions always has an inverse square law for gravitation :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really is nothing but simple geometry - this whole topic is a non-starter right from the beginning ?!

Markus Hanke,

Do you have any evidence for this claim ? What is it that leads you to believe that forces are not carried by vector bosons ? These force carrying particles are an integral part of the Standard Model - saying that this mechanism is wrong amounts to claiming the entire model is invalid. Now, no one here would dispute the fact that the Standard Model is incomplete, nor a very elegant solution, but on the other hand many predictions made by this model have been experimentally well proven over the years. I think saying that the entire model is wrong is an untenable statement; it's just that it's not very elegant, and certainly not complete, but at the same time it's a good foundation that permitted some valid predictions.

.....it's a good foundation that permitted some valid predictions.

I agree that this is the standard model's primary value. Models in physics have a numerical basis and are constructed for predictive capabilities. One cannot consider another model as an alternative unless it can make better predictions. If there were such a known alternative model it would already have initiated discussions. But one can consider alternative possibilities if the standard model does not in some way seem satisfying or non-predictive. So for consideration purposes including myself, some have proposed non-numerical alternatives as food for thought. And of course I cannot assert that the standard model is wrong, only that I think the force carrying particles which it proposes are ad hoc based.

A similar example is the supposed property carrying characteristic as proposed concerning the theoretical Higgs, relating to the OP.

Do you have a suggestion for a better model to explain force interactions ?

Since this is the Higg's related thread I bought up the force carrying particles as a similar idea to the property carrying assertion concerning the Higgs.

With the OP in mind I believe my best answer concerning an alternative possibility to the Higgs would by my statement above. I believe mass can be described more simply concerning its cause, as the physical characteristic of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity which creates mass, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity.

It seems that they're gearing up to claim evidence in support of the Higg's. If they do make such a claim, I think it will simply be based upon misinterpretations of observations.

(my quote above)

I have seen the collision(s) remnants that they claim show evidence for the Higgs. According to my understanding, it is based upon the energy profile of the remnant quark jets as having the profile of a Higgs particle break-down/ annihilation. Not that I am an expert, but such evidence alone seems greatly lacking concerning a logical conclusion of the existence of the Higgs.

As to alternatives to force carrying particles that deliver pulling forces, I believe no forces are needed concerning the atomic nuclei and that all can be explained by mechanical connections. As far as that goes, I don't believe there are any a priori forces of nature at all; it's much too complicated and requires what I believe are unnecessary complexities. If you would like I can start a related thread in the "new hypothesis" section.

forrest noble,

The origins of most mass (90-99% or so) in objects ranging in size from that of protons to the universe is not due to the Higgs mechanism. Also, I hope you are aware that gravitation is not a property of just mass. Fitting these points into the your picture may change things a bit.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

forrest noble,

The origins of most mass (90-99% or so) in objects ranging in size from that of protons to the universe is not due to the Higgs mechanism. Also, I hope you are aware that gravitation is not a property of just mass. Fitting these points into the your picture may change things a bit.

Your answer concerning the OP

1) The Higgs boson doesn't give mass to anything. The Higgs field does.
2) Self interaction gives the Higgs boson its mass.
3) The Higgs field only provides fundamental particles with mass. Macroscopic objects get their masses largely by other means, so maybe asking for a full derivation of gravitation from the Higgs is not a viable idea (I'm just guessing here, you probably know more about it than I do).

And I agree that this is the standard-model answer. But how exactly, concerning the mechanics, is this property of mass supposed to be transferred according to the model?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

And I agree that this is the standard-model answer. But how exactly, concerning the mechanics, is this property of mass supposed to be transferred according to the model?

Do you mean, how does the Higgs mechanism generate mass? It is an example of symmetry breaking:

In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the process in which gauge bosons in a gauge theory can acquire non-vanishing masses through absorption of Nambu-Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The simplest implementation of the mechanism adds an extra Higgs field to the gauge theory. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying local symmetry triggers conversion of components of this Higgs field to Goldstone bosons which interact with (at least some of) the other fields in the theory, so as to produce mass terms for (at least some of) the gauge bosons. This mechanism may also leave behind elementary scalar (spin-0) particles, known as Higgs bosons.
In the standard model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking.

Or, as you said "exactly", maybe a bit more detail is required:

In the standard model, the Higgs field is an SU(2) doublet, a complex spinor with four real components (or equivalently with two complex components), with a Standard Model U(1) charge of -1.

It transforms as a spinor under SU(2). Under U(1) rotations, it gets multiplied by a phase; this mixes the real and imaginary part of the complex spinor into each other, so this is not the same as two complex spinors mixing under U(1) (which would have eight real components between them), but instead is the spinor representation of the group U(2).
The Higgs field, through the interactions specified by its potential, induces spontaneous breaking of three out of the four generators ("directions") of the gauge group SU(2)×U(1), and three out of its four components would ordinarily amount to Goldstone bosons, if they were not coupled to gauge fields.

Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

And I agree that this is the standard-model answer. But how exactly, concerning the mechanics, is this property of mass supposed to be transferred according to the model?

Do you mean, how does the Higgs mechanism generate mass? It is an example of symmetry breaking:

In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the process in which gauge bosons in a gauge theory can acquire non-vanishing masses through absorption of Nambu-Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The simplest implementation of the mechanism adds an extra Higgs field to the gauge theory. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying local symmetry triggers conversion of components of this Higgs field to Goldstone bosons which interact with (at least some of) the other fields in the theory, so as to produce mass terms for (at least some of) the gauge bosons. This mechanism may also leave behind elementary scalar (spin-0) particles, known as Higgs bosons.
In the standard model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking.

Or, as you said "exactly", maybe a bit more detail is required:

In the standard model, the Higgs field is an SU(2) doublet, a complex spinor with four real components (or equivalently with two complex components), with a Standard Model U(1) charge of -1.

It transforms as a spinor under SU(2). Under U(1) rotations, it gets multiplied by a phase; this mixes the real and imaginary part of the complex spinor into each other, so this is not the same as two complex spinors mixing under U(1) (which would have eight real components between them), but instead is the spinor representation of the group U(2).
The Higgs field, through the interactions specified by its potential, induces spontaneous breaking of three out of the four generators ("directions") of the gauge group SU(2)×U(1), and three out of its four components would ordinarily amount to Goldstone bosons, if they were not coupled to gauge fields.

Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course this is the standard model explanation and I would have to study it in much detail to better understand it but believe this mechanism (as described) seems far too complicated to be real -- but maybe that's just me My explanation for mass according to my own model, is almost infinitely simpler and much more in accord with Ocamm's Razor if it was considered to have equal justification (that's the caveat). Here was my explanation again embolden below, to replace all of the above explanations of the standard model:

I believe mass can be totally explained concerning its cause, accordingly. Mass is: the physical attributes of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity which is determined by mutual interactions with the surrounding aether field (the ZPF) which creates its measurable characteristic, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity. As you may recall, my own model of gravity is an aether model of pushing gravity which includes my own equations.

I believe mass can be totally explained concerning its cause, accordingly. Mass is: the physical attributes of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity which is determined by mutual interactions with the surrounding aether field (the ZPF) which creates its measurable characteristic, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity. As you may recall, my own model of gravity is an aether model of pushing gravity which includes my own equations.

So, what about light?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

And I agree that this is the standard-model answer. But how exactly, concerning the mechanics, is this property of mass supposed to be transferred according to the model?

Do you mean, how does the Higgs mechanism generate mass? It is an example of symmetry breaking:

In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the process in which gauge bosons in a gauge theory can acquire non-vanishing masses through absorption of Nambu-Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The simplest implementation of the mechanism adds an extra Higgs field to the gauge theory. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying local symmetry triggers conversion of components of this Higgs field to Goldstone bosons which interact with (at least some of) the other fields in the theory, so as to produce mass terms for (at least some of) the gauge bosons. This mechanism may also leave behind elementary scalar (spin-0) particles, known as Higgs bosons.
In the standard model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking.

Or, as you said "exactly", maybe a bit more detail is required:

In the standard model, the Higgs field is an SU(2) doublet, a complex spinor with four real components (or equivalently with two complex components), with a Standard Model U(1) charge of -1.

It transforms as a spinor under SU(2). Under U(1) rotations, it gets multiplied by a phase; this mixes the real and imaginary part of the complex spinor into each other, so this is not the same as two complex spinors mixing under U(1) (which would have eight real components between them), but instead is the spinor representation of the group U(2).
The Higgs field, through the interactions specified by its potential, induces spontaneous breaking of three out of the four generators ("directions") of the gauge group SU(2)×U(1), and three out of its four components would ordinarily amount to Goldstone bosons, if they were not coupled to gauge fields.

Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course this is the standard model explanation and I would have to study it in much detail to better understand it but believe this mechanism (as described) seems far too complicated to be real -- but maybe that's just me My explanation for mass according to my own model, is almost infinity simpler and much more in accord with Ocamm's Razor if it was considered to have equal justification (that's the caveat). Here was my explanation again embolden below, to replace all of the above explanations of the standard model:

I believe mass can be totally explained concerning its cause, accordingly. Mass is: the physical attributes of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity which is determined by mutual interactions with the surrounding aether field (the ZPF) which creates its measurable characteristic, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity. As you may recall, my own model of gravity is an aether model of pushing gravity which includes my own equations.

I think you are confusing something here - the Higgs has nothing to do with gravitation. All forms of energy, momentum and stresses are sources of gravitation, as described by the Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity. Mass is only one particular form of energy...you don't need mass to get gravitation. It is all about energy, whether there is mass or not is irrelevant.
Furthermore, you have avoided my original question - how do you propose particles would interact if there are no force carrying bosons ?
Lastly, there is no experimental evidence for the existence of any kind of aether, nor is such a concept needed to explain anything. I think General Relativity provides a perfectly good model for gravitation.

All forms of energy, momentum and stresses are sources of gravitation, as described by the Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity. Mass is only one particular form of energy...you don't need mass to get gravitation

This is what I was getting at when I was trying to explain to forrest noble that the Higgs does not contribute all that much mass to nucleons, atoms, molecules and everyday objects that we can see - and, by extension, gravity isn't explained by the Higgs mechanism. Most of the mass of a nucleon is in fact energy. Quark-binding energy in simple terms. I'm pretty sure that on the quark scale of things the word "mass" does not have any meaning that can be easily understood except in the language of esoteric mathematics.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Of course this is the standard model explanation and I would have to study it in much detail to better understand it but believe this mechanism (as described) seems far too complicated to be real -- but maybe that's just me

Yep. It's just you; I know you would like the universe to be simpler (and think it should be or, even, is simple). But there is no reason to think that the universe has to be simple. In fact it is so amazingly complex and diverse that it is amazing we can understand and explain as much as we do.

The reason for posting that (fairly incomprehensible but already highly abbreviated) description was simply because you seemed to be implying that the Higgs mechanism was something ad-hoc that was just made up, with no real explanatory power (e.g. your use of the word "supposed"). In fact, it is part of a very successful theory. Not just a part of it, an inevitable consequence of it. That is why a failure to find the Higgs boson would, in some ways, be a great step forward as it would provide the opportunity for all sorts of new physics. Of course, finding it would also be a great step forward in confirming one of our most successful ever theories.

My explanation for mass according to my own model, is almost infinity simpler...

I don't see much in your explanation beyond "mass is property of matter". This doesn't allow you to explain why some particles have mass and photons don't, for example (something the Higgs mechanism does do).

As for your "pushing gravity" idea; puhleease ... that was shown to be utterly ridiculous a couple of centuries ago, wasn't it?

Why do people want to hang on to dead ideas like this so much.

Are you going to come up with a new phlogiston-based theory of combustion? And a neo-caloric explanation for heat? And how about those four (or was it five) elements...

Originally Posted by gburns

So, what about light?

My own model of light is an aether model of both light and gravity. The sensitivity of the MM experiment in the late 1880's was accordingly not sensitive enough to detect the aether nor has the design ever been appropriate for such detection of a gravity centered aether, whereby the aether accordingly accelerates downward, since it would accordingly be the source of gravity. My own model is now over 50 years old. For further discussion I could open up a thread in the "new ideas" section and then you could fire away Any further questions/ answers other than the Higgs boson I could direct there. Let me know.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I think you are confusing something here - the Higgs has nothing to do with gravitation. All forms of energy, momentum and stresses are sources of gravitation, as described by the Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity. Mass is only one particular form of energy...you don't need mass to get gravitation. It is all about energy, whether there is mass or not is irrelevant.

The basis for this comment was related to my own model being "infinitely simpler" right or wrong

Furthermore, you have avoided my original question - how do you propose particles would interact if there are no force carrying bosons ?

I believe the standard configuration of matter is wrong and that mechanical connections are made within the nucleus. The forces exerted to separate these nucleons accordingly resist physical connection which is a resistance of separation, concerning the Strong Interaction, the Strong Force, and the Weak Force. Both gravity and electromagnetism accordingly involve relatively simple field theory concerning differential pressures of the ZPF under specific circumstances. There accordingly would be no a priori pulling forces of nature at all, solely mechanical torque, pushing, and resistance forces. Of course I brought it up (my bad) but we could direct other such questions to "new ideas" if you wish

Lastly, there is no experimental evidence for the existence of any kind of aether, nor is such a concept needed to explain anything. I think

Yes, there seems to be no evidence as yet. But I'm working to change that

General Relativity provides a perfectly good model for gravitation.

Although GR has been very successful in many of its predictions, it fails in the quantum world as well as at the galactic scales. Models concerning the inclusion of dark matter often do not fit galactic orbital profiles very well, and in some cases no match can be made at all without calculated uneven inclusions, which I believe is no different from Ptolemaic epicycles.

Originally Posted by Strange

I know you would like the universe to be simpler (and think it should be or, even, is simple).

That's for sure. A simple understanding that matches observation.

]But there is no reason to think that the universe has to be simple. In fact it is so amazingly complex and diverse that it is amazing we can understand and explain as much as we do. The reason for posting that (fairly incomprehensible but already highly abbreviated) description was simply because you seemed to be implying that the Higgs mechanism was something ad-hoc that was just made up, with no real explanatory power (e.g. your use of the word "supposed").

The prime motivation for my own model more than 50 years ago, was that they competing theories at that time, were both having problems concerning observations and predictions, in my opinion. Both models proposed an expanding universe which I thought, and still think, is not justified and that the diminution of matter is a better solution.

I agree that the universe according to our present understandings of it, is very complicated but I think the explanations as you posted concerning the Higgs boson, are as far away from Occam's Razor as you can get. I understand the basis for these explanations is the standard model, of which the Higgs boson theoretically plays a big part. This explanation is based upon the math/ theoretical physics involved. But bottom line -- because it is so far from Occam's Razor in my opinion, I think most of it is wrong. I have my own model which I believe is far better. That doesn't mean that I think the model should be discarded as yet. It presently is the best thing going until something comes along that can make better predictions.

In fact, it is part of a very successful theory. Not just a part of it, an inevitable consequence of it. That is why a failure to find the Higgs boson would, in some ways, be a great step forward as it would provide the opportunity for all sorts of new physics. Of course, finding it would also be a great step forward in confirming one of our most successful ever theories.

I agree, but think any claim of its existence should by looked at using the utmost scrutiny. Everyone there, I think, believes in its existence and is highly motivated to find it -- which can skew ones best judgment.

