Black Holes

[coldcreation]

Excellent answer, Coldcreation! I think newcomers and people unfamiliar with good scientific reasoning should be referred to this post. It has all the characteristics of logical reasoning and sound scientific insights, whether you agree with the ideas or not. We would advance much faster and more smoothly in the various threads if the opinions were all expressed this eloquently. Well done!

 

Chacmool, Thanks,

 

The purely mathematical character of the boundary condition as described by current theory (applicable to both black holes and a big bangism) is devoid of any natural physical significance; the analogue between the mathematical description and physical reality break down at infinity and zero.

 

The idea that one quantum fluctuation spawned the universe as its offspring is equally beyond the limits that physics has set for itself. As time t tends to zero, radius R tends to zero and energy density tends to infinity, all the relevant predictions and prophetic speculation become far removed from the threshold of measurement. No natural law leads to these features. The laws show that these events are not possible, by breaking down.

 

Hawking is unfortunately wrong about black holes, but that doesn’t make him an idiot. The idea that black holes emit radiation has a throb of raw genius; it will keep interest in them alive, with the expectation that they can someday be detected, offering a glimmer of hope. It will keep interest in Him and black holism alive…forever.

 

Observational evidence has opened new avenues that point in the direction of a new cosmological epoch, a contemporary one, in which we will have to survive without dogmatic support and rid our minds of the conventional ‘isms.’ From this innovative starting-point, the idea will prevail that big bang dogmatism had been superfluous all along and that a dialogue with nature is essential for scientific development and human progress.

We need to encourage new and vast possibilities vital to humanities understanding of the universe and its evolutionary trends. So far, so cool.

 

Coldcreation

[Little Bang]

Quote : By Coldcreation

 

There may be no facts that exclude the existence of BHs either. But there is evidence that stars generally do not collapse and disappear.

 

Can you gives us some of that evidence?

[coldcreation]

Quote : By Coldcreation

 

There may be no facts that exclude the existence of BHs either. But there is evidence that stars generally do not collapse and disappear.

 

Can you gives us some of that evidence?

 

 

Sure LittleBang,

 

There is plenty of evidence that stars are not imploding and disappearing. There is not one example that I can think of where a star disappears without leaving behind some kind of visible progenitor of the kind mentioned in my previous mails.

 

Even if BH formation were a rare event we should at least have one documented before rushing to quick (and often hasty) conclusions.

 

There is, however, observational evidence in every visible galaxy including the Milky Way where star formation is occurring, sometimes profusely.

 

This is standard astrophysics. Look at a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for stellar evolution.

 

What we have exposed is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of fictive objects. Le list is very long, espacially if particle physics is included into the lot (or zoo); here are just a few man-made inventions: specific types of WIMPs, MACHOS, “spaghetti-like objects,” gravitinos, and other supersymmetric supermassive hypothetical particles that represent theoretical extrapolations far beyond the range of energies that can ever be explored experimentally.

 

The Plank particles, for example, are supposed to be about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more massive than a hydrogen atom (Hoyle 1994, 1997 p. 407) and nonetheless 100% undetectable (certainly, even with a particle accelerator the size of the visible universe). Their unveiling represents the ultimate aspiration and key-goal of astro-particle physicists because, as believed by many, the universe began in a sea of virtuous Plank particles. Consequently, their discovery would yield valuable information concerning the nature and source of the cosmos itself.

 

To this list we could include false vacuums, magnetic monopoles, strings, superstrings (hidden behind “other dimensions”). Their discovery will be pending for a long time to come.

 

Littlebang, show me one iota of evidence that corroborates the existence of any one of the above and I’ll buy you a free-lunch.

 

The problem is complex but the solution is simple: Instead of searching in the high energy domain, the search should be concentrated in the low energy, low-temperature regime.

 

Is it never to late to do the right thing? The obstacles we must hurdle before the scientific community acknowledges the magnitude of its blunders are enormous. Difficult it will be indeed, save their dogmatic faith, to concede defeat and confess unequivocally that Hoyle, Bondi, Gold, the Burbidge’s, Narlikar, Arp, Alfén, Vigier, Zwicky, Millikan, MacMillan, Nernst and Segal were on the right track—that never had there existed a big bang, Nature forbid! But there is little doubt that change will come as more and more conflicting observations trickles in: it will be a bruising and creative drive to the ultimate theory.

