Jump to content

Alternative theory to Hawkings's radiation - do blackholes burst? LHC!


porton
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am a general topologist.

I have my own theory of preserving information by black holes. (I have formulated my modified math model of general relativity and it is likely in my opinion that in this model information is preserved, but I didn't do calculations whether the model really preserves information yet, because my research topic was general topology, not physics.)

The consequences?

If we have an alternative explanation, the Hawkings's theory may be wrong. Isn't it so?

I hope that both my theory and Hawkings's theory are correct (in the sense that they to be combined in one unified theory.)

But if it happens (we don't know) that my theory is the reality and the Hawkings's one is not, then blackholes don't burst (most likely, I didn't calculate yet).

I recommend to stop LHC now!

https://math.portonvictor.org/2020/01/3 ... lack-hole/ describes my theory, a modification of Einstein's equations (well, not of the equations themselves but of their interpretation).

Comment!!

https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/limit.pdf is my theory of "generalized limit" and another meaning of any partial differential equations (including the Einstein ones).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Great! Do some research into physics and maths and then tell us what you have.

No, not great:

I am a general topologist. I am not a partial differential equations expert. @beecee I think you most likely would solve this much faster than me (even counting the time to read my above mentioned article).

"Do... maths"

I estimate the probability that in my theory black holes form very similarly to GT as 90%, that my model preserves information 50%.

Then assuming my theory is such, the probability that Hawkings's theory is right and that mine is right are equal by my estimation.

But they can be both true (I mean their "combination" to be true, and likely this combination is much simpler to find than e.g. QG theory), so 75%.

Calculating 90% * 50% * 75% = 33.75% that LHC produces non-bursting blackholes (in the assumption that it produces balckholes - was this already proven?)

33.75% of eating the Earth by blackholes.

@beecee calculate faster than me, please.Meanwhile, guys, could you please turn LHC off till my discontinuous analysis publication succeeds? That would be a reasonable outage given the importance of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, porton said:

I am a general topologist. I am not a partial differential equations expert. @beecee I think you most likely would solve this much faster than me (even counting the time to read my above mentioned article).

No, I am a retired Maintenace Fitter/Machinist/Welder who is interested in science and read a few reputable publications re BH's and Hawking Radiation, and my mathematical prowess is abysmal. 

1 hour ago, porton said:

Then assuming my theory is such, the probability that Hawkings's theory is right and that mine is right are equal by my estimation.

Hawking Radiation assumes a very likley scenario re BH evaporation without any crossing of the EH from inside to outside. That is a concrete absolute. Plus the very nature of the beast means we willl probably never be able to observe Hawking Radiation. Nothing but nothing ever escapes a BH by crossing the EH.

1 hour ago, porton said:

Then assuming my theory is such, the probability that Hawkings's theory is right and that mine is right are equal by my estimation.

But they can be both true (I mean their "combination" to be true, and likely this combination is much simpler to find than e.g. QG theory), so 75%.

You need proper professional peer review. I'm not cut out or qualified to conduct that, but we do have some good people on this site that may give you a better idea of any validity or otherwise, in what you claim.

 

1 hour ago, porton said:

Calculating 90% * 50% * 75% = 33.75% that LHC produces non-bursting blackholes (in the assumption that it produces balckholes - was this already proven?)

33.75% of eating the Earth by blackholes.

@beecee calculate faster than me, please.Meanwhile, guys, could you please turn LHC off till my discontinuous analysis publication succeeds? That would be a reasonable outage given the importance of the problem.

Not 100% certain, but the LHC if it did, or has created any BH's, would only be quantum or microscopic BH's anyway, and any Earth destroying possibility is near zero.

My first reply post was to essentially say, that you must know thoroughly the physics/cosmolgy you are trying to invalidate, before ever attempting to come up with a new hypothetical.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, porton said:

https://math.portonvictor.org/2020/01/3 ... lack-hole/ describes my theory, a modification of Einstein's equations (well, not of the equations themselves but of their interpretation).

Comment!!

https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/limit.pdf is my theory of "generalized limit" and another meaning of any partial differential equations (including the Einstein ones).
!

Moderator Note

Our rules require that the discussion take place here. People should be able to participate without clicking any links

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, porton said:

Meanwhile, guys, could you please turn LHC off till my discontinuous analysis publication succeeds? That would be a reasonable outage given the importance of the problem.

Your definition of "reasonable" is unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, porton said:

33.75% of eating the Earth by blackholes.

 

33.75% - is this per day, per year? A number like this suggests your calculation is meaningless.

Given how long the LHC has run, I’d say the fact that we weren’t eaten by a black hole is a substantial blow to your conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've heard you mention 'your theory', now, for several days, yet most of us don't have a clue about it.
The only thing we know is that it failed a previous peer review, and none of us are going to your link, to read and try to understand what could be 400 pages of garbage.

