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 may not exist

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
At least according to scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

They're looking into the possibility that black holes are, in fact, "dark energy" stars since the commonly accepted definition of a black hole doesn't fit in perfectly with what we understand of quantum mechanics.



However, as long ago as 1975 quantum physicists argued that strange things do happen at an event horizon: matter governed by quantum laws becomes hypersensitive to slight disturbances. "The result was quickly forgotten," says Chapline, "because it didn't agree with the prediction of general relativity. But actually, it was absolutely correct."

This strange behaviour, he says, is the signature of a 'quantum phase transition' of space-time. Chapline argues that a star doesn't simply collapse to form a black hole; instead, the space-time inside it becomes filled with dark energy and this has some intriguing gravitational effects.

article at Nature.com




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I have to say I have always felt they were a Math crutch for scientists, any way,

I read A Brief History of Time, and sorry, no amount of respect for the wheelchair genius is going to make me buy what he says as the absolute truth. He talks about the event horizon of the black holes too, mostly.

About how some quanta that are close to event horizon would possibly have an anti-particle just on the other side of the event horizon, and about 2 pages of bullsh*t No Evidence theorizing he says that is why black holes can be detected to emit steady energy, without a major change in the theory!

I think people need to realize scientists of today are doing the same thing they have always done, tell us they have it perfectly figured out, while they themselves are collecting the pay cheques, making sure no one realizes (or questions) that they are potentially wrong.

Just like when Microsoft advertised their OS 2 years before it was released. And the FIRST ad described it as fully functioning, when in fact it was not even started yet. Same idea, except applied to the entire field of 'believe the experts' Astrophysics.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
It should be noted, though, that at this point it's only a hypothesis by one researcher. Further it has not yet been published in any peer-reviewed journals. Still, even with those caveats, it's always fun to see theoretical physicists play "what if."



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Intellectually, I've always "liked" the concept of Black Holes. As it seems that Newtonian physics suggest that the more massive an object is, you need to have faster and faster escape velocities in order to escape the planet's surface and overcome its gravitational pull, the idea of an object being so massive thta even light can't escape it seems likely.

I'm not a mathematician or even a theroetical physicist, but it is just an idea I like the sound of.

Massive object = extreme escape velocity approaching the speed of light = dark body = black hole



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I love it, akilles struck the nail on the head for me. I am by no means a genius at math, I'm not even all that good at math, what I know of physics stems from my understadning of the plain enlgish version of the theories. Recently I was reading The Elegant Universe, great book and all, but i find it hard to understand how one can become an expert on somthing that is admitedly so complex that you can't even figure out the equations used to arrive at the equations on which your theory is based. Anyway, my overall opinion of the book and String Theory itself is that it seems all too convenient, to fit all too well while at the same time not proving or explaining much. I think the same can be said for black holes. If you ask me there is too much liberty given to these scientist, they have too much freedom to change things to fit. For instance the classic quantum experiment of how one electron acts the same as a whole bunch of electrons when shot through little slits onto phot paper. Well, one of the theories in this book stated that the single electron took every one of the infinite routes possible before arriving at the exact same spot we'd expect it to be in. If you can't see how rediculous that statement is I'm not going to explain it.

I feel bad for Einstein I think he got caught up in the whirlwind of "theoretical physics" and his old ways of proving a theory with evidence kept him behind the pack. Sure, he could be talking black holes and string theory with the best of them if he wouldn't have felt like a sham by not being able to back up his theories.

As for black holes not existing, good! I'd love to see these scientists try to squirm around that fact to keep their funding



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlfredENewman
Intellectually, I've always "liked" the concept of Black Holes. As it seems that Newtonian physics suggest that the more massive an object is, you need to have faster and faster escape velocities in order to escape the planet's surface and overcome its gravitational pull, the idea of an object being so massive thta even light can't escape it seems likely.

I'm not a mathematician or even a theroetical physicist, but it is just an idea I like the sound of.

