Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac addressed this issue in a lecture he delivered on February 6, 1939 regarding “The Relation between Mathematics and Physics“.

“The physicist, in his study of natural phenomena, has two methods of making progress: (1) the method of experiment and observation, and (2) the method of mathematical reasoning. The former is just the collection of selected data; the latter enables one to infer results about experiments that have not been performed (or cannot be performed). There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all, but one has found in practice that it does work and meets with reasonable success. This must be ascribed to some mathematical quality in Nature, a quality which the casual observer of Nature would not suspect, but which nevertheless plays an important role in Nature’s scheme.

One might describe the mathematical quality in Nature by saying that the universe is so constituted that mathematics is a useful tool in its description. However, recent advances in physical science show that this statement of the case is too trivial. The connection between mathematics and the description of the universe goes far deeper than this, and one can get an appreciation of it only from a thorough examination of the various facts that make it up.”

But exactly how deep is the connection between the mathematical reasoning we use to predict nature to its reality.  In other words how can be sure the equations we use to “infer the results of experiments that have not been performed” (or cannot be performed) actually defines the reality of the environment that encompasses them
Unfortunately we cannot because, as was just mentioned we have not or may not ever be able to conduct them.

Therefore we must be very sure that the equations we use to predict a “quality of Nature” that is unobservable have a “factual” foundation in the theoretical models they are derived from because it is only way in which we can be connect them to true “Nature” of reality defined by that theoretical model.

This is especially true when we use the mathematics of an established paradigm such as the General Theory of Relativity to predict the existence of objects or things such as a singularity which, by definition can never be observed.

For example ESA, at its HubbleSite tells us using Newtonâ€s Laws in the late 1790s, John Michell of England and Pierre-Simon Laplace of France independently suggested the existence of an “invisible star.” Michell and Laplace calculated the mass and size – which is now called the “event horizon” – that an object needs in order to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. While n 1915, Einstein’s gave us a conceptual basis for their existence when he publish his General Theory Relativity was able to gives for their predicted the existence of black holes.

Later Karl Schwarzschild, when quantified their existence using mathematics based on Einstein General Theory of Relativity discovered that the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would collapse form a “invisible star” of black hole, as it is now called. Additionally he showed those same equation indicated that the mass would continue to collapse even after its formation to a singularity or one dimensional point. 

He was also able to mathematically quantify the critical circumference or boundary in space around it where the strength of a gravitational field will become strong enough to prevent light from escaping and time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words, as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

However unlike a black hole which have been observationally confirmed through the gravitational effects they have on companion stars the singularity which Schwarzschild’s mathematics predicted is at its center has not been observed and never will be because, as mentioned earlier light cannot escape from a black hole.

Yet there are some who say that the mathematics used to predict the existence of a black hole also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of singularities.  In other words by verifying the existence of black holes though observation means that we have also verified the existence of singularities.

However that assumption is correct if and only if the formation of a singularity is consistent with the concepts of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity because as mentioned earlier that is conceptual basis for the mathematics predicating their existence.

However, it can be shown there is an inconsistency between the mathematics Schwarzschild used to predict the existence of a singularity and the concepts developed by Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity. 

To understand why we must look at how it describes both the collapse of a star to a black hole and then what happens to its mass after its formation.

In Kip S. Thorne book “Black Holes and Time Warps“, he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  “Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.”

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an observer who is external to its gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither “pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began”.

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.    `

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations based on the General Theory of Relativity that are used to predict the existence of a singularity because as has just been shown the theoretical predications made by them regarding its existence are contradictory to the concepts contained in the theoretical model they are base on.

We agree with Dirac that the connection between mathematics and nature goes far deeper than just being a useful tool in its description.

However as was shown above one must make sure that facts upon which the mathematics is based reliably follow the theoretical model they were development from if we want to use them to understand the “quality of Nature” defined by that model.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post The reliability of our mathematical universes appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Many physicists assume the General Theory of Relativity predicts that all the mass in a black hole is concentrated at its center in a singularity or a point which has zero volume and infinite density

However the idea it can be concentrated in a non-dimensional point of infinite density with zero volume is a bit hard to grasp even for Einstein whose theory is used to predict their existence.

What makes it even more bizarre is that scientists tell us the laws of physics which they use to predict its existence break down at a singularity.

