QGD prediction of the Density and Size of Black Holes

QGD predicts that black holes are extremely dense but not infinitely so. Considering that are strictly kinetic and that no two can simultaneously occupy any given then . It follows that or, since is the fundamental unit of space, we can simply write for the minimum corresponding radius .

For the radius of the black hole predicted to be a the center of our galaxy, and where the mass is expressed in and radius in . Though converting this into conventional units requires observations to determine the values of the QGD constants and , using relation between QGD and Newtonian gravity, we also predict that the radius within which light cannot escape a massive structure is where is used to represent the gravitational constant. Since the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole of mass is then .

Using to calculate the angular radius of the shadow of Sagitarius A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy, we get arcsecond as a minimum value which is about 10 times the angular radius calculated using the Schwarzschild radius which i arcsecond. This prediction will be tested in the near future by the upcoming observations by the Event Horizon Telescope.

The Concept of Time

The single most misleading concept in physics is that of time.

Although time is a concept that has proven useful to study and predict the behaviour of physical systems (not to mention how, on the human level, it has become an essential concept to organize, synchronize and regulate our activities and interactions) it remains just that; a concept.

Time is a relational concept that allows us to compare events with periodic systems; in other words, clocks. But time has no more effect on reality than the clocks that are used to measure it. In fact, when you think of it, clocks don’t really measure time. Clocks count the number of recurrence of a particular state. For instance, the number of times the pendulum of a clock will go back to a given initial position following a series of causality linked internal states. So clocks do not measure time, they count recurrent states or events.

If clocks do not measure time, what does?

That answer is nothing can. There has never been a measurement of time and none will ever be possible since time is non-physical. Neither has there been or ever will be a measurement of a physical effect of time on reality. Experiments have shown that rates of atomic clocks are affected by speed and gravity, but these are slowing down of clocks and not a slowing of time.

Yet, as useful the concept of time may be, it is not, as generally believed, essential to modeling reality. In fact, taking the concept of time out of our descriptions of reality solves a number of problems.

For instance mass, momentum, speed and energy are intrinsic properties thus different observers will measure the same mass, speed, momentum and energy regardless of the frame of reference they use.

And if time does not exist, neither does time dilation. Time dilation and the implied assumption of space continuum are essential to explain the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity. But neither is necessary in QGD since the constancy of the speed of light follows naturally from the discreteness of space.

Finally, if time does not exist, then although the unification of space (a representation of space to be precise) and time (which is a relational concept) into mathematical space-time provides a useful framework in which we can study the evolution of a system, physical space-time makes no sense.

Time Distance Equivalence

A simpler and physical way to measure the duration of an event is to mark its start and end and measure the absolute distance a photon will simultaneously travel. This provides measurement of duration that is based on actual physical quantities.

Note: The above is an excerpt from Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Carl Sagan used to say “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” What are extraordinary claims and what is extraordinary evidence? How does this moto apply to quantum-geometry dynamics?

Assuming that by “extraordinary claims”, Carl Sagan meant predictions that are not only in contradiction with current understanding (which is part of the normal evolution of science) but threatens to overturn our most fundamental understanding of nature then, yes, one can say that QGD makes extraordinary claims.

Take for instance QGD’s explanation of the redshift effect. If QGD is correct, then a star could be speeding on a collision course towards the Earth and its light would still be redshifted as long as the Earth moves in the same direction. Current understanding predicts that its light would be blueshifted. QGD challenges the redshift-distance relation that follows the accepted interpretation of the redshift effect and if correct then all maps of the universe generated from the redshift-distance relation would be wrong. That is without doubt an outrageously extraordinary claim.

But does such extraordinary claim as the one QGD makes about the redshift require extraordinary evidence?

The answer to this question depends on what one’s definition of what constitutes “extraordinary evidence is.” If extraordinary evidence is observations or experimental results that have never been observed before that contradict current observations, then no, QGD does not require extraordinary evidence. If “extraordinary evidence” is what results from extraordinary experimental or observational means, then again no.

What is required is that QGD’s descriptions be consistent with nature (and that includes the data from the body of experiments and observations up to this point). Additionally, it must make new and original predictions that can be tested through experiments or observations. Much of the evidence QGD requires is most possibly hidden in the data we already have collected or within the data from new observations such at the GAIA mission.

In conclusion, even the most extraordinary claims of quantum-geometry dynamics require quite ordinary evidence. But maybe, ordinary evidence becomes extraordinary when it is found to support extraordinary claims. In which case, Carl Sagan is right.

Dark Matter’s Two Types of Interactions

This article is aimed at readers who are not familiar with quantum-geometry dynamics.

Quantum-geometry dynamics (QGD) is a theory derived from a minimal axiom set necessary to describe dynamics systems in a fundamentally discrete universe.

According to QGD, all matter in the universe is compose of which is the fundamental unit of matter. , being fundamental, do not decay or transmute into other particles but they combine to form all that we know from photons and neutrinos, to more massive and complex structures.

Most are still free and permeate space and interact in only two ways: Gravitationally and through the electromagnetic effect.

We have explained in an earlier article that in its initial state the universe only contained free that distributed homogeneously throughout the entire space. The cosmic microwave background was formed when combined to form photons. Thus QGD explains the isotropy of the CMBR with few physical assumptions; all of them testable using present technology. account for all other large scale effects attributed to dark matter (gravitational lensing for example) but there are local effects at our scale that we observe or make use of every day.

QGD explains that magnetic fields result from the interaction of charged particles or structures and the free of their neighbouring regions. And changes in momentum induced by magnetic fields are simply the momentums imparted by their polarized .

If QGD is correct, there is nothing mysterious or unusual about dark matter. We encounter it every day but just don’t call it that.

Suggested reading:

The chapter on the laws of momentum in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.