 

Coldcreation

[infamous]

Chacmool, Thanks,

 

 

Observational evidence has opened new avenues that point in the direction of a new cosmological epoch, a contemporary one, in which we will have to survive without dogmatic support and rid our minds of the conventional ‘isms.’ From this innovative starting-point, the idea will prevail that big bang dogmatism had been superfluous all along and that a dialogue with nature is essential for scientific development and human progress.

We need to encourage new and vast possibilities vital to humanities understanding of the universe and its evolutionary trends. So far, so cool.

 

Coldcreation

 

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head coldcretion. To rid ourselves of all the contradictions, we will need to strike out with greater imagination and loose the fear that someone of notoriety might disagree with us just to perpetuate their sacred cows.

[coldcreation]

Quote : By Coldcreation

 

There may be no facts that exclude the existence of BHs either. But there is evidence that stars generally do not collapse and disappear.

 

Can you gives us some of that evidence?

 

Check out each of these references, you'll find the evidence you're looking for.

 

Arp, H. 1987, Redshifts and Controversies

 

Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

 

Burbidge, G., Hoyle, F. 1998, ApJ, 509 L1-L3

 

Buta, R., Block, D. L. 2001, A Dust-penetrated Classification Scheme for Bars as Inferred From Their Gravitational Force Fields, ApJ, 550:243-252, 2001 March 20

 

Dermer, C.D., Chiang, J., Bottcher, M. 1999 ApJ, 513:656-668, 1999 March 10 "Fireball Loading and the Blast-Wave Model of Gamma-Ray Bursts."

 

Ginzberg, V.L. 1975, Does Astronomy Need ‘New Physics’? Q. Jl R. Astr. Soc. (1975) 16, 265-281

 

Havas, P. 1993, The General-Relativistic Two-Body Problem and the Einstein-Silberstein Controversy, from The Attraction of Gravitation, New Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies Vol. 5) pp. 90, 91, 117

 

Lagrange, J-L., 1772, Le Problème Des Trois Corps, Œuvres De Lagrange, Œuvres publié par les soins de J-A. Serret, Paris, 1873, 229-325

 

Prigogine, I., 1996, The End of Certainty, Time Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature

 

Sedov L.I. 1983 Macroscopic Theories of Matter and Fields: A Thermodynamic Approach (Preface)

 

White, S.D.M. 1989, Dynamics and Interaction of Galaxies

 

 

 

Something has only just begun

[coldcreation]

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head coldcretion. To rid ourselves of all the contradictions, we will need to strike out with greater imagination and loose the fear that someone of notoriety might disagree with us just to perpetuate their sacred cows.

 

The Ultimate Theory et arrivé...

 

stay tuned

[infamous]

The Ultimate Theory et arrivé...

 

stay tuned

 

I'm all ears, I'm tuned in and ready, I'll be waiting, same time, same station.

[coldcreation]

I'm all ears, I'm tuned in and ready, I'll be waiting, same time, same station.

 

OK, but first, let us consider for a brief moment the holy hope spoken of by Stephen Hawking (1988 pp. 88, 89) when he penned those soul-enthralling words about the force of gravitation exerted on an astronaut in the immediate vicinity of a black hole. He cogitates, deliberately realizing the nonrealistic nature of his prose that gravity would become so strong, “the forces would stretch our astronaut out like spaghetti…it would tear him apart…it would mean that no one’s life would ever be safe: someone might go into the past and kill your father or mother before you were conceived!”

 

What a jolly idea. He even quotes the Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) who said of the entrance of Hell: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” Hawking then adds to Dante’s Inferno: “Anything or anyone who falls through the event horizon will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time.”

 

A beleaguered thought seems blurred by biting wit. Hawking’s writing, often charged, always crosses its wires. Short-circuited, a revealing phrase goes dark.

[infamous]

 

A beleaguered thought seems blurred by biting wit. Hawking’s writing, often charged, always crosses its wires. Short-circuited, a revealing phrase goes dark.

 

I will grant you that absolute evidence for the existence of black holes is yet to be realized. So assuming the obvious tenor of your position on this subject I will relent from trying to prove their existence. Assuming that you are correct about this judgement, how do we overcome the presumed fate for these massive bodies? What system of physical laws will prevent gravity from collapsing these bodies into a singularity?

[coldcreation]

I will grant you that absolute evidence for the existence of black holes is yet to be realized. So assuming the obvious tenor of your position on this subject I will relent from trying to prove their existence. Assuming that you are correct about this judgement, how do we overcome the presumed fate for these massive bodies? What system of physical laws will prevent gravity from collapsing these bodies into a singularity?

