7 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

So the interior Schwarzschild metric describes the gravity field within a spherical object taking equal density of that sphere?

"the Schwarzschild metric is the most general spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Einstein field equations" and since you can consider all the mass-energy as being at the center, it is a very useful approximation for any non-rotating, uncharged, massive objects like stars and planets.

Read this Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia

But, I have to ask
If people like Studiot are trying to help you understand limitations and constraints to your imaginings of how the universe works, why do you choose not to reply to him anymore.
Science has no consideration for hurt feelings.
We are not just a science forum; we are a science discussion forum.
( congratulations, you have the honor of the first down vote I've given out in the last dozen years )

39 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Ok, i will no need to reply to you from now on. Thx for you input.

If you really want to explore this I suggest you start with more accessible singularities, such as the Hydraulic Jump or the Acoustic Schock Wave, where we can answer some of these questions.

MigL is the perfect Physicist to ask about the latter.

What math or theory in physics would express the expansion and contraction of spherical fields and their variable interactions at variable densities? I think i would need to work out by plotting the interaction between multiple spheres expanding from multiple points at equal to or greater distances than zero.

I would need to also do the same for each sphere set at different densities greater than or equal to zero.

Each set of calculations for each sphere would take each sphere as being of equal density at the start, and again these are repeated where spheres maintain equal density as they expand for each density.

After this i would need to work the same for spheres that are collapsing from a point. Not found anything yet on how a point would collapse in upon itself, but i picture (best describe it as) like the pattern in fractals.

Each of these sets would need to be repeated on multiple fields at 0 or greater distances on each access (being the x/y, x/z and z/y) but that is bases on a 3D space and here my minds eye fails me if it should be a 3d or even try multiple dimensions too.

After that I would need to plot any interactions between all of the spheres at all calculated/plotted states and how these would interacts.

And all the points thought the this process would be required to be subject to all previous calculation above

From this I would need to identify any state exhibiting stability, identified with quantities reflecting an increase in density, and where they do not etc.

Hopefully there will be some correlation with observable classical or/and quantum mechanics.

Is this a closer interpretation of how I could build my theory, even though it is limited by the tools doing these calculations as they will get highly complex before and stability is likely to emerge?

I would hope something akin to string theory emerges but would show the brains, fields and dimensions are emergent from the closest approximation of infinite density math can handle.

Think i might need to look at how quantum computing calculates and if even that is enough.

57 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you really want to explore this I suggest you start with more accessible singularities, such as the Hydraulic Jump or the Acoustic Schock Wave, where we can answer some of these questions.

Oh ok, nice it took so long for that. Linear and non linear acoustics looks like it has some useful learning.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

congratulations, you have the honor of the first down vote I've given out in the last dozen years

Thx, i did ask for it.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by BuddhasDragon23

For the benefit of those who would like to continue discussing this subject here is my definition of a singularity.

In order to have a function you must have a domain, a codomain and a rule which maps the elements of the domain to the elements of tyhe codomain.

Once set the domain cannot be altered, although it may be restricted.

The domain describes the location of a singularity which occurs in the codomain as a result of the rule.

It is not the singularity itself.

The singularity occupies some region in the domain, which may be a single point or a line or a curve or an area or a volume or hypersurface or hypervolume etc depending upon the number of dimensions the domain possesses.

The singularity occurs where the function is discontinuous or re-entrant or infinite or is of class less than Cⁿ where n refers to the maximum order of derivative required.

Some singularities are said to be removable others are permanent.

Infinite discontinuities can often be removed and are called poles in electrical engineering, where there is a lot of information to be found under the heading 'poles and zeroes'.

Any function with a discontinuity cannot have an inverse.

So not quite to those who said a singularity is a point in time.

That point is part of the domain and describes the location of the singularity, not the beast itself.

Th simplest infinite singularity I can think of is occurs at a point of 90^o on the domain axis, when the codomain shows the tangent of the domain.

It is debatable whether there is also a discontinuity at this point.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by studiot

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

So the interior Schwarzschild metric describes the gravity field within a spherical object taking equal density of that sphere?

Not really. The Schwarzschild coordinates are simply a useful parametrisation to solve Einstein's field equations. Nothing more. But the Schwarzschild coordinates are contaminated by a spurious singularity at radial distance = Schwarzschild radius. A more physical set of coordinates is the Kruskal-Szekeres one.

