Theory --> Black Holes may not exist so Big Bang never happened (New Paper)

Rucking_Fetard

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape.
And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist.


For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It’s the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.


The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.


In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes.


But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.


The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/

shedweller

Kinda makes sense in fairness. Imagine enough mass came together to make a black hole but no more. Well, it can suck all it wants but if there aint enough mass there then.....
Seeyalater!
Then again, i'm no astrophysicist!
You could spend your life at this couldn't you?!

Standman

So what the hell are at the centre of galaxies then??

pah

Standman wrote: »

So what the hell are at the centre of galaxies then??

God of course

smokingman

Blahblah-not peer reviewed-blahblah.

Come back to me when it is.

raspberrypi67

What a load of old cobblers, course there's Black Holes, where else does all the Dark matter come from and
what about the 'string theory' , that's off the wall then if she's right. I think she had a Guinness too many...h ha

FISMA

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/

Theory --> Black Holes may not exist so Big Bang never happened (New Paper)


"Theory"

You mean hypothesis, not theory.

Y2KBOS86

FISMA wrote: »

Theory --> Black Holes may not exist so Big Bang never happened (New Paper)


"Theory"

You mean hypothesis, not theory.

I thought astronomers were observing black holes for years?

What was the data they were observing then?

El Weirdo

Y2KBOS86 wrote: »

I thought astronomers were observing black holes for years?

What was the data they were observing then?

jkforde

exciting, so how to explain the clear observations of matter falling into a very small area called Sagittarius_A* .. they've calculated, based on the velocity of the stars and gas falling in, size and density of the unseen radio source.... very curious where this is going...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Discovery_of_G2_gas_cloud_on_an_accretion_course

Frank Lee Midere

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

What a load of old cobblers, course there's Black Holes, where else does all the Dark matter come from and
what about the 'string theory' , that's off the wall then if she's right. I think she had a Guinness too many...h ha

Dark matter doesn't come from black holes.

Rucking_Fetard

FISMA wrote: »

Theory --> Black Holes may not exist so Big Bang never happened (New Paper)


"Theory"

You mean hypothesis, not theory.

Yipee, grammar lessons.

hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/
noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
   "his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
   synonyms:theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition; Morenotion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief
   "his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
   • Philosophy
     a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
     "the hypothesis that every event has a cause"

theory
ˈθɪəri/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; Moreopinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"


principles, ideas, concepts;
principled explanations;
laws;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"the theory of quantum physics"

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
  "a theory of education"
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
  "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

A synonym (also metonym and poecilonym) is a word with the same or similar meaning of another word. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.

Meh, whatever.

smokingman wrote: »

Blahblah-not peer reviewed-blahblah. Come back to me when it is.

Does anyone elses blood boil when someone posts this sh1t or is it just me???

FISMA

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Yipee, grammar lessons.

Not a grammar lesson. Instead, a fundamental lesson in science. Your mistake, the misuse of hypothesis and theory, is common in everyday language.

Try googling "theory vs hypothesis." Hopefully, that will clear up your continued confusion.

Note, the paper you cited offers no experimental evidence for your title's assertion. Neither does the paper offer a testable hypothesis.

Rather, the relies on mathematics. Note: just because something is mathematically correct does not mean that it is physically correct. Just ask Ptolemy.

Perhaps, when the author offers a testable hypothesis, the work will move out of meta-Physics and in to Physics.

In the author's own words "This work investigates the backreaction of ..." The author is not offering a theory.

QED

ps200306

Some interesting stuff there. As far as I know, the "bounce" that is assumed to occur to produce supernova explosions is poorly or wholly unexplained. Could this be the answer? Also, isn't it the case that Type 1a supernovae -- the type used as "standard candles" in cosmological distance measurements -- do not leave any stellar remnants, unlike pulsars et al ?

On the other hand, the evidence for supermassive black holes is strong - the Sagittarius A* object that someone else mentioned, and much larger masses (billions of solar masses) in regions no bigger than light days according to reverberation mapping of quasars. Some of the supermassive black holes seem improbably large if they co-evolved with their galaxies, so maybe there is a whole different mechanism for supermassive black hole formation in the early universe that doesn't involve initial stellar collapse.

Labarbapostiza

Blackholes do not exist as thought. There is no event horizon.

The collapsing mass reaches its' Schwarzschild radius, light and anything else falling in is trapped at the radius (space is falling as fast as light) ...I think then the internal mass has a negligible effect on the rest of the blackhole formation, and the gravity sustaining the hole comes from the sphere (the trapped surface - or the apparent horizon). There is no event horizon.


This is a Leonard Susking lecture that's well worth the watch. It's kind of forehead slapping; "Of course there can't be an event horizon" kind of thing.

But what happens to the energy/mass inside the blackhole.....does it do something really interesting. An idea just crossed my mind; does it oscillate?

ps200306

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Blackholes do not exist as thought. There is no event horizon.

The collapsing mass reaches its' Schwarzschild radius, light and anything else falling in is trapped at the radius (space is falling as fast as light) ...I think then the internal mass has a negligible effect on the rest of the blackhole formation, and the gravity sustaining the hole comes from the sphere (the trapped surface - or the apparent horizon). There is no event horizon.


