Paradox 1 - The Laws of Physics Invalidate Themselves, When They Enter the Singularity Controlled by Themselves.
Paradox 2 - The Collapse of Matter Caused by the Law of Gravity Will Eventually Destroy the Law of Gravity.
The laws of physics dominate the structure and behavior of matter. Different levels of material structure correspond to different laws of physics. According to reductionism, when we require the structure of matter to be reduced, the corresponding laws of physics are also reduced. Different levels of physical laws correspond to different physical equations, many of which have singularities. Higher level equations may enter singularities when forced by strong external conditions, pressure, temperature, etc., resulting in phase transitions such as lattice and magnetic properties being destroyed. Essentially the higher level physics equations have failed and entered the lower level physics equations. Obviously there should exist a lowest level physics equation which cannot be reduced further, it would be the last line of defense after all the higher level equations have failed and it is not allowed to enter the singularity. This equation is the ultimate equation. The equation corresponding to the Hawking-Penrose spacetime singularity [1] should be such an equation.
We can think of the physical equations as a description of a dynamical system because they are all direct or indirect expressions of energy-momentum quantities, and we have no evidence that it is possible to completely detach any physical parameter, macroscopic or microscopic, from the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian.
Gravitational collapse causes black holes, which have singularities [2]. What characterizes a singularity? Any finite parameter before entering a spacetime singularity becomes infinite after entering the singularity. Information becomes infinite, energy-momentum becomes infinite, but all material properties disappears completely. A dynamical equation, transitioning from finite to infinite, is impossible because there is no infinite source of dynamics, and also the Uncertainty Principle would prevent this singularity from being achieved*. Therefore, while there must be a singularity according to the Singularity Principle, this singularity must be inaccessible, or will not enter. Before entering this singularity, a sufficiently long period of time must have elapsed, waiting for the conditions that would destroy it, such as the collision of two black holes.
Most of these singularities, however, can usually be resolved by pointing out that the equations are missing some factor, or noting the physical impossibility of ever reaching the singularity point. In other words, they are probably not 'real'.” [3] We believe this statement is correct. Nature will not destroy by itself the causality it has established.
-----------------------------------------------
Notes
* According to the uncertainty principle, finite energy and momentum cannot be concentrated at a single point in space-time.
-----------------------------------------------
References
[1] Hawking, S. (1966). "Singularities and the geometry of spacetime." The European Physical Journal H 39(4): 413-503.
[2] Hawking, S. W. and R. Penrose (1970). "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314(1519): 529-548.
[3] https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity.
==================================================
补充 2023-1-14
Structural Logic Paradox
Russell once wrote a letter to Ludwig Wittgenstein while visiting China (1920 - 1921) in which he said "I am living in a Chinese house built around a courtyard *......" [1]. The phrase would probably mean to the West, "I live in a house built around the back of a yard." Russell was a logician, but there is clearly a logical problem with this expression, since the yard is determined by the house built, not vice versa. The same expression is reflected in a very famous poem "A Moonlit Night On The Spring River" from the Tang Dynasty (618BC - 907BC) in China. One of the lines is: "We do not know tonight for whom she sheds her ray, But hear the river say to its water adieu." The problem here is that the river exists because of the water, and without the water there would be no river. Therefore, there would be no logic of the river saying goodbye to its water. There are, I believe, many more examples of this kind, and perhaps we can reduce these problems to a structural logic pradox †.
Ignoring the above logical problems will not have any effect on literature, but it should become a serious issue in physics. The biggest obstacle in current physics is that we do not know the structure of elementary particles and black holes. Renormalization is an effective technique, but offers an alternative result that masks the internal structure and can only be considered a stopgap tool. Hawking and Penrose proved the Singularity Theorem, but no clear view has been developed on how to treat singularities. It seems to us that this scenario is the same problem as the structural logic described above. Without black holes (and perhaps elementary particles) there would be no singularities, and (virtual) singularities accompany black holes. Since there is a black hole and there is a singularity, how does a black hole not collapse today because of a singularity, will collapse tomorrow because of the same singularity? Do yards make houses disappear? Does a river make water disappear? This is the realistic explanation of the "paradox" in the subtitle of this question. The laws of physics do not destroy themselves.
-------------------------------------------------
Notes
* One of the typical architectural patterns in Beijing, China, is the "quadrangle", which is usually a square open space with houses built along the perimeter, and when the houses are built, a courtyard is formed in the center. Thus, before the houses were built, it was the field, not the courtyard. The yard must have been formed after the house was built, even though that center open space did not substantially change before or after the building, but the concept changed.
† I hope some logician or philosopher will point out the impropriety.
-------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Monk, R. (1990). Ludwig Wittgenstein: the duty of genius. London: J. Cape. Morgan, G. (Chinese version @2011)
Mathematically, singularities can occur wherever mathematical operations misbehave, by generating infinitely large values (very common in maths).
Physically, singularities occur wherever mathematical conceptions of space and time are being broken (commonly in the centers of galaxies... etc).