I don't see much in your explanation beyond "mass is property of matter". This doesn't allow you to explain why some particles have mass and photons don't, for example (something the Higgs mechanism does do). As for your "pushing gravity" idea; puhleease ... that was shown to be utterly ridiculous a couple of centuries ago, wasn't it?

Why do people want to hang on to dead ideas like this so much.

When I formulated this model I was unaware that anyone else had ever thought of it before, but the idea made sense to me. This theory of gravity is one of the backbones of my model which includes the theoretical physics/maths. Accordingly no dark matter is needed.

In my model photons in motion are bent by gravity and that defines mass in my model. Of course they are not matter and their mass would be presently unmeasurable. Photons in my model are also only short lived particles that exist for only maybe a millisecond. They accordingly go in and out of existence within the wave which has a longevity according to its intensity.

Are you going to come up with a new phlogiston-based theory of combustion? And a neo-caloric explanation for heat? And how about those four (or was it five) elements...

No, I totally agree with the Kinetic Theory of heat/ EM radiation via atomic/ molecular oscillations. But as to its product EM radiation, there accordingly would be no such thing as pure energy, simply a force applied to something that exists over a distance traveled, would solely define energy.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I agree. Of course I think any claim of its existence should by looked at with the utmost scrutiny. Everyone there, I think, believes in its existence and is highly motivated to find it.

I'm not sure if you understand the symmetry breaking part of it completely (I surely don't) but I think it's important to understand it before you discount the motivation for "theorizing" it and then attempting to find it. Here's a great video of a particle physicist explaining the gist of it:Higgs Boson (extended interview footage) - YouTube

Also, I'm aware that the Higgs boson is a fluctuation of the Higgs field - the Higgs boson does not give mass to anything. Just like photons are a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field (evidence from your computer screen) the Higgs boson has much more mass/energy then the massless/low-energy photon and requires a lot of energy to make the Higgs field fluctuate and appear like a particle. The guy in the video breifly explains why some particles don't interact with the field because of the symmetry breaking.

Originally Posted by gburns

I'm not sure if you understand the symmetry breaking part of it completely (I surely don't) but I think it's important to understand it before you discount the motivation for "theorizing" it and then attempting to find it. Here's a great video of a particle physicist explaining the gist of it:Higgs Boson (extended interview footage) - YouTube

Also, I'm aware that the Higgs boson is a fluctuation of the Higgs field - the Higgs boson does not give mass to anything. Just like photons are a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field (evidence from your computer screen) the Higgs boson has much more mass/energy then the massless/low-energy photon and requires a lot of energy to make the Higgs field fluctuate and appear like a particle. The guy in the video breifly explains why some particles don't interact with the field because of the symmetry breaking.

You're right, I am unaware of the symmetry breaking aspect of the proposed Higgs. "....appears like a particle," I like that part of your statement. I'll take a look at the video as soon as I can, thanks. Now it's off to do last minute Christmas shopping. regards

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I believe the standard configuration of matter is wrong and that mechanical connections are made within the nucleus. The forces exerted to separate these nucleons accordingly resist physical connection which is a resistance of separation, concerning the Strong Interaction, the Strong Force, and the Weak Force. Both gravity and electromagnetism accordingly involve relatively simple field theory concerning differential pressures of the ZPF under specific circumstances. There accordingly would be no a priori pulling forces of nature at all, solely mechanical torque, pushing, and resistance forces. Of course I brought it up (my bad) but we could direct other such questions to "new ideas" if you wish

Do you have any evidence for this model - you are basically trying to invalidate several decades worth of observations in particle colliders. Pretty strong statements on your part, which will need equally strong evidence to support them. The entire concept of mechanical connections does not sit very well with the principles of quantum mechanics; for example, the experimentally well proven Heisenberg principle would not allow to determine exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time - this would make it kind of hard to have a mechanical connection between them !!!

I give you a counterexample of a prediction by the established Standard Model, which has now been observed in particle colliders :

cb(3P): New particle at the Large Hadron Collider discovered by ATLAS experiment

Funny the way a model which you say is based on completely false ideas is making correct predictions ??

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Do you have any evidence for this model - you are basically trying to invalidate several decades worth of observations in particle colliders. Pretty strong statements on your part, which will need equally strong evidence to support them. The entire concept of mechanical connections does not sit very well with the principles of quantum mechanics; for example, the experimentally well proven Heisenberg principle would not allow to determine exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time - this would make it kind of hard to have a mechanical connection between them !!!

According to this model particle spin is real, not just angular momentum. Mechanical connections in a nucleus would not violate Heisenberg's principle in that predictions involving location are unrelated to the mechanical correction concept. You are right, at least the perspectives of Quantum Mechanics would need to be changed but not necessarily the related quantitative aspects of it.

Do you have any evidence for this model - you are basically trying to invalidate several decades worth of observations in particle colliders.

I think I have lead the conversation too far off target (my bad) and apologize. Instead I have placed your comment/ question in a new thread and will answer your question(s) there.

BTW Markus, since we're rounding the far turn and heading form home, hope you and your family have a great holidays

Originally Posted by forrest noble

BTW Markus, since we're rounding the far turn and heading form home, hope you and your family have a great holidays

I second that, and wish the same to you and your family forrest noble

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

I really don't understand why we are even wasting time on this. It can be easily shown mathematically that a spacetime with 3+1 macroscopic dimensions always has an inverse square law for gravitation :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really is nothing but simple geometry - this whole topic is a non-starter right from the beginning ?!

Assumption. 3 + 1 ? The black-hole infinitely deep gravitational potential, dim = 3 + 2 , the black hole singular point constitutes another dimension, or else worm-holes and such make no sense. Why can't we admit that we just do not know?

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

the black hole singular point constitutes another dimension

How can a singularity or a point be a dimension? That makes no sense.

, or else worm-holes and such make no sense.

As we have no evidence that wormholes exist, I'm fine with that. (Even if its not true.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

the black hole singular point constitutes another dimension

How can a singularity or a point be a dimension? That makes no sense.

, or else worm-holes and such make no sense.

As we have no evidence that wormholes exist, I'm fine with that. (Even if its not true.)

If Light can't escape a Black Hole and traveling at the speed of light effects time. what forces times effects would you dismiss

Markus Hanke,

I give you a counter example of a prediction by the established Standard Model, which has now been observed in particle colliders :
cb(3P): New particle at the Large Hadron Collider discovered by ATLAS experiment
Funny the way a model which you say is based on completely false ideas is making correct predictions ??

The standard model including quark theory, is based upon many years of observation and analysis. Aspects of deciding on model details are often based upon a consensus perspective considering all the information available. To make predictions concerning particles of certain energies and profiles would be the objective of such a theory. Theories can last a very long time if there is no way available to falsify them. Credit should be given when verified predictions are made, and taken away when there is a lack of falsifiable possibilities concerning future observations. An example in the quark model concerns quark theory stating that quarks and gluons cannot be independently observed maybe because they are destroyed during particle separation. This may be true but one of the prime assets of a model is if it can make predictions that could falsify the model if observed. I believe this has been one of the main problems concerning most mainstream models and the Higgs prediction discussed in the OP. Now that they have a collider powerful enough to accordingly be able to find it if it exists. For reasons to justify all the money spent on the collider, there will be a strong motivation to find the Higgs, maybe with evidence that could be otherwise interpreted within the model, or outside of it.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Now that they have a collider powerful enough to accordingly be able to find it if it exists. For reasons to justify all the money spent on the collider, there will be a strong motivation to find the Higgs, maybe with evidence that could be otherwise interpreted within the model, or outside of it.

Sorry but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories of this nature; this might make for a good novel, but the real world of science just doesn't work this way. Besides, any results obtained from collider experiments must be independently verifiable, so unless you say that all research groups are in on the same conspiracy then this wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

An example in the quark model concerns quark theory stating that quarks and gluons cannot be independently observed because they are destroyed during particle separation. This may be true but one of the prime assets of a model is if it can make predictions that could falsify the model if observed. I believe this has been one of the main problems concerning most mainstream models and the Higgs prediction discussed in the OP. Now that they have a collider powerful enough to accordingly be able to find it if it exists.

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Quarks and gluons are not destroyed during particle separation; it is just that quarks only come in pairs or multiples, and gluons as being the vector bosons of the strong interaction are naturally only observable when quarks are present. These properties, however, do not make them unobservable - quarks were experimentally observed as early as 1968 in deep scattering tracings, and gluons were indirectly observed in 1979.
There would be several ways to directly falsify the Standard Model; the most obvious one would be the discovery of a particle that does not fit into any of the fields predicted by SM. Also, if any of the observed properties of a known particle differ in a major way from theoretical predictions we would be in trouble too. So yes, there are plenty of ways to falsify the model.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Theories can last a very long time if there is no way available to falsify them. ... An example in the quark model concerns quark theory stating that quarks and gluons cannot be independently observed because they are destroyed during particle separation.

Apart from the fact your description (and therefore, presumably, understanding) of the model is incorrect, it would be easy to falsify this aspect of the quarks properties: find a free quark!

So far, all predictions of the quark model have been confirmed, including the recent discovery of the ^χ_b(3P) particle.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

I really don't understand why we are even wasting time on this. It can be easily shown mathematically that a spacetime with 3+1 macroscopic dimensions always has an inverse square law for gravitation :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really is nothing but simple geometry - this whole topic is a non-starter right from the beginning ?!

Assumption. 3 + 1 ? The black-hole infinitely deep gravitational potential, dim = 3 + 2 , the black hole singular point constitutes another dimension, or else worm-holes and such make no sense. Why can't we admit that we just do not know?

I don't think you have even read the referenced article, nor do you seem to understand the principles behind what you are arguing.
Naturally we don't know for sure yet what happens in close proximity of a singularity; but this is only because we are still missing a consistent theory of quantum gravity. Once such a theory emerges it is obvious that no singularity actually exists within the event horizon. The emergence of a singularity is only due to us using General Relativity in a region of space-time where quantum effects become significant; GR isn't actually a complete model of space-time in that region. It is, however, a very good model outside the event horizon, and there we know space-time to be 3+1 dimensional through direct observation. Since anything inside the event horizon is not causally connected to the rest of the universe you might as well say there is a planet full of pink unicorns down there - it wouldn't have any consequence for our model of the world, nor would there be any way to prove or disprove it. In any case, a hyperbolic gravitational field is not physically possible anywhere within the observable parts of our universe. And didn't you say this was supposed to be a galactic gravitational field ? Not sure how we got from that down to black hole singularities, or what the two have to do with each other.

And just for the record :
1. A black hole has finite mass, hence its gravitational potential is also finite
2. In a space-time of 3+2 dimensions matter would not be stable, and particles could in theory decay into heavier particles. This is obviously completely contrary to observation.
3. There is not actually a singular point in black holes - see above
4. There is as of now no evidence that wormholes actually exist. A wormhole metric is mathematically a valid solution of the Einstein equations, but that doesn't mean that the energy configuration needed to create and stabilize them is physically possible.

Lastly then I really don't know where you get the idea from that we are dealing with 3+2 dimensions in the vicinity of a black hole ? That is just a blatantly false conjecture for which you have provided no derivation, evidence or explanation. Disappointing, considering that this is a science forum.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Quarks and gluons are not destroyed during particle separation; it is just that quarks only come in pairs or multiples, and gluons as being the vector bosons of the strong interaction are naturally only observable when quarks are present. These properties, however, do not make them unobservable - quarks were experimentally observed as early as 1968 in deep scattering tracings, and gluons were indirectly observed in 1979.
There would be several ways to directly falsify the Standard Model; the most obvious one would be the discovery of a particle that does not fit into any of the fields predicted by SM. Also, if any of the observed properties of a known particle differ in a major way from theoretical predictions we would be in trouble too. So yes, there are plenty of ways to falsify the model.

The basis for my statement is below:

Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can only be found within hadrons or mesons.

Quark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that some believe we could someday find free quarks within matter.
Advanced Particle Physics: Particle ... - Oleg Boyarkin - Google Books

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=17&...iw=911&bih=399

I think if they found some particle that did not fit the standard model they would add a hypothesis enabling the fit. This is the way that it's done, like epicycles, until a theory that better matches observation comes along. Recently they believe that they have seen evidence of a lack of quark symmetry concerning anti-particles. The result might be that they show that protons and anti-protons are not symmetrical. Would this disprove the standard model? I think not. Again I believe they can come up with addendum hypothesis to allow such asymmetry. Such a finding, if valid, I believe better matches observed reality in that it could readily explain why we observe so little anti-protons / anti-matter in the universe. The reason therefore would be based upon a shorter half-life of anti-protons.

One way that I have thought of to challenge the standard model was to show that all protons do not have the same mass, but instead vary a little (which I believe the do). Present mass measurements are done in bulk to obtain the presently stated accuracy, and measurements of a single proton are very difficult to accomplish and do not have the same precision. This would certainly be a jar to the standard model if the same particle varied in mass, even to the smallest extent. Also finding the aether would certainly cause concern for the model since it seemingly would result in many required changes.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Theories can last a very long time if there is no way available to falsify them. ... An example in the quark model concerns quark theory stating that quarks and gluons cannot be independently observed because they are destroyed during particle separation.

Apart from the fact your description (and therefore, presumably, understanding) of the model is incorrect, it would be easy to falsify this aspect of the quarks properties: find a free quark!

So far, all predictions of the quark model have been confirmed, including the recent discovery of the ^χ_b(3P) particle.

... it would be easy to falsify this aspect of the quarks properties: find a free quark!

This is one of many parts of the standard model that I think is wrong. I do not believe quarks or gluons are real. Instead I think the quarks and gluons are just part of a mathematical construct which enables valid predictions at the quantum level, but which do not exist as separate entities in reality. Instead I believe the quantum world is based upon strings, but only a 3+1 dimensional string theory such as my own. I think the Higgs boson is another hypothetically important but imaginary construct along with its proposed mechanisms. According to what I have read, there are a number of alternatives available if they do not find the Higgs.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Theories can last a very long time if there is no way available to falsify them. ... An example in the quark model concerns quark theory stating that quarks and gluons cannot be independently observed because they are destroyed during particle separation.

Apart from the fact your description (and therefore, presumably, understanding) of the model is incorrect, it would be easy to falsify this aspect of the quarks properties: find a free quark!

So far, all predictions of the quark model have been confirmed, including the recent discovery of the ^χ_b(3P) particle.

... it would be easy to falsify this aspect of the quarks properties: find a free quark!

This is one of many parts of the standard model that I think is wrong. I do not believe quarks or gluons are real. Instead I think the quarks and gluons are just part of a mathematical construct which enables valid predictions at the quantum level, but which do not exist as separate entities in reality. Instead I believe the quantum world is based upon strings, but only a 3+1 dimensional string theory such as my own. I think the Higgs boson is another hypothetically important but imaginary construct along with its proposed mechanisms. According to what I have read, there are a number of alternatives available if they do not find the Higgs.

Well, assuming that string theory is right, all fundamental particles are actually strings, so both quarks and gluons are ultimately only strings that vibrate and interact in a certain way. No one denies that, but t is wrong to say that they don't exist. The point here is that quarks are easier to describe mathematically than the much more generic string. It really depends exactly which problem you are looking at, and the relationship between a model of reality and reality itself is more of a philosophical question.
I hate to disappoint you though...string theory in its current form is not mathematically consistent in 3+1 dimensions. It's hard to explain why this is so unless you're quite familiar with the maths involved, but trust me, you actually really do need 10 or 26 dimensions to make it work. No one is particularly happy about it because it adds a whole new level of complexity, but unfortunately it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Well, assuming that string theory is right, all fundamental particles are actually strings, so both quarks and gluons are ultimately only strings that vibrate and interact in a certain way. No one denies that, but t is wrong to say that they don't exist. The point here is that quarks are easier to describe mathematically than the much more generic string. It really depends exactly which problem you are looking at, and the relationship between a model of reality and reality itself is more of a philosophical question.