This is a Leonard Susking lecture that's well worth the watch. It's kind of forehead slapping; "Of course there can't be an event horizon" kind of thing.

But what happens to the energy/mass inside the blackhole.....does it do something really interesting. An idea just crossed my mind; does it oscillate?

Your youtube link is broken -- I think this is it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMRYZMv0jRE

I can't make head nor tail of your comment about the event horizon -- can you explain further? Susskind does not anywhere say there is no event horizon. What he does do is reconcile the points of view of the classical observer outside the black hole for whom infalling matter takes an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon, and the observer inside the black hole who has (in his own frame of reference) crossed the event horizon boundary in a finite time (which coincidentally we had a post about on another thread just the other day). This doesn't mean there is no event horizon. The curvature of space near the inside observer is such that all future light cones point inward. This is the very definition of the event horizon -- space is separated into two regions in which no event from one can ever influence the other.

Jussnot Fairmann

isn't there something about the surface area of a black hole, (or event horizon) being equal to the entropy of the black hole, and black holes being the maximum entropy possible?

I always imagined anything crossing the event horizon, the particles, energy, whatever instantly convert to 'entropy' and the event horizon grows.

ps200306

Jussnot Fairmann wrote: »

isn't there something about the surface area of a black hole, (or event horizon) being equal to the entropy of the black hole, and black holes being the maximum entropy possible?

I always imagined anything crossing the event horizon, the particles, energy, whatever instantly convert to 'entropy' and the event horizon grows.

Yes... Labarbapostiza's Susskind lecture above contains the first accessible explanation of the maths I've seen. It's quite simple the way he describes it, if you did any kind of secondary school physics. In fact the equations are just behind Susskind's head in the still.

The relevant bit starts at 11:40 (but the whole lecture is a gem).

Labarbapostiza

ps200306 wrote: »

Yes... Labarbapostiza's Susskind lecture above contains the first accessible explanation of the maths I've seen. It's quite simple the way he describes it, if you did any kind of secondary school physics. In fact the equations are just behind Susskind's head in the still.

Yes, it is actually beautifully simple. It eliminates the need for more far fetched ideas. The black hole appearing in another universe as white hole, kind of thing.

For an outside observer, something failing in would reach the apparent horizon very quickly. It would be nothing like an infinite amount of time. Some traces might be left from before the object reaches the apparent horizon, but they would decay relatively quickly too.

Infinity is now taken out of Black Hole theory.

Labarbapostiza

Jussnot Fairmann wrote: »

isn't there something about the surface area of a black hole, (or event horizon) being equal to the entropy of the black hole, and black holes being the maximum entropy possible?

I always imagined anything crossing the event horizon, the particles, energy, whatever instantly convert to 'entropy' and the event horizon grows.

Black Hole entropy is one of Hawking's ideas from the 70s. I never really got it, or think its' necessary...Simply because what the hell is entropy, if it's a thing at all.

ps200306

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Yes, it is actually beautifully simple. It eliminates the need for more far fetched ideas. The black hole appearing in another universe as white hole, kind of thing.

For an outside observer, something failing in would reach the apparent horizon very quickly. It would be nothing like an infinite amount of time. Some traces might be left from before the object reaches the apparent horizon, but they would decay relatively quickly too.

Infinity is now taken out of Black Hole theory.

What's the "apparent horizon"? If it's the point at which the infalling object disappears due to being red shifted and dimmed, then yes, the object might (in fact, would) disappear before it reaches the event horizon. That has no bearing on whether the event horizon actually exists, being defined as the boundary inside which the escape velocity exceeds c, and all future light cones point inward.

BrianG23

Thats a bit...meh...I mean...it uses maths instead of well...logic? Is that a paradox in itself?? What the hell have we been looking at for the last couple decades

Labarbapostiza

ps200306 wrote: »

What's the "apparent horizon"? If it's the point at which the infalling object disappears due to being red shifted and dimmed, then yes, the object might (in fact, would) disappear before it reaches the event horizon. That has no bearing on whether the event horizon actually exists, being defined as the boundary inside which the escape velocity exceeds c, and all future light cones point inward.

No, I haven't been thinking about this in a while so I've forgotten a lot of the detail.

Previous theories would have it that if you fell in, you could cross the event horizon, and notice nothing immediately. The apparent horizon, you hit it splat, and you're trapped on the surface of a sphere. The light on this sphere can escape if the black hole becomes unstable. A thing about the Schwarzschild radius, if a mass on reaching the radius increases in mass, then gravity will be faster than light. And this has been a problem for black hole theories.

It can set the event horizon at a distance where the observer falling in may not notice anything, on crossing the horizon - they will eventually explode but not on crossing the event horizon. If they end up being accelerated to faster the speed of light, you could say space and time is turned inside out and their being spat from a white hole into another universe. Or you could say something happens that you don't have any idea for, and call it a singularity....

With an apparent horizon, you don't get any problems with relativity with either the interior or exterior of the black hole. Now. There is no easy way to prove any of the theories correct or incorrect, but the apparent horizon is a less extravagant....so, it's probably more correct, by the principle of parsimony.