June 8, 2016

Phoenix arising again from the cosmic ashes?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , — zankaon @ 7:15 pm


Nuclear synthesis occurs for over 90 seconds, or 10² in comparison to Planck time of 10^-43 seconds, thus seemingly 45 orders far removed from r_m modified global radius minimum of modified global trajectory and of 3-volume minimum. Still 31 orders from Electro-weak energy scale of ~10^-12 seconds to Planck scale? Nevertheless cosmic time i.e. large scale peculiar velocity, Hubble parameter (changing 3-volume), and fermion mass spectrum are all exponentially changing, in SRM Spiral Rotation Model; thus shortening cosmic time duration to high entropy transition stage of r_m. The latter an entropic caldera of quanta interactions and extreme manifold deformations i.e. sea of gravity waves? Is this the ‘world’ we came from; forged in a cosmic crucible?

zankaon MSM page Planck scale


August 1, 2015

Is a black hole i.e. dark star, thermodynamically porous? Magnetic potential effects?

For black hole gravitational model, one has tipping over of light cones. But in such GRT extensions, this usually is considered just for optical band of electromagnetic spectrum. But what about other parts of E-M spectrum, such as infrared, x-ray, and gamma rays?

In contrast, what about thermodynamics and infrared radiation? That is, heat flows from hot to cold; seeming from interior to exterior of BH. So for former model, one has a certain rendition, which seems markedly different in regards to energy distribution in other models, such as for thermodynamics, and for magnetic field for such BH setting.

Might a mixture of descriptions, gravitational and thermodynamic, seem more descriptive and realistic? But isn`t either BH horizon present or not; or might it not always be physical? Rather does it depend upon the model being referred to?

One has BoyerLinquist co-ordinates, which suggest a singularity at the horizon. However such singularity can transformed away by another co-ordinate choice. Hence such singularity is not physical.

Analogously, by a choice of models, can one transform away the BH horizon construct; hence no longer physical? That is, for thermodynamics modelling, there would appear to be no horizon, since heat flows from hot to cold, and energy density is assumed to be higher for interior.

Another alternative model might be that of magnetic fields. Do all stars likely have magnetic fields internally and externally, including dark stars? And energy can be re-distributed between such internal and external regions via re-connection, which might even be instantaneously, as described by entanglement  concept.

So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description? Might dark star then be a more apt description, in that it allows for more flexibility? High interior mass density, and internal circulation, would seem consistent with extreme curvilinear geodesics i.e. light cones tipping over. However a dark star if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, might be porous.

For example, mass density of our Sun is sufficient for fusion, with copious neutrino production. Assuming mass density of 4 billion solar mass for galactic BH, then fusion, and copious neutrino production, would seemingly ensue for interior. Then for assumed massive neutrino and internal circulation, and copious kinetic energy, then such neutrinos with curvilinear time-like geodesics would seem confined by gravitational potential i.e. `horizon` of BH. However neutrinos have a magnetic moment; hence not confined? Likewise for baryons?

So a dark star, if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, would  thermodynamically seem porous to photons; and also to magnetic field energy re-distribution, nd even in part for neutrinos.

Alternatively, could one retain a gravitational model and BH horizon (or just gravitational potential?), yet incorporating thermodynamic egress of energy and quanta, and magnetic field re-distribution of energy, vis a vis entanglement concept, as for short duration GRB (gamma ray burst) model? That is, if such entanglement concept is suitable for short duration GRB, then why not for BH gravitational potential in general? So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description?

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?


July 6, 2013

Dark star, magnetic ‘fields’ i.e. density; and conjectures

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 2:11 pm

Might Jupiter’s internal temperature be higher than the sun’s; hence somewhat less organized circulation and current flow? But Jupiter’s magnetic field is stronger than the sun’s. Both have angular momentum.

Might jovian moons’ rheology be that of an ocean and/or slush; but organized circulation / current flow? Do brown dwarfs and red dwarfs, with possible hotter fission reactors, have a magnetic field; or might greater heat of fission result in a more disorganized current flow? Do all stars have a magnetic  density region i.e. ‘field’ ?

