Black Hole Existence Has Yet to be Proven

This specific article seems to prove that scientists are still trying to actually verify that Black Holes exist.

$19 million might produce the first ever image of a black hole

Astrophysicists think there's a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It's supposed to be four million times more massive than our Sun, but despite its stupendous size, we've never been able to see it. That might soon change. The European Research Council has given 14 million euros ($19.3 million) to the creators of BlackHoleCam, a project that will use radio telescopes and supercomputers to try to prove the existence of what Luciano Rezzolla, a principal investigator for BlackHoleCam, calls "one of the most cherished astrophysical objects."

Source

My point here is that if all you did was read the science/tech press or studied Astronomy/Cosmology in school, you'd assume that Black Holes have already been proven to physically exist in the shape, size and structure that we've all seen them depicted. And if you did assume that, you'd be wrong. The truth is that Black Holes have never been seen or physically verified as existing. They have been singularly promoted as being the cause of very definite and specific gravitational phenomena, but that's very different from being proven to physically exist as "black holes" or even as structurally defined cosmological manifestations that can be said to resemble what we've all be presented with in recent decades.

I just thought that it might be good to take a moment and clarify exactly where we actually are in our culturally imposed competition to ultimately define the nature of ourselves and our universe.

reply to post by NorEaster


Hm, you may have slightly misunderstood the article.

Astrophysicists think there's a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

BLACKHOLECAM WILL TRY TO IMAGE THE BLACK HOLE'S EVENT HORIZON TO CONFIRM ITS EXISTENCE

By "confirming its existence", the article seems to be referring not to black holes in general, but to THE black hole, which is assumed to be at the Core of our galaxy. So, according to the article, black holes existence in general is not in doubt here.

That being said, I'm nevertheless surprised that the Black hole existence at the Core is not a confirmed fact. When I hear physicists speak about it, it always seemed to me that they had no doubt whatsoever that the Galaxy's heart was a black hole. Now your article made me realize that they do have doubts. S&F for the find!

swanne
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Hm, you may have slightly misunderstood the article.

Astrophysicists think there's a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

BLACKHOLECAM WILL TRY TO IMAGE THE BLACK HOLE'S EVENT HORIZON TO CONFIRM ITS EXISTENCE

By "confirming its existence", the article seems to be referring not to black holes in general, but to THE black hole, which is assumed to be at the Core of our galaxy. So, according to the article, black holes existence in general is not in doubt here.

That being said, I'm nevertheless surprised that the Black hole existence at the Core is not a confirmed fact. When I hear physicists speak about it, it always seemed to me that they had no doubt whatsoever that the Galaxy's heart was a black hole. Now your article made me realize that they do have doubts.

edit on 20-12-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

This sentence seems to suggest that Black Holes are not confirmed to exist as depicted.

The European Research Council has given 14 million euros ($19.3 million) to the creators of BlackHoleCam, a project that will use radio telescopes and supercomputers to try to prove the existence of what Luciano Rezzolla, a principal investigator for BlackHoleCam, calls "one of the most cherished astrophysical objects."

reply to post by NorEaster


Oh. Hm, so it seems. Thanks for pointing it out.

Okay, that's weird indeed. I always thought they were so certain, too.

reply to post by swanne


Also, keep in mind that if there is no black hole at the center of our own galaxy, even as the radio telescope data strongly suggests that there must be one, then that calls all such data interpretations into question by default inference. In short, if they can't definitively state that our Milky Way galaxy spins around an actual black hole, then they're admitting that no similar size galaxies can be definitively declared as spinning around black holes either. And since the concept of black holes was originally theorized as being the structural impetus for galaxy formations in general - before they became exits and entrances to alternate universe and birthing stations for who-knows-what - if one hasn't been actually proven to even be the axis of our own Milky Way, then on what does the rest of the Black Hole theory rest?

Not on much.

reply to post by NorEaster


There is absolutely no doubt that black holes exist. They cannot be observed directly, as information cannot escape the event horizon, but their effects on neighboring bodies can be observed. Stars orbiting the black hole at the galaxy's center have been tracked. Here is a visualization of that data:



It must be true: you can see it on YouTube!

Edit to add: Astronomers have been tracking a dust cloud that is "circling down" to the central black hole. Some time in the coming year, it will impinge the event horizon and astronomers expect to observe a burst of x-rays and radio. I wouldn't normally mention this on ATS for fear of starting a doomsday panic!

DJW001
reply to post by NorEaster

 

There is absolutely no doubt that black holes exist. They cannot be observed directly, as information cannot escape the event horizon, but their effects on neighboring bodies can be observed. Stars orbiting the black hole at the galaxy's center have been tracked. Here is a visualization of that data:

It must be true: you can see it on YouTube!

Edit to add: Astronomers have been tracking a dust cloud that is "circling down" to the central black hole. Some time in the coming year, it will impinge the event horizon and astronomers expect to observe a burst of x-rays and radio. I wouldn't normally mention this on ATS for fear of starting a doomsday panic!

edit on 20-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Data indication is one thing. Accurate interpretation of data indication is something entirely different.