If you want people to discuss 'your theory', post a brief description here, and we will be glad to dissect and critique it ( even if you don't like our criticism ); otherwise quit bringing it up in multiple threads.

IOW, put up, or shut up !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

We've heard you mention 'your theory', now, for several days, yet most of us don't have a clue about it.
The only thing we know is that it failed a previous peer review, and none of us are going to your link, to read and try to understand what could be 400 pages of garbage.

If you want people to discuss 'your theory', post a brief description here, and we will be glad to dissect and critique it ( even if you don't like our criticism ); otherwise quit bringing it up in multiple threads.

IOW, put up, or shut up !

I am repeating:

Here is my discontinuous analysis:

https://math.portonvictor.org/binaries/limit.pdf

that is based on my another (that one about 400 pages) text.

Here is my modified GR that uses discontinuous analysis:

https://math.portonvictor.org/2020/01/31/an-infinitely-big-structure-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole/

My 400 pages text did not fail peer review: Here it is published by a reputable scientific publisher:

https://znanium.com/catalog/document?id=347707

OK, my theory in short:

We can define limit of every (even discontinuous) function in several equivalent ways, for example:

Generalized limit is a function from ultrafilters (including the improper one) "nearby" a point into limits of the function at these ultrafilters.

Then my text goes into such details as other ways to describe generalized limits and arithmetic operations on generalized limits. For this I define something I call "singularities" (not to mess with the usual usage of this word) that is infinitely bug values like the value 1/x takes near 0 in my theory.

We can define generalized (partial) derivatives simply by replacing limit by generalized limit in the definition of derivatives.

So, every differential equation could have solutions that could consist of "signularities" (rather than e.g. real numbers). After restricting these solutions in a reasonable way (see the actual text for details), we get a new interpretation of every (partial) differential equation, including a new interpretation of GR.

For GR I propose the following (exactly formulated) mathematical model:

  • We require the solutions to be pseudodifferentiable in timelike intervals.
  • (We do not require the solutions to be pseudodifferentiable in spacelike intervals.)

So, we have a new modified GR, possibly with some infinite structure in the centers of blackholes.

It seems likely that my model preserves all information.

"IOW, put up, or shut up !" - treating me like an animal is...?

5 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Our rules require that the discussion take place here. People should be able to participate without clicking any links

 

 

 

Excuse me, I can't post formulas here, there is no LaTeX!

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Why?

Well, as a part of the well known mathematicians revolt: LHC is maybe a small thing compared to discontinuous analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, porton said:

Excuse me, I can't post formulas here, there is no LaTeX!

Markup works reasonably well here but there are unfortunate wrinkles you need to follow.

 

As a matter of example how would your system handle the limit of the following real valued function?

 


[math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to 1} f\left( x \right):f\left( x \right) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
   {1 - x} & {\left( {x \le 1} \right)}  \\
   {2x} & {\left( {x > 1} \right)}  \\
\end{array}} \right\}[/math]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

Markup works reasonably well here but there are unfortunate wrinkles you need to follow.

 

As a matter of example how would your system handle the limit of the following real valued function?

 


limx1f(x):f(x)={1x2x(x1)(x>1)}

 

I clearly told that in my system every function has a limit.

In this case it's the set of all shifts of the funcoid taking the value 0 at the left neighborhood of 1 (including 1) and 2 at the right neighborhood (excluding 1).

Well, I forgot to tell that my funcoid is to be topologically "smashed" vertially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Can you reproduce any piece of known physics with your theory? Let's say Coulomb's law, or Newton's law of gravity, or the like.

Coulomb's law - no - its about gravity only.

Newton's law of gravity - most likely yes, but calculations need time to spend on.

One of the outcomes I consider likely that the "external" (anything except of the point of a singularity) effect of my theory is exactly the same as of GR. The difference may be (likely) that there is information in singularities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, porton said:

I clearly told that in my system every function has a limit.

In this case it's the set of all shifts of the funcoid taking the value 0 at the left neighborhood of 1 (including 1) and 2 at the right neighborhood (excluding 1).

Well, I forgot to tell that my funcoid is to be topologically "smashed" vertially.

Did you say the limit in your definition is multivalued ?

Note I haven't said that you are correct or incorrect.

According to conventional real analysis this limit does not exist.

But then neither does infinity.

And yest we can handle infinity in the extended real number sytem.

 

So I ask you again please state mathematically how your system handles this limit if, as you claim, it does so.

In other words how does your set of shifts map to the real number system ?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

Did you say the limit in your definition is multivalued ?

Note I haven't said that you are correct or incorrect.

According to conventional real analysis this limit does not exist.

But then neither does infinity.

And yest we can handle infinity in the extended real number sytem.

