Black holes may never actually form..!

Hi "expletives deleted", welcome to the forum. The opening post in this thread is unfortunate. It was in frustrated response to a couple of years of arguing with people claiming that the existence of black holes is a proven fact, with no room for discussion. If credentialed theorists are still discussing the possibility then there is clearly a theoretical ambiguity. I would recommend perhaps reading through some of these comments, especially the ones written in last couple of weeks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for your kind welcome to the forum, RJBeery. Also thanks anyway for your kind advice, but I was going to read through all the thread anyway even if I wasn't going to comment again on your discussion. Maybe I might if I see something being discussed and I think I may have something useful to contribute, assuming I don't still miss somebody else already covering it despite my reading!

By the way, will the discussion of your concerns regarding black holes be in any way assisted by you now considering the case of two equally massive black hole masses approaching closely and melding horizons, merging masses?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After you read the book you'll understand why folks like, anybody versed in what GR predicts, isn't going to accept analysis based on nonsense criteria. Hopefully. Great book. Lots of text helping the student make connection between the math logic and physics. Something I always appreciate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry for double posting. The edit function here acts a little erratically; either that or I havent got the hang of it yet!

 

Thanks brucep for that book recommendation. I also appreciate it when someone or some theory provides a logically and physically consistent connection between the math logic and physics. I have one question in connection with your claim that this is what is provided for the student by the book you referenced. Can you reference where in the book it connects GR maths with the QM maths of what may logically if not provably may exist below black hole event horizon all the way to and including r=0?

 

The books about relativity theory so it doesn't make any predictions associated with quantum phenomena. If you add Hawkings prediction for Hawking radiation then you can use mathematics to make a connection between the physics of classical theory and the physics of quantum theory. That's why it is considered a path to quantum gravity. The historical beginnings of that connection. It's the physics the math helps describe. That's what mathematical physics is about.

 

He's not that new to this argument. The idea that a choice of coordinates is allowed, for doing physics, isn't just associated with relativity theory.

 

Hiya expletives deleted, and welcome also.
I have only contributed a few posts to this thread, but beery's problem as I told him, is that he simply is taking the philosophical issue of BH existence to its extreme and total logical reasoning based on what we know with regards to GR.
BH's exist: as simple as that, And for anyone to claim they do not, need to come up with a realistic model as to what is causing the conditions observed in spacetime and matter/energy that we observe.
We had another who calls himself the god, quite egotistical and fully enveloped by self gratuitous opinions of himself and his dreams of rewriting cosmology. That's the first number one point any newcomer should realise....That is not, nor ever will happen. It's the height of stupidity to believe it will. Sadly, he seems to have missed his regular evening rants at this time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Standard accepted cosmology today has plenty going for it, particularly with regards to the state of the art probes and equipment they have at their disposal, plus of course the brain matter to interpret that data.
Still a long way to go but we are doing OK, thanks to Einstein, GR/SR and other aspects of cosmology that has arisen from GR like gravitational lensing.
I'm sure you'll be in agreement after reviewing all the evidence, reputable links and scientific papers.

 

It is unscientific to proclaim that black holes exist with certainty. I've already provided a realistic model (frozen star, collapsar) as to what is causing the conditions observed in spacetime and matter/energy that we observe. One of them is right out of the Reflections on Relativity from mathpages, the reference that brucep supplied. In the opening post in this thread I link to https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d0758c7c88b5. If the existence of black holes were a certainty then there would be no debate to be had. You don't need to agree with my reasoning but with your absolutist position you are denouncing current theoretical physics research.

Edit: Here's another reference by Hawking

To make a proclamation that "BH's exist: as simple as that" you are literally arguing against Stephan Hawking while simultaneously believing that you are somehow defending mainstream Science. (Why would Science need defending anyway?)

Anyway I'm done discussing this with certain folks. I bring up various arguments to see what the responses might be to help direct my continued reasoning, not to get anyone to change their mind. Brucep, Russ_Watters, paddoboy, etc, I know what your positions are and I'm sure you know what mine are. Your objections are inconsequential to me, and I would say that my contentions should be inconsequential to you (save for the fact that you continue to respond). At this point I do have a keen interest in discussing this with Fednis as I believe we have boiled the question down to its essense:

- Has information been lost (i.e. irretrievable to all external observers) to a black hole today?

I think the point of last communication has potential to answer this question and this is where I'm going to look...

 

I started a new thread so the discussion is limited to very specific subject matter.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-information-ever-actually-lost-in-a-black-hole.155045/

 

Perhaps I put that too strong....perhaps.
According to what we observe and in line with GR, and in the absence of other possible explanations to explain the effects we see, BH's can be regarded as a reasonable logical explanation.No scientific theory is ever certain though, and I have said that many times.

