October 1, 2014

Vortical Black Hole Thermodynamics. Origin and mechanism of short duration gamma ray bursts (GRB)?

Thermodynamics: heat (energy) flows from hot to cold i.e. from higher energy density to lower. For BH engine, is there only one way out for energy – via polar vortex; or also re-distribution circulation into any lower energy density regions of interior of BH? Would either avenue appear thermodynamically (entropic) favorable?

Might one have egress from vortical wall energy density surface, or from BH interior, or just from infalling mass? For galactic BH, perhaps not much ongoing infalling mass; yet continuous beaming? Would rebound off vortical wall energy density surface seem less likely? Would an energy source other than just infalling mass seem reasonable?

Does any narrow collimation of beam suggest a very deep origin? For deep in cusp, might one even have gravity wave generation (see below), and in absence of dust, perhaps B-mode polarization, in a simulation? Also if jets originate from within BH, would this seem consistent with no horizon; hence also consistent with acoustic/optical BH simulation (adapted to polar vortex model) effectively not having a horizon; hence facilitating mass outflow for BH?

For assumed ~20 km (?) diameter stellar BH, 10 -13 of radius would be ~1-10 Angstrom from center. But a few Angstroms scale is ~ energy scale of chemical bond. Would ~10 -13 cm, or smaller, nucleus scale be sufficient for BB scale nucleosynthesis (NS) energy density level? Would such smaller volume of ~10-13 cm, and hence extreme mass density, be consistent with extreme energy scale of assumed directed narrow beam short duration hard (intense) GRB, such as for GRB 080319B, versus lower energy scale of a longer duration soft GRB?

Thus is origin of a jet from an extremely small nuclear scale volume, with associated directed (channeled) explosiveness along rotation axis via vortical cusp? A ‘just so’ scenario? Would this be tantamount to nature revealing such finer scale that exists every where, and for very early ‘universe’ ? Could any mechanism, other than colliding (merging easier?) beams, account for such energy density scale, and resultant powerful jet? Could such GRB small volume of colliding (merging) beams be the same as for entire early ‘universe’ at nucleosynthesis stage? However at least 30 seconds unfolded since commencement of Big Bang; hence universe’s 3-volume would seem larger than mass density volume source of GRB.

Might entanglement concept be involved? That is, might a transient extreme mass density for extremely small volume be ‘shifted’ instantaneously to cone of polar vortex? Inclusive also of magnetic energy; magnetic re-connect? Consistent with all stars having an internal and external magnetic ‘field’? Thus origin of BHm polar jet would in principle appear to arise spontaneously from within such cone i.e. inner aspect of vortex. However in a broader entanglement perspective, such small volume extreme energy density would be considered as instantaneously displaced from smaller volume nuclear scale high mass density site (of colliding or merging beams?). Would entanglement then seem consistent with just unidirectional jet event? Also would such alleged sudden extreme mass shift also be consistent with rapid curvature change i.e. gravity wave generation, and it’s instantaneous re-location to cone of vortex?
Would energy scale sufficient to give twisting of geodesics, be sufficient to generate gravity waves, which in addition to a twisting description, might also have ‘reconnected’ instantaneous shifting of patch of gravity waves (i.e. energy  density associated with such patch of deformations of manifold; indicative of energy density only for manifold deformations?) to another location, such as cone of polar vortex? Any such entanglement set of gravity waves’ patch  i.e. ‘re-connection’, would not be relativistic nor part of GRT; yet such patch of g.w.s would seem to contribute to stress tensor. Also such g.w.’s would seem to be of high frequency; hence unlike for coalescing BHs. But wouldn’t such high frequency of g.w.’s seem similar to high mass density and high frequency of g.w.s for near Planck scale?
Might such energy densities be extremely high enough (too high to be from just gravitational collapse?) so as to reach nucleosynthesis energy densities (~1010 degrees K); or even higher with increasing strong interaction, resulting in fermion mass spectrum generation and superhadron formation?
Might there be bulk internal circulation (see above figure) for modified BH, resulting in inward spiraling for inner aspect of respective vortices, for idealized model of colliding beams’ accelerator, giving rise to directed jet? Might jet (beam) outflow consist of new matter and gamma radiation from ongoing nucleosynthesis, and even from still higher energy scale of fermion mass spectrum generation and superhadron formation? Might any such colliding beams’ accelerator process continue indefinitely for entire age of ‘universe, even if extremely long? Also see magnetic reconnect discussion below as a possible modus operandi for egress of energy and charged quanta, even if an event horizon deep in polar vortex.

