Radical new take on *uni*verse questions by Smolin, could be important

[Chalnoth]

Consider the video game analogy, all that is required to compute iteration n is iteration n-1. It is not necessary to store iteration n-2, or any older iteration data, so in an efficient system any data older than iteration n-1 would be discarded as unnecessary and therefore no longer exist.

Right, but if I store iteration n-2, then I don't have to store iteration n-1, I can compute iteration n directly from iteration n-2. In fact, computer games generally have to be designed to accept different time durations between the iterations, because the amount of time used to compute the next frame can vary significantly both between computers, and between frames.

In principle, it would be entirely possible to design an animation where the computer only stores the initial conditions, and every new iteration it computes the current iteration from those initial conditions directly, instead of doing it based upon the previous iteration. In practice this isn't done because computer programs use a number of approximations that would make such large time deltas unworkable.

 

[negativzero]

If Smolin's theory of generation of universes by black holes is correct, it would EXPLAIN why the physical constants are what they are to a degree. It's conceivable that other combinations of tweaked constants could also evolve on a slightly different basis. He's saying that the parameters are tweaked locally. When he examines them, he doesn't vary their values greatly. He says that would be too difficult. He said that at SETI.
.
More accurately, he said about 12 parameters were already "tweaked" and the rest seemed to be neutral.
That, to me, suggests that a variety of universes might evolve with 18 very different parameters, but which still maximize black hole generation! His number is 30 total parameters.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

I want to thank everyone for thoughtful discussion. I will probably continue to think about this whilst traveling over the next 2 weeks vacation.

Chalnoth, I wouldn't use iteration 0 or n to compute iteration n+(10^44)*billions of years. I would instead use the most recent possible iteration to reduce required processing. However perhaps processing time is not an issue if each iteration is calculated outside of our observed time flow. However again, since particle interaction has many random qualities, you could not use older time slice iterations because they would yield different results for iterations that have already happened.Neg, my view would be that the Universe exists to create the most complex mass energy interactions, processes and structures possible, which probably are the mental processes of living things. I suspect that black holes are very simple in structure and carry no DNA for producing a Universe based on, except better than, the parent Universe. However it is interesting to consider a Universe which can evolve through Black Hole production might also be the same one that can produce the most complex mass energy interactions, processes and structures possible.

Minus, I am probably a futurist because of ST. It was a lot of fantasy and also in some cases future reality, but still fun. :) The above would be a new take on the Ultimate Computer!

 

[negativzero]

Smolin mentioned that his calculation is that to maximize black hole production a limit on masses of neutron stars would be right about 2 solar masses.
.
i'm wondering if he just chose the least feasible mass to construct black holes with. It would seem like the least mass necessary would maximize black holes. Since the remnants of super novas by core collapse can include either neutron stars or holes but not both at the same time, a lower limit on black hole production would produce a correspondingly lower upper limit for neutron stars.
.
Just speculation.
.
-0

 

[negativzero]

Smolin's take on Gödel's incompleteness theorem was very interesting. After all, cosmologies are theories of everything.
.
Smolin's cosmology calls for a finite universe, thus the contradictions which issue from admission of infinities into the Godel's math are avoided. Gödel is insignificant.
.
i probably shouldn't pile on Gödel here but, I've often wondered whether the presumption of existence of a counting number which can't be counted might not have some subtle logical inconsistencies from the outset. And inconsistencies in a physical sense.
.
If number is part of the universe, that is, if math itself has a wholly physical existence that is not outside the universe, and further, the universe itself is finite, and space/time/and energy are a finite number of quantum bits, it's hard to see how one could apply the concept of infinity to any situation. The math concept "infinity" would be a contradiction and physical impossibility. Non-computability is another issue, as it itself is not a number. Maybe there is something out there in information theory that could deal with the symbolic technology on this one.
.
The concept of a continuous function is essential to many parts of math, notably calculus. I'm sure new calculus can be invented as needed, so that's not a big problem. The definition of limit would have to change. That's already been done in my memory. But this is one more nibble at the heels of continuity.
.
Entanglement too, requires a new look at continuity at the infinitesimal level. To me, it looks like entangled particles haven't completely disconnected until one or the other of them interacts with another particle. As long as particles are interacting at a rapid rate, and in close proximity, this looks like "classic" continuity, but when, as in experiments, the particles are widely separated in space and time, it doesn't look like Grampa's continuity at all!
.
When someone shows me infinity, or an infinitesimal, i may change my opinion and turn Platonic, but until then, I'm an obdurate hick.
-0

 

[Chalnoth]

I want to thank everyone for thoughtful discussion. I will probably continue to think about this whilst traveling over the next 2 weeks vacation.