Massive object = extreme escape velocity approaching the speed of light = dark body = black hole

Well there is another explanation for what causes a black hole...

Firstly we all know the famous E=MC2 equation...

But few actually understand what it means... Mostly people think of it as being that matter and energy are interchangeable and in fact that is correct. The atom bomb was born of that principle.

however, what E=MC2 really means is that the faster you go the more mass you have and so as you reach the speed of light you would come to a point where you are so Heavy that you would need all the energy of the universe to push you ever faster.

Now that said...

What could a Black hole be???

Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...

What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??

I'll tell you why.... it's because only the conjectures that are agreed by the majority become well known enough to be globally accepted. A Sad truth I'm afraid...

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze....What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??

I'll tell you why.... it's because only the conjectures that are agreed by the majority become well known enough to be globally accepted. A Sad truth I'm afraid...

NeoN HaZe.


Possibly this is a reason - I am no astrophysicist (nor, indeed, a scientist of any description). However, I think a contributory reason has to do with "mathematics": the language of physics is one of mathematics (as I understand it): what with String Theory, multidiemnsions and all the "bric a brac" of modern physics, and, unless a theorist can come up with "supporting" mathematical models which are peer reviewed, then, I think, any such theory or explanantion is liable to be overlooked at best - or totally ignored.

Of course, tachyons have been proposed, so perhaps these might also be part of the answer and "fit in" with your proposed mechanism Neon??



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...


Then how would we know where it is... EVER? And how do you account for the very obvious cases of black holes orbiting stars (observed by a number of methods)


What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??

I'm rather puzzled at this statement, since the equations are fairly straightforward and rather self-evident to anyone with a Masters' in physics (and here in the States, you have to have a PhD to be a full prof in any subject, which would make your statement stranger still.)


I'll tell you why.... it's because only the conjectures that are agreed by the majority become well known enough to be globally accepted. A Sad truth I'm afraid...

Uhm... y'know, this doesn't match well with what I'm encountering here in the Master's program at this university and what I've experienced before when I was doing my first Masters' degree. Perhaps you could explain more?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlfredENewman

Originally posted by Neon Haze....What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??

I'll tell you why.... it's because only the conjectures that are agreed by the majority become well known enough to be globally accepted. A Sad truth I'm afraid...

NeoN HaZe.


Possibly this is a reason - I am no astrophysicist (nor, indeed, a scientist of any description). However, I think a contributory reason has to do with "mathematics": the language of physics is one of mathematics (as I understand it): what with String Theory, multidimensions and all the "bric a brac" of modern physics, and, unless a theorist can come up with "supporting" mathematical models which are peer reviewed, then, I think, any such theory or explanantion is liable to be overlooked at best - or totally ignored.

Of course, tachyons have been proposed, so perhaps these might also be part of the answer and "fit in" with your proposed mechanism Neon??


You are completely correct however conjecture is at best sketchy as it does not have direct a direct mathematical proof or it would be undisputed as law.

Tachyons are very intriguing proposed particles, however they do not in theory have any mass and so would not have any direct effect on the known universe as they would literally pass through all normal matter.

A famous US politician said something very profound and very true even though it did sounds a little silly...

There are known knowns - they are the things we know we know
There are known unknowns - they are the things we know we don't know
There are Unknown Unknowns - they are the things we don't know we don't know.

It's the unknown unknowns that inspires physics to create conjecture that may bridge the voids in our calculations.

The Mathematics of the known universe is truly a beautiful thing but like an unfinished Monet we are always trying to paint in the gaps and sometimes we get it right by simple extrapolation of the surroundings but mostly it's down to testing creative thought.

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...


Then how would we know where it is... EVER? And how do you account for the very obvious cases of black holes orbiting stars (observed by a number of methods)


What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??

I'm rather puzzled at this statement, since the equations are fairly straightforward and rather self-evident to anyone with a Masters' in physics (and here in the States, you have to have a PhD to be a full prof in any subject, which would make your statement stranger still.)