However might colliding beam scenario for short GRB be too exotic and infrequent to account for statistics if ~100+ (?) short duration GRB? Alternatively, might just thermodynamics suffice (or just necessary?) to explain a basis for short duration GRBs? That is, energy density flows from high to lower scale. Hence for smaller and smaller volume, and hence higher mass (energy) density, up to scale of NS, might then there be two alternatives for energy to re-distribute itself? As alluded to, perhaps via interior circulation, to any lower energy density environment, or egress out of polar vortex. Could then the availability of such ‘choices’ (or also whether vortical cusp horizon is there or not?) account for the statistics? Conversely might one utilize short GRB statistics to suggest the frequency of any transient egress via vortical cusp?

Other than gravitational potential, are there other independent considerations such as thermodynamics and entanglement? That is, is presence of horizon or not, of any significance for nature at such site? If a jet is generated and emitted from within such BHm, then one would seem to have a no horizon scenario. Thus no choice of opening and closing of cusp scenario; rather just no horizon scenario for deep in such vortical cusp? Then infrequent (?) commencement of jet must be related to something else. In other words, what might trigger, or enhance, such thermodynamic process? Perhaps an initiator, such as sudden change in infalling mass density, or likewise for interior circulation down near vortical cusp, but from inner aspect – see figure; hence no assumption of uniform flow of mass density. Perhaps also timing (spatially and temporally) of such considered significant increase in mass density, together with alignment with comparatively small rapidly moving (in 3-dimensions) cusp exit  i.e. assuming no local horizon, or it’s irrelevancy (?) to independent thermodynamic process.

But could there be no horizon for given gravitational potential? Might extreme angular momentum of null geodesics for near cusp, for example facilitating (?) egress of energy, which we perceive as a jet – perhaps a corkscrew effect; might a ‘spinning light cone’ phrase mean anything? Can one have it both ways; a horizon construct, gravitationally described, but still egress of quanta via a different mechanism such as entanglement, or just a consequence of thermodynamics i.e. heat engine, with entropy directing energy to a more probable distribution, in such extreme setting?
For example, might one have not only extreme torqueing of null geodesics, but also for massive quanta, in such extreme angular momentum setting near vortical cusp? Would the manifold also be affected? In such setting, it would seem that re-distribution of mass would be extremely rapid; hence therefore rapid change in curvature i.e. gravity waves, including g.w. torqueing. Any rapid change in horizon; yet overall BH mass has not changed? Wouldn’t such considered generation of gravity waves escape through BHm horizon anyway? In such extreme environment, might also radiation null geodesics and massive particle time-like geodesics be re-located (facilitated by geodesic torqueing?) into cone of vortex i.e. outside of horizon? Hence possible origin of what we perceive as BHm jet?

Might a scenario of no horizon in polar vortex be less of a dilemma for nature than coalescing of BHs? Might g.w.s be more common in polar vortex cusp extreme environment than in attempted coalescing BHs case? Also thermodynamics is a separate (i.e. not subservient) description from that of GRT. Is then whether or not a horizon is present irrelevant to what might be an independent thermodynamic driven process? Hence what is occurring near and at polar cusp might be just a result of higher energy density escaping from a heat engine, with entropy directing energy relocation to a more probable distribution? Is such simple scenario plausible? Yet jets are infrequent; therefore there must be more than just thermodynamics, it would seem; analogy to thermodynamics vs kinetics in chemical reactions?

