My question did not fit into 150 characters. It really is about 5+ questions, going through GR and QFT as fourth approximations, leading to questions on emergent versus fundamental properties. It starts with classical gravity going from infinity to zero, and the same for a static, spherical electric field (say the electron). Let's look at the "FORCE Of Gravity" or Electric Force of a particle from a radius of infinity to zero, with the special case where the radius passes through the "surface" of the particle. Let's ignore the special case of the Force of Gravity going to zero as the radius approaches infinity. (The question of the Force of Gravity going to zero in the real university is a different unposted question at this time, that I have.) Let's only look at the Force of Gravity and the Electric field as it approaches zero. Let's first use the Classical approach, and then bring in QM/QED and GR.
The Classical equation of Force for both are the "same", that is, proportional to the reciprocal of the square of the radius. One would not expect differences at the particle surface, nor at zero. The concept of surface of particle varies for gravity from electric charge field. Electric charge is suppose to be calculated with all the charge located in an infinitesimally tiny "center." While the force of gravity is an integral of the particle's 'mass', which there is no 'mass' at particle's center. Thus, the electric field force as the radius goes to zero approaches the numerical value of the amount of charge of the particle, a finite numerical value. Force of gravity as the radius approches the surface reaches a maximum. Below the surface, as the radius approaches zero, the force of gravity approaches zero. At the center the force of gravity is zero.
Sounds right? Or do you have two objections, like me? The electric field "force" at the center must be zero, as when you are standing there, there is no repulsive or attractive force if you are negative or positive. Meaning, when you are at the center, you do not move, thus no force is acting upon you. That is based upon First Principles. Also, the classical equation of 1 over radius squared does not go to a fixed constant value, but goes to infinity. Therefore, the Classical electric charge equation is wrong. [There is present a discontinuity at the center not present with gravity.] Therefore, QM and QED that suffer from normalization, ignoring the integral contribution near zero is either a decent approximation (for the math), or is also wrong. The force goes to zero at the center by any 'real' definition. The concept of QM to treat the particle as located at zero, with no surface, is that wrong, too?
Or should the electric field be more like gravity? That is, have a surface where the charge force is at it's maximum value, and then the force reduces to zero at the center?
There you have the first batch of questions. Of course, QFT comes to the rescue, where QM and QED are just 'poor' approximations.
The particle surface has the maximum gravity force, and is a smooth integral across the surface. Or is it? GR to the rescue? Of course. Or just look at the real world, and gravity's Newton or Classical equation is just a first approximation. General Relativity (GR) with it's rotation planets/stars twisting space, stretching space has the force of gravity being smoothly differentiable from infinity to the surface, down to the center. Except for a non rotating, non charge black hole. There, all the mass is located at the center, the force of gravity is certainly high at the event horizon, and classically increases to the point discontinuity at the center, where the force of gravity is either, infinite, based upon the amount of mass located there, or the force is zero. Like in the case of the spherical electric charge force. Therefore, GR is just a 'poor' approximation?
Gravity, in an extreme special case, is just like the electric field? Can the electrical field and gravity field actually be derived from one real world situation? That represents my third set of questions. A little towards the GUT side, where I have rejected both GR and QM as 'poor' Therefore, both are incorrect? Or is there a lever here? Please post who has explored this avenue before, as I desire to read up. I am siding towards both being wrong. Good, but wrong. Very good. Indeed, excellent.
Now, beyond these poor approximations is what happens to 'data' as it falls into a black hole. The event's horizon hair, or fire, can escape? Not if another particle falls past the event horizon, as it would drag in any virtual pair particle trying to escape. Even a neutrino's energy would be enough? So, for me, the 'real' university black holes have no hair, but in the extreme future, where every particle has fallen into a black hole, at a temperature of zero, so no black body radiation, ..., a fully isolated black hole, where gravity goes to zero at a finite radius, so black holes do not attract each other... I do not like to do "What If" much at all.
Let's look at in-falling 'energy,' and a desire to label it not as generic energy, but some special particle, whose identity is "information" that must be preserved, and can not be destroyed. Even with E=mc2. Erh, ah, okay, now you know where I stand on Entropy of a black hole's event horizontal "surface area" being a 'real' thing. Or do you? I know I am not a hologram. Don't I?
