Black holes may never actually form..!

post #76
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ually-form-!&p=3212387&viewfull=1#post3212387

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Krash...I was being sarcastic. The information paradox is the problem that all of these various alternative models are trying to solve. What many people here believe is that the math of GR represents reality and that event horizons pose no theoretical problem at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course not. No one should be claiming such a thing as irrefutable fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If GR or any other version of BH's do exist, as the evidence shows, then, yes EH's also exist.
And we have no reason at all, to doubt that they [BH's] do not exist, but plenty of evidence based logic to say they do.

 

Thanks Brucep. I will have a go at trying to understand it.

 

I don't think you can claim EH's are an irrefutable fact, that's why my post #88 reads 'the idea of event horizons'.
I think the most confusing thing is the individual's understanding of the mathematical models of events horizons. That's where amateurs tend to need the help of the mathematicians we are lucky to have on these forums. And yet, you get some people with no mathematical background, deluding themselves that they are on a mathematically equal footing when ‘discussing’ event horizons models.
I have read some of those ‘discussions ‘ on this forum, and the mathematically smart person always seems to be puzzled by the delusional one.
I can’t seriously claim to be an amateur nor even a philosopher. Just Nimbus, king of the clouds

 

Nothings in science claims to be irrefutable. At this time there is empirical evidence the 'dying pulse train', predicted by GR, has been observed. For RJBerry edification the frame which this prediction is derived from is the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper frame. The coordinates RJBerry and Farsight think are preferred. A little bit of irony. The verification of black holes is derived from the coordinates they [RJBerry and Farsight] think shows black holes can't form. Making claims without understanding how the theoretical model works is a big mistake. Doing it over and over is what cranks do.

 

Ahh, carefully worded I see. Do you believe there are any other explanations which would also predict a dying pulse train?

Also, I hope PADDOBOY takes note that he's in the minority in this thread (and flatly wrong) on the absolute existence of event horizons.

Now please explain this, brucep. Did you make this up? I'm going to need a reference claiming that the information paradox has been "resolved". It would be extremely bad form to spend most of your posts declaring that I know nothing but then you make such a clanger of ignorance. :bugeye:

Lastly, I'd be careful editing your posts long after they've been responded to. That's called rewriting history, and Tach et al have been banned for such bad forum etiquette.

 

Minority, no, I don't actually believe I am, and I don't believe I am wrong either.
Again, If BH's exist, of any variety, then so to must an EH.

Event Horizon:
Definition:
WIKI:
, the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible:

event horizon, Boundary marking the limits of a black hole. At the event horizon, the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197134/event-horizon

The boundary surrounding a black hole from within which it is impossible for matter or energy to escape the black hole's gravitational pull,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/event_horizon.html:

Now you can go on all you like about quantum effects etc, but as yet most of that is still rather speculative and will remain so for a long while yet.

 

brucep, I can only assume you missed my last post so I'll repeat it.
=================================================

Now please explain this, brucep. Did you make this up? I'm going to need a reference claiming that the information paradox has been "resolved". It would be extremely bad form to spend most of your posts declaring that I know nothing but then you make such a clanger of ignorance. :bugeye:

Lastly, I'd be careful editing your posts long after they've been responded to. That's called rewriting history, and Tach et al have been banned for such bad forum etiquette.

 

Brucep
It looks like there would be a difference in behaviour of dying pulse trains when approaching an event horizon or this neutron star like object.

This reply (e-mail) from one of the paper’s authors, Cenalo Vaz.

With this new ‘neutron star like object’ we have the train brightening as matter (train) hits the surface.
As against, no brightening of a train as it fades to nothing approaching an event horizon i.e the Joe Dolan observation of Cygnus X-1.
And, as Cenalo notes, it has yet to be proved if this neutron star like object is stable.

 

That's the problem with the prediction for a stable shell outside r=2M. There will be no dying pulse trains if the prediction was correct. Did you get the other paper which cites Cenalo's paper? Which predicts the stable shell would be at r=M. r=M is the horizon for a maximum extremal Kerr rotating black hole [rotation parameter approaches 1]. For Cygnus x-1 the rotation parameter is .75 so the horizon would be r=3/2M. Both these papers start with the Schwarzschild geometry. I'll link the citation paper for anybody who is interested in reading.

On the Vaz no horizon black hole
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7119

For this case the 'dying pulse train' would still be predicted. It should be interesting to read citations for this paper [if any are forthcoming]. Thanks for asking the question and posting Professor Vaz answer.

 

Hiya brucep and nimbus...I'm not that deeply into BH's and "dying pulse trains" as you pair obviously are....
I hope the following adds some food for thought......

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/reu/2007/Auerswald.pdf

It gives three possible reasons why no "dying pulse trains" were detected around Cygnus X-1

Over to you two for more discussion, which I'm finding Interesting.

 

Thanks Brucep and paddoboy
Will now have read of those things

 

White holes have not been observed.

About black holes: what we have observed are objects which, according to GR, have to be black holes. And they behave as predicted by GR. That's all. In other theories of gravity, these objects may not be black holes.

About the information loss problem: It is not a problem of GR, but of quantum gravity.

 

i have images of both in archives in my labs 1 and 2. my co-workers and i have used them. also maybe understand why they are referred to as black.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)

 

Links to white holes please. (Links to black holes I have enough myself.)

 

if you read all my comments on this topic, you may have came across a link already-- if i remember correctly, i have gave links--maybe they are under another black hole topic(there are millions of them on here)-- i am not sure now.

 

krash661, Schmelzer is being polite. White holes are purely mathematical objects and have never been observed in any manner. If you actually have images of white holes in your archives that would be very big news, indeed.

 

If you mean your link to http://rt.com/news/175436-black-holes-exploding-white-holes/ that's science journalism, about some possibly interesting speculative theoretical paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0989v2 It is certainly not about an observation of white holes. Rovelli is an interesting researcher, some points he has made I even like to quote.

After the first reading I think the idea of the paper is wrong. But this is a first impression only, I have to think about it.