I hate to disappoint you though...string theory in its current form is not mathematically consistent in 3+1 dimensions. It's hard to explain why this is so unless you're quite familiar with the maths involved, but trust me, you actually really do need 10 or 26 dimensions to make it work. No one is particularly happy about it because it adds a whole new level of complexity, but unfortunately it's a fact.

Somewhere above I explained that according to my own model there are no quarks, gluons, or a Higgs particle either. Although this model is a "string theory" it is far simpler and totally unrelated to well-known string-theory models. Primarily the only similarities are that the fundamental building blocks of matter are string-like and that vibrations are involved.

.... but it is wrong to say that they don't exist

Of course I agree it is wrong to say that these particles do not exist. I hope all that I said was that in my own model, or in my opinion -- they don't exist

....It really depends exactly which problem you are looking at, and the relationship between a model of reality and reality itself is more of a philosophical question.

I agree that we should realize that in the big picture much of theoretical interpretations of reality involve perspectives which have philosophical considerations.

the mass is only in the confinement field...each 'layer' has different energy potential,as spin is increased towards the centre of atom.so different bosons states exists..until you smash them apart :-)

Within the confinement fields of mass, could it be with collide-in the particle would it create the boson from an unknown dispersion energy release

yes..but in stable state the boson field is balanced..when particles collide the geometry causes large fluctuations in the shells

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Somewhere above I explained that according to my own model there are no quarks, gluons, or a Higgs particle either. Although this model is a "string theory" it is far simpler and totally unrelated to well-known string-theory models. Primarily the only similarities are that the fundamental building blocks of matter are string-like and that vibrations are involved.

Perhaps you could present this model to the members of this forum ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Perhaps you could present this model to the members of this forum ?

The entire theory and related technical papers can be found at pantheory.org. I started a thread here to explain the details of the model. I consider the model to be the ultimate example of Ocamm's Razor concerning its simplicity.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Perhaps you could present this model to the members of this forum ?

The entire theory and related technical papers can be found at pantheory.org. I started a thread here to explain the details of the model. I consider the model to be the ultimate example of Ocamm's Razor concerning its simplicity.

It is obvious that you have put a lot of time, effort and thought into your model - for that I applaud you. However, in the absence of a mathematical formalism of any kind it is not possible to extract any numerical predictions from this model, which unfortunately makes it impossible to quantitively verify any of its properties.
On a most fundamental level, I see no way to retrieve the effects of quantum mechanics from your purely classical model.
I should remind you also that while you might think your model is simplistic, if you were to develop a mathematical formulation of this you would more than likely find that things become very complicated very fast. Even a field description of your basic Pan particle would be exceedingly difficult due to their supposed properties and interactions. This is analogous to the mainstream String Theory - the basic principle of a vibrating string can be visualized by anyone, however, putting the maths together for this has proven to be much like opening Pandora's box.

It is obvious that you have put a lot of time, effort and thought into your model - for that I applaud you. However, in the absence of a mathematical formalism of any kind it is not possible to extract any numerical predictions from this model, which unfortunately makes it impossible to quantitatively verify any of its properties.

Look at the theory of gravity in the book starting on page 57A; it is a mathematical model. Look at the technical papers and you will also see a reformulation of the Hubble formula to calculate galactic distances. There is much math/ theoretical physics within the book that has quantitative predictions different from today's mainstream models.

Concerning string theory, mine would be a 3+1 dimensional model, completely different from present day string theory. I have not developed a mathematical analog of this aspect of the theory because it is in the hypothesis section of the book called the Exordium. If the model would develop interest I would expand this section of text with field theory. For this particular model I believe such a mathematical formalism of field theory would add little to the overall model since most everything can be easily explained without it. Until that time this hypothesis section could change without effecting the primary theory at all, which is a diminution of matter model and an aether-field model that proposes that there is no such thing as pure energy, "a priori" pulling forces/ "forces of nature," no Higgs, etc.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There is much math/ theoretical physics within the book that has quantitative predictions different from today's mainstream models.

Such as...?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

For this particular model I believe such a mathematical formalism of field theory would add little to the overall model since most everything can be easily explained without it.

Sorry to put this to you quite bluntly, but the above statement is complete nonsense. Without a proper mathematical formulation any theory is mostly useless because no quantitive statements are possible. Explanations based on a model, which is a theory's qualitative content, aren't enough.
I could for example explain to you General Relativity in a qualitative way - the presence of energy introduces space-time curvature, the effect of which we call gravitation. So what then ?? We have explained everything, yet the explanation is useless because it has no practical application; we couldn't establish the exact trajectory of an incoming asteroid, or tell by how much a ray of light is bend around a large mass, or how massive a star needs to be to collapse into a black hole at the end of its life-cycle, or by how much the atomic clock in a GPS satellite needs to be adjusted to compensate for gravitational time dilation. Sure you could explain all of these things, but you couldn't predict any of it with actual real-world numbers in the absence of a mathematical formulation.
Likewise in your model you could explain the mechanics of how an atom's nucleus is held together etc, but you couldn't predict exactly what happens to it in a scattering experiment, for example. As such, I'm afraid your model is currently of no use, because it has no real world applications, and cannot even be easily verified or falsified. Giving only explanations without any predictive powers is metaphysics at best, but this is not what you are trying to do.
The problem is - and this is a problem that you are sharing with many others on this forum - that you most likely are not able to do the maths in the first place. This is not something anyone will hold against you, because, let's face it, the maths involved are so advanced that, unless you are actually a physicist by trade, nobody could possible expect you to be familiar with it. But this is not the issue; the issue is, rather, that because you don't have the mathematical knowledge it will not be possible for you to fully understand the established models in theoretical physics, and how they fit together. And because you cannot fully understand them, you are not in a position to judge them wrong and say : "Look, all quantum physics are rubbish...I have that super simple theory of my own that explains everything much better and easier !". Sorry, but this just isn't how things work. Many minds greater than yours or mine have dedicated their entire lives to find descriptions, models and theories for the observable world around us, which is a process that is still ongoing and will still be ongoing for a long time. There are many gaps in our understanding of the universe, but they are being filled one at a time by sheer dedication and effort.
Forrest Noble, I have followed developments in theoretical physics for the past 20 years or so, and I can assure you that, if there was a simple mechanical string theory or model of fundamental forces in atomic nucleii of any kind, shape or form that works perfectly in 3+1 dimensions without need for all the complicated maths that goes with it, it would have been found long ago ! No physicist wants to spend days and days calculating matrices and scattering functions for a simple quark-quark interaction; unfortunately though it turned out long ago that this is what is currently required to reproduce all the various effects and interactions observed in particle collider experiments. It is just how the world works, and I will not be able to come along and explain everything with a simple mechanical model, and all the world of science will rejoice, throw away their supercomputers, and be able to calculate the outcome of their next scattering experiment by hand on an A4 page. And neither will you, or anyone else on this forum. It just isn't going to happen.
The only way forward is to put in the effort and years of work, and learn the maths and concepts involved in currently established models. Once these are understood, one is then in a position to recognize their weaknesses and shortcomings, and come up with viable suggestions as to how to overcome them.

Markus Hanke,

(My quote)

For this particular model I believe such a mathematical formalism of field theory would add little to the overall model since most everything can be easily explained without it.

(your quote)

Without a proper mathematical formulation any theory is mostly useless because no quantitive statements are possible.

For one to have a clear concept of how a proton, electron, neutron works within an atom you do not need maths. Concepts are all that are needed for hypothesis. For you to know the energy levels involved, the ejection velocity of an electron etc. you do need math. As I said before this beginning aspect of my model is hypothetical, not theoretical. The cosmological model is theoretical since it has the supporting maths. Before this particle aspect of the model could become theory some of its predicted observations would need to be observed. Before it could compete with the standard model particle theory it would need mathematical formalism. Presently the brunt of the entire theory is cosmological. In this aspect there is formalism concerning a mathematical theory of gravity, and a mathematical reformulation of the Hubble formula. Such theoretical physics is involved with the cosmological aspects of the theory.

There is no need for a Higgs particle in my model, I can explain why via the logic. The logic is that mass is solely determined by how differing particle configurations are effected by gravity.

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

If the weight of a body is known or can be measured on the Earth's surface, one can convert directly between weight and mass. So my own model of gravity explains the mechanics of the pushing forces of gravity concerning vortex mechanics and fluid dynamics of an aether field, and its magnitude of pushing is quantified by the universal gravitational constant.

The problem is - and this is a problem that you are sharing with many others on this forum - that you most likely are not able to do the maths in the first place.

Remember I stated that my model has lots of math in it. My major in college was math.

I have followed developments in theoretical physics for the past 20 years or so, and I can assure you that, if there was a simple mechanical string theory or model of fundamental forces in atomic nuclei of any kind, shape or form that works perfectly in 3+1 dimensions without need for all the complicated maths that goes with it, it would have been found long ago !

Before any model, however complicated or simple, could compete with the standard model it must be quantified. It should be able to first make predictions of what already has been observed. Next it must be able to make new predictions such as the Higgs prediction. My hypothetical particle model cannot compete at this level. It can however make predictions. One of these predictions is that particle mass is not constant but varies concerning parts per million. Another is that both particle and atomic spins are real, not just angular momentum. The biggest difference between the models is that my model predicts that there is no such thing as pulling forces of nature or any kind, not gravity, magnetism, strong force, weak force. No model could make such predictions if it were quantitative alone. One needs concepts to better understand such things.

As to following such things, I have been writing theory for 50 years and have seen much of the standard model evolve. I complain concerning the Higgs because I believe the proposed mechanism concerning the determination of mass is far too complicated to be real, in my opinion. In my opinion, everything in the universe can be generally understood at an elementary level without maths.

BTW -- Thanks for your long posting and time spent. Even though you greatly disagree you continue to be polite, as I hope you think I am. Thanks

string theory shows promise...look here String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Originally Posted by forrest noble

BTW -- Thanks for your long posting and time spent. Even though you greatly disagree you continue to be polite, as I hope you think I am. Thanks

Of course, this is absolutely essential ! Once we cease to be polite and factual, and have a civilized discussion between civilized individuals, then we might as well stop posting altogether. There is no need or place for rudeness here.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There is no need for a Higgs particle in my model, I can explain why via the logic. The logic is that mass is solely determined by how differing particle configurations are effected by gravity.

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

If the weight of a body is known or can be measured on the Earth's surface, one can convert directly between weight and mass. So my own model of gravity explains the mechanics of the pushing forces of gravity concerning vortex mechanics and fluid dynamics of an aether field, and its magnitude of pushing is quantified by the universal gravitational constant.

I disagree with you on this point, because I think it is circular reasoning - gravity is the result of energy, and energy is defined due to its interaction with gravity ? This is like the chicken-and-egg scenario - which one came first ? Of course you can say a particle's mass is determined by how it interacts with gravity ( after all the only way to measure mass is via gravitational forces ), but that would not explain why different particles have different masses, and, more importantly why their masses are exactly the values we observe them to be. Furthermore we would not actually be able to define a particle's mass in the absence of gravitational interactions ? Bear in mind also that all forms of energy are sources of the gravitational field, not just mass.
Btw, if the Higgs is a major problem for you, then please be informed that there are other alternative mechanisms for mass generation that do not require a Higgs :

Higgsless model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not a fan of aether models ( mainly because no evidence of any form of aether has ever been observed ), but if you want to go down that route - explaining mass via fluid dynamics would be pretty much equivalent to the Higgs formulation anyway. In both cases mass is obtained by ( in layman's terms ) "drag" caused by a background field ( aether or Higgs field ). Same principle at work, just the mathematical descriptions are different.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

One of these predictions is that particle mass is not constant but varies concerning parts per million.

No such variations have ever been observed to the best of my knowledge.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Another is that both particle and atomic spins are real, not just angular momentum.

You see this is where the problems come into play that I mentioned before - you cannot construct a working model of quantum mechanics from principles of classical mechanics. Quantum mechanical spin is not the same as classical spin; there are major differences :

1. A particle is not a spacially extended classic sphere ( microscopic "ball" ) and cannot be defined as such ( see Heisenberg Principle )
2. Spin is quantized and comes in 1/2 integer values - no equivalent for this in classical mechanics
3. There is a magnetic dipole moment associated with spin - again, this is unlike classical mechanics
4. Spin direction vectors obey the Pauli Exclusion principle, which cannot be explained in terms of classical mechanics
5. Spin distributions are subject to laws of quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics - Fermi-Dirac or Einstein-Bose distributions apply - this cannot be explained in terms of classic rotational spin
6. In multi-particle systems the spin does not generally add linearly as is the case in classical mechanics

If you have followed physics for 50 years than you know yourself that the above points are well verified and documented experimentally. I can give the appropriate references if and when required.

Markus Hanke,

I disagree with you on this point, because I think it is circular reasoning - gravity is the result of energy, and energy is defined due to its interaction with gravity?

In my own model there is no such thing as pure energy. EM radiation is accordingly physical waves in a physical aether field. Other energy is force times distance based upon relative motion. Gravity according to my model is the result of the acceleration of the field relative to the entities being affected by it. The extent gravity can effect these entities is described numerically by their weight and/ or mass.

Btw, if the Higgs is a major problem for you, then please be informed that there are other alternative mechanisms for mass generation that do not require a Higgs

I understand there are other alternative mainstream models, but am certain none are as simple as my own, which I have already explained in its entirety. I do not think adding any quantifiable physics could make any predictions other than the mass/ weight count itself which has been measured for most all particles and matter, with neutrinos and short lived particles being the exceptions since those are only guesstimated according to what version of quantum physics is being used.

In both cases mass is obtained by (in layman's terms ) "drag" caused by a background field ( aether or Higgs field ). Same principle at work, just the mathematical descriptions are different.

This is true for my model but do not think it can be so easily explained regarding drag. Based upon the explanation that Slang posted on this thread, the theoretical Higgs mechanism seems to be very complicated since it reflects the mathematics being used.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my own model there is no such thing as pure energy. EM radiation is accordingly physical waves in a physical aether field. Other energy is force times distance based upon relative motion. Gravity according to my model is the result of the acceleration of the field relative to the entities being affected by it. The extent gravity can effect these entities is described numerically by their weight and/ or mass.

Like I said already on several occasions, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as Aether exists; many experiments have been confirmed over the years, all of which came out negative. Indeed, aether is not needed in any established theory.
Btw, this model of EM radiation couldn't explain Wave-Particle Duality, which, in contrast to aether, is well observed and documented.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I understand there are other alternative mainstream models, but am certain none are as simple as my own, which I have already explained in its entirety. I do not think adding any quantifiable physics could make any predictions other than the mass/ weight count itself which has been measured for most all particles and matter, with neutrinos and short lived particles being the exceptions since those are only guesstimated according to what version of quantum physics is being used.

