Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

Professor Mersini-Houghton's new theory manages to explain why this might be so - namely because black holes as we know them cannot exist.

However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity, as predicted, never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

‘I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

O.k. Does this strike you as a total misunderstanding on what Hawking Radiation is??

Hawking radiation is caused when a pair of virtual particles (the positively charged and the negatively charged) come into existence as a result of the quantum fluctuations close to the event horizon of a black hole.

Under normal conditions the pair would annihilate each other instantly but.... if one particle of the pair popped into existence behind the Event horizon and one in front of it... it would cause the lucky particle in front of the event horizon to shoot off into space..a fully fledged particle... These particles are what we call Hawking radiation....

So......

How can this scientist be correct... she states that the dying star would loose mass as a result of Hawking radiation so the event horizon never forms.....

Could it be that she miss understood what Hawking radiation is?

Or perhaps the article itself is in error??

What are your thoughts?

Korg.

I have no idea whether the lady is correct, but if she is, and the past is any indicator, we won't know for anywhere from 25-100 years. That's usually about how long it takes for academia to accept anything that goes against the present standard.

But if she's wrong(even if she's right), we'll know that immediately.

Well here are the papers if you'd like to read over them:

Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls

a reply to: Korg Trinity

from Hawking:

Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes

"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinnity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time."

It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is lost.

So there are massive "gravity holes" but not singularities, and not completely "black." Key being apparent horizons not event horizons.

That's if you believe Hawking.

a reply to: Korg Trinity
At best she may be "proving" that black holes are not created by imploding stars.

That does not mean that black holes do not exist. There are most certainly black holes at center of galaxies who's origin remains unknown.

call it what you will but there is something at center of Galaxies that match the current definition of super massive black holes.

I do not believe though that they have detected normal black holes that would have originated from imploding stars so she might be partially right.

The math doesn't say black holes don't exist more that that they cannot be created by collapsing stars. It's quite a big game changer if it proves to be correct but it wasn't submitted for peer review so I'll wait for all other scientists to weigh in

I can't understand how in the paper she would agree with the observing Hawking radiation yet for it requires an event horizon which requires a black hole.

Perhaps we just don't understand black holes as we thought.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well here are the papers if you'd like to read over them:

Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls

She clearly has misunderstood Hawking Radiation.

As this is a phenomenon that only occurs as a result of the Event Horizon.

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well here are the papers if you'd like to read over them:

Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls

She clearly has misunderstood Hawking Radiation.

As this is a phenomenon that only occurs as a result of the Event Horizon.

Korg.

Maybe your understanding of Hawking radiation is not what you think it is. If you had read the articles you would find she has devoted clear explanations of what Hawking radiation is and how it relates to a collapsing star and her conclusions.

It's a bit shocking that you are the OP and clearly don't know what this professor is talking about and yet think you are smarter than her.

ETA: Still a flag from me though, because the topic is very interesting and she is definitely on to something!

a reply to: RationalDespair

Good topic. I think it is good to challenge Hawking in this way. I'll flag this to keep an eye on it's development.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Black holes, or something which behaves very much like the traditional description of a black hole, DO exist, and we do not require calculus to prove that. One only has to look at the number of Black Holes which have been discovered by observing surrounding objects, and the way they are affected by the presence of these monstrous structures.

The idea that they do not exist, simply defies the observable data from the actual universe, and when the mathematics argues with things which have been observed, then one is bound by reason to trust the observation rather than the mathematics.

Remember, black holes have massive effects on the objects surrounding them. When an observable object, wobbles in such a way as to replicate the movement of a planet around an object more than three solar masses in size, there is a good chance that there is a black hole in the vicinity. Now, as our understanding of, and ability to directly observe gravity phenomena in the universe improves, we may find that what we know to be black holes, are actually quite a bit different than we thought, but they still give off no light, in and of themselves, and they are still gravity wells in space so deep that they EAT stars! So whatever difference this lady is suggesting there might be between the classic description of a black hole, and the objects we KNOW to exist out there somewhere, it is likely to be a matter of pure semantics, and the effects of proximity to them is likely to involve precisely the same amount of totally epic fail.