Chalnoth, I wouldn't use iteration 0 or n to compute iteration n+(10^44)*billions of years.

You might not. But you could. And if you were to do the exact calculation, the computing time required would be exactly the same.

I would instead use the most recent possible iteration to reduce required processing.

The processing is only reduced for short time scales because approximations that are only valid on short time scales are used. The real universe doesn't have this luxury. When doing the exact calculation, there just isn't any difference. The time delta is just a parameter, and its magnitude is irrelevant to the exact result.

 

[Chalnoth]

If Smolin's theory of generation of universes by black holes is correct, it would EXPLAIN why the physical constants are what they are to a degree.

I am in general quite skeptical of this theory. I'd be willing to bet that when examined carefully, the actual maximum black hole production level occurs with a set of low-energy physics quite different from our own.

 

[negativzero]

i appreciate your comment Chalnoth. i am not a true believer, but i like the fact that Smolin himself is a center of skepticism re existing standard cosmology and quantum theory. Just listen to the questions from the audience at SETI. People hope he has what just about everyone is always looking for...something new.
.
Looking for something new at CERN, folks found Higgs. But no new physics. Smolin has sex appeal. He has something new.
.
Like you, i have my doubts. Taking Smolin's comments as correct, that somehow 12 parameters LOOK AS THOUGH they have been finely tuned by evolution of universes to achieve this universe which maximizes black hole production, maybe there are alternate explanations for such parameters.
.
i struggle with his theory in other ways. Do we really have so many black holes? He says a "billion billion." The universe is over 13 billion years old and we only have a billion billion so far. i can't measure my cosmic impatience.
.
Did he "peek" at the data on neutron star masses and the come up with a theory that required that special mass to maximize black holes? ---that would basically be close to cheating, i mean, explaining is not predicting. It's evil of me to be suspicious.
.
Does black hole maximization result from some necessary aspect of the initial conditions other than evolutionary process? If so, how would you weight that fact?
.
And why black holes? Protons are also a feature of this universe. If it turns out that 12 or so parameters are finely tweaked to produce these protons with incredibly long decay times, does that imply that the universe has evolved to maximize the lifespan of protons? i guess that would be amended to say, "...evolved to maximize proton half life, AND black holes?" The accumulation of protons can, in part, lead to black holes, so i guess that wouldn't contradict his theory. It would just explain the mass of protons too. {Which are not fundamental, as we all know.}
.
Then, of course, the questions that everyone is going ask..."What happens when i toss an empty beer can into this newly formed universe?" Or when black holes collide? The lack of answers doesn't deny the theory but as we look at our own universe i see no evidence of infalling beer cans. i.e. no evidence of infall into our little black hole universe, assuming we are one. ---i'm betting there is some dual relativist answer why 13 billion years from the inside of the hole will translate to some distorted time outside. Why does each generation of universes only change a little in physics from it's mother? Why not change on a random basis?
.
How can you verify that any specific black hole has created anything at all?
.
Other things bother me which are more difficult to nail down. Lots of questions.
.
On the other hand i can't think of a single other cosmologist [or person] who has a semi-decent theory of why even one physical constant has the value it does. If true, it might be the most amazing result since the atomic theory. If not true, it opens ones mind to find out why not.
.
Gotta give the guy his creds.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

You might not. But you could. And if you were to do the exact calculation, the computing time required would be exactly the same.The processing is only reduced for short time scales because approximations that are only valid on short time scales are used. The real universe doesn't have this luxury. When doing the exact calculation, there just isn't any difference. The time delta is just a parameter, and its magnitude is irrelevant to the exact result.

Chalnoth, since particle interactions have many random qualities, you could not use older time slice iterations when trying to compute a future iteration, because they would very likely yield different results for iterations that have already happened in between.