GR is our ultimate theory of gravity despite your need to avoid that. GR tells us that once a Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
This is far more accurate then what Newtonian tells us and its "Dark Star"result.
Your frozen star or collapsar is redundant and obviously surpassed by the GR BH, just as the Newtonian Dark Star is.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1359v1.pdf
Abstract:
Oppenheimer and Snyder found in 1939 that gravitational collapse in vacuum produces a “frozen star”, i.e., the collapsing matter only asymptotically approaches the gravitational radius (event horizon) of the mass, but never crosses it within a finite time for an external observer. Based upon our recent publication on the problem of gravitational collapse in the physical universe for an external observer, the following results are reported here: (1) Matter can indeed fall across the event horizon within a finite time and thus BHs, rather than “frozen stars”, are formed in gravitational collapse in the physical universe. (2) Matter fallen into an astrophysical black hole can never arrive at the exact center; the exact interior distribution of matter depends upon the history of the collapse process. Therefore gravitational singularity does not exist in the physical universe. (3) The metric at any radius is determined by the global distribution of matter, i.e., not only by the matter inside the given radius, even in a spherically symmetric and pressureless gravitational system. This is qualitatively different from the Newtonian gravity and the common (mis)understanding of the Birkhoff’s Theorem. This result does not contract the “Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi” solution for an external observer.

I don't believe there is much of a debate on BH's in professional circles, other then on the nature of the EH, and firewalls.

The Hawking claim has been argued out before on this forum, and he has never claimed BH's per se do not exist......So, no I do not argue against mainstream cosmology.
The current mainstream debate as far as I know centers on the Information loss paradox and firewalls.

 

Not much of a debate? From your 2009 paper:

Read it carefully. The reason "frozen star" terminology has almost disappeared is "because for all practical purposes we may still call it a BH". In other words, "who cares." I have absolutely no problem with someone saying that we MAY AS WELL consider black holes to exist for practical considerations, but I do have a problem with folks trying to act like this is actual, settled science. Also, the reference in this paper which declares that the paradox is conclusively settled references another paper by the same author. He is granting authoritative credibility to his own previous work. Meanwhile, here's another paper refuting the very analysis from that author: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3638.pdf

My work here is done and I'm unsubscribing from this thread. If anyone wants to discuss information loss go ahead and contribute to the new thread, but please know that any posts not related to that thread's specific subject matter will be flagged.

 

And I'm still saying that the main discussions on BH's exist with regards to firewalls and the EH.
The article I gave covers many aspects: And again you ignore the general superiority of GR, evident by its incredible verified observational results.
The interesting but I find from my link is as follows.......
"A BH has always been considered as a spacetime singularity. However Zhang3 classified BHs into three classes: mathematical BHs, physical BHs or astrophysical BHs. A mathematical BH is the vacuum solution of Einstein’s field equations of a pointlike object, whose mass is completely concentrated at the center of the object, i.e., the singularity point. A physical BH is an object whose mass and charge are all within RH, regardless of the distribution of matter within; consequently a physical BH is not necessarily a mathematical BH. Finally an astrophysical BH is a physical BH, which can be formed through astrophysical processes in the physical universe and within a time much shorter than or at most equal to the age of the universe. From Figs. 2 and 3, it is clear that matter can never arrive at the singularity point, according to the clock of O. This means that astrophysical BHs in the physical universe are not mathematical BHs. Given that we do not yet know for sure if there are other channels (other than through gravitational collapse of matter) of forming BHs in the physical universe, we therefore suggest that spacetime singularity does not exist. This conclusion may sound surprising and against the common understanding of general relativity and BH physics. However we do not seem to have other alternatives, because we can only observe and study the formation process of an astrophysical BH from outside RH, and thus for us, as external observers, matter can never arrive at the singularity point even after crossing RH and loss communications from us".

And finally, I have certainly not shifted from my view that BH's as detailed by GR, are sufficiently evidenced, to claim they are near certain: Unless of course, and until someone can explain the effects we see another way, and in line with GR: [which a frozen star isn't]

 

Sorry. I goofed a double post again. This site's posting and editing function is taking some getting used to.

 

Thanks for your welcome, paddoboy.

My understanding is that any BH hypothesis consequent to GR maths extrapolation to r=0 is by definition a strictly mathematical-philosophical conundrum since a physical singularity as predicted by the GR maths is logically impossible when singularity implies the maths breaks down. I am more open to the QM maths and physics extrapolations to below the EH, which predict more realistic state and distribution for all the mass, and its gravity effect on the space inside EH, of everything that has fallen beyond that EH.

But what kind of feature is a BH in actuality? Unless one can specify exactly, then no-one can say anything with any certainty about what exists below these EHs. I wasn't aware that members had to present alternatives in order to be allowed to discuss the subject and addressing the various maths and physical assumptions and unknowns still in the literature regarding hypothesized BH singularities, event horizons and proximal external behavior of energy, matter and spacetime itself?

Please don't expend time and effort in trying to prejudice me against other members. I have an open mind capable of making such assessments for myself. I would ask you and anyone else tempted to prejudice me against other members, to keep me out of your personal agendas and flame wars because I suffer from high blood pressure and off-topic personal aggravations are the last thing I need to be dragged into. I hope I have made myself clear without offending you or anyone who may have been intending to prejudice me against their perceived enemies.

