Is the Universe Deterministic or Not?

While Schroednger has a reputation for promoting the famous cat, he actually consistently held that the universe is non deterministic, while Einstein believed we should know a lot!

Einstein and Schrodinger together pioneered the idea of Schrodinger's cat with the famous thought experiment involving a cat in the box with a gun and radioactivity in another box that's connected to it.

 

 But by radioactivity you can't know if it's true or false until the collapse of the wave function then triggers the gun and the cat is neither alive or dead till then because since by experiment we can't but the result of the computation of the collapse of the wave function is because no experiment shows that we can do this.

Most physicists have held that what goes on inside the wave function before it collapses as by the experiments is fundamentally unknowable, and that was that.

Einstein couldn't accept this..he considered himself to be a Spinozan, like the philosopher Baroch Spinoza.

Einstein believed that if we had a low energy particle we could get around the problem of not knowing what's going on inside that atmosphere around each quantum (before it collapses in a way I think of as with a phase change from "more gaseous" to more "solid".)

Einstein and Spinoza believed that if you have a system of particles and you know the positions and motions of all them before you start you can control all the events of the system and so the universe is fundamentally deterministic.

Yet one of the great Einstein quotes is that "It's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can both admit and absorb a wave". So by this waves seem fundamental.

Even if all around us we see evidence for both  determinism and indeterminism, we might indeed say that waves seem so fundamental that Einstein's second belief that waves are more fundamental is more true. 

By determinism particles seem more valid because they're easier to control as by Spinoza's belief.

Physicists have believed that it's impossible to conceive any point of any system without both centrifugal and centripetal force.

 I think of this as both quanta and waves, all bodies are in motion either by linear or accelerated force; Specifically waves being continuous are trying to accelerate that body and quanta like the quantum of light in relativity limit acceleration and the result is uniform motion.

While we can say that particles aren't fundamental because of Einstein's idea that it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can't both emit and absorb a wave, one problem I had noted was that waves would soon destabilize  because of acceleration, the bane of relativity in my opinion. Special relativity describes uniform motion well but I think of it as a measure of only motion without cause. 

For a more complete dynamic description of all the systems, forces need to have a source unlike in general relativity where Einstein says that gravity is much like inertia and because inertia has no source then we can assume that the pendulum as it goes back and forth won't center on the earth.. it could center at any point.

  Acceleration would seem to discriminate about which observer is more privileged, the Earth is more privileged and so the pendulum centers on the Earth. Dynamics is about sources of motion and not just the paths that masses take.

Thus we need more than uniform motion or quanta to describe systems. My belief is that the acceleration of gravity comes from waves (not the ones discovered by LIGO which are more about centrifugal force, moving outward at the speed of light by inertia and relativitys influence and much higher energy (as due to the much greater constant and the equation for statistical force than true gravity waves since they radiate out and gravity radiates in, etc.).

 Centrifugal force and inertia tend to radiate outward, as path of masses of uniform motion tend to move outward as a gas and so the much higher energy inertial lines like the classical electromagnetic field lines radiate out, inducing in the inertial waves and this induces the outward radiating gravity waves and that induces inward the gravitational particles. 

  Relativity is not out of the picture here even though Einstein held there was no low energy field with classical field lines like this,  because inertia is much much stronger than gravity contrary to what relativity might teach us with the equivalent of inertia and gravity and so first the inertial lines might lay down the tracks by radiating out and then the inertial waves would radiate inward following those tracks which are induced the gravitational waves outward and this would also correspondingly induce the gravitational particles inward.

 Inertia and relativity being much stronger may form the frame of the picture and then the gravity follows those lines inward because it needs a source and waves can't naturally just radiate inward.

 The much lower energy gravity waves might radiate out (much lower because the constant of gravity is hugely less than the constant for centrifugal force) as the waves of inertia radiate in. 

 By what we can measure,  events of the low energy quanta of the field exerting the force of gravity or centrifual force that we feel pulling and pushing around us would be actually transmitted by both gravity particles that radiate inward under the influence of the outgoing lower energy gravity waves themselves and also inertial particles that radiate out under an influence of the ingoing inertial waves. (Of course as my calculations of physicists like Feynman himself, external particles have major problems about friction. gallio's belief was the earth carries the particles like an atmosphere, but this wouldn't solve Feynmann's calculation where he proved that particles would need the earth to gain two earth masses for second, and there will be huge problems about friction. For this reason I have tended to believe that the particles are inside what I call the radius of action  (ROA) of the quanta and not on the outside where it's almost pure waves. particles so they connect up to the other particles by proxy by the waves and the problems with friction might be solved by this method.)

  My explanation for how the classical electromagnetic field lines don't destabilize or bunch up.. the waves zigzag between those lines giving them coherence. While Einstein wouldn't even admit these lines exist iron filings show regular changes in the field not described by relativity. 

 As I say acceleration doesn't really fit gravity well and for this reason I think that indeed relativity and gravity are the opposite.. Gravity radiates down to oneness and the thermodynamic forces like by relativity where the speed of light is so important radiate out like by entropy.

 This opposition of acceleration like by gravity and the speed of light is described by the extra tensor for acceleration that relativity ignores. 

More particularly in special relativity the speed of the light stays the same while the wavelength changes. With gravity the opposition would be about how both the speed and the wavelength of the waves are changed because gravity is an acceleration and not just the wavelength changes.

Once I understood this then I began to ask myself about the problem of why these waves wouldn't soon fizzle out and become random instead of unified so mass can have tension as newton believed.. this is one thing about the unified field if we assume it's completely unified by the waves since particles don't unify, Because they're separate they would have no way to remain consistently unified.

Carl Sagan was saying in cosmos that if we could somehow turn off the electromagnetic fields everything would crumble to a sort of fine dust. I would think it wouldn't even be dust I would think it would wouldn't be like anything we know of. Dust has some structure but what structure the waves might have without particles seems to be much reduced.

 So I started to look at the idea of how the waves zigzag between the classical electromagnetic field lines.. One way of looking at this is that if we indeed had the lines made up of small particles like Einstein believed in to try to solve the Uncertainty principle tending to be like quanta, and we set up the system where we control those lines and we can even start the waves between them, in order for the lines to remain coherent the waves have to do some extra work, and in this method they're changing both wavelength and frequency in random unpredictable ways.

The randomness is necessary to add the cohesive force. 

  Since particles need waves to hold together, Einstein's completely deterministic system with only particles is not as probable. Likewise waves will quickly fizzzle out without those more quantum lines that they're oscillating between to stabilize them.