Might counter rotation of earth’s solid core serve as a model of a conductor’s rotation in a changing magnetic field? Hence perhaps a jovian solid core rotating conductor commenced it’s formative rotation as a result of a changing magnetic field. Would rotational sense just be fortuitous, based on such changing magnetic field; likewise for earth’s core rotation sense?

Other than our sun’s fusion reactor, have magnetic fields been detected for other stars? Based upon jovian moons, apparently not just a plasma current would be necessary for a magnetic field. Could Jupiter have a charged current (possible for liquid hydrogen core?); but how could one have a charged current in such liquid? Even if our sun has a liquid core, then still a gaseous fluid, with charged current, would seem necessary; with the above partial exception of some jovian moons?

Does a ‘dark star (i.e. black hole) have a corona; and an external magnetic field? Hence an organized internal current (plasma flow; for example, with at least a recombinant temperature as a minimum, for hydrogen ionization?), together with internal/external magnetic field? Thus consistent with an internal circulation; also angular momentum seems consistent with some sort of internal circulation. Is there any reason why a dark star might not have some ongoing fusion/ fission for gaseous/ liquid phase process? Would the latter place any additional constraints on a black hole construct; or just additional heat?

The extremes of  energy (4B solar masses in a seemingly small volume of ~2000 km diameter for galactic BH? Recombination temperature would be the minimum, and hence maximum volume, for ionized hydrogen. Wouldn’t thermodynamics and entropy then seem to predominate; thus energy being re-distributed out of such higher density? For example, is there ~ homogeneous distribution of energy, with episodic jet outbursts? Or is there a more central heterogeneous turbulent chaotic mixing?

Might any disruption of an internal organized plasma current affect an internal/external magnetic field, and hence disrupt any radio emission? If radio detection were significant for Sagittarius A* at such distance, and if it is related to a non-visible jet from the geometric center of orbiting objects (merged dwarf galaxies?  see early universe, and physical truth), over a longer period of time, might there be any substantial change in such radio emission; hence change in internal plasma current? Might a dark star, and environs, with inflowing plasma to polar region, together with magnetic fields, generate a directional radio emission, somewhat similar to Jupiter’s non-directional broadcast like signal? Might this perhaps serve as a possible model, relating to radio source – Sagittarius A*, wherein such radio source is supposedly localized to less than Mercury’s orbital radius (.3 -.46 AU)? Hence is such dark star, with plasma flow into polar region, together with magnetic field, consistent with a directional radio emission?

How close is geometric center from trajectory of alleged 6 orbiting objects (dwarf galaxies, or M32 like?), to Sagittarius A* radio source? Or might the latter radio source be, for example, from an in apparent jet interacting with more distant matter? If M87 jet were relocated to our galactic center, would it be too large (2000x ?) and too close to be seen? Or would increased luminosity ~ squared, dominate? Would background stars be obscured? If galactic black hole is of a comparatively small volume (<2000 km, for example), then even with substantial matter inflow, and also in orbit or in the vicinity, one would seemingly not expect to see anything.  TMM* A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. N. Weinberg, J. R. Lu, T. Do, J. K. Dunn, K. Matthews, M. Morris, S. Yelda, E. E. Becklin, T. Kremenek, M. Milosavljevic, J. Naiman, Measuring Distance and Properties of the Milky Way’s Central Supermassive Black Hole with Stellar Orbits,  arXiv:0808.2870

July 1, 2013

Competing Black Hole Jet Origins; models for Gamma Ray Burst?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 2:56 pm

Thermodynamics: heat (energy) flows from hot to cold. For BH engine, is there only one way out for energy – via polar vortices? From vortical wall energy density surface and BH interior perhaps, and even from any infalling mass? For galactic BH, perhaps not much ongoing infalling mass, yet continuous beaming? Would rebound off some vortical wall energy density surface seem less likely? Thus an energy source other than infalling mass seems reasonable. Also collimation of jet would suggest a very deep origin for energy of such beam.For ~20 km (?) diameter stellar BH, 10 -13 of radius, would represent, and be, ~1-10 Angstrom. But a few Angstroms is energy level of only the chemical bond. Would perhaps a radius of ~10 -30 (or perhaps ~10-15  cm?) be closer to nucleosynthesis NS energy density levels? Would this also be consistent with modeled inner cone component of GRB 080319B? Would energy densities be so high (but not high enough to be from gravitational collapse alone?) as to reach nucleosynthesis energy densities (~10degrees °K)? Might there be bulk internal circulation