Why then do many believe that they exist?

The reason is because many believe the mathematics of the General Theory of Relativity tells us that when star starts to collapse after burning up its nuclear fuel and forms a black hole the gravitational forces of its mass become large enough to cause matter to collapse to zero volume.

However even though there is observational evidence for the existence of black holes there never will be any for the singularity because according to the General Theory of Relativity nothing, including light can escape form one.

For example NASA’s Hubblesite tells us that "Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy NGC 4258, the giant elliptical galaxy M87, and several others. Scientists verified its existence by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system."

However as mentioned earlier we will never be able to observe a singularity because they only exist inside black hole.  Therefore to determine their reality we must rely solely on the mathematical predictions of the General Theory of Relativity regarding their formation.

There are some who say that the mathematics used to predict the existence of a black hole also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of singularities.  In other words by verifying the existence of black holes though mathematics means that they have also verified the existence of singularities.

However this would only be true if the mathematics used to predict both a black hole and a singularity conform to the conceptual arguments associated with Einstein General Theory of Relativity because the mathematics used to confirm its existence is based solely on them and not on observations as is the case of black holes.

In other words the fact that we can observe a black hole tells us the mathematics used to predict its existence has a valid basis in ideas of General Relativity.

However the same cannot be said about the existence of a singularity because the conceptual arguments found in that theory tells us that we cannot extrapolate the mathematics associated with it to the formation of a black hole.

To understand why we must look at how it describes both the collapse of a star to a black hole and then what happens to its mass after its formation.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not.  Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.

In 1915 Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity.  He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

This critical circumference is called the event horizon because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.

Many physicists as mentioned earlier believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this may not true.

In Kip S. Thorne book "Black Holes and Time Warps", he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe but must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

Some claim that the irregularities in the velocity of contractions in the mass forming the black hole would allow it continue to collapse beyond its event horizon.  However Einstein’s theories tells us that time would move slower for the faster moving mass components of a forming black hole than the slower ones thereby allowing the them to catch up with their faster moving brothers.

In fact the conceptual arguments presented in Einstein’s theories tell us the entire mass of a forming black hole must reach the event horizon at exactly the same time because of time dilatation predicted by his theories.

Therefore assuming the irregularities in the velocity of contractions in the mass forming the black hole would allow it continue to collapse beyond its event horizon is not justified by the conceptual foundations in the General Theory Relativity

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations that many physicists used to predict the existence of singularities because as has just been shown the mathematical predications made by it regarding their existence is contradictory to its conceptual framework.

In other words just because we have observationally verified the existence black holes which were based on equations created from Einstein’s theory does not mean that a singularity at its center is an inevitable outcome of those equations. 

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The demise of the singularity appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

He then compared his result with the mass evaluated from the light the galaxies shed. He realized that there was way more matter in the cluster than what was visible or baryonic matter. This matter of an unknown type generated a gravitational field without emitting light; hence its name, dark matter.
Further observations suggest the baryonic or visible forms of matter in the universe only comprise approximately 5 to 10% of the mass required to account for the total gravitational energy in the universe.

However, the fact that 90 to 95% of the mass of the universe is invisible or “Dark” even with the recent advancements in particle detection technology suggests that it may be made up some else.

Einstein’s may have given us a clue as to what this could be when he defined gravitational forces and the quantity of mass in a give volume of space-time in terms of its field properties and not in terms of the particle or physical properties of mass.

This means the additional gravitational forces over and above that associated with the visible matter Fritz Zwicky measured in 1933 may be related to geometric property of space-time and not to the particle properties of baryonic or visible mass.

One can understand why by use the example Einstein gave us of a rubber sheet to visualize how a curvature in a space-time results in a gravitational field.

For example if one places a heavy ball in the middle of a flexible rubber sheet and then pushes a smaller ball the general direction of the heavy ball, will follow a curved path, as if “attracted” by the mass.  In other words the small ball is attracted to the focal point of the depression caused in the surface of the sheet by the heaver one.

However this does not accurately describe the gravitational fields associated with spiral galaxies because their rotational energy causes then to occupy a spatially extended region around its center.

Again one can understand the effects of the flattening of space caused by their rotational energy has on their total gravitational potential by using the example of a marble on a rubber diaphragm. 