Again, like I said before - your model, being based on classical mechanics will fail to explain any quantum mechanical phenomena such as spin, Heisenberg uncertainty etc. And again, all of these are well verified experimentally, unlike your aether. Also, if one was to put your model into a proper mathematical description, it would become just as complicated. Since you deny the existence of energy (????) I don't even know how you would go about putting maths around your ideas.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This is true for my model but do not think it can be so easily explained regarding drag. Based upon the explanation that Slang posted on this thread, the theoretical Higgs mechanism seems to be very complicated since it reflects the mathematics being used.

Yes, the Higgs mechanism is complicated, at least mathematically. Conceptually though, the "drag" picture pretty well captures the principle of how the Higgs field works.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Like I said already on several occasions, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as Aether exists; many experiments have been confirmed over the years, all of which came out negative. Indeed, aether is not needed in any established theory.
Btw, this model of EM radiation couldn't explain Wave-Particle Duality, which, in contrast to aether, is well observed and documented.

Again, like I said before - your model, being based on classical mechanics will fail to explain any quantum mechanical phenomena such as spin, Heisenberg uncertainty etc. And again, all of these are well verified experimentally, unlike your aether. Also, if one was to put your model into a proper mathematical description, it would become just as complicated. Since you deny the existence of energy (????) I don't even know how you would go about putting maths around your ideas.

As in the above, this model I believe explains everything that QM explains using the same mathematics, but with a different perspective concerning hidden variable that requires a statistical approach like QM.

...Since you deny the existence of energy (????)

You are correct concerning my model. Pure energy is meaningless in this model, the same as it was 150 years ago before Einstein. Such energy instead would be the energy of particle's relative motion and/ or the energy of physical corpuscular constituted waves. E = F x D and accordingly nothing more.

Again, like I said before - your model, being based on classical mechanics will fail to explain any quantum mechanical phenomena such as spin, Heisenberg uncertainty etc. And again, all of these are well verified experimentally, unlike your aether. Also, if one was to put your model into a proper mathematical description, it would become just as complicated. Since you deny the existence of energy (????) I don't even know how you would go about putting maths around your ideas.

Like I said already on several occasions, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as Aether exists; many experiments have been confirmed over the years, all of which came out negative. Indeed, aether is not needed in any established theory.

I have an aether confirmation experiment in the works. It uses two precision nanosecond timers about a mile apart connected by two fiber optic cables. One timer should be about 1 mile above the other in altitude with the two cables stretched between the timers. My theory of gravity proposes the aether is coming straight down into the Earth at a velocity calculated to be roughly 40 mph. Michelson Morley and all other related experiments to date could not detect an aether moving so slowly or moving vertically. So I predict the speed of light down vs. up is different, and that down is 40 mph faster than the speed going up. But the speed of light would still be constant relative to the aether however. Such portable nanosecond event timers have only been available for a few years and the experiment has some expense to it (timers and cables) and the labor time involved (maybe 6 months) explaining why I have not conducted it before.

If the experiment turns out the way that I expect it to, it will probably take theorists many years to digest the results of it even after the results have been confirmed. There will be many attempted explanations to otherwise explain it.

Btw, this model of EM radiation couldn't explain Wave-Particle Duality, which, in contrast to aether, is well observed and documented. Also, if one was to put your model into a proper mathematical description, it would become just as complicated.

Particle wave duality is very simple to explain in this model concerning the double slit experiment and others. Light accordingly both involves particulates of aether and waves of aether at the same time. As both photons and waves are created by the light source both pass through one of the two slits. Waves only pass through the undirected slit. The waves from both sides interfere with the photon(s) passing through just one side and we get the observed interference patterns. This I believe is simple to understand.

Quantum entanglement is also simple to explain and accordingly understand. Electrons, photons or other particulates start in close proximity. This creates what is called entanglement which results in the case of electrons from electron waves, aka aether waves (or other) passing from one electron to the other. Like within an atomic shell one will be positioned by these mutual waves where one electron will adopt a spin up condition and the other spin down position to enable their proximity, else one will be rejected from the shell as is the case for three electrons in a shell. Then they are sent off in opposite directions then tested/examined as to their spin orientation. One will have spin up and the other spin down. It is not easy to change the directional spin of an electron or other spinning particle because they accordingly behave like a gyroscope because of their great spin momentum. There accordingly is no mystery at all to it based upon an aether model and the related interpretation I just explained. The same maths and probabilities would apply concerning the quantum world, but a different perspective would be used.

Again, like I said before - your model, being based on classical mechanics will fail to explain any quantum mechanical phenomena such as spin, Heisenberg uncertainty etc. And again, all of these are well verified experimentally, unlike your aether.

Particle spin in my model is real spin, it's that simple. The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is valid in my model also, not because it is impossible to know both a particle's location and velocity at the same time, but because there is presently no known way to test for one characteristic without interfering with the other characteristic.

Yes, the Higgs mechanism is complicated, at least mathematically. Conceptually though, the "drag" picture pretty well captures the principle of how the Higgs field works.

This Higgs drag concept has some conceptual commonality with my own model

Happy New Year 2012

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being studiously ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are.

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.

hyperbolic vs parabolic 005 downsized .jpg
No Trouble with Tribbles


There is no trouble with Birkhoff’s Theorem which says: All gravity fields (including BHs’) act like normal Newtonian fields because all gravity fields drop out of GR naturally and so must be “asymptotically flat”, that is, they must vanish at large distances, i.e. they must follow an inverse square law.

BUT, Birkhoff is based on the particulars of the massive bodies that are treated, like stars; such particulars as the metric are used as premises. The theorem says any spherically symmetric field must be asymptotically flat because any mass already behaves as if all its mass was concentrated at the center. It already behaves like a point mass. So, Birkhoff should rule out the hyperbolic (1/kr) supermassive Black-Hole singular galactic gravitational field.

Yet, none of the BH scenarios that are theoretically covered can be considered real. All real BHs are perturbed beyond recognition by their immense quantities of environmental matter and energy, including enormous external gravity fields. Such fields emanate from huge galactic disks or from other whole galaxies with their own embedded supermassive BHs.

Real conditions should invalidate the theorem.

One critical consideration is that black-holes are NOT mere point masses. They have been shown by Kretschmann and Schwartzchild to be physically real as infinitely dense point particles (within Heisenberg limits) with an infinitely deep gravitational potential well. They are NOT like a planet or a star. This is not properly reflected in the metrics with their singularities necessarily excluded, and is not adequately treated by Birkhoff, or else it represents an exception. This observation may indicate a flaw or shortcoming in the way that general relativity is interpreted for spacetimes in the vicinity of black-holes, particularly near the singularity at r = 0.

Birkhoff used the Schwartzchild Metric. But, he could not rightly use the existence of an infinitely deep gravitational well or an infinitely dense point particle because these singular infinities cannot be handled normally. “The physics at a singularity is not well defined.”

It is far easier to accept the possibility of a flaw or exception than to accept the idea of some sort of unfalsifiable Dark Matter comprised of, say, undetectable WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). By their very nature WIMPs are supposed to be so “weakly interacting” that they cannot even show up in particle accelerator experiments. The WIMP hypothesis is formulated to be as unfalsifiable as any of the other Dark Matter proposals. As such, it does not merit the label “science”. It is more like science fiction.

So, an hyperbolic (F = GMm/kr) supermassive BH galactic gravity field is possible after all: k = constant = 1m (S.I.), for dimensional integrity. Einstein referred to his equations as being hyperbolic/elliptical in nature. That is, hyperbolic geometry is not outside the realm of GR.

Kretschmann’s invariance and Schwartzchild’s analysis mean that the singularity at the core of a BH is physically real. From our external frame of reference, the exact location of a BH singularity cannot be found because of the Heisenberg limit. So, from our external perspective, a BH core density and central gravity strength cannot be directly “measured” to be “infinite”. But, mathematically, it is so. And, elementary analytic geometry says that an infinitely deep graphical gravity potential growing from an hugely heavy infinitely dense point mass MUST be asymptotic in nature (NOT asymptotically flat). By symmetry, the other arm of the graphical curve must be asymptotic too, the definition of a hyperbola.

If you can collaborate on a paper, let us prove that an hyperbolic spacetime geometry around a realistic supermassive black-hole can be genuine and that the postulated hyperbolic (1/kr) field can, indeed, account for all effects currently ascribed to so-called “Dark Matter”. As a partner, of course, I shall do a yeoman’s share of work, including the scut-work of referencing & literature search. I am in an ideal position to do this!

garyakent@aol.com

"It is far easier and demonstrates much less intelligence to shoot down an idea than to show how to make it work."

I really don't know why this is still going on. Gary, I am away from home at the moment and don't have access to a proper computer, but when I get back I will give you the general proof as to why any conservative force field, not just gravity, must always obey an inverse square law given three spatial dimensions. As you will see this follows from first principles in geometry. You will also see that the field geometry is not dependent on the nature of the source, or the choice of coordinates. And I will use my own maths for this, no more references. I don't normally use maths on this forum because a lot of members here won't understand it, but in this case I shall make an exception. In any case the proof is very simple and elementary, and applies to any force field which is conservative.

I don't know why I even bother to re-invent the wheel for you, but here is the proof anyway in PDF format :

http://www.hankefamily.net/InverseSquareLaw.pdf

This isn't just one, but two proofs using different methods. As you can see neither of these depend on the structure of the field source, so it doesn't matter whether the source is an atomic nucleus or a black hole; the result is the same. The law is always of inverse-square form, which is a consequence of first geometric principles.
And before you even start lamenting the fact that we actually live in a 4-dimensional world - this proof can easily be generalized into 3+1 dimensions by taking the potential A(r) to be a contravariant vector, and substituting the div operator with the covariant derivative. The maths are somewhat more complicated, but the result is the same in the end.

EDIT : Sorry I missed the last three steps - file is now updated.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

1) The Higgs boson doesn't give mass to anything. The Higgs field does.
2) Self interaction gives the Higgs boson its mass.

3) The Higgs field only provides fundamental particles with mass. Macroscopic objects get their masses largely by other means, so maybe asking for a full derivation of gravitation from the Higgs is not a viable idea (I'm just guessing here, you probably know more about it than I do).

Neutrons, protons and electrons are not fundamental particles? They do not have mass according to some hazy Higgs field? The universe is not composed of neutrons, protons and electrons? Almost all the mass in the universe comes from hydrogen, deuterium and helium; simple composites of protons, neutrons and electrons. Are you saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? A large aggregation of atoms in a macroscopic body attains mass by means of its mere aggregation and not by means of the Higgs field and Higgs boson? Higgs is a quantum particle, the Higgs field is a quantum field. If gravity could be worked out from the inherent implications of Higgs, we would have quantum gravity; just one step away from the Holy Grail of a TOE or GUT. I meant this facetiously, but it is not really a joke. Of course, we already have several forms of quantum gravity, but none of them predict anything uniquely - in other words, they appear to be useless. A theory that cannot predict competently is no theory at all.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Zwirko

1) The Higgs boson doesn't give mass to anything. The Higgs field does.
2) Self interaction gives the Higgs boson its mass.

3) The Higgs field only provides fundamental particles with mass. Macroscopic objects get their masses largely by other means, so maybe asking for a full derivation of gravitation from the Higgs is not a viable idea (I'm just guessing here, you probably know more about it than I do).

Neutrons, protons and electrons are not fundamental particles?

Why do you say that? No one suggested that, did they?

As artificial as saccharine

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

1. Higgs boson interacts with its very own Higgs field, resulting in its mass, just like for any other massive particle.

This is hypothetical. The Higgs has yet to be confirmed to actually exist. Such statements, proffered as if they are fact, are exactly what is meant by Lev Landau’s comment “Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt.”

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

2. The Higgs boson is a mathematical consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying Higgs field. It was not introduced artificially at all.

All fundamental fields have a particle analog and vice versa. Does not one have to “postulate” some kind of mechanism like “spontaneous symmetry breaking”? Is not such a targeted postulate a new concept that can be viewed as an ad hoc splint on the standard model of particle physics? When Higgs came up with his particle and field, it was hailed as a new idea that could usher in a new paradigm. So, it was NOT implied by theory at the time. It is as artificial as saccharine.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

3. The origin of gravity in GR is simply the presence of any form of energy ( not just mass !! ), described by the Energy-Momentum-Tensor in the field equations.

Goody. So what? I am not proposing an origin of gravity. GR is a phenomenological theory in some ways, that is, it is a mathematical description of the way things ARE, but not necessarily a formula for WHY they are that way. The WHY is what we usually mean when we ask about an “origin”. Mathematically describing is not the same as “explaining”.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

4. Gravity merges will the other fundamental forces in very high energy environments. An example for this would be the immediate vicinity of a black hole singularity. In order to describe the dynamics there a TOE is needed - this is very real indeed, and has measurable consequences, e.g. in how to calculate the life time of a black hole, or the nature of spacetime within the event horizon.

The merger of the fundamental forces at high energies is a hypothesis that has not been proven. In fact, this is why super-colliders were built in the first place. The experiments that are done with these instruments are largely meant to find evidence for or against this idea. To assume it as a fact that explains other phenomena is to use it as a postulate in a hypothesis that itself must be proven. Such hypotheses cannot then be taken as fact. They remain unproven. To state them as if they are fact is not quite Kosher.

Tell me. How are we to measure the lifetime of a black hole? How are we to make measurements of the nature of spacetime inside the event horizon of a black hole? The only thing we can actually do is to look at the gravitational effects (and perhaps the electric charge effects) external to a black hole. We already have proof, if we choose to view it this way, that a super-massive galactic black hole contains a singularity because it produces a gravitational field with constant orbital velocity distribution v = (GM)^1/2, just as would be expected from an hyperbolic field.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

5. Under a theory of quantum gravity no more singularities will occur in a black hole - what will happen could be something along these lines :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)

This avoids all the pitfalls introduced by (unphysical ) singularities. Remember that GR does not incorporate quantum effects, so is not valid in the interior of a black hole.

Karl Schwartzschild would strongly disagree. The Kretschmann invariance would also be at odds with the notion that the singularity at the center of a black hole is artificial and that any kind of coordinate change (a new metric) or theory accomplishing the same thing (quantum) will remove them. This is an assumption or speculation that cannot be used as if it was a fact. The singularity at the center of a black hole is presently regarded as a physical fact because of analyses like Schwartzschild’s and Kretschmann’s.

No theory of quantum gravity has been shown to be valid. A speculative hypothesis like super-string theory cannot be used to refute facts like Schwartzschild’s treatment of his metric under GR and Kretschmann’s invariance.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

6. I am not aware of any solutions to the Einstein Field Equations which yield gravity potentials in the order of 1/r. In fact to the best of my knowledge the existence of such a gravity potential can actually be formally ruled out via topological arguments, as described here :

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The outside of a black hole is mathematically described either via a Schwarzschild Metric ( static ), or via the Kerr Metric ( angular momentum ) :

Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In both cases the gravitation field follows an inverse square law in the low energy approximation.

They cannot say what happens at the high energy end of the scenario (inside black holes in close proximity to the singular point mass).

Approximation? What do you mean? That the above “principles” may be just approximations is what I am claiming to be a possible mistake.

Anyway, this is all just a restatement of Birkhoff’s Theorem which is interpreted as saying that the distribution of matter within a body has no influence on the mathematical form of the gravitational field that it engenders. Birkhoff also is regarded as saying that such a field must be “asymptotically flat” which is translated as “having no asymptotes” or “follows an inverse square relation”. It would specifically exclude an hyperbolic gravitational field.