I'll tell you why.... it's because only the conjectures that are agreed by the majority become well known enough to be globally accepted. A Sad truth I'm afraid...

Uhm... y'know, this doesn't match well with what I'm encountering here in the Master's program at this university and what I've experienced before when I was doing my first Masters' degree. Perhaps you could explain more?


Interesting. What is your subject of study? How long have you to go?

I gained by PHD in Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics / M-theory at the university of Westminster London in 1996.

I have presented quite a few white papers on subjects mostly to do with the missing 90% of the universe and the nature of the strange quark.

We cannot observe any black hole directly.. it's not possible... only the effects it has.

And when I talk about an object travelling faster than light I am not talking about it travelling through our normal 4-dimentional space. What I believe occurs is it would literally travel through one of the other special dimensions that exist according to M-theory. So it could be travelling without moving at all in our 3 special dimensions.

All I am saying is that there is literally millions and millions of pounds worth of grant money being thrown down the drain on subjects that have about as much use as a paper umbrella.

And who decides where this money is spent? How do you think people on the edge of the majorities’ acceptability get heard?

What makes Hawking so right? a brief history of time is full of conjecture why is that so widely accepted in the community?

My experience has been that the scientific community is scared to be creative openly through fear of being branded a CRANK... Though privately they are soooo passionate about new ways of thinking..

NeoN HaZe.



[edit on 4-4-2005 by Neon Haze]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
BLAck Holes Do Exist... We just dont have enough technology to see them.
LateLy NASA has been able to detect black holes through the reflection of lights and energy.

"http://www.space.com/images/030901_bh_cena_02.jpg" alt="LIGHT DEVOURER"



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLSEEING
BLAck Holes Do Exist... We just dont have enough technology to see them.
LateLy NASA has been able to detect black holes through the reflection of lights and energy.

"http://www.space.com/images/030901_bh_cena_02.jpg" alt="LIGHT DEVOURER"


Well you see that is a little misleading cause gravity bends light no matter how small the gravity. And so that means over vast distances light can be bend literally light years by a small mass that is close to the emitting object.

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
how about this?

www.space.com... ing%20into%20a%20spinning%20black%20hole,%20whose%20shape%20is%20distorted%20and%20not%20spherical.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Interesting. What is your subject of study? How long have you to go?

Anthropology... will have Masters' in August (previous one was in Medical Computing Applications) and PhD... as I can afford it.


I gained by PHD in Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics / M-theory at the university of Westminster London in 1996.

(g) I do like to check these things. You might be surprised how many here try to claim advanced degrees.


I have presented quite a few white papers on subjects mostly to do with the missing 90% of the universe and the nature of the strange quark.

That's fascinating reading and, alas, a bit beyond my mathematical abilities. The modeling I do is considerably simpler (one project now is involving Erdos's Small Worlds and networks and that's about as much math as I can handle.)



We cannot observe any black hole directly.. it's not possible... only the effects it has.

And when I talk about an object travelling faster than light I am not talking about it travelling through our normal 4-dimentional space. What I believe occurs is it would literally travel through one of the other special dimensions that exist according to M-theory. So it could be travelling without moving at all in our 3 special dimensions.

(nod) Understood, but as I believe I've read, we do have evidence of them orbiting stars, correct? (there's also the binary black hole adsabs.harvard.edu... )

Now, if I'm reading these and other papers correctly, then we do have them moving through the 3 spatial dimensions (or 4, if you count time.)

I have the average layman's understanding of strings and branes (which is to say that I know the words and not much else.) So... strings are NOT static locations in space but have orbital velocity?

(yeah, I'm confused, but if you explain it in little words, I can go look up papers and definitions.)



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLSEEING
how about this?

www.space.com... ing%20into%20a%20spinning%20black%20hole,%20whose%20shape%20is%20distorted%20and%20not%20spherical.


That image is a representation of an accretiation disk. This disk of super hot matter that whirls around a black hole as it devours matter that is sucked beyond the event horizon.

