MarkE

Senior Members
  • Content count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

MarkE last won the day on May 18

MarkE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About MarkE

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Genetics, evolution, astronomy and logic

Recent Profile Visitors

2220 profile views
  1. Instead of changing his whole hypothesis, I might have given him a something to ponder in order to approach and edit his initial starting values.
  2. It’s impossible to involve mass when you’re describing a photon NOW. You have to involve a certain change in time. Photons and mass are interchangeable (E=mc2), so you can have either mass or a photon, but you can’t have them both at the same time when you're describing the same thing. What IS a photon right now WAS mass earlier, or vice versa. Hawking radiation states that a black hole evaporates. It decreases in size and loses mass by emitting photons. In our Sun, the difference between 4 hydrogen atoms that are converted into one helium atom, in terms of mass, is only 0,7%. This percentage of mass has been converted into photons. This conversion also happens the other way around, photons are able to change into an electron-positron pair, which is matter, and therefore has mass.
  3. With the only difference that there’s no evidence for pink unicorns, but there is evidence that not only particles may exert attraction (i.e. 'have mass'), because 1) there's no evidence that dark matter has to be a particle, and 2) there's no evidence that the graviton exists, and 3) there's no evidence that any object/particle is able to reside in the center of a BH (and hence is responsible for its mass), and 4) massless photons in flat space (geometrically non curved space) are still attracted by the gravitational field that is created by massive BHs. So I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree (again ). Remember that I've never said that you are wrong at any point in our discussion, I just haven't been provided with irrefutable evidence why it should be more plausible that only a (yet undiscovered) particle may possess and exert gravity/attraction/mass, that's all. Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts (again), and enjoy your Saturday!
  4. If that's the case, then how are you able to know for sure that I'm wrong? You've said this multiple times: and and Your conclusion seems to be that I'm wrong. Therefore it's not true that you "don't know" whether I'm wrong or not. If someone says he "doesn't know", it means that both possibilities are still optional, but you don't think that my suggestion is equally possible, it's not even optional, you've ruled it out completely, without backing up your own explanation in defence. But, if I understand you correctly, you don't need to back anything up, only I have to provide you with evidence: I really don't think this is how one should treat physics. If you have reasons to suspect that a particle is responsible for the mass inside of a black hole, you have to back that up as well.
  5. Does this mean that your answer to my question therefore is 'yes'?
  6. On the contrary, I've underlined those sentences that seem contradictory, and do not support it. Take for instance "Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes", which indicates that it's not a denser, but an intermediate form. Or am I interpreting the meaning of that sentence wrong? "Few scientists claim that quark stars and black holes are one and the same" and "most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole" are both suggesting that it's more plausible that black holes are different from a neutron star or quark star, instead of the same thing. Or am I interpreting the meaning of that sentence wrong as well?
  7. Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars. It may also occur in (hypothetical) quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects. Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes. Few scientists claim that quark stars and black holes are one and the same. Not enough data exist to support any hypothesis but neutron stars with awkward spectrums have been used in arguments (link). Because the properties of hypothetical, more exotic forms of degenerate matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole (link). A stellar black hole (or stellar-mass black hole) is a black hole formed by the gravitational collapse of a massive star. They have masses ranging from about 5 to several tens of solar masses. The process is observed as a hypernova explosion or as a gamma ray burst. These black holes are also referred to as collapsars. Note that this proof of existence of stellar black holes is not entirely observational but relies on theory: We can think of no other object for these massive compact systems in stellar binaries besides a black hole. A direct proof of the existence of a black hole would be if one actually observes the orbit of a particle (or a cloud of gas) that falls into the black hole (link).
  8. Let's get back to the physics. What’s the best evidence we have that Fermi gas is be responsible for the mass in the center of a black hole? Do you agree that, if it can’t be Fermi gas, a neutron star is the densest form of matter (degeneracy pressure being the best evidence for that statement), and therefore a black hole can’t be an object? If you don’t think this is the right conclusion to make, does that mean you think that a yet undiscovered particle has to be responsible?
  9. Perhaps I didn’t give enough evidence to cover absolutely everything, fair enough, but does this allow everybody to accept the current explanation on what mass is, and how it is caused? Why don’t these explanations need any defence in their own behalf, what makes them so superior? Let me put it into one simple question then: Could you give me one law/rule/equation/observation/anything that proves that mass HAS to be a particle, and that it can’t be anything else than a particle? (Which automatically would mean that it rules out the possibility that a hole in spacetime, (NOT stuff, NOT a particle) could be responsible for mass/attraction/gravity).