I am only trying to point out an inconsistency between conventional wisdom concerning Birkhoff’s Theorem and its congeners and Schwartzschild/Kretschmann. I think there must be a loophole in Birkhoff and its brethren or a way to interpret them that would allow for a black hole singularity as a unique feature of a super-heavy mathematical point mass (within Heisenberg limits) with infinite density and an infinitely strong gravitational field at the center. If one must allow singularities as physically real, by analytic geometry they must possess an asymptote near the abscissa of a field strength diagram and by symmetry, they must possess another asymptote near the ordinate. This is virtually the definition of a hyperbolic field.

The motivation for this is that, as a postulate, it can be combined with other things that we know to produce a better explanation for Dark Matter and the anomalous orbital velocity distributions in galaxies and galactic clusters. This combined hypothesis would explain all the other phenomena that are used to tout Dark Matter.

It would be worth it to do. The consequence would be momentous. It would produce a major paradigm shift. This is why I persist in promulgating the idea.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Re: the standard model particle physics.

Lots of good stuff there but I think the general perspective of it is all "pudded" up I would bet $100.00 to a six pack that the whole model will someday be entirely different.

Yesss! ! ! But do not ruffle too many feathers with the accusation that particle physicists and cosmologists are dealing with some kind of resurrection of Aristotelian physics. Epicycles! Egad!

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

This is a great question and I consider the Higg's to be ad hoc also. I believe mass can be described simply as the physical characteristic of matter that when interacting with other matter displays the characteristic behavior that we describe as gravity, for reasons explained by a valid theory of gravity. As for myself, I don't believe there are any such things as "magical pulling forces" (a priori forces) either, not in particles that "carry" forces or characteristics such as the mass characteristic carried by the Higgs. In the case of force carrying particles, instead such presently described particles I believe are only very short lived particles that are created by or involved in physical interactions which we presently explain by a priori forces. Einstein's idea of warped space also seems to me to be ad hoc, but at least it gets away from the idea of "a priori" forces or particle carrying forces like gravitons. Warped space might be considered a step higher than particle carrying forces but still distasteful concerning logic, in my opinion. Logic may not always be the best yard stick, but I believe now-a-days it seems almost absent from many mainstream explanations. The Higg's is a prime example in my opinion.

Lev Landau was a Nobel Prize winning particle physicist who interacted a lot with cosmologists. He said “Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt.” He might have also been referring to his quantum chromodynamics brethren. And, yesss! ! ! I do think that GR as given by Einstein is largely a phenomenological theory that mathematically states things as they ARE, but is silent on WHY they are that way.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

It seems that they're gearing up to claim evidence in support of the Higg's. If they do make such a claim, I think it will simply be based upon misinterpretations of observations.

They are thrashing around. They work so hard to pud things up. They will always be able to invent splints for their broken theories. It is so shot through with ad hoc argument that we cannot tell what is inherently implied by theory and what is just a system of sophisticated band-aids. Misinterpretation is what makes research. “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called RESEARCH!”

Gary, you have quite a nick for philosophy, I commend you on that. I should probably have been more careful in wording some of my comments. A few comments :

This is hypothetical. The Higgs has yet to be confirmed to actually exist. Such statements, proffered as if they are fact, are exactly what is meant by Lev Landau’s comment “Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt.”

I completely agree, I never meant to imply that the Higgs is a fact. I am perfectly aware that the experimental evidence is still outstanding. On the other hand I think you knew precisely that I was merely trying to explain how the mechanism works without implying anything, so careful with the rhetoric please.

All fundamental fields have a particle analog and vice versa. Does not one have to “postulate” some kind of mechanism like “spontaneous symmetry breaking”?

Again I agree, but viewed in this way all new ideas are ad-hoc. I think there is nothing wrong with postulating anything, so long as there is a way to experimentally verify the outcome; this is what is under way in the case of the Higgs.

Goody. So what? I am not proposing an origin of gravity.

Refer to your OP : "Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass.(...)". I was merely trying to relate to this comment in your OP.

The merger of the fundamental forces at high energies is a hypothesis that has not been proven.

No it hasn't been proven, you are right. There will be no direct proof of this until we have much more powerful accelerators. It would, however, make perfect sense; and apparently I am not alone with that opinion.

Tell me. How are we to measure the lifetime of a black hole?

In a particle accelerator. Its lifetime is postulated to be directly related to its mass - a very small BH would have a short lifespan, in the order of magnitude of elementary particles. It would then evaporate via Hawking radiation. Given a powerful enough accelerator this could be experimentally observed ( it's not currently do-able though ).

We already have proof, if we choose to view it this way, that a super-massive galactic black hole contains a singularity because it produces a gravitational field with constant orbital velocity distribution v = (GM)^1/2, just as would be expected from an hyperbolic field.

No we don't. And I have shown you already in post 62 that a hyperbolic gravitational field is an impossibility in a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. I am still awaiting a response to that, by the way.

The Kretschmann invariance would also be at odds with the notion that the singularity at the center of a black hole is artificial

No it wouldn't, because Riemann geometry is not a complete model of space-time inside an event horizon, because it does not incorporate quantum effects. The Kretschman invariant, just like the curvature tensor of which it is a complete contraction, is only defined on a smooth, continuous Riemann manifold.
You have no proof whatsoever that such a thing as a physical singularity actually exists; you cannot proof that it does, and neither can I proof that quantum effects really do play a role. Once everything is said and done this discussion is purely academic anyway since the region of spacetime inside the event horizon isn't causally connected to the rest of the universe.
What I do say to you, however, is that certain aspects like the information paradox, or the fact that black holes have a finite lifetime, are not easily explainable by the infinite-density-singularity model.

They cannot say what happens at the high energy end of the scenario (inside black holes in close proximity to the singular point mass).

Precisely.

I think there must be a loophole in Birkhoff and its brethren or a way to interpret them that would allow for a black hole singularity as a unique feature of a super-heavy mathematical point mass (within Heisenberg limits) with infinite density and an infinitely strong gravitational field at the center.

Well, this is merely your own humble opinion, is it not ? I see no reason why BH need to be any different than other gravitational sources; macroscopically a BH has finite mass, and finite energy. Where is the need for them to be different in any way ?

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

They are thrashing around. They work so hard to pud things up. They will always be able to invent splints for their broken theories. It is so shot through with ad hoc argument that we cannot tell what is inherently implied by theory and what is just a system of sophisticated band-aids. Misinterpretation is what makes research. “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called RESEARCH!”

To me this reads like just another one of the old "conspiracy theory" arguments. Argumenting in this way means you can discredit any and all scientific findings by saying "they found that because they wanted/had to/needed to to find it !"
I'm sorry but I don't buy into that sort of rubbish. If you truly believe that this is what is happening then there is no point in even having any discussion here, because there is no way to objectively verify or reject given data.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no?

Not in the Astronomy & Cosmology forum, no.

Come off it. This forum is full of speculation and half-baked personal theories. Moderators should either throw them all into the Fringe category or throw none of them in. I favor “none” because what is fringe is subjective and tossing a post into this category is tantamount to censorship because 80% of readers will not follow a post into that category. Cutting readership so much will almost guarantee that there will be few serious comments and no real discussion. This is bad.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Acknowledged to be for real, by whom? (apart from yourself, that is)

The hyperbolic supermassive black hole galactic gravitational field was mentioned by Michel Rowan-Robinson in a paper he wrote shortly after the announcement of the accelerating expansion rate of the universe. He said that he attended a symposium where a speaker dwelled on it at length. The guy was not laughed off the dais. The hyperbolic field is not my idea. It has been proposed before and there are theoretical treatments that I do not pretend to be able to duplicate.

This is why I need a collaborator. I certainly can help write a paper, but I need someone with better credentials than I in order to get it published. Also, if there is to be references to GR, I need someone who can make a credible mathematical argument that would satisfy editors and referees (no dumb mistakes). I am studying GR, but it will be many months before I can assemble a mathematical edifice that can even begin to serve as a foundation for the hyperbolic field. This is too urgent. It cannot wait.

The consequences of the hyperbolic field, if it can be confirmed, are momentous. Acceptance would cause a paradigm shift. The hyperbolic field explains everything that Dark Matter explains and it does so without postulating oddball new particles that have become so hard to find that their existence constitutes an unfalsifiable proposition. Such particles have fallen below the detection limits of all known detection methods. Or else they have become a moving target as one energy range after another is eliminated and new, less plausible ranges are invoked to save them, such ranges being outside the scope of known detection methods. The HBH field does not invoke new fields either, nor whole populations of tiny dark black holes. In short, it is more parsimonious than any other explanation for the anomalous orbital velocity distribution seen in galaxies and galactic clusters. It is a simpler explanation for all the other phenomena that have been ascribed to Dark Matter.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

This is why I need a collaborator. I certainly can help write a paper, but I need someone with better credentials than I in order to get it published. Also, if there is to be references to GR, I need someone who can make a credible mathematical argument that would satisfy editors and referees (no dumb mistakes). I am studying GR, but it will be many months before I can assemble a mathematical edifice that can even begin to serve as a foundation for the hyperbolic field. This is too urgent. It cannot wait.

Save yourself the trouble, because the inverse square law is a direct consequence of the GR field equations in the weak field limit. As a tensor equation this is of course invariant under coordinate transformations, so that the weak field approximation always leads to an inverse square law.

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by forrest noble

It seems that they're gearing up to claim evidence in support of the Higg's. If they do make such a claim, I think it will simply be based upon misinterpretations of observations.

Do you have any evidence for this claim ? What is it that leads you to believe that forces are not carried by vector bosons ? These force carrying particles are an integral part of the Standard Model - saying that this mechanism is wrong amounts to claiming the entire model is invalid. Now, no one here would dispute the fact that the Standard Model is incomplete, nor a very elegant solution, but on the other hand many predictions made by this model have been experimentally well proven over the years. I think saying that the entire model is wrong is an untenable statement; it's just that it's not very elegant, and certainly not complete, but at the same time it's a good foundation that permitted some valid predictions.

Do you have a suggestion for a better model to explain force interactions ?

Forrest is merely expressing healthy skepticism, something cosmologists and particle theorists could use. It very well could be so that the whole model is invalid. Many correct predictions were once made using the theory of epicycles as a fix for the Aristotelian model of the universe. The thing about jury rigged models is that they are always crafted in such a way that they actually work, after a fashion. How good the “standard model” is as a foundation remains to be seen.

Forrest does not have to suggest a better model in order to freely express his doubts. I can express my doubt about the adequacy of the Edsel model of a Ford automobile without having to build a better one myself.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Forrest is merely expressing healthy skepticism, something cosmologists and particle theorists could use. It very well could be so that the whole model is invalid. Many correct predictions were once made using the theory of epicycles as a fix for the Aristotelian model of the universe. The thing about jury rigged models is that they are always crafted in such a way that they actually work, after a fashion. How good the “standard model” is as a foundation remains to be seen.

Forrest does not have to suggest a better model in order to freely express his doubts. I can express my doubt about the adequacy of the Edsel model of a Ford automobile without having to build a better one myself.

This brings us back to post 68, which, I should note, you have not yet replied to.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no?

Not in the Astronomy & Cosmology forum, no.

Come off it. This forum is full of speculation and half-baked personal theories. Moderators should either throw them all into the Fringe category or throw none of them in. I favor “none” because what is fringe is subjective and tossing a post into this category is tantamount to censorship because 80% of readers will not follow a post into that category. Cutting readership so much will almost guarantee that there will be few serious comments and no real discussion. This is bad.

Yes, the moderators should throw them all into the "Fringe" category - they belong in either the "New Hypotheses and Ideas" forum, the "Pseudoscience" forum or the "Trash Can"

There is a difference between censorship and having things in the right category.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Acknowledged to be for real, by whom? (apart from yourself, that is)

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

The hyperbolic supermassive black hole galactic gravitational field was mentioned by Michel Rowan-Robinson in a paper he wrote shortly after the announcement of the accelerating expansion rate of the universe. He said that he attended a symposium where a speaker dwelled on it at length. The guy was not laughed off the dais. The hyperbolic field is not my idea. It has been proposed before and there are theoretical treatments that I do not pretend to be able to duplicate.

Can you provide a link to the paper, as I cannot seem to find it anywhere.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

This is why I need a collaborator. I certainly can help write a paper, but I need someone with better credentials than I in order to get it published. Also, if there is to be references to GR, I need someone who can make a credible mathematical argument that would satisfy editors and referees (no dumb mistakes). I am studying GR, but it will be many months before I can assemble a mathematical edifice that can even begin to serve as a foundation for the hyperbolic field. This is too urgent. It cannot wait.

Why the rush?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

Don't know about the OP, but I read your paper and found it interesting and valid to a degree. I suggest however that where you have used the word "demand," we demand such and such, the word "assume" should have been used. Where you used the word "proof," instead the wording "logical argument" would have been better IMO. I agree that if your assumptions were always valid, that it would lead to the inverse square law. But I believe that some of those assumptions surrounding black holes and at galactic scales, are not valid. At galactic scales, although the inverse square law would still apply, I believe the vector of the gravitational force would have a centrifugal component to it, along with the centripetal component -- resulting in increased orbital velocity based upon my own formulation/ theory of gravity, for reasons explained within the theory. All vector components would still add up to the inverse square law concerning the applied force of gravity.

Such a theory of gravity involves a background particulate field maybe in some circumstances analogous to Gary's "hyperbolic field." Such a field accordingly could not be called dark matter because it would be mass-less, but it would be the source cause of both gravity and mass rather than a Higg's field -- and the forces of gravity applied would be physical rather than a priori.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Acknowledged to be for real, by whom? (apart from yourself, that is)

I have been given some leads to papers that discuss a hyperbolic basis for a metric, for instance and also some leads to papers that treat the concept directly: which brings up a point. GR is always interpreted in connection to some metric. It is not necessary to assume the usual metric (FLRW). Many other metrics have been proposed. Some of these do not lead to Dark Energy and some do not lead to Dark Matter. Some do not lead to either.

What I would do is formulate a metric that leads to a hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field. Schwartzschild built a metric specifically for exploring spacetime near black holes. Perhaps some modification of his metric would do the trick. Of course, fishing around for a metric that has exactly the properties that I desire seems a little self-serving. But, it would have to be consistent with other commonly used metrics and satisfy the correspondence principle. Maybe it cannot be done. In this case, I would give up.

Also, it is an assumption that we live in a 3 + 1 dimensional universe. What happens to the necessity and inevitability of an inverse square gravitational field if there are more dimensions than this?

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

The hyperbolic supermassive black hole galactic gravitational field was mentioned by Michel Rowan-Robinson in a paper he wrote shortly after the announcement of the accelerating expansion rate of the universe. He said that he attended a symposium where a speaker dwelled on it at length. The guy was not laughed off the dais. The hyperbolic field is not my idea. It has been proposed before and there are theoretical treatments that I do not pretend to be able to duplicate.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Can you provide a link to the paper, as I cannot seem to find it anywhere.

I have been searching for it myself. I saved a PDF copy on a hard drive that no longer is in the land of the living. But, I remember that he was discussing SNe 1a and the magnitude modulus versus redshift that was observed by Riess and by Perlmutter on the same page or on nearby pages of that paper.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

This is why I need a collaborator. I certainly can help write a paper, but I need someone with better credentials than I in order to get it published. Also, if there is to be references to GR, I need someone who can make a credible mathematical argument that would satisfy editors and referees (no dumb mistakes). I am studying GR, but it will be many months before I can assemble a mathematical edifice that can even begin to serve as a foundation for the hyperbolic field. This is too urgent. It cannot wait.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Why the rush?

