It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Duplicate post
edit on 27-9-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What are you talking about? Where did you get your information from? Was it out of a Cracker Jack box?

You're making a claim about Hawking Radiation that's just ASININE. First, Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed so to talk about it in absolute terms is just silly.

Secondly, a collapsing star releases Hawking Radiation. Where did you get this silly idea that a collapsing star doesn't produce Hawking Radiation? What is this nonsense based on?

Here's a paper from 1989.

Hawking Radiation Due to a Collapsing Star ---Two-Dimensional Oppenheimer-Snyder Model

www.researchgate.net...

Here's a paper from Davies that talks about the same thing.

On the Origin of Black Hole Evaporation Radiation

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org...

This is from 1976

It has always been known that a collapsing star can release Hawking Radiation. For some reason, you have it in your mind that Hawing Radiation only occurs after a black hole is formed. Again, this is ASININE and shows your total lack of understanding on the subject.

You said:

Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon.

WHERE DOES IT SAY HAWKING RADIATION IS ONLY RELEASED WHEN THE BLACK HOLE IS FORMED? WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

This is what happens.

A star collapses and as the star collapses, the matter falling into the black hole generates outgoing Hawking Radiation as the event horizon as the black hole forms which Hawking now says doesn't happen and you have an apparent horizon.

What you're saying is that collapsing stars can't admit Hawking Radiation and somehow Mersini-Haughton just made this up out of whole clothe. If you thinks this is the case, then you have no clue as to what you're talking. People have been talking about collapsing stars releasing Hawking Radiation for years. She didn't just make this up.

So please,
with the nonsense!!



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

First source:

A freely falling observer who approaches the singularity observes the negative divergence of the energy density of the radiation both in the interior and the exterior of the star except on the surface. It is shown that the negative divergence in the interior is closely related to the negative pressure due to the quantum field.

What do you think they are talking about when they speak of "the singularity?"



On the Origin of Black Hole Evaporation Radiation
Yes. Hawking radiation occurs after a black hole has formed. I don't think you will find that Davies thinks otherwise.
edit on 9/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


You're not making any sense.

I never said Hawking radiation doesn't occur after a black hole forms and that's IF a black hole can form in a way that we currently think it can.

What you or others haven't shown is that Hawking Radiation doesn't occur as a star is collapsing. This is just silly conjecture and shows a total lack of understanding of Hawking Radiation.

First, there's no evidence that a collapsing star can become a fully formed black hole. Most people have thought this was the case, but Mersini Haughton and others are just asking the question based on the mass a star would lose as it's collapsing and releasing Hawking Radiation. They're just saying it would lose to much mass to form a black hole and what we observe as black holes may form in a different way.

As a star is collapsing the gravitation field changes in strength due to a tidal component. This change produces virtual particle pairs and these pairs can be ripped apart. One of the pairs falls into the forming black hole and the other pair escapes. The gravitational field has lost energy ripping the particle pair apart and this energy is called Hawking Radiation.

Again, this is just common knowledge and I don't know where you or anyone else got the idea that a collapsing star doesn't release Hawking Radiation as a black hole is forming.

Here's another paper from 1990.


On the derivation of Hawking radiation associated with the formation of a black hole

Abstract

We show how in gravitational collapse the Hawking radiation at large times is precisely related to a scaling limit on the sphere where the star radius crosses the Schwarzschild radius (as long as the back reaction of the radiation on the metric is neglected). For a free quantum field it can be exactly evaluated and the result agrees with Hawking's prediction. For a realistic quantum field theory no evaluation based on general principles seems possible. The outcoming radiation depends on the field theoretical model.


link.springer.com...

GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE OCCURS AS THE BLACK HOLE IS FORMING AND RELEASES HAWKING RADIATION.

Tell me why the gravitational field of a collapsing star can't produce Hawking Radiation. Where did you guys even come up with such a silly notion?



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Tell me why the gravitational field of a collapsing star can't produce Hawking Radiation.
The collapsing star does not produce Hawking radiation, the black hole which forms as the star collapse continues, does. The black hole (The singularity, remember? You provided the paper talking about it.) produces the event horizon which results in Hawking radiation. Without an event horizon (at the Schwarzschild radius), there is no Hawking radiation. Without a singularity, there is no event horizon.

edit on 9/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

WHAT????

Did you read what I said?

I said the gravitation field of the collapsing star produces Hawking Radiation as the Gravitational field changes. So yes, the gravitational field of the collapsing star does produce Hawking Radiation. It's this changing Gravitational Field which gives you a black hole as a star gets exhausted and can't produce enough energy and pressure to push outward.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
No.
It's the event horizon produced when the singularity forms that allows the production of Hawking radiation.
No singularity, no event horizon. No event horizon, no Hawking radiation.

It's not a chicken/egg question. Without the black hole, the singularity, there is no Hawking radiation.

