Black Holes

[Little Bang]

I Guess

[infamous]

He thinks the equations that predict collapse are wrong.

 

That may be true Little Bang, I havn't been able to completely understand his theory as yet. One possibility may be that he feels that there is another mechanism at work that prevents this critical stage of compaction to be reached. Like I said, I havn't seen any math on the subject yet and without a mathematical model it is very difficult to define theoritical parameters.

[coldcreation]

yo,

A neutron star remains a neutron star. Eventually it may evolve into a brown massive compact object.

 

I don't think the equations are wrong. I just agree with Einstein's perspective on the singularity problem: that there is no guarantee that nature would allow such an event. And so the equations do not state where, of what the limit it. Pushing the equations to infinity for mass m, or energy e (or even close to infinity) causes the equations to break-down. Something is wrong. Either nature does not allow a spacetime singularity, or the equations are not yet finished, i.e., a precise definition , value and utilization of the cosmological constant, lambda are required to resolve the issue, but not the new lambda responsible for accelerated expansion, something that resemble Einstein's lambda..

 

It is curious that so many people believe in such places as BHs, a place without laws, without general relativity GR or SR, without quantum mechanics, without Pauli's exclusion principle, without, thermodynamics, without time, without space.

 

The new lambda has done more than divide old allies over how best to confront cosmological conundrums. It marks the final collapse of the geometric architecture that had safeguarded inflation (and by inference, the big bang) for the past 25 years. Amid the wreckage of the postwar cosmology, within which the laws of nature had already been flushed down the throat of black hole, only to be barfed back out in the form of Hawking radiation, we now have incoherence and argument.

 

A neutron star remains a neutron star. Eventually it turns into a brown massive compact object.

 

coldc.

[infamous]

 

A neutron star remains a neutron star. Eventually it turns into a brown massive compact object.

 

coldc.

It has been proposed that neutron stars would eventually compact to what is called a quark star. Beyond this, we have no theories except Black holes of which I'm not so confident myself. But something is neccessary to explain the limits that mathematics puts on these compactions or there needs to be a mechanism whereby these limits are not reached. It may be likely that a limit exists prior to the scharzchild limit that could reintroduce this material back into free space. What that limit is, or if that limit truely exists is still up for debate. But unless we can describe this hypothetical limit, black hole formation is inevitable. My gut feeling is that, a limit exists prior to black hole formation, what the features of this limit are, we have no evidence for as yet.

[EWright]

So....

 

1) If BHs don't exist what is at the darkened center of galaxies that also has such a gravitational force that it causes the stars in the center of the galaxy to move/orbit it at such an exceedingly fast rate and why doesn't it admit light?

 

2) Is it possible that blackholes exist, but that they don't form a singularity (assume the deffinition doesn't have to include a singularity). ie, the mechanism mentioned in the previous post is within the Swarzchild radius?

[Little Bang]

I have never seen a BH so therefore I can't say with certainty that they exist. They vast majority of the scientific community seems to think they probably do, so until someone shows some kind of proof that they don't I will assume that they do. No one at this forum has ever seen an electron but we all believe that it exists and the reason that we do is because we have all seen it's effects in the macroworld. A BH is kind of like that, it's effects are visible and the math predicts it's existance.

[Aki]

So....

 

1) If BHs don't exist what is at the darkened center of galaxies that also has such a gravitational force that it causes the stars in the center of the galaxy to move/orbit it at such an exceedingly fast rate and why doesn't it admit light?

 

 

Can't it not be some sort of dark matter that radiates like a black hole?

[Little Bang]

BH's don't radiate except as the theoretical Hawking radiation.

[EWright]

Can't it not be some sort of dark matter that radiates like a black hole?

 

My word people! There is even less evidence for Dark Matter and not even a formula to predict a specific entity for it, as there is for the singularity of a black hole. If you can't believe in an unseen black hole, why believe in dark matter? :shrug:

[Erasmus00]

Can't it not be some sort of dark matter that radiates like a black hole?

 

The way black holes radiate is called hawking radiation. What happens is two particles fluctuate into existance near the horizon, one falls in, one manages to escape. To an observer outside the whole, it looks like these escaping particles are radiating out of the hole. It is doubtful anything other than a black hole could utilize such a method, as only black holes have horizons.

