MigL

A single electron's quantum mechanical spin will produce a magnetic dipole moment, yet it cannot be argued that the electron is actually spinning since it is treated as a point particle and it does not return to its original orientation after a 360 deg rotation ( actually need 720 deg ). So, where's the current ???

I don't usually post in speculation but any steady state theory has to, by definition, create mass-energy. In one of your previous posts you implied that black holes destroy mass-energy and your theory just returns this mass-energy to the universe. Now maybe you don't understand black holes or GR too well but black holes conserve all mass-energy they ingest on the event horizon, after all, they still gravitate don't they ? That would be pretty hard to do without mass-energy, would it not ? So this extra emass-energy that causes the universe to expand, in the steady state theory, must be created, falsifying the law of conservation of mass-energy. This law is one of the paradigms of modern physics and arises from consideration of a basic continuous symmetry in time. The big bang theory accounts for all its participating mass-energies very accurately, and on this basis alone, I am willing to reject your theory and stick with the accepted big bang theory.

Your critique of the article applies to most of David Levy's posts also !!!

The rubber sheet is an analogy and it can be used to represent several things. The one we are interested in EMField, is gravitational potential. Do you still need to be spoonfed what that implies for the motion of the masses causing the indentations or potential wells ??? In your rush to put foreward your pet theories of a plasma dominated universe, you display an amazing lack of insight into the simplest gravitational processes.

Sorry, typing faster than I can think, and I type with two fingers. Standard model electroweak symmetry group is SU(2)xU(1) not what I wrote in the previous post. The electomagnetic symmetry goup identified with the photon is U(1) not SU(1).

Consider heterotic string theory of the E8xE8 symmetry group. In this supersymmetric theory, by Gross of Princeton I believe. each closed string has inherent dimensionality of ten in one direction to describe fermionic fields and sixteen more in the opposite direction ( 26 tootal ) to describe bosonic fields. It does not need renormalization and has gravitons as one of the bosonic field excitations. This E8xE8 symmetry breaks into two E8 symmetry groups, which then breaks to an E6 group and again to the familiar SU(3)xSU(2)xSU(1) groups of GUT ( SU(3) ) and standard model Electroweak ( SU(2)xSU(1) ). The two E8 symmetry groups are in effect two separate universes connected only by gravity since the other forces only arise after the symmetry break. This second universe s invisible to all other forces except gravity, so we have in effect at least doubled the mass of the universe without any visible other matter, and since the second E8 group does not have to break in the same sequence as the first, it could be composed of heavier particles, like say the supersymmetric equivalents of normal particles, explaning why they have never been observed. I don't know enough about string theory to comment on the validity of this approach, maybe AJB can make some comments as he seems to be well versed on the subject.

You can summerize all you want David Levi, but you'll never be able to convince anyone with a fifth grade understanding of math and science, because they'll see all the holes in your summary. Saying something is so does not constitute proof, Mr Levi, and if you think so then I assume your level of education is less than fifth grade.

Don't confuse EMField with the facts, JMJones, he's already made up his mind.

I'll answer you here, EMField. I like to deal with accepted physics, not speculation ( mostly ). Why would you think that light has to slow down and stop at the event horizon of a black hole ? Take a sine wave, representing one of the two polarizations of light, and stretch the time base, as you would in a strong gravitational well ( gravitational time dilation as predicted by GR ). This has the exact same effect as increasing the wavelength and decreasing the frequency, ie. it undergoes red-shift. At the event horizon of a black hole we don't need to assume the photons are stopped in their tracks, we instead consider the time base of the light wave stretched to infinity, such that the wavelength is infinite and the frequency is zero. I assume you know what that means, the photons have no energy left, they have been red shifted into nothingness, after their 'climb' out of the hole's gravitational well. Their energy has been given up to the black hole, but they still travel at c . And no, gravity is not and does not need to be an EM event. The logic you used to arrive at your conclusion is rather arrogant. You assume you know all forces, so if one doesn't fit your pet theories, it must be an effect of one of the others. Are there no unknowns in your world ? Gravity has a perfectly workable theory in GR. It only fails at certain extremes, otherwise it has been verified to about ten or more decimal places. Most physicist are humble and recognise that these extremes are unknown and will readily admit we need a quantum field theory of gravity.

Hello EMField, still at it, eh ? Yes , all space around any nucleus is permeated by a Quantum field. This field extends out to infinity since EM fields ( not you ) are infinite in extent. The electron, wether you consider them orbiting or as a probability cloud, fall in the range of this field. As a quantum field, it necessarily has excitations which we associate with bosonic force carrier particles, and for QED these happen to correspond to virtual photons. These are created from 'borrowed' energy, and can exist for short periods of time determined by Heisenberg's principle. The numbers of virtual photons is immensly greater near a charge, such that at extremely close ranges, the virtual particles 'blow-up' obsevables like mass and charge to infinities which can only be removed by a dubious ( to me anyway ) process called renormalization. Now you may say 'Aha, I told you so', but bosonic force carriers have this peculiar quality, they follow Bose-Einstein statistics, ie they don't have an equivalent of the Pauli exclusion principle. In effect, you can stack as many photons as you want, virtual or real, intothe same state without ANY interaction between them. This means photons will not keep other photons from travelling at the speed of light. Sorry if I'm violating rules Swansont, but I couldn't resist.

