Blacks Holes? yes/no?

[sunshaker]

 

 

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html#ixzz3EL1vMehI

http://www.universetoday.com/114802/there-are-no-such-things-as-black-holes/

I have my own thoughts on black holes, but in the past my ideas have been put down for no math,

 

But one minute math says black holes exist and how they are formed,

 

Then next math is saying they cannot exist.

 

It seems that sometimes math can be made to say what ever it wants.

[DrP]

It says that they do not actually collapse to a singlarity... which I have always thought impossible anyway - that's how the maths describe them (bit over my head... probably if I studied it better anyway).

 

There is real evidence of BHs - we can SEE where they are by observing the pertubation of surounding planets and stars.... their orbits/celestial paths 'wobble' due to the gravitations effect from the BHs. We recently (10 to 20 years) showed that there is a Super Massive BH at the centre of every galaxy... which hints that they might have something to do with galaxy creation..... I am no expert on this though. ;-)

[elfmotat]

Unruh's response: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist

[JonathanApps]

If I'm right she's saying Hawking radiation will decrease the mass enough to compensate for the decrease in "radius" so that a black hole never forms?

 

But HR is a quantum effect proportional to Planck's constant and collapse is not. Is that all that's needed to debunk it?

[swansont]

 

But one minute math says black holes exist and how they are formed,

 

Then next math is saying they cannot exist.

 

It seems that sometimes math can be made to say what ever it wants.

 

In science the math doesn't exist separate from assumptions about the processes it describes.

[Jacques]

Hi

I just saw that news and it way over my knowledge. Negative energy, hawkin radiation are for me very abstract.

Is it possible that the autor is right, that black-hole are not able to form ?

Then what is observed at the center of all galaxies ?

Very currious about the opinion of expert here.

http://www.universetoday.com/114802/there-are-no-such-things-as-black-holes/

[Jacques]

Thanks for you link.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Note: threads merged

[sunshaker]

 

In science the math doesn't exist separate from assumptions about the processes it describes.

Well it looks like science is full of assumptions, And math can be made/created to fit any assumption. So just because the math fits does not make something any truer than a observation or a idea spelt out in words.

 

There is a lot of observational evidence for black holes, So if black holes exist, It is the creation of these black holes we do not understand,

Which I believe some smaller black holes are created by supernova,

But it is not the star that becomes the black hole, But are caused by the star going nova tearing the space around said star (A RIP IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE/TIME), A black hole forms around the remaining mass/neutron star to remove this excess energy caused by the star going nova,

 

Some Gamma ray bursts are these energies being moved to different areas of universe by these supernova black holes.

[Strange]

Well it looks like science is full of assumptions, And math can be made/created to fit any assumption. So just because the math fits does not make something any truer than a observation or a idea spelt out in words.

The difference is that the maths allows you to make quantitative predictions which allow the theory to be tested. Mersini-Houghton's assumptions may be right or wrong. Her maths may be right or wrong. The maths can be checked by itself. But her assumptions and conclusions will be tested by comparing her results to actual observation.

 

On the other hand...

 

Which I believe some smaller black holes are created by supernova,

But it is not the star that becomes the black hole, But are caused by the star going nova tearing the space around said star (A RIP IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE/TIME)

 

How do we test this?

 

That is why vague notions expressed in words are useless.

[swansont]

Well it looks like science is full of assumptions, And math can be made/created to fit any assumption. So just because the math fits does not make something any truer than a observation or a idea spelt out in words.

 

There is a lot of observational evidence for black holes, So if black holes exist, It is the creation of these black holes we do not understand,

Which I believe some smaller black holes are created by supernova,

But it is not the star that becomes the black hole, But are caused by the star going nova tearing the space around said star (A RIP IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE/TIME), A black hole forms around the remaining mass/neutron star to remove this excess energy caused by the star going nova,

 

Some Gamma ray bursts are these energies being moved to different areas of universe by these supernova black holes.

 

 

What Strange said above. You always have to match predictions up with experiment to see if the idea is correct.

 

Nobody in science saw that paper and then threw up their hands and said , "Well, that's that then. No black holes". The paper hasn't even gone through peer review yet, so nobody had gone through and checked it for errors when the article was published And now that it's out there, and people are looking at it, the word is that it has mistakes in it.

 

Math is a necessary component to a physics theory but insufficient for that theory to be complete.

[sunshaker]

The difference is that the maths allows you to make quantitative predictions which allow the theory to be tested. Mersini-Houghton's assumptions may be right or wrong. Her maths may be right or wrong. The maths can be checked by itself. But her assumptions and conclusions will be tested by comparing her results to actual observation.

 

On the other hand...

Quote

Which I believe some smaller black holes are created by supernova,

But it is not the star that becomes the black hole, But are caused by the star going nova tearing the space around said star (A RIP IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE/TIME)

 

 

How do we test this?