What is the mechanism; colliding (merging?) beams, or ‘just so’ timing, spatially and temporally, of mass density variation and 3-D cusp motion for assumed favorable exit location? Might egress of energy through vortical wall i.e. energy density surface, be more difficult than egress along rotation axis, if mobile cusp were transiently aligned with such axis? What would vortex experiments indicate in regards to comparative ease of penetration of vortical wall vs along rotation axis of cusp, for energy egress? Also see above entanglement discussions. Thus would vortical thermodynamics and entanglement seem a valid avenue of inquiry and emphasize, in regards to GRBs?

If energy density of intense short duration GRBs were greater than nucleosynthesis scale, then might it be consistent with fermion mass spectrum and superhadron generation, and even their persistence? Could one have new emission line elements, even if no persistence; not unlike some synthesized elements? For greater than 8 generations (i.e. > 16 quark types), one no longer has asymptotic freedom, but rather an increasing stronger color interaction; giving rise to so-called superhadrons? Thus in such a scenario, might one be obtaining a perspective of the very early ‘universe’ before nucleosynthesis energy density scale; and also of the very fine scale for all stages of manifold i.e. ‘universe’? However is just NS energy scale sufficient for energies associated with short duration GRB? Nevertheless are GRBs the key to not only a clearer insight as to environs of BH interior, but also to the nature of very early ‘universe’, and to the very fine scale everywhere?  see SRM c/p/c 155.
Might one be able to detect, even retrospectively, whether a supernova SN, and any associated GRB, might also have been of an intense short duration GRB with assumed narrow beam? But don’t soft GRBs, to date associated with SN, have a longer duration (assumed broader beam? why?) interpretation; whereas an assumed directional beaming GRB has a short duration (more ‘pop-like’) extreme intensity. For example for SN 1987, spectroscopically were there any new (not from NS energy scale) line elements, consistent with alleged fermion mass spectrum and superhadron creation, from such higher than BB nucleosynthesis energy density levels? Should all supernovae, both new and from current database, be examined for any new unaccounted for line elements with special attention to those with associated GRBs?

Might vortices wobble, under ambient heterogeneity; thus might their apices (cusps) wander or spiral about each other? Hence only intermittent alignment of beams; and only transient alignment with rotation axis – an additional requirement, facilitating ease of egress? Beams ‘exploring’ configuration or phase space, changing very rapidly; thus eventually (how long duration, in 3-dimensional simulation, with sparse sampling collage of ‘integrated’ 2-D cross-sections?) resulting in beam alignment, and also rotation axis alignment? Thus no necessity for external nor internal aggregated mass inward spiraling, as etiology for GRBs? Or are such latter ‘initiators’ also required? Over the age of universe, might one have any significant contributions to new mass, mass re-distribution, and thus to curvature? Might detection of primordial abundance of lithium, or deuterium/hydrogen higher primordial ratio for blazar or microblazar (?) spectra be possible? Might higher than predicted D/H in any clouds in vicinity of our galactic BH (1) be consistent with new matter from BH finer scale nucleosynthesis? Or alternatively from typical SNs (?) or just SN-soft GRBs, more limited (?) NS in galactic bulge for early stages? But wouldn’t latter scenario result in further processing?

For typical supernova, might energy level attained not even be sufficient for nucleosynthesis? 1 erg ~1012 ev and 107 ergs ~1 joule. If there is not any compact object formation, for typical SN, might one have just a bounce off nucleon degeneracy effective energy density surface (not any hypothetical still higher massive neutrino energy density surface?); without any nucleosynthesis i.e. no gamma radiation? Might BH formation just simply result from a sufficiently large critical mass density for nucleon degeneracy (or massive neutrino?)? Might typical SN, not have a residual compact object? Thus less frequently, a neutron star, or BH formation with no beaming? Neutron star formation requires a smaller critical mass density than for BH formation. Therefore easier to form a neutron star; thus greater prevalence than for BHs? Thus do most SNs result in no compact object; and a smaller percentage for neutron star formation, and even less common for BH formation? Has number density of compact objects been over estimated? However for approximately 2008, ~1800+ pulsars were detected, with much larger neutron star number projections (~200,000?) for our galaxy.