 This is another expression of the idea that there is no centrifugal without centripetal force. In this, my description of gravity or the waves that LIGO has found, we much more definitely know the force exerted by the low energy particles (of both gravity and the inertia) inside the ROA at any rate, than we do the much higher speed lower energy waves.

We might say that the waves are hidden from us while the particles which are deterministic we can know well.

 

 It's recently been found that 97 percent of the mass of the proton is unaccounted for. By this motion of the dark matter field, we can say that as with finding dark matter in general it's been quite difficult and this might be because it may have overlapping changes of wavelength and speed which make it seem so continuous it's difficult to find with our sensors. We might say because we can't find it it's not deterministic. Einstein said about gravity at any rate that without a completely continuous a field all his castles in the air including mass and motion will fail.

One thing you may note here is that nothing is absolute, and though the waves may seem to be almost completely pure we might say they're also at least somewhat deterministic if not as much. 

 Einstein believed in the low energy particle to get around the Uncertainty problem, while Von Neumann was hopefully proving that there are no such low energy particles possible, and soon others were wedging in determinism into Von Neumann's supposedly solid math. Einstein always believed the universe is fundamentally deterministic while Schrodinger always disagreed.

Physicists in general have accepted mostly that the universe is non-deterministic at least in the quantum sense. Even so recent experiments called low energy quantum experiments have proven that Einstein was at least partially right. The idea is that we send a low energy quantum "mouse" past the box and see if "the cat" might be alive or dead by watching about how the mouse moves. 

 This seems more like partial evidence for more determinism because it involves the low energy particles and not absolute waves to make it so the experiment works and we can even know this.

  About the EPR I had had the idea that the way one quanta knows the other from a distance out of all the other quanta in the universe after being entangled could be because of these low energy particles moving around a quanta like the electron at super high speed by being super lighter (you lighten up to go fast and also by reversal of sign like by tunneling by being more dense waves can go faster, also gravity might speed up with lower density while other forces being opposite in sign may speed up with increased density) and with a phase change from relativity. 

 Note that this phase change makes it so you can't directly measure the low energy waves and all we have is received knowledge, for example about how gravity operates but we have the changes of wavelength of light associated with and not about gravity itself. 

 Relativity with the particles is more deterministic but in my idea I call General Wave Dynamics (GWD) gravity with its overlapping waves and frequencies of the waves is tending to be more noncausal, and mostly not measurable by the quanta which are much slower.

 This idea of received knowledge is fundamental to the whole idea of the universe being deterministic or indeterministic. You send in one quanta and five random quanta radiate outward you can't predict. 

 If was only at the speed of light you can't predict this because of the quanta of light by relativity (Or like Einstein believed the Spinozan method of knowing all there was by a system of particles). The waves may do most of the random computing while in Special Relativity Einstein holds that light is a quanta unchanged from emission to absorption and so the speed of light is constant and there is not so much randomness.

 The waves being much less knowable may be important to nondeterminism.  Because every system has both centrifugal and centripetal force or waves and particles or mass and energy, one part of the system will tend to be hidden like the inside of the quantum. As with the low energy Quantum experiments this is not absolute but it tends to be more so.

  I was tending to invoke Einstein's idea of the low energy particle to explain both the EPR and how gravity operates and also why recent experiments show that quanta remember after the interaction.

  If each quantum has the small "constellation" of these low energy particles, it seems conceivable that if you fuse them together and then stretch them back apart they might retain that code from that particular constellation of the quanta. I thought this also could explain Maxwell's objection about the problem that opposite electric charges attract and yet mass attracts other mass by gravity.

 With a more special code for each heavy quantum by way of the low energy particles, like masses would still attract and be made unlike by the code of the low energy particles Einstein imagined for the Uncertainty principle of each quanta (and this might be generally about how the electric charges themselves attract and how attraction may operate in general by way of the substructure of the field).

 And so I asked, where are these low energy quanta and my belief was that because the electron shows no structure yet, and we would expect it to have structure like experiments if the quanta are there, the waves themselves might be super high speed as I say and change phase so fast they look continuous but really aren't.

  By this idea we could put upper limits on the mass of the low energy particles according to how continuous or not we find quanta like the electron to be.

  For now there's no evidence other than the low energy quantum experiments that the electron has discontinuity.

 I began to think about how the waves of the electron or why Einstein's other idea which he said was the foundation about gravity  being completely continuous would be wrong because of being infinite.

 Instead of low energy quanta I started to think of mostly waves as with the Feynman diagrams but with some quantum properties. This would seem to be necessary because as I say there are no waves without particles or mass without energy or centrifugal without centripetal force.

 So it would seem that the universe is made of both indeterminism and determinism. 

Those high-speed waves zigzagging between the classical electromagnetic field lines would fundamentally need randomness to hold them together.

 Certainly I would say like Einstein's low energy quantum experiments there's going to be a lot more difficulty finding the low energy waves than particles especially if the waves are super high speed and super light. 

 If we take two of those field lines and let them radiate outward with the waves between them we might think of controlling the waves by changing the lines like by making them parallel but this may have only general influence on the randomness of the waves.. in this view the waves are tough to control because each one interacts only a tiny amount with a much heavier quanta and the quanta are the only thing that we can find the waves by way of. This is why general relativity seems to work so well with the received knowledge. The influence of gravity is there but it may be another kind of physics.

I think it's possible someday physicists might do something like stretch the lines out and then stabilize them so much that you can find how much the waves are changing in a regular way, this might be the closest we could come to making the field deterministic, and it might eventually lead to new physics.

This would still not be Einstein's method of controlling all the particles which would seem to be reason to believe that there will never be a completely deterministic system.

 Even so, while Einstein may not have been wrong that there was a hidden component of the physics, and this may be a minor influence as with the low energy quantum experiments, I think it still might be enough that we could send a signal with the EPR faster than light, and while it may be small for most events around us it might be valuable to understand gravity.

In truth the only real reason that physicists believe that the physics are unknowable is because no experiment had supposedly proven that Einstein was correct. They would like to except it ifif they could!

 

 Since the recent low energy quantum experiments now show he was partially correct, we say that there are degrees of determinism just as there are degrees of knowing anything about the world in general. 

  By their randomness and super high speed phase change yeah in this way the waves are more uncontrollable and so they're more non-deterministic.

  Non-determinism relates to ease of access. Because we can't find them, for now with our sensors for all practical purposes they are indeterministic.

