QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Sep 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

    They don't mince words here; there is no subtle nuance. Black holes are not compatible with QM!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    Then I wonder what that incredibly massive thing at the center of the milky way galaxy is that is invisible?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Using that logic you could deny Hawking radiation exists at all because you cannot see it.

    "Science!"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    There has been no peer review yet. Let's wait and see.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    I don't think that is the same thing. I do not expect to be able to see Hawking radiation from a blackhole. If there are no black holes however I would expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns though.

    I don't think my logic is unreasonable. I could be wrong but I am not being unreasonable.
     
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    When you say you "expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns" you're completely discarding gravitational redshifting, which would of course exist even if the event horizon never quite formed. The area would appear black because the light has been asymptotically redshifted but not completely trapped as would be the case in a "proper" black hole.
     
  10. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    In one of the PDFs she said that the math here doesn't rule out black holes formed by some other method, just that it works out for core-collapse BH formation.

    My math isn't good enough to understand the intricacies, but if you or another highly-educated soul here cares to have a go, I'm all ears.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Edit:

    I am unsure if this is correct except for SMBHs. She's talking about low-mass BH formation.

    I would love to see some math and an explanation of it. And maybe some cartoons?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    And yet the gravitational effects on surrounding spacetime and matter still exists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As Dr Toad says, and as per the scientific methodology, let's wait for peer review.
    At this time though, the initiator of this thread, appears to be grasping at straws,as is so often the case with some.
     
  12. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Hmm…she’s on the lifeboat foundation advisory board. That’s where rpenner was debating that odd little professor. I forgot his name. Isn't that foundation a little fringey? :shrug:
     
  13. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Got a reference link? I'd like to read that.
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    How does redshift make radiation invisible?
     
  15. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    I got the idea that the last photon out would take infinite time to arrive, thus redshifted to infinity. Of course, that leaves photons that made it out before the bell still detectable.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,540
    It is so long of a wavelength that we don't have detectors to see it. It still escapes, but has very low energy, but not red-shifted to infinity as with a black hole.

    But I doubt that is what she's writing about - she's claiming that Hawking-like radiation starts being emitted as a star collapes, keeping the mass below a black-hole threshold. It seems preposterous; particularly in light of the existence of super massive black holes.
     
  17. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    If by "grasping at straws" you mean I'm making references to actual papers published in esteemed, peer reviewed journals such as Physics Letters B, then I admit guilt. If you mean something else, like I'm making wild claims and supporting them with out-of-context misquotes from Wikipedia, then you're simply a closed-minded idiot as is so often the case with some.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Take it easy ol son.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'm saying as is the case with most anti mainstream quacks, that you are jumping the Gun.
    The whole research needs to be peer reviewed.
    Just as the BICEP2 experiments are being reviewed, and the claim that neutrinos were travelling FTL in the OPERA experiment, and who could forget the claims we had gravity wrong with the Pioneer anomaly.
    Hope that helps.


    ps; And of course you seemed to have missed the effects of the BH on surrounding spacetime and matter/energy, that could only be attributed to something that has collasped beyond its Schwarzchild radius.
    Again, hope that helps.
     
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Just recently there were 2 papers doing a similar computation to show the gravitational collapse resulted in a stable shell forming. One paper had the stable shell at r>2M and the other had the stable she'll at r=M. Both based on the quantum limit requiring the SPACETIME curvature to be finite at r=0. Not infinite as classically predicted which we know can't be right. This prediction is for the collapse to be reversed with no stable she'll forming.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686

    All 3 papers don't account for the empirical observation of 'dying pulse train' predicted by GR. For the dying pulse train to be observed some kind of separation (light like) between a time like surface and a space like surface is required. The pulse is redshifted as the pulse emitter falls over the light like surface observed from the remote bookkeeper coordinates of the Schwarzschild geometry. For Joe Dolan it was finding evidence of the dying pulse train reviewing archive of the HST. The papers are interesting but I find it hard to take seriously when such empirical evidence is overlooked in the analysis. Empirical evidence which may make your derivation a moot point. So I like to keep an eye on citations for papers like that. Maybe learn something in the process.
    Spacetime wasn't meant to be in caps. This new IPAD changes stuff without my knowledge until I try to proof read. Missed that one.
     
  20. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Thanks, Bruce. I'd forgotten the pulse train observations.
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  22. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Sincerely, I've never appreciated the "dying pulse train" argument. Perhaps you can explain it? I would expect a dying pulse train as matter spiraled into any large mass; the difference being that they would expect to see a collision of sorts as the matter hit the mass, whereas they did not at Gygnus XR-1. To me, this could simply mean that the collision effects were asymptotically redshifted just as the pulse was, rather than "proving" that the shell did not exist. I believe Cygnus XR-1 was our first proof that a "black hole area" existed and we could point to it, but to me that doesn't mean that all of our presumptions about the behavior of matter in that area have been proven as well.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It seems to be a common quantum gravity calculation that the negative energy at r=0 forestall collapse. Whether this actually describes natural phenomena is what is under review. This paper has been through peer review to be published in Physics Letters B. For the archive you need a sponsor or be an approved sponsor. For years they tried to do peer review but eventually they no longer had the resources to do full review and settled for the sponsor concept at the archive.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page