 

That is why vague notions expressed in words are useless.

Perhaps first I would look for gamma ray bursts within the vicinity of supernova or why black holes sometimes expel energies, But I am sure there would be some way to test this idea.

 

If we are now unsure about the formation of certain black holes, Perhaps first we do need new ideas which can then be tested by those with skill set to test ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Strange said above. You always have to match predictions up with experiment to see if the idea is correct.

 

Nobody in science saw that paper and then threw up their hands and said , "Well, that's that then. No black holes". The paper hasn't even gone through peer review yet, so nobody had gone through and checked it for errors when the article was published And now that it's out there, and people are looking at it, the word is that it has mistakes in it.

 

Math is a necessary component to a physics theory but insufficient for that theory to be complete.

 

I do not want to come across as a knocker of "math", I believe math is an important part of physics/science every day life,

But as Swansont says it is a "component" to a theory, Perhaps the major component for prove to a theory.

Sadly it is a language I am unable to completely grasp, Perhaps then I could put math to ideas,

Ideas can be based on sound observations of collected data.

But hopefully those with math could take someones idea and be able to apply math, Which I am sure as been done many a time.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

Perhaps first I would look for gamma ray bursts within the vicinity of supernova or why black holes sometimes expel energies, But I am sure there would be some way to test this idea.

 

What energies would these bursts have?

What would their duration be?

What does "vicinity" mean (i.e. how close)?

 

In order to test it, it needs to be quantified. That means you will need a good understanding of the underlying physics as well as mathematical ability.

 

But hopefully those with math could take someones idea and be able to apply math, Which I am sure as been done many a time.

 

They are more likely to want to spend their time investigating their own ideas.

[sunshaker]

 

What energies would these bursts have?

What would their duration be?

What does "vicinity" mean (i.e. how close)?

 

 

At a guess

a. I would perhaps look for dark gamma ray bursts,http://www.universetoday.com/112489/alma-sheds-new-light-on-dark-gamma-ray-bursts/

 

b. I would guess it would depend on the size of supernova,

 

c, Within galaxy of supernova, known black holes near by, Or perhaps galaxies centre black hole to see if there is any sudden change of energies.

 

I am sure some one could find a test to see if the energies of a supernova are expelled to a different location. Years ago I did try and find connections between supernova and gamma ray bursts, There are more of these than most people realize,

I did once find a supernova and a near by gamma ray burst where there was not a previous star in the area of burst.

[swansont]

But hopefully those with math could take someones idea and be able to apply math, Which I am sure as been done many a time.

 

My impression is that no, at the scope you are talking about, it does not. People collaborate all the time, but the starting point generally includes some theoretical basis that's already been expressed mathematically. Investigating existing equations and solving them rather than formulating entirely new ones. Perhaps of the sort "let's take these equations but include an effect that's not been looked at yet" which can be very hard to do but the page isn't nearly as blank as what you're implying.

[pantheory]

Once the laundry is properly cleaned, softened, nicely folded, and neatly put away -- I think we will know almost certainty that black holes exist, but not of the vacuous singularity type, more like a more condensed form of matter than neutron stars. My fave is compressed field material from the Zero Point Field, other proposals have been quark stars, etc., but in the end I believe they will by made of a presently unknown form of matter.

 

Like others have pointed out, there may be no reason to suspect that the math for such new matter should give the exact same results as general relativity. So there probably would be a difference in the math based upon certain circumstances. And if a difference were found how could underlying theory be affirmed without direct observation?

 

I do not like vacuous points as a model for black holes for philosophical reasons. It would seem to complicate reality. IMO there will be no resolution to this question in the foreseeable future. But as to my laundry analogy, clean close must be worn to have value, and so black-hole theory will be continuously revisited until somebody figures out how to test by the mathematics, the underlying concept(s) involved IMO. If theory changes then the cloths will be worn out and we can buy new more stylish ones to first try on, and then to "wear."

[elfmotat]

 

My impression is that no, at the scope you are talking about, it does not. People collaborate all the time, but the starting point generally includes some theoretical basis that's already been expressed mathematically.

 

To be fair, off the top of my head Faraday's relationship with Maxwell was pretty much exactly what sunshaker was talking about. Faraday had a bunch of ideas about electric and magnetic fields and how they behaved, but he couldn't express his ideas mathematically. Maxwell had to do it for him.

 

But, Faraday was working with physics he could do at home. Current theoretical physics requires particle accelerators and powerful satellite telescopes to gather data, so it's unlikely that someone like Faraday would pop up nowadays.

Edited September 27, 2014 by elfmotat

[Strange]

Faraday had a bunch of ideas about electric and magnetic fields and how they behaved, but he couldn't express his ideas mathematically. Maxwell had to do it for him.