Well, I am not getting any younger, for one thing. I am too lazy to do all the work myself, for another. And, if I do not get something going soon, I know I will lose interest and motivation. I think it is urgent just as a momentous category 5 hurricane heading for Florida would be urgent. I can’t wait for an exciting new development like a major paradigm shift in cosmology. My cousin, who was an astronomer before he was killed in a mountain climbing accident, would have been impatient too.

The hyperbolic field can more parsimoniously answer to all the questions that Dark Matter serves to do. It should indeed induce the paradigm shift that I would anticipate. It could be so momentous, that if a loophole can be found in Birkhoff’s Theorem and its sisters that would allow it, its extension to the entire universe would explain Dark Energy without recourse to “quintessence”. Then, since it would state a source or mechanism for “repulsive” gravity on cosmological scales, it would help preserve the FLRW metric and the Friedmann Lambda Cold Dark Matter model except that Dark Matter would be defined much differently as a “Dark Matter Effect” stemming from the hyperbolic field. Kind of like the “MOND Effect” that I refer to as acknowledging the phenomenon but not endorsing the proposed cause (an a priori modification of Newtonian dynamics).

A collaborator would be fun too. I do not wish to work alone. Up here on the far side of the moon, in Fall Creek Wisconsin, I envy the skyline of nearby greater metropolitan Pigeon Falls. Those grain elevators and silos are really tall! I really do need to get a life. A collaborator would help.

Gary Anthony Kent,

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

Gary, the question becomes: why do you think there might be more than 3+1 dimensions? You can mark me down for this one, if either GR or QM could be certainly proven, I would eat my hat with a case of bear as a chaser. IMO reality is far far simpler than either of these complicated theories would suggest, There is no reason IMO to try to unify two wrong and complicated theories. If you think extra dimensions might be functional somehow then what quandaries do you think might be answered if there were more than 3+1 dimensions ???

I gave my opinion concerning Markus's "proof" of the inverse square law of gravity. If you disagree, what is your opinion of his "proof?" Is your possible disagreement related to your opinion concerning a possibility of more than 3+1 dimensions? It would seem so.

best regards Gary, Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

Don't know about the OP, but I read your paper and found it interesting and valid to a degree. I suggest however that where you have used the word "demand," we demand such and such, the word "assume" should have been used. Where you used the word "proof," instead the wording "logical argument" would have been better IMO. I agree that if your assumptions were always valid, that it would lead to the inverse square law. But I believe that some of those assumptions surrounding black holes and at galactic scales, are not valid. At galactic scales, although the inverse square law would still apply, I believe the vector of the gravitational force would have a centrifugal component to it, along with the centripetal component -- resulting in increased orbital velocity based upon my own formulation/ theory of gravity, for reasons explained within the theory. All vector components would still add up to the inverse square law concerning the applied force of gravity.

Such a theory of gravity involves a background particulate field maybe in some circumstances analogous to Gary's "hyperbolic field." Such a field accordingly could not be called dark matter because it would be mass-less, but it would be the source cause of both gravity and mass rather than a Higg's field -- and the forces of gravity applied would be physical rather than a priori.

Wording aside for the moment; if you had a background field superimposed which acts on the gravity field as well, then the resultant force field would in general no longer be conservative, and therefore not irrotational. The equation rot F = 0 would no longer hold. The solution to the differential equations would in general no longer be an inverse square law.
So long as there is only one force field involved, the result would always be an inverse square law, because the equations as presented do not depend on the nature of the field source.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

First, remember that we are discussing macroscopic dimensions here, as your OP was formulated on galactic scales, so we can safely disregard String theory for the moment.
If there are more spatial or temporal dimensions, then you would in general no longer get an inverse square law.
Have you any observational evidence for the existence of additional dimensions ? If so let me know and I shall be happy to do the maths for you. This will then be arguments via differential geometry I'm afraid, so hopefully you are familiar with that.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

I have been given some leads to papers that discuss a hyperbolic basis for a metric, for instance and also some leads to papers that treat the concept directly: which brings up a point. GR is always interpreted in connection to some metric. It is not necessary to assume the usual metric (FLRW). Many other metrics have been proposed. Some of these do not lead to Dark Energy and some do not lead to Dark Matter. Some do not lead to either.

What I would do is formulate a metric that leads to a hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field. Schwartzschild built a metric specifically for exploring spacetime near black holes. Perhaps some modification of his metric would do the trick. Of course, fishing around for a metric that has exactly the properties that I desire seems a little self-serving. But, it would have to be consistent with other commonly used metrics and satisfy the correspondence principle. Maybe it cannot be done. In this case, I would give up.

Please give references; I would love to see those papers. GR is my speciality, and I am fortunate enough to be familiar with the maths.
Schwarzschild didn't built anything specifically for Black Holes. His metric is simply the most basic vacuum solution to the field equations. The BH naturally emerges from his metric.
You cannot just modify the metric as you please, it would cease to be a solution to the original field equations.
No metric I know of leads to a hyperbolic gravitational field. If you know otherwise, please provide a reference.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

Gary, you have sparked my interest here. Let's see if I can find a generalized law for n dimensions - would be interesting to see what exactly happens. I'll post it here if I get anywhere.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Interesting to note how the OP so far completely ignored the proof given in post 62 as to why 3+1 dimensional spacetime automatically leads to an inverse square law...

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

I have done a bit of maths for generalized n dimensions, and the gravitational law behaves like F = k /r^(n-1). For n=3 spatial dimensions, you get an inverse square law. Four spatial dimensions would yield an inverse-cube law, and so on. The constant k changes and depends on the number of dimensions in a non-trivial way, but the general form of the law behaves like above. It seems then that your hyperbolic gravity field would only be possible in a 2-dimensional universe...

I have been given some leads to papers that discuss a hyperbolic basis for a metric, for instance and also some leads to papers that treat the concept directly: which brings up a point. GR is always interpreted in connection to some metric. It is not necessary to assume the usual metric (FLRW). Many other metrics have been proposed. Some of these do not lead to Dark Energy and some do not lead to Dark Matter. Some do not lead to either.

Gary, I am starting to loose you here now. I was under the impression we are talking about galactic black holes, which is a local phenomenon; now you are bringing up the FLRW model, which is a global cosmological solution to the field equations. I see no immediate connection between the two, or between the FLRW model and your hyperbolic gravitational fields. Would you please care to explain.
In general I am getting the impression that you do not seem to be as familiar with GR and the maths behind it as I initially thought.

Also, it is an assumption that we live in a 3 + 1 dimensional universe. What happens to the necessity and inevitability of an inverse square gravitational field if there are more dimensions than this?

No it isn't ?? The fact that we live in 3 spacial macroscopic dimensions is basic observational evidence - just open your eyes and look around you. How is that an assumption ?
If you are on about extra dimensions in String theory, than you should know that those only become apparent on a microscopic scale, and play no role in the gravitational field on a galactic scale.
The other part of your question is answered in post 83.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

A collaborator would be fun too. I do not wish to work alone. Up here on the far side of the moon, in Fall Creek Wisconsin, I envy the skyline of nearby greater metropolitan Pigeon Falls. Those grain elevators and silos are really tall! I really do need to get a life. A collaborator would help.

A matter of perspective I suppose. I for my part would be glad to live in peaceful surrounds like that

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I have been given some leads to papers that discuss a hyperbolic basis for a metric, for instance and also some leads to papers that treat the concept directly: which brings up a point. GR is always interpreted in connection to some metric. It is not necessary to assume the usual metric (FLRW). Many other metrics have been proposed. Some of these do not lead to Dark Energy and some do not lead to Dark Matter. Some do not lead to either.

Gary, I am starting to loose you here now. I was under the impression we are talking about galactic black holes, which is a local phenomenon; now you are bringing up the FLRW model, which is a global cosmological solution to the field equations. I see no immediate connection between the two, or between the FLRW model and your hyperbolic gravitational fields. Would you please care to explain.
In general I am getting the impression that you do not seem to be as familiar with GR and the maths behind it as I initially thought.

You said that GR "always" leads to a gravitational inverse square law. The Schwarzschild metric was used to analyze the properties of black holes. The Kretschmann invariant proves that the singularities at the event horizon are artifacts of the coordinate choice, but the singularity at the center is physically real. I am not as familiar with GR as I want to be nor am I as familiar with it as you are. But, I know that local phenomena must always follow rules that are consistent with and correspond to global rules. If Schwarzschild used a metric to analyze GR for black hole properties, then I assume that his metric is consistent with and corresponds to global rules like the FLRW metric (did I say "model"? I meant "metric"). How much control or influence on GR does the particular metric have anyway? It appears it has crucial influence because some authors claim to achieve different results on Dark Matter and Dark Energy based on different choices of the metrics they use under GR. I am wondering if a choice of metric could permit the hyperbolic field.

There are a number of different kinds of spacetimes like DeSitter, anti-DeSitter and others with names I have never heard of. Are these just like metrics or are they more fundamental than this? If they are more fundamental, could an assumption of such a space-type mitigate the inevitability of an inverse square gravitational field?

The proof of Birkhoff's Theorem concludes just what you say. All gravitational fields must be asymptotically flat. Which means , I think, among other things, that said fields cannot have the kind of asymptote that I propose. The inverse square relation must always hold and it levels off literally to zero as r ---> infinity (it "flat"-lines, as a physician might say). So, I am aware that there is some fundamental difficulty with my proposal. I have always acknowledged this. I am also aware that research is ongoing and there are many aspects of GR that are still not understood. GR can be anti-intuitive just like quantum mechanics, so one should not be too upset if theory does not match the individual's personal experience. Still, I look for a loophole.

I have located an old book written by Einstein called "Relativity" with an addendum called "The Non-Symmetric Field". I used to own it and I found that it contains a virtual primer on tensor, vector matrix and operator math. I intend to acquire this book again and study it. In the meantime, I have located several online courses in Relativity. I have been studying these, but it is slow going. The idea of the hyperbolic gravitational field is so significant that it would be worth it to explore all possibilities that could admit it as a legitimate proposition. In the course of my studies, I am determined to find ways to think "outside the box". If the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field can be permitted, I will find the way.

Maybe what you perceive about me is that I am just too stubborn.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Wording aside for the moment; if you had a background field superimposed which acts on the gravity field as well, then the resultant force field would in general no longer be conservative, and therefore not irrotational. The equation rot F = 0 would no longer hold. The solution to the differential equations would in general no longer be an inverse square law.
So long as there is only one force field involved, the result would always be an inverse square law, because the equations as presented do not depend on the nature of the field source.

I think I am following you. But in my model there is only one field of gravity. It is not an "a priori" force but a mechanical theory of pushing gravity. For instance in the inner solar system the planets would have velocities overlaying a linear background field (particulate aether). Gravity would therefore be a linear force following Newtonian gravity for the most part.

In the disks of spiral galaxies, on the other hand, accordingly the stars generally would have no velocity relative to the background field like the solar system, but instead the background field, the entire field would rotate, moving in a spiral motion inward perpetuated by the inverse square law of gravity pushing inward. Half of the force of gravity can accordingly be viewed as a centrifugal pressure perpetuating the spiral and the other half would be the inward centripetal pressure. This accordingly would be why disc star velocities are based upon the 1/R relationship rather than the inverse square law 1/R² . Also in this formulation the radius (R) instead of being measured from the galaxy center outward like Newtonian gravity, instead the measurement is made starting from a radius inside the galactic halo and measured inward. The least velocity of disc stars then would accordingly be surrounding the galactic bulge, and the greatest stellar velocities would be those stars adjacent to the galactic halo.

In galaxy clusters gravity accordingly works the same way concerning radius measurements from the outside inward. This model purports to explain gravity everywhere. Of course when applying this model to galaxy scales it works like Newtonian/ Einsteinian gravity in that observations are first made to determine the variables before the formula(s) can be completing. This model Makes retrodictions just like the standard model , but without using dark matter and I believe the retrodictions of my model better match observed reality than the standard model using dark matter.

Mass accordingly in my model would be the force that the universal gravity constant applies to matter by pushing it from its outside inward -- with a force of G = 6.672 x 10^-8 cm³ g^-1 s^-2 . This accordingly would be how matter obtains its mass, not from a supposed Higgs field mechanism.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Gary Anthony Kent,

And what if there are more than 3+1 dimensions?

Gary, the question becomes: why do you think there might be more than 3+1 dimensions? You can mark me down for this one, if either GR or QM could be certainly proven, I would eat my hat with a case of bear as a chaser. IMO reality is far far simpler than either of these complicated theories would suggest, There is no reason IMO to try to unify two wrong and complicated theories. If you think extra dimensions might be functional somehow then what quandaries do you think might be answered if there were more than 3+1 dimensions ???

I gave my opinion concerning Markus's "proof" of the inverse square law of gravity. If you disagree, what is your opinion of his "proof?" Is your possible disagreement related to your opinion concerning a possibility of more than 3+1 dimensions? It would seem so.

best regards Gary, Forrest

Actually, I agree with Markus. I have always said that I acknowledge the difficulty with my position. I quote Birkhoff’s Theorem which says essentially just what Markus says. Gravity must be an inverse square force because it must be “asymptotically flat” which I take to mean that instead of asymptotes, the gravitational force must decline literally to zero at infinity. It must “flat”-line as doctors say about the oscilloscope trace of a patient’s heartbeat when he dies. There can be no asymptote, which rules out the hyperbolic field.

I do not “think” there are more than 3 + 1 dimensions. I only “wondered”: what if there are? He says he wondered about it too so he did some calculations and came up with the idea that F is proportional to k/r^(n-1) where n is the total number of spatial dimensions. If there are 3 spatial dimensions, the exponent of r must be 2. If there are 4 spatial dimensions, the exponent becomes equal to 3 and so on. We would have to live in Flatland for F to be proportional to k/r.

Now, I assume he can do algebra, however complicated, and that he checks his work. So, I give him credit for a proof, especially because Birkhoff’s theorem says the same thing. Birkhoff’s was derived by several other workers at about the same time. So, this indicates how easy it may have been to arrive at this dictum and how reliable it may be.

Hugh Everett formulated quantum mechanics in such a way as to eliminate the need for probability densities. So, it was orders of magnitude more simple. Someone should come up with a version of GR that does not require tensors and vector matrices. I agree with you when you hold that numerical computations are not always all they are cracked up to be. I agree that human language logic can be just as compelling, if not more so. This is because the precision that is attached to the ideas in mathematical physics acts like a straight-jacket. One can go only where the math will allow. One must always think inside the box. Sometimes this is not so good. It may lead to intellectual paralysis.

It is all irrelevant because I have a new twist on it. I try to think outside the box wherein mathematics would tend to imprison me. The problem will be to try to convince others (and myself) that I am not a crackpot.

Tell me more about IMO. In a nutshell. Do not worry about the thread. You can make it relevant to the thread, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Actually, I agree with Markus. I have always said that I acknowledge the difficulty with my position. I quote Birkhoff’s Theorem which says essentially just what Markus says. Gravity must be an inverse square force because it must be “asymptotically flat” which I take to mean that instead of asymptotes, the gravitational force must decline literally to zero at infinity. It must “flat”-line as doctors say about the oscilloscope trace of a patient’s heartbeat when he dies. There can be no asymptote, which rules out the hyperbolic field.

