For those who take that view - can you then please walk us through what happens in the wake of a massive supernova burst ? All the scenarios I see lead back to a black hole, and I'd be really interested in a cogent alternative scenario.
In the news:
Quote
Monster Black Hole Spins at Half the Speed of Light
By by Nola Taylor , Redd, SPACE.com Contributor March 5, 2014
For the first time, astronomers have directly measured how fast a black hole spins, clocking its rotation at nearly half the speed of light.
Unquote
(The rest of the article is on line)
It is widely believed that supernova occur due to runaway thermonuclear reactions or core collapse. The actual event is therefore independent of the final state with only a few paths leading to black holes in modern theory.
I've developed several methods for determining the space-time metric of composite objects on a per-particle basis. The single particle solution is similar to the Schwarzschild metric, where the central assumptions are general covariance, length contraction and time dilation. In fact, all energy emitted from a system is predicted to be strictly in the form of electromagnetic and neutral currents; i.e. the theory is highly testable in terms of the continued null detection of gravitational waves and is directly compatible with classical electrodynamics/quantum theory. Regardless, event horizon cannot arise in this formulation without an infinite amount of classical energy, implying black holes instead consist of highly degenerate quark matter rather than their current interpretation.
Michael, the funny thing about the speed of light, when seen from outside and not from its front, is - it's finite.
A straightforward reckoning yields a large but finite mass value for an escape velocity equal to the speed of light from that mass, when seen from an outside observer.
This simple calculation defines rather simply what a Black Hole is - something whose mass is equal to, or bigger than, the minimum that leads to the escape velocity from it, at some elevation, being equal to the speed of light. That elevation is defined as the event horizon aka the Schwarzschild radius.
I do not know how this can be abolished, or for that matter how the mechanism of the formation of Black Holes following supermassive Supernova bursts, can be dismissed.
In separate threads here on RG, many people with credentials have recently stated flatly that quote 'BH do not exist'.
Now of course there are quantum effects - leading to the so-called Hawking radiation etc. This does not mean that BHs do not exist.
I am quite open to new ideas and/or interpretations of reality, but I simply do not see how the two issues above can be circumvented, which is the reason why I posted this question.
Dear H.Cris
This is not my area of research but I read some comments about the black hole and transcribe them:
Physicist Stephen Hawking famously dedicating a lifetime studying the mysteries of objects known as black holes . And now he says that they probably do not exist
The great controversy is that Hawking , given their limitations , features an article with no mathematical reasoning to support its conclusions . It is clear that the difficulties imposed by their disease ( amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ) make impracticable long and detailed studies . The problem is that Hawking himself has demonstrated , combining quantum effects and relativity theory that black holes emit radiation a subtle , until it evaporates completely. As she would not like carrying out information that fell in there and in the end the black hole disappears. Physicists do not like it when things disappear .Absence of event horizons means no black holes - to schemes which light can not escape to infinity , "says Hawking. Understanding the physics of black holes requires combining relativity and quantum mechanics Serve as point . starting to think about the other physical matter and seek a solution to an important paradox in physics.
Graham, the mechanism of the Hawking radiation is very straightforward, and it is crystal clear that only a BH with infinite radius would not evaporate.
This being said, it's not because a BH evaporates that it does not exist, unless we're playing on words. The existence of the Hawking radiation does not 'wipe out' the concept of a BH .....
The size of any BH is determined at any instant by a competition between accretion of matter from its environment and evaporation. The latter (evaporation) ranges from slow at large radii, to fast at small radii (even explosive at the end when the BH radius becomes very small). The former (accretion) is significant at large BH radii and smaller at small radii.
The radius of the event horizon varies at every instant depending upon these two counteracting factors, but it does not begin to mean that the event horizon does not exist....
Chris, I haven’t quite pin-pointed where singularities and event horizon arise from within Einstein’s field equations, but they appear to have something to do with not working on a per particle basis.
We know that particles are essentially localized fields/waves whether in the classical electrodynamics sense or quantum mechanics. Furthermore, these fields must be locally invariant with respect to the space-time metric. For a simple example, we can determine how the field of a single electron must vary with respect to the Schwarzschild frame of reference (or distant observer) to remain invariant as it moves into a larger gravitational potential. With this, it is possible to determine how the field of each particle in a composite object will vary in order to become invariant with respect to the space-time metric induced by all other particles under consideration.
Strangely, event horizon or singularities cannot arise with this method as each particle becomes more point-like as classical energy or density increases to infinity. My formulation is slightly different from Einstein’s, i.e. the space-time metric is locally isotropic and defined by vacuum energy density (a scalar field proportional to gravitational potential through use of the first, second and third fundamental forms). The main disagreement I have with the modern perspective is commonly referred to as quantum or space-time foam. It should not be virtual particles that induce Planck-scale fluctuations of the space-time metric, but instead Planck-scale fluctuations of space itself that defines vacuum energy density and thus the space-time metric. In other words, points in space are vibrating back and forth analogous to a 3D spring-mass system. This is essentially the only physical explanation for matter/fields without resorting to purely mathematical constructs.
In regards to supernova, type Ia are believed to be due to thermonuclear runaway. Core collapse however is theorized to be from the formation of an iron core, which is unable to support the outer layers from a lack of beneficial fusion. The outer layers then contract and rebound producing a supernova. Depending on the mass of the star, conventional general relativity predicts that either a neutron star or black hole will be the end product. However, a supernova can theoretically occur regardless if event horizons exist in nature. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for the application of Einstein’s field theory, there would be many degenerate states beyond what is currently plausible. With QCD, one would expect such objects to enter various stages of quark degeneracy including color superconductivity after extensive cooling. Where does the degeneracy end? Well you could imagine the difficulty of forcing an infinite amount of energy density into a single region of a classical mass-spring type system, which happens to be the only way to produce an event horizon in this formulation.