And an even more physical quantity is the interval (the metric coefficients multiplied by differences in the coordinates), which is invariant, while the metric tensor is not.

What really codes the physics is the Riemann curvature tensor.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by joigus
link added

Thank you, now you wont hear from me in a while as i got something to chew on :D

Sorry to be back so soon. If that simplest singularity is calculating a right angle triangle, is the resulting singularity a straight line? You could argue it is a triangle with a side of 0, but as the length of the other line is linked it has to be the opposite and be infinitely long?

Something about that I like, as it occurs only 90, 270, 450 etc, it produces two infinites divergent from the point of 0 length. Now im guessing this has something to do with those magnetic poles as anything at the poles has a curvature of 0. Sorry that last bit was too intuitive, i will go check.

Ok, so the rest is describing how a function breaks at a location in the output if curtain inputs are used. Nice way of expressing what has been repeated a lot. Top marks.

Just popping back to my idea though :o to scientist, cosmologist and physicists, even though they can’t explain them, are black holes real and an actual singularity?

The math predicted them before they were found and now we have evidence of something very significant in the universe that has at least one measurable property being mass that we calculate by the way stars and gas orbit them. So if a singularity doesn't exist just the broken math, or function, is the universe broken having black holes. Not like any math will make a black hole evaporate out of reality.

Given the closest thing this side of classical theory, neutron stars and magnetars might be a good source of learning for me too.

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

If that simplest singularity is calculating a right angle triangle, is the resulting singularity a straight line?

No, you are confusing the location of the singularity ( 90^o) with the 'value' of the function at that location.

The Domain is the x axis. Each element of the domain is a point on the x axis.

The Codomain is the curved graph of the function.

As you have already mentioned larger angles than are possible in any triangle I assume you have seen something like this.

The dashed line represent the location of the singularity.

Some mathematicians regard the +∞ and -∞ as two different infinities, some regard them as the same (ie only one) ∞

It rather depends what you want to do with it.

But you have noticed that the graph switches from + to - at x = 90^o.

It is the sudden switch that is interesting.

But the tangent function is only a graph drawn on paper (or screen).

And involves handling infinity.

The fluid examples I gave for a reason.

They involve a similar switch of state and you can follow quantities like velocity, acceleration, momentum, energy, density (that you asked about) right through the singularity.

Furthermore the singularity has physical existence.

I have built hydraulic jumps; they also occur in nature.

Their physical presence looks like (is) a step in the water surface and all the above properties change abruptly at this step.

But all the properties (including the step and the water surface) remain finite throughout.

There are no infinites to cope with.

I also mentioend shock waves, but I have only ever studied these theoretically for the purpose of preventing explosions in high pressure gas piplines.

Which is why I recommended MigL as the member to ask.

That prompted me check some info on acoustic shockwaves. I have found i think mathematically and physics wise I am at the level of getting to understand Differential Geometry. Though i was already aware there were mathematical models for this type of thing because of atlases etc I have never dealt with them in any academic way (or other) so i now have a library worth of things to get my noggin around.

Oh, apologies from me are as rare as this person giving thumbs down, but i miss read something MigL wrote about the understanding of singularities neither the scientific community nor myself had any knowledge on. Even though that statement was and still is correct, (though i have not quoted it as written) i read that as the scientific community did have the understanding but i did not and took that as another dig at my ignorance. So sorry about that. Cant apologise for anything else though unless i realise i made a similar mistake elsewhere at some future point.

How accepted is the framework of Emergent Gravity here? While still learning the math I do look for things that explain processes described in both relativity and QM. If I think I notice an area or something that fits my idea I try to find answers and one that keeps popping up is the study of emergent gravity that seems to fit my way of understanding. Is that up for discussion?

28 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

the study of emergent gravity that seems to fit my way of understanding. Is that up for discussion

Newtonian gravity is considered a force.
In GR however, you might consider gravity as an 'effect' that arises from test masses naturally following specific paths through curved space-time, which we perceive as an 'attraction' towards other masses.
It is easy to say, then, Gravity is an emergent phenomenon of curving space-time, and not a force.

You might also consider that, at small enough scales, space-time possibly becomes a chaotic 'froth', what J A Wheeler described as Quantum foam - Wikipedia, and where Gravity, as we know it, ceases to be a thing.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by MigL

It was reading about how virtual particle are meant to emerge from fluctuations as matter and anti matter particles, and these are not limited to any one type, but electrons, mouns etc can emerge but they annihilate.