As with dark matter, where you find it just by moving around the room as it presses against you and you change your motion, I don't discount the possibility that the indeterministic part of each system is only more out of reach and not totally unknowable as probabilities are knowing the unknowable.

 After all, this is what low energy quantum experiments seem to show in general. We can have some influence at least on the non-deterministic part of each system.. More influence than this we can't totally discount.

 If you send in one quantum and five unpredictable types of quanta rereadiate outward, I would hold the same thing as about the gravity waves and inertial waves as they radiate out and in they're computing internally, by moving back and forth with random changes of the lines themselves and interacting with them and this may be essential to the foundation of how the lines are maintained, and centrifugal force and gravity.

 Can A Signal Be Faster Than Light by the EPR?

 Einstein was much concerned about the speed of the EPR Einstein Podolski Rosen paradox.

 Recent interpretations involve the idea by the collapse of the wave function, where there is decoherence there can be correlation with the distant quantum before the collapse of the wave function, but there can be no signal sent because the information of the signal is already destroyed by the collapse of the wave function.

 No experiment I know of has yet found the superluminal speed of the sending of the wave (with AI yet also with other sources like Scientific American saying that by heroic engineering it's already been found that the EPR is faster than light) though current experiments with tunneling show no upper limit..and one claim that has been made is that the reason you have to send the information by the speed of light between the quanta after the quanta have collapsed the wave function is, above all else, to support relativity.

 But the low energy quantum experiments seem to be at least partial proof that we can control something about the collapse of the wave function to perhaps send the signal because of Einstein's other idea that the observer doesn't have absolute influence in quantum mechanics which of course is also anti-relativistic, as in relativity where otherwise the observer has all the influence.

 I think we may be able to take something like a crystal around the quanta after we've entangled it and we collapse it hopefully using the field around the crystal and control more of the causality of the decoherence, and by this small change of the low energy quantum experiment, essentially we may be able to send the signal faster than light and some of Einstein's ideas  may be-proven and disproven! 

 He believed both in determinism Spinoza's method by the quanta as above and that the waves were fundamental, both in the relativity of the observer and special relativity and yet non-relativity of the observer in quantum mechanics.

 As with Von Neumann's idea by rigorous proof he found that there can be no hidden variables in quantum mechanics, soon after other physicists had disproven it.

So every system (or at least every quantum system) will have both a non-deterministic and deterministic element, and Einstein's idea that the universe is fundamentally deterministic isn't complete.

This relates to problems about how time isn't reversible in relativity because if space and time were completely unified the low speed observer would control both the events in the distant starship and not just the speed of playback and also if space and time are unified so that if you move backwards through  space you would move backwards through time and you don't.

One of the classical proofs supposedly of relativity is that light travels for infinite distance unlike sound without stopping because the light is a quantum that "carries itself". Since this is without friction (another kind of acceleration or inconvenience) Relativity tells us that there is no friction or nothing would ever wear out or run down with the more common physics around us where some things are more at rest and some things wear out more than others.

 For most of history people believe that the most natural place for a mass to be was at rest, Newton and Einstein supposedly replaced this with more inertia other than when acted on by an outside force.

It's easy to see that this is true if you liken the acceleration of masses like in the gravitational field with the bending of light the light bends the same for all frequencies and so by relativity all the masses fall at the same rate.

And while this works fine for light  by the friction and relativity, the masses tend to slow down "and move to a stop!" We can say that if you raise a heavy and light mass to the same height and drop them, they fall at the same rate if you use different force.

 But unlike the light when there's friction basically and you use the same force to accelerate and heavy and light masses upward they fall at a different rate, just as it's easier to accelerate a light mass and a heavy mass by conservation of momentum. Thus by relativity we can say because there is no friction for light seen from a distance indeed the most natural place for body to be used in motion other than if acted on by an outside force.

But it's more convenient to say that the earth is at rest and the heavy mass moves to be at rest more inconvenience causes validity by making it so that some values are more valuable than the others the earth is more the privilege rest frame than the moon as denying by relativity.

 

 About convenience in relativity, all observers are equally valid but not all are equally convenient. If you had only particles and you simply reverse their spin one going forward through time and one reversed it would be easy to control like this, but entropy reversing systems are the exception and not the rule and relativity can't explain this.

It's not more convenient to say that the moon is the more privileged frame of reference than the earth or that all observers are equally privileged because the pendulum centers on the earth not on the moon.

Mass and energy in relativity are conserved but not converted. By the unified field we might suppose that there could be some way to also convert them.

  It would take no work done on the field to convert mass to energy, and work essentially selects out things that are more viable from things that are less viable. The slowness of conversion, contrary to the unified field and relativity where all observers are equivalent, makes it so some things are more valuable than others.

 The ineffiency of converting mass to energy which if more efficient would make relativity more complete, has value in making just the claim that special relativity lacks, that all observers aren't equally valid and that all observers and values aren't equivalent, that is, truth is not the same as false..seemingly a major flaw in the logic of relativity (though not special relativity which obviously will stand).. this flaw goes down to the foundations of the logic of the universe by bringing the physics of the light with the distant lack of friction down to the world of gravity or matter and energy where inconvenience like about economics makes the world often more what it is than anything.. Ask anyone who wants to earn more for a jug of SPF 450 at the beach..

 This distinction by way of convenience between mass and energy or a heavy and light weight in the earth's gravitational field may be an expression of the inner structure of heavy quanta compared to bosons like light. 

Inside the heavy quanta may be spinning faster than light giving them their mass if mass is spinning energy, and by the phase change of spinning faster than light inside they might be more separated and able to do the extra work on the field that maintains the outside tension Newton believed in for mass.

So if mass and energy were completely equivalent and there were no non-deterministic inner realm that wasn't computing faster than light for the heavy quanta everything would be unified into a blob of oneness and couldn't distinguish between truth and false, by way of making and storing the changes like a computer and so it's hardly surprising that the field may use a method like this to conserve energy.

 This distinction could be what makes it so that bosons can be unified to the same phase but fermions resist being moved to the same place.

The bosons spin at the speed of light all the way to the center of the quanta like light and there's no gyroscopic resistance to move bosons together. 

 If mass is spinning energy (which won't work for relativity because Einstein never defined what causes rest mass perhaps because you need faster than light spin inside the heavy quanta for it to exist as it does) it will be spinning faster than light by the phase change inside the heavy particles with more momentum than it would have by relativity. Relativity only says that the momentum is conserved and doesn't say what speed the quanta are spinning at; while momentum is conserved heavy quanta have extra mass that relativity can't account for.