In the "light propagates at c + v?" thread I posted in response to James R quoting a wiki article correcting long held professional and layman misconceptions involving conflation of light images received from moving objects with the physical states of those moving objects. Also in cosmology observations I note in the literature many reviews of previous interpretations by many who supposedly had the requisite probes, equipment and brain matter, yet misinterpretations happened. I will keep an open mind and make my own assessments based on scientific evidence and more robust interpretations of that evidence; and will try not to let personal agendas, prejudicial beliefs or hearsay or uncritical neophyte enthusiasm obscure the meat of any scientific matter I come across.

Thanks anyway for taking time to respond, paddoboy; but I need no steering or involving other than towards interesting content in on-topic science discussions.

 

Quite understandable: GR is a classical model/theory. The Singularity is certainly most likely a mathematical construct only, not physical.

We are able to reasonably able to determine the nature of the spacetime of the BH below the EH, and at least up to and including the Singularity/mass in the case of a Kerr BH, logically determining that the mass is also spinning along with the spacetime[BH] itself: Common sense physics knowledge in actual fact, resulting from observing any Ergosphere[frame dragging]

See previous answer......

The members here can virtually do/post what they like within the rules: But if any are naive enough to claim that BH's do not exist, while unable to explain the observational effects we see on matter/energy and spacetime, then they are pissing into the wind, so to speak.
This is purely a science forum, open to all and sundry and does not dictate or change, or convert or even attempt to convert the accepted mainstream cosmology: They may like to think they do, but this is purely an illusion brought on by delusions of grandeur.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am not trying to prejudice you against anything, but just stating the ridiculous anti science cranks we do get here, driven by many different motives including religion.
Keep an open mind, sure! But not so open that your brains fall out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mainstream cosmology is mainstream cosmology for one very good reason: It makes the most logical sense, based on what we know and see, by the vast majority, and further more, any predicted changes will be forthcoming from them, certainly not from some tin horn posting on a science forum.
That's all I'm saying.

Quite admirable....And quite easy of course by recognising the giants of the present and past that have laid the foundations to what we know. Forgt them [as others like doing] and you are in deep shit.

No steering intended...Just to notify you that those that post rubbish under the guise of science, or through any agenda they may have, will most certainly be refuted.
Be careful of double posting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yet the corrections to past professional misconceptions continues apace. So perhaps it's not so easy unless one actually does keep an open mind and not make statements of certainty about their understandings and interpretations of things present "giants" may have misconceived which past giants originally did not? It's open mindedness that exemplifies a giant, not the misconceivers claiming giants status even when laboring under such misconceptions as that wiki highlighted and corrected to reflect what the past giants actually posited and has been misunderstood and included in the literature and teaching texts for so long.

Your own agenda seems to me to be just as much "rubbish" as anyone else's I have encountered at this site so far. Maybe you should take your own advice and self-assess before proceeding to make such opinionated posts based on personal opinions about other members and on your own potentially highly likely misconceptions of all that you have read in the science literature and in discussions here with other members more learned and less vacuously opinionated than you have already demonstrated to me your are.

Gee, thanks; I hadn't figured that out for myself already. Duh.

 

But most certainly not by you my friend!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[who ever you are]

Like I said, my opinions and knowledge, in general align with mainstream accepted cosmology. You have yet to disclose yours, yet have made a couple of long nonsensical rants about me. Why is that? Are you who you say you are?
Have I seen through you, perhaps?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you have, although it didn't put me off one iota.
Do better my friend.

 

Sounds like Rajesh is trying to run away from his last ghost handle. ?.

 

My responses were directly addressing those parts of your first post where you immediately set about to unduly influence me, a new member, and my opinions about other members; and subsequent posts in which you persisted in that sort of ungentlemanly and off-topic byplay which I clearly asked you not to draw me into. What sort of longstanding member is so disrespectful and contemptuous of new members' rights and intelligence that that longstanding member would even try that on in his very first post to the new member and so give a bad impression of this site's moderation and standards of mutual respect among members? You have not even stopped to consider what impression you made on a new member; and proceed now to drag in other people past and present in your byplay based on off-topic personal agendas introduced solely by you in my initial exchange with James R. I am trying to avoid such byplay but it seems you are determined to continue whatever it is you are doing that justifies your own sense of relevance here. You have lost my respect before you even had time to earn it. That is your doing not mine. I want nothing to do with you or your off-topic byplays. Please stop dragging me into it. James and I were having a productive on-topic exchange on the science topic he raised to danshawen; you came in and started all this off-topic byplay. Does James R not mind that you sullied an otherwise perfectly fruitful exchange with your unwarranted and clumsy off-topic byplays? I certainly do mind, as I was enjoying our exchange until you came along and interspersed the page with more off-topic byplay. Can't you take a hint when you're not wanted in an exchange because you have nothing of value to offer it? Take the hint: your sort of off-topic incitements and harassments are not helpful to anyone interested in good science conversations not personal byplay.