OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




If, by "Keplerian", you mean a nice, clean, uncomplicated ellipse,
then I'll have to say "What ever gave you the idea that things in the
Universe are even asserted to follow such ideal paths?" I already told
you a few posts back that I already know that real things don't travel
in clean ellipses. An ideal elliptical orbit is followed only by
*pairs* of gravitating objects. In this big Cosmos, there are no pairs.
There are, in fact, g'zillions of things exerting forces upon each
other, and gravity is only one of those forces. Kepler discovered
elliptical orbits only by the grace of orbits which are sufficiently
close to ideal ellipses as to be amenable to analysis by means
available to him at that time. If they had been severely complicated,
for example by our being in a binary star system, then he probably
would not have had a chance.




Something you don't seem to grasp is that the arms are not
equivalent to the individual stars within them. If I rig up a weak
light source to shine through a pinhole, producing an Airy pattern (an
interference pattern of concentric rings) on a screen, the image of the
rings will be quite stable on the large scale. But if I look closely
enough at the image I'll find that on the small scale it sparkles. Each
sparkle is a single photon event on the screen. The large Airy pattern
is not, from moment to moment, the same exact photons. The photons come
& go. The spiral arms of a galaxy are not necessarily made up of the
same exact individual stars from one eon to the next. The spiral
pattern is not a function only of Keplerian orbits. There's something
more complicated going on in spiral galaxies than *just" masses
gravitating towards each other.

And if you don't know by now, at this late time in your carreer as a
maverick physicist, why the anomalous periods of galactic stars
suggests Dark Matter (which should then be investigated as a plausible
hypothesis, *alongside* the hypothesis that gravity follows a law not
yet understood by us)), then what the hell are you doing bashing it?
You don't even know what it is that you're debunking.




There's an old saying, that "Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler." Your stuff is a perfect example of simpler.

-Mark Martin

DM?
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?

John

 

[Mark Martin]

DM?
DE?
Postulating whole new classes of things to prop
up 'suck gravity'?
In your view, is that 'as simply as
possible'?

Did I ever say the only hypothesis is that we have an immutable
understanding of gravity? Did I say that? NO. I didn't. Go back and
read my post. I said plainly that dark matter *and* modified gravity
should both be explored. You're the one being chauvinistic here, John.
Between the two of us, you are the one who cannot stomach even the
notion that dark matter is a perfectly reasonable suspect.

This is how new things are discovered. An anomaly is found; all
interpretations are pursued and the winner is the one with all the
observational vindication. This is how neutrinos were discovered. There
was either a hitherto unknown particle, or there was a violation of
conserved energy & momentum. Both hypotheses were considered. A
rigorous theory of a new particle, constrained by known principles, was
inferred. It made unambiguous predictions. In time it became possible
to test those predictions by experiment. The neutrino became a fact,
and energy remained a conserved quantity.

It's this way now. There are data to constrain new theories which
are in the works. Physicists can't afford to throw out dark matter on
the fallacious argument that it's "time for a new theory of gravity".
This isn't a sleepover party where everyone gets a turn. A theory is
only categorically excluded if hard data are clearly inconsistent with
it. There's nothing (yet) in the data which preclude Einsteinian
gravity.

-Mark Martin

 

[John Sefton]

I once saw a time-lapse artists' conception of how a spiral galaxy is
structured, and it seems that the leading edges of the arms consisted of
new, young stars and the trailing edges were old, burned-out stars, and
the dark spaces between the arms were full of supernova dust ("star
stuff") waiting to be conglomerated by the advancing gravity wave of the
approaching arm, and become the new stars in the leading edge. It was
kinda cool, actually.

Cheers!
Rich

Artist's conception.

IMHO, the burned out remnants are just that- burned out. Dust.

The makings of new stars are being shot out from
the poles of the """Black Hole""" as highly-charged plasma.
Neutron stars and dust must pass through the extreme conditions
at the galaxy's center before once again having the charge-separation
necessary for star material.
Yes, the edge of the arm could swirl this plasma and
conglomerate it, but re-charge it? If this were true,
only the leading edge would have new stars. Has this been observed?

John

 

[Dastardly Fiend]

As trolls go, you have a fun topic, but a poor presentation, You should
work on it and come back another day.

As trolls go, you are the typical tusselad.
Listen carefully to this presentation:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/

I'm discussing physics, not presentations.
You should go away and never come back.
Androcles.

 

[Happy Hippy]

Hi John,
Sorry, but no banana. The 'arms' of a galaxy are not any type of
permanent relationship. There is nothing 'holding' them together except
for a tendency to gravitationally clump when a large number of separate
large objects are spinning around a common center of mass. Star go into
and out of the 'arms' constantly. It is more a 'chaos' effect than an
actual structure.

Charlie

Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of
observations or proof to that effect. Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
Chaotic could maybe do a few galaxies into arms
at some times, but not *all* galaxies all the time.
Look at picture of galaxies in collision. The arms
do not break apart. Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of
observations or proof to that effect. Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.

Look up the term "attractor".

Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?

So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular
velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.

Chaotic could maybe do a few galaxies into arms
at some times, but not *all* galaxies all the time.
Look at picture of galaxies in collision. The arms
do not break apart.
Really?

Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.

Gimme a link to support your statements.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Happy Hippy]

Look up the term "attractor".



So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular
velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.



Gimme a link to support your statements.


Mark L. Fergerson

Galaxies have arms. Observation.
Arms represent order.
Your theory dictates chaos.

Chaos is not equal to order.