Ever hear of Orthogenesis? Read up on it. It is probably human history's most infamous example of really bad data indication interpretation. All the indications were there, and yet the interpretation of the data couldn't have been more wrong.

Data is only one part of research. The other part is a mind that's not rushing to publish a paper.

reply to post by DJW001


Nice video, it is really beautiful. I've never seen an actual animation of the movements of these stars. Thanks!

What is your take on the article in the OP?

reply to post by NorEaster

There is enough evidence to prove black holes exist. What we have not proved is all the theories on exactly what they are, how they work etc...

There is direct evidence of something not giving off light and producing massive gravity at our galaxies center. It has several stars in extreme orbits around it. All proven. Call it a black hole and there is your proof.

reply to post by swanne


You're welcome.

The article in the OP is misleading insofar as it can be construed to imply that the existence of black holes is in doubt. As I said, there is ample indirect evidence for them. Presumably, the objective of the project is to "probe" the structure of the event horizon to see if the exact direct measurements conform to what is predicted by theory.

reply to post by NorEaster


You don't get to say the because one 19th century hypothesis was wrong, anything else you choose gets to be equally wrong. You have yet to counter any of the evidence for the existence of black holes.

reply to post by NorEaster


If it looks like a spade and it digs a hole...

I mean come on guys....

Korg.

Xeven
reply to post by NorEaster

 

There is enough evidence to prove black holes exist. What we have not proved is all the theories on exactly what they are, how they work etc...

There is direct evidence of something not giving off light and producing massive gravity at our galaxies center. It has several stars in extreme orbits around it. All proven. Call it a black hole and there is your proof.

There is ample evidence that something exists that is affecting stars and galaxy formations. The existence of "Black Holes" is the prevailing theory concerning what that something is. There's no actual proof that what is affecting those stars and the formation of those galaxies is a collapsed star that has become a Black Hole. And yet, this theory has become fact for our entire culture.

And that's my point.

reply to post by NorEaster

Data indication is one thing. Accurate interpretation of data indication is something entirely different.

And no amount of data will suffice to persuade a prisoner of belief.

GetHyped
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You don't get to say the because one 19th century hypothesis was wrong, anything else you choose gets to be equally wrong. You have yet to counter any of the evidence for the existence of black holes.

edit on 20-12-2013 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

It's the interpretation of the evidence that I'm pointing out. People interpret the evidence. People invented the concept of a collapsed star that forms a Black Hole. No one's ever "seen" a black hole or even verified the structure of a black hole. Look it up. What you'll find is computer simulations, math formulas, and Youtube video clips. Nothing definitive whatsoever.

I spent three months on this question, and never found anything at all that wasn't based on someone else's theoretical hypothesis. Nothing objective or definitive exists concerning Black Holes. It's all math and conjecture based on (in some instances) pretty sketchy indications.

reply to post by NorEaster

There is ample evidence that something exists that is affecting stars and galaxy formations. The existence of "Black Holes" is the prevailing theory concerning what that something is. There's no actual proof that what is affecting those stars and the formation of those galaxies is a collapsed star that has become a Black Hole. And yet, this theory has become fact for our entire culture.

And that's my point.

You are critiquing something you do not understand. The black hole at the center of our galaxy is not a collapsed star. It has observable effects, and those effects are consistent with it being a massive yet small object. Functionally, it is a black hole.

Black holes are not entirely understood in theory; there are issues around information, entropy, whether or not they "leak" and so forth. Nevertheless, they are an observable phenomenon. You might as well argue that the wind does not exist because you can't see it.

DJW001
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Data indication is one thing. Accurate interpretation of data indication is something entirely different.

And no amount of data will suffice to persuade a prisoner of belief.

My point exactly.

DJW001
reply to post by NorEaster

 

There is ample evidence that something exists that is affecting stars and galaxy formations. The existence of "Black Holes" is the prevailing theory concerning what that something is. There's no actual proof that what is affecting those stars and the formation of those galaxies is a collapsed star that has become a Black Hole. And yet, this theory has become fact for our entire culture.

And that's my point.

You are critiquing something you do not understand. The black hole at the center of our galaxy is not a collapsed star. It has observable effects, and those effects are consistent with it being a massive yet small object. Functionally, it is a black hole.

Black holes are not entirely understood in theory; there are issues around information, entropy, whether or not they "leak" and so forth. Nevertheless, they are an observable phenomenon. You might as well argue that the wind does not exist because you can't see it.

Look up the principal theory concerning how Black Holes form. A collapsed star. Don't play semantics here. We're discussing science. Not philosophy.

reply to post by NorEaster


i suggest you have wasted three months if you think that black holes are collapsed stars, or that mathematical models have no legitimacy!

reply to post by NorEaster

Look up the principal theory concerning how Black Holes form. A collapsed star. Don't play semantics here. We're discussing science. Not philosophy.

Actually, I'm discussing science, you are discussing philosophy. I have provided you with objective evidence. You are rejecting it based upon your personal epistemological theories.