QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I don't disagree. In a way that is what I was attempting to say. We do not know the full context of the exchange, or if the way the Q&A was presented is consistent with the intent of her answers.

    BTW I really miss the edit post function. In the quote of my post you reference, that last "does not exist" should have just been "exists". The way I read what was attributed to her was that she does not accept what ever a black hole is, as being a point singularity. But I don't know her and am basing that assement only on the careful wording of all responses attributed to her.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,136
    Declan, you should be careful. You're either calling Tashja a liar or you're claiming that Mersini-Houghton is wrong. Being a co-worker, why don't you simply ask her? Wouldn't that be more definitive than speculation and aspersion-casting?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,136
    While I do believe that GR has been misinterpreted to predict black holes, I am not making that claim in this thread.
    Yes. I've claimed many times in the past that, regardless of the possible misinterpretation of GR, QM certainly forbids black holes.
    Nope. I'm claiming that event horizons do not exist so the proposition is meaningless. Any dark areas that we see around "enormous regions of dense mass" are black because of commensurate amounts of redshifting. The critical collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius never quite occurs, and other mechanisms (i.e. Hawking radiation) allow all matter, energy and information to escape in finite time.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    A star of that mass would have a diameter of 1.40503E-6 lightyear. 6,646,500,000 meter radius. For the singularity theorem they set r=0 as the position on the manifold where geodesics terminate. Smart move. Recently
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    This combo of the new face of the forum and my new IPAD isn't working out to good. So to finish my comment
    "Recently......" There was a thread where members disparaged Stephen Hawkings contributions to the literature. Based on illiteracy (what else is new?).
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225


    From observation, it has been evidenced many times in the past, of those with an anti mainstrream bias or some alternative hypothesis, to stoop to pretty low levels.
    I certainly hope this is not one of them.
    At least with my own previous example of E-Mailing authority, I posted my exact questions along with the exact replies for all to see.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225


    Yep, I was wondering about that also.
    Hmmmm, this appears to be getting quite messy.
    But as I suggested, if there is anything at all to this claim, this quiet obviously should not be the last time we here about it.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Very informative post Id. dg across the star, as it falls, becomes great enough to pull it apart.
     
  12. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    But what motive does Tashja have to falsify anything? Not only does she not have a history of being combative, I don't think she's ever even expressed a controversial opinion.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Since I brought it up: why is the star ripped asunder but the infalling human observer doesn't even feel any stretching until just before b
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I give up. Apple machines are overrated. Complete pain in the ass for writing in Internet forums.

    The infalling observer doesn't even feel the stretch before he's spaghettified at r=0.

    dr=the length of the infalling observer

    g_earth=dg over the length dr

    dTau_ouch = 2/3(dr/g_earth)^1/2
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Oh well. This formula is independent of the mass of the Schwarzschild black hole.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    I don't know. I could speculate but at this time I won't.
    Like I have said, let's see how all this pans out.
    Until
     
  17. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Because, anyone who asked, or even studied her work, the orthodox or unorthodox, would know that she would never claim Sag A* is a "very massive star".

    If she had really responded to an email, containing "those" questions, she would have said up from, that there is still an event horizon, and the "object" would still have all the attributes we currently ascribe to black holes, that her work is in what goes on inside the event horizon,,,,, is there a "singularity" or is there "no singularity". She takes the view that there is no singularity, but to outside observers it is still a "black hole" in every respect. Check out some of her videos and interviews on-line. THEN post an "email" where "she" explains "her" views and you "might" get it right.

    You can not read a press release and think you know all you need to know to evaluate her (or anyone else's) work. If you don't know the work, or the person intimately, it's best not to try explain what the researcher is doing, middle school level press releases will always get it wrong.

    That is the whole point. I have chatted about just this sort , hundreds of times over the six or seven years, I know how she would answer questions like that. AND I know her language quirks. AND I know how long it takes her to answer emails, even from her colleagues. She has much commented on rep for that.
     
  18. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    What I find interesting is that based on 'pure theory', utilizing Hawking's conjecture of 'negative mass' (which does not have a known physical counterpart; i.e. this is not an 'anti-particle' concept which have positive mass), she shows that black holes cannot form. but we know that black holes form, and have it well-detailed as to location in the center of our milky way and as to its mass based on direct observation of stars in orbit. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=5FF832382A4F59F6C9EC5FF832382A4F59F6C9EC

    So, a sound conclusion could be that the underlying presumption ('negative mass') is not valid, as when carried to its logical conclusion (which she does) it leads to a contrdiction of direct observation.
     
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It has nothing to do with Hawking or any negative mass conjecture. The quantum calculation concludes the energy associated with spacetime curvature at r=0 is negative. It's a consequence of the quantum requirement that the wavelength of matter must be finite. Something like that. As Declan explains the domain of the derivation is quantum gravity. The thing I just read, which is interesting, is the apparent horizon still forms. We knew that the classical singularity was unphysical from the 'get go'. That's why Hawking and Penrose (and other theorists) working on the singularity theorem chose the termination point for geodesics rather than the unphysical prediction of the classical analysis.
     
  20. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
  21. Declan Lunny Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Exactly like that.

    Exactly. This paper, and others she and others have written on the same topic, have not implied that what observers outside of the event horizon would be able to "see" or "experience", none of that is changed in the slightest degree.


    Exactly so. Hawking and Penrose "proved" that there are singularities in a black hole. Then Susskind proved there were not. Then he proved they are again. Now Mersini-Houghton again "proves" that a singularity can't exist. Hey, that's just what the theorists do. They prove and disprove each other until a means come along to falsify this or that observationally or experimentally. This is a brilliant attempt at finding the "Holy Grail", uniting the quantum with the macro world we experience.

    But the only reason it is particularly talked about right now is the University hyped it, that's normal when a school has an "all-star" on faculty. Dozens of similar works are produced every year. These need to be keep in perspective. I mean dozens that "prove", but also "disprove" each other equally valid, equally good science. Which is correct? The ultimate arbiter is observation and experiment. It's not shocking but there are many things that can be "proven" in theory, self-consistent theory, using known physics, that just do not reflect reality.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    As some of you may or may not know, I did recently take the opportunity to E-Mail a Brent Tully, re the subject of stellar age and the age of the Universe, as a result of some discussion in another thread.
    I decided to give him another go on this subject at hand, and although not receiving the reply I wanted, I do believe it points to the claim that BH's do not exist as made by the thread initiator as wrong.
    The previous few posts from bruce and Declan also support that position.
    Anyway, here is my E-Mail and the reply.......

    Hi...
    > Firstly, thanks for your previous reply, I do realise you guys are pretty busy, so your answers were much appreciated.
    > Could I trouble you once more on another matter?
    > Recently I was taken aback by news on mathematical proof re black holes not existing.
    > the following article deals with this matter.
    > http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/sp...ctually-exist-according-to-mathematical-proof
    > An extract from the article is as follows........
    > "The conclusion of the new proof by Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, is universe-altering: black holes, she argues, do not and cannot actually exist."
    >
    > What should the science community, and lay people like myself, gauge from this?
    > Do black holes exist or don't they?
    > Or is this just a quantum mechanical thingy and still theoretically speculative?
    >
    > Once again, thank you for your time and effort
    > Cheers Barry

    HIS REPLY:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Barry,

    I haven’t followed the discussion you mention. But the general consensus holds that black holes do exist.

    Brent Tully.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     
    brucep likes this.
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    but Brent never gave an argument as to why BH do exist
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page