(see BH figure at for BH, resulting in inward spiraling on inner aspect of respective vortices; giving an idealized model of colliding (merging?) beams (accelerator?), which give rise to uni-directed jet? Might jet outflow be new matter and gamma radiation from ongoing BB scale nucleosynthesis?

Might vortices wobble, under ambient heterogeneity, thus might their apices (cusps) wander or spiral about each other? Thus only intermittent alignment of beams? Beams ‘exploring’ configuration or phase space, changing very rapidly; eventually (how long, in 3-dimensional simulation?) resulting in beam alignment? Thus no need for external nor internal aggregated mass inward spiraling, as etiology for GRB? Over age of universe, might one have any significant contributions to mass re-distribution and thus curvature change, such as for voids?

Might coarser scale SN nucleosynthesis energy level process be similar in supernova implosion and subsequent explosion; just down to any SN nucleosynthesis energy scale? 1 erg ~1012 ev, and 107 ergs ~1 Joule. Or for compact object formation, might one have just a bounce off energy density surface; hence no BB like nucleosynthesis, nor gamma radiation, and thus no GRB for latter type SN? Might BH formation just simply result from sufficient larger mass density?

Since supernovae don’t generate much gamma rays; thus a higher energy source for GRB, such as perhaps associated with energy scale nucleosynthesis (~109 degrees kelvin) with copious gamma rays?) ?

Might pressure of alleged BH plasma contribute significantly (but off axis) to stress tensor, and hence to gravitational potential (i.e. curvature) and to gravitational red shift? For a gas (and plasma), for such smaller volume galactic BH, there would be no limit to pressure increase.Thus consistent with a very high temperature and energy density, either for a 100 solar mass luminous star, or for a 2 B solar mass dark star. Thus might a random walk within a more centralized volume result eventually in egress through a transient vortical vent? Thus might a pressure argument alone be sufficient to conclude that the origin of a BH jet is from within such black hole? Also is venting inevitable, based on thermodynamics (entropy) considerations? But what about gamma rays of GRB; isn’t a higher energy density than that of a supernova, required?

More specifically, might one have a scenario of a vortical cusp bouncing off an energy density surface? But then higher energy scale than that for BB NS), and diverted off axis transiently? Then for a more central volume of assumed nucleosynthesis energy density, heterogeneous in regards to pressure and temperature, might changing conditions, such as pressure, turbulence etc.,  give rise to transient disruption and opening of such vortical cusp, with egress of BB matter and gamma radiation; resulting in GRB jet formation? Would such variant scenario seem consistent with a mono-polar jet; whereas colliding accelerator beams’ basic model (see above) of GRB jets’ origin, might seem to give bipolar jets? Distinguished by any afterglow observation of nearby GRB? Also if jets originate from within a BH, then wouldn’t this be consistent with no horizon; hence also consistent with acoustic/optical BH model (adapted to polar vortex) not having a horizon?  see Oct 1, 2014 update for black hole thermodynamics and gamma ray burst. TMM

April 7, 2013

Geodesic ‘reconnect’ within polar vortex of modified black hole?

Might one consider an analogy to magnetic reconnect; that is, geodesicreconnect’; would this torsion i.e. sufficient twisting of manifoldWould this be non-relativistic, and hence not part of GRT?