I was interested if heavy neutrinos could too (but i think only light neutrinos can) as i wanted to know if leptogenisis could occur creating real particles, but i think this cannot.

In smaller particles i think if high energy particles colliding with a pair of virtual ones they could impart enough energy to break them apart before annihilating, which in theory seems possible but they soon are destroyed in the environment of space.

This made me think maybe if dark matter virtual particles were formed and could a high energy particle could cause them to split, as any resultant particles would be less likely to interact in ways to destroy them. It just seemed elegant that matter would be created in the voids and a flow of matter would stream from the void into areas of greater density such as the cosmic web. In turn energy would flow in the opposite direction thus forming a cycle like elements on Earth.

It seems bits of odd information i see while learning seem to fit a slowly forming picture puzzle, but still i understand this means f all atm. But I am learning which is the most important to me.

But getting back to emergent gravity I see it as a combining or wave functions, so like I pointed out in my idea gravity emerges as this is that curves space from the balance potential and hence gravity emerges. i need to find why it is only particles of mass that do this. Is mass the only attribute that can accumulate in this way?

Edited September 24Sep 24 by BuddhasDragon23

9 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

It just seemed elegant that matter would be created in the voids and a flow of matter would stream from the void into areas of greater density such as the cosmic web. In

This is just pointless meandering. What if neutrinos changed near a black hole to form DM that could solve galaxy rotation curves right?

Less speculation and open a physics text book, see where you are.

Do you know what light is? Do you know Newtons laws? Classical mechanics?

Meandering helps me learn

44 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

What if neutrinos changed near a black hole to form DM that could solve galaxy rotation curves right?

Don't think Nuetrinos and dark matter are the same thing are they? If nuetrino pair pops up next to a black hole that is how hawking radiation works isn't it and black hole loses mass as one of the pairs falls in and other escapes? If you meant heavy neutrinos decaying near a black hole…. Don't know where they come from. I will try n find out, thx

Edited September 24Sep 24 by BuddhasDragon23

8 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Meandering helps me learn

Don't think Nuetrinos and dark matter are the same thing are they? If nuetrino pair pops up next to a black hole that is how hawking radiation works isn't it and black hole loses mass as one of the pairs falls in and other escapes? If you meant heavy neutrinos decaying near a black hole…. Don't know where they come from. I will try n find out, thx

You missed my point

12 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

This is just pointless meandering. What if neutrinos changed near a black hole to form DM that could solve galaxy rotation curves right?

DM is still a theoretical concept to resolve the problem of galaxy rotation, so something about it would. A stream of particles flowing onto the them from the cosmic web would help explain the dark matter halo around galaxies and clusters. As for Heavy neutrinos, I found out they are theoretical too but for different reasons, so not really likely they would.

Has reminded of me of that other post. Quantum foam is basically spacetime isn’t uniform, it kinda boils and thus virtual particles pop up. That other post suggests when you cool a quantum system like a computer, at the low temperatures this boiling should become evident. Thus providing an experiment. If we were to want to look for dark matter would this be possible? So you have a quantum set up that could be disrupted by a particle with mass passing by. You now monitor the experiment so if it is disrupted by something, and you can also prove it could only have been disrupted by mass and at the moment of this occurrence no other force was present, would that point towards a passing dark matter particle?

1 minute ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

would that point towards a passing dark matter particle?

You missed the point of my post. Read it it again.

"Less speculation and open a physics text book, see where you are."

It seems every bit of information offered to you in an attempt to educate you, is an invitation for you to pile misconceptions on top of false assumptions. We don't have the time or a big enough shovel for LL this sh*t.
I think the only viable option is to disengage.

My last bit of advice is to take Pinball seriously if you want to learn some science ...
"( much ) Less speculation and open a Physics textbook"

Thx for the pointers, when I am up to speed then I will be able to discuss this in a way scientists do. Until then wisdom would probably agree, continuing until then will only frustrate you. Thank you all for at least manning the station that is ScienceForum. From a personal perspective, the platform has at least helped me formulate my ideas to a point I think putting in the effort to learn the math etc is worth it.

I have taken from this you as scientists are in complete agreement however, that my idea is a miss match of knowledge, piled into a precarious house of cards, and even the slightest breeze of scientific reasoning will blow it all down and reveal it a a pile of shit as you say. I am aware of this and have been from page 1.