  The fermions having more mass may spin faster than light inside with the phase change and by the gyroscopic stability or the shear force and this makes it so they can't be moved together without overlapping bosonic waves not predicted by relativity.

You can create any number of bosons. For example by lighting a match you can create unlimited light radiating out, but fermions like electrons and positrons or other particles with mass are always created in pairs.

 

If the bosons with speed of light spin to the center are integrally connected to the electromagnetic field, the phases overlap so you can create large numbers of them.

If fermions are created out of the light at high enough energy you always need a pair or more because by the phase change they're no longer connected as much with the external field and the faster than light small  gyroscopes inside the electron and positron must still conserve a momentum like of spin and so they might compare each other to each other and not the outside field and so are always created in pairs (or more for the fractional charges).

If all the quanta spin at the speed of light without the dark matter change of phase inside they would all act like bosons.

  This might also be why dark matter bends light like bosons, but not the fermions which would resist acceleration with the internal gyroscopes spinning faster than light the bosons don't have. 

 By the change of phase,  the bosons spin at the speed of light all the way way to the center of the quanta, and the fermions spin being faster than light may be an expression of the partial inequivalence of mass and energy because of the idea that the unified field and relativity are incomplete.

  At low energy different masses accelerate by different amounts for the same force and the light of different energies doesn't change it's acceleration as it moves near a massive body like the Earth but at high energy for dark matter this may reverse where the light is bent but not the mass by reversal of sign, because high energy is the opposite of low energy.

To me this seems reminiscent of Wilkzec's idea about Axioms where the proton doesn't care about spin, and externally all mass attracts so I believe mass because of attraction may only spin in one direction as reflected by the recent observation that in the early universe the galaxies spin 67% more clockwise than counterclockwise. 

 So too I believe it's possible the external field may reverse in sign and contrary to relativity instead of just bending mass and not by distinction, dark matter might bend the light or energy and not mass.

  At high energy the dark matter field between the light and the massive sources might be accelerating more independently of the source in a non-commutative way and causing this so that the common masses generate the dark matter but it changes before it reaches the light to change it but not the masses themselves as much. This is a possible explanation for why dark matter bends light but not common masses as much.

Usual masses at high energies would plow through dark matter fields without influence because gravity would wrap around the outside of the spin of each heavy quanta and the difference between the two sides of the spin would be the acceleration of gravity for that quanta. Gravity wouldn't go inside the heavy quanta because it would have huge strength, quantum numbers and shielding.

 Gravity doesn't shield like the Moon and the Earth for eclipse after eclipse over historical times and so it doesn't slow down and dark matter would only act like gravity to the matter ploughing through it but not the energy.

This, a hopeful way of mine to understand perhaps the observations by astronomy about dark matter isn't my main idea but also may be possible.

Why is Mass Positive on the Outside Without Antigravity? Why the Resistance of the Quanta to the flow of Gravity on the Outside May be Evidence Against the Completeness of Relativity..

I think of this like a boat in the river with an anchor and a line. When the boat flows with the water there needs to be pressure on the boat to move it and when you lower down the the line with the anchor the line shows the force because of the pressure of the water on the boat, just as in the gravitational field the electron and other heavier quanta would have to have some way to have pressure on them for this to be so.

 Without the phase change inside the heavier quanta and the gravity going through the heavy quanta instead of around them, this would be true anti-gravity by the definition of matter that would be without weight in the gravitational field, like the boat if it were completely transparent to the water and if the water could flow right through it there will be no change of phase inside the boat where the water can't flow.

 By the phase of change and faster than light spin inside the heavy quanta, gravity meets resistance and so there is no measure of anti gravity by weight.. Also resistance of the quanta to gravity by pressure on the other quanta is a sort of passive anti-gravity. If this "anti-gravity" was not short range we would fall into the "singularity of the Earth." 

 But this passive resistance itself would need a change of phase for there to be pressure resisting on the outside like the boat in the river with the water and also the change of phase at short enough distance also to be the cause of this "passive anti-gravity". 

 

 The boat has to be opaque to the water on the outside "think of painting barns and ships!"-but in order for it not to flow down the stream indefinitely it needs connection with other ships or the line of each atom attaching to the next. So the change of phase explains why we feel the force on the outside and also why we don't implode downward to the center of the Earth.

 If gravity were only at the speed of light, if as by LIGO and inside the quanta it was also at the speed of light, we could imagine that by definition the heavy quanta would be completely transparent to gravity and have no weight.

 

 By relativity gravity is simple and gravity is at the speed of light.

  Everything is connected up if relativity is complete by the unified field and so by relativity the quanta are at the speed of light inside and have simple changes in wavelength but not speed because the spin inside the heavy quanta is at the speed of light. 

 Therefore by relativity the quanta would be transparent to gravity because they should all be equally convenient as well as equally valid if relativity is complete. It's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass and as I say on my other posts convenience is a major problem for relativity.

 Einstein believed gravity was simple on the outside, and I would say there's no reason to believe it wouldn't be simple on both the inside and outside of the quanta if relativity was complete.

  The phase change allows the quanta to spin faster than light and they are considerably disconnected from the external field enough that this causes the spin unlike with classical mechanics where by friction they would stop.       

   If mass is spinning energy the heavy quantum have more energy and mass than they should by relativity spinning only at the speed of light. By the unified field they should all spin at the same speed at the speed of light which would be merely plus and minus one as the mass of all the quanta. 

 The overlapping changes in wavelength and speed of the matter waves make it so there are many different masses in subatomics physics with different speeds of the spin not just one. 

 Relativity tells us time should speed up with more mass but the heavier the quanta are in general the shorter their half-life, because time is like spin always measured by periodic fluctuation and in higher math it's well known that time is a curve as well as by the theorems that time is proportional to frequency. The heavy quanta are spinning faster then they should and like small clocks this speeds up the time contrary to relativity.

What about GPS?

  GPS is the only practical application of what's called general "relativity". By this due to the phase change in my idea I call General Wave Dynamics GWD, the gravity is only on the outside in the field between the heavy quanta. I believe by this GPS measures changes in gravity's influence on the quanta like light but not the gravity itself. The phase change makes gravity something other than relativity because it separates gravity from the quanta by removing the field lines of the gravity to the outside. Only one ten thousandth of an atom is occupied by more common mass and energy.

 

 

Einstein and The Uncertainty Principal by The Zeno Method

 Einstein hated the idea that you needed to collapse the wave function to find out what the low energy field was about and I agree.