John

 

[PD]

Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of
observations or proof to that effect. Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.
Perhaps you have some reference to the statements
that stars go back and forth between arms?
Chaotic could maybe do a few galaxies into arms
at some times, but not *all* galaxies all the time.
Look at picture of galaxies in collision. The arms
do not break apart. Gimme a link to support your
statement about arms going back and forth.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

You were given one, John, the recent (2 months ago) article in
Scientific American. It is likely still in the public library. At the
end of that article you will see a handful of additional references for
further reading. This should be enough to convince you that you are on
the wrong track. If however, you do not want to learn that you are on
the wrong track, then you will of course to decline to read.

PD

 

[Mark Martin]

Arms are
order. Chaos does not do order.

"Chaos Theory" has nothing to do with *dis*order. Chaos theory is,
in fact, about complex configurations generated by highly deterministic
dynamics. It's the epitomy of orderliness. When Charley says the arms
may be chaotic, he's saying that there's a good mechanical reason that
they are there. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the stars in the
arms are all swinging about with equal angular rates.

-Mark Martin

 

[Sam Wormley]

Galaxies have arms. Observation.
Arms represent order.
Your theory dictates chaos.

Chaos is not equal to order.

John

Arms are nothing more that density waves illuniated by new star
formation.

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




"Chaos Theory" has nothing to do with *dis*order. Chaos theory is,
in fact, about complex configurations generated by highly deterministic
dynamics. It's the epitomy of orderliness. When Charley says the arms
may be chaotic, he's saying that there's a good mechanical reason that
they are there. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the stars in the
arms are all swinging about with equal angular rates.

-Mark Martin

You guys; when it suits you Scientific
American is a wonderful magazine.
When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle
is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.

Here, from SA November:
'In Quantum theories,objects do not have
definite positions and velocities......
everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty'
space........In contrast..GR is an inherently
classical...theory.'
Pick one or the other, Mark, they are
mutually exclusive.
IMHO QM is doggy poop.

John

 

[Mark Martin]

You guys; when it suits you Scientific
American is a wonderful magazine.
When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle
is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.

Here, from SA November:
'In Quantum theories,objects do not have
definite positions and velocities......
everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty'
space........In contrast..GR is an inherently
classical...theory.'
Pick one or the other, Mark, they are
mutually exclusive.
IMHO QM is doggy poop.

I said nothing about the uncertainty principle. I was talking about
CHAOS THEORY. Don't you know the diff?

And *I* sure as shit never sang the praises of Scientific American.

-Mark Martin

 

[PD]

You guys; when it suits you Scientific
American is a wonderful magazine.

Nah, it's generally pretty wonderful.

When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle
is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.

Randomness does not mean completely unpredictable. It also doesn't mean
completely predictable.

Here, from SA November:
'In Quantum theories,objects do not have
definite positions and velocities......
everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty'
space........In contrast..GR is an inherently
classical...theory.'
Pick one or the other, Mark, they are
mutually exclusive.

No. Do not confuse models with reality. Models have a domain of
applicability. For all we know, the *reality* of gravity includes a
lack of definite position and velocity, randomness of behavior,
interference phenomena, and a non-empty vacuum --- all the hallmarks of
quantum mechanical behavior.

We have a quantum mechanical model that correctly accounts for all
behavior of interactions on a scale comparable to Planck's constant,
except for the gravitational interaction.

We have a GR model that correctly accounts for all behavior of the
gravitational interaction except on a scale comparable to Planck's
constant.

We simply do not have a quantum mechanical model that includes gravity,
or a gravitational model that works at quantum mechanical scales. This
does not mean that only one of them (GR or QM) can be right.

Finally, note that for electromagnetic interactions, where we *do* have
a solid model, this "both right" reconciliation has been known for
quite a long time. It's been shown that the random, non-empty-vacuum
properties of quantum mechanics (QED) yield exactly the classical,
deterministic predictions of Maxwellian classical fields at scales
large compared to Planck's constant.

IMHO QM is doggy poop.

Frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is whether a model
has *predictive* power that matches experiment.

The fact that static galaxy arms do not match *experimental
observation* is what should convince you that your model is not to be
trusted.

PD

 

[Happy Hippy]

Arms are nothing more that density waves illuniated by new star
formation.

What is a density wave, Sam?
John

 

[Mark Fergerson]

You have evidently read very little.

Perhaps you have some reference that they don't?

Evidently you are unaware of observations (not opinions) that
demonstrate a spectrum of velocities _proving_ that stars wander in
and out of galactic arms.

Especially, given that what we have are basically snapshots of
galaxies (including their component stars' Doppler velocities), not
movies of them, how do you justify this claim?

Gimme a link to refute it.

Galaxies have arms. Observation.

Pay close attention: over what time span?

Arms represent order.

Again, over what time span? Do you actually believe that the
number, spacing, population density etc. of galactic arms does not
change over time?

Your theory dictates chaos.

Nope. "Includes" chaos.

Chaos is not equal to order.

I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Sam Wormley]

What is a density wave, Sam?
John

See: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ay202/node150.html

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:



Pay close attention: over what time span?



Again, over what time span? Do you actually believe that the number,
spacing, population density etc. of galactic arms does not change over
time?

Well, let's just wait a few billion years
and watch one galaxy.
John

 

[Mark Martin]

Nope. "Includes" chaos.


I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite
consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.

It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos
theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word
"chaos" and projects "random" onto it.

-Mark Martin

 

[Happy Hippy]

See: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ay202/node150.html

If you read this link it says the
reason for the arms is in no way proven.
Treating them like a fluid is just
easier to deal with.
You don't seem to grasp, Sam, that most of
these things are just at the 'best guess'
stage.
I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark
Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you?
John

 

[Sam Wormley]

I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark
Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you?
John

Why do you say that, John?