Proof that BlackHoles cant exist

The burden of proof is on you, not me, to defend your statement that black holes and their singularities are expected by a classical theory.

Or it does but it’s not recognized. Either way, it doesn’t prove that GR is correct. It doesn’t prove that all classical theories of gravity predict black holes and their singularities.

Any new theory must agree with experimental results within the margin of error, that's all.

So you think it’s okay to barely test a theory and declare it correct? Show me some experimental confirmation of GR where the r-coordinate r is less than 200,000M (geometric units). A theorized horizon is at r = 2M.

That means nothing. There’s no experimental confirmation of any form of quantum gravity.

You’re just speculating.

It is proven to be self-inconsistent at a horizon in another thread here.

And a circumstantial one. All “confirmation” of black holes to date assumes as a basis that GR is the correct theory of gravity. There is no experimental confirmation of GR anywhere near a theorized horizon.

That’s a red herring. There’s no burden on me to give a new theory to show that GR need not be the correct theory. The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise; you’re the one making the claim to the contrary.

No, you did more than that. You were rude.

Yes, about their conclusions.

It’s okay to claim that scientific consensus is wrong. I don’t attack people in Physics & Math; that’s against the rules.

When will you prove it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok Zanket. This will be my last post in the thread. I will not claim to have won, because I have not convinced you of anything. Singularity has aparently conceded the debate to me, so I can take solace in that.

I will respond to a few points above, but will sumarize my objections to your arguments quickly. (Feel free to have the last word here, but I do not think it will change anything.) My problem with all of your work is that you are using layman's definitions of "locality" and "reference frame". You reference frames are not local, no matter what definition you dig up from Wikipedia or Taylor and Wheeler. If you define reference frames to be arbitrarily large you are sure to find fault with GR, because you are starting from a faulty premise. Also, talking about contradictions is one thing, but you should actually take the time to calculate things if you are to convince physicists. At the end of the day, only a calculation will prove your case. Physics Monkey and myself have both pointed out cases where the physical system seems to be finite, yet singularities occur. Both him (her?) and I can back up these statements with calculations. Your argument relies on inconsistent definitions, and is backed up with no calculations---either one of which should be enough to demonstrate that it is, at best, speculative, and at worst completely wrong.

You will say, I'm sure, that such thought experiments are good enough to damn the whole theory, but this is simply not true. The fact is that GR has tremendous predictive power, and is experimentally confirmed. I have talked with some cosmologists about this, and they have assured me that the experimental tests of GR do not rely on the fact that GR is correct. I will trust their words over yours, for the fact that they have studied this problem with sufficient rigor.

I know of no proof that black holes are a generic feature of a classical theory of gravity, however, GR is the best classical theory of gravity that we have (one can derive Newtonian gravity from GR), and it contains several solutions with horizons. (One may point to other classical theories of gravity, like Brans Dicke theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans-Dicke, but there black holes are also predicted. I cannot comment on other classical theories of gravity.) The appearance of a singularity in the classical theory does not invalidate GR, it only tells you that it doesn't work at r = 0. That's ok, because we have expected that all along.

I disagree with this. In the weak field approximation, any new theory of gravity must obey Einstein's equations, and so must be interpretable in this limit as space-time curvature. The interpretation of gravity as space-time curvature should probably be a generic feature of the underlying theory, but I could be convinced otherwise by someone who has studied the problem. If you are keeping track, this is speculative, but you have offered no rebuttals of this speculation.

Again, maybe. But the logic is as follows. You want a theory of gravity in which new physics comes in before the formation of a black hole. If there is no physical principle or symmetry which specifically prevents this from happening, it must be due to the causality and not the curvature. In other words, we know GR breaks down at large curvature. We also know that the curvature across a black hole's horizon is negligible. So GR is expected to hold across the horizon of a black hole---which one COULD take in a weak field approximation, which we have already argued agrees with experiments. The only thing different about a horizon is that the causal structure of space-time is different. So any new theory of gravity should take the causal structure of space as fundamental, and not the curvature of space-time.

This is why I added the caveat "despite what you think". I have pointed out why you think GR is inconsistent above. You will never be convinced that you are wrong because you will only accept definitions which prove your point.

Are you familiar with the experiments? Rapidly spinning black holes emit radiation along their poles preferrentially. The way I remember the calculation (preformed by Sir Martin Rees), the intensity of this radiation is proportional to the spin and the mass of the collapsing object. It is a statistical mechanical argument and not a GR argument. See this paper, for example : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9301/9301007.pdf. There is no observation of a horizon, this is true, but this is likely never to come. So in your mind, nothing will ever be proved.

Awww well Im awful sorry.

Just as long as you acknowledge this. When it comes to GR, I would say that there is more of a consensus than in the case of global warming. I want to make this perfectly clear to anyone keeping up with this discussion. Go talk to MattMarr about how the Illuminati have fooled us all in to believing that GR is correct and that the Earth is really flat. Your conclusions hold the same weight.

I'm glad to see that you are the beacon of morality which illuminates SciForums. If by "attack someone" you maen "prove them wrong with experimental evidence and sound science", then I say that the rules are wrong and I will never follow them. If your arguments are crap then they are crap. That's the end of the story.

Anyway, by this point you have no doubt been sufficiently offended by me, which has really been my goal all along. For posterity's sake, I have sumarized my main objections to your comments above, and hopefully you will do the same before preaching to me about being offensive or something. Whatever. Hopefully a thinking person will be able to follow my objections to both your and singularity's arguments, and see the glaring flaws in both lines of logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont care a damn to waste time on man made non existing things like Reference Frame Bullshit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although I have not carefully read all of the Zanet/BenTheMan exchange, sometimes a little too heated, I think they agree more than they disagree.

Both seem to recognized that both GR can Newtonian gravity can form such dense aggregates of mater that light can not escape - I.e. agree that "event horizons" are real.

Zanet is strongly of the opinion that singularities do not in fact exist. I think Ben also believes this may be the case as GR is not a reliable theory as r --> 0. I also (and Zanet agreed) suggested that the pressure required to prevent the collapse to a singularity (even in the classical gravity case) must got to infinity (more rapidly than 1/r or 1/r^2 - still to lazy to work out which).

I do not understand the great conflict except perhaps as being caused by "black hole" sometimes carrying the idea of it being a singularity. Really as Ben noted, we can know nothing about what is going on inside the EH, so how can it matter?

PS to Singularity You are slipping - that post 63 out-of-left field attempt to hi-jack a thread is not up to your normal standards.

 

Good post Billy, it seems that they were just debating the specifics, when essentially they believe the same concepts.

I am curious however to your thoughts about what happens when matter becomes dense enough for a black hole. Do you believe it crushes down to a singularity or is there a point (other than a singularity) where matter cannot be crushed any further?

 

I do not like to think singularities are real, so my bet is that just as the neutrons prevent further collapse in a neutron star, something will keep the finally singularity from happening.

I go even farther and suggest that if you try to pack quarks into a package much denser than the protons and neutrons (not sure that density is a valid concept on the nuclear scale - but you get my idea, I'm sure) that some rapid resistance to further volume reduction will be part of the quark to quark interaction. I seem to recall some discussion of a "quark star" but forget what was said.

 

Maybe I should clarify then I promise I'll shut up.

Well.... Zanket deosn't believe in GR, as per this:
http://zanket.home.att.net/

We have argued at length about these things in another thread. Zanket believes he has found a thought experiment which shows that horizons are inconsistent with GR, not just singularities. I think that he is working from faulty definitions.

While I agree that the classical theory is inconsistent at r-->0, zanket believes that the classical theory is inconsistent at the horizon. This is a huge difference, basically because of this (sorry if I quote myself):

This is something which is drastically different from any physics that has been invented, accept for possibly Zanket's theory.

Ok I'll go now before Singularity rebuffs me again.

 

I think that the collapse causes the explosion. The core gets heavier and closer together as it cools then it collapses when it reaches the tipping point. The matter that follows it in is heated by gravitational compression, and if you get a really good collapse, that heat is a significant fraction of what you would get if the mass were converted completely to energy. It is contained for a time then it explodes.

 

I agree that is huge! I missed that in my quick skim - It is hard to believe he really thinks that a classical gravity field can not be so strong that the escape velocity is greater than c. So, if zanket is reading, I ask him to comment or give post number where he explains why. I seem to recall from my skim of your exchange, that he specifically said the opposite - namely that there is no upper bound on the escape velocity in classical gravity (and I think that is correct.)

As not even light can travel faster than c, this implies that there is a horizon.

 

Yes.

 

I recall a gay bar in LA catering to Blacks named The Black Hole. I thought I saw Count Sudoku inside!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sure Mr. Smarty, now try ansrin this :

Do u really believe in BH singularity ? And if u do then by the Distorted definition of Singularity and not the real [ENC]Singularity [/ENC]definition. Can Singularity sustain Gravitons and hence gravity itself ?

 

Finally theres one human who can see.

 

The matter is collapsed to zero size yet its capable of generating gravity, how incredible, let alone talking how Gravity escapes this singularity.

 

Usually I just ignore you, but answer to this was post 66. Do you not read posts? But only pick threads at random to throw off-thread comments into?

 

Re black holes: time dilation is infinite at the event horizon. This means no collapsing star has finishing collapsing yet, and never will. It means there are no singularities. Any discussion of singularities is in the reference frame of the falling object, and is taking place "beyond the end of time" in a kind of theoretical never-never land.

Re the principle of equivalence: it isn't valid. Yes, it got Einstein started, but there's no vital tidal gradient in the accelerating frame. It really isn't equivalent to gravity. Zanket is right, but it doesn't mean GR is invalid, so he's wrong too. I like this quote from J L Synge:

"The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but, as Einstein remarked, the infant would never have gone beyond its long clothes had it not been for Minkowski’s concept [of space-time geometry]. I suggest that the midwife be buried with appropriate honours and the facts of absolute space-time faced".

 

May b its due 2 ur arrogant attitude

About post 66; u are struck at the collapse , your collapse doesnt result into a supernova though all the energy elements for the nova are present there.

 

if black holes don't exist, than how come it has been proven that something out there blocks out light of nearby stars...and that something is there for a long time.

Also if black holes didn't exist than how come it has been also sighted how a black hole consumes a nearby star and that star is engulfed into the hole?

if you want evidence/facts on my side (because you dont believe what I just said) than tell me and I will find you the articles on this.

 

I know there are lot of dead cold stars out there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thats not true, black hole formation doesnt mean the stars gravity increase or something, its just that the companion star expands and collides with a cold star.

I am waiting for an event, where a Red giant merges with a cold star and becomes a blue star, there are lot of binaries out there which means there will be such an even in case of cold with a red giant.

Waiting for christmas ?

 

don't be rude. this sort of thing takes a long time to find, I am just asking if it is needed.