# Black holes may never actually form..!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jul 24, 2014.

1. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d0758c7c88b5

With respect...all of you non-critical thinkers can kiss my a.

3. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
i have not read the paper yet but,

there's also " white holes "
but the whole,
" The difficulty, of course, will be to distinguish them from traditional neutron stars. "
is completely not true.

it's like as if this was written before data of black holes took off.

" Hawking, suggesting that black holes might not exist at all "
when in fact, this is not true at all,
hawking said the event horizon my not exist in the sense as he thought before.

5. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
My god, discussing this subject has brought up a reference to The Frozen Star written way back in 1985! I could have saved YEARS of arguing over this subject had I known this book was already written!! At least a few people in the world get it...

7. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
unfortunately,
since the cosmos has been observed to the levels it has been,
a frozen star is still a hypothetical star

8. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
...just like the traditional black hole. Difference being, the frozen star presents no theoretical problems.

9. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
black holes and white hole have been observed.
there's no theoretical problems,
because it has not even been discovered or been know to actually exist , as of yet anyways.

Messages:
21,647
The following is a far more professional take on BH's......

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ce between frozen star and black hole&f=false

Where in part it says.....
"Both the frozen star paradigm, and the BH paradigm, agree after all that Einstein's GR is the complete mathematical theory of the gravitational field, and that it contains within itself the correct answer to any BH problem, one may wish to study.
The two paradigms may suggest different mathematical approaches to solving that problem, [eg: different spacetime coordinate systems underlying the calculations]but if the calculation is done correctly and exactly within the context of either viewpoint, the answer must be the same.

This is not to say that the differences between these two, [or any two such] paradigms is trivial. "":end quote:

It then goes on to say after listing those differences.....

"However the Schwarzchild coordinates can be dangerously misleading in highly dynamical situations, where the horizon is crucial, such as the time evolution of the magnetic field of a spherical star that is collapsing to form a horizon and BH.
By contrast the mathematical techniques of the BH viewpoint deal well with highly dynamical horizon evolving situations, but are cumbersome for studies of physics outside the horizon of a static hole. :end quote:

In summation and according to the link, calculations re BH's are sometimes done using Newtonian techniques to simplify those calcs, but all those in the know, including Hawking realise that GR type BH's are a far better solution to reality and what is observed.

Messages:
21,647
Correct...
Hawking is known to have a rather wry sense of humour, and in the recent news being inferred, that humour, plus of course journalistic sensationalism, lead many that are rather naive, and those that get some sort of orgasmic thrill to see established cosmology to be shown wrong, up the garden path.
GR type BH's certainly exist, according to observational evidence, and Hawking has never said anything different.

12. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Black holes and white holes have been observed?

All those in the know, eh? Hmm...

13. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
yes.

something that's easily accessible to even the low level minded individuals with a telescope
but yes they my not understand what they are looking at.
which is what might be in this case of this comment.

or this is the typical focused arguing nonsense stated, that is usually made by this poster.

Messages:
21,647
Yep, sure...including Kip Thorne, Jim Hartle, Xiao He Zhang.

15. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Wow between your, eh, name dropping and Krash's telescope I guess there's no room left for any other theory. Thanks for solving the world's mysteries, guys.

16. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
thanks for playing the focused, ignorant, pathetic, arguing nonsense.

Messages:
21,647
Nice attempt at trying to dishonestly turn the tables.
The names I mentioned were contributors to the article I referenced.
Oh, and unlike some kin of yours on this forum [three or four from last count] I don't at all claim to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, nor do I have a ToE.
Finally, sure there's room for other theories, if they can run the gauntlet, match observations better then incumbent models, and/or make further predictions beyond incumbent models.
Or is this just some more attempted grandstanding on your part?

18. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
Like krash661, I have some problems with the article.

Neutron stars certainly would not be difficult to distinguish from a black hole, because theoretically neutron stars exist only for very narrow limits of mass predicted by the Chandrasekhar limit. They tend to wander about galaxies, are about 15 km in diameter, and would totally disrupt planetary orbits if one ever approached our solar system. Neutron stars are also supposed to have an irregular but tightly packed terrain in a shape that is far from round, but features would be very visible. More exotic objects such as quark stars might also exist, but the profiles are not as well known as for neutron stars.

'Saggitarius A' is a supermassive black hole at the center of our own galaxy. Radiotelescopes have no trouble locating it, so in that sense, it is not completely undetectable by EM. A swarm of stars at the center of the galaxy continuously orbit it, so there is no doubt that something is there; just something that does not possess the visible light profile of a typical star of that mass.

This article does not appear to provide any information or science concerning black holes that we didn't already understand.

19. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Let me know when the idea becomes accepted/proven. Until then, please keep your pants on.
As we've discussed, you are quite well aware that the frozen star presents the theoretical problem of not having a mechanism to support itself - that's the entire reason black holes and the singularity were proposed in the first place! Dealing with that theoretical problem is the whole point of the paper you linked!

Messages:
21,647

I did read somewhere that if we were able to peel away the top layers of a Neutron/Pulsar, the deep inners would indeed reflect a Quark Star.

21. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
White holes have never been observed directly or indirectly, but black holes have been observed indirectly. It is thought that black holes with extremely large jets are still just black holes.

It is kind of funny though, because one thing that Susskind was using against Hawking's theories was that time would stop for an object falling inside a black hole, so it would never actually cross the event horizon. Then using this same idea, it is no wonder that someone thinks they wouldn't be able to be formed in the first place. The major problem I see with the idea is that I don't think that time dilation would change the speed of the falling object.
v = d/t
v' = d'/t' if you substitute d' and t' for d sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) and t sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
v' = d/t sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) cancels
v = v'

An object isn't going to go, oh I am experiencing time dilation, so every other frame of reference is going to see the force of gravity not make me fall at all now...

22. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
this is completely incorrect.

23. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
I'm asking you for a "focused" explanation of how and where white holes have been observed. References would be appreciated.