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: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
Most stars in our universe don't turn into black holes...though some have they're plasma or photons sucked into them; buy a star that has turned into a black hole. Since some black holes eject lighted photons or mass at there magnetic poles, proves that their is not an event horizon surrounding a black hole --- but what Hawking describes as an "apparent horizon" --- whereas a percentage of photons do not get sucked into a black hole, but are slipped into a apparent horizon and ejected at the magnetic poles of the black hole at near the speed of light.

That Phage...suggests that my hypothesis on interstellar capable starship propulsion --- might indeed be possible --- if it is equipped onboard with a micro-mini black hole propulsion unit.


The material ejected at the poles has not passed the horizon, they are caused by the matter swirling around the horizon at near light speeds... this energy builds up and is released as jets of highly energetic particles.

What in a nutshell Hawking has said is that instead of an event horizon that NOTHING can EVER escape, there is an apparent horizon that shrinks at the same rate the black hole looses mass as a result of hawking radiation. At a critical point where the mass of the black hole is no longer large enough to contain the inner horizon, it explodes releasing all the information contained therein.

I saw a calculation somewhere about the timeframe of a Black hole of a hundred solar masses reaching this point, and it was 1 googleplex years... that is 1 with one hundred zeros behind it years.

There is also the consideration of quantum fluctuations at the horizon itself to consider, given that the horizon can in places allow for in-falling matter to be ejected. but we are talking less than tiny amounts as compared to the actual mass of the black hole itself.

So the definition of black hole has changed as we always knew it would with more we learn about the phenomenon.

all that aside.... A collapsing star has to reach the schwarzschild radius for the apparent Horizon to exist and as such Hawking radiation cannot be emitted before that point. in other words a collapsing star couldn't produce hawking radiation and... EVEN if it could it would not be a large enough effect to prevent the cascade collapse as the neutrons get crushed to the critical point.

Korg.


edit on 29-9-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This has become a circus. Why is this such a big friggin deal? There has been ample research done in the past couple years to throw significant doubt on the current understanding of the objects we call black holes. Even Hawking has suggested the idea of an apparent horizon, to replace the event horizon. An apparent horizon only exists if the star does not undergo continuous collapse to a singularity. The boundary of this compact object lies outside the Schwarzschild radius and what’s left is something resembling a neutron star.

No one is saying that black holes are a figment of our imagination, but rather that our understanding of them may be flawed. Is anyone here willing to concede at least that much? Or are we so locked into our mindsets that we refuse to accept any other explanation than the one we read in some textbook 15 years ago?

As recently as July of this year physicist Cenalo Vaz submitted a paper to arXiv entitled There’s Nothing “Black” about a Black Hole. In this paper he explores possible explanations other than the traditional singularity approach. The following is a quick excerpt from the paper:

The collapsed object bloats to twice its Schwarzschild radius, there is no horizon and the spacetime geometry is regular. Observationally, what is being encountered has more in common with a neutron star, except that what holds the system up is not matter degeneracy pressure but vacuum energy. What is traditionally viewed as the radius of the hole (the Schwarzschild radius) is in fact surrounded by a matter cloud. Radiation from the boundary of this cloud should not suffer a redshift much larger than from neutron stars of relatively low core densities.

Read it if you dare!!

A couple of folks here apparently disagree with some highly regarded theoretical physicists currently doing research into this phenomenon. Perhaps you should submit your own paper to refute the claims of these illiterate fools.

Have fun...



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Could you please provide a paper or your own derivation that shows that Hawking radiation is only possible when there is a event horizon? Because I can find plenty examples stating that Hawking radiation is a more general effect, not constrained to event horizons.

The paper here arxiv.org... :

... the existence of a locally definable apparent horizon is quite sufficient for obtaining the Hawking effect ...


And more arxiv.org... :

One particularly important result, due to Hajicek [8], is that the existence of a strict event horizon is not nec- essary, and that a long-lived apparent horizon is quite sufficient to generate the Hawking flux (see also [9–11]). More recently, the present authors have developed some “analogue spacetimes” [18–20] for which a Hawking flux is generated even in the absence of a trapping/apparent horizon [21, 22]
...
We have demonstrated that any collapsing
compact object (regardless of whether or not any type
of horizon ever forms) will, provided the exponential ap-
proximation and adiabatic condition hold, emit a slowly
evolving Planckian flux of quanta.