Thanks for the Advice but…

There is a lot of advice out there for outsider scientists from allegedly well-intentioned members of the scientific community and much of it makes a lot of sense. Doing your homework, understanding your subject, acquiring the mathematical skills necessary to express ideas in a way that can be understood and which may allow them to make not only quantitative descriptions of physical phenomena but testable predictions; all of which are essential if one wants to contribute to whatever subject one choses.

But a lot of that advice is purely sociological and have little to do with science. A lot the well-meaning, well-intentioned advice is really about doing all that is necessary to be recognized and accepted by the institutionalized scientific community and ignores one essential fact. The goal of science is to try and make sense of nature as it is revealed through experiments and observations. But to most other respected members of the academia, acceptance by the scientific community implies scientific validity and vice versa, but does it really?

I have read quite a few articles aimed to help the outsiders (they pretty much say the same thing). The last one I came across is an article written in 2007 by physics professor Sean Carroll. He correctly describes what is required for an outsider scientist to be taken seriously by the academia, but he never really discusses what is required of a scientific theory to be considered valid.

A theory is required to describe, explain and predict. And by predictions, I mean testable predictions. But even that is unclear and subject to interpretation so let me clarify.

For a theory to be scientific, it must answer positively to the following questions:

1. Do its axioms form an internally consistent set?
2. Is the theory rigorously derived from the axiom set?
3. Are all descriptions derived from the theory consistent with observations?
4. Can we derive explanations from its axiom set that are consistent with observations?
5. Can we derive from the axiom set unique and testable predictions?

Questions 1 to 5 allow us to determine if theory is scientific, but to be valid, a theory must answer the question:

1. Have the predictions derived from the theory been observationally or experimentally confirmed?

Carroll also paraphrases an argument proposed by pretty much everyone who provides advice for outsiders. That is: A new theory must agree with theories that have been well tested. But what does that mean exactly?

Does it mean that a new theory must agree with an established theory’s explanations or interpretations of observations? If that were the case, then the relativity theory’s interpretations of observations would need to agree with Newtonian interpretations which they don’t and can’t since they are based on are mutually exclusive axiom sets.

What agreeing with an established theory means then is that the explanations, descriptions and predictions derived from a new theory must minimally agree with observations that have been found to support established theories. This requirement appears simple enough, yet it is misunderstood by the majority of both insiders and outsiders alike. So further clarification is required.

Agreeing with observations is not the same as agreeing with theory-dependant interpretations of observations. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity agree on many observations for which they have completely different interpretations. So a number of theories can be in contradictions with one another yet correctly describe the very same observations. Because of that, only by testing predictions unique to each theory can we determine which ones are valid.

If I may offer a piece of advice to members of the scientific community who are willing to bestow their wisdom upon us lowly outsiders. I agree that we should respect all the hard work, the sacrifices, the dedication and passion of the professional researchers. That said; respect is a two way street.

There is no much respect in underestimating the intellects of outsiders, no much respect in choosing as the only examples of outsider theories the most idiotic. There are outsiders who though they may have unorthodox approaches have and can contribute to our understanding of nature. They are no less dedicated, hardworking and no less capable of mathematical rigor.

Condescension may get a few laughs from your peers, but it only shows arrogance and contempt for those you seek respect from. If you really want to help, if you really do want to help, then try and step down from your academic ivory tower and do just that; help. Filter out the crackpots and cranks (you already have experience dealing with plenty of those in your own ranks) and open some channels. Outreach programs are important, but “inreach” programs are the only thing that would help if help is what you sincerely want to do.

Determining the Intrinsic Luminosities of Distant Supernovas

The current methods of determining the intrinsic luminosities of supernovas require correcting their apparent luminosities using their redshifts.

These methods are consistent with our current understanding of the redshift effects but this understanding may be put into question if the data collected from the GAIA mission confirms that the motion of stars around in our galaxy does not show the flatness of the angular speed of stars of similar galaxies as determined by their redshifts.

Observational confirmation of the above prediction would support QGD’s explanation of the redshift effects. The relation between redshifts and apparent luminosities following from QGD would allow for more precise determinations of the intrinsic luminosities of supernovas, hence their distances, but only provided that the distances of the reference supernovas are determined through their parallaxes so as to avoid model dependent physical assumptions.

And should QGD’s description of the redshift effect, it would be possible to determine the intrinsic speed of the Earth using supernovas as explained here.

The Measurement of the Rotation of Galaxies and Redshifts

We have shown (see QGD and the Redshift Effect) that the redshift effect is dependent on the speed of the detector relative to the intrinsic speed of the photon. This provides a very different interpretation of the redshift observations from distant galaxies. The usual theoretical interpretation of the redshift, as dependent on the motion of the source relative to the detector is used to measure the speed of distant objects, including the rotation speed of galaxies.

The classical interpretation of the redshift gives speeds of rotation that are not in agreement our best theories of gravity which predicts the nearer star are to its galactic center, the greater their speeds should be. But that is not what was observed.

The orbital speeds of stars, estimated from their redshifts, are about the same regardless of their distance from their galactic centre. This led to the introduction of dark matter models to explain the discrepancy between predictions and observations. QGD does not dispute the existence of dark matter which existence it predicts and is supported by a number of observations that do not depend on redshifts measurements. However, QGD shows that the redshifts from all stars from a galaxy will be the same independently of their speed. In other words, even if their actual orbital speeds are in agreement with our theories of gravity, their redshifts will be the same. Hence the orbital speeds of stars derived from the accepted redshift interpretation will give similar speeds in agreement with observations.

Prediction

QGD predicts that the angular and axial speeds of stars estimated through their parallaxes will show them to be dependent on their distance from the galactic center. GAIA , which is underway, will be making such observations which could confirm QGD’s prediction.