Black Holes Don't Exist, Say Physicists

[junglelord]

Yes, an excellent way to start the day, an email from Stephen.

[Lloyd]

The equations Stephen talks about are a little over my head for the most part. He gives formulae for radius, circumference, spherical area and spherical volume, which I'm familiar with in the simpler forms. But in the Schwarzschild[?], Droste and other equations, I don't understand why Stephen says "r" is not a radius or distance etc. He says it's a Gaussian curvature, but doesn't that mean radius of curvature? And doesn't radius of curvature refer to the radius of a circle that would be generated by extension of a curved line, which latter acts as an arc of the circle? And since these formulae relate to spheres, it seems that the radius of curvature would be equal to the radius of the sphere. I don't defend black holes and I question so-called singularities, but I don't understand Stephen's proof that "r" doesn't refer to the radius of a sphere as well as its radius of curvature. If Gaussian curvature isn't a radius of curvature, what is it?

[GaryN]

I previously posted:

Im wondering if anyone out there can locate any information related to the method used to determine the direction of the flow of matter in the black hole 'jets'? I have searched the 'net with little success, and have e-mailed some 'ask the expert' sites, but no answer so far.

I finally did get a reply, but not a solid answer. The movie seems to show an outward flow to the front, but perhaps an inward flow at the back of the disk. In links from the page, there is a metion of the sampling rate, which could affect the observation. Not sure if this has been previously posted.

Dear Curious,

Jets are narrow, fast flows of hot gas from certain astronomical objects.
The direction and speed of the gas flow can usually be determined by the Doppler effect. For this we measure the wavelength of particular emission lines in the gas of the jet. By comparing the measured wavelengths with the wavelengths the gas would emit at if it were standing still (rest wavelength) you can calculate the speed of the gas in the jet and determine if it is coming towards us or away from us and at what velocity.
Another way to measure the speed of a jet is to observe it over many years. A jet usually contains several clouds of denser gas. By combining many observations you can observe the clouds of gas moving away from the central object. You can view an example of such a movie here:

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~cwalker/M87/index.html

Regards

Marc Berthoud

[biknewb]

Another way to measure the speed of a jet is to observe it over many years. A jet usually contains several clouds of denser gas. By combining many observations you can observe the clouds of gas moving away from the central object. You can view an example of such a movie here:

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~cwalker/M87/index.html

Regards

Marc Berthoud

Thanks GaryN, great movie!
That object looks more like a flag waving in the wind or smoke strongly being blown off a cigar.
Doesn't look like a "garden hose" jet to me... Not in a long shot.

[Grey Cloud]

Another way to measure the speed of a jet is to observe it over many years. A jet usually contains several clouds of denser gas. By combining many observations you can observe the clouds of gas moving away from the central object. You can view an example of such a movie here:

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~cwalker/M87/index.html

Regards

Marc Berthoud

Thanks GaryN, great movie!
That object looks more like a flag waving in the wind or smoke strongly being blown off a cigar.
Doesn't look like a "garden hose" jet to me... Not in a long shot.

I agree, it reminded me of smoke caught in a draught or side-wind. [That was after I had spent several seconds looking at the still image by mistake ]

[Lloyd]

* I found this definition: Gaussian curvature or Gauss curvature of a point on a surface is the product of the principal curvatures, κ1 and κ2, of the given point.

From left to right: a surface of negative Gaussian curvature (hyperboloid), a surface of zero Gaussian curvature (cylinder), and a surface of positive Gaussian curvature (sphere).
* The article there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature helps explain some of the terms that Stephen uses.

[Osmosis]

It's amazing, how much the "jet" looks like a comet.

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

There are various definitions of black holes.

The Black hole with a singularity does not exist.

So how are you defining a black hole?

[Anaconda]

Hi Harry Costas:

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

There are various definitions of black holes.

The Black hole with a singularity does not exist.

So how are you defining a black hole?

In my discussion/debate with "modern" astronomers, who subscribe to so-called "black holes", my point has been that "black holes" are NOT rigorously quantified, or in other words, "black holes" are not defined, or as you suggest have multiple definitions, which in my opinion reveals "black holes" as purely a construct of Man's imagination: The thinking goes like this: "There must be primal 'movers and shakers' of the Universe, responsible for the great structures of the Cosmos, gravity is our only 'tool' or dynamic for these 'drivers' of the Universe, so how could gravity be employed to act as the central driving force of the Universe? Answer: since gravity is a 'weak force', concentrate the gravity in some object by concentrating the matter to some high level."

It turns out the 'concentration' must be to unimaginable levels of density of matter -- such that not even light can escape (of course, it's not even known whether gravity does effect radiation, or even if it can effect radiation, if densities of matter can be achieved that literally over-power light). The little brother of "black holes", so-called "neutron" stars are theorized to have densities of 100 million tons of matter in a cubic centimeter, about the size of the tip of your average pinky finger!