Oh, as a note, i thought of this over 20 years ago before AI, so no it is not a product of AI in case you were of that delusion .

Edited September 25Sep 25 by BuddhasDragon23

18 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Thx for the pointers, when I am up to speed then I will be able to discuss this in a way scientists do. Until then wisdom would probably agree, continuing until then will only frustrate you. Thank you all for at least manning the station that is ScienceForum. From a personal perspective, the platform has at least helped me formulate my ideas to a point I think putting in the effort to learn the math etc is worth it.

I have taken from this you as scientists are in complete agreement however, that my idea is a miss match of knowledge, piled into a precarious house of cards, and even the slightest breeze of scientific reasoning will blow it all down and reveal it a a pile of shit as you say. I am aware of this and have been from page 1.

Oh, as a note, i thought of this over 20 years ago before AI, so no it is not a product of AI in case you were of that delusion .

One important thing to take away from this discussion that I have yet to mention is the enormous difference between interpolation and extrapolation.

Interpolation is a fancy word for 'bracketing' the hypothesis between known phenomena or values.
Normally it is only us mathematicians that look for 'pathogenic counter examples'. Nature, by and large is pretty amenable to interpolation.
Of course you have to make the barakets wide enough to cover many eventualities.

Hypotheses such as the big bang, Everett's universal quantum function, and many many others especially in cosmology are not only extrapolations but very very large extrapolations.
Extrapolation is by its own characterisitc open ended.
And the further you get from the known the more wildly out your hypothesis can easily be.

You guyz probably wont like this… read at your own risk……

Does this make sence?

\bm{\begin{aligned}

\underbrace{\frac{\partial \hat{L}}{\partial t}}_{\substack{\text{Rate of change} \\ \text{of the Rulebook}}} & \propto \underbrace{\hat{G}_{\mu\nu}(\mathbf{Q})}_{\substack{\text{Structure of fixed} \\ \text{Quantum Geometry}}} - \underbrace{\left\langle \sum_i \hat{T}_{\mu\nu, i} \right\rangle}_{\substack{\text{Total Pre-Physical} \\ \text{Energy Potential}}} + \underbrace{\hat{\Lambda}_{\text{Inf}}(t)}_{\substack{\text{Decaying Initiating} \\ \text{Force (Inflation)}}}

\end{aligned}}

Are you not best starting with Newton before moving on to what looks like a partial derivative of a Lagrangian?

You are probably right. The previous did not explain what limits c and stops instantaneous transfer over non local distances breaking the speed of light. So updated to…

bm{\bm{\begin{aligned}

\underbrace{\frac{\partial \hat{L}}{\partial t}}_{\substack{\text{Rate of change} \\ \text{of the Rulebook}}} & \propto \underbrace{\hat{S}_{\text{Origin}}(\mathbf{Q})}_{\substack{\text{Boundary Condition} \\ \text{of Singularity State}}} - \underbrace{\left\langle \sum_i \hat{\rho}_{\text{vac}, i} \right\rangle}_{\substack{\text{Total Constant} \\ \text{Quantum Vacuum Energy}}} + \underbrace{\Lambda_{\text{residual}}(t)}_{\substack{\text{Small Remaining} \\ \text{Dark Energy}}}

\end{aligned}}}

Edited September 27Sep 27 by BuddhasDragon23

11 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

You are probably right.

Well then act on it.

15 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

You are probably right. The previous did not explain what limits c and stops instantaneous transfer over non local distances breaking the speed of light. So updated to…

bm{\bm{\begin{aligned}

\underbrace{\frac{\partial \hat{L}}{\partial t}}_{\substack{\text{Rate of change} \\ \text{of the Rulebook}}} & \propto \underbrace{\hat{S}_{\text{Origin}}(\mathbf{Q})}_{\substack{\text{Boundary Condition} \\ \text{of Singularity State}}} - \underbrace{\left\langle \sum_i \hat{\rho}_{\text{vac}, i} \right\rangle}_{\substack{\text{Total Constant} \\ \text{Quantum Vacuum Energy}}} + \underbrace{\Lambda_{\text{residual}}(t)}_{\substack{\text{Small Remaining} \\ \text{Dark Energy}}}

\end{aligned}}}

You need to state what each of these quantities is. The speed of light does not seem to appear anywhere in this expression, by the way.