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.
originally posted by: xpoq47
Setting aside the notion that gravinos might travel faster than light, considering gravitons and gravinos equal in size and power but only one of them can exist and be responsible for gravity, which is more indicative of the accelerating expansion of the universe, pulling bosons (gravitons) or pushing bosons (gravinos)?
So maybe we can eventually say some things a black hole isn't, even if we can't say precisely what it is.
However, recent observations of merging black holes with gravitational wave detectors have potentially ruled out the existence of gravastars, because merging gravastars will give a different signal than merging black holes, and outfits like LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and Virgo are getting more and more examples by the day. While gravastars aren't exactly a no-go in our universe, they are definitely on thin ice.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel
I'm glad to see you suggested something other than a singularity, which most physicists seem to think is not the right answer even though it's what relativity predicts.
It sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Here's a recent paper on the topic:
originally posted by: mbkennel
I'm emotionally in favor of classical gravitation as some kind of emergent effect.
I do understand that there have been difficulties theoretically recently with that approach as well, but it deserves lots of work.
In this essay we marshal evidence suggesting that Einstein gravity may be an emergent phenomenon, one that is not “fundamental” but rather is an almost automatic low-energy long-distance consequence of a wide class of theories
That's another possible problem, there are so many problems with trying to confirm what black holes are made of. Time dilation and red shift is another problem, because even if a probe could magically send out a signal, it would be so time-dilated and red-shifted by the time we got it that it might be impossible to detect, and take over a billion years to get the signal even if we could detect it.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur
And the event horizon will immediately burn anything that passes through it could be a slight problem as well. Its been suggested that quantum effects would cause the event horizon to act much like a wall of fire.
originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Peeple
My thoughts exactly. Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions, has set us back a hundred years of more on where we could have been had we studied forces as fields. Indeed Tesla predicted it, the quote is so well-known that I won't repost it here, simply search Tesla's opinion on the study of fields!
originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Peeple
My thoughts exactly. Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions, has set us back a hundred years of more on where we could have been had we studied forces as fields. Indeed Tesla predicted it, the quote is so well-known that I won't repost it here, simply search Tesla's opinion on the study of fields!
Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. This again is due to the ignorance of those concerned, not so much in their own, as in their mutual fields.
Besides being mistaken about non-Hertzian waves, Tesla committed a grave error here – he assumed that waves could travel through the Earth without loss.