And more here arxiv.org...

Also here I can read that the Unruh effect is a variation of Hawking radiation or vice versa, as the accelerating observer will perceive an apparent event horizon.
arxiv.org...

Are they wrong? Can you show why?




edit on 30-9-2014 by moebius because: s/prove/provide



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Could you please provide a paper or your own derivation that shows that Hawking radiation is only possible when there is a event horizon? Because I can find plenty examples stating that Hawking radiation is a more general effect, not constrained to event horizons.

The paper here arxiv.org... :

... the existence of a locally definable apparent horizon is quite sufficient for obtaining the Hawking effect ...


And more arxiv.org... :

One particularly important result, due to Hajicek [8], is that the existence of a strict event horizon is not nec- essary, and that a long-lived apparent horizon is quite sufficient to generate the Hawking flux (see also [9–11]). More recently, the present authors have developed some “analogue spacetimes” [18–20] for which a Hawking flux is generated even in the absence of a trapping/apparent horizon [21, 22]
...
We have demonstrated that any collapsing
compact object (regardless of whether or not any type
of horizon ever forms) will, provided the exponential ap-
proximation and adiabatic condition hold, emit a slowly
evolving Planckian flux of quanta.


And more here arxiv.org...

Also here I can read that the Unruh effect is a variation of Hawking radiation or vice versa, as the accelerating observer will perceive an apparent event horizon.
arxiv.org...

Are they wrong? Can you show why?





There are more than a few....

Radiation from collapsing shells, semiclassical backreaction and black hole formation


We find that, in any realistic collapse scenario, the backreaction effects do not prevent the formation of the event horizon. The time at which the event horizon is formed is, of course, delayeddue to the radiated flux — which decreases the mass of the shell — but this effect is not sufficient to prevent horizon formation.


BLACK HOLES, HAWKING RADIATION
AND THE INFORMATION PARADOX1



The Hawking radiation derived from quantum field theory shows a spectrum that is precisely thermal.
In this thesis, the Hawking radiation is derived as a tunneling process through the event horizon of a black hole. The tunneling rate is related to the imaginary part of the action of the tunneling particle.
Since energy conservation is respected in the calculation, the obtained tunneling rate correponds to a spectrum which is not precisely thermal but has an additional correction term


Hawking radiation of Black Holes


5 Hawking radiation 16
5.1 Particle creation in the Sandwich spacetime . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2 Particle creation in the Schwarzschild spacetime . . . . . . . . 19


It is not just myself and Phage standing up and attempting to enlighten you that the paper written by Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton is completely wrong... others are standing up too such as Dr. William Unruh, a theoretical physicist from the University of British Columbia... who had this to say

Source: - iflscience.com


“The [paper] is nonsense,” Unruh said in an email to IFLS. “Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible.”

According to Unruh, black holes don’t emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, “it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate,” he explains.

“The standard behaviour by such people [who don’t understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger,” he continued. “Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large-- Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement.


And then we have This from Sabine Hossenfelder the Assistant Professor for High Energy Physics at Nordita... She had to say

Source: - Black holes declared non-existent again.


In summary, the recent papers by Mersini-Houghton and Pfeiffer contribute to a discussion that is decades old, and it is good to see the topic being taken up by the numerical power of today. I am skeptic that their treatment of the negative energy flux is consistent with the expected emission rate during collapse. Their results are surprising and in contradiction with many previously found results. It is thus too early to claim that is has been shown black holes don’t exist.


I understand that it might be hard for some to understand Hawking radiation.... but for Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton to make such a floundering outburst of nonsense is frankly embarrassing. She should remain very quiet for a very long time or come out and publicly state she was wrong.

Korg.


edit on 30-9-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Could you please provide a paper or your own derivation that shows that Hawking radiation is only possible when there is a event horizon? Because I can find plenty examples stating that Hawking radiation is a more general effect, not constrained to event horizons.

The paper here arxiv.org... :

... the existence of a locally definable apparent horizon is quite sufficient for obtaining the Hawking effect ...