  10. You’re arguing in opposition of what I’m suggesting, not in favour of a counter-explanation. It’s not the most convincing way to claim that you’re right, and that somebody else is wrong. You’re telling me that I’m thinking the wrong way, that’s fine, but you aren’t targeting any of my specific thoughts, which I find unfortunate, because this way I'm not learning from you. So I really appreciate the fact that you spend time to comment on my words, but if you understand why Fermi gas is a likely candidate for a denser form of matter than a neutron star, you would have explained why, if you understand how the Higgs boson gives mass to particles, you would have explained why, or if you understand why mass has to be different from attraction, you would have explained why. Not by copying words from a scientific paper, but by describing your own thoughts, and why you personally believe this is right. This is what I’m doing, I’m describing my own thoughts, and I want to be proven wrong, I’m looking for irrefutable counter-arguments why my explanation can’t be right. That’s why I’m here on this forum. If I would think that I’m right, whatever you say, I would feel like a science God every day, and I wouldn’t take the time to share my superior thoughts with all of you, right?
  11. I’ve read the article you've provided. To argue that BHs are like fuzz balls is like saying dark matter is like silly putty. It could be the case, but I didn't read anything that convinced me. Do you have any evidence for that? Only particles can have charge because charge is a characteristic of QED and QCD. Charge immediately suggests that there are 2 charges, + and - , and there’s only 1 type of a ‘hole in spacetime. Nothing indicates that some black holes are opposite in their behaviour, compared to other black holes. But only temporarily. It doesn't create any new matter. (Although we know that matter can be created from energy.) The process I was describing can create real matter. Hawking radiation suggests that virtual particles become real particles So it might Be temporarily at one place (in my example), but at another location (near a BH) new matter can be created. Yes, you’re right, this isn’t limited only near a BH, but I was referring to the other type (the one close to BH), so I should have been clearer here ☺. That is a bizarre statement. It could be a particle that is not part of the standard model. That is the basis of most hypotheses. We have measured all particles up until the 12th decimal place. Nothing indicates that we are going to discover a new particle (other than smaller ones inside already existing particles, but this hypothetically particle-particle would be a fragment of an existing particle that is already known to exist, which is of course different from discovering a NEW particle). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that dark matter can’t be at one central point such as a BH, but should rather be distributed in the surroundings. I agree with that, but I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. If this hole in space, “nothing”, indeed causes mass/attraction, than that doesn’t account only for BHs, but also for particles. But we can’t measure it (and hence discover quantum gravity) because it’s too small. If you can't observe/measure something, it doesn't mean it can't exert an attractive force. Firstly, I wasn’t addressing you ☺. Secondly, I’m merely applying reductio ad absurdum here, meaning that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them can’t be true, then the opposite must be true. We’ve already discussed that neutron stars are the densest form of matter (and I am not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that "Fermi gas" must be the likely remaining candidate), and neutron stars can’t exceed 3 Solar masses. Well, BHs are much larger than 3 Solar masses, so SM particles can’t be the source of mass inside a BH. If it can’t be matter, then it isn’t matter. We may have to revise our understanding of what mass is. There is a difference here: empty space is the space in between particles. An actual hole in spacetime itself is something else with other characteristics towards particles. If you assume that a particle is responsible for mass, caused by an excitation of a field (Higgs field), and this Higgs boson by itself has mass as well, and if there is another particle out there, which is responsible for gravity (graviton), and if there is yet another particle that is responsible for a totally different form of mass (dark matter), wouldn’t it make much more sense instead if all those forms of mass/gravity are one and the same thing? Well, sense alone is not going to convince you or me, so let me elaborate a bit more about this. Mass is the DNA of every star. Two stars with the same mass share the exact same characteristics. Does this mean it therefore that something else, another kind of particle, has to be responsible for this mass, and is located between celestial bodies and BHs? Why can’t it be due to the nature of the black hole and celestial bodies themselves? What's happening in their centers? We don't yet fully understand the nature of normal observable SM matter. We haven’t yet been able to explain how the Higgs boson gets is mass, what quantum gravity is and whether the graviton exists or not, but we shouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of different form of matter, even though all observations indicate that there isn't such a particle, neither a MACHO nor