 

And Faraday really resented it!

[/backslash/]

But it is not the star that becomes the black hole, But are caused by the star going nova tearing the space around said star (A RIP IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE/TIME), .

Why? why would this actually occur? How exactly would a star's collapse 'rip the fabric of space and time'? And how would such a tear show the kinds of effects that black holes do?

[Nicholas Kang]

You have to understand astrophysics in this context. When stars that are 3 times more massive than the sun i.e. more than 3 solar masses collapse, their immense gravity will overcome the strong nuclear force acting in the core and gravity wins, engulfing the star until supernova. The remnants of the star will be expelled forming supernova remnants and the remaning core will be black hole. Why rip space and time, this has something to deal with Einstein`s Theory of Relativity. Gravity, as according to Einstein`s General Relativity, in fact occurs when a massive body with mass-energy acts upon space-time, causing it to bend the trajectory of other projectiles like satellites, light, or any massive bodies in its pathway passing through the collpasing star. The light for instance will travel in a slightly curve path due to the wrap of space-time. Light itself does not has mass but according to E=mc², anything has mass has energy and vice versa. So, you can consider light, if viewed as a photon, can bend through space-time. Now, if the object is massive, it will cause so strong a gravitational field that the mass-energy wraps the whole space-time, ripping it from its surrounding space-time and a singularity is achieved. Usually, scientists suspect that such violent and cataclysmic event will emit gravitational wave, ripples in space-time.

[IM Egdall]

I don't know about this "ripping of spacetime" in a black hole. As others have pointed out, the singularity is a place-holder for we don't know. I don't think physicists consider it a real physical thing. It is just that the equations of general relativity fail at that point.

[Nicholas Kang]

Hello Egdall,

 

I bought your book Einstein`s Relatively Simple a few months ago. Thanks for explaining relativity in such a clear and compelling way such that a 15-year-old can understand. Well, I think you are right. Singularity does not exist physically, it is just a mathematical trick. The equation falls at that point. We need new physics. Recently, I read Hawking`s The Universe In a Nutshell, an old 2001 book. He suggests we can look at the phenomena from another perspective. We can assume black hole as a p-membrane and the particle that falls into the black hole as a closed string. The closed string strikes the p-memberane and the wave of the membrane focus and reemit a closed string, which is analogised as to a particle emitted from the black hole as Hawking`s Radiation.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Ten oz]

You have to understand astrophysics in this context. When stars that are 3 times more massive than the sun i.e. more than 3 solar masses collapse, their immense gravity will overcome the strong nuclear force acting in the core and gravity wins, engulfing the star until supernova. The remnants of the star will be expelled forming supernova remnants and the remaning core will be black hole. Why rip space and time, this has something to deal with Einstein`s Theory of Relativity. Gravity, as according to Einstein`s General Relativity, in fact occurs when a massive body with mass-energy acts upon space-time, causing it to bend the trajectory of other projectiles like satellites, light, or any massive bodies in its pathway passing through the collpasing star. The light for instance will travel in a slightly curve path due to the wrap of space-time. Light itself does not has mass but according to E=mc², anything has mass has energy and vice versa. So, you can consider light, if viewed as a photon, can bend through space-time. Now, if the object is massive, it will cause so strong a gravitational field that the mass-energy wraps the whole space-time, ripping it from its surrounding space-time and a singularity is achieved. Usually, scientists suspect that such violent and cataclysmic event will emit gravitational wave, ripples in space-time.

 

Good post. As you and I have dicussed before new physics is needed to understand what is going on inside a black hole. Matter has gravity but matter is simply a state of energy. In a black hole it is possible that matter is transformed back into energy or some other state. Along with that it is not clear what the influence of gravity would do.

I believe in black holes because we see their gravitational effects on bodies around them. That is far as I can go though. We simply do not know what is happening inside them.

[IM Egdall]

Hello Egdall,

 

I bought your book Einstein`s Relatively Simple a few months ago. Thanks for explaining relativity in such a clear and compelling way such that a 15-year-old can understand. Well, I think you are right. Singularity does not exist physically, it is just a mathematical trick. The equation falls at that point. We need new physics. Recently, I read Hawking`s The Universe In a Nutshell, an old 2001 book. He suggests we can look at the phenomena from another perspective. We can assume black hole as a p-membrane and the particle that falls into the black hole as a closed string. The closed string strikes the p-memberane and the wave of the membrane focus and reemit a closed string, which is analogised as to a particle emitted from the black hole as Hawking`s Radiation.

 

Thanks, Nicholas, for getting my book, Einstein Relatively Simple . I'm glad you found it understandable. As to Hawking's perspective, I advise caution. It is based on string theory which is speculation at this point. It has no compelling evidence to support it and is notoriously difficult to test. It may or may not have anything to do with reality.