Einstein was looking for a way to essentially get around this necessity of measuring what's measured with what's measured and nothing else, and he thought of a low energy particle that we might use to find the information about the low energy field yet without collapsing the wave function.

I agree with Einstein here because of my idea about the definition of information. The signal between two electrons as they move from disappearing to reappearing on the other side apparently at faster than light is based on a signal; change in one place with exchange of energy with probabilistic changes in the other electron by way of the Feynman diagrams as it resurfaces.

By the physics so far, it's well known that we can't find Einstein's low energy particle although so-called low energy quantum experiments have proven Einstein was at least partially right, sending a quantum mouse past Schrodinger's quantum cat and watching how the mouse behaves to see if the cat is dead or alive inside the box..

This would be by way of the Feynman diagrams because the low energy waves aren't 100% wavelike and they have particulate events in order to be even unified to any degree as measured by the diagrams. In a way this is partial proof of Einstein's low energy quanta he hoped to find. The waves are neither infinfinitely wavelike or superluminal but they are above the degree of relativity perhaps to many levels just as the Earth is more at rest and privileged than the moon with degrees of value. There is no absolute rest frame but in science as life some are moreso than others.

I agree with Einstein that quantum uncertainty is unnecessarily binding, both because he believed in a non-relativistic framework for this and also because relativity I believe relativity is not complete. If the observer is not absolute in quantum mechanics, then it may not be absolute elsewhere as in relativity for the uniformity of nature.

By relativity however, we couldn't have the underlying stability of the quanta so that you collapse the entire couch when you collapse one quantum of the couch with the light. Instead of relativity being the foundation here, I believe inside the quanta the waves are also spinning faster than light for the central charge of the electron to be so much off the chart when you measure it with inelastic scattering experiments, and contrary to relativity the world around us is stable because of a phase change with this faster than light spin and that makes it there the quanta have underlying stability like gyroscopes because if the quanta collapse there is no phase change allowed by relativity and there would be nothing to keep them from collapsing indefinitely. The change of phase would be a good solution I think. And as Einstein said, by wave mechanics the underlying stability of the world would be non-relativistic and so relativity itself as I say may not be complete.

                       Photo by Gerd Altmann

I think we may be able to find most of the information that Einstein hoped to search for with research and that is by what is called the Zeno method of finding low energy events recently devised. This is where you take the "tube of light" like a laser tube and you twist it like a balloon and you measure much smaller events at much lower subquantum energy levels. This may be the best way we can come up with to improve on quantum uncertainty which Einstein was saying about why can't you can't measure the quantum without another quanta of another level energy. And Einstein quipped "Do you seriously think the Moon is not up there if we don't look at it?"

So I propose that we use the Zeno method by taking an electron on one side and then doing repeated experiments where we slide that tube of light at much much lower energy back and forth between the two seeming like superluminal electrons and hopes of sussing out all the events of the Feynman diagrams and Einstein's other hope of the non-relativistic general value of solving quantum mechanics and "don't forget relativity"..

 One fascinating question is why when you have a bell jar you can hear the bell but you pump the air out of it you can't hear it anymore. even while you see the bell move by the light. If there's anything there you should be able to hear it just fine right? Or you should be able to hear the roar of the sun.

But if you use a clapper of the bell that's either got ionization or magnetic polarity and then you send a mass past on the outside that's also ionized or magnetic it moves according to the change of the bell clapper.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

When you turn off the ionization of the clapper or the external mass or both it moves past without any influence. To me this is evidence that there is mass induction but the main reason after so much search we don't find it usually would only be because almost all the massive bodies in the cosmos have zero electric charge overall and so like the clapper of the bell and the external magnet moving past, they don't show signs of the low energy field.

If we turn it off and on and it changes the path of the ionized mass outside of the bells are with no air in it than this is definite evidence that there's a field. By Einstein's own admission if the low energy field is found, relativity is disproven. My idea is since special relativity works so well it's not so much disproven as augmented by my ideas I call GWD General wave Dynamics.

 For the connection to exist for the sound to send through the air inside of the bell jar to the outside, we say that each molecule connects to the next with a sort of short-range connection, but when we ionize the atoms and we then measure the connection, we're also measuring an internal change to the overall zero electric charge type of connection connection!

I thought of a new state of matter called a proton wire. We hope to take protons and move them together north, south, north south and the magnetic fields might hold them together even against the positive charge. I'd wondered how we might take electrons and a tube around these protons to neutralize electric charge so you don't have so much large positive charge you can't do anything with it. The proton wire would be super durable. It would also be lightweight if made into a composite. So overall it's super strong but super lightweight more than any other material.

While this was a theoretically possible way to improve material science I don't know if this would ever be viable because of stability issues like by cosmic rays coming in and destabilizing it. (Even so I had thought of surrounding it by heavy atoms or even sweeping lasers for some uses).

But the strong force is a short-range force and so only when you move it in closer, might the protons also have the strong force holding them together more. And perhaps even the magnetic fields will be so super stronger than any other material that they would also keep it from imploding and fusing.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

Overall the strong force is mostly zero at longer range, just like the atoms of the bell clapper converting it to an antenna by ionization. So in a way the molecule has an atom but also when you ionize it and you separate the two charges you've made it into an atom of much larger size. If you're inside that radius of the atom then you can cause induction and the field is present and it's obvious it's real.

Unlike sound light doesn't fizzle out over long distance in the low energy field and this is held by relativists to be evidence that there's really nothing there and the light carries itself and it's an inertial frame.

Bertrand Russell in one of his books in a chapter entitled "What's Seen and What's Felt" discusses about how all around us forces that push and pull us are common and taken to be for granted but for the planets or stars or high-speed motion without much friction, vision becomes much more important like by special relativity because of the light.

What he's ignoring is that the forces that push and pull are real too and even while gravity bends all light the same and while this is taken as evidence for the foundation of relativity because that light bending is the same as space and time, so it seems all masses fall at the same rate also. And so this must mean according to relativity that there just is no field there and it's not a real force.

But gravity has an extra tensor that relativity can't account for and while it works if you use a different amount of force to raise them, if you use the same amount of force applied to them, they fall at different rates. The moon falls at a different rate around the Moon Earth then the Earth around the Moon. Contrary to relativity for different masses, one is going to be more privileged than the other.

So while the idea of no force works for light, it really doesn't work for the forces that push and pull that distinguish masses and that are not about the vain appearances of light even though they're valuable for special relativity as far as they go.