And more arxiv.org... :

One particularly important result, due to Hajicek [8], is that the existence of a strict event horizon is not nec- essary, and that a long-lived apparent horizon is quite sufficient to generate the Hawking flux (see also [9–11]). More recently, the present authors have developed some “analogue spacetimes” [18–20] for which a Hawking flux is generated even in the absence of a trapping/apparent horizon [21, 22]
...
We have demonstrated that any collapsing
compact object (regardless of whether or not any type
of horizon ever forms) will, provided the exponential ap-
proximation and adiabatic condition hold, emit a slowly
evolving Planckian flux of quanta.


And more here arxiv.org...

Also here I can read that the Unruh effect is a variation of Hawking radiation or vice versa, as the accelerating observer will perceive an apparent event horizon.
arxiv.org...

Are they wrong? Can you show why?



I might also add that the papers you posted actually go in favor of what I am stating.... clearly you don't understand what you are posting!

Korg.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Everything you posted supports Mersini Haughton and makes you look worse. The fact is, you don't even understand what an event horizon is. It's an imaginary boundary and it doesn't rip virtual particles apart.

You said Hawking radiation is created by the event horizon and that's a lie.

You said Hawking Radiation can't be released until an event horizon forms and that's a lie.

Your own post support Mersini Haughton. The main thing that's being debated is whether Mersini Haughton over calculates how much Hawking Radiation is released as a star is collapsing.

EVERYTHING YOU POSTED IS A VALID DEBATE AGAINST THE PAPER BUT IT DOESN'T SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE POSTED IS A DEBATE ABOUT HOW MUCH HAWKING RADIATION IS RELEASED BEFORE THE EVENT HORIZON FORMS.


This is a valid debate. You acted like Hawking Radiation couldn't be released without the event horizon because you don't even understand what an event horizon is.

Here's what you quoted:


According to Unruh, black holes don’t emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, “it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate,” he explains.


BLACK HOLES DON'T EMIT ENOUGH RADIATION TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF A BLACK HOLE!!

He's talking about a collapsing star and you don't even know what he's saying. A collapsing star is a black hole. He's saying that there the emission isn't enough to shrink a black hole before it forms.

THIS IS A VALID DEBATE BUT IT'S NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Here's another one of your quotes.


In summary, the recent papers by Mersini-Houghton and Pfeiffer contribute to a discussion that is decades old, and it is good to see the topic being taken up by the numerical power of today. I am skeptic that their treatment of the negative energy flux is consistent with the expected emission rate during collapse. Their results are surprising and in contradiction with many previously found results. It is thus too early to claim that is has been shown black holes don’t exist.


AGAIN, A VALID DEBATE ABOUT THE RATE OF EMISSION DURING COLLAPSE!!

This is not what you or Phage have been debating. You have been going on and on about how a collapsing star can't emit Hawking Radiation and how the event horizon rips apart virtual particles.

You can't teach this stuff because you don't even know what an event horizon is. When you claim an even horizon rips apart virtual particles it's just asinine. An 11 grader interested in science wouldn't make this silly mistake.
edit on 30-9-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)


(post by Korg Trinity removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You can't teach this stuff because you don't even know what an event horizon is. When you claim an even horizon rips apart virtual particles it's just asinine. An 11 grader interested in science wouldn't make this silly mistake.


Do you or do you not agree that the horizon is the point by which gravity has overtaken the speed of light?

Korg.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
To begin with, I personally do not support one argument over the other YET. As it stands now, there is obviously much debate ongoing within the scientific community regarding the nature of these fascinating monsters. No one is disputing the existence of BHs; only their nature and a workable description/model.

To my limited knowledge, the following issues are still unresolved

1) Do true singularities exist in nature? Or is it simply a theoretical construct?
2) Does stellar collapse ever result in a singularity and event horizon?
3) Does Hawking radiation truly exist in nature? It has never been observed (the supposed white hole experiment was only an analogue and doesn’t count).
4) Will a more complete theory of quantum gravity ever be realized? If so, will it lend closure to the above issues?
5) If the above cannot be resolved, even with an established quantum gravity theory, then what are black holes?

