The principals of exclusion provide the parameters of any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the photon the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon-embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

The Pauli Exclusion Principal defines entanglement and removes the Uncertainty Principal once inflated(non-gravitational) and collapsed(gravitational) instantons are defined.

An electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the counterpart to a quark-set as cross section of an entanglement.

A photon is a monopole particle in transitional state. While it exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s anti-particle embedded in the entanglement that emitted it is being transmitted information regarding the photon’s current refraction and subsequent resolution.

Hawking radiation provides the maintenance of a non-naked singularity making the EH the ‘black hole’ constituent. The singularity is being maintained in the collapsed instanton(gravitation instanton) state by both the in-falling Hawking radiation and the out-falling polarisation those photon’s are entangled with.

Protons and neutrons are inflated(non-gravitational) instantons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can you do something with that moll?

Postpocelipse said:

The principals of exclusion provide the parameters of any tangible paradox. Illustrate an electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation as the gravitational instanton expression of the particle the neutrino is entangled with(you’ll likely find that photon-embedded in the atom that emitted the neutrino) and you no longer have paradoxes.

I can only assume that any argument that disproves this conclusion can only provide clarification of further reaching import than this conclusion can provide on it’s own as observably supportable.

The Pauli Exclusion Principal defines entanglement and removes the Uncertainty Principal once inflated(non-gravitational) and collapsed(gravitational) instantons are defined.

An electron-muon-tau-electron neutrino oscillation is the counterpart to a quark-set as cross section of an entanglement.

A photon is a monopole particle in transitional state. While it exists as an electron entangled with an atom it is reflecting off, it’s anti-particle embedded in the entanglement that emitted it is being transmitted information regarding the photon’s current refraction and subsequent resolution.

Hawking radiation provides the maintenance of a non-naked singularity making the EH the ‘black hole’ constituent. The singularity is being maintained in the collapsed instanton(gravitation instanton) state by both the in-falling Hawking radiation and the out-falling polarisation those photon’s are entangled with.

Protons and neutrons are inflated(non-gravitational) instantons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can you do something with that moll?

*fixed…..

Postpocelipse said:

Can you do something with that moll?

If you can’t I have to get really good at the new songs I’m learning on my string-log and go busking for a living.

My homework is ready to mark now Mr Fumbles. I fink anyway…….

> Can you do something with that moll?

Not tonight

> If you can’t I have to get really good at the new songs I’m learning on my string-log and go busking for a living.

Good timing, I actually recorded myself playing piano tonight. So I may join you.

> My homework is ready to mark now Mr Fumbles. I fink anyway…….

Um, zero out of ten?

It got me thinking about something else, though.
Would there be any Hawking radiation from a naked singularity without an event horizon?

It’s a subtle point. Looking up ArXiv.

“Quantum Radiation from Black Holes and Naked Singularities” in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9912063v1

I think the conclusion is: yes, there is Hawking radiation without an event horizon, but the strength of the Hawking radiation differs from that of a black hole of the same mass.

“A principal issue is a comparison between the Hawking evaporation of a star
that forms a black hole, and the corresponding quantum evaporation of a star that
forms a naked singularity”

“In naked singularities that the flux of radiation diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached.
The divergence of the outgoing flux of the quantum field on the Cauchy horizon
would suggest that the back-reaction ultimately prevents the naked singularity
from forming”.

A “Cauchy horizon” is not the same as the “event horizon” of a black hole.

Figure 1 in that article is interesting, it’s the Penrose diagram for the formation of a naked singularity. Something I haven’t seen before. Figure 4 is the equivalent diagram for a black hole.

The Hawking radiation of a naked singularity (NS) is thermal like that of a black hole (BH). ie. Both a NS and a BH have a well-defined temperature. But the temperature for the two is different.
For a BH, the temperature is T = 1/(192 π M^2) for mass M.
For a NS, the temperature is T = γ/(4 π κ)
What are gamma and kappa in the above? gamma has something to do with the distance from the singularity and kappa something to do with the coordinate transformation on space-time.