Energy falls past the event horizon, the equations "flip their time/spatial sense" for this "new" energy 'form' immediately. Given the 'new' energy falls straight to the center, into the discontinuity, of a non rotating, non charged black hole. This energy certainly stopped "moving" at the center. Therefore, there is no longer any force on it. It does not oscillate in any type of orbit around the center. This matches the the Force Of Gravity and the Force of the spherical electric charge particle. I'm happy. Are you? Okay, I am not really happy, either. That central discontinuity... Or is it? Would not the mass be continuously integratable? Sure, it reaches a sharp peak, but a finite peak. The force goes from a maximum just outside the center, to zero at the center... that I have issue with. So, I seek to resolve it.
Again, that pesky classical equation, that radius in the denominator... Why should that not be an incorrect conceptualization? Calculus has a problem with the values of zero and one. At least for GR and QM. Real world deviation occur, force that is known to be zero, is calculated as infinity. Therefore, calculus is a 'poor' approximation. Now, I have thrown out the kitchen sink, too.
Can one remove from the number set the values of 1 to zero. Then, problems remain as values approach 1. Still no good. So, remove up to the integer 2 as well? What If ... I do not do well with What If. Yes, lots of people have proposed a new calculus, some eliminate the infinitesimal, others change that, or this. Good luck to them. It might be the right way to go. Just translate your coordinates by 3, in all directions. Harder to solve, and likely now 3 is the problem.
Examining properties as emergent or fundamental can now be done with that background. I will go so far as to say any solution must solve all those issues.
Can the issues disappear by making "Force" be an emergent property? Force is unreal? Force of gravity and charge force, at the center of both, can therefore go to zero, in a discontinuous manner, as force is not fundamental?
Now, the Standard Model with it's "fundamental" force particles... I just made those force particles become emergent, non fundamental. Is the Standard Model a 'poor' approximation? At least for some of it? Okay, let's keep Force as fundamental to preserve the Standard Model.
Would it make sense then to look at particles as emergent? Would an in falling particle going past the event horizon not leave it's "information" on the horizon surface as it's emergent? Instead, this emergent particle at the horizon simply changes from emergent outside the black hole, to something else inside? Never fundamental, so the need to preserve information of the particle nature is immaterial?
Oh no. The Standard Model is in trouble again. I got to my fourth set of questions. Either force is emergent, or particles are? Or neither, or both. I have convinced myself that making force and particles be emergent can solve the problems, at the surface and at the center, and in between. Just 'wish' away the problems, as a mathematical modeling 'poor' approximation.
Does QFT come to the rescue? 17 sets of 'dimensions' representing fundamental properties, where emergent properties are then articulated. Does GR with 10 metric equations come to the rescue? Now, I am in too deep water. Who threw me into the deep end? Did I swim there myself? Anyone rescue me? By that mean, recommend my next reading material?
Peter Benjamin What a long question. I didn’t follow all the detail but I get the idea and it is a very good point that you are making. The problem arises because we have a wrong conceptual picture of fundamental physics.
Here is my suggestion for you as requested.
:
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics
Richard
Peter Benjamin After reading your profile I think you might also be interested in this short paper after you have watched the video presentation:
Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (May 2022)
Richard
If it is assumed gravity is always attractive and centered at the particle, as the particle diminishes so does gravity, But if gravity is fundamentally repulsive, i.e., dark energy, the field lines would ORIGINATE in all of space and focus on the elementary particle -- THEN CANCEL AT A MATHEMATICAL POINT.
Dear Peter Benjamin
I don’t think that it is impossible to answer the problems you described but I suppose the result will be a bit confusing because of a lack of coherence. So let’s first examine some known “facts”.
The image above is a detail of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). It shows polarized CMB radiation. The radiation itself represents the characteristics of black body radiation. That means that it originates from a volume that had only one source of radiation and the source is known: Hydrogen atoms. Partly because the Standard cosmological model (ΛCDM) predicts that the energy in the early universe cooled because of the expansion of space itself and the result is a Hydrogen condensate (Hydrogen atoms). If the ΛCDM is correct or not isn’t important because the origin of the radiation can be determined (absorption lines): Hydrogen radiation.[1]
Now we have the confirmation that at a certain moment in the evolution of our universe the whole volume of the universe was “filled” with only Hydrogen atoms. However, how is it possible that the emitted electromagnetic waves of the Hydrogen atoms show such enormous regions of polarized radiation? Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of General relativity both predict that rest mass – and a Hydrogen atom is rest mass – is the cause behind the force of gravitation.[2][3]
But a gas of Hydrogen atoms cannot created these enormous regions of polarized radiation. Only a gravitational field of an enormous celestial body can create a gravitational field that is so large that it can influence all the emitted radiation of Hydrogen atoms around. Unfortunately if there are enormous celestial bodies in between the Hydrogen atoms, the CMBR cannot show black body radiation.