I think the question of the existence or non-existence of black holes can be settled unambiguously, only by observational tests of the validity of General Relativity (GR) in the strong gravity regime which the "Event Horizon Telescope (EHT)" project proposes to do. This telescope array will directly image the event horizon of the supermassive black hole in our Milky Way galaxy, Sagittarius A* , combining data from VLBI stations around the Earth. If the image of the event horizon silhouette matches with that proposed by theory, it will prove the validity of GR. Please refer the following links for the EHT Project.
http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope
Thanks, Biplob, I was about to find the link to a related BBC documentary, see link to YT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCxCCfD-SJ4
A null detection of gravitational waves with next generation experiments (advanced LIGO 2014-2015) will test the validity of Einstein’s theory long before EHT. In 2013, the average probability for gravitational waves not existing was already between 31% and 87% (above 6 sigma before detection rates were revised by nearly 3 orders of magnitude). Furthermore, the only sufficient direct test of event horizon that I can think of would be measuring the redshift at which in-falling material terminates. If event horizons exist then the redshift should not terminate at a finite value; this of course requires high precision observations over a wide range of frequencies. There are however several cosmological tests that indicate event horizon are incompatible with observations.
If gravitational waves do not exist shown by experimental results, does this really mean that GR is invalid? After all, the waves are only one part of the solution of the equations.
I personally would be quite disappointed if gravitational waves would be proven nonexistent. I my thesis (30+ years ago) I showed that the degree of forbiddenness for beta decays in the field of strong gravitational waves increases by 1 - and that it's observable. Painful pencil-and-paper calculations in those times without Matlab and Mathematica. No waves, no observations ever possible.
I don't think a failure to detect gravitational waves would mean GR is invalid, but instead that certain types of theories would be ruled out. Some aspects of GR are firmly verified through experimental observations such as the deflection of light and time dilation. However, conventional black holes (event horizon) and gravitational waves have yet to be confirmed.
The question I have been pondering is whether the existence of event horizon are unique to theories that also predict gravitational waves. If one could prove this mathematically then a null detection of gravitational waves would insist that event horizon are non-existent. We see that similar geometric field theories such as Brans-Dicke also predict gravitational waves and event horizon. Yet the model I have developed from classical electrodynamics and quantum theory works on a per particle basis and predicts neither. They therefore do not appear to be related to basic assumptions (general covariance, time dilation, ect.), but instead from applying the Einstein and stress-energy tensor together in a field equation. We know that analogous formulations in classical electrodynamics also produce waves, so this would likely be the issue if confirmed.
There are no evidences to prove black holes are true, only pulsars or magnetars have been found in the remains of supernova explosions. Even the so called supermassive black holes can spurt jets of massive particles.
So there is nothing new in Hawking's paper unless he can provide a new theory to replace GR.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Deny the existence of black holes after many observations and a little lack of seriousness.
Spending on telescopes brought a series of very interesantes astrosfisicos data to analyze.
About the publication of Dr. Hawking I admire him as a person but strongly disagree with your work starting by the existence of radiation proposed by his work in 1974.
The paper presents a model of chaotic quantum vacuum level of the universe.
However if this chaos not be the outgoing model is wrong!
The work I have done show that the quantum vacuum and a crystalline fluid.
According to my work place allowed derive the relativity of quantum mechanics with simple algebraic equations!
In the same study demonstrate equations for various spoken constants of physics, starting at only 4 numeric values and that allows algebraic equations resulting calculations between maintaining the absolute accuracy of the calculations.
Doing a little analysis of these equations see the impossibility of applying the simplification of considering various mathematical constant with a fixed value of 1, the so-called natural constants.
It was clear that this is impossible for you use it to analyze issues of quantum gravity and therefore leads to a wrong result in the work of Hawking.
And worse if my work is right in 15 months the LHC turned the earth into a black hole so I know if my equations are right in 13 months.
because when the LHC reaches 13.07 Tev not issue the usual shower particles but created a magnetic monopole which functions as the condensation nuclei of a black hole.
So what if I'm sure I'll still have time Diser found that the final theory dreamed up by Einstein and also know that in about 60 days I will have disappeared along with all mankind!
the dice are thrown!
Dear Arno
What is your interpretation to the general theory of relativity and mass effect on the space-time?
For atomic clocks currently alert by gravitational effect, can measure the center of gravity of the Earth with an accuracy of a few centimeters.
And the calculations are fully consistent with Einstein's theory.
And therefore to be expected that when the mass and very large actually occurs a singularity of space-time.
Even if Einstein had not succeeded detail of these objects inside the space through telescopes lens of gravity and X-ray jets indirectly indicate the existence of some kind of anomaly.
What is your proposition for these anomalies?
Not disagreeing just have to demonstrate why we disagree.
Do not agree?
In the news:
Quote
Monster Black Hole Spins at Half the Speed of Light
By by Nola Taylor , Redd, SPACE.com Contributor March 5, 2014
For the first time, astronomers have directly measured how fast a black hole spins, clocking its rotation at nearly half the speed of light.
Unquote
(The rest of the article is on line)
- Badges
- Science topic