I have a feeling something will shake out in the not-too-distant future. All I really know is, we live in a strange-ass universe...

PS: Oh yeah, there’s no point getting all shook up over this. This happens to be a hot topic at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics. There’s currently no consensus here; even amongst the greatest thinkers of our time.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Korg --- May I suggest that you google: black hole apparent horizon an black hole starships

www.abc13.com/archive/9407566



"The smaller the black hole the greater its radiated power and the less its mass, but the shorter its lifetime until it completely evaporates. As a black hole absorbs new matter, it will radiate it."

"An event horizon has been defined as an invisible cloak covering a black hole that allows nothing --- not even light --- to escape. The option proposed by Hawking's paper is that black holes simply don't have an event horizon and the notion of an event horizon, from which nothing can escape, is imcompatable with quantum theory.

According to Nature, this claim is based on the idea that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too inconsistently to maintain any kind of sharp border.

Hawking's proposed alternative to the event horizon is an "apparent horizon," which temporarily holds matter hostage and mangles it before releasing it."

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: trying to get link to work

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 1-10-2014 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Korg --- May I suggest that you google: black hole apparent horizon an black hole starships

www.abc13.com/archive/9407566



"The smaller the black hole the greater its radiated power and the less its mass, but the shorter its lifetime until it completely evaporates. As a black hole absorbs new matter, it will radiate it."

"An event horizon has been defined as an invisible cloak covering a black hole that allows nothing --- not even light --- to escape. The option proposed by Hawking's paper is that black holes simply don't have an event horizon and the notion of an event horizon, from which nothing can escape, is imcompatable with quantum theory.

According to Nature, this claim is based on the idea that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too inconsistently to maintain any kind of sharp border.

Hawking's proposed alternative to the event horizon is an "apparent horizon," which temporarily holds matter hostage and mangles it before releasing it."


I am well versed in both Quantum Mechanics, and quantum field theory.

It is the very reason that Hawking radiations exists in the first place, as it is a result of quantum fluctuations at the planc length that gives rise to virtual particles in the first place.

There are many theories on the nature of black holes, suffice to say it is an area that space is traveling through itself at more than light speed.

The Horizon is the place that normal in-falling matter cannot escape. The reason for the confusion is the information paradox. Quantum mechanics states that you cannot loose information from the universe. This is because the total value of the universe is zero... which ironically is the reason there is something rather than nothing as the single greatest law of physics is that nothing is naturally balanced perfectly, but the universe started with x energy potential and it will end with the same energy potential but only so far spread out that nothing can move.... heat death.

At planc scales the universe is a sea of randomness it is this randomness that gives rise to particles, so you could say that a black hole is a place where space-time density exceeds the point where the quantum foam can produce any stable energetic state.... the exact opposite of heat death.

However... when looking at a black hole using semi classical physics... a mixture of Newtonian and quantum physics it is easy to see that there is a region that is a Horizon.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Any thoughts or suggestions on my hypothesis, about the feasibility of an onboard micro-mini black hole propulsion unit, that is installed on a saucer starship? Whereas the starship funnels photons toward the propulsion unit, and the micro-mini black hole expels the photons at it's magnetic poles, which are funneled towards outlet thrusters --- increasing speed --- exponentially squared, easily up to the speed of light and beyond into the superluminal realm.


Thanks



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You have been going on and on about how a collapsing star can't emit Hawking Radiation and how the event horizon rips apart virtual particles.

No. We have been saying that there cannot be Hawking radiation without an event horizon and there can't be an event horizon without a singularity.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Any thoughts or suggestions on my hypothesis, about the feasibility of an onboard micro-mini black hole propulsion unit, that is installed on a saucer starship? Whereas the starship funnels photons toward the propulsion unit, and the micro-mini black hole expels the photons at it's magnetic poles, which are funneled towards outlet thrusters --- increasing speed --- exponentially squared, easily up to the speed of light and beyond into the superluminal realm.


Thanks



I would like to point out that no matter can be accelerated to light speed and beyond however exotic a star drive you may create.

The only known way to beat the cosmic speed limit that I am aware of is either using a warp drive or traversing a worm hole.