> “In naked singularities that the flux of radiation diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached. The divergence of the outgoing flux of the quantum field on the Cauchy horizon would suggest that the back-reaction ultimately prevents the naked singularity from forming”.

(Ponders)

If an electron is a naked singularity, then does that mean that an electron can never form? (LOL)
No. It means that an electron, while physically point-like, has a nonzero classical radius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

Could it mean that: on a size scale that small there can be no Hawking radiation to infinity? No, Hawking radiation can be generated down to much smaller sizes, down almost to the Planck scale.
Could it mean that: on a mass scale that small there can be no Hawking radiation to infinity? I think so. The Hawking radiation is a function not just of the electron but also of the vacuum that surrounds the electron. The shielding of the electron by polarisation of the quantum vacuum, and the virtual particle-antiparticle pair creation in a vacuum, and the multiloop electron self-interaction in Feynman diagrams is all related. But all of these effects are local in space.

mollwollfumble said:

> My homework is ready to mark now Mr Fumbles. I fink anyway…….

Um, zero out of ten?

It got me thinking about something else, though.
Would there be any Hawking radiation from a naked singularity without an event horizon?

It’s a subtle point. Looking up ArXiv.

“Quantum Radiation from Black Holes and Naked Singularities” in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9912063v1

I think the conclusion is: yes, there is Hawking radiation without an event horizon, but the strength of the Hawking radiation differs from that of a black hole of the same mass.

“A principal issue is a comparison between the Hawking evaporation of a star
that forms a black hole, and the corresponding quantum evaporation of a star that
forms a naked singularity”

“In naked singularities that the flux of radiation diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached.
The divergence of the outgoing flux of the quantum field on the Cauchy horizon
would suggest that the back-reaction ultimately prevents the naked singularity
from forming”.

A “Cauchy horizon” is not the same as the “event horizon” of a black hole.

Figure 1 in that article is interesting, it’s the Penrose diagram for the formation of a naked singularity. Something I haven’t seen before. Figure 4 is the equivalent diagram for a black hole.

The Hawking radiation of a naked singularity (NS) is thermal like that of a black hole (BH). ie. Both a NS and a BH have a well-defined temperature. But the temperature for the two is different.
For a BH, the temperature is T = 1/(192 π M^2) for mass M.
For a NS, the temperature is T = γ/(4 π κ)
What are gamma and kappa in the above? gamma has something to do with the distance from the singularity and kappa something to do with the coordinate transformation on space-time.

I say you are going too far by beginning from EH space. I cannot illustrate the Hawking radiation maintenance of a singularity if the explicit nature(transiton position) of a photon is not applied.

mollwollfumble said:

> “In naked singularities that the flux of radiation diverges as the Cauchy horizon is approached. The divergence of the outgoing flux of the quantum field on the Cauchy horizon would suggest that the back-reaction ultimately prevents the naked singularity from forming”.

(Ponders)

If an electron is a naked singularity, then does that mean that an electron can never form? (LOL)
No. It means that an electron, while physically point-like, has a nonzero classical radius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

Could it mean that: on a size scale that small there can be no Hawking radiation to infinity? No, Hawking radiation can be generated down to much smaller sizes, down almost to the Planck scale.
Could it mean that: on a mass scale that small there can be no Hawking radiation to infinity? I think so. The Hawking radiation is a function not just of the electron but also of the vacuum that surrounds the electron. The shielding of the electron by polarisation of the quantum vacuum, and the virtual particle-antiparticle pair creation in a vacuum, and the multiloop electron self-interaction in Feynman diagrams is all related. But all of these effects are local in space.

Yes correct, as far as applies immediately. The non-zero classical radius is apparent in an electron’s instanton shift position. It is the instanton that is non-local and every time a particle transitions this refraction is absorbed by the particle’s fundamental entanglement.

I’ve found contemplating how a photon can exist as an electron shell as it refracts off an atom(coupled with the description of quark-sets and neutrino oscillation as cross sections of a fundamental entanglement) the easiest method to distinguish the instanton mechanism. It is simply a question of question where the photon’s anti-particle went and what it is doing while the photon reflects off an atom. I won’t supply my conclusions there as I believe it would be of greater value to compare mine to yours should you address that question directly.