I do not “think” there are more than 3 + 1 dimensions. I only “wondered”: what if there are? He says he wondered about it too so he did some calculations and came up with the idea that F is proportional to k/r^(n-1) where n is the total number of spatial dimensions. If there are 3 spatial dimensions, the exponent of r must be 2. If there are 4 spatial dimensions, the exponent becomes equal to 3 and so on. We would have to live in Flatland for F to be proportional to k/r.

Now, I assume he can do algebra, however complicated, and that he checks his work. So, I give him credit for a proof, especially because Birkhoff’s theorem says the same thing. Birkhoff’s was derived by several other workers at about the same time. So, this indicates how easy it may have been to arrive at this dictum and how reliable it may be.

Hugh Everett formulated quantum mechanics in such a way as to eliminate the need for probability densities. So, it was orders of magnitude more simple. Someone should come up with a version of GR that does not require tensors and vector matrices. I agree with you when you hold that numerical computations are not always all they are cracked up to be. I agree that human language logic can be just as compelling, if not more so. This is because the precision that is attached to the ideas in mathematical physics acts like a straight-jacket. One can go only where the math will allow. One must always think inside the box. Sometimes this is not so good. It may lead to intellectual paralysis.

It is all irrelevant because I have a new twist on it. I try to think outside the box wherein mathematics would tend to imprison me. The problem will be to try to convince others (and myself) that I am not a crackpot.

Tell me more about IMO. In a nutshell. Do not worry about the thread. You can make it relevant to the thread, I am sure.

I agree that gravity must always follow the inverse square law but believe that at galactic scales, or surrounding galactic black holes, that the inverse square force also contains a centrifugal component therefore it would accordingly be non-linear. Of course this is not the standard model.

Although GR has been very successful within its domain (not too big and not too small). I believe GR equations are ad hoc, meaning formulated to match observations. I think its use of Riemann geometry is not a proper application of such geometry. The warpage of space, I believe is not valid, nor is the expansion of space. I believe there is another explanation for the observed galactic redshifts.

QM is certainly ad hoc based upon a long history of quantum observations by which the formulations and statistics are based. IMO QM is not a theory, instead it is a functional predictive system of the quantum world. The verbal aspects of the model IMO are theory but should be described as Quantum Theory and separated from QM. IMO quantum theory could be totally discarded while while leaving QM generally intact. I think similarly of quark theory, and the standard model of particle physics, that they are simply functional predictive system, but at the same time the theory behind them is generally wrong. To sum it up IMHO I think most of the theories discussed , along with the BB model, are generally wrong. I certainly understand that this view is very rare in science-educated individuals in these fields. I do, however, like models of natural selection, biology, chemical theory, plate tectonics, and some other models/ theories and hypothesis so I am greatly pro-science.

Until I'm convinced otherwise, I think both gravity and mass can be simply explained both verbally and mathematically as I have tried to do on this thread to some extent, concerning how I think mass is simply derived.

You said that GR "always" leads to a gravitational inverse square law.

Ok Gary, I freely admit that this is statement is not correct in its current form; I was too hasty and I wish to further qualify this. What really happens is that the linearized version of the field equations reduces to the familiar Newton's inverse-square law in the weak field limit. So, what I really meant to say is that the weak field limit always produces an inverse square law. For strong fields GR effects become significant, and the field equations have non-trivial solutions that are not described by a simple law like Newton's.

The Kretschmann invariant proves that the singularities at the event horizon are artifacts of the coordinate choice, but the singularity at the center is physically real.

I do not agree with this - the underlying assumption in using any of the various curvature invariants to test for physical singularities is that spacetime around this point is a smooth, connected Riemann manifold. I contest that this is not the case for a black hole, or any other gravitational singularity; in my opinion quantum effects will play a role in a complete description of spacetime within an event horizon, regardless of whether we actually have an explicit model for this yet or not. Using Riemann geometry here is, I think, not correct.
Btw Gary, when I previously made statements of the form you have used above, I was accused by you of making it look like fact even though it wasn't. This very same argument applies here; you cannot imply that a physical singularity is fact, because we have no direct evidence of that. No offence, but I just wanted to point that out...

But, I know that local phenomena must always follow rules that are consistent with and correspond to global rules

I understand what you are trying to say, but this is still not really correct. Look around you - do you notice any curvature in your immediate surrounds ? No. Does that mean the earth is flat ? No it doesn't; the earth's surface is locally flat, but globally curved. Different geometrical laws apply depending on the scale your problem is dealing with.

If Schwarzschild used a metric to analyze GR for black hole properties, then I assume that his metric is consistent with and corresponds to global rules like the FLRW metric (did I say "model"? I meant "metric").

I find it hard to adequately explain this; I'll give it a try and see how far I get. The GR field equations have no general solution, because they are a system of non-linear partial differential equations. In order to obtain a solution one must try an ansatz, meaning one must simplify the system by making assumptions, introducing symmetries and initial conditions. What Schwarzschild did was look at an isolated object of finite mass in otherwise empty space; he furthermore assumed that this isolated system was spherically symmetric, and that the mass was static. Because of these assumptions all elements of the metric tensor ( this is what the field equations are solved for ) except its diagonal trace vanish. This reduces the number of independent equations in the system, and one is able to find an exact, analytically closed solution, the Schwarzschild metric (SM). There are actually two solutions - the "Inner" SM and the "Outer" SM. The outer SM describes spacetime outside the isolated mass ( it therefore is a vacuum solution to the field equations ), whereas the inner SM describes spacetime inside the mass. Both SMs yield an inverse square law.
The FLRW solution describes a different kind of system; it assumes a homogenous, perfectly symmetrical space which is filled with an ideal dust of given mass and density ( equally homogenous and symmetrical ). Furthermore, this metric is allowed to be time-dependent, not static, and the cosmological constant is taken to be non-vanishing. The result, after solving the field equations, is the familiar Lambda-CDM model.
The point here is that these two metrics describe different systems; the SM is only valid for an isolated, static mass, whereas the FLRW metric describes a global, time-dependent universe filled with idealized dust. They are not immediately interchangeable; the FLRW metric is not a good model for a BH, neither is the SM a good model for the universe globally.

How much control or influence on GR does the particular metric have anyway?

A metric, mathematically, is a description of the geometry of spacetime; in layman's terms you could say it is a measure of how much spacetime is curved at a given point. More precisely the metric measures the distance between two given points on a Riemann manifold. It is this, the metric (tensor) which one obtains when solving the Einstein Field Equations.

I am wondering if a choice of metric could permit the hyperbolic field.

You do not "choose" a metric. As explained above, the metric is what you get when you solve the Einstein Equations for a given system. I am not aware of any solutions to the Einstein equations in 3+1 dimensions and with physically possible boundary conditions which yield a hyperbolic field. In fact this seems to be explicitely ruled out by the mere fact that the SM, which is applicable to a galactic BH, is an exact solution, and it yields an inverse-square law as opposed to a hyperbolic field. Not to mention basic geometry, of course.

There are a number of different kinds of spacetimes like DeSitter, anti-DeSitter and others with names I have never heard of. Are these just like metrics or are they more fundamental than this?

All of these are different solutions to the field equations based on different symmetries and starting conditions. Not all of these describe systems that are actually physically possible; some of them are of purely academic value ( e.g. look up "Goedel Metric" on Wikipedia )

I would like to point out something very important here - while all physical systems as we can encounter them are possible solutions to the field equations, not all mathematical solutions to the field equations are physically possible. Again I refer to such things as the Goedel Metric; while it is a valid, analytically closed solution to the equations it would not be physically possible to encounter such a metric in our observable universe. Same goes for artifacts like wormholes and such like - they are valid solutions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can physically exist. Again, the reason is that GR is purely a geometric theory in the macroscopic domain, it does not incorporate quantum laws. This brings us back to your earlier point - only because a singularity is part of GR does not mean that it physically exists as a real, tangible point of infinitely dense mass. GR was not intended to be a valid theory within microscopically small domains of quantum systems.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

So, I am aware that there is some fundamental difficulty with my proposal. I have always acknowledged this. I am also aware that research is ongoing and there are many aspects of GR that are still not understood. GR can be anti-intuitive just like quantum mechanics, so one should not be too upset if theory does not match the individual's personal experience. Still, I look for a loophole.

It is statements like this which immediately distinguish a genuine scientific mind like yours from a crackpot. Kudos to you.
Despite our differences in opinion I wish to say here that I absolutely admire your dedication and ability to present your point with scientifically sound arguments. I find it is a pleasure to participate in this thread.

I have located an old book written by Einstein called "Relativity" with an addendum called "The Non-Symmetric Field". I used to own it and I found that it contains a virtual primer on tensor, vector matrix and operator math. I intend to acquire this book again and study it. In the meantime, I have located several online courses in Relativity. I have been studying these, but it is slow going.

GR is always slow going for any student. Einstein himself struggled with it for the better part of two decades before the its final form was published. Keep at it and you will succeed.

Now, I assume he can do algebra, however complicated

Not correct, unfortunately
There are clear limits to my mathematical abilities. I am not a mathematician or physicist or engineer by trade; I am just someone who has a deep and lasting interest in what makes the world tick on its most basic level. I acknowledge that maths is the language used to describe physics, so I sit down in my free time and study it...no choice, really. I am not a particularly gifted mathematician, but I do have the distinct talent to be able to see the meaning of mathematical statements. When I look at Einstein's equations, or Maxwells equations, or Green's theorem, I see the meaning behind the equations. I look at the Einstein equations, and I don't see a system of 16 non-linear partial differential equations, but rather I see the statement "Spacetime Curvature = Energy". And that is it, the whole theory of GR in a nutshell, expressed in a simple statement. Everything else, all the talk about time dilation, event horizons, bent rays of light etc etc just follows from there naturally.
And so, when I study a new concept of maths, I always look for the meaning behind it, rather than the exact way of calculating it. I figure that once I understand the concept and meaning of something, I can later always go back and look up the exact formula if I really need to do an actual calculation. After all, we live in the age of Google and Wikipedia, but if you don't get the concept
behind what you are trying to do than obviously all these sources will be useless.
Of course my approach has downsides; paradoxically, the more advanced and abstract a problem is the better I am at tackling it. I am actually terrible in doing basic numerical calculations, but very good in abstract proofs etc.
Funny, really...

So, I give him credit for a proof, especially because Birkhoff’s theorem says the same thing. Birkhoff’s was derived by several other workers at about the same time. So, this indicates how easy it may have been to arrive at this dictum and how reliable it may be.

Yes, actually the idea at its most basic level behind the inverse square law is one of elementary geometry - it is directly related to the surface area of a sphere. Our everyday ordinary sphere has surface area 4*Pi*r^2. Gravity, like any other conservative field, is flux per surface area, i.e. flux per surface area of an imagined sphere, i.e. flux/(4*Pi*r^2). That's it. That's all there is to it. And no matter how you twist and turn, and play around with black hole configurations, this will always be valid on a macroscopic scale.

Someone should come up with a version of GR that does not require tensors and vector matrices. I agree with you when you hold that numerical computations are not always all they are cracked up to be. I agree that human language logic can be just as compelling, if not more so. This is because the precision that is attached to the ideas in mathematical physics acts like a straight-jacket. One can go only where the math will allow. One must always think inside the box. Sometimes this is not so good. It may lead to intellectual paralysis.

In a way I agree - on a conceptional level, on the level of principle and understanding only, one can formulate GR much easier : Energy results in Spacetime Curvature. Spacetime Curvature implies the presence of energy. That's it, that's GR. All other qualitative statements can be derived from here in plain language. However, once one tries to make quantitive predictions, i.e. actual numbers, than the tensor analysis is currently the only known mechanism of doing so.
Bear in mind, also, that behind the simple and elegant tensor equation there lurks a system of 16 highly non-linear second order partial differential equations; even just writing those out in full would take several A4 pages. I prefer the tensor formulation any time over the actual equations in a given coordinate system.
Mathematics is in a state of constant advancement, just as physics is. Perhaps one day someone will come up with a different formulation that makes the calculations easier, who knows. Personally I doubt it, though. Just a feeling.

Markus, I like your replies. I often copy and paste them into a WORD journal of such posts. I will soon post a detailed reply. But, I hope it does not exceed any limit on the size of the file that is to be uploaded.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Markus, I like your replies. I often copy and paste them into a WORD journal of such posts. I will soon post a detailed reply. But, I hope it does not exceed any limit on the size of the file that is to be uploaded.

Thank you Gary, I am looking forward to reading it.
Perhaps you could sign up to one of the countless free online hosting sites, and publish your file there. That way all you need to do is provide a link on this forum, and you don't have to worry about file size.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Markus, I like your replies. I often copy and paste them into a WORD journal of such posts. I will soon post a detailed reply. But, I hope it does not exceed any limit on the size of the file that is to be uploaded.

Thank you Gary, I am looking forward to reading it.
Perhaps you could sign up to one of the countless free online hosting sites, and publish your file there. That way all you need to do is provide a link on this forum, and you don't have to worry about file size.

If the author was a Mafia gangster, a really smooth big-time operator who had to hire a full time personal attorney to defend him from criminal charges, he would admonish his lawyer: “I do not need you to tell me so very simply just exactly what I can and cannot do. I want you to advise me precisely how to do what I want! Capisci?”

Now, the author concedes that GR, as it is most commonly interpreted, regards the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field as impossible. But as a system of sixteen complicated simultaneous nonlinear homogeneous partial differential equations, correct the author if he is wrong – having never actually done this, one must make some assumptions and define some boundary conditions in order to just begin to solve them. When this is done, one determines only the coefficients of these equations, many of which will be zero if one is lucky. The remainder will sum to at least one additional partial differential equation, whereupon more of the terms will cancel and drop out. This simplifying process is one of the main goals of many of the assumptions and boundary conditions and without which the equations might be unsolvable.

This final differential equation(s) must still be solved and so, even more assumptions and boundary conditions must be assigned in order to do so. When this is done shrewdly, the equations can indeed be solved whereupon the results are equations that can be regarded as a physical rule that can be tested experimentally or observationally.

The author finds it difficult to believe that there is no way to select assumptions and define boundary conditions in such a way as to permit the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field. This, especially when, in the case of the Friedmann equations for example, there happens to be a parameter designated ρ/ρ_crit which determines whether the universe is spherical, flat or hyperbolic. The author knows that this is not quite relevant, so please do not focus on this stupid example and try to tear it to pieces. But, this is just to show that one can direct solutions of GR toward hyperbolic results by means of solutions having some mere adjustable parameters.

Einstein cannot have been so inflexible that he would have written a theory that could be rigidly used to prohibit reality. Such a prohibition would be a XXX atrocity wrought by a Grade A genius! Ha Ha! Let us not promulgate or propagate any such atrocities of our own.

Author’s challenge: a case of fine Spanish wine to the understanding personality who can help him “force” GR to do want he wants!

In the meantime, all he is saying below is that there is sufficient reason to go ahead and allow the hyperbolic field as a postulate. The ideas below are not meant to be picked apart and eaten alive. But, they should still be digested. They are not logically necessary and sufficient, so demolishing them may be pointless. They are meant only to illustrate the notion that to allow the hyperbolic field as a postulate might make good practical sense.

So, it is indeed the case that the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field (HBHF) is said to be prohibited by common very reasonable interpretations of general relativity. But, the consequences of finding some loophole, some valid formulation of the HBHF are potentially momentous. They may even be capable of causing a revolutionary paradigm shift in the science of cosmology. Reasons that could motivate the search for some means to validate the HBHF are manifold.

