Astronomy / Space Black Holes do not exist per new mathematical proof!

http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

Well in my conception a Black Hole is a huge mass that has such intense energy that it absorbs everything but it converts matter to energy in Gamma Ray bursts and has no singularity or 'door to other places' behind it. So I think this type of object may still exist, just not in the current mystical incarnation. TBD far in the future I suppose.

Article quote begins here: Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist

The term black hole is entrenched in the English language. Can we let it go?

(Chapel Hill, N.C. – Sept. 23, 2014) Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist.

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

“I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.”

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It’s the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

“Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,” said Mersini-Houghton. “And that’s a big deal.”

-Carolina-

Mersini-Houghton’s ArXiv papers:
Approximate solutions:http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525
Exact solutions:http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837
 
So we'll go back to calling them gravistars then. The math might show that singularities and complete collapse don't happen, but that doesn't make those very dense, small points that other stars orbit go away. And based on their orbits, we can determine their mass and gravity, and their escape velocity exceeds c.

Now I've always held that it's easier to see a black hole as in a state denser than a neutron star with its escape velocity preventing any radiation outwards, but still there, just like any visible star would be.
 
I find it hard to accept the math, no matter how elegant and fitting it seems to be, for the simple reason that we have seen/detected/measured the black hole at the center of our own galaxy.

From the orbital periods and masses of the stars slingshotting around this non emitting point source of supermassiveness (its mass computed and verified by the manner in which these stars are slung around just so- to match other means of measuring its mass so perfectly), to the gas cloud that did a near mis swipe around the same point, saying that all the mass is not in fact right there seems ludicrous.

It would be like saying "gravity doesnt exist, its just an illusion of causality, and requires an intelligent observer to even work; so the fact we see stars slingshotting around it is merely because we are watching it"

I think what the linked paper is more talking about and eliminating is the "Hole" part of Black holes... there is no "other side" or "opening" down in the center of those event horizons, and this is perfectly acceptable for me.
 
I find it a bit difficult to conclude, from the theory as described, that Black Homes don't exist.

I've read about Hawking Radiation and its implications. What this theory seems to suggest is that the emission of Hawking Radiation will necessarily lead to a loss of mass of sufficient magnitude that it could seriously deplete the mass of the black hole.

Current theory however, already suggests that black holes will eventually evaporate, which is essentially the same thing. Indeed this is an essential components of the current thinking on the fourth of the five stages in the life of the universe.

But that is a long way away and very different from saying they don't exist.

I'm sure the poster was well intentioned, but it seems the paper is postulate at this point. It sounds suspiciously like an attention seeking headline rather than as serious alternate explanation to the basis of modern physics.

Sadly, these sort of papers are all too common from American educational establishments. These students need funding, they get it with these sorts of theatrics which attract the attention of well meaning rich people looking for an interesting tax loss.

With peer review, the theory may be polished up and published again. This does happen. But on the basis of what has been presented, this probably won't be one of those times.
 
Even if it's peer reviewed - it doesn't mean it's right, just that no one has found any glaring errors.
The maths may be fine, but the assumptions wrong. There are lots of papers out there looking at weird universes and stars through maths, but you can only go so far before you need an observation to confirm it.
 
Back
Top Bottom