For example if one places a  heavy ball in the middle or a rubber sheet and then pushes several smaller balls in the general direction of the heavy ball, will follow a curved path, as if “attracted” by the mass.  However the curvature in the sheet associated with each individual marble will be greater than what it would if it was just resting on the rubber sheet because the kinetic energy of their rotation will flatten and therefore increase the overall the curvature in its surface.

The rotation energy of the individual stars in galaxies would have the same effect the curvature in space-time.

However Einstein told us that the magnitude of a curvature in space defines the magnitude of the gravitational forces and therefore the total mass of in a volume of space.

Therefore to be valid representation of the gravitational forces in a galaxy one would have to analyze what the flattening of the bottom of a displacement in space-time does to the magnitude of the slope of the curvature in its surface.

Einstein told us what the effects of this would be when he defined the equivalence between energy and mass in terms of the equation E=Mc^2 because that tells us that the kinetic energy of the stars motion also posses gravitational potential.

If one flattens the distribution of the marbles around their original focal point while keeping their overall depth the same as it was before that flattening it would make the curvature steeper than it would be if no flattening had occurred.

Similarly because of the *flattening* of space by the rotation energy of the individual stars in galaxies the magnitude of the slope of the displacement in space-time associated with gravitational forces would be greater than it would be if one only viewed the sum of that associated with the individual stars as if they were not in relative motion with respect to each other. In other words the gravitational potential Einstein with the Kinetic energy of individual stars in galaxies would increase the magnitude of the curvature in space time over and above that caused by their visible mass.

However, as mentioned earlier Einstein define gravitational force and the quantity of mass in a given volume of space in terms of the magnitude of a curvature in space.

Therefore, one would measure the total gravitational potential and mass of a galaxy or galactic cluster to greater than that associated with the individual stars or visible baryonic matter they contain.

Additionally because the gravitation potential due to spatial flattening of space-time would be cumulative and linear with respect to the distance from the galaxy’s center the gravitational forces experienced by each star orbiting it would increase as its distance from the center does.  This also means that there should be linear relationship between a stars distance from the center of a galaxy and its orbital velocity.

In other words Einstein predicted the existence of Dark Matter when he defined gravitational potential in terms of a geometric property of space-time.

However this means that some of the gravitation potential associated with Dark Matter in galaxies galactic clusters and supper clusters and the recently observed dark matter web may not be due to baryonic matter but to the distortion or flattening of in space-time caused by their rotational energy.

One could observational verify the above hypothesis by determining the ratio of Dark matter to the orbital dynamics of galaxies.  If it is found that spiral galaxy have a larger ratio of dark matter to visible matter than globular clusters it would suggest that flattening of space does contribute the total gravitational potential in of a given volume of space.  This is because the rotational velocity of stars in spiral galaxies would have a slightly greater flattening effect on space than globular ones.

Another way of observational verifying this hypothesis would be to determine where the gravitational nodes would be located in the space between galactic clusters and determine if they match the patterns associated with the dark matter web.  If it does it would go a long way in confirming it.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The Geometry of Dark Matter appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example, many sci-fi writers use the fact that the gravitational force of a black hole is so intense that nothing can escape from its “clutches” to develop their story lines.  However, many of them fail to point out the other side of story, which is, in many cases they use gravity to escape from it.

This episode of the Spaceship Spitzer is a classic example of this omission.

In the opening scenes, we find our heroin, Dr. Michelle Thaller tiring to escape the Evil Mines by hiding in the myriad of stars in the center of our galaxy

However, she explains to her robotic sidekick Erwin they must establish a stable orbit around the supper massive black hole at its center.  If they don’t they will fall below its event horizon were the gravitational force becomes so great that nothing can escape.

But unfortunately, the Mines find them and established a similar orbit in the opposite direction so they can intercept and destroy them.

Erwin suggests that they speed up and move away from the black hole but as Dr. Michelle points out that is not an option because it will make them a target for the Mines’ plasma bolts.

However,Dr. Michelle remembers they have a tactical advantage over the Mines because the rotating gravitational field of a black hole drags space along with it.  This means because they are orbiting it in the same direction as its rotation their instruments would indicate that they traveling faster relative to its event horizon than the Mines’ would.