 

As to dark matter radiating at all, the deffinition of dark matter is matter we can't detect yet. As such, if it is radiating it must be too faint for us to detect.

-Will

[coldcreation]

The existence or not of BHs is a question of belief, Nothing more. I do not believe in them. I am not alone. Einstein did not believe in them either, neither did Fred Hoyle, and many others.

 

Rotational curves of stars orbiting a galaxy have other interpretations, so do high energy jets have other interpretations. BHs are mathematical aberrations, pure inventions of the creative human mind, destructive, invisible, superpowerful, superdense, and superspecuous.

 

As for Hawking radiation: The defining theme in Stephen’s papacy was the match between faith and science, the explainer of uncertainty (pure anthropopathism). The explainer, though only up to a certain point.

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

The existence or not of BHs is a question of belief, Nothing more. I do not believe in them. I am not alone. Einstein did not believe in them either, neither did Fred Hoyle, and many others.

 

Rotational curves of stars orbiting a galaxy have other interpretations, so do high energy jets have other interpretations. BHs are mathematical aberrations, pure inventions of the creative human mind, destructive, invisible, superpowerful, superdense, and superspecuous.

 

As for Hawking radiation: The defining theme in Stephen’s papacy was the match between faith and science, the explainer of uncertainty (pure anthropopathism). The explainer, though only up to a certain point.

 

Coldcreation

 

So then Cc, what are your views on the potential for worm holes, white holes, the extra demensions of this universe demanded by string theory, other demension as in other universes, the edge and/or shape of the universe, dark matter, dark energy, alien life, and the existance of God?

[infamous]

The existence or not of BHs is a question of belief, Nothing more. I do not believe in them. I am not alone. Einstein did not believe in them either, neither did Fred Hoyle, and many others.

 

 

Coldcreation

My confidence in these mathematical anomalies is also in question. I would like to pose however a few questions to the members of this thread. Because math indicates a limit for gravitational compaction, what mechanism could we speculate about that could preclude this event? If none exists, blackhole formation is inevitable. However, even if the Scharzchild limit is achieved, a singularity may not be the final result. Might this compaction reach another limit after the Scharzchild limit that could reintroduce this mass back into free space? The equation r=2Gm/c^2 gives the Scharzchild limit. Is it possible that even after this point, where light is restrained from escape, that as further compaction occurs a point will be reached beyond which any more matter can be absorbed? And if this process is occuring in our universe, how often might we have occasion to witness it. If our universe is eternal, as I believe, this may be one event in the eternal history of the universe we commonly refer to as the Big Bang. Maybe it wasn't really a Big Bang after all, maybe it was just one of many smaller whimpers? The universe, the battle ground between Gravity and Entropy, where neither can win.

[Little Bang]

The question you pose is unanswerable. we can never get data from the area of interest. But if we presuppose that the universe is infinite and will last forever then there would have to be some mechanism to get thst matter back out of the BH.

[coldcreation]

So then Cc, what are your views on the potential for worm holes, white holes, the extra demensions of this universe demanded by string theory, other demension as in other universes, the edge and/or shape of the universe, dark matter, dark energy, alien life, and the existance of God?

 

Nil across the board. Zero: all of the above.

 

As for the shape of the visible universe: hyperbolic, see thread titled Redshift z. An infinite universe has no shape geometricaly speaking. The apparent shape is only relative to each observer.

[infamous]

The question you pose is unanswerable. we can never get data from the area of interest. But if we presuppose that the universe is infinite and will last forever then there would have to be some mechanism to get thst matter back out of the BH.

Absolutely true Little Bang, at least for the time being it is unanswerable. I can nevertheless, imagine a day when mathematics will find a solution to this possibility. Not withstanding, the physical evidence may as you say be forever out of reach. But even this may one day be also possible, never say never.

[Erasmus00]

My confidence in these mathematical anomalies is also in question. I would like to pose however a few questions to the members of this thread. Because math indicates a limit for gravitational compaction, what mechanism could we speculate about that could preclude this event? If none exists, blackhole formation is inevitable. However, even if the Scharzchild limit is achieved, a singularity may not be the final result.

 

The reason many believe GR fails is because it predicts a singularity. It is believed, by all, that the singularity shows up because to handle small objects requires a quantum theory, and GR is not a quantum theory.

-Will