1.) The HBHF field can explain the anomalous orbital velocity distribution of stars in galaxies.

2.) The HBHF can explain anomalous velocity distributions of galaxies in galactic clusters.

3.) HBHFs can explain the dependencies and magnitudes of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. It can even explain the progressive changes in the SZ differential redshift offset effects that are seen when this phenomenon is observed to occur through voids closer and closer to Earth.

4.) The HBHF can explain the apparent offsets in the barycenters of colliding galactic clusters – the so-called “Bullet Cluster effect”.

5.) The peculiar galactic thermal distribution effects can be traced to the HBHF.

6.) The HBHF can more fully explain gravitational lensing phenomena.

7.) The HBHF can explain the inhomogeneity that is seen to have developed in the early universe, said inhomogeneity having been present since before the time of “recombination” of electrons with atomic nuclei. This inhomogeneity probably persisted as the hot plasma produced from the Big Bang “recombined” to produce redshifted emission of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Acoustic variation and long prior quantum perturbations are said to have been insufficient to fully account for the deviations that are now observed in the CMB.

8.) The HBHF process in 7.) can provide a confirmatory rationale for the Inflation theory of cosmogenesis. An Inflationary Big Bang, behaving like a hyper-massive, decaying, excited, quantum, fundamental point particle might have resulted in a large number of big primordial black holes as well as a lot of electromagnetic energy and many subatomic particles. This decay debris as these primordial black holes, with their super-extensive hyperbolic gravitational fields, would serve to induce an unusually broad gravitational “halo” effect similar to the one postulated for Dark Matter that is supposed to have been largely responsible for the inhomogeneity observed today in the CMB and in the actual observed distribution of galaxies.

9.) An extension of the HBHF hypothesis to the whole universe can provide a mechanism for a positive lambda in the LCDM Friedmann model of the universe. But, the label “lambda cold dark matter” might be replaced by the “lambda apparent cold dark matter” or LACDM model, since “cold dark matter” will then have been seen to be utterly superfluous.


One angle to deal with criticism along the lines of Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings might be to postulate that a black hole is wholly a quantum object so that its gravitational field is really a quantum field of a different form from the kind of gravity in GR. Perhaps Alan Guth’s “inflaton field” is related to gravity, but is not actually gravity, exactly. And, it could have a hyperbolic normalizable form because it originates, not in a Hugh Everett style meta-universe, but in an “infra-universe” or “sub-world” of fewer dimensions. So, it could then indeed be hyperbolic in its mathematical description. This “Many Worlds” interpretation of the nature of black holes and/or the Inflaton may include laws of physics that no longer pertain except in regard to black holes, especially since black holes involve physically real singularities. Inside black holes, the laws of physics not only break down, but may be delocalized outside the singularity and even outside the event horizon. And, yes, I know that I speak of black holes and the whole universe in the same breath.

After all, if the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is. Macroscopic quantum effects should still be discernable in larger systems than in just tiny globs of Bose-Einstein condensates. Would super-massive black holes be large enough for you? Yuk Yuk!

The contention that some future theory of quantum gravity will erase the physically real singularities in black holes is a dream. The author thinks that theoretical physicists have been thrashing around for long enough. It is time to acknowledge that no such TOE or GUT will be forthcoming. No GUT has been proposed that uniquely and competently predicts anything new that has actually been verified, is falsifiable and actually unifies what it claims to unify.

A 2-D origin of the universe is not inconceivable. And, 2-D components of a non-spherical 3-D gravitational field are not ruled out. One can imagine that 2-D cosmogenesis or galactic orbital motion around a black hole was conceived when such motion or even the entire universe began to unfold or deconvolve from a compactified form, perhaps like opening a child’s “pop-up” book.

This rationale would include Guth’s hypothesis of an energetic massive “inflaton” particle in a hyper-excited “inflaton field” that decomposed, decayed or deconvolved, thus forming our universe. It seems unlikely that the inflaton particle would decay directly into gazillions of photons and little fundamental particles directly, all at once. This is not the way short lived excited particles typically decay. It probably split first into thousands, then millions of large black holes and simultaneously and/or subsequently into a lot of electromagnetic energy as well as many small particles.

(to be continued)

The inflaton gravity-like field itself also surely would not have collapsed or changed all at once. Its transition might have been a process that may still be going on. Then, the present epoch’s breakdown of the residual inflaton field may act like gravity in whatever proper kind of space it may need to give a hyperbolic asymptotic effect for the whole universe (so that it would have a higher potential energy than the inverse square field).

In an infinite array of 2-D slices (if necessary to allow the HBHF) the universe HBHF’s ongoing stacked or packed 2-D asymptotic cross sections might devolve or transform into the lower energy 3-D inverse square gravitational field. This process might then result in acceleration of the expansion of the universe and putative Dark Energy.

Or else, a black hole is a tunnel or portal to another universe (Everett’s “Many Worlds” interpretation of QM) with different physical laws spilling over into our world and which simply do not prohibit the HBHF.

Another avenue might be to say that a super-massive black hole galactic gravitational field can be hyperbolic by virtue of analytic pure geometry in a non-Euclidian space, by an appeal to Schwartzschild’s analysis which certainly includes a non-Euclidian metric and to Kretschmann’s invariance which does not depend on any coordinate system. Then, if proper assumptions are made and correct boundary conditions are set, GR cannot be seen to override these sets of principles, however fundamental GR itself may be. As well, under the circumstances that would allow F = GMm/kr, GR might not be seen to trump the symmetry argument that is used to extend the asymptotic hyperbolic field to the far right on the ordinate of a gravitational field strength diagram. (Such a diagram needs to be given some latitude because it is a plot in 2-D Euclidian space, LOL). Symmetry representation is one of the most powerful tools available to the quantum physicist.


With additional assumptions or slightly different boundary conditions, the Schwartzschild treatment and Kretschmann’s invariance will still work if the overall geometry of spacetime in the broader galactic zone around a black hole is not Euclidian such that this whole local space could be strongly hyperbolic. And, there may be a way around the necessity to consider gravity as always operating under an inverse square relation, especially if there are “perturbations” that are really more like very strong distortions (like a train wreck is distorts the rail cars) so much so that perturbation principles cannot truly be used for a mathematical description of a real black hole. The spacetime geometry in the distortion zone of a galaxy or galactic cluster containing black holes may be so strongly warped and hyperbolic in nature that any type of field, hyperbolic or not, can exist, persist and never cease to desist. Yet the overall hyperbolic or “open” geometry of the universe may be counterbalanced by the mere existence of all the matter and energy that it contains so as to “behave” like it might be flat.

Bowing to the subject of the thread, the hyperbolic gravitational field, being normalizable, could pertain to the Higgs field and the Higgs boson.

Therefore, the author thinks that there is something fishy about the way GR is used and Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings are cited in order to put the kibosh on the HBHF.


All this author is saying, once again, is that there is sufficient reason to go ahead and allow the HBHF as a postulate. The above notions are not meant to be picked apart by intellectual sharks, however kindly, gentle, well meaning, gifted and dedicated. These ideas are not logically necessary and sufficient, so their demolition may be pointless anyway. They are meant only to illustrate an idea. This is that to allow the HBHF as a postulate might make very good practical sense, eventually.

Let us do this in the same way that Louis DeBroglie promulgated the postulate that the Bohr planetary model of the atom that he defended simply did not and could not undergo an “ultraviolet catastrophe” as classical physicists insisted that it must. DeBroglie almost single handedly invented quantum mechanics, by means of his postulate. But, he had a little help from Albert Einstein, Irwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, P.A.M. Dirac and a few others. This is what is needed now. Some help. If you or someone you know can collaborate on a paper for the Astrophysical Journal or some other platform, please consider it.

Furthermore, allowing the HBHF may provide yet another link between quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are a number of links already and when we forge enough critical connections we will have a ready-made unified theory of quantum gravity without having made any special fuss. We need not invent seemingly unfalsifiable, incompetently unpredictive, almost infinitely numerous, unmitigated psychedelically novel and inordinately complex hypotheses. One hopes he may be wrong, but such as these look like a whole boatload of Aristotelian theories of baroque “epicycles” that might accomplish little new that is uniquely proven. Except to satisfy the anal retentive urges of some who may otherwise be very fine workers, what purpose is to be served?

Theoretical physicists have long been fascinated by Eastern philosophies. They say that many principles of modern physics, including relativity, are reflected by philosophical concepts therein that are millennia old. The philosophical point that they choose to ignore is the tenet of “Yin versus Yang”. Why should we not be satisfied with “two sides to the same coin”? Quantum mechanics and general relativity are not truly in opposition in any way. They do not address the same issues. They may be mathematically incompatible because they were assembled by different people who used different symbolic conventions. But, why should one necessarily be able to express gravity on an exceedingly small quantum scale? Why should we be able to compute the properties of a galactic cluster from quantum principles? Why?

So what if computations show that gravity becomes infinitely strong when the distances between even very tiny almost massless objects becomes excruciatingly small? Maybe we can learn something about what may have held the “Inflaton” infinitely dense point particle together before the Big Bang. Mathematical physicists are uncomfortable dealing with “infinities” and try to banish them whenever they can. Might not this trend be carried too far? Quantum scientists do not seem to fear some infinities. Why should cosmologists?

Gravitational Field Strength and Potential Energy Diagrams for the Inverse Square and Hyperbolic Cases

hyperbolic vs parabolic 005 downsized .jpg ...................hyperbola vs natural log c3 potential energy diagram - upsized .jpg

.................................................. ......................... .........................Figure 1.....................Figure 2............(click to enlarge)

The Figure 1 caption remarks that interpretations of Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings may well be misinformed. One such common misinterpretation is outlined in detail by Kristin Schleich & Donald M. Witt, A simple proof of Birkhoff's theorem for cosmological constant, arXiv:0908.4110v2, wherein they prove that the common belief that Birkhoff's Theorem implies staticity is false for the case of a positive cosmological constant. So, it is not the Theorem itself that may be a problem, it is the ways in which it and GR is commonly interpreted which could be at fault. Let us use whatever type of interpretation that might be needed to allow the HBHF. Let us be creative. We are, after all, just “creative” cosmological accountants (LOL). We shall try not to cook the books, but we cannot guarantee it.

Figure 2 presents plots of the equations 1.) y = ln(x) and 2.) y = -1/x +1 according to common axes in such a way as to accurately represent the overall relative shapes of an inverse square gravitational potential energy diagram (2.) and a hyperbolic gravitational force P.E. diagram (1.). Note that P.E. keeps increasing without bound to the right in the case of the hyperbolic black hole P.E. trace which is actually a plot of ln(x). What this really might mean is that the cosmological influence of black holes might extend to infinity as a strong influence, or to whatever passes for infinity in our universe. So, the black hole gravitational effect may pervade the space well beyond a galaxy wherein it is contained, far beyond the space in a galactic cluster wherein BHs may be found and beyond even the envelope of galactic super-clusters or “walls” into large voids where the HBHF’s decline going deeper into the void could amplify the effect of such a void vis a visthe Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

In other words, the hyperbolic super-massive black hole gravitational effect might mimic a “halo” of Dark Matter that envelopes galaxies and galactic clusters. It could even deepen the difference between the gravitational fields present in large superclusters or galactic “walls” and the relative absence of said fields deep inside voids.

If the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field can be generalized to the entire universe, its transformation or time dependent quantum-like transition to an inverse square gravitational field that may have begun with the Big Bang. And, it might be characterized as a process that is still ongoing. So, potential energy from a higher energy hyperbolic gravitational form, as in the red curve, might become available kinematically to objects under the influence of inverse square gravitational potential energy, consistent with the black curve.

Acceleration of Hubble expansion would become apparent after the curves begin to substantially diverge (diagrammatically and not to scale) at about x = 1.5. The present time, t, or the present scale factor of the universe, a(t) could be represented to be located at maybe around x (or y) » 3.5 so that acceleration becomes apparent at maybe around 40% of the way toward t = 1, the present, or toward a(1) = 1, the present era scale factor. If we took the time, we could make these to scale so that actual predictions or depictions of real observations could be symbolized. Crudely diagrammatic or not, this scenario seems to be close to what may have been actually observed. Of course, it may be said that these curves were shrewdly constructed in a artificial manner that was deliberately meant to show this very thing. But, it was too easy to be an accident and this author is not smart enough to have contrived it.

Look at the enormous difference between the red curve and the black curve to the left of r = x = 1. This difference grows and becomes virtually infinite as one moves his attention further to the left, approaching the abscissa. Maybe this would provide a rational for initial inflation, which may then be said to have ended at r = x = 1, not after just a few seconds. Then, to the right of r = x = 1, the curves diverge again as the universe experiences acceleration or “reinflation”, gaining new vigor from the infusion of energy from the hyperbolic field’s residual gravity-like field.

Well intentioned, sincere, dedicated and very intelligent people have tried to prove that the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field is impossible. They may sometimes use direct application of GR without prior recourse to any metric. One has to solve for a metric first, and then use even more assumptions and boundary conditions to solve for a useful equation that can be experimentally or observationally tested. Of course, using the conventional multiple layers of assumptions and boundary conditions, they must logically arrive at the notion that the form of the gravitational field has to be an inverse square relation in any universe with 3 spatial dimensions.

But, how do they handle the fact that the black hole gravitational field must be physically real, infinitely deep and having a central infinitely dense point mass? No non-existent quasi-quantum gravity theory will “normalize” this singularity away. Somehow, this infinity must be included in any computation without “normalizing” it away after some fashion accidentally, implicitly or not. Which “normalization” might be in the form of the uncritical application of Einstein’s derivation of Newton’s law. This is insouciantly done as if contrast to said application was not the whole point underlying the concept of the hyperbolic field in the first place.

They must actually make the implicit assumption or silent premise that the singularity in a black hole doesn’t even exist in order to handle it mathematically at all. That is, they find a very plausible excuse to simply ignore it. Thereupon, one just naturally arrives at the idea that F is proportional to 1/r^(n-l), which boils down to 1/r² for 3 spatial dimensions.

It seems as if there is actually no way to explicitly acknowledge the physical reality of a black hole singularity in any way in such superficial treatments of GR. Unless such proofs explicitly treat the singularity as a physically real singularity, which is not merely another simple internal “distribution of matter”, they may end up proving nothing. Whatever odd geometry, queer boundary conditions or kooky assumptions may be necessary to admit the HBHF, they should be considered.

Let’s face it. Black holes are real and unique. We need to treat them mathematically this way, as if the central singularity is not a myth. Some observably exceptional properties must propagate far beyond their unobservable event horizons or else black holes are just ordinary objects in an increasingly dull universe. So, if this is the day of the GUT, cosmology is dead.

Finally, speaking of renormalizability, the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field may be renormalizable precisely because it is not represented by an inverse square relation. So, perhaps this would be a means to force gravity into the rigid klogs of quantum dynamics. The advantages and therefore the motivation to admit the hyperbolic gravitational field, even as it may be an unlikely postulate, may be much greater than anyone thinks.

We could keep Newton for laughs by joking that F = GMm/r^1.999 , there being no such thing as a real sphere in the locally distorted geometry of our universe, at least not near black holes. What does in fact happen to a gravitational field if it is not spherically symmetric as all the theorems presume? Might perturbation theory have to introduce an hyperbolic field component?

This F equation may be renormalizable too because it is not quite an inverse square relation. Ugh! This could be a form of MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics. Everyone knows that all modified gravitational field theories are intrinsically illegitimate (LOL).