  The light has no friction as it travels and this is taken as evidence that it's basic to space and time which it is for special relativity of course but also it's not complete because while light doesn't fizzle out over great distance if we would say that relativity is the foundation of everything then we would have to say by relativity there would be no friction for any machines and nothing would ever wear out or run down like the light.

Even if like a clapper in a bell jar, the air is removed and no sound is heard, magnetic filings continue to show regular changes between the clapper and an external magnet. The signal between the clapper and the iron filings  doesn't need to go above the DeBrogle wavelength for the low energy waves that also might cause the huge snapback of the wave of light to give just the speed of light Maxwell predicted if they're low energy but also faster than light. The waves would get strong enough just when near enough at the Radius of Action (ROA) and they aren't "real" until they are compressed at the ROA. This may be the main reason why dark matter and dark energy have evaded us, even so they may have been all around us, seen just by changing your motion around the house!

  If electrons seem to disappear at one place and reappear at another at faster than light this is evidence the force strong enough to cause the snapback of the light exists because the electrons that travel are also high energy, and so in General Wave Dynamics (GWD) the snapback has a real way of moving the light at just the speed Maxwell predicted. This seems an extreme coincidence of Relativity without GWD.

About the electrons Disappearing one place and Resurfacing another!

This is the method I use to explain why the snapback of light is exactly what Maxwell predicted the speed of light to be about.

The electrons and positive charges are entangled with the light by way of the faster than light connection.

You might say that no experiment has yet been done that proves that you can't have a faster than light signal between two electrons when one seems to disappear and then reappear at faster than light on the other side.

The idea is that instead of a signal being transmitted or any information all that are exchanged are probabilities. This is not a lack of value of physicists it's really only the limitation of the experiments we've done so far.

Einstein never defined information or a signal and you can't nail smoke to the floor at faster than light! Even so, I believe that there is a fundamental definition of information or a signal and is that you have a change in one place like in the electron and a change somewhere else with an exchange of energy. This may be important both to information theory as well as relativity itself.

  If we take one electron and we change it like it's angle or by other measures we're also changing the Feynmann diagrams. These are the probabilities that are so often invoked that would seem not to be probabilities because when you change the electrons in ways like spin, you're going to change the diagrams. If there were no signal and no information being sent you couldn't do this. No information would be no change and change is always made of real quanta or real waves. Einstein hoped for a low energy particle to bypass the Uncertainty Principle, this about just changing the quanta would be the nearest thing to it. I think it's possible we might use the "Zeno method" that's been devised of twisting a tube of light so the measured energy is much smaller than the quanta.

I think of this about the electrons as a form of quantum computing over more distance and we might be able to use the superluminal events with a large number of quanta and for communications. Sure you need to collapse the wave function to find the result but changing one antenna and then measuring another after sending a signal would be much the same.

Einstein hated the idea that supposedly there is no way to find what the signal is between where one electron appears and resurfaces without collapsing the wave function to find out and I agree. Like relativity itself it gives the observer "more influence than needed"..Like Einstein who was much concerned with the speed of the collapse of the wave function I think both relativity and non superluminal motion are incomplete..

The idea that that probabilities are all there are ignores a great deal of the history of mathematics and science. Usually great math follows great science not the other way around.

From the time of the ancient Egyptians they had geometry, measure of the earth after the floods and measures of the waves to go for a swim in the desert sands! 

   Probability by definition is the measure of the unknown and just because its unknown doesn't mean that it's not made of something physical.

  In exobiology it has been found the chemicals of life like on asteroids always need a surface to  compute on.

Or e.g. in brain research, there's always a physical change in the body for any change in behaviour.

Even if all the randomness we see around us I believe may mostly be derived from the underlying change of the Feynmann diagrams and we couldn't do without more cash and change, there's no guarantee our cash is not made of real material just like gold is the foundation of economics in many ways.  All the evidence around us shows that the foundation of all there is is based on mass and energy.

If we have the clapper or source of the change in the field and then we send the light past on the other side or if you use another magnet with one on the clapper and one on the sensor outside the bell jar we can say that if we move the clapper and the sensor moves by way of observing the light only then this is all there is to it. 

 By relativity, this is perfect, there is no low energy field there because for the magnets to attract we would have to have the quanta of that magnet go over the Debrogle wavelength. As the air is pumped out of the bell jar, the sound reduces even while we can see the light emitted by the clapper well.

So relativity is perfect here. The light is the only way the signal from the clapper to the external magnet can be transmitted. The light changes only its wavelength and there is no quanta between them so no sound is transmitted. 

 But relativity isn't perfect because with the magnets you can also put iron filings between them and these will perfectly well show the changes in the field. 

 It might be said that there's nothing there between the iron filings, but this nothing is changing continuously as measured by the filings. 

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

 

 The problem here is that nothing equals zero and going from 0 to 0 gives zero and so the iron filings can't change by relativity.

 Light is bent the same for all wavelengths of the light in a gravitational field and so we could say that all light falls at the same rate. 

But this doesn't hold for masses like the Earth and the Moon. The heavier Mass falls slowly and the lighter Mass falls faster, as with f = ma.

  This can be easily explained by assuming that the heavier mass has more surface area in contact with the low energy field and so when force is applied it moves more slowly. 

 Relativity can't explain this because if you apply the same force to the heavier mass and the lighter mass one will rise higher and fall faster and the other will rise slower and fall slower. 

By relativity, since the two masses are the same vertically, when you apply the same force to the two masses horizontally, they should also move at the same rate.

This is contrary to Einstein's idea that all masses fall the same in the Earth field of mass because when you raise them to the same height with different force, you would have to not be distinguishing between the heavy mass and the light mass with that force.

 So it would seem by relativity that light masses and heavy masses are distinguishable while light of all energy falls at the same rate. 

We could say this is so by way of the Debrogle wavelength for the quanta like the different masses but not for the light.

 Einstein said that relativity is perfect and that on the one hand mass is on only distinguishable by way of this wavelength and all that matters is the relative motion of the masses because a different physics is involved for the light. 

 By energy conservation and the uniformity of physics there needs to be something connecting between the light and the quanta of the bell jar even with the Debrogle influence. 

One possibility is that the dark matter on the cosmic scale bends light but not the heavy matter like the moon and the Earth anymore than by common physics, because the heavier matter the dark matter doesn't influence as much is obeying the Debrogle limit, but the light is also considerably distinguishable from the heavy quanta. 

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

 Dark matter itself may have a different physics perhaps from either common masses or the light. 

I believe this is possible because of Maxwell's comment where he says "Whatever the low energy field is about it can't be particulate because like a gas or we could weigh it and it would have weight."

