MAIN PAGE

.

.

ORDINARY MASS IS JUST TEENY BLACK HOLES HELD APART BY FORCE FIELDS

Hey, it’s not my idea. Suskind says so:

All mass has to be is a Planck-scale event horizon

.

.

This amazing paper gives the basis of the projection of string theory onto quantum field theory — the so called ADS/CFT equivalence (Fig. 3). And it’s easy to understand geometrically! This is an absolutely seminal paper that 100 years hence, will be held next to Einstein’s work.

Suskind observes that mass is a clump of nucleons stuck together and held apart by electron force fields. By size, a nucleus is like a ping-pong ball in the center of a football stadium. He says that if you strip off the force field shields around a massive particle down to the bare quarks, you WILL see a black hole. (Fig 2a).

All that mass has to be is a Planck-scale event horizon.

When you see mass as little black holes, you need to pay attention to how they bend the spacetime around them. That’s what accounts for the ADS/CFT correspondence.

Mass is just a distortion in the metric. That’s how mass stores energy in space, like a rubber band. There doesn’t have to be any “object” there. At distance, you encounter the exact same metric distortion, but stretched out, and existing in your past. You call it a gravitational wave.

Again, the limit, the event horizon, is a distortion of the metric. Space that approaches it becomes the gravity waves being “emitted.” The distortion is detected stretched-out as a wave when it is encountered on the null surface at a distance, at a later time.

There is no gravity emitter, no massive object. Gravity waves are an effect caused by your own motion through time. They’re not exactly optical illusions, it’s just that there are two ways to look at the same thing: from the point of view of a static, 4D block universe, and from the inertial frame of someone moving through time but believes they’re at rest.

Download the PDF

.

6 responses to “Mass is event horizons”

  1. Maksimiusz Avatar
    Maksimiusz

    I was just going to ask you, if you agree that spacetime surface of the horizon of a virtual black hole must be the same in all reference frames, and right before posting I’ve spotted this from here. And now I’m not so ashamed anymore of my own calculation.

    Reply
    1. Miss Understands Avatar
      Miss Understands

      Your changing rectangles are quite valid. In fact, the height and width of the rectangles represent the extent that energy extends into each perpendicular direction.

      For example, frequency and intensity. The more accurate you make one, the less accurate you make the other.

      Things that have that relation are called complex conjugates. They are the upper and lower halves of the imaginary circle with a radius i.

      People on both halves think that they’re the one with normal positive energy and time. They observe the other side as the one on the imaginary side.

      BTW, we’re talking about imaginary negative numbers.

      Reply
      1. Spacer Avatar
        Spacer

        Is the circle you’re talking about in a complex plane or in purely imaginary plane with both dimensions imaginary?

      2. Miss Understands Avatar
        Miss Understands

        It’s just the imaginary plane.

      3. Spacer Avatar
        Spacer

        Is the other side on the other side of the event horizon, where space is swapped with time, resulting in minus sign under the square root of the proper distance given by the metric?

  2. Miss Understands Avatar
    Miss Understands

    Yeah. But it’s only inverted relative to outside the black hole.

    As spacetime contracts to the null surface of the black hole, time slows down. It stops at the surface, and the 4-momentum continues to contract it to a negative diameter. We already know time is negative distance from the Einstein interval pseudometric, which he said defines spacetime.

    On the inside, time runs backwards relative to us, which means we would see space on the other side expand — though people on the on the other side see a black hole contracting.

    The energy perfectly balances. We already know time and space perfectly balance because of the zero energy theory, which many astrophysicists including Penrose and Hawking believe.

    It’s just topological point-inversion through the imaginary axis, at the zero value. What’s actually going on is a kind of rotation.

    These are the Penrose Cycles.

    Milne’s 1935 Cosmology theory is a model of the the expanding side. It was rejected because

    1. it was one year before Einstein said he doubts the existence of gravity waves.

    2. The hyperbolic metric implied that the universe expansion was accelerating, which they didn’t see, and

    3. it implied the universe has a slightly negative curvature, with a hyperradius of 92 GLy. The model predicts a current expansion rate, within the measured value to within 0.25%. That’s not a typo. It’s only close to the upper of the 2 values in the Hubble tension.

    The negative curvature is close to uncertainty level value of the observations indicating flat curvature.

    • That makes spacetime antidesitter,

    • which validates String theory

    • Validating ADS/CFT,

    • unifying the forces.

    Juan Maldecina, t’Hooft, and Susskind win the Nobel Prize.

    ======[ But I can’t can’t talk about this in the astronomy stax

    because Rory Alsop banned me for a year, not telling me why except to provide a link to my list of posts. None of them had anything remotely controversial in them. My only activity in the past month were two answers about geometry and a question about the gravitational tensor that had countless upvotes and was awarded network question.

    I’m not going to complain, because he Is on the Mod committee and has a lot of friends that immediately voted down a question I asked at stax meta about viewing hidden comments made by abusive moderators. That got me banned from meta permanently. Why would that question get me banned at all?

    • They banned me once before after Alsop’s shockingly abusive comments and I said I would report him as moderator abuse. In less than two minutes (as in 180 seconds) the meta stax which I had not posted in for a long time, banned me for a month for something In my profile they warned me about. Except when they warned me about it a year ago, I made the minor change. Yet they said they “warned me” last year — right after I told Alsop that I was going to report him for mod abuse.

    • The stuff they told me to change and ultimately banned me permanently for trivial stuff like referring to myself as “emotionally retarded,” which they said was a “slur.”

    • On the astronomy meta (I think), I asked a question about this mod abuse incident. Someone posted a message saying that it sounded terribly unfair. Alsop and another guy agreed in comments, “don’t worry about anything we do to this user (me) because she has a “reputation.” He said that “on many SE sites, nobody likes her and so we all vote her down automatically.” (It may have been on the SE Meta.)

    • I asked twice what this reputation was, but Alsop deleted those comments and banned me from Astronomy for a YEAR. Later, the question itself was deleted without a log entry (Though I may not have enough points to see it.)

    WHAT ALSOP SAID APPEARS TO BE GOING ON:

    • At the math stax, where my simple question about a point inducing a topology was labeled as a stupid question ” Read a book!” and so massively outvoted me I can’t post there anymore, ever.

    • I was thrown out of Stack overflow Permanently and am not allowed to log in. I don’t remember asking anything, but if I did it would have been a very technical question about programming.

    • Same thing happened Superuser. I asked about Windows dictate punctuation. I’m Banned there forever.

    • My year ban at Physics expires on December 22nd. I’m not sure why I was banned. I’m sure Alsop and his friends will permanently ban me from there too.

    • In retrocomputing, which Alsop also runs, my highly technical answer to “Did any Famicom game use the microphone for a random seed” Got got -10 votes. Soon, he’ll ban me permanently for asking stupid questions. Many of my questions at Alsop’s Retrocomputing were severely downvoted and subsequently deleted. Like, “How fast can you run an 8088?” got -7, was closed, and deleted.

    ==============

    If the community says something on stax about this manifest, obvious collusion (particularly to request that I be restored to astronomy), I’ll pursue a mod abuse charge. But it was both empirically and mathematically proven that if the density of good people is insufficient for for them to stick together, then the best strategy for a lone good person is to shut shut the fuck up and hide.

    Reply

Leave a Reply