Your source:

A freely falling observer who approaches the singularity observes the negative divergence of the energy density of the radiation both in the interior and the exterior of the star except on the surface. It is shown that the negative divergence in the interior is closely related to the negative pressure due to the quantum field.

www.researchgate.net...
edit on 9/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You said:

It's the event horizon produced when the singularity forms that allows the production of Hawking radiation.

How does this get produced? By the changing gravitational field of a star that is collapsing. Here's her Abstract:


A star collapsing gravitationally into a black hole emits a flux of radiation, knowns as Hawking radiation. When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity. The evaporation of the collapsing star can be equivalently described as a negative energy flux of radiation travelling radially inwards towards the center of the star. Here, we are interested in the evolution of the star during its collapse. Thus we include the backreaction of the negative energy Hawking flux in the interior geometry of the collapsing star and solve the full 4-dimensional Einstein and hydrodynamical equations numerically. We find that Hawking radiation emitted just before the star passes through its Schwarzschild radius slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass thus the star bounces before reaching the horizon. The area radius starts increasing after the bounce. Beyond this point our program breaks down due to shell crossing. We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes. This study provides a more realistic investigation of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star, that was first presented in [1].


What you're saying is simply idiotic.

The gravitational field changes as a star collapses into a black hole. It's this changing gravitational field that forms the black hole and releases Hawking radiation.

It's really the height of arrogance and blind ignorance to act like these people are stupid. You just don't understand what she's saying or you're being willfully ignorant as to what she's saying because you want to stay on your island of make believe.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
You quote her in order to support her claim? That's a bit circular.


The gravitational field changes as a star collapses into a black hole. It's this changing gravitational field that forms the black hole and releases Hawking radiation.
No. It's the collapse of matter which forms the black hole (and increases the gravity gradient). There is no Schwarzschild radius until the singularity forms.


It's really the height of arrogance and blind ignorance to act like these people are stupid.
Who said she was stupid? One need not be stupid to be wrong.

Odd too, how you quote other sources talking about black holes when she claims there's no such thing. They seem to think she's wrong too.

edit on 9/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, a singularity or an event horizon can't form without a changing gravitational field that occurs from a collapsing star that has exhausted it's energy and can't stop the pull of gravity.

What you're saying is just idiotic and nobody disagrees with her that a collapsing star whose gravitational field is changing produces Hawking Radiation. Hawking doesn't disagree with that.

The question is does it lose too much mass as this radiation is released.

You even have scientist saying a singularity can't form because of quantum mechanics and yet the black hole will still produce Hawking Radiation without a singularity.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again, a singularity or an event horizon can't form without a changing gravitational field that occurs from a collapsing star that has exhausted it's energy and can't stop the pull of gravity.
Again, the gravitational field changes because of the collapse of matter. The collapsing matter causes a tightening gravity gradient. Sufficient mass will cause a collapse into singularity and the formation of an event horizon.


What you're saying is just idiotic and nobody disagrees with her that a collapsing star whose gravitational field is changing produces Hawking Radiation. Hawking doesn't disagree with that.
Yes, he does. He says that Hawking radiation occurs at the event horizon. Without an event horizon there can be no Hawking radiation. No, what I am saying is not idiotic.


You even have scientist saying a singularity can't form because of quantum mechanics and yet the black hole will still produce Hawking Radiation without a singularity.
One. One scientist. The one who wrote the paper we are discussing.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Sad, just sad.

It's the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star that produces Hawking Radiation. This changing gravitational field gives you Hawking Radiation and the event horizon. Here's more:


Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.[12]


en.wikipedia.org...

Again, what you're saying is just idiotic and it's just silly to think that she's wrong when this is just common knowledge.

THE RADIATION DOESN'T COME FROM THE BLACK HOLE ITSELF AND IT DOESN'T COME FROM THE EVENT HORIZON.

It comes from the gravitational energy which comes from the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Also, she's not the only one saying this:


Physicists have long thought that the singularities associated with gravity (like the inside of a black hole) should vanish in a quantum theory of gravity. It now appears that this may indeed be the case. Researchers in Uruguay and Louisiana have just published a description of a quantum black hole using loop quantum gravity in which the predictions of physics-ending singularities vanish, and are replaced by bridges to another universe.

This brings us to the new work of Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin, recently published in Physical Review Letters. Gambini and Pullin have developed and solved the first well-behaved model of a quantum black hole, in which the central curvature singularity vanishes, and is replaced by a bridge that appears to lead into another universe. Other details of their treatment offer promise for reconciling other apparent paradoxes associated with blending general relativity and quantum mechanics. They are currently trying to extend their work to study of an evaporating quantum black hole.

Despite the limitations of this result, it is encouraging to know that the best model of a quantum black hole currently available appears consistent with what generations of physicists had hoped would be the case; that quantum effects prevent singularities.


www.gizmag.com...