Dr. Michelle tells Erwin to reduce their orbital speed to the point where it places them just above the black hole’s event horizon because if the Mines want to stay on an intercept course they will have to match it.  However, as mentioned earlier the Mines will be moving slower with respect to the event horizon than they are because they are orbiting it in the opposite direction. Since the distance above the event horizon is dependent on their orbital speed the Mines will be closer to the event horizon than they are and will fall below it never to be seen again.   After the Mines have disappeared below the event horizon, she tells Erwin to power up their engines and escape from both the Mines and the “clutches” of the black hole.

The lesson we can learn from this side of the story is that nothing not even an Evil Mine can escape the intense gravitational field of a black hole after crossing its event horizon.

However, were did the energy to power their engines come from.

Some would say that has its origins in the burning of their engine fuel which generated an oppositely direct force from the one associated with the gravity of the black hole. 

However Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 tell us that all forms of energy including that produce by a rocket originate in mass.  In other words, the energy that allowed them to accelerate away from the gravitational forces of the black hole originated in mass. 

As was shown in the article “What is Dark Energy?” if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories the force causing the accelerated expansion of the universe mast have a similar origin in the conversion of mass to energy defined by equation E=mc^2.

There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of the equation E=mc^2

However this means we may be more successful in understanding its organs of dark energy if we use Einstein theories to understand and define a mechanism of how and why the mass such as that associated with Dark Matter in the vacuum of space can be converted to energy instead of only looking what is causing that expansion. 

The lesson we can learn from this side of Spaceship Spitzer’s story is that mass is the only power source for everything in the universe including Dark Energy.

Latter Jeff

Copyright 2009 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Spaceship Spitzer and the black hole appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The observation that one can completely define a black hole in terms of just two numbers; its mass and spin is one of them.

The video to the right prepared by the Chandra X-ray observatory team explains why.
The narration begins:

“Black holes sound wildly complicated.  After all, there are all sorts of bizarre things going on: intense gravity, the warping of the fabric of space, the distortion of time itself.  But when it comes to describing black holes, it comes down to just two numbers: the mass of the black hole and its spin.  That’s right.  Everything you physically need to describe a black hole is found in just these two numbers.”

However, there exists a fundamental theoretical inconsistency between the existence of black holes, these two numbers, and our present interpretation of the composition of a vacuum.

The video describes how it is possible to measure the mass of a black hole, which according theory is a result of the gravitational collapse of a mass to a singularity or an infinitely density one-dimensional point.  This means the mass of a black hole has no volume.

It goes on to explain that they measure its spin by observing how “The black holeâ€s gravity strips gas from that star and  forms a swirling disk of orbiting matter as it falls toward the black hole.”

But, as mentioned earlier according to theory, the mass of a black hole is contained in a singularity or an infinitely density one-dimensional point which has no volume.  Therefore, it cannot have the properties associated with spin.

However, this means they must be observing the spin of the vacuum that makes up the black holes gravitational energy boundary and not the spin of the mass at its center.

This fact was recognized in the video when narrator says, “Near the event horizon, the black hole’s spin drags everything around with it, an apple, an astronaut, even space itself, at the dizzying rate of 750 revolutions per second.”

However, this observation implies the vacuum we associate with space which is devoid of all particular matter such as apple or an astronaut is also spinning. 

But our present interpretation of the vacuum is that it does not contain any substance such as an apple, an astronaut or particle, therefore it cannot have the properties associated with spin.

Hence because we observe the vacuum of space to be spinning around the infinitely dense one-dimensional point mass of a black hole it must contain a substance that will allow us to assign it a property of spin.

Therefore, because a vacuum is defined as a volume that does not contain any apples, an astronauts or particles one must assume that it must contain a continuous non-quantized or non-particle field energy/mass for us to be able to assign the property of spin to it.

Therefore, the observations made in the video “Just two numbers is all you need” means if the mass of a black hole is confined to an infinitely dense one-dimensional point with no volume as theory predicts, we must modify our understanding of the composition of vacuum to include a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass.

Some may try to define the spin of a black hole in terms of the spin of matter falling into it.  However according to the theoretical bases on which a black hole is formed they can exist without any matter falling into it.  Therefore, one cannot use it to explain the spin of a black hole.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009

The post Black holes: Just two numbers is all you need appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.