So perhaps the low energy field interacts with usual mass like with pressure to cause f=ma and what we see with that dark matter by astronomy bending light is about how the dark matter itself is distinguished from either the light or the heavier masses or quanta.

 If it interacts with the heavy masses according to pressure on the outside and the interaction acts the same as f=ma and seems to have no extra change about this, so by Maxwell's belief on the astronomical scale at any rate, dark matter would have no chemical optical or mechanical properties because it's mostly wavelike.

 Even so, the light will have some distinction from the heavy quanta by way of the dark matter and this would bend the light while the heavy quanta might continue to act the same.

I believe another way of looking at this is that light being a boson spins at the speed of light all the way to the center of its field while the heavy quanta obeying the Debrogle limit must always move slower than light in linear motion because inside they spin at faster than light by a phase change. 

 In my belief mass is spinning energy even if sometimes this may also just be based on an abstraction of spin like isotopic spin or even the currents of the constants, so the much higher energy curve inside the electron would not be a simple linear pattern with change in radius always at c, but rather it could only be explained if inside the electron the spin is much faster than speed of light because the mass density and the speed of the spin is so much higher. 

Einstein's idea can't explain rest mass because if all the heavy quanta spin at the speed of light they would all have a mass of either plus or minus one because of the unified electric charge of plus or minus one instead of the rainbow of masses we see, and also for example, with relativity mass slows down time so the heavier the quanta the slower it should spin but instead the half-lives of the quanta are reduced with greater mass.

 This also could also be why we can't account for 97% of the proton's mass because the proton's dark energy field is spinning that much faster.

So if inside the heavy quanta like the proton or the electron the spin is faster than light the dark matter externally couldn't influence these quanta as much and only gives way by the f= ma relationship. The dark matter inside heavy quanta act like a gyroscope and are not so much changed by the external dark matter other than conservation of momentum while the light being more purely wavelike might give way more to its influence. The faster than light spin of the heavier quanta might act as a sort of anchor, so even while the dark matter field is interacting with it, it's not changing the heavier quanta or masses as much as the dark matter could influence the light on more cosmic scales and energy.

 

 

 

Jets, Superfusion, and Energy Conservation 

 As I say on my other posts, black holes may not have a singularity where all the mass disappears because it would violate energy conservation. Energy conservation seems more fundamental than even Relativity because e.g. while relativity has small influence on our common physics around us, and there are insufficient causes, energy conservation is found on all scales and energy levels. To me Relativity is based on Noether's theorem, action reaction pairs of what changes and what stays the same, and energy conservation IS Noether's theorem.

 If inside the supermassive body, the spins of the superheavy quanta are spinning faster than light, only then do they have enough centrifugal force to power the jets. I call the force of these heavy quanta Superfusion and they may be more powerful than Relativity.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

  We don't find the superfusion quanta around us because to exist they need more pressure inside a mass like a black hole because when you look at constituent systems going from molecules to atoms to nuclei to the heavy quanta, there's a greater and greater binding energy to rest mass ratio so they need more and more binding energy, and beyond the level of the strong force, the superfusion quanta would tend to fizzle out by their own centrifugal force. 

 Due to the spin and the lower binding energy relative to it, the superfusion quanta are only stable inside the pressure of the center of the black hole. So all around us only the light and heavier quanta are common but not the superfusion quanta because there's not enough energy to hold them together outside of the high density by the squeezing of the gravitational field of what had been thought of by Einstein as otherwise to be infinite.


 

People have wondered why the jets radiate out as they do and this is pretty simple to explain by superfusion because the heavy superfusion quanta are so unstable. They're being continually created by the gravity of the black hole at the area where there would have been the singularity and because the binding energy tends to be lower and the center field gradient isn't perfectly spherical because of the spin..the force is released more on one side where the poles are than around the rest of the "singularity". 

 So in this scenario the low binding energy combined with the superfusion force causes the center of the jet to move up from the center of mass and this also makes the inner superfusion quanta follow the rest moving outward as they have already made the jet more asymmetrical and also because of the low binding energy of the superfusion. 

 They may become more unstable and fizzle out more but with super strong centrifugal force caused by the faster than light motion of the superfusion quanta to power the jets.

  This seems impossible by relativity because if nothing can move faster than light then no force can be transmitted out from what would have been the singularity to the jets outside. There is otherwise no known force including fusion strong enough to power the jets, and gravity doesn't radiate out like the jets.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

In the Wikipedia article about the jets, two models of how the jets are powered are about how the black hole might transmit force by the accretion disc causing magnetic lines to spin outward and up to power the jets "from the outside"..another theory is about how frame dragging from General Relativity might power the jets by rotation, extracting spin out;

Jets may also be observed from spinning neutron stars. An example is pulsar IGR J11014-6103, which has the largest jet so far observed in the Milky Way, and whose velocity is estimated at 80% the speed of light (0.8c). X-ray observations have been obtained, but there is no detected radio signature or accretion disk.^[19][20] Initially, this pulsar was presumed to be rapidly spinning, but later measurements indicate the spin rate is only 15.9 Hz.^[21][22] Such a slow spin rate and lack of accretion material suggest the jet is neither rotation nor accretion powered, though it appears aligned with the pulsar rotation axis and perpendicular to the pulsar's true motion.

 If the jet is powered "from.the inside" this could be explained. In engineering momentum transfer from a solid mass or used to make small mechanucal levers for storing data can send far more force per unit time. So if the jets are powered more by momentum transfer from the inside in addition to explaining pulsar IGR J11014-6103 and be the cause of most other jets this could allow this type of much huger more powerful events.

The observation of some bodies with high energy jets without a disc would also be explained by the source of the jets' mass being either from the disc but also from the massive gravitational field, lower energy outside yet high enough inside to convert to superfusion and as they evolve the massive bodies would increase and decrease in mass according to energy conservation by measure of the energy in and out with different ratios because of spin which changes the jet dynamics as well as the in falling mass and gravitational energy.

  A spherical black hole with no disc and a given amount of spin with given mass will behave differently with changes in the jet, which may be predictable as a function of these events or for other jets of other massive bodies as more mass falls in.. By Einstein there is no mass of the field, by relativity it's empty. (Einstein said that if the low energy field is found, relativity is disproven.)

  So this idea would explain how the jets work and why we don't see superfusion quanta all around us and why these events are not disproof of energy conservation, one of the most well-founded ideas in science.