They say no singularity and a bridge to another universe forms.

CHECKMATE!



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It's the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star that produces Hawking Radiation.
Your wikiquote doesn't say anything about a changing gravitational field producing Hawking Radiation but it does say this:

A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.[11]

en.wikipedia.org...
You should have read further, no event horizon, no Hawking radiation.


They say no singularity and a bridge to another universe forms.
Yes, I know some physicists have different ideas about what happens beyond the event horizon. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who claims there is no singularity and no event horizon.

So far she seems to be the only one saying that singularities can't form at all because of the release of Hawking radiation before they form.

edit on 9/28/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You just don't know what you're talking about. You said:


No event horizon, no Hawking radiation.


This is just nonsense.

No changing gravitational field from a collapsing star and there's no event horizon, no singularity and no Hawking Radiation.

This is basic 11th grade science class stuff.

The gravitational field of the center of a star is balanced by the push of energy from the star and the pull of gravity. When the star exhausts it's energy, then it collapses because there's nothing to stop the pull of gravity.

The gravity field changes and gets stronger as the star collapses. This in turn produces the singularity, the event horizon and Hawking Radiation. Without this changing gravity field there's no black hole.

Again, this is basic high school stuff.

How can you have an event horizon without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star?

You act like the event horizon just poofed into existence. Without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star we wouldn't be having this conversation.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

No changing gravitational field from a collapsing star and there's no event horizon, no singularity and no Hawking Radiation.
You got it! No event horizon=no Hawking radiation.



The gravity field changes and gets stronger as the star collapses.
No. There is the same amount of gravity. It is the gravity gradient which changes.


Without this changing gravity field there's no black hole.
Without collapsing matter there is no change in gravity gradient. Without sufficient mass there is no black hole.


How can you have an event horizon without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star?
How can you have a increased gravity gradient without collapsing matter?


You act like the event horizon just poofed into existence. Without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The collapse of matter due to the loss of radiation pressure causes an increase in the gravity gradient. Yes, the collapse of matter due to the loss of radiation pressure results in the formation of a singularity. Yes, the formation of a singularity results in the formation of an event horizon. No, there is no Hawking radiation until the event horizon forms.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, wrong. You said:


]No, there is no Hawking radiation until the event horizon forms.


Show me a paper that says no Hawking Radiation occurs until an event horizon forms. The Event Horizon doesn't produce Hawking Radiation. It's the changing gravity field of a collapsed star.

Again, this is just basic stuff. What's a black hole?


Objects whose gravitational fields are too strong for light to escape were first considered in the 18th century by John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace. The first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, although its interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was first published by David Finkelstein in 1958.


en.wikipedia.org...

The gravitational fields of these objects were not to strong for light to escape until the star collapse.

When the star collapsed, the gravitational field became to strong for light to escape.

Again,


Then you'd have yourself a black hole. A black hole is a gravitating object whose gravitational field is so strong that light cannot escape. The event horizon is where light loses the ability to escape from the black hole. Nothing that goes inside the event horizon can ever get back out again, not even light.


www.superstringtheory.com...://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh1.htmlwww.superstringtheory.com... 1.html

Again, this is high school level stuff. Here's more:

If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole.If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole.

Why can you do this? Because the gravitational field of a black hole is the same gravitational field of the collapsing star. You can calculate the gravitational field of the black hole before it forms based on the gravitational field of the collapsing star.

So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects.

math.ucr.edu...

Again, the event horizon doesn't produce Hawking Radiation. It's the strength of the gravitational field that causes quantum fluctuations to occur and virtual particle pairs to be produced.

Now, let's go back to the earlier paper I quoted from.

The result is rather similar to a PA system on the verge of producing a feedback whistle. If you whisper into the microphone (small gravitational fields) the positive feedback isn't enough to send the PA into oscillation, but talking at a normal volume (larger gravitational fields) produces that horrible howl. Whispering is the comparable to the familiar actions of gravity that keep the planets and stars in their courses. The howl is the process that eventually leads to a singularity as the end result of gravitational collapse.

Here's more:

Easier said than done. Hawking radiation predicts that a black body radiation is emitted by black holes as a result of quantum effects taking place very near the event horizon, which immediately leads to a serious conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

www.gizmag.com...

Again, the event horizon doesn't produce Hawking Radiation. QUANTUM EFFECTS NEAR THE EVENT HORIZON PRODUCES HAWKING RADIATION.

What produces these quantum effects near the event horizon? It's the stronger gravitational field that occurs as a star collapses.

The matter falling into the black hole from the collapsing star produces these quantum effects and gives you Hawking Radiation not the event horizon.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Wow! Things seem to be getting a little heated around here. At the risk of being savagely attacked and stoned mercilessly for my shameless ignorance, I’ll go ahead and throw another 2 bits in the ring.