 

[Tanelorn]

negativ, another alternative: Perhaps the Universe is fine tuned through evolution for something on MUCH larger size scales. Think about the ratio of the smallest particle to the size of the observable universe and then think about a ratio approaching that for something much larger and also with higher complexity. The potential for complexity is the thing which needs to be passed on to the next Universe whereas Black holes are probably relatively simple and also may not create new Universes. They may just be matter which is sufficiently dense so as to not allow light to leave, and nothing more.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, since particle interactions have many random qualities, you could not use older time slice iterations when trying to compute a future iteration, because they would very likely yield different results for iterations that have already happened in between.

This isn't true, whether you're talking about quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, or General Relativity. In quantum mechanics, time evolution is simply governed by the Hamiltonian operator:

$$H|\psi\rangle = i \hbar {\partial \over \partial t}|\psi\rangle$$

No randomness involved. The randomness comes in either as an approximation (in statistical mechanics, for example), or because our future observations will be limited to a single branch of the full wavefunction. But when we're talking about something like the nature of time, these concerns are irrelevant.

 

[negativzero]

Chalnoth perhaps you can help me hone in on some of the slipperier issues with Smolin's approach.
.
Smolin seems to lapse into a Newtonian picture or at least a non-relativistic picture for several parts of his theory, but the theory itself comes out of his use of GR, notably that GR doesn't require conservation of mass energy in black hole collapse. Never-the-less, time is given a direction, and the universe is placed in a mitotic colony of sequential universes. And particles, or events, or something, has memory, and the memory itself is apparently the enforcer of physical law. Not a force, just an enforcer. That's not even Newtonian. Where does he get that? Depending on the intransient reactionary reluctance of particles to change behavior is treating them like psychological entities, moreover it requires some kind of group memory. Now it's not only evolution it's ethnography. Or, [being less satirical] perhaps a shared feature of the state of every particle in a particular universe. That would require that each universe, being unique, would have it's own esprit de memoire. As if the all the particles in that universe are connected or entangled until a few of the them clot together into a black hole and disconnect in a collapse event vaguely analogous to wave collapse. It reminds me of the universe as a particle picture. It suggests a new kind of "Feynman diagram" for universes.
.
He's throwing a lot of stuff together and i don't have a sense yet for why he picks one path over another. How do we know when to think in universal or "real time" vs the time we have gotten used to?
.
It's the wobbling in and out of GR that i don't get. When does he decide to embrace and when does he slip out the back, jack?
...
Tanelorn, my friend, perhaps you can see that, after reading your post, it influenced the note above to Chalnoth. You have contaminated my grey matter budro! GEt outta my HeAd! Seriously, i can't figure just when or why Smolin went down the logical paths he did, except that he has had a sense of where he wanted to wind up.
Have fun on your vacation.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

thanks neg, at the airport now! (just trying to help :) )

 

[Tanelorn]

This isn't true, whether you're talking about quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, or General Relativity. In quantum mechanics, time evolution is simply governed by the Hamiltonian operator:

$$H|\psi\rangle = i \hbar {\partial \over \partial t}|\psi\rangle$$

No randomness involved. The randomness comes in either as an approximation (in statistical mechanics, for example), or because our future observations will be limited to a single branch of the full wavefunction. But when we're talking about something like the nature of time, these concerns are irrelevant.

Chalnoth, sitting at JFK trying to understand the implications of what you said.
Does this mean that the Universe could start over with the big bang and all that follows, and each time it did so I would be sat here typing this? I really didn't expect this, are you sure?

 

[WannabeNewton]

In general relativity if you specify an initial data space-like Cauchy hypersurface then the Einstein equations determine a unique evolution of this surface for all time, for as long as the equations remain well behaved.

 

[Tanelorn]

Could this be one of those occasions where a mathematical model is not sophisticated enough to represent the real world? Would this mean that the exact same Universe is produced each BB? No free will and so on? I would like you to come to a casino with me if you have the time.

 

[negativzero]

Okay, i think i get the "memory" thing.
.
The particles from the original collapse maintain their identities including stats like physical constants, which they share with other particles created within the new black hole. Or at least the emergent and yet nascent progeny of the new universe will not greatly contradict the parameters of the founding particles {like Founding Fathers}. The founders bring with them the fine structure constant, slightly altered. Like colonists orienting the new progeny.
.
It's good to be in with the in crowd, and in this thread Smolin is IT. But someone must have mentioned the similarity to Alice in Wonderland.
.
It reminds me of a sci fi story i wrote 4+ decades ago. Folks jumped from universe to universe by turning a photon sphere inside out. i called it the "Mobius transformer." The physical rules for each universe changed slightly each time they jumped and they couldn't get back. Scientific American had a cover picture of a sphere being turned inside out and i fixated on it. i could draw it free hand.
-0

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, sitting at JFK trying to understand the implications of what you said.
Does this mean that the Universe could start over with the big bang and all that follows, and each time it did so I would be sat here typing this? I really didn't expect this, are you sure?