 

So I ask you again please state mathematically how your system handles this limit if, as you claim, it does so.

In other words how does your set of shifts map to the real number system ?

Yes, my limit is kinda (in some sense I myself define) is multivalued. However, that depends on the exact definition (out of several equivalent ways). I am repeating (it is present above) one of my definitions of generalized limit (it is not a multivalued function, speaking formally, but it is multivalued in some important sense that is not easy to explain quickly, or you want me to retype my entire manuscript here?):

Generalized limit is a function from ultrafilters (including the improper one) "nearby" a point into limits of the function at these ultrafilters.

I do know that the "traditional" limit does not exist in this case.

My set of "shifts" (not of shifts but of results of shifts) does not "map" to the real number system. Limits in my system are something like infinite numbers. It is an extension of the real number system (in the case if our space is the real line).

For example generalized limits at zero of 1/x, 1/x^2 and 1/x^3 are different "infinite numbers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, porton said:

Yes, my limit is kinda (in some sense I myself define) is multivalued. However, that depends on the exact definition (out of several equivalent ways). I am repeating (it is present above) one of my definitions of generalized limit (it is not a multivalued function, speaking formally, but it is multivalued in some important sense that is not easy to explain quickly, or you want me to retype my entire manuscript here?):

Generalized limit is a function from ultrafilters (including the improper one) "nearby" a point into limits of the function at these ultrafilters.

I do know that the "traditional" limit does not exist in this case.

My set of "shifts" (not of shifts but of results of shifts) does not "map" to the real number system. Limits in my system are something like infinite numbers. It is an extension of the real number system (in the case if our space is the real line).

For example generalized limits at zero of 1/x, 1/x^2 and 1/x^3 are different "infinite numbers".

 

I only posted here because you introduced your theory of limits here so our discussion is about pure mathematics and the thread is about something else entirely.

So that other mathematicians here can get the chance to see this I am going to ask the moderator to split this thread so that the maths discussion can proceed separately.

Meanwhile I would expect a straightforward definite and complete answer to a relatively simple question in support of such a claim about limits, not a lot of waffle and hand waving about other functions.

If you  need guidance on TEX or Markup I suggest you ask in another thread or look for some as there are already plenty or ask a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I only posted here because you introduced your theory of limits here so our discussion is about pure mathematics and the thread is about something else entirely.

So that other mathematicians here can get the chance to see this I am going to ask the moderator to split this thread so that the maths discussion can proceed separately.

Meanwhile I would expect a straightforward definite and complete answer to a relatively simple question in support of such a claim about limits, not a lot of waffle and hand waving about other functions.

If you  need guidance on TEX or Markup I suggest you ask in another thread or look for some as there are already plenty or ask a moderator.

Could you please repeat your question? If you are about my definition of generalized limit, I gave it above two times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, porton said:

Could you please repeat your question? If you are about my definition of generalized limit, I gave it above two times.

!

Moderator Note

Discussion peripheral to Hawking radiation and Black holes should take place in a different thread.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, porton said:

Well, as a part of the well known mathematicians revolt: LHC is maybe a small thing compared to discontinuous analysis.

What revolt? The LHC has now been operational for many years without any mishap, and given us great knowledge of the sub atomical world, as well as great discoveries like the Higg's particle. And obviously it is far from being small with a 27 kilometer main ring. More info and facts to be found here, including the operational safety.....

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider/safety-lhc

extract: "LSAG reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. The LSAG report has been reviewed and endorsed by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing body, its Council"

So again, no, no BH's created at all.

https://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/faq/black-hole.html

 

The creation of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider is very unlikely. However, some theories suggest that the formation of tiny 'quantum' black holes may be possible. The observation of such an event would be thrilling in terms of our understanding of the Universe; it would also be perfectly safe.

Two types of black hole

Black holes form in space when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. They are so dense that the gravity they exert is such that not even light can travel out of them.

Speculations about black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons. These are microscopic - or quantum - black holes. Scientists are not at all sure that quantum black holes exist.

extract:

What if collisions at the LHC produced a black hole?

The creation of a quantum black hole at the LHC would be very surprising, but very exciting indeed. It would allow physicists to learn about nature’s most elusive force – gravity.

Remember: particle collisions happen all the time in nature, and we're all still here. If you would like to read up more on the safety of the LHC, there is more information here.

In essence, any quantum or microscopic BH possibly created, would decay instantly to various particles via a process known as Hawking radiation.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if your mathematical model was found to be self-consistent, there is no guarantee that it is actually applicable in any/all circumstances.
The mathematical model has to describe a physical system, so don't go jumping to conclusion regarding applicability to BHs, Hawking radiation and the 'information paradox'.
Even GR is not applicable in some circumstances, as evidenced by the un-physical singularities it predicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.