Harry, the mathematical "singularity" black hole was and is the foundation for subscribing to "black holes". Review the popular websites and even Wikipedia and the "singularity" is the common definition. Only astronomers that have been repeatedly confronted with the mathematical ABSURDITY of the "singularity" definition of "black holes" have various "back-up" definitions (and they tend to keep these "back-up" defnitions quiet, unless necessity demands they be put forth in a debate they are losing). And all this "theorizing" was done before any meaningful observation & measurement was carried out.

The ABSURDITY of mathematical "black holes" was dreamed up -- and that's the right word, "dreamed", because at the time, astronomers had no other force to "drive" the Universe. Electromagnetism, while known and proposed as an active dynamic in space (Birkeland and others) by a minority of scientists, was shunted aside and ignored and gravity was harnessed and enthroned to do all the work in the Universe, thus the mathematical construct of "black holes" was born.

Multiple definitions of the underpinning physics of so-called "black holes" is a tell tale signal that the "black hole" hypothesis (there isn't enough confirmational observations & measurements to call it a theory) has failed.

That current astronomy is controlled by the "black hole" paradigm, where proposing "snipe hunts" for various "black hole" configurations gets you telescope time and funding (and published in "respectable" peer-reviewed journals), is evidence of how sick "modern" astronomy is at this point.

(Papers on various dynamics of "black holes", whether "merging", or "kicked out", or what not, are really public proposals for telescope time and funding, which get published in peer-reviewed journals. If your paper gets published then you can "make the rounds" to the various telescopes and hold up your published paper and say, "This idea has merit, see a peer-reviewed journal thinks my idea is more than just mathematical fiction, let me have telescope time to look for it." And because the journals are peer-reviewed by other people who subscribe to the "black hole" construct, your paper, if you tow the line on various substructure black hole "theories" that have already been woven into the accepted "black hole" construct "tapistry", you have a good chance of getting your paper accepted & published and then you can "make the rounds" for telescope time and funding.)

All of the above is done without the benefit of observation & measurement -- in fact it is done to get the opportunity for observation & measurement. But mostly, the only people who can "gin up" the mathematical constructs necessary to get the telescope time are pure mathematicians -- people who can convince themselves that if an equation can be formulated, it must correspond to a real physical object -- which leads to a freakish failure to connect theories to actual observation & measurement.

And even worse, if the observations & measurements that do actually get recorded don't support the "snipe hunt" proposals, they tend to get ignored, or like forcing a square peg in a round hole, the theory gets "tweaked" to fit the observations & measurements because in a process like the above to get telescope time and funding, there is a very strong 'confirmational bias' to find what the "snipe hunt" was looking for.

So-called "black hole" theory has become a canker sore on the "modern" astronomical community that is retarding real progress in understanding the Universe.

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Please excuse my posting of links, some people do not like them.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong.

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes
May-07
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007FoPh...37..632S
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k372727p37867755/

According to prevailing theory, relativistic degenerate stars with masses beyond the Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer–Volkoff (OV) limits cannot achieve hydrostatic equilibrium through either electron or neutron degeneracy pressure and must collapse to form stellar black holes. In such end states, all matter and energy within the Schwarzschild horizon descend into a central singularity. Avoidance of this fate is a hoped-for outcome of the quantization of gravity, an as-yet incomplete undertaking. Recent studies, however, suggest the possibility that known quantum processes may intervene to arrest complete collapse, thereby leading to equilibrium states of macroscopic size and finite density. I describe here one such process which entails pairing (or other even-numbered association) of neutrons (or constituent quarks in the event of nucleon disruption) to form a condensate of composite bosons in equilibrium with a core of degenerate fermions. This process is analogous to, but not identical with, the formation of hadron Cooper pairs that give rise to neutron superfluidity and proton superconductivity in neutron stars. Fermion condensation to composite bosons in a star otherwise destined to collapse to a black hole facilitates hydrostatic equilibrium in at least two ways: (1) removal of fermions results in a decrease in the Fermi level which stiffens the dependence of degeneracy pressure on fermion density, and (2) phase separation into a fermionic core surrounded by a self-gravitating condensate diminishes the weight which must be balanced by fermion degeneracy pressure. The outcome is neither a black hole nor a neutron star, but a novel end state, a “fermicon star,” with unusual physical properties.

I want to know what is the final phase of matter that a so called black hole can have.

[Anaconda]

Hi Harry Costas:

I appreciate your presentation and linkage of the abstract.

Let's analyze this abstract, shall we?

According to prevailing theory, relativistic degenerate stars with masses beyond the Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer–Volkoff (OV) limits cannot achieve hydrostatic equilibrium through either electron or neutron degeneracy pressure and must collapse to form stellar black holes.

So first, this is not based on observation & measurement, but rather on pure mathematical speculation.

Why do I say speculation?

Because it is theory unrelated to any observation & measurement (actually it is only a hypothesis, regardless of the famous names attached). Has any of the quoted statement been observed in the field or in the laboratory?

No.

In such end states, all matter and energy within the Schwarzschild horizon descend into a central singularity.

