It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.
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.
Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.
"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 Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."
The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.
The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.
Bottom line: Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study by Ahmed Farag Ali in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das in Canada. The catch – according to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – is that, without the singularity, this model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.
originally posted by: stosh64
Always trying to prove there is no God with science is laughable.
Why don't you just enjoy and explore these new theories, why does this have to get twisted into a hypothetical proof of the lack of a supreme being.
Enjoy your atheism, and I will enjoy my relationship with my God.
You will never prove to me there is no God, and I will never prove to you there is one.
Why not just post this theory without the anti-God Hyperbole.
originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: andre18
I'm sorry, the thread is nice, but those studies are poppycock. Flawed methodology. It's honestly really starting to bother me, I think we've reached a point where we've got more bogus studies (simply looking to accept grant money) than legitimate ones.
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: stosh64
Honestly I am really freaking tired of the Christian hating on this site. Is denying ignorance subtly attacking believers? Like children, seriously.
originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: stosh64
Oh i concur most agreeably that using science to defend a persons faith is stupid, but that's what a lot of religious people do. And for those many, this is a giant well placed slap in the face.
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: andre18
It is said that God has always existed and will always exist.
According to the Bible, God was alone and created a son and later created the universe,
so the universe is a piece of Himself.
The raw materials of the universe came from a God with no beginning and no end.
Your point is what, exactly?
If the demonstration is correct and the black holes exist, this proves nothing but the total irrelevance of all the science and math used to perform the study ... And my guess is that this was not the original goal of the author.
originally posted by: letmeon
The skies, the mountains, the rivers, the forests, the deserts, and all the animals. Do you think we all evolved from a single cell? Incredibly complex, no. Evolution is stupid. Science? Eating and mating created all the wonders of life. Consciousness and language, and civilization. With all the wonders of life, how can you claim what some nerdy geek wants to imagine is so. I don't think we can discover the birth of a universe with a "theory" called the Big Bang. There was nothing then an explosion then something. Let the nerds come to whatever conclusion they want with a black board and chalk. And physics. People are stupid. These laws we set up to govern us. Doesn't sound like they are any closer to asking the big questions like why are we here or why is anything here then they were before.