Susskind and others have promoted the idea that a singularity at the center of a black hole is a "robust result of general relativity". But I would say that matter and energy disappearing forever with no cause of the jets or the anomalous spectra of the events outside these systems is hardly a "robust result" of energy conservation or general relativity!

Others have said "Calling ideas like Susskind's or Hawking's related idea that Energy is destroyed at the singularity "science" is not doing science a favor."

Susskind's idea violates energy conservation and Hawking and Susskind totally ignored the jets, evidence the mass from "the singularity" doesn't disappear at all.

While my idea is an hypothesis so far, it does explain why the jets exist, and also makes some definite predictions about the jets and the dynamics.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

We would expect if the spins of the superfusion quanta are faster as by shearing the electromagnetic fields of the more common quanta that we see around us, they're going to show unusual spectra and other events like these as they transition outward and interact with the lower energy decay products not seen in the standard model and with other events like this. And this has been found by observations.

By the Search "Evidence In Cosmic Jets Against the Standard Model of Physics in the Quant Browser;

"Evidence in Cosmic Jets Against the Standard Model of Physics

Recent observations of cosmic jets, particularly from the body SS 433, have provided intriguing evidence that challenges certain aspects of the Standard Model of physics. Here are some key points:

High-Energy Gamma Rays: The H.E.S.S. observatory detected very high-energy gamma rays from the jets of SS 433, indicating highly efficient particle acceleration. This challenges the Standard Model's predictions about particle acceleration mechanisms in astrophysical jets.

Energy-Dependent Morphology: The H.E.S.S. collaboration observed a shift in the position of gamma-ray emission within the jets when viewed at different energies. This energy-dependent morphology is a first-ever observation and suggests that the Standard Model may not fully account for the complex dynamics within cosmic jets.

Particle Acceleration: The detection of gamma rays implies that particles are being accelerated to extreme energies within the jets. The Standard Model does not provide a complete explanation for how or where this particle acceleration occurs in astrophysical jets.

Shock Acceleration: The scientists simulated the observed energy dependence of the gamma-ray emission and concluded that a strong shock—a sharp transition in the properties of the medium—is likely accelerating the particles. This shock acceleration mechanism is not fully explained by the Standard Model.

Inverse Compton Effect: The high-energy gamma rays are produced when fast particles collide with light particles (photons), transferring part of their energy. This process, known as the inverse Compton effect, is well-known but the specific conditions and mechanisms in cosmic jets that lead to such efficient particle acceleration are not fully understood within the framework of the Standard Model.

These observations from SS 433 and other cosmic jets suggest that there may be physics beyond the Standard Model that needs to be explored to fully understand the dynamics and particle acceleration mechanisms in these extreme astrophysical environments.

Also CLICK HERE for more

.

Note that in this link, the jet is collumnated beyond the level of the Standard Model or speed of light connection. But if a major component of gravity is Faster Than Light (not the speed of inertia as in LIGO which is much higher energy like centrifugal force, relativity etc. at the speed of light) this is not impossible. This acceleration outward induced more by superfusion than gravity which would follow it might also be the cause of cosmic acceleration by higher energy versions of superfusion at the center if the cosmos as we know it now and we might learn about each from both.

  Inside the jet by the field gradient of superfusion moving outward, the gravitational component might first be resonating and in a higher rate of acceleration as a considerable number of the superfusion quanta also move outside the source of the jet with more and more acceleration as the binding energy is released.

Click Here for my  life health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list.. 

I get paid a small amount at no extra cost to you..for each sale ..Thanks!

Looking at how the accretion disc falls into the event horizon, we might say that there's more mass there than there is at the poles, so it's also got more centrifugal force by superfusion. So why wouldn't those heavy quantum radiate out at the event horizon instead of the poles?

  I find it highly improbable to assume that magnetic fields created by the accretion disc or by frame dragging will be enough to cause the accretion disc to send that matter and energy around the event horizon up to the poles and then it radiates out without falling into the event horizon.  With the Earth even while there's more matter around the equator, the poles actually have stronger gravity and so we would say if that matter somehow went around the accretion disc and around outside the event horizon up to the pole and then starts to radiate out, improbable as this may seem, there's no reason with stronger gravity at the poles it wouldn't fall in there. 

 We say that there's a geometry of the disc as it goes around and the matter falls in and as with the sun, perhaps at one wavelength mass and energy  gravitates in and another wavelength that would radiate out the heat, and so too I think of the accretion disc and falling into the singularity as a measure of a one-way valve for gravity to flow in, but the poles are a one-way valve for superfusion to flow out. This is because the disc is a circle and it rotates best around it just as in the solar system all the planets are by the ecliptic because there's both more centrifugal and centripetal force. But even for planets like the Earth, the magnetic and geologic poles are at much the same point.

 So while the gravity is super strong to bring in the matter from the accretion disc at the poles, the superfusion is even stronger than that. Much like saying that the matter falling into the sun is great, but the heating outward is greater yet. Mostly mass has the accretion disc around it because it's a circle, orbiting around the pole and less stable so soon it gravitates around the event horizon at any rate.

If the singularity is a more complex physical event than by general relativity and a signal like from the jets can reach the outside, I think it's possible that there may be even eclipses of black holes with changes in orbit not predicted by relativity, like with binary systems perhaps with a pulsar and a black hole and another massive body in orbit.

On this Wikipedia page about the cosmic Jets and superluminal motion, earlier researchers had found that almost all of them are many times the speed of light. However, other physicists made the claim that because you're looking at the Jets linearly towards you, this is just more like sort of an optical illusion like looking at a shadow moving across a curved surface that seems to be faster than light. 

 While the linear radiation idea seemed to explain the apparent motion at first there was the embarrassment found that the jets were also with too large an angle for this apparent motion to be the explanation. I believe that if superfusion powers the jets we would indeed expect to find superluminal velocities for the jets.

While special relativity tells us that we can't add our own motion to the speed of light, this is itself based on the assumption that there is no motion possible faster than light. The embarrassment about the speed being more than had been believed by relativity may be the solution.

 In addition to jets from high energy sources without a disc seen, astronomers have also observed super massive bodies with no jets, and this may also be caused by stable mass inside the black hole..As I say on my next link, the center of density may be state of matter with superfusion quanta at the center and outside perhaps even protons and other heavy quanta with enough shielding to stop the jets activity. If so this is a complex event, and so it's possible Einstein's idea that gravity and the singularity are simple and are also not about energy conservation aren't as general as he believed.

 CLICK HERE for my page "Mass and Energy" if you like for more about this..Thanks..