That said I can see how using a very small black hole could be used as a star drive. What you would have to do is hold the black hole in place with a very powerful magnetic field, and the thrust would be generated via tapping the momentum of in-falling particles before they entered the event horizon.... But there are problems....

Firstly we have not thus far ever created mini black holes....

And

Secondly due to the size of the mini black hole, it would evaporate faster than you would be able to get any usefulness out of it.... and simply using a larger hole would place the horizon beyond the size of a usable ship.

And

You would have to learn how to create a sufficiently powerful magnetic field and be able to direct it.

And

The energy used to create a black whole and to generate the magnetic field would itself need a power source..... Which if you had, why would you need the black-hole to begin with....

I don't mean to rain on your parade but unless you could demonstrate how you would resolve those critical issues I don't see how this could work.

Sorry....

All the best,

Korg.


edit on 2-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity


I agree a black hole isnt a viable energy source for any kind of space travel. The energy requirements as you said would make it impractical. Not to mention dangerous to the ship and crew do to radiation.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Korg Trinity


I agree a black hole isnt a viable energy source for any kind of space travel. The energy requirements as you said would make it impractical. Not to mention dangerous to the ship and crew do to radiation.



The best shot we have of reaching the stars at the moment is this...

The story of Project Orion


Author George Dyson spins the story of Project Orion, a massive, nuclear-powered spacecraft that could have taken us to Saturn in five years. His insider’s perspective and a secret cache of documents bring an Atomic Age dream to life.


But I shouldn't go off topic


Korg.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound

All of those aren't quite 'black holes' any more, but another even more exotic and extreme astrophysical object beyond a neutron star.

Which is obviously very interesting. But doesn't necessarily rule out a black hole if whatever holds up these things itself has yet another limit.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Matter should be able to survive the speed of light if its surrounded by it's own magnetic field --- and what better way to provide this magnetic field --- with a micro-mini black hole [less than the size of an atom/weighing about a million tons --- installed onboard a black hole starship; which could channel intense gamma rays from the starship's crew by the same magnetic field.


Text "Although the process of generating a black hole is extremely massive, it does not require any new physics. Also if a black hole, once created, absorbs new matter, it will radiate it, thus acting as a new energy source.

The evaporation time of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass. For a black hole of 10" kg the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years.

The power in the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be a minuscule 9x10-29 watts.

As the photons are absorbed into the ergosphere of the rotating black hole causes contiguous spacetime to rotate as well, making a whirlpool --- thusly making a location where the rotation speed is the speed of light --- with the rotational energy would be extracted outward along the magnetic field lines by something called a torsional Alfen wave.




I hope I'm not getting too off-topic for this thread...but my post is about black holes --- albeit --- installed on a black hole starship.

edit on 2-10-2014 by Erno86 because: added a sentence



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
It seems to me the nature of the exotic objects we’ve called “black holes” is still misunderstood. Observation tells us something is out there exerting colossal gravitational influence on it’s neighbors, but we haven’t quite pinned it down yet. Something beyond a neutron star, as you suggested, may very well fit the bill.

I use the term “black hole” kind of loosely anymore; it seems there’s so much confusion around the subject. But, it’s as good a name as any for now.

Considering how long we’ve been observing/studying these objects, it’s kind of amazing how little we know. How, or even whether, black holes radiate even seems to be largely speculative. It’s a juggling act trying to satisfy classical general–relativistic theory and classical thermodynamics, as well as accounting for quantum effects. The relationship between black holes and thermodynamics is still not adequately understood. In order for the Hawking black hole evaporation scheme to adequately account for energy transfers within the gravitationally collapsing space–time requires a relativistic quantum treatment of the collapsing geometry: a quantum–gravitational approach. God, what a mouthful. Anyway, it’s possible that quantum–gravitational effects could even alter the Hawking evaporation process. Unfortunately, though, I don’t think a complete/adequate theory of quantum gravity has been established yet. Who knows, it may be the key to settling some of these issues. I don’t know - I’m not an expert.

Still, it’s fun to think about...



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Korg Trinity


I agree a black hole isnt a viable energy source for any kind of space travel. The energy requirements as you said would make it impractical. Not to mention dangerous to the ship and crew do to radiation.



Google: Black Hole Starships




top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join