Black body radiation is suggesting thermal equilibrium with the surroundings.

Jerry Decker The idea of black holes having a temperature has caused huge conceptual problems.

Looked at from a purely General Relativity perspective, the event horizon is simply a position in space defining the boundary between two distinct regions of space caused by the gravitational effect of the mass within the black hole.

The idea of radiation coming from the event horizon is based on a false physical derivation from quantum theory.

So black holes do not have a temperature and do not radiate. Matter and radiation can pass through the event horizon in the inward direction. This also applies to CMB radiation.

Richard

"Blackholes"??!! It is surprising that people have "pictures", "proofs" and continue to engage in scholastic discussion; when Albert Einstein himself in a long-ignored published paper in 1939 (link Below), emphatically dismissed the possibility of "Back Holes" even in theory! The following is a copy of his conclusion at the end of this robust and lengthy publication: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

Abdul Malek Hi Abdul. As you might expect, I am going to make a strong case for the existence of black holes. I looked at the paper that you reference: On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitational masses, By Albert Einstein, Received May 10th 1939.

The paper uses the Einstein equations of General Relativity with polar coordinates that predicts the possibility of an event horizon at the Schwartzschild radius given by GM/c^2. He is not saying that the existence of an event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. He is making the conclusion that it is not possible to create the right physical conditions for a black hole to form.

In the light of the observational evidence since the paper was written there is strong evidence that there are physical conditions in astronomical objects for black holes to form. Firstly the observation of stars moving close to the centre of the Milky Way galaxy show the existence of a massive object with a mass of about 4 million solar masses. This object is itself not visible but its gravitational effect is clear.

Secondly the evidence from LIGO of black hole mergers which result in gravitational waves which are detected by the LIGO detectors. These detected black holes are typically greater than 4 solar masses and less than 100 solar masses. The size measurement can be derived from the gravitational wave.

Observations of galaxies in general suggest that there is a black hole at the centre of each galaxy and in some cases the mass of the central black hole is of the order of billions of solar masses.

So in answer to your post and this discussion I would say that black holes do exist but they do not have a temperature. A black hole temperature is not a prediction of General Relativity. (see my previous post in this thread).

Richard

Dear Prof. Richard Lewis : Thanks for responding to my post. But I am sorry to express my unwillingness to enter into a discussion on this issue, now. As you know I am a heretic and faced much abuse during the past few years of my presence in RG. I think that I have exhausted my efforts to make a case for a dialectical approach to modern natural science in general; – theoretical physics and cosmology in particular. So, I reduced my participation in RG to a minimum extent.

Einstein’s contributions form the fundamental basis of modern official and mainstream theoretical physics and cosmology and also the most intense subjects of discussion in RG. But I think official and mainstream theoretical physics very selectively and subjectively, accepts/uses as much of Einstein’s works and views, which is convenient and acceptable and ignores or rejects the rest. I just wished to cite this very significant work of Einstein and his well-considered views on “black holes”; which I feel is totally ignored by official physics. Einstein justifiably considered the very concept of “black hole” as irrational, because it violates his SR!

In any case, I reject modern mainstream and official theoretical physics and cosmology in their entirety. I also reject the “proofs” of the cosmic theories and objects like “black holes”, dark matter/energy, “big bang” etc. I consider all these as subjective with confirmation bias - contrived, make-belief and deceptive tricks; (consciously or unconsciously) lured by the promise of fame, fortune and funds.

In my view, Newton took a wrong turn in extraterrestrial and celestial physics with his one-sided theory of universal gravitational attraction. All the mystical phenomena and objects of “Big Bang” creation, black/dark etc. entities are inexorable outcome of Newton’s axiomatic and unrealistic theory of gravitation; which along with Galileo’s “Free Fall” in only valid on or near the surface of a celestial body; where gravitational attraction is the most dominant factor. Einstein corrupted theoretical physics with his “thought experiments” and inconsistent Kantian subjective Idealism of logical/ mathematical categories cooked-up in individual brains and imposing these on Nature and objective reality. Kant clearly stated that objective reality is an “unknowable thing-in-itself” and warned philosophy to abate its claim of any knowledge of reality. Kant’s logical categories were meant only to deal with the phenomena (not the noumena or reality); which man perceives through his senses. Einstein indiscriminately employed his mathematical categories to both phenomena and noumena (of objective reality); which has given rise to the paradoxes, confusion, intense debates in post Einsteinian physics and cosmology.

RG reflects this malaise in modern mainstream and official theoretical physics and cosmology. Following Einstein and his “thought experiments”, every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary can brain-cook their own thought experiments, logical/mathematical categories; which s/he can claim to be best (for them) of all other claims; but none of which have any relevance to objective reality! This can lead only to endless and meaningless scholasticism! The malaise lies in Einstein’s method itself – you abstract ideas and concepts from sensuous objects of reality, like “spacetime”, “black hole” etc., for examples; but then you forget that these are mere abstraction and treat them as if these are sensuous objects that have tangible and sensuous mechanical, physical, metric etc. properties, like the "bending" of "spacetime"!!

If interested please see the following question I raised in a RG thread:

What is Physics and What is Metaphysics?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Physics_and_what_is_Metaphysics

1. Galileo, Newton, Einstein vs (dialectically corresponding) Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel: Which group was on the right side of science, but got the wrong side of history?

2. After Copernicus abolished medieval Geocentric cosmology; is modern cosmology of Newton and Einstein anything other than a Geocentric one?

3. What is at the root of the crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology?

4. Was Hegel justified when he said, “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honour, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”.

Best regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek Hi Abdul. It was very interesting to have the reference to the work of Albert Einstein and it only goes to show that even the greatest scientist can be mistaken when making assumptions about the natural world.

I do think there is a great need for philosophical input to the scientific process, particularly at present.

I do think there is a crisis in physics and cosmology at present which I would characterise as:

1. Increasing evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

2. A realisation that quantum mechanics gives a method of predicting experimental results. It does not provide an understanding of the fundamental nature of radiation and matter.

So if I were to summarise my own world view it would be:

1. The general theory of relativity is correct and describes the properties of the medium of space.

2. Light travels as a wave in the medium so special relativity cannot be correct.

3. The Big Bang theory is not correct and a new theory is required which is based on a finite universe with a space boundary.

4. Quantum theory and QFT should only be used to predict the results of experiments. An understanding of the fundamental nature of matter requires a different approach.

5. The standard model of particle physics does not provide a good physical description of matter. For example a proton is three wavelengths of a looped wave in Spacetime, not three quarks.

I think we are in agreement that there is a crisis but I am operating from a world view which consistently and comprehensively describes the large scale and the small scale starting only from the idea of space as a medium.

This would be very satisfying to a philosopher such as Thales of Miletus. He believed that the universe must be comprised of one single thing. For very logical reasons he thought it must be water.

We would now be able to tell him that the one single thing is the medium of space. All radiation is a wave in the medium and all matter particles are looped waves in the medium.

You are right, there is a crisis but it is a very exciting time for newcomers to physics and cosmology when old ideas are swept aside and the scope for new research is immense.

Richard