Sure, if it started again from the exact same initial conditions. Though note that all we observe is only one branch of the wavefunction, and there are many other things that occur as well.

 

[negativzero]

Infalling mass/energy initiates the black hole collapse with extant constraints essentially intact.
.
At some point in the birth of the black hole as seen from the outside, a resultant expanding universe is birthed as seen from inside. In this picture the expanding space would be subject to the extant constraints of the infalling mass/energy. The alternative would be that the resultant space would have constraints which contradict those of the initial mass/energy.
.
i think I'm getting it. Space emerges from the moving mass/energy, somehow thru a looking glass.
.
Okay, i'll buy that for a while, but now what about the cornucopia of new energy necessary to create a "billion billion" black holes? Space emerging from energy going down the rabbit hole is one thing but energy amplification eludes me entirely. i can't think of any example of anything I've ever heard of that would work that way except maybe Three Wishes.
.
To be a true fan, one just has to believe, i guess.
Fixated but confused.
-0

 

[negativzero]

Try this weird use of the uncertainty principle.
They are attracted to each other, why doesn't the orbiting electron just settle in and land on the proton?* If you know exactly where the thing is, you don't know the exact momentum. Assume the black hole is pointlike. What is more exact than a point? You think you know the infalling mass? Well, when that thing crushes down to a geometric description of a physical impossibility, YOU DON'T KNOW the momentum. Of course some black holes are said to be larger than the orbit of Jupiter but I'm not going to let that enter my little head. Dr. Smolin is prolly not talking about vast polygamous agglomerations of black holes forming super massive black holes. There are only a few of those. He's talking about tidy bachelor universes born of star collapse, billions of them.
.
Like a devoted hound i try to sniff out reasons why my Smolin is Elvis reincarnated!
-0
*disregarding some kind of neutron formation

 

[negativzero]

"...Some black hole models have so-called “Cauchy horizons” inside the event horizon, i.e., surfaces beyond which determinism breaks down..."
Under 4.3.2 Singularities in:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
.
This must be what Mr. Smolin is talking about. No need for the uncertainty principle. GR has it's own uncertainty.
.
While GR is not classical in the sense of being deterministic in, "...Some...models," otherwise it is "classical." It's deterministic because it's a mathematical model which will yield the same results given the same initial conditions, when calculated. Except in the pesky case of black holes, maybe.
.
i love this stuff!
-0

 

[negativzero]

In Smolin's picture, Sol can't procreate.
.
Sol has only half what it takes to deliver progeny!
.
Speaking of the progeny of an entire new universe.
.
Can a local fan club rectify this mass deficit! Loans perhaps, of mass from neighbors?
-0

 

[Hernik]

But if you somehow throw yourself into a large star - you can become a universe!

Henrik

 

[Hernik]

Negativzero - thanks for your reply. There was a lot to think about.

Have you considered that space is an unneeded construct? What science can measure is fields, more accurately it measures fields on fields. When a physicist predicts all the places a particle might go by tunneling or otherwise, he is describing predictions given fields. "Space" may be a superfluous concept.

Do you have a link or some names/theories I could look into to get deeper into that idea?

Henrik

 

[negativzero]

Henrik,
Not talking red cool-Aid here, or white Nikes.
.
Just a simple non-profit to bulk up Sol to critical mass...that's all. Let's get together people and help our star make a new li'l universe. Show a little solar spirit.
.
Our sun needs our help. Clearly there is not enough debris in the immediate solar system.
.
When oh when will NASA ever learn Smolin's most central idea? Namely, if you are going to deliver, it's not enough just to have facial hair. You have to have enough mass to implode and really mean it! [edit: paraphrasing] Let's put some cities inside asteroids and wander off into the nearby galactic neighborhood to collect stuff and toss it all into Sol. In a reverential manner, of course.
.
Clearly, we r on th same wavelength. By the way, what's a "link?"
.
-0

 

[Hernik]

No thanks to world-impires, galactic settlements or universal justice. A truly important lifeform creates universes. Humanity can move forward. Thank you for opening my eyes.

