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 (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
A black hole is a prediction of Einstein's General Theory of relativity, wherein a massive star collapses in on itself. Some physicists are hypothesizing that this stellar collapse instead leads to dark energy.
Apparently these are theoretical considerations, and much of it is comming out of trying to make Quantum Mechanics jive with natural observations.
 



www.nature.com
[A]s 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

He also thinks that the Universe could be filled with 'primordial' dark-energy stars. These are formed not by stellar collapse but by fluctuations of space-time itself, like blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas. These, he suggests, could be stuff that has the same gravitational effect as normal matter, but cannot be seen: the elusive substance known as dark matter.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Anything involve cosmology and astrophysics is allways pretty heavy and heady stuff. This certainly fills that criteria. Black Holes are normally taken for granted as existing. Apparently now some physicists are stating that not only 'don't' they exist, but that they can't actually exist.

Interestingly, this idea has matter being ejected back out of a black hole as its anti-particle, ie electrons thrown out as positrons, which collide with incomming matter, annhilate, and radiate energy, such as that which is thought to radiate from the center of the Milky Way. I suppose that this would also account for Hawking Radiation, but I don't know enough about any of this to say.
I think one of the more interesting things about this, aside from the information itself, is that its part of what is apparently an ongoing trend to reconcile theories in physics. For example, many people are familiar with the idea that there are many more dimensions to the universe and existence than the four man is familiar with (space dimensions and time dimension). However, these multidimensional ideas aren't somethign experimentally observed, but are rather somethign that is required to get certain types of string theory to work. Similarly, this is an attempt to reconcile certian effects of quantum physics.
Thats how science really progresses, by formulating and comparing theories and deciding which ones have more or 'better' explanatory power'

Related News Links:
xxx.arxiv.org
www.nature.com
www.nature.com




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   


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


Black Hole or Dark Energy, sounds like different terms for the same thing to me. What is your point? I can call a couch a sofa and it's still a couch! Maybe some more in depth research/details would us to understand your point!



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
the idea of a black hole is based on the idea that light can be effected by gravity. no one knows what exactly light is. and no one knows if it can be effected by gravity. if it could be effected, that would mean that it has to have some sort of mass.
At harvard university, they sped light up to 100 times faster than the sped of light and they also brought it so a dead stop. this shows that light can be effected, no one knows if light travles at the same rate. since no one knows if it travels at the same rate, than measuring lightyears cannot be done accurately, but according to a certain speed/rate.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Black hoels are a theroetical object thave have been all but proven. We have seen evidance of what we think they are. Up to going over and taking a picture of one.

From that theory scientist have used it as a tool to create phenomenon of other things including the forces of nature. Black holes have become the phyisics equivilant of a problem that allows the mind to take a next step into the theoretcial.

Who cares if they really dont exist or not... dosen't change the basic principals invovled and theories that have come out of using them in examples



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
As this has since been moved from ATSNN, please use the existing ATS Thread as linked above.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Black hoels are a theroetical object thave have been all but proven. We have seen evidance of what we think they are. Up to going over and taking a picture of one.


Your right...but wrong.

Although ablack hole has never been photgraphed. the effects have. I dont have any links but I watched it on the discovery channel.

A group of stars slowly disappeared and re-appeared as if something moved infront of them. i.e. - a black hole. There was a series of pictures that went along with it.

ALSO, they actually found a sun / star out in space. Nothing odd. Except the fact that the star was orbiting NOTHING




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bane Of Your Existence
A group of stars slowly disappeared and re-appeared as if something moved infront of them. i.e. - a black hole. There was a series of pictures that went along with it.

Neutron stars also bend light, as does any heavy object to a certain extent. There is no proof yet that black holes exist and as I have said in this other thread, there is a version of relativity that implies black holes do not exist.




top topics



 
0

log in

join