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

I think that black holes exist. The theory is ok.

The only problem with black holes is that general relativity is a classical theory and we don't yet know how the classical theory of general relativity fits together with quantum mechanics and the Standard model of particle physics which describes the other forces of nature. But this is already in the domain of quantum gravity and superstring theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clearly, black holes do qualify under that definition. The fact that a black hole is made of matter that has mass is the most basic known fact about them!

Cygnus X-1 is made of matter, with a mass of 15 suns, right now. How do we know? Because we just measured it!

And Cygnus X-1 is a black hole because as you acknowledged, all of its *now* detectable properties are consistent with the theories predicting what black holes "look" like.

Why do you think otherwise?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right now? Time in GR is more complicated than that. Relativity of simultaneity is only relative for a subset of all pairings of events. If one event is in the past or future light cone of the other then they are not simultaneous from any frame of reference.

Because the Dark Star would look essentially the same. I really don't understand where the problem lies in getting what I'm saying. Define NOW before you use the word and you'll see that black holes introduce a problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A BH has mass, and it also has a gravitational field, which is in fact a fossil field from the star from whence it formed after gravitational collapse.
When I look at Alpha Centauri tonight, I,m actually looking at the light that left it 4.3 years ago. As far as I know, it is still there at this time, although I won't know 100% until 4.3 years time.
For all intents and purposes, it does exist at this time.
I find nothing logical in suggesting that a BH may not exist in the real world, when gravitational effects on objects and space/time around it, show otherwise.




Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.
Richard Feynman

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not complicated enough to change the fact that Cygnus X-1's mass is measurable right now.

I hadn't heard the term "dark star" before, but since you had, you must know that the term was a similar precurser to "black hole". A hundred years ago, it would have been the correct label and 80 years ago scientists could have chosen to keep the label and just call the new theory an update of the old. They chose not to, so, arbitrary as names are, Cygnus X-1 is a black hole, not a "dark star".

The problem is, with that line of argument, you are arguing against your own point that they don't exist.

No. The words "exist"and "now" are not controversial and you are the one who is arguing against them, so you define it. But be aware: just like with the rest of your arguments I'll probably agree with the definition and point out you are misusing or contradicting your own definition. Because as far as I can tell:
1. You agree that Cygnus X-1 exists.
2. You agree that Cygnus X-1 has all the observable properties that define "black hole".

 

GR has so far stood up to all tests including the data from the GP-B probe of recent times.
As to whether a star that undergoes gravitational collapse beyond its "Schwarzchild Radius" continues to collapse to the Singularity, or whether pure Newtonian mechanics holds true, and the star exists just below the EH, is irrelevant with your argument I suggest.
It exists in reality and that is borne out with the surrounding effects and an EH.

With your problem with "NOW", there is no Universal "NOW" due to the finite speed of light.
You see the Centauri system as it was 4.3 years ago.....You see Sirius as it was 8.5 years ago....Betelgeuse over 600 years ago....LMC 160,000 years ago....M31 2.5 million years ago.

 

Dark Star was just a term used to describe a star that has undergone gravitational collapse to a density that prevents light escaping and theorised simply by the Newtonian applications of density, escape velocity and "c", and was first formulated by John Mitchel in the late 1700s, but was pidgeon holed as too absurd.
Then along came Albert and SR/GR!!

 

But what the proponents of GR have NOT done is to look at other theories , such as Cosmic Plasmas , Halton Arp , and Paul Laviolette , explanations as to why such high energy is coming from the galactic core , of which all dispute the BH theory

 

More like cosmic bullshit. It has nothing to do with who likes what theory or doesn't like what theory. The stuff you mentioned have been looked at they're just not worth a second look. The scientific literature is a hard nut to crack. It has to be real knowledge about real natural phenomena not conceptualized nonsense.

 

Not looked at other theories???
Rubbish, of course they have, but as explained elsewhere, nothing as yet matches observational and experimental data anywhere near as proficient as GR.
It's as simple as that.

What high energies are you talking about?
Our MW BH is reasonably dormant at this time. QUASARS on the other hand or any AGN are probably SMBHs in a feeding frenzy.
How does any of that dispute BH theory?

 

All have shown evidence of what there talking about

And the literature is peer reviewed by the mainstream

Its time for a journal of alternate theories

 

Quasars or AGN are probably......probably ....

Hence their point on what is actually going on

 

If alternate theories do not match observation and experimentation better then the incumbent model, they are probably more pseudoscience then real science...Although there maybe exceptions.

 

The point is SMBHs do explain the out pouring of energy.
Probaly, yes, because no scientific model is 100% and is always open for modification and/or improvements.

 

Sure

But there are other theories that explain the energy , without SMBHs needed

 

You think there's evidence for these theoretical models. You just make assertions river. That's your MO. Bring up your pet nonsense theories and then assert they have some scientific value.

 

That's bullshit river. Another unfounded assertion.

 

Your stuck in the past geometry thinking which is rudimentary in understanding the Universe

Read

http://starburstfound.org/?s=Black holes

 

Paul Laviolette? A well known crank with a crackpot website.

 

hm.
i know another individual who has this thought also.