I am without any doubt that the description I have used is applicable. I have minimised extraneous illustration to avoid diversion from the instanton mechanism but I am quite certain what I have supplied can be further explored and proven. I don’t expect my sentiment to sway your discipline, only request that you give it greater consideration.

Describing a photon as a monopole is also somewhat misleading. To clarify I would state that a photon might be considered a vortex particle transitioning through the monopole instanton state.

Postpocelipse said:

Describing a photon as a monopole is also somewhat misleading. To clarify I would state that a photon might be considered a vortex particle transitioning through the monopole instanton state.

To illustrate Hawking radiation as the sustaining mechanism of a BH singularity I would have to begin about here. Obviously I am avoiding too much detail due to the limits of my language.

The subject is a bit like trying to split a hair between local and non-local I’ll readily admit.

Postpocelipse said:

The subject is a bit like trying to split a hair between local and non-local I’ll readily admit.

For the purpose of this exercise I would provide that from our universe, anti-matter universe space passes as non-local. It is the only solution with handles that further illustrate the instanton.

Postpocelipse said:

I say you are going too far by beginning from EH space. I cannot illustrate the Hawking radiation maintenance of a singularity if the explicit nature(instanton position) of a photon is not applied.

Who got the ‘transiton’ word stuck in my head???

mollwollfumble said:

> My homework is ready to mark now Mr Fumbles. I fink anyway…….

Um, zero out of ten?

It got me thinking about something else, though.
Would there be any Hawking radiation from a naked singularity without an event horizon?

It’s a subtle point. Looking up ArXiv.

“Quantum Radiation from Black Holes and Naked Singularities” in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9912063v1

I think the conclusion is: yes, there is Hawking radiation without an event horizon, but the strength of the Hawking radiation differs from that of a black hole of the same mass.

If an electron is a naked singularity it must be entangled with hawking radiation to exist……….

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think the conclusion is: yes, there is Hawking radiation without an event horizon, but the strength of the Hawking radiation differs from that of a black hole of the same mass.

If an electron is a naked singularity it must be entangled with hawking radiation to exist……….

I would have to state this as the position of Hawking radiation relative to the naked singularity is the difference in mass(time dilation)………..

Well moll, I’ve passed on everything I can without knowing the H-F principal and instanton material intimately. Good to know I can study those without dumping all bar fundamental information. Cheers.

I’d love to include the Higgs Boson in the instanton description. Maybe once I’ve absorbed H-F and the instanton stuff………….

Postpocelipse said:

I’d love to include the Higgs Boson in the instanton description. Maybe once I’ve absorbed H-F and the instanton stuff………….

Isn’t that dangerous ??

wookiemeister said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d love to include the Higgs Boson in the instanton description. Maybe once I’ve absorbed H-F and the instanton stuff………….

Isn’t that dangerous ??

Probably only in the hands of nut-jobs. It simply occurred to me that identifying the Higgs moment with an instanton could clarify things significantly.

Ah bugger it moll. Now you’ve gone and reminded me an electron is most likely a naked singularity it just supports my conclusion that a photon becomes an electron while refracting from an atom.

a) Singularity is required to access 2d space for entanglement maintenance purposes.

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum.

c) We know an atom has fields that interact with other particles and facilitate momentum phasing.

d) It is only a supposition that an electron from the nucleus jumps to the next shell. Unless I am unaware of direct evidence to support this?

Postpocelipse said:

Ah bugger it moll. Now you’ve gone and reminded me an electron is most likely a naked singularity it just supports my conclusion that a photon becomes an electron while refracting from an atom.

a) Singularity is required to access 2d space for entanglement maintenance purposes.

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum.

c) We know an atom has fields that interact with other particles and facilitate momentum phasing.

d) It is only a supposition that an electron from the nucleus jumps to the next shell. Unless I am unaware of direct evidence to support this?

e) I think there is something to do with polarisation that further supports it but I’ll get back to you on that.