Although I don't know what you mean by ''True singularities'', I would say that your poradoxes are linguistically invalid... correct me if I'm wrong:
(1) Laws of physics (obeying the conservation of energy) must be broken for a said singularity to accur, so in no case do they invalidate themselves... Instead they reach a limit point (other laws not yet widely recognized have to come into play... that's why you and I are here talking).
(2) Law of gravity describes the fall of matter but it is not the cause itself (for a law to be valid it must predict what will happen)... so, prediction shouldn't be mistaken for causality (furthermore there is no a such thing as a closed system in nature, therefore the principle of entropy and causality are too vague and must be re-examined)... so far, it is fair to say that the law of gravity won't be destroyed, it will instead be limited (a new factor not yet widely recognized must be introduced in the equation).
At the end of the day, laws of physics are ways to apprehend and classify how nature generally works; a reason for scientitits to generally not believe, we do research and find out.
Dear Olivier Hakizimana
Thank you for your attention and comments！
My formulation was indeed a bit vague; what I actually meant was that the point that invalidates all physical theorems is the true singularity (no longer succeeded by any other physical law). Those singularities that exist mathematically but are physically inaccessible are not true singularities.
Your comment (1) is consistent with my expression. Regarding (2), however gravity is defined, it is a law and in fact belongs to expression (1) as well.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Chian Fan, Gravity in the example of a black hole. It is the strongest perturbation of the quantum field. Energy accumulates, and massive gravitational forces arise around the black hole, both inside and outside. An energy barrier keeps the black hole in a stable state until a certain point. Overcoming this barrier leads to a significant explosion. It is possible that this periodically happens continuously in different parts of the Universe, and the Big Bang is one of these manifestations.
Dear Chian Fan, you're welcome.
Dear Rustam, you mentioned the big bang (very interesting topic to me), could you please elaborate and tell us how sure you are that the big bang ever happened or is still happening (despite recent observations that disapprove of it)?
Thanks in advance.
Dear Olivier Hakizimana! Any system has an energy barrier that can be overcome. As an example, we can consider solar flares. The local region of the Sun where these flares occur is the coldest part of the Sun (sunspots). Their temperature is around 2000 degrees, while the average surface temperature of the Sun is around 5600 degrees. The magnetic field restrains the release of photons, but at some point, enough photons accumulate, and their energy becomes equal to the energy barrier that holds back their release into the external environment. The temperature of the plasma eruption exceeds 10 million degrees. I explain this phenomenon by the pulse tunneling effect. You can find my article on this phenomenon at https://urvak.ru/articles/zhu-9282-vypusk-3-a-possible-mechanism-of-the-opti/. There is a video showing the synthesis of hydrogen from water vapor with an efficiency of 85-95% using a photocatalyst based on functional ceramics that utilizes the principle of pulse tunneling. There are also links to my monographs that provide examples of practical applications of pulse tunneling. They are freely accessible. The same will happen with black holes. They will absorb mass, and according to Einstein's law, mass is equivalent to energy. Gravity will compress objects more and more, which will ultimately lead to pulse tunneling and an explosion.
Sincerely, Rustam Rakhimov
Dear Rustam,
Congratulations on your findings.
Let's assume your findings work perfectly, what makes you think the same thing must happen with black holes? Your answer seems a bit vague to me... can you please relate your work to the big bang in a very understandable way?
Dear Hakizimana, the continuing increase in the mass of a black hole will ultimately lead to a rise in temperature to an unimaginable degree. This in turn will trigger a chain of thermonuclear reactions. The large amount of energy released during this process will overcome the energy barrier and initiate a plasma outburst. It does not matter what this outburst consists of. For example, photons combining can give certain components, for example electrons. Essentially, matter is a quantum (information) field disturbance. As with any system, a black hole has an energy activation limit for decay. The energy activation that holds back the decay of a black hole can be very high, but cannot be infinite. It is possible that this is debatable, but all science is based on probability. The probability of such an event is extremely high. Respectfully, Rustam Rahimov.
Thanks dear Rustam... I liked the fact of mentioning that it is just a debatable possibility instead of a conclusion.
Dear Robert, unless your notion of true vacuum is theoretical, such a thing as absolute emptiness cannot occur in nature, espcially not in high-energy physics.
Dear Robert, the only problem with that belief is that no matter what, we will still have in that same vacuum some kind of quantum field fluctuations... so it can't be a true vacuum (I agree with maybe something close to true vacuum).
Dear Robert, still a quantum field is omnipresent by definition.
Dear Robert, if something sounds like a voodoo to you, doesn't exclusively mean it does not exist (the existence of the invisible is unavoidable, otherwise how would you determine the visible, just a simple notion of duality).
That said, your proposed true vacuum (or let me call it ''the nothing'' as you did) is conceivable neither philosophycally nor physically... to be honest with you, take it ''not as a suggestion but as an affirmation from particle physics (you can call it gospel if it excites you... hahahaha... I'm joking)''.
I would be grateful to see your evidence for a true vacuum in nature.
Here is the evidence for the existence of the invisible:
Article DIRECT PROOF TO THE YANG MILLS EXISTENCE AND MASS GAP (THE U...