For a database showing a not insignificant number of soft GRB associated with SN, then might say 1/1000 (?) SN have a very special mechanism, wherein resultant BH formation has BB scale nucleosynthesis (and more?) with extremely energetic gamma radiation i.e. intense short duration narrow beam GRB? For SN together with GRB, to date has just a ‘broader beam’ (hence similar for still larger database?) been assumed for such longer duration soft GRB? Alternatively, might a long duration, and short duration intense (i.e. assumed narrow beam?), occur concomitantly for GRB? However wouldn’t different energy scales seem to suggest differing mechanisms, rather than just further amplification of one mechanism? Might occurrence of SN and associated GRB sometimes result not from the same object? That is, might one have a binary with a massive star supernova, with some of ejected mass infalling to associated BH of such binary, triggering a GRB for the latter? Hence in spite of any coincidental appearance, actually separate SN and GRB events for such binary system? Would comparison of light curve properties (and any spectra) of respective afterglows, indicate sameness (i.e. thus same star) versus differences, and hence two objects? Might a SN type explosion arise from a binary system, with infall of mass on to alleged solid fission core of red dwarf ?

Reiterating, might one have new matter i.e. new mass from nucleosynthesis for SN-soft GRB? Would supernova, with any associated GRB, be a definitive sign not only for nucleosynthesis, but also indicating black hole formation with jetting; hence confirming BHs’ existence, independent of mass argument alone? However gamma radiation would seem to indicate nucleosynthesis, but not necessarily BH and beam formation. Might this sometimes generate an intense (narrow beam?) hard GRB; and not just a SN with a more common soft GRB?

Over 25 years, would SN1987 data be suitable for deuterium/hydrogen measurement – primordial abundance, or just qualitative? What would spectroscopic back lite hydrogen absorption (and any deuterium shoulder) show for LMC, in general; consistent with past copious SNs and/or GRBs? Might most all deuterium be consumed in SN explosion, such as deuterated (heavy) water; leaving only lithium abundance (distinguishable spectroscopically from heavier metals?) as a marker of new nucleosynthesis from a supernova? Abundant lithium (mixture of 6 and 7) on earth would suggest a similar abundance in solar nebula; all of such mixture not just from Big Bang? If ~1/1000 stars become SN, then 108 per our galaxie so far; mostly in bulge? Would significant SN lithium detection then be consistent with new matter and new mass from BH beaming?

So might intense (narrow beam?) hard GRB, with nucleosynthesis, inclusive of still higher energy scale, be consistent with not only ongoing finer scale nucleosynthesis, but also with fermion mass spectrum and superhadron creation; resulting in ongoing new matter and mass generation everywhere, as described in Spiral Rotation Model SRM monograph  Section 47, 48, 49, 52 ? Hence for a very long duration ‘universe’, an eventual predominance of mass in large voids, with our existing superclusters becoming the insignificantly new dark matter? see SRM  c/p/c 204, 206, 225, 249 and web pages at  TMM

D. A. Lubowich, Jay M. Pasachoff, Thomas J. Balonek, T. J. Millar, Christy Tremonti, Helen Roberts & Robert P. Galloway  Nature 405, 1025-1027 29 June 2000,  Deuterium in the Galactic Centre as a result of recent infall of low-metallicity gas.

J. L. Racusin, S.V. Karpov, M. Sokolowski  etal GRB 080319B: A Naked-Eye Stellar Blast from the Distant Universe, .

Duncan R. Lorimer,  Binary and Millisecond Pulsars,

Torsion tensor

Modified black hole with polar vortices, and uni-directional jet (as for gamma ray burst?)

Modified black hole with polar vortices, and unidirectional jet; as for short duration gamma ray burst?


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at