Some thoughts on gravity waves, FRP and wormholes

JStateson
JStateson
Joined: 7 May 07
Posts: 108
Credit: 937,664,477
RAC: 870
Topic 219565

After reading this article which actually makes some sense

 

https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe

 

I got interested and I did a search for the torsion theory of gravity and read this one

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Cartan_theory

The first part of the WiKi deals with the math and reminds me of why I stopped at an undergraduate degree in physics.  The very last sentence of the WiKi is the interesting one: 

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan theory, instead, the collapse reaches a bounce and forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole) to a new, growing universe on the other side of the event horizon. 

 This theory solves a few problems that cannot be explained by Einstein’s general relativity but also raises objections that need to be studied.

 

Consider if the universe was closed or open: 

 Closed system means that eventually the universe ,et all, would reach equilibrium eventually and die out.  Someone put a box on their desk and said “let there be matter in it”.  Nothing can get out of the box.  Lookup entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics. 

 

Open system means this universe has existed infinitely already and will continue infinitely.  This is more believable and does not require “faith” but fails the “law of causality”

  

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities.  The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.

I suspect whatever put this universe together got their cake and ate it too.

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,179
Credit: 39,740,795,715
RAC: 46,026,819

I think it's always

I think it's always interesting to become aware of alternative/modified theories that build upon or extend General Relativity.  Thanks very much for posting this thread.

You may have already encountered articles/comments like this discussion, but if you haven't, it might be worth a quick look.  Apparently Einstein-Cartan theory has been around for a long time and some of the people participating in that discussion have provided references/reviews about earlier contributions which may be interesting to follow up on.

Your thread is probably much more suited to the Science forum and, if you would like, I'd be happy to move it there.

Cheers,
Gary.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,124
Credit: 123,977,259
RAC: 86,024

The central singularity has

The central singularity has always been the awkward bit. Two traditional approaches are :

(i) we'll never know so who cares, and

(ii) infinities means a better theory is required.

The interesting question is whether a 'better theory' gives an observable difference ( compared with predictions of competing explanations ) that we can perceive outside of the horizon ie. maybe (i) is wrong. We might have to wait a very long time to verify that however, if the quantum mechanically driven evaporation of black holes is true ( Hawking ). Inspecting the emitted radiation may give clues.  

Another criterion for rating a theory is simplicity ( Occam ), applied here that means we are now in a Universe on the other end of a bridge/wormhole with respect to some other Universe that spawned ours, and you get an apparent Big Bang for free with every spawn. Imagine that : we see two neutron stars say, colliding to form a black hole so there's a new bridge, a new Universe formed, expanding away. The whole thing is powered by gravity - the energy of infalling matter in one Universe rebounding to a new expansion phase elsewhere. After a while you stop capitalising eg. a universe rather than The Universe. 

As for causality across the entire collection of universes, well you can :

(iii) say stuff it, it breaks down 'globally' and becomes a local rule only, or

(iv) wind everything backwards to deduce a single progenitor universe, or

(v) have an endless stack of tortoises if you want one. :-))

After a while you have to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing ?", else "I think therefore I am" etc .... metaphysics. 

Oh, and let's not forget the cosmic background radiation bath we are sitting in. It's a sign that everything had equilibrated, give or take some random fluctuations, before a superluminal expansion that was prior to the more ordinary part of the Big Bang. So these putative wormholes must also be blenders that ensure uniformity, a sort of memory wipe of any information that might otherwise flow from a parent universe to a spawned one. Thus ( cue drum role ) you can have an arrow of time but without any measurable causality. You do need to thaw out some more traditional definitions though.

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) Also you have to have some scale setting in the physical laws of each universe, including the so-called hierarchy problem that sets the relative strength of the four forces. I am roughly 109 hydrogen atoms tall .... why is that ? That comes down to combinations of our fundamental constants, at least they are constant for This Universe. Maybe the spawning 'allows' for adjustment of these constants from parent to spawn. Maybe atoms can't form in some of them. 

( edit ) Actually two neutron star's worth of material/energy maybe is not enough to generate an open & interesting universe. "Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please" ;-]

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

JStateson
JStateson
Joined: 7 May 07
Posts: 108
Credit: 937,664,477
RAC: 870

The article I reference was a

The article I reference was a 2012 contribution and after reading this article

https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/

 

It would appear that both MOND and the Torsion theories have been contradicted.  However, as pointed out in the article above (4-30-2018) some of these alternative theories have "knobs" to turn that can allow it to pass just about any test.  I see researchers are still submitting theories such as this quick google find:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00314

I only read the extract so don't know if they did find an exclusion to the "troubled times" article.  It is more recent then the "troubled times"

 

This site

https://www.quantamagazine.org/

is impressive especially the science involved and it is easily readable, at least for STEM/s.

 

 

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,124
Credit: 123,977,259
RAC: 86,024

The main issue for all

The main issue for all theories lies with the Dark entities. Time for some heresies ....

[heresy]

Dark Matter is probably the easier to explain away. Observations show that the outer stars in a galaxy are circulating faster than expected. That expectation is set via the theoretical curve for velocity vs radial distance from the centre of a galaxy, and assumes a Keplerian model for star paths. The trouble here is that close interactions b/w stellar systems may muck up the assumptions of that line of thinking. Specifically mass may be spiralling in while angular momentum may be transferred outwards : that would agree with the higher than expected speeds at the galaxy's rim. So the galaxy disc behaves more like an accretion disk rather than a large number of barely interacting stars. So any missing mass might be a product of inappropriate modelling ......

Dark Energy has the observational support from comparison b/w more distant/earlier supernova behaviour and closer/recent ones. These supernovae act as candles to calibrate distance scales and hence correlation with red shifts interpreted as recession velocities. How theory manages this depends sensitively on whether early supernova in the Universe blow up likewise their recent counterparts ie. do we understand stellar evolution from the different sets of  progenitor stars that well ? There lies the rub. There may in fact be no acceleration of the Hubble flow at all.

[/heresy]

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Jim1348
Jim1348
Joined: 19 Jan 06
Posts: 371
Credit: 201,370,089
RAC: 658

Those seem to be viable

Those seem to be viable explanations, but until you can figure out how to use them to justify large research projects, they probably won't become mainstream.  See what you can do.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.