You’re contradicting yourself; if a so-called void can carry information, then it is not nothing‘’... either those said physicists lied to you or you’re just playing the genius.
You want pictures for sure... that’s exactly where you got everything wrong (radiations of any kind are useless when it comes to a said black hole... so sad... hahahaha ).
I so far still waiting for your true vacuum evidence... good luck.
Structural Logic Paradox
Russell once wrote a letter to Ludwig Wittgenstein while visiting China (1920 - 1921) in which he said "I am living in a Chinese house built around a courtyard *......" [1]. The phrase would probably mean to the West, "I live in a house built around the back of a yard." Russell was a logician, but there is clearly a logical problem with this expression, since the yard is determined by the house built, not vice versa. The same expression is reflected in a very famous poem "A Moonlit Night On The Spring River" from the Tang Dynasty (618BC - 907BC) in China. One of the lines is: "We do not know tonight for whom she sheds her ray, But hear the river say to its water adieu." The problem here is that the river exists because of the water, and without the water there would be no river. Therefore, there would be no logic of the river saying goodbye to its water. There are, I believe, many more examples of this kind, and perhaps we can reduce these problems to a structural logic pradox †.
Ignoring the above logical problems will not have any effect on literature, but it should become a serious issue in physics. The biggest obstacle in current physics is that we do not know the structure of elementary particles and black holes. Renormalization is an effective technique, but offers an alternative result that masks the internal structure and can only be considered a stopgap tool. Hawking and Penrose proved the Singularity Theorem, but no clear view has been developed on how to treat singularities. It seems to us that this scenario is the same problem as the structural logic described above. Without black holes (and perhaps elementary particles) there would be no singularities, and (virtual) singularities accompany black holes. Since there is a black hole and there is a singularity, how does a black hole not collapse today because of a singularity, will collapse tomorrow because of the same singularity? Do yards make houses disappear? Does a river make water disappear? This is the realistic explanation of the "paradox" in the subtitle of this question. The laws of physics do not destroy themselves.
-------------------------------------------------
Notes
* One of the typical architectural patterns in Beijing, China, is the "quadrangle", which is usually a square open space with houses built along the perimeter, and when the houses are built, a courtyard is formed in the center. Thus, before the houses were built, it was the field, not the courtyard. The yard must have been formed after the house was built, even though that center open space did not substantially change before or after the building, but the concept changed.
† I hope some logician or philosopher will point out the impropriety.
-------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Monk, R. (1990). Ludwig Wittgenstein: the duty of genius. London: J. Cape. Morgan, G. (Chinese version @2011) ；
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO27The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_3-Are_True_Singularities_Allowed_in_Nature
-------------------------------------------------
Appendix
A Moonlit Night On The Spring River
[唐] 张若虚 （~660 - ~730）
Translator 许渊冲（1921 - 2021）
In spring the river rises as high as the sea,
And with the river's rise the moon uprises bright.
She follows the rolling waves for ten thousand li,
And where the river flows, there overflows her light.
The river winds around the fragrant islet where
The blooming flowers in her light all look like snow.
You cannot tell her beams from hoar frost in the air,
Nor from white sand upon Farewell Beach below.
No dust has stained the water blending with the skies;
A lonely wheel like moon shines brilliant far and wide.
Who by the riverside first saw the moon arise?
When did the moon first see a man by riverside?
Ah, generations have come and pasted away;
From year to year the moons look alike, old and new.
We do not know tonight for whom she sheds her ray,
But hear the river say to its water adieu.
Away, away is sailing a single cloud white;
On Farewell Beach pine away maples green.
Where is the wanderer sailing his boat tonight?
Who, pining away, on the moonlit rails would learn?
Alas! The moon is lingering over the tower;
It should have seen the dressing table of the fair.
She rolls the curtain up and light comes in her bower;
She washes but can't wash away the moonbeams there.
She sees the moon, but her beloved is out of sight;
She'd follow it to shine on her beloved one's face.
But message-bearing swans can't fly out of moonlight,
Nor can letter-sending fish leap out of their place.
Last night he dreamed that falling flowers would not stay.
Alas! He can't go home, although half spring has gone.
The running water bearing spring will pass away;
The moon declining over the pool will sink anon.
The moon declining sinks into a heavy mist;
It's a long way between southern rivers and eastern seas.
How many can go home by moonlight who are missed?
The sinking moon sheds yearning o'er riverside trees.
=======================================================
Black hole should be a sphere with almost all mass exectly located at the surface if there is a speed limit inside to be c. Because in order for mass to fall inside, the angular momentum should be bigger than a mass at the event horizon which is at speed of light. Thus it cannot get inside further according to conservation of angular momentum (Newton) when pulling always maintains angular momentum due to no magic force applied sideways or space time curved (Einstein) sideways. But mass inside cannot go out either because it will feel zero gravity according to the shell theorem. Thus it is possible our universe is inside a bigger black hole. I.e. no such thing called singularity is logically exist.
What is status of the hugh mass at the surface of black hole if it is hollow? My guess is pure light with insanely small wavelengths.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication