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
    You're right, this is what we are taught that GR suggests but that doesn't mean this is what happens in reality.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Could you be a bit more specific about what "your explanation" is? Because you seem to post any story that mentions "Black holes Don't Exist!" and the different explanations are not always consistent with each other. This particular thread (the paper) doesn't contain any alternatives.
    Thar's odd because your typical objection has nothing to do with QM: it is a GR or even Newtonian objection (frozen star).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    There is another possibility you know....Perhaps it is you with the "shortcomings"
    But anyway, up until your "spitting the dummy" in the above post, I actually commend the questions and manner in which you have asked them, and highly commend the excellent logical replies by Declan.
    His knowledge on BH's and GR seems excellent.
    A pity he is not around as much as he should be.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Please explain:
    1. Are you claiming GR is being misinterpreted?
    2. Are you claiming QM provides a way around this?
    3. Are you claiming observations across an EH have been made?
    4. Are you claiming a way/theory may be devised in the future that gets around this?
     
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Which part of that do you object to?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    As already mentioned, GR has overwhelmingly stood up to every test put its way.
    While someone in a remote FoR, may never see something actually cross the EH, just gradually redshifted beyond the range of his or her instruments, from the FoR of the person falling in, [other then for tidal gravit
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    As already mentioned, GR has overwhelmingly stood up to every test put its way.
    While someone in a remote FoR, may never see something actually cross the EH, just gradually redshifted beyond the range of his or her instruments, from the FoR of the person falling in, [other then for tidal gravity] nothing unusual happens and he or she reaches the Singularity and oblivion in a short but finite amount of time.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Who is ignoring evidence?

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1310.0146
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Thanks Declan. Your workspace must be really interesting. Thanks for that again. Hope I didn't sound like I thought
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    For Declan
    I messed that up. I did want to say thanks for explaining that to me. This will give me some new perspectives on how I review stuff.
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  14. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,798
    Meh. Sounds like the "BH alternative" slot that the gravastar hypothesis initiated has a new member. It surely won't be last. Fledgling categories, like bureaucratic agencies, like to keep growing till they reach some level of satisfactory bloat.
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Sounds more like you're trolling nonsense.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    There is no acceleration or deceleration. The infalling observer is following a natural free fall geodesic. In this case the geodesic is described from remote coordinates and is coordinate dependent.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    A lot of things are being taught. And new things are learned every day about what happens in reality, which is why all scientific teaching relies on empirical evidence. No apparent conflict in theory and/or mathematical formulation can override empirical evidence. Evidence comes first, and the rest rises or falls as needed to best explain it -- in its totality.



    Approximately 10% of active galactic nuclei exhibit relativistic jets, which are powered by accretion of matter onto super massive black holes. While the measured width profiles of such jets on large scales agree with theories of magnetic collimation, predicted structure on accretion disk scales at the jet launch point has not been detected. We report radio interferometry observations at 1.3mm wavelength of the elliptical galaxy M87 that spatially resolve the base of the jet in this source. The derived size of 5.5 +/- 0.4 Schwarzschild radii is significantly smaller than the innermost edge of a retrograde accretion disk, suggesting that the M87 jet is powered by an accretion disk in a prograde orbit around a spinning black hole.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/355



    Hubble, measuring fluctuations in ultraviolet light from gas trapped in orbit and around the black hole found two examples of a so-called "dying pulse train," the rapidly decaying, precisely sequential flashes of light from a hot blob of gas spiraling into the black hole.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/


    New evidence has been uncovered for the presence of a jet of high-energy particles blasting out of the Milky Way’s supermassive black hole. As outlined in the press release, astronomers have made the best case yet that such a jet exists by combining X-ray data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory with radio emission from the NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA).

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/c...ky-way-black-hole-composite.html#.VCSWPEpX-uY


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In 2011 ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) discovered a gas cloud with several times the mass of the Earth accelerating towards the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way (eso1151) [1]. This cloud is now making its closest approach and new VLT observations show that it is being grossly stretched by the black hole’s extreme gravitational field.

    http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1332/


















     
    brucep likes this.
  18. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,798
    ??? And this "does not follow" in response to someone simply expressing their level of interest about a conclusion, that hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet, stems from what specifically? That you never heard of gravastars or that your reading inferences are so poor that you felt I was actually advocating the latter? Come on, you can surely clarify where you were coming from more substantively than with ambiguous or seemingly arbitrary codswallop like "Sounds more like you're trolling nonsense."