a WIMP has ever been detected. No particle is just 1 particle by itself. Particles have spin and a wave function, so they have a kind of dualistic nature, as if something is "attached" to all particles that give them this dualistic/symmetric nature, because it is moving away from it. Is there any particle out there that is not moving? Is there a sedentary form of SM matter/energy? If it would be only 1 particle, not influenced by anything else, it wouldn’t have a wave function or oscilation in the first place. What causes this continuous moving particle behaviour? Well, it’s at least an attraction of some sort that has to be involved, don’t you agree? But what causes the attraction? To answer this question, you can apply reductio ad absurdum again: what gives mass to a particle? Let's assume it's the Higgs boson, a particle. So, what gives this Higgs particle its mass? "Yet another particle"? If you go further and further with this, eventually you have to conclude it can’t be a particle that gives mass. "A field perhaps?" OK, let's assume it's field. So what gives mass to that field? The same logic applies again, eventually you have to conclude that this field has to be subject to yet another field, which eventually can’t be made actual normal everyday energy on the SM, the “stuff” we can observe. In GR, photons are bent by the curvature of spacetime (in fact, this is how Arthur Eddington made Einstein famous, by making this observation). But a massless photon that is attracted by anything, that doesn't make sense if you think about it. Weren’t objects attracted by other objects? Yet, the opposite seems to be the case. In conclusion: I don't think that objects are attracted by other objects, "stuff" is attracted by "not stuff". Could you explain me this one question in particular: why do attraction and mass have to be two different things?
  12. Have you read this whole thread from the beginning? Multiple observations and laws of physics support it (which I won't repeat here). Keep in mind that there is no established science on dark matter yet. This doesn't mean that this explanation therefore has to be right, but I'd like to hear from you what observation and/or law of physics irrefutably prohibits it. Could you provide me that?
  13. In short: that "nothing" can cause attraction. That a black hole is an actual hole in space, with negative attraction to particles (and we call this attraction "mass").
  14. Thanks for the article, I'll get into that. It's a boson, so it's a SM particle, made of "stuff". (So to rewrite my sentence: Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter SM particles.) Well, only particles can have charge, but not only particles can have mass. This is the reason why I support the quantum fluctuation theory (which preceded the Big Bang), and the zero-energy Universe. Matter doesn't even need other matter to be created. Quantum foam describes pair production in the vacuum (false vacuum) of space. We actually observe some annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes. When the antimatter runs into matter in the Universe, it produces gamma rays of very specific frequencies, which we can then detect. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. This means that, to go from mass to energy is allowed by E=mc2, is like saying to go from nothing to something, which is basically what the quantum fluctuations hypothesis states (Edward Tryon proposed the zero-energy universe hypothesis: that the Universe may be a large-scale quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy), and also what we observe during BH entropy, gamma ray bursts, quantum foam. There's also a non-scientific, but still interesting problem with mental causation, if you consider where a thought, or an idea, comes from, and that it actually violates the law of conservation of energy (see point 2.3 Conservation Laws of this article). If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle. We need dark matter to describe the way in which celestial bodies are orbiting the BH in our Milky Way, but if we don't understand what a BH is in the first place, we might not need this dark "matter".
  15. This is another reason to add to my list why black holes can't possibly be made of Standard Model matter. Would this particle be a particle on the SM, or a different/new kind of particle that doesn't exist today (as mentioned by Strange in another topic): Not really. Just that in the grand unification epoch, the particles that existed would have behaved differently than they do now. This is not something I now much about but if the forces were unified, then perhaps the distinct particles we see now were not distinguished. But it probably needs someone like Mordred to comment further Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter. On the list of unsolved problems in physics can be read: Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[17] Is it a particle? Are you sure that black holes preserve charge? That would mean they have to be made of SM matter, but as far as I know charged black holes only exist in theory. Keep in mind that Hawking radiation is describing the vicinity of a BH, the event horizon (where matter resides), not the center of it. The same accounts for jet plumes. In artistic drawings you often see a jet plume coming from the center of a BH, but in reality the jet plume is formed only in the vicinity of a black hole, near the event horizon, it isn't ejected from the center. Black body radiation therefore doesn’t necessarily mean that an actual body/object (made of SM matter) is emitting radiation, since mass and energy are interchangeable, and mass doesn't necessarily have to be made of SM particles. I'm still not convinced that BHs, mass, dark matter, and attraction in general are characteristics of SM matter exclusively, are you?