See, here in this abstract, we see the use of the mathematical concept "singularity". A "singularity" is an infinite density in an infinitely small volume. "Infinitity" by definition can't be quantified. And, indeed, some mathematicians/astronomers will allow that a "singularity" is undefined.

Science doesn't even know if there is a "schwarzchild horizon". Again, it's never been observed & measured.

The proper Scientific Method is to make observations & measurements of an actual object, process, or structure first and then offer a hypothesis of how it works or how it is put together. You must have a physical exhibit that has already been at least observed before you can offer a hypothesis for how it is put together or works.

A priori mathematical theoretical constructs are inherently subject to error. A priori means, "before observation & measurement".

Avoidance of this fate is a hoped-for outcome of the quantization of gravity, an as-yet incomplete undertaking.

First, gravity has not been subject to successful quantization, so I'm not sure this sentence adds anything at all to the abstract. Second, how would Man's ability fo quantitize gravity (identify the gravity particle, a dubious proposition in itself) change the physical process around a Schwarzchild horizon, if it did actually exist -- it seems nonsensical to me.

Recent studies, however, suggest the possibility that known quantum processes may intervene to arrest complete collapse, thereby leading to equilibrium states of macroscopic size and finite density.

Again, how can there be "known quantum processes" when in fact, there have never been any observations & measurements that varify ANY of this abstract? And notice this sentence is the sleight of hand, change of definition sentence.

...equilibrium states of macroscopic size and finite density.

What does this mean?

This is the "transformation" sentence where "singularity" with its problematic definition of "infinite' density and "infinitely" small volume is miraculously changed like a catapillar changes a butterfly to a defined volume and defined density.

Supposedly the proceeding parts of the abstract provide some clue how "infinite" gets to "defned". But it is not clear to me how this is done.

I describe here one such process which entails pairing (or other even-numbered association) of neutrons (or constituent quarks in the event of nucleon disruption) to form a condensate of composite bosons in equilibrium with a core of degenerate fermions. This process is analogous to, but not identical with, the formation of hadron Cooper pairs that give rise to neutron superfluidity and proton superconductivity in neutron stars. Fermion condensation to composite bosons in a star otherwise destined to collapse to a black hole facilitates hydrostatic equilibrium in at least two ways: (1) removal of fermions results in a decrease in the Fermi level which stiffens the dependence of degeneracy pressure on fermion density, and (2) phase separation into a fermionic core surrounded by a self-gravitating condensate diminishes the weight which must be balanced by fermion degeneracy pressure. The outcome is neither a black hole nor a neutron star, but a novel end state, a “fermicon star,” with unusual physical properties.

You ask me the proceeding passage is nothing, but theoretical double talk which glosses over the fact that none of the above has ever been observed & measured.

I'm sorry I keep coming back to this observation & measurement requirement, but there is NO science without observation & measurement, instead you have mathematical speculation.

I want to know what is the final phase of matter that a so called black hole can have.

As a "singularity" science doesn't know by definition. As a "butterfly" with defined volume and defined density, it's not clear to me that science would be any closer to knowing what the "final phase of matter" a so-called "black hole" would have.

And that's the problem with "black holes", there are too many subjective inconsistencies or variable definitions as demonstrated in this abstract.

This abstract is a perfect example of the silliness of "black holes" as an object of serious scientific study.

[Harry Costas]

G'day Anaconda

You did a good job on the paper and yes people will speculate on the type of matter that may be found in ultra condennsed matter.

What do you speculate?

[Anaconda]

Hi Harry Costas:

G'day Anaconda

You did a good job on the paper and yes people will speculate on the type of matter that may be found in ultra condennsed matter.

What do you speculate?

I don't buy that ultra condensed matter exists. High pressure and temperature sure, but special states of matter reliant on "new physics" -- is garbage -- I don't speculate on the bloody smell of rotten garbage that doesn't exist.

That's not something I want to waste my time and imagnination on.

[KickLaBuka]

Anaconda,

I understand your intent, but "new physics" is really the goal--not to explain new states of matter as these people are leaning towards; but new physics to "corellate" mass and charge is required.

[Anaconda]

Hi KickLaBuka:

Anaconda,

I understand your intent, but "new physics" is really the goal--not to explain new states of matter as these people are leaning towards; but new physics to "corellate" mass and charge is required.

The first goal is to explain the Universe and its structures in terms of the known properties of matter and physics, which, of course, includes electromagnetism. And when that has been completely and utterly exhausted, then, and only then, attempt to explain various possibilities, but even so, the various possibilities, need to be explained based on phenomena that has already been observed & measured, whether in the laboratory or the field (in space). Science is about explanation & description, but first you have to have an exhibit. That is where "modern" astronomy went terribly wrong, they "crafted" mathematical speculations based on very broad principles of gravity (that may or may not even be right to begin with), and then went out on "snipe hunts" to find these speculated objects, and suffered repeated bouts of 'confirmational bias'.

And now that outsiders have called them on out on their error, "modern" astronomy can't bear the thought of admitting error.