We have seen and detected accretiation disks and also matter Jets that spew from the poles of this type of phenomenon but we have and never will be able to detect directly a Black Hole...

Interestingly enough I was once posed a question that had a rather startling answer.

The question was what was the Blackest Black. The Answer of course is a black hole with a complete absence of light....

However.... the reason Black looks the way it does is that it absorbs more of the light spectrum than it reflects.

If it were some how possible to create a perfect black you would have advertently create an object that would absorb all light and would in fact be a paradox as energy cannot be destroyed only converted....

So when someone says something is black they are actually lying because nothing we have on earth is truly black... only varying shades of Grey.....

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Greetings to Neon Haze from a fellow PhD


And this goes to those in this thread who sound condescending to the scientists: You have no clue about the complexity of general relativity and/or quantum mechanics. The scientists were never trying to sweep under the rug the various inconsistencies they would find in various models. In fact, that's how progress was made.

If we have a model, and the experimental data fit the model well in most cases, the model is then the way we think and make predictions about the universe we live in. There is no truth, just models. The models are also required to have predictive power. That's how they are useful.

General relativity made a few correct predictions. Lensing of light around massive objects is one of them. Black holes do involve theories difficult even for most physisists, so when I hear a critique of the black hole concept from somebody relying on "Popular Mechanics", that just ticks me off.

I read the article in the "Nature" magazine, the subject matter is oversimplified to the point where it's useless.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita...And this goes to those in this thread who sound condescending to the scientists: shut up....


WOW!! Here's to a free exchange of ideas - and the rise of the meritocracy for sure!! Sorry I haven't a doctorate - i will go away now, as I am simply not worthy of being in such exalted company...



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlfredENewman

Originally posted by Aelita...And this goes to those in this thread who sound condescending to the scientists: shut up....


WOW!! Here's to a free exchange of ideas - and the rise of the meritocracy for sure!! Sorry I haven't a doctorate - i will go away now, as I am simply not worthy of being in such exalted company...

Neh, stick around. Have some popcorn. Ask questions. I don't mind questions (although I'm no PhD)... and they shouldn't, either.

It's useful to have REAL academics/engineers/science geeks around the board (there are a handfull of us.) I see a lot of statements about "real scientists" by people who read and believe some silly web pages that always go on about how scientists don't believe them and all scientists are dimheaded, singleminded morons.

Education seems to be failing us today, and the presence of people who understand a field in real depth can be valuable.

So ask questions. Someone will answer, and we'll all be richer for it. The gods know I've learned a boatload of stuff since coming here!

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by AlfredENewman

Originally posted by Aelita...And this goes to those in this thread who sound condescending to the scientists: shut up....


WOW!! Here's to a free exchange of ideas - and the rise of the meritocracy for sure!! Sorry I haven't a doctorate - i will go away now, as I am simply not worthy of being in such exalted company...

Neh, stick around. Have some popcorn. Ask questions. I don't mind questions (although I'm no PhD)... and they shouldn't, either.

It's useful to have REAL academics/engineers/science geeks around the board (there are a handful of us.) I see a lot of statements about "real scientists" by people who read and believe some silly web pages that always go on about how scientists don't believe them and all scientists are dimheaded, single-minded morons.

Education seems to be failing us today, and the presence of people who understand a field in real depth can be valuable.

So ask questions. Someone will answer, and we'll all be richer for it. The gods know I've learned a boatload of stuff since coming here!

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Byrd]


I couldn't agree more!!


And precisely the kind of knowledge share I would like to be taken up by all!!!

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
"That image is a representation of an accretiation disk. This disk of super hot matter that whirls around a black hole as it devours matter that is sucked beyond the event horizon.

We have seen and detected accretiation disks and also matter Jets that spew from the poles of this type of phenomenon but we have and never will be able to detect directly a Black Hole..."


Is that the same thing as an "accretion disk"?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join