For those who haven’t read the Mersini-Houghton paper, the following are direct quotes:

---------------------
“When the star approaches formation of a horizon, then Hawking radiation sets in. This slows down the collapse while signicantly reducing the mass of the star. Both effects (slowdown and mass-loss) balance such that the evaporating star remains very slightly outside its event horizon. “

“Since Hawking radiation is produced prior to black hole formation then its backreaction on the star's evolution can be included in the set of hydrodynamic equations for the coupled system of the quantum field and the star. Thus we solve numerically the set of hydrodynamics equations describing the evolution of collapse for the inhomogeneous dust star absorbing negative energy Hawking flux during its collapse. We discover that the stars explode instead of collapsing to a black hole, as they get close to their last stage of collapse, just when Hawking radiation reaches a maximum, but they never cross what would have been the apparent horizon.”

“a singularity and a horizon do not form, features traditionally associated with the definition of black holes. Stated simply our findings indicate that singularities and horizon do not exist due to quantum effects and that universally stars blow up on their last stage of collapse.“

“This investigation shows that universally collapsing stars bounce into an expanding phase and probably blow up, instead of collapsing to a black hole.”
---------------------

She’s clearly stating that Hawking radiation is produced just proir to formation of an event horizon and reaches max during the last stage of collapse. However, she states, the collapse never crosses the point where an actual horizon is formed, but rather bounces into an expanding phase.

Now, the jury’s out on all this as it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, but she’s not the 1st highly respected scientist to question the mechanics of “black hole” phenomena. At least as it is currently understood. All her paper states is that a collapsing star (regardless of it’s mass) cannot result in a singularity and event horizon.

A couple of very respected theoretical physicists submitted a paper to arXiv prior to the Mersini-Houghton paper in which they came to a similar conclusion regarding the singularity issue. They also suggest that a singularity doesn’t result from stellar collapse, regardless of the star’s mass. Beyond that, though, they go in a different direction than Mersini-Houghton. They propose that the final stage of collapse results in what they call a “Planck Star”. In their paper it states the following:

”...the gravitational collapse of a star does not lead to a singularity but to one additional phase in the life of a star: a quantum gravitational phase where the (very large) gravitational attraction is balanced by a (very large) quantum pressure. We call a star in this phase a “Planck star"

The physicists are Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto, and you can find their paper at arxiv.org....

To sum it up, all I’m saying is this topic has been researched considerably by highly qualified and respected theoretical physicists. It’s not something inspired by an episode of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 show. At the same time, it’s yet to be verified via peer review. So, no point getting all shook up about it yet.

I like this thread...

PS: Didn’t Hawking recently claim that black holes as we’ve come to understand them may not exist? Didn’t he suggest that maybe we should call them “grey holes”? Here’s an article at phys.org regarding that: phys.org...



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: netbound

EXCELLENT POST!!

It's amazing that people are trying to act like Mersini Haughton is an idiot for even asking these questions. These things have been asked and contemplated by other Scientist.

She's saying that gravity fields of a collapsing star can create these quantum effects before a collapsing star forms a black hole. She saying as Hawking Radiation is released there isn't enough mass for the star to form a black hole.

Is she right? Time will tell but she's certainly not an idiot and she's asking these questions based on current scientific understanding.
edit on 28-9-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Thanks... I've enjoyed your posts, as well. I really don't know why all the uproar...

Oh well, good luck fending off the sharks encircling you. I think they're pissed!!



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: RationalDespair

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well here are the papers if you'd like to read over them:

Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls


She clearly has misunderstood Hawking Radiation.

As this is a phenomenon that only occurs as a result of the Event Horizon.

Korg.


Maybe your understanding of Hawking radiation is not what you think it is. If you had read the articles you would find she has devoted clear explanations of what Hawking radiation is and how it relates to a collapsing star and her conclusions.

It's a bit shocking that you are the OP and clearly don't know what this professor is talking about and yet think you are smarter than her.


ETA: Still a flag from me though, because the topic is very interesting and she is definitely on to something!


Actually Korg may be right. Pretty sure based on the explanation on wikipedia and black holes and baby universes written by Hawking that the OPs description matches the originators explanation. Im not saying the person who wrote the hypothesis is wrong just that there might have been some misunderstanding in the article that was written.


Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974,[1] and sometimes also after Jacob Bekenstein, who predicted that black holes should have a finite, non-zero temperature and entropy.[2] Hawking's work followed his visit to Moscow in 1973 where the Soviet scientists Yakov Zeldovich and Alexei Starobinsky showed him that according to the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, rotating black holes should create and emit particles.[3] Hawking radiation reduces the mass and the energy of the black hole and is therefore also known as black hole evaporation.


Wiki article



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join