Do black holes really exist in the real world or are they just virtual objects

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by pluto2, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Biases certainly are part and parcel of the human nature, and those biases can warp whatever Interpretation one thinks he observes.
    But science progresses via accepted peer review, and biases held by individuals/groups/societies will eventually be revealed by further and further observations and experiments.
    On the case in point, mainstream science models BHs via GR. Why???, because GR, along with SR have been remarkably successful since their inception.
    Again, the main relevant point is if one doubts the existence of BHs as described according to GR, one needs to come up with a better model that describes what we see. It's as simple as that.

    Most scientists though agree that any future observable QGT [a theory describing gravity at the quantum level] will always encompass the BB and BHs.
    It's like tinkering with a car over many years. We improve on fuel injection methodology, and other aspects of the Engine, but the underlying basics of a car always remains.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Black Holes are virtual objects

    BLACK HOLES VERSUS THE PLASMA FOCUS.

    Another mystery of galaxies is the tremendous outpouring of energy that is seen beaming out of their centre. In astrophysics, this is thought to be caused by gigantic black holes, a hypothesis that is hard to reconcile with the fact that stars have been observed orbiting far nearer to these regions than theory allows (black holes are famous for swallowing anything that wanders too close).*

    In the plasma model, the electrical current flows into the centre of galaxies, and the energy becomes stored in a filamentary knot, called a plasmoid. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons.

    A different perspective on the topic
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    No, BHs are real....Unless you can care to explain away the effects we see that normal people attribute to BHs?





    Your take on the situation denies obvious facts.....Firstly stars are not generally swallowed whole by BHs. There matter is pulled by the BH, to gather into spiralling accretion disks that eventually cross the EH to oblivion.
    A voracious BH of course, or one that is in a feeding frenzy with plenty of matter/energy to swallow, also gives of plenty of energy as it is heated up before being swallowed. We call these AGN or Quasars.
    Our own central BH would appear similar to a distant being in a distant galaxy, if it were also in such a feeding frenzy.

    A Plasma dominated Universe is an old discarded hypothesis, that failed to match observations, and has been well and truly assigned to the waste bin.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Below

    Generally , no but being to close , yes they would



    Yet the Plasma Universe has a better explanation of the energy out put by galaxies
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Interesting quick discussion on black hole magnetic fields

    They say:
    "Black hole jets are one of the great paradoxes in astronomy," said Rita Sambruna of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."
    However, it is not clear why these jets generate a magnetic field since we are not sure of what exactly they are made of. Further:
    The composition of black hole jets has been the topic of heated debate for several decades. Scientists generally agree that the jets must be made either of electrons and their antimatter partners, called positrons, or an even mix of electrons and protons. Recent theoretical and observational advances have pointed in the direction of the latter. The Swift data provides the most compelling evidence to date that the jets must have protons.
    So if these near light speed jets of protons are zooming out both ends of the black hole axis, they generate a magnetic field similar to quasars and neutron stars. But what's inside the black hole to generate this protons, positron stream? Much more study is needed to better understand this galactic phenomenon, since it seems most if not all galaxies have some super massive black hole in their centers. Another interesting NewScientist.com article: http://space.newscientist.com/articl...celerator.html , which says the black hole's magnetic field is a giant particle accelerator. Hope this helps.

    Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com fields

    A quick Google on "black hole magnetic" yields this interesting article by Physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news79361214.html , titled "Scientists Determine the Nature of Black Hole Jets."

    They say:

    "Black hole jets are one of the great paradoxes in astronomy," said Rita Sambruna of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."
    However, it is not clear why these jets generate a magnetic field since we are not sure of what exactly they are made of. Further:
    The composition of black hole jets has been the topic of heated debate for several decades. Scientists generally agree that the jets must be made either of electrons and their antimatter partners, called positrons, or an even mix of electrons and protons. Recent theoretical and observational advances have pointed in the direction of the latter. The Swift data provides the most compelling evidence to date that the jets must have protons.
    So if these near light speed jets of protons are zooming out both ends of the black hole axis, they generate a magnetic field similar to quasars and neutron stars. But what's inside the black hole to generate this protons, positron stream? Much more study is needed to better understand this galactic phenomenon, since it seems most if not all galaxies have some super massive black hole in their centers. Another interesting NewScientist.com article: http://space.newscientist.com/articl...celerator.html , which says the black hole's magnetic field is a giant particle accelerator. Hope this helps.

    Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Notice in this discussion this point :

    Scientists generally agree that the jets must be made either of electrons and their antimatter partners, called positrons, or an even mix of electrons and protons. Recent theoretical and observational advances have pointed in the direction of the latter. The Swift data provides the most compelling evidence to date that the jets must have protons.

    Interesting , protons
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Further I looked up

    Does a black hole produce a galactic magnetic field

    We know that galaxies have enormous magnetic fields

    All kinds of theories

    But the best theory is Plasma based
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    Only in the minds of people affected with an anti mainstream bias such as yourself.
    If it did describe the Universe better, it would unseat the incumbent theory.
    But it doesn't, not now, nor in the future. You'll just have to grit your teeth and live with it.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Some BH's do produce magnetic fields. They are called Kerr-Newman type BHs, but the magnetic field is eventually neutralised over time.

    Again, Plasma theory is pseudoscience.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Look up

    Does a black hole produce a galactic magnetic field

    All kinds of theories

    None explain the field of galaxies better than Plasmas
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have already told you that some do.....
    I have also pointed out that Plasma Universes are pseudoscience, nothing more, nothing less.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Just bing , does a black hole produce a galactic magnetic fields

    They just don't know a black hole can do this

    Plasmas , no problem

    A Occam's razor example
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You seem to think that any scientific article with the word "Plasma" in its content, seems to support your already discarded hypothesis.
    Plasmas do exist, but the nature of the Universe, and the general construct of it, is determined by gravity, and has since gravity decoupled from the Superforce at a short instant after the BB.

    No amount of rantings and ravings, of which you have done plenty, will see it ever being resurrected. It fails to support what we observe as good as the incumbent model...that's it, pure and simple.
    Of course though, if you think you have some new evidence to support it, and/or invalidate the incumbent theory, then you would get it peer reviewed, wouldn't you?
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    This is science, not pseudoscience or alternate theories. Plus once again, its patently clear you are now trolling.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    You ignore the evidence

    Your the one who is ranting and raving

    I just present the facts

    Again explore , does a black hole produce a galactic magnetic field
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Don't make this about me...That would be too easy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The scientific world ignores what Idiots like you call evidence, and the misinterpretation on facts that you want to project.


    And again, yes a BH does produce a magnetic field...they call them Kerr Newmans. So??? How many more times would you like to be told? Or are you more concerned in your obvious trolling game?
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    How I know "plasma cosmology" is wrong
    Jan 15 2011 Published by rknop under Astronomy & Physics, Cranks & Crackpots, Science & Culture



    In my previous post, I showed direct statistical evidence that the Arp notion of non-cosmological redshifts for quasars is wrong. That was just the tip of the iceberg, though. Non-cosmological redshifts are a crank theory in astronomy that a scary fringe element keeps whinging on about. However, there's this other crank theory that no actual respectable astronomer subscribes to, yet that seems to keep sucking in interested members of the public. That is so-called plasma cosmology (which also has an even more extreme (!!) version known as the "electric universe"). The non-cosmological redshifts for quasars model may have been a respectable alternate model in the first years or first decade after Maarten Schmidt's identification of the then-amazingly high redshift of quasar 3C273 (that paper was in Nature, so you won't actually get to see it, sigh). In contrast, the whole plasma cosmology paradigm was never reasonable, and is certainly not reasonable now.

    The basic idea of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces in the bulk motions of astronomical objects are far more important than mainstream astronomy admits. Now, to be sure, mainstream astronomy places tremendous importance on electromagnetic forces. There's all kind of crazy stuff going on on the Earth's magnetosphere, as a result of the plasma from the Sun interacting with the magnetic fields of the Earth. Magnetic fields are responsible for initially collimating jets in active galactic nuclei that are observed shooting out over hundreds of thousands of light-years. So, the assertion you sometimes see that astronomers don't train their grad students about electromagnetic forces and that astronomers don't take into account those forces is an assertion that's wildly wrong. However, plasma cosmology also asserts that electromagnetic forces between plasma flowing through the solar system and through the Universe and the magnetic fields of objects (or even the objects themselves, as they'll often decide, for instance, that comets must have a substantial electric charge) make significant contributions to the motion of objects that mainstream astronomy is able to explain entirely through gravity.

