[ExI] First Picture of a Black Hole!

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Fri Apr 19 04:05:55 UTC 2019

John Clark wrote:

> With any sort of wave the longer the wavelength the less energy it
> contains, and you're talking about a wave almost as large as the observable
> universe.

Yes, that is exactly why it is the fundamental frequency of our causal  
space, because I could not think of a larger wave that could fit in  
our causal cell. And yes, it is extremely low energy wave but that is  
why it is the lowest possible energy state within our space-time i.e.  
the n=0 quantum ground state. The important thing is that it is not  

Also consider that a wave is more than just energy, it is also quantum  
information. The energy is like a place holder for the information.

>>> *I never claimed dark energy was electromagnetic in nature.*
> The mystery is not that Dark Energy exists but that it's so weak. It's been
> known for many years that electromagnetism should cause Dark Energy but the
> calculated strength is so huge the universe would accelerate so fast that a
> trillionth of a second after the Big Bang no proton would be closer than a
> billion light years from another proton. Needless to say that's not the
> universe we live in, it's been called the worse disagreement between theory
> and observation in the entire history of science.

I think that electromagnetic vacuum energy does cancel out to exactly  
zero, except as Casimir effects due to *very* local geometry, and Dark  
Energy is strictly gravitational vacuum energy instead of  
electromagnetism and that is why it is so comparatively weak. Wheeler  
called kugelblitzes made of gravitational waves instead of photons  

>> * > a maximum  frequency cutoff can exist even if space-time is
>> continuous. Consider  this: The shorter the wavelength of a wave, the
>> higher the frequency.  The higher the frequency of a wave, the higher the
>> energy of the wave.  The higher the energy of a wave, the more it bends its
>> surrounding  space-time. If the frequency exceeds 5.23*10^42 Hertz, then
>> the  wavelength is shorter than the Schwarzschild radius of the wave which
>> means that you get a tiny black hole and the wave can't propagate  anywhere
>> because it is stuck. This is called either a kugelblitz *
> If spacetime is continuous then there there is always a discernible
> different between 2 points regardless of how close together they are, but
> if a kugelblitz always forms when you pack enough energy into a small
> enough volume then there can't be a detectable difference between the 2
> points and it would be meaningless to say spacetime is continuous.

I have to admit that, by your logic, being able to calculate the  
observed gravitational vacuum energy density from first principles  
based on frequency cutoffs does raise the posterior probability that  
space-time is discrete.

> And a
> kugelblitz can't form unless both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity
> always work the way current textbooks say they do, and everybody agrees
> that at the center of a Black Hole at least one of those theories and
> probably both breaks down.

Why do you you insist there is a center to a black hole but then turn  
around and deny that that there is a center to the universe? Just as  
the big bang happened "everywhere at once", so too does the  
singularity of a black hole if you are falling into it. It is not a  
place but is instead a time. A time that is in the past for universes  
and a time that is in the future for a black hole.

Universes and black holes are like 3-dimensional spaces wrapped around  
the time axis so like the perimeter of a circle or the surface of a  
sphere, they have no "center" even if the surface is expanding or  

> If you assume spacetime is continuous then Dark Energy should be infinitely
> strong. If we assume nothing can be smaller than the Planck Time or the
> Planck Length things are a little better but not much, then Dark Energy is
> not infinite but it would still cause the universe to accelerate 10^120
> faster than what we observe.  So something is obviously very very wrong but
> nobody knows what.

I think that what is wrong is that people think that dark energy is an  
electromagnetic phenomenon when it is clearly gravitational instead.  
Gravity is 10^33 times weaker than electromagnetism. I suspect that  
electromagnetic quantum oscillators completely cancel each other out  
over long distances while while gravitational quantum harmonic  
oscillators do not.

>> *> Perhaps this is evidence that gravitons are fermions.*
> Nobody has ever detected a graviton it's a purely theoretical construct but
> if it exists it must have a spin of 2, and by definition bosons are
> particles with integer spin and thus the graviton must be a Boson just like
> all the other force carrying particles and be unaffected by the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle so an infinite number of them can be in the same
> quantum state.

Whatever these quantum gravitational harmonic oscillators are, they  
are not bosons therefore they are probably not gravitons. Could they  
be CDM particles then? Could CDM particles be fermions? If so, they  
seem like a good candidate for quantum gravitational harmonic  

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list