    Or to quote an old movie: "As I've heard from some quarters, you truly aren't very novel or discreet when it comes to making mountains out of molehills or projecting misconstrued representations into what other people say. Why don't you just put up a neon sign advertising what you're doing?"
     
  19. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    Hi RJ. I forwarded your questions to Prof. Laura Mersini-Houghton and this is what she replied:






    I asked her what she thought the dark, compact source (Sag A*) at the core of the milky way was and she replied:

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Interesting...In fact so Interesting, I would Imagine that if as she says BH's don't exist, then I would wonder also about the BB.
    And if this was as "faitre complei" as RJBeery would want us to believe, we would really need to examine our whole present model of cosmology, as I would say it is on the verge of collapse.
    Outstanding, Incredible, civilisation changing news!
    Yet it has barely been spoken about, other then here.


    Questions: What are these unseen companions we see in apparent binary systems.
    What are the polar jets we see emanating from around apparent BH's?
    What do we put down these other observations to, that give results for objects with an apparent escape velocity at or exceeding "c"

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
    Laura Mersini-Houghton (née Mersini) is an Albaniancosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a proponent of the multiverse theory which holds that our universe is one of many.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] She argues that anomalies in the current structure of the universe are best explained as the gravitational tug exerted by other universes.[

    Mersini-Houghton received her B.S. degree from the University of Tirana, Albania, and her M.Sc. from the University of Maryland.[11] She was awarded a Ph.D. in 2000 by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. After earning her doctorate, Mersini-Houghton was a postdoctoral fellow at the Italian Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa from 2000 to 2002. In 2002 she had a postdoctoral fellowship for two years atSyracuse University.[11] She accepted a job as faculty at University of North Carolina, and in January 2004, she started as assistant professor of theoretical physics and cosmology at UNC, and was granted tenure in 2008.[11]


    On October 11, 2010, Laura Mersini-Houghton appeared in a BBC programme What Happened Before the Big Bang (along with Michio Kaku, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, and other notable cosmologists and physicists) where she propounded her theory of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse.[12] Mersini-Houghton's work on multiverse theory is discussed in the epilogue of a recently published biography of Hugh Everett III.[13]

    In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She agrees with Stephen Hawking in that collapsing stars give off radiation (called Hawking radiation), but her work claims to demonstrate that this causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


    No, as with the past headlines re the Pioneer anomaly, Neutrinos travelling FTL in the Opera experiment, and the BICEP2, I'll still hold onto accepted models at this time, and until further research is done.
    Which I'm 100% sure it will.
     
  21. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131


    She said that, did she? Did she explain how QM trumps the General Theory and Newtonian mechanics when explaining "a very massive star" of 4.3 x 10^6 solar masses? (After she explains that to you, ask why she answers your email so much quicker than she answers anyone else, what's your secret? Four hours, after working hours, that has to be a record.)
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I don't see the issue Declan. Not the email issue the issue involving singularities/black holes. When I read the responses the careful early qualifiers, set up the definition of a black hole. That last comment only suggests that she does not believe that the mathematical singularity does not exist. I don't disagree with that myself.

    Understanding the definition establishes the context, here and in most situations.

    The way that post was presented there is no way to know what the full context of the way the questions were asked.

    From where I sit that last qualification of saying that the massive star (Sig. A) does not colapse to zero-size (IOW a point singularity) establishes the context! Interesting thing is both GR and QM breakdown at that point.., even though it can be argued that, that is where GR leads us...

    All I read in her response, is that her answers were based on an assumption that a black hole and a mathematical singularity share definition, within the context of that exchange.
     
  23. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    The issue is the provenance of the "email quote".

    And the fact that she would never describe a 4.5 million solar mass object as "a very massive star".

    Physics does not allow a star so massive. Physics does not permit a neutron star so massive. Known physics requires that it be a "black hole". Quibbling semantics about what is going inside the event horizon, doesn't make a "black hole" as we understand them any less a "black hole". That is exactly how she states the issue.

    Singularities? I've never cared much for what that has morphed into meaning. I prefer the original usage, "we do not because because the maths and physics can't handle it".

    Bottom line? Beware anonymous persons who post "emails" citing authority.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page