In contrast, in an entanglement sense (broader perspective), one would have instantaneous shifting of geodesic of test particle to a new location in polar vortex. How might one test for such considered geodesic ‘reconnect’ ? The vertical component of motion for test particle to new location, would result in redshift, for climbing out of gravitational well; whereas movement to deeper in well, would give blueshifting i.e. energy gain, with resultant increased frequency for radiation; thus perhaps jumping back and forth of emission lines? Such considered geodesic ‘reconnect’ scenario would have to occur at higher energies deeper in gravitational well of polar vortex. Hence one would expect more pronounced shifting of uv emission lines, than for just at gravitational radius. Such movement (jumping or sliding?) of emission lines, might be considered associated with turbulence, and thus intermittent viewing; however this might seem to be for penetrating uv ~ same for at gravitational radius, or for deeper in potential gravitational field of polar vortex. Energy scale sufficient to give such twisting of geodesics, might also seem sufficient to generate gravity waves, which in addition to twisting description, might also have ‘reconnected’ instantaneous shifting of patch of gravity waves to another location, such as cone of polar vortex of modified BH, such as for short duration GRB. Such gravity wavereconnection’ would not be relativistic nor part of GRT.

Would considered coalescing black holes have sufficient energy for such twisting of geodesics, and geodesic ‘reconnection’, as for particles and gravity waves? Thus would particle geodesic ‘reconnect’ model suggest what might occur with gravity waves? Might polar vortex also serve as a convenient model and workshop for what might occur at Planck scale?

In contrast, might one just have magnetic reconnect accounting for suggested uv emission line jumping, sliding, or shimmering? That is, path (rendered as magnetic field line) of a charged particle, in magnetic field, at any depth in polar vortex? Would intensity of magnetic field be proportional to circumference of plasma current, for example our sun’s vs Jupiter’s magnetic field? Then might smaller volume galactic BH be consistent with more intense magnetic field? Might one also have magnetic reconnect across event horizon anywhere, for black hole? That is, for a charged particle following magnetic field line (non-geodesic) for inside horizon, might it suddenly jump non-relativistically to outside BH event horizon? Another way for quanta and energy to escape from interior of black hole; also consistent with thermodynamics?

see for update on entanglement, and the scenario of colliding (merging) beams, with instantaneous displacement of energy from interior of BH to cone of polar vortex. TMM

magnetic reconnect.

January 9, 2012

Gravity waves from within black hole? Invariance of manifolds? Polar vortex – topologically correct? Gamma ray bursts

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , , — zankaon @ 6:23 pm

Whether considering Newtonian space, relativity spacetime model, Hubble expansion, or SRM speculative model, one is referring to a manifold concept, which has no propagator construct in contrast to quantum world. Hence a radical and fundamental difference between 2 perspectives of nature. Extreme curvature of black hole results in event horizon, which describes inability of quanta to escape an extreme gravitational field. Whereas any interior gravity wave formation, from extreme asymmetrical mass re-distribution (at less than horizon), such as for coalescing BHs, would not seem to be impeded from escape through BH event horizon. That is, deformation of manifold would not ‘see’ event horizon construct. Would this all seem consistent with manifold, and it’s topology, being the same for interior and exterior of black hole? Also would this seem consistent with a mathematical understanding of manifolds; such as the difficulty (impossibility?) of initiating any intersection, bifurcation (as for binary tree, with finite or infinitesimal finer scale?), or any other topological change to manifold(s); that is, invariance of mathematical objects, called manifolds? Thus can topology be utilized to set constraints on physical models; for example for Planck scale models, or for prior to Big Bang’s alleged invariant 3-manifold, together with longitudinal polarization and mass, and thus curvature? Thus for persistence of smooth manifold, together with Kepler’s 2nd Law (i.e. embodying herein modified central force), wouldn’t cyclicity seem plausible? Another example: must polar vortex form when modified black hole forms; otherwise there would be topological change – from finite, unbounded, and thus closed for no polar vortex, – to finite, bounded, and not closed, for polar vortex?

