Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Blog Guest Authors Infinity Papers
Fairytale Physics
Fuck Infinity Part 4 by Dr A. Crank

Yo, Dr Crank back again after another night of sweating to continue my critique of infinity. Fuck yeah.

There are two areas of physics where infinity seems to have taken hold like cockroaches; string theory and black holes. A good book critiquing string theory is Jim Baggott, “Farewell to Reality; How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth,” (Constable, London, 2013). I will have something to say about one aspect of the mathematics of string theory in another paper, perhaps at this distinguished sight, but here I will restrain my hatred to just focus on one question: what are these strings which are supposed to unify physics?

What exists, the stringers propose, are loops of cosmic “string,” vibrational patterns. But, patterns of what? Originally these strings vibrated in 26 space-time dimension (25 dimensions of space, 1 time), but this was reduced to 10 dimension (9 space, 1 time). Make up your fucking mind. However, in M-theory this was back up to 11 dimension. M-theory is supposed to explain the universe, but nobody really knows what it is. Sounds like bullshit to me.

The strings are not dimensionless, as the point particles were in quantum field theory. As Brian Greene puts it in “The Elegant Universe,” (Norton, New York, 1999), “the spatially extended nature of a string is the crucial new element allowing for a single harmonious framework incorporating both (gravitational and quantum mechanical) theories.” (p. 136) However, as Steven Rosen, “Quantum Gravity and Phenomenological Philosophy,” “Foundation of Physics,” vol. 38, 2008, pp. 556-582, argues, the idea of fundamentality, with a finite extension, does imply cuttability and division, which means that string theory is metaphysically contradictory.

We do not know then what makes up the string, or even why it vibrates. Baggott concludes that this physics is “informed not by the practical necessities of empirical reality, but by imagination constrained only by the internal rules of an esoteric mathematics and an often rather vague connection with problems that theoretical physics beyond the standard model is supposed to be addressing. No amount of window dressing can hide the simple fact that this is all metaphysics, not physics.” (p. 202)

The other area of physics requiring criticism is the theory of black holes. Popular science books, television shows and films abound with stories about black holes – gravity collapsed star – which according to some accounts are bridges to other universes, or some such nonsense. The alleged existence of black holes is taken to confirm the genius of physicist Albert Einstein, as black holes are one of the theoretical consequences of the General theory of Relativity, the theory of gravity. But is this narrative actually true?

Taiwanese cosmologist and physicist, Wun-Yi Shu, “Cosmological Models with No Big Bang,” arXiv:1007.1750v1, via:ThePhysicsArXivBlog, has presented a cosmological model with no Big Bang, no beginning and no end of the universe. Time and space can be converted into one another with the conversion factor being a varying speed of light, depending on a varying gravitational constant. As the universe expands, time is converted into space and mass is converted into length, and the opposite when the universe contracts. “We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in space time. It is simply one of the properties of space time geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.” Take that Uncle Albert! Although not explicitly directed against the existence of black holes, the hypothesis of mass being converted into length as the universe expands could be taken as a challenge to the permanent of black holes.

In early 2014, black hole father Stephen Hawking, who is now dead, released an on-line paper, “Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes.” He had come to reject the existence of conventional black holes, arguing that they were merely “grey;” gravity collapsed stars without event horizons. The event horizon was supposed to stop light from escaping. This change in position is Hawking’s response to the so-called “information paradox.” My, how things change. He has changed.

The information loss paradox concerns what happens to “information” that goes into a black hole. The heart of the problem is reconciling quantum mechanics, the theory of the small, with general relativity, the theory of the big (e.g. cosmological structures such as galaxies and the universe itself). General relativity implies that black holes can exist, being a singularity which is essentially infinite, constituting a “hole” in space-time. Beyond the event horizon, the point of no return, no matter-energy or information escapes. But, this conflicts with quantum mechanics’ law of conservation of information, and ultimately the law of conservation of mass-energy, of which information is a representation.

In 2014 cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton argued that black holes do not exist. This was done in two internet papers: (1) L. Mersini-Houghton, “Backreaction to Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I,” arXiv:1406 1525v1[hep-th], June 5, 2014; (2) L. Mersini-Houghton and H. P. Pfeiffer, “Back-Reaction of the Hawking Radiation Flux on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star II: Fireworks Instead of Firewalls,” arXiv: 1409.1837v1[hep-th], September 5, 2014.

Without the mathematics, the basic critique of black holes is that the Hawking radiation emitted by the star during its gravitational collapse slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass. The collapsing star “bounces” before reaching the event horizon, with the area radius increasing. The star ceases to collapse at a radius, which is greater than the event horizon would be, and the core explodes. But why does the star explode? Here is what the authors say: “Physically the backreaction of ingoing negative energy Hawking radiation reduces the gravitational binding energy in the star with the maximum loss near the last stages of collapse, while taking momentum away from the star.” (p. 7, paper (2), above) Good, everybody understands that.

If all of this is correct, there are profound cosmological consequences. The standard theory of the universe is that it began with the Big Bang, where all the matter/energy that now exists was compressed into a singularity, a hyper-black hole. However, if such singularities do not exist – and violating the laws of physics is a good reason for supposing that they do not – then the Big Bang is not likely to have occurred as well. Although Mersini-Houghton mentions this consequence in a press release, this conclusion deserves a separate paper of its own.

Stephen Crothers, “Simple Proof that Black Holes Have No Basis in General Relativity,” at, e-Print archive; viXra:10405.0287, has argued that general relativity does not predict black holes. He pinpoints the fault with Einstein, who for a space-time geometry=0, and with the energy-momentum tensor=0 and material sources=0, claimed that a massive star can collapse to form a black hole. That implies that the energy-momentum tensor both includes and does not include a material source, a contradiction Crothers points out.

Trumpapocalypse Now: The Advent of an American Usurper at the fall of Western Civilization

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

The Great Train Wreck of the West

Add Comment