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.’
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.
ReplyDelete