By the way - I have trouble understanding how the concept of fields should do without space. To me a field is a very spatial thing - what are we talking about here - relations between particles giving the impression of fields in space?

A link - did I aim too low? I just want information about how space can be a superflous concept - where can I find that?

Henrik

 

[negativzero]

In Smolin's evolution picture, math evolves along with the universe.
Assuming "one" is math, that most basic natural counting number evolves too. My question now is whether negation evolves along with number?
.
If no two nothings are the same twice,
and no two nothings are the same thrice,
then no two nothings are odd and even. [One of my oldest and most favorite jokes.]
.
Clearly, according to Smolin, 1 does not =1. Each one has a separate history and can be identified separately by inspection. What is really understood is that in spite of the fact that you have to see two different ones on the page to understand perceptually what is being said, what IS being said is a convenient fiction. We assume all ones are the same for the purposes of thinking about math.
.
Thus math is not just nonsensical, it's fiction. Some call math "truth," i call it a damned good lie.
.
Regardless, in my world, and I'm pretty sure Smolin agrees with me on this, all math and logic has a physical manifestation. What i think, see, hear, and otherwise perceive as math has always in every particular instance been physical. Ink on pages, words I've heard, chalk on boards, sheep jumping fences in rectangular arrays*, all, ALL, can be described as physical stuff. The field of neuro-cognition assumes thought is physical. i have yet to confirm a single non-physical event in my experience.
The metaphysical or Platonic view of math is an example of what Smolin protests against. Math and reason don't exist outside the universe, they are physical too. Thus if physics evolved, it's not too hard to understand that since numbers are physical, they too evolved.
.
Truly negations are unruly, the multitude of paradoxes created by the frailties of negations is evidence of that. However, i suppose the numerical nature of negations could be disputed or qualified at least as in Russell's meta-language. [...along with notions of universality, another fertile source of paradoxical constructions.]
.
Hernik, think "luminiferous aether." A notion similar to space, which was discarded.
.
If eternal Platonic space exists forever, even outside the universe, then how does it connect to the physical world? And don't say, "the pineal gland," that trick has already been tried! If it isn't physical it's not physics. It's meta-physics.
.
My simple headed definition: "Space is any place anything could be." Anything.
.
How do physicists determine where things could be? In the example of particles, for example with a Gerlach apparatus, movement and change are defined on fields. We shouldn't need to refer superstitiously to "space" when fields are descriptive enough. In the unholy name of Occam it's time to trash space, and open your heart to fields.
---A note from the ever-evolving -0.
*insomnia problem

 

[negativzero]

i will refer to this technique by Hernik as the "Hernik maneuver": "But if you somehow throw yourself into a large star - you can become a universe!"
.
That's a direct and personal way to contribute, of course. But before diving into another star, any star besides Sol, i think you should ask yourself, "...what kind of a universe do i want to create?"
.
If you sincerely want a place with streams of running chocolate, and waterfalls of dark German beer, this it the time to consider ingredients.
.
However, if you just want to be a player, universally, then the easier strategy would be to find a star that is wobbling on the edge of sufficient mass to create a black hole, and just add in your extra contribution to push the mass up over the magic tipping point of universe creation. In that sense it would be you, who decided that with a little elbow grease and mass, you could make a universe that wouldn't exist without your contribution. IN that case, i think it would be fair to name it after yourself. --The Hernikverse -- and you don't even have to jump in. You maybe could do a couple of sequels.
.
With some chocolate, Spaten Optimator, and free-will, as an example of intellygunt design, you can create your own universe, details will be forthcoming. i'll bet it's only a month until someone writes this up in Analogue. Where's the love interest? Needs a story line.
-0

 

[Hernik]

Okay I think I understand. I still do not think it is possible to have any kind of events going on that do not take place in space of some kind. Just as your definition "Space is any place anything could be" needs a non-spacial meening of the word "place" . I cannot think of any place that is not in space.

Also I would prefer any universe I participate into be called simply "Henrik " among friends .but that 's just how I feel about it.