There is only one exception: black holes. Because a black hole cannot emit electromagnetic radiation like a Hydrogen atom. In other words, the polarization of the CMBR can originate from the existence of black holes in between the Hydrogen atoms. There is a term for these black holes too: primordial black holes. The existence of these primordial black holes is in line with the observation that the first emerging faint galaxies have a large black hole in the centre.[4][5] And that is not in line with the theory that a black hole is created at the moment that a dying star – a red giant – collapses under influence of the gravitational force.
The CMBR shows not only polarization by large gravitational fields, the CMBR shows also a dipole (a Doppler effect). But a dipole is created by the motion and the direction of the motion of an emitter or absorber of electromagnetic waves. Thus if the CMBR shows a dipole it must be the result of the motion and the direction of the observer, actually the motion of our solar system.[6][7]
Thus if someone on another planet in another galaxy measure the CMBR he/she will notice another dipole. Because his/her star system will move in another direction and with another velocity.
The CMBR is extremely homogeneous. Thus if we detect a dipole that is the result of our velocity and direction of motion we have determined that the electromagnetic field of our universe represents a rest frame. The consequence is that the motion of every observable and detectable phenomenon in our universe is motion in relation to the rest frame. But if the volume of our universe is in rest and all the phenomena are related to the volume of our universe – a volume we know as the continuum of the basic quantum fields in QFT – our universe is the creator of everything inside.[8]
Because all the phenomena have a structure our universe must have a structure too. And we know partly the properties of the structure because these are the properties of the basic quantum fields.
Now what have I done? I have described a general framework that makes it possible to discuss most of the details in your question (if you like it). By the way the references below are only meant to make it possible to verify some details in my comment.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Peter Benjamin
It is impossible that Hydrogen atoms and Black holes can emerge “from nothing”. That’s why we can conclude that there was a surplus of energy in the early universe that transformed into Black holes and Hydrogen atoms. In line with the ΛCDM.
But the law of conservation of energy predicts that the transformation of energy is restricted to the redistribution of energy within the volume of the universe. Thus the difference between the existence of the Black holes and the Hydrogen atoms is the amount of local available energy. The creation of the Black holes decreased the surplus of energy everywhere in vacuum space in the universe (ΔE/m3). Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that at a certain moment the remaining surplus of energy in vacuum space was not enough to concentrate/create more Black holes. The result was the emergence of Hydrogen atoms everywhere in the early universe (the source of the CMBR) and of course the “creation” of Dark matter too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model.
Now it is easy to understand that the force of gravitation cannot go to zero because the cause behind the emergence of gravitation is the creation of rest mass. No matter if it is a Black hole or a Hydrogen atom. Because rest mass is created at the moment a local scalar of the universal scalar field, the Higgs field, decreases its magnitude. Conclusion: the force of gravitation goes to zero if all the matter in the universe disappears, because the force of gravitation is not a basic quantum field (QFT). Gravitation is an effect that emerges at the moment rest mass is created.
Before the emergence of Black holes and Hydrogen atoms there were concentrations of energy everywhere. Energy is a property of the universal electric field – quantized too (Planck’s constant) – thus the universal electric field concentrates energy. Local scalars of the Higgs field only decrease their magnitude if the local concentration of energy passes a certain threshold. The consequence is that below the threshold there exists concentrated energy everywhere in the universe but it isn’t matter (it has no rest mass). Thus the term "Dark matter" is quite deceitful.
If the universal electric field concentrates energy the “act of concentration” is a force. It is a universal force because the universal electric field is everywhere in the universe. The universal scalar field has 3D properties and the universal electric field too. The consequence is that both fields together “fill” the volume of our universe (vector fields are 1-dimensional).
Now think about it. It is another point of view to imagine physical reality and it differs from your point of view because it doesn’t represent the limited focus on the observable/detectable phenomena (and the related formulas).
With kind regards, Sydney