So now not only energy conservation laws are false but also thermodynamic laws, since you seem to think that certain electrical processes require no energy, a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Have I got a pepetual motion machine to sell you !!! Incidentally spinning plasma in the accretion disk of a black hole, at nearly the speed of light gives rise to the polar particle and radiation jets, not only of X-rays but even Gamma rays. If seen head-on these are called quasars. And since the galactic centre black holes were more active when the universe was young because galaxies had just formed, they were more numerous at great distances or earlier times. A lot of the galactic cores have settled down with stars simply orbiting the central black hole unless something upsets the orbits and the black holes start gobbling up stars again. The best particle accelerators are black holes or even neutron stars, they have immense magnetic fields. The reason we use electomagnetic accelerators is because gravity is so weak at the scales we are using. Its just much more practical. Does this answer your questions or are you gonna keep the blinders on.

None of the things you say makes any sense !!! Apparently all our technology is based on false assumptions. But this will all be sorted out as soon as the NASA mission to study plasma starts bringing in data. Oh, by the way, the NASA mission is based on technology which YOU seem to think, is false, how does that make sense ???? If you want to prove me wrong, then go ahead, post the math that says there is no conservation of mass-energy. I would think even if too lazy, you'll do it just to shut-up people liike me, ACG52 and uncool, just to name a few, and I'll post a public apology to you.

All EM radiation emitted by stars is actually produced in the interior, close to the centre. On the way to the surface it travels through the stellar medium, abour all Hydrogen plasma, but there is also some atomic Hydrogen, which absorbs and re-emits this light at certain frequencies. These absorption frequencies show up as dark lines in the continuous spectrum of EM radiation emitted by the star. We know exactly where these lines are and at what frequencies they are found, we have even named them, Balmer series, Lyman series, etc. If these characteristic absorption lines appear at any other frequency, then we have a blue or red shift. The shifting of the EM radiation can be easily pictured by having a simple sine wave travel between two objects as the space between them expands. The only assumptiom made is that elemental absorption lines are the same in the distant and past universe. which seems lvery likely.

Don't remember if it was Hawking or his student Berkenstein ( sp? ) who first noticed the similarity between the increase of the event horizon and the increase in entropy, but the other then did a detailed calculation based on deg. of freedom to obtain entropy. I was under the impression that Hawking had postulated that information is also conserved on the event horizon along with other quantities which have to abide by conservation laws.

I'll repeat it again, and maybe this time you'll at least attempt an answer. If matter is created in the centre of active galaxies, then mass-energy is being created in clear violation of a basic conservation law which is a paradigm of physics. This law of conservation of mass-energy is a direct result of the continuous symmetry of the action in a time transformation ( Noether's theorem ). Notice that the big bang event can get around this conservation law because there is no time symmetry since space-time structure only comes into being at the big bang, ie. there is no time before t=0.

Have you ever seen a centrifugal scroll or fan as in a turbocharger or early jet engine ??? Its Newton's laws of motion. There is no centripetal force constraining the air to the radius of the fan so the air is free to move in astraight line after its initial acceleration.

Conservation of information is a Quantum Mechanical concept. Black holes are a General Relativistic phenomena. Hawking radiation is a crude marriage of the two and may not account for all possible effects A quantum Gravity theory is needed. A black hole still has mass-energy which it can use to repay the 'loan', along with charge and angular momentum. And of course for Hawking Radiation to be possible, it also has to have temperature and entropy.

I recognise the two astronaut example from Kip Thorne's book, But it is uniform, non-accelerated motion which is indistinguishable. Acceleration, as you describe, is always distinguishable. Otherwise, good example.

You misunderstood the analogy. If the black hole eats one of the particles it still owes the energy of both particles back to the universe, in effect the black hole has to use its own mass-energy to make up the difference. And the universe is not regulated like banks, it will lend to anybody, but HUP constrains the length of the mortgage. If I remember correctly AJB, Hawking's original argument involved black hole entropy, which then implies a temperature and susequent black body radiation, or am I mistaken ?

Noether's theorem implies that any boundary ( ie. an asymmetry ) in time, linear translation and angular translation, means that conservation laws of mass-energy, linear momentum and angular momentum respectively, are violated at those boundaries.

Introductory classical Mechanics says there is no such thing as centrifugal force. The force is actually in the other direction and is called centripetal.

Because you don't seem to understand that the relativistic train and its occupants are in a different inertial frame than the rest of the earth and its inhabitants. And while the rest of the earth sees the train and its occupants almost frozen in time, the train's occupants would not notice any such effect, everything would happen as normal to them. From their frame it is the rest of the earth and its inhabitants that are virtually frozen in time

Again ( more head banging ), your time at sea level is slowed compared to a person at higher elevation. So. are you, at sea level, in slow motion RIGHT NOW ????

If you borrow $20 from the bank and then eat $10 of it, you still have the other $10, but you owe $20 to the bank so you have to use $10 of your own money to make up the difference. Banks and the universe are very strict about repayment of loans.

I must have missed something. Where is the solid evidence that spiral galaxies should create new matter at the centre of the galaxy ????? You had better notify NASA, CERN and all scientific journals that the law of conservation of mass-energy has been falsified. This is a paradigm shift in the way we understand and do physics !!! The above is obviously sarcasm, the following is not. ACG52 was right, you need to get a clue and stop spouting nonsense.