Might any simultaneous modified BH and polar vortex formation give rise to immediate (or delayed?) beam formation; thus associated sometimes with GRB? Might radiation of GRB (just narrow beam component a broader beam?) be a sampler of conditions similar to BB nucleosynthesis (10degrees K), or higher? For example, might any possible GRB in Large Magellanic Cloud have been from an existing BH, but with sudden infall (external or internal) of large mass, with perturbation of internal environment and of alleged circulation (with resultant mass re-distribution) resulting in loading of vortical beam(s); thus enhanced BB nucleosynthesis and resultant directed beams with egress of new matter and radiation, which we perceive as GRB, without a supernova? For example, there are reports of low redshift GRBs without SN for GRB 060505 at z=.089, and for GRB 060614 at z=0.125. (ref 2,3,4,5,6) Might large database for GRBs, but without associated SN, even adjusted for redshift space, suggest no relationship between the two? So is just the typical SN process not suitable for GRB beam formation? Are all GRB only from any BH source? Is LMC suggestive of earlier more active stage for our bulge, with copious SN and GRB occurrence; with the latter set larger, due to more frequent mass infall and jetting? Are narrow beam component GRBs associated only with short duration GRBs, and not with SN? Or does it matter not where a BH resides? Perhaps further enlargement of SN dastabase and associated GRB, inclusive of comparatively nearby Virgo cluster and nearby superclusters, and other low redshift space etc.?

LMC has 1010 stars; and copious BHs? Hence for a wider survey of nearby superclusters, would the incidence of SN and GRB be at least similar (directionality not withstanding), due to assumed frequent mass polar vortex infall for modified BH? Yet this would not seem so for databases, normalized to similar redshift space, for GRB and SN, is it? Might any negative findings for GRBs in LMC suggest a galactic nucleus origin for some GRB? However off galactic center GRBs have been detected. In ultraviolet, for low redshift, would a galaxy be more visible, revealing better off center GRB sites? Do any of respective elements of GRB and blazar databases coincide? Redshift and resolution are always mitigating factors. Should one assume that most GRBs are of just supernova origin (as reported, association of some long duration soft GRBs with SN)? However GRBs have been reported in elliptical galaxies, consisting mostly older stars. So is black hole (new or old) the only common theme for GRBs, irrespective of site?

Might a GRB sometimes just result from a blazar burp i.e. transient egress of increase in radiation and matter? If GRBs were just a subset of blazars, then for blazars’ set normalized to GRB redshift space, wouldn’t one expect that such dataset of blazars to be as great, or greater than, that for GRBs?  see zankaon web site TMM

2. Johan P.U. Fynbo etal Nature 444 1047-9, 21 Dec. 2006.

3. N. Gehrels, J. P. Norris, S. D. Barthelmy, J. Granot, Y. Kaneko etal Nature 444, 1044-1046, 21 Dec. 2006.

4. M. Della Valle, G. Chincarini, N. Panagia, G. Tagliaferri, D. Malesani, etal. Nature 444, 1050-1052, 21 Dec. 2006.

5. A. Gal-Yam, D. B. Fox, P. A. Price, E. O. Ofek, M. R. Davis etal Nature 444, 1053-55, 21 Dec. 2006.

6. Bing Zhang, Nature 444, 1010-1011 21 Dec. 2006.

December 23, 2011

Does frequency scale with mass impact, or movement?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 12:47 am

Might one utilize hydrodynamic simulation to address the question of whether frequency changes with mass impact; and it’s application to gravitational physics? For example, dropping a small versus large mass into a liquid (water or oil), and in comparison to 100 meter diameter meteor impact in ocean, or crust; or different mass comets’ impact into Jupiter. Amplitude would seem to scale in regards to mass; why wouldn’t part of energy be distributed into frequency?

Contrarily do all gravity waves, from coalescing black holes cases (with different total mass), have the same frequency? Is this then a general pattern for all wave phenomena? Also pendulums of the same length, but of different mass, have the same period and thus same frequency. Is this somewhat similar to frequency being independent of impact mass discussion?

Other wave phenomena examples: Might earthquakes and tsunami have respective invariant frequencies; with any difference in energy channeled into amplitude? Might earthquakes, gravity waves, and all wave phenomena, taper off like damped oscillations; giving unchanged frequency, but diminished amplitude? If one speeds up the recording, would this stretch out the trace, revealing any change in frequency? Would such generalized mass impact and damped oscillations effect apply to all wave phenomena?  TMM

Create a free website or blog at