Mass of Schwarzschild Black Holes Is Indeed Zero And Black Hole Candidates Are Quasi Black Holes

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by TruthSeeker, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    Attached Files:

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Seems it made in onto Arxiv as well:

    There's a couple of minor typo's here and there, but nothing making the paper unreadable. It appears at this point not to have gone through peer-review (yet?).

    Basically, this person claims that the event horizon (EH) itself is the singularity, and that at that point M=0. Well, if I remember by black hole dynamics correctly, the EH is often outside of the black hole object (my sloppy language; I'm referring to the physical object inside the EH), i.e. there's no physical "wall" or threshold there. So sure, one can argue there's no mass of the black hole object located at the EH. Thus from what I can tell, there's nothing special going on here, once one realizes the singularity this person is referring to is the EH, not the object inside it.

    In other words, this paper calls the EH a singularity, and then (wrongly) equates that with the singularity postulated to exist at the core of the black hole. But this is just my interpretation; I may be wrong.

    (Additionally, this person seems to think performing a coordinate transformation somehow makes a static system non-static. That's nonsense too!)

    And then it muddles the water further by giving the proper time of a particle falling into the black hole, and stating that the particle will never cross the event horizon as viewed by an observer infinitely far away, and thus the mass of the black hole (it appears in the "proper time of a particle falling into the black hole") has to be zero for the proper time to be infinite too. This is another grave misunderstanding of how coordinate transformations and the general theory of relativity works.

    Conclusion: the paper appears to make claims it cannot substantiate. Some of the argumentation is bollocks. I would wait until it gets published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal before even considering putting my eggs in that basket.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I know little about this subject but your analysis has the ring of truth to it. Await peer review.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    I find it quite difficult struggling through a paper like that, where every sentence seems to make a new claim. "Am I stupid for not knowing/understanding this, or is it gibberish?" Luckily it often doesn't take too long to figure out which of the two applies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    At the end in conclusion, the author does clarify this point;

    "The occurrence of M = 0 does not imply absence of matter, on the other hand it indicates a state where the bare mass
    comprising rest masses and internal energies are neutralized by negative gravitational energy."

    In the reference list there are many peer reviewed papers by Abhash Mitra in decent journals, his main thrust is on impossibility of singularity. This paper appears to be continuation of his work against singularity.
  9. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    I wonder what this unreferenced, never explained, magical "negative gravitational energy" is then...

    Indeed turns out this person has been pushing this peculiar model for quite some time now, without much success. He's even been criticized for not understanding how frames of reference work:

Share This Page