    Unfortunately, rhetoric being what it is, it's very easy to find sites on the web (and books) that promote the notion of plasma cosmology, and after reading them it's easy for the interested but uninformed layman to be convinced. It helps that it feeds into the whole "few brave pioneers fighting the oppression of the mainstream dogma" story that seems to be so popular in (at least) American culture. How do you know whether to believe my assertion in the first paragraph above that plasma cosmology is all bunk, or a much more elegant assertion that people like me are just part of the entrenched mainstream refusing to listen to somebody with a new idea that challenges the underpinning of our whole careers? The problem is that when actual real astronomers such as myself are confronted with plasma cosmology, we have a hard time doing anything other than shaking our heads sadly, because it's so amazingly wrong, so patently silly if you know anything, that it's difficult even to know how to begin saying that it's wrong.

    I'm going to try to take down plasma cosmology on two points. The first is a general point, the second is a specific point. As far as I can tell, plasma cosmology is motivated by people who just want to be different, or by people who have aesthetic or conceptual problems with things such as dark matter and cosmological distances. However, let's go ahead and give it the benefit of the doubt (way too much benefit, but bear with me) of saying that it's an idea inspired by trying to explain something that may not be satisfactorily explained by mainstream science. An example of something like this is MOND, or "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics". Standard Newtonian gravity can't explain the observed rotation speeds of galaxies. The right answer is that there is dark matter in those galaxies; we know this is the right answer because there is a whole lot of other evidence for dark matter. However, MOND was introduced as a way of modifying Newtonian gravity, rather than by introducing a new component to galaxies, to explain the flaw.

    Here's the thing, though. Even if the "standard" explanation has a flaw, when you introduce an alternate explanation to address that flaw, your alternate explanation must explain everything the standard explanation already explains. (Strictly speaking, it doesn't have to initially explain everything. For instance, Copernicus' model of the heliocentric Solar System initially didn't produce as accurate predictions for planet positions as the old Ptolemaic geocentric model did. However, your new model must at least get close, and there must be ways to improve your model to explain what the old model explained.) Given the wide range of observations that standard gravity-based expanding-Universe cosmology explains, there's really no need for a gigantic rethink of all of it such as plasma cosmology offers. If we are to do that gigantic rethink, there has got to be a compelling observational reason beyond somebody's aesthetic sensibilities. (For instance, Quantum Mechanics was a gigantic rethink of our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. However, not only did it explain some troubling problems about the light emitted by hot objects, it went on to propose a whole bunch of other experiments that couldn't have been explained without it. That's how successful paradigm-changing theories work.)

    Given that we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity, where's the problem that plasma cosmology is supposed to solve? Likewise, with the whole Universe, we explain a wide range of observations with Big Bang cosmology. If we are to even bother spending ten minutes thinking about plasma cosmology, we must first know: does it even show promise to explain everything, and what does it offer that the Big Bang does not?

    In other words, plasma cosmology is a waste of time.

    However, let me also take down one of the specific pieces of the model that underpins plasma cosmology. That's actually very difficult to do— not because the model is robust, but because it's so ill-defined! If you go to plasmacosmology.net and follow the "technical" links, you get a bunch of text about various different "core concepts". If you don't know a lot about physics and astronomy, I can see where it looks like they've put together a well thought-out framework here, and that it's criminal for mainstream astronomers not to address this. The problem is, if you're a mainstream astronomer like me, and you try to figure out exactly what it is that their model here is doing, often you can't. What you've got, really, is a lot of nice sounding technical jargon that ultimately doesn't make clear what it is that they're really saying. In short, where's the math? If you're going to make quantitative predictions about where things are going, we need to know the equations that go along with your nice words.

    Here's one of the things they say about the Solar System that's at odds with what mainstream science knows:

    Because the sun is seen to emit roughly equal quantities of ions and electrons, the solar wind is considered electrically neutral in mainstream circles. This is wrong. In reality it is a huge bipolar electric current, and the terms solar wind and solar radiation result from the fact that the mainstream refuses to acknowledge electricity in space.

    OK.... First of all, the mainstream does acknowledge electricity in space. But, never mind that. The term "solar radiation" results from the fact that the Sun is radiating. We see light coming off of the Sun. We also, via satellites, observe a stream of charged particles (of both signs, mixed together) coming off of the Sun. It seems exceedingly bizarre to assert that the term "solar radiation" comes out of some sort of global willful blindness, when it's just a very straightforward identification of the fact that the Sun is not completely dark, and is thus, er, radiating.

