Saturday, September 27, 2014

Black holes do NOT exist

 

  I have waited a long time for someone to say this, mainly in the off chance that there was some evidence out there other than artistic imagination to support this idea.  I  have long had a much different issue with the popular model.

 

First though, a historical note, the model came about in the 1920's as a natural simplification of the Einstein field equations which produced a denominator approaching zero as mass increased in a star.  This provided the better named event horizon which was then interpreted naively as a black hole.  After that, nobody beat the black hole drums until the seventies simply because everyone had an appreciation of the equation itself.  That changed as Relativity went into eclipse and physicists ran with the idea as if it were true.

My fundamental issue with the model is almost trivial.  The postulated surface cannot be mathematically continuous at all.  Thus if an event horizon exists and if mass is breaking up into photonic energy in this cauldron then it will be escaping obliquely from the event horizon and exiting the star as photonic energy at light speed.  



Thus such a star will look like a runaway energy emitter right across the spectrum.  And Voila!  We have the unexplained Quasars and Grazars to inspect.  I came to this conclusion decades ago and the mere fact that this researcher can say that black holes do not exist tells me that no convincing evidence is available that cannot be explained better with alternatives.



 Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it


Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist 
She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity 
Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in 'shock' from the find 
Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died 
During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation 
But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn't be able to form a black hole 
If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong 
By Jonathan O'Callaghan for MailOnline 
Published: 09:34 GMT, 25 September 2014 | Updated: 12:18 GMT, 25 September 2014 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html#ixzz3ELy9C2DR 
When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity - creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.
At least, that’s what we thought.
A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims.
If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.
The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.
She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.
However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.
The singularity as predicted never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.’
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. 
What’s more, the research could apparently even call into question the veracity of the Big Bang theory. 
Most physicists think the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then that theory would also be brought into question.

One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that they pit two fundamental theories of the universe against each other.
Namely, 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 proved problematic, and has become known as the black hole information paradox - how can matter permanently disappear in a black hole as predicted?
Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage to mathematically combine the two fundamental theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting black holes to exist.

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 Professor Mersini-Houghton.

And that’s a big deal.’

1 comment:

Marc Jones said...

Her findings are rather similar to, and or lending validity to, Dr. Paul LaViolette's work on same. so I do wonder about Nassim H. etc., going on about them. Seems intuitive that LaViolette's "genic" energy model is more likely. This builds up over time and is then ejected in cyclic fashion.

There was an error in this gadget