 

Hello infamous,

 

It's well known that all the laws of nature break down at a singularity. Physics does not describe what's beyond the event horizon. There is thus something non-physical about BHs.

 

Your question is a very good one: "What system of physical laws will prevent gravity from collapsing these bodies into a singularity?"

 

General relativity is needed for the super-heavy mass and quantum mechanics for the ultra-small size. But there exists no theory of quantum gravity. Even so, I'm not sure that quantum gravity would solve the problem. In brief, the problem is more than just a gravitational one.

 

A singularity therefore violates Pauli's exclusion principle.

 

The uncertainty principle: If matter is packed into a point, a singularity, the location and velocity of all the particles present can be determined: in violation of that principle.

 

General relativity: Einstein’s own cold and calculated view on the inadmissibility of singularities, whether they are point particles, black holes, worm holes, or primordial bang events, was so profound that he published a paper declaring that the Shwarzschild singularity does not appear in nature ‘for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily…because otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.’

 

As for the big bang singularity (this was in a previous mail), Einstein’s last words on the subject were …'One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense’ (from Pais 1982).

 

GR at first appears non-violated and even responsible for BHs. But that argument too is untenable.

 

The problem of singularities infringes upon the very foundation of thermodynamic systems in the evolutionary description connected with the increase of entropy with time. That why Hawking had to re-write the laws of thermodynamic for BHs.

 

The question of BHs existence is a never-ending one, as it all boils down to whether you believe in them or not.

 

A.M. coldcreation

[infamous]

Hello infamous,

 

It's well known that all the laws of nature break down at a singularity. Physics does not describe what's beyond the event horizon. There is thus something non-physical about BHs.

 

So what you'r saying is "there are no physical laws that apply". Then I would ask another question; If we are unable to understand this state in terms of physical laws, "how then can we understand it".

 

Some understanding of this state must preceed our understanding of creation. Even if our universe is eternal and therefore has no beginning, to understand how it could continue we need to understand what happens to this mass, where does it go, will it come back. All very simple questions with very difficult answers.

[coldcreation]

Hello infamous,

 

It's well known that all the laws of nature break down at a singularity. Physics does not describe what's beyond the event horizon. There is thus something non-physical about BHs. So what you'r saying is "there are no physical laws that apply". Then I would ask another question; If we are unable to understand this state in terms of physical laws, "how then can we understand it". Some understanding of this state must preceed our understanding of creation. Even if our universe is eternal and therefore has no beginning, to understand how it could continue we need to understand what happens to this mass, where does it go, will it come back. All very simple questions with very difficult answers.

 

No one knows what happens at the core of a spacetime hole because there is nothing in physics that explains it.

 

I suspect matter does not gravitationally collapse to densities close to forming a spacetime pit. So the question, 'where does the matter go' is obsolete. Matter is ejected throughout interstellar space (novae and supernovae).

 

You write "If we are unable to understand this state in terms of physical laws, "how then can we understand it".

 

It is a strange thing perhaps that man is capable of imagining things that do not exist in the universe, but it is no surprise. BHs are nothing more than a modern-day Mobius strip, an impossible figure that in 3 or 4 dimensions simply does not work.

 

a.m. cc

[infamous]

 

No one knows what happens at the core of a spacetime hole because there is nothing in physics that explains it.

 

 

Granted coldc...., however there is considerable evidence in support of neutron star formation. Assuming that neutron stars exist, how big can they become before the blackhole threshhold is reached? And once they pass this limit, what will their future look like?

 

If on the other hand you disagree that neutron stars exist, what mechanism prevents there formation.

[coldcreation]

 

Granted coldc...., however there is considerable evidence in support of neutron star formation. Assuming that neutron stars exist, how big can they become before the blackhole threshhold is reached? And once they pass this limit, what will their future look like?

 

If on the other hand you disagree that neutron stars exist, what mechanism prevents there formation.

 

neutron stars exist, they are the most dense objects in the univers. BHs ney.

[EWright]

 

neutron stars exist, they are the most dense objects in the univers. BHs ney.

 

You did not answer the question of what happens when the mass of a neutron star becomes too massive to keep from collapsing.

[Little Bang]

He thinks the equations that predict collapse are wrong.

[EWright]

He thinks the equations that predict collapse are wrong.

 

And so he believes that the star then remains stable, or...?