By the way I believe dead or alive is equally fine when you contribute to the creation of as well small as large universes . So actually I expect a marked is opening up in the wake of Smolins hypothesis .because why would you want to rot at a cementary or pollute the athmosfere with unnecessary amounts of CO2 when you can be shipped of to a large dying står and arrive in time to become your own universe ? Of course it would be an expensive burial place but a rather good deal if you consider what you get for your money.

Henrik

 

[negativzero]

i know!
.
But personally, i'd rather sit on the back deck, smelling the BBQ, viewing the two great volcanoes Shasta and Lassen, drinkin' dark beer---than to toss my youngish carcass into the proto-supernovas of Smolin's conjecture.
.
i name no species, no stars, no universes.* i name Smolin as the new Moses. And we (peeps) are NOT chosen. It's just no way man! We and our progeny can witness other stars than our beloved Sol "self destructing" by transforming into super novas. But the sun will remain barren.
.
As Joseph Campbell says, the story of the hero is the story of sacrifice. Surely our sun would create another universe if only there was mass enough. But sadly our celebrity doesn't have the mass man.
.
In eulogy, i think we can put to rest the idea that our Star will ever become perfected as a black hole.
.
Meanwhile there are plenty of marketing opportunities in the Vegan* 5th dimensional homeopathic grokking community. There are vast unharvested needs of the alternate culture who will pay big bucks to be connected to contribute their own efforts to universal recreation. It's not real estate on Luna; this time it's serious.
.
We have evolution. Sexuality evolved on earth. One of the mysteries of life on Earth is sexuality. Is the sun truly male? The sun according to Smolin will not mother a new universe? Are stars sexed by their fecundity? If true, then one could "pick up" a young star and by hefting it, could tell whether this star would someday mother a new U.
.
-0
*except Henrik
**as in "Vegan diet"

 

[Chronos]

You guys are still ignoring initial conditions and their consequences.

 

[negativzero]

What you are disputing by assertion is a question at hand.
.
We have at least three major Smolin ideas juggled in this thread. Evolving universes, evolving math, and Space Emerging from Momentum in Time.
.
All these notions are in contradistinction to the standard assumptions.
.
If you want me to stand in Smolin's place and argue his theories for him, i will.
.
At least until he gets a restraining order, telling me to cease.
.
So load it up and fire. Criticize Dr. Smolin.
.
And thanks again for giving a damn.
-0

 

[Chronos]

I'm saying this is pure speculation that is unsupported. Smolin's original cosmological natural selection conjecture that constrains neutron star mass has been observationally refuted.

 

[marcus]

I'm saying this is pure speculation that is unsupported. Smolin's original cosmological natural selection conjecture that constrains neutron star mass has been observationally refuted.

That seems strange. I think earlier this year I read a comment from him to the effect that the CNS conjecture was still standing. That would mean no confirmed neutron star mass definitely > 2 solar.

The issue is something like---to make a lot of baby universes you want a lot of stars to form and you want as many as possible of the neutron-star remnants to collapse to BH. But some of the same physical constants determine:
A the strength of neutron matter: how easy it collapses---how much mass you need to trigger collapse to BH
B rates of star formation

Because of this tradeoff, the weakest most collapsible neutron matter you can have, without interfering with star formation, is such that it takes 2 solar mass to cause collapse.

Therefore in a universe optimized for BH production there will not be any neutron stars with mass ≥ 2 solar. All the ones that massive will have collapsed.

If we observe neutron stars with mass CONFIRMED to be > 2 solar, then our universe is NOT optimized for BH production. That our physical constants are NOT optimized for reproductive success, for producing a lot of progeny.

But the CNS conjecture is that tracts of space-time reproduce with small variations ("mutation") in the physical constants, so that the constants have evolved IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CASES to be nearly optimal for reproduction. Assuming our case is typical of the majority, we expect to find all neutron stars ≤ 2 solar.

What I thought I read was that, if you take account of the UNCERTAINTY in determining neutron star masses, they had not yet found any that they were sure were > 2 solar.

Maybe you could refresh my memory and provide some links to papers which refute/falsify the CNS conjecture. If you have some handy.

I remember gathering some links which seemed to put pressure on CNS, earlier this year, but I don't have them handy. There were confidence intervals, not definite mass figures. But they were getting up there around 2 solar, as I recall. You could be right, but I didn't think it had definitively been shot down.

 

[negativzero]

Yeah! What marcus said! And by the way, marcus, if you had just given me a moment, i could have said something almost as good! But you nailed it!
-0