    But, OK, what I really wanted to object to was "a huge bipolar electric current". What exactly does this mean? To me, if it's bipolar, it would mean that on the North pole (say) the particles flowing off of the Sun are mostly positive, and on the South pole they're mostly negative. This would, indeed, be a bipolar current. The problem is, if it's really bipolar like this, then the particles flowing along the equator— you know, the plane where most of the planets and comets are all orbiting, so where you'd need things happening to have an effect— would be neutral in bulk. (That is, there is an even mix of positive and negative particles.) Thus, you're not going to get any net interactions of that current with the magnetic fields of planets or anything else that will produce bulk motions. (You will get all the fun stuff like the Van Allen belts and aurora... but, of course, mainstream astronomy already describes all of that!)

    So what are you guys really trying to say here?

    I do have one guess, based on something written further down:

    This behaviour derives from Ampére's Law or the Biot-Savart force law which states that currents in the same direction attract while currents in the opposite direction repel. They do so inversely in relation to the distance between them. This results in a far larger ranging force of interaction than the gravitational force between two masses. Gravitational force is only attractive and varies inversely with the square of the distance.

    Except for one crucial omission, this statement is correct. It is true that if you calculate the attractive force between two long parallel currents, it only goes as 1/r, whereas gravity goes as 1/r2. This means that the strength of gravity drops off faster with distance than the magnetic attraction of the two currents, so even if gravity dominates, eventually you will reach a point where the strength of gravity drops below the magnetic strength. So, it seems, you really ought to be taking all this current stuff seriously.

    Here's the problem though. The result that the magnetic attraction between two parallel currents drops off as 1/r only applies to infinitely long parallel currents. Practically speaking, that means that the length of each current (the length of the wire carrying the current, for example) must be a substantially bigger than the distance between the two currents. In other words, for this 1/r law to be relevant in the Solar System, there would have to be some current associated with (say) the Earth, perpendicular to the plane of the Solar System, whose length is at least several times the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The Sun would likewise have to have a current that long associated with it.

    And that's just batty.

    The mistake here is a common mistake, actually. It involves taking a legitimate result from legitimate equations, and applying it where it does not apply. This is why, in physics, you shouldn't just do algebra blindly. You should understand what you're doing. Even if you understand the vector algebra that leads to the derivation of the 1/r force law, you need to understand why you used the equations you did, and why you made the simplifying assumptions that you did, in deriving that law. And, in understanding that you need to understand the limitations on when you can apply your result.

    If you (somehow) manage to have two short parallel lengths of current all going in one direction, then the strength of the force between them drops off as 1/r2, just like gravity, once the distance between the two currents is large compared to their length. But, you can't have this, as all the charge from that current has to go somewhere. So, in practice, if you have a small bit of current, you have to have a loop. The force between two loops of current drops off faster than 1/r2. In other words, even if it's significant at smallish distances, eventually it will become insignificant compared to gravity.

    That's why you can trivially make an electromagnet and pick up paper clips with it, easily overcoming Earth's gravity. However, once you move that electromagnet (say) a meter away from the paperclip (unless you've really gone nuts with your current), the Earth's gravity overcomes it and you no longer pick up the paperclip.

    As far as I can tell, the plasma cosmology people are basing all of their objections on a (probably unconscious) desire to be the Justified Iconoclast, latching on with their friends to a Truth that the mainstream refuses to see. And, indeed, this is a very attractive notion, and I think this is part of why intelligent and interested members of the public get sucked in by it. The problem is, their justifications fall apart under even a little bit of scrutiny. Please, please, pay no attention to plasma cosmology. It's a persistent but extremely off-base crackpottery that plagues astronomy.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What misinterpretation ?


    So you base your argument on just ONE theory

    I don't

    Thats why I RESEARCHED the topic of , do BH produce galactic magnetic fields
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Great stuff, now read the excellent article I posted, then get your stuff peer reviewed.


    Honestly though, with regards to your "I reasearched it" claim, I think you are lying......
    I mean your recorded history here says quite differently doesn't it.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Is your article peer reviewed ?


    Well just look up , do BH produce galactic magnetic fields

    Apparently you haven't
     

Share This Page