OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

Did I ever say the only hypothesis is that we have an immutable understanding of gravity? Did I say that? NO. I didn't. Go back and read my post. I said plainly that dark matter *and* modified gravity should both be explored. You're the one being chauvinistic here, John. Between the two of us, you are the one who cannot stomach even the notion that dark matter is a perfectly reasonable suspect.

This is how new things are discovered. An anomaly is found; all interpretations are pursued and the winner is the one with all the observational vindication. This is how neutrinos were discovered. There was either a hitherto unknown particle, or there was a violation of conserved energy & momentum. Both hypotheses were considered. A rigorous theory of a new particle, constrained by known principles, was inferred. It made unambiguous predictions. In time it became possible to test those predictions by experiment. The neutrino became a fact, and energy remained a conserved quantity.

It's this way now. There are data to constrain new theories which are in the works. Physicists can't afford to throw out dark matter on the fallacious argument that it's "time for a new theory of gravity". This isn't a sleepover party where everyone gets a turn. A theory is only categorically excluded if hard data are clearly inconsistent with it. There's nothing (yet) in the data which preclude Einsteinian gravity.

-Mark Martin

Artist's conception.

IMHO, the burned out remnants are just that- burned out. Dust.

The makings of new stars are being shot out from the poles of the """Black Hole""" as highly-charged plasma. Neutron stars and dust must pass through the extreme conditions at the galaxy's center before once again having the charge-separation necessary for star material. Yes, the edge of the arm could swirl this plasma and conglomerate it, but re-charge it? If this were true, only the leading edge would have new stars. Has this been observed?

John

Sorry Charlie, I've never read any kind of observations or proof to that effect. Arms are order. Chaos does not do order. Perhaps you have some reference to the statements that stars go back and forth between arms? Chaotic could maybe do a few galaxies into arms at some times, but not *all* galaxies all the time. Look at picture of galaxies in collision. The arms do not break apart. Gimme a link to support your statement about arms going back and forth. John Galaxy Model for the Atom

Look up the term "attractor".

So, you think all stars within a given arm have the same angular velocities? That'll come as a surprise to astronomers.

Really?

Gimme a link to support your statements.

Mark L. Fergerson

Galaxies have arms. Observation. Arms represent order. Your theory dictates chaos.

Chaos is not equal to order.

John

You were given one, John, the recent (2 months ago) article in Scientific American. It is likely still in the public library. At the end of that article you will see a handful of additional references for further reading. This should be enough to convince you that you are on the wrong track. If however, you do not want to learn that you are on the wrong track, then you will of course to decline to read.

PD

"Chaos Theory" has nothing to do with *dis*order. Chaos theory is, in fact, about complex configurations generated by highly deterministic dynamics. It's the epitomy of orderliness. When Charley says the arms may be chaotic, he's saying that there's a good mechanical reason that they are there. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the stars in the arms are all swinging about with equal angular rates.

-Mark Martin

Arms are nothing more that density waves illuniated by new star formation.

You guys; when it suits you Scientific American is a wonderful magazine. When it suits you the Uncertainty Principle is 'highly deterministic', 'the epitomy of orderliness'.

Here, from SA November: 'In Quantum theories,objects do not have definite positions and velocities...... everything is in a state of constant flux, even 'empty' space........In contrast..GR is an inherently classical...theory.' Pick one or the other, Mark, they are mutually exclusive. IMHO QM is doggy poop.

John

I said nothing about the uncertainty principle. I was talking about CHAOS THEORY. Don't you know the diff?

And *I* sure as shit never sang the praises of Scientific American.

-Mark Martin

Nah, it's generally pretty wonderful.

Randomness does not mean completely unpredictable. It also doesn't mean completely predictable.

No. Do not confuse models with reality. Models have a domain of applicability. For all we know, the *reality* of gravity includes a lack of definite position and velocity, randomness of behavior, interference phenomena, and a non-empty vacuum --- all the hallmarks of quantum mechanical behavior.

We have a quantum mechanical model that correctly accounts for all behavior of interactions on a scale comparable to Planck's constant, except for the gravitational interaction.

We have a GR model that correctly accounts for all behavior of the gravitational interaction except on a scale comparable to Planck's constant.

We simply do not have a quantum mechanical model that includes gravity, or a gravitational model that works at quantum mechanical scales. This does not mean that only one of them (GR or QM) can be right.

Finally, note that for electromagnetic interactions, where we *do* have a solid model, this "both right" reconciliation has been known for quite a long time. It's been shown that the random, non-empty-vacuum properties of quantum mechanics (QED) yield exactly the classical, deterministic predictions of Maxwellian classical fields at scales large compared to Planck's constant.

Frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is whether a model has *predictive* power that matches experiment.

The fact that static galaxy arms do not match *experimental observation* is what should convince you that your model is not to be trusted.

PD

What is a density wave, Sam? John

You have evidently read very little.

Perhaps you have some reference that they don't?

Evidently you are unaware of observations (not opinions) that demonstrate a spectrum of velocities _proving_ that stars wander in and out of galactic arms.

Especially, given that what we have are basically snapshots of galaxies (including their component stars' Doppler velocities), not movies of them, how do you justify this claim?

Gimme a link to refute it.

Pay close attention: over what time span?

Again, over what time span? Do you actually believe that the number, spacing, population density etc. of galactic arms does not change over time?

Nope. "Includes" chaos.

I say again, look up "attractor". Chaos theory is quite consistent with short term (in terms of the lifetime of a galaxy) order.

Mark L. Fergerson

See:

Well, let's just wait a few billion years and watch one galaxy. John

It's become evident the last couple of days that John confuses chaos theory with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He reads the word "chaos" and projects "random" onto it.

-Mark Martin

If you read this link it says the reason for the arms is in no way proven. Treating them like a fluid is just easier to deal with. You don't seem to grasp, Sam, that most of these things are just at the 'best guess' stage. I'll bet you believe 100% in Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, don't you? John

Why do you say that, John?

Yes, it's not proven. (Nothing ever is.) But understanding the presence of arms is also in no way just a best guess. Astrophysicists have been doing something better than guessing for deceades: they've been doing numerical modeling on computers, from which some semblence of isnight can be gained. You, on the other hand, *are* just guessing, about everything, all the time.

-Mark Martin