I think that she is redefining what we perceive as black holes. Like they are universes pushing against each other. I think that her point is as valid as Hawking's.

lifeboat.com...

Sheldon is wrong????

a reply to: Korg Trinity

The impossibility of a boundary or “event horizon” to a black hole was proven mathematically a while ago by physicist Stephen Crothers.

Here’s a dispute between Crothers and Dr. Christian Corda on this topic that took place back in 2011. Corda, Editor-in-Chief of The Open Astronomy Journal, had this to say about the black hole back then:

Again Steve, I suggest you change your way of proceed. I think that you are surely a talented researcher within gravitational physics, I agree with you that black-holes do not exist, but nobody will follow you if you insist to claim that not only the present community of gravitational physicists, but also the same Einstein, Schwarzschild, Hilbert, etc., i,e. the Founders Fathers of General Relativity, were wrong and the only correct person is Steve Crothers. in particular, be sure that I will NEVER follow you.

Even the scientists who claim black hole exist don’t believe their own fairy tale. They perpetuate the myth because it is part of a religious system. Religion is founded on faith, and in this case that faith is rooted in mathematical models. But like all religions, the Church of Mainstream Science has priests who don’t believe what they themselves are a preaching.

Still, it’s nice to see this myth being denounced more openly today.

Starred and Flagged

This is a good find and I have been a big fan of Professor Mersini-Houghton. Her work in string theory and parallel universes is very interesting. She predicted the cold spot in the CMB and other things.

This theory actually unites general relativity and quantum mechanics. She didn't say black holes don't exist. She said that a collapsing star can't create a black hole.

This unifies the 2 theories in an elegant way. The consequences of this could point in the direction of a multiverse. So universe and black holes would be created when a universe reaches or gets close to equilibrium and quantum fluctuations begin to dominate the universe. Universes then expand from these fluctuations ad infinitum and you have this branching of universes. This would also mean that all universes are false vacuum's and they originate from the enormous zero point energy from the true vacuum.

This also supports life after death in the sense of reincarnation. You will continue being born in some iteration of yourself as these universes branch out ad infinitum. This doesn't mean you exist in some sort of ghostly fashion after death unless we discover extra dimensions and our minds could still exist in a higher dimension until it's born into another iteration in the 3rd dimension.

i dont mind The Big Bang Theory revised, scrapped or replaced, it was a theory, which seemes to make sense yet felt it had holes.

Current Science about the expanding from nothing
miracle of the Big Bang will be flipped on its lid.
Great thread. Big Claim straight to the point with great links, so Well Done !

originally posted by: bigx001
Sheldon is wrong????

An Titor is a fake?

a reply to: neoholographic

Buckmeister Fuller said and I paraphrase slightly I suspect. ' If I'm working on a problem and the answer is not both simple and beautiful, then I know it's wrong.'

I think your explanation had both elements. I like it, right or wrong. A universe branching out and changing. Very Chaos like eh.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I really don't trust "mathematical proof" much anymore. There are so many things in nature that mathematically are impossible that in fact exist. I also don't believe black holes exist. I feel that the Electric Univereses explanation for the phenomenon is the best one and most logical without having to invent dark matter, extra dimensions, and other things that even Einstein rejected. Why do we blindly trust mathematicians that aren't astronermers and whose "science" can't even be demonstrated in the lab? At least the EU guys show lab demonstrations that support their theories. They also make a great point that magnetism and electricity are used to create all the amazing phenomenon we see out there. I think about it like this, if we use electromagnetism to accelerate particles in our colliders, then why would we invent singularities to explain what we see in space? Langmuir pinches and double layers in plasma is right in front of us when we look up in the sky at the enormous filamentry plasma that fills the universe and our galaxy.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

The concept of a black hole never made sense to me. I understood that "something" was being detected, but a literal hole in space didn't sound right. I then ran across a book that described them as "dark islands of space" and what it described made more sense. It says "Some of the dense dark islands are the direct result of the accretions of transmuting energy in space. Another group of these dark islands have come into being by the accumulation of enormous quantities of cold matter, mere fragments and meteors, circulating through space. Such aggregations of matter have never been hot and, except for density, are in composition very similar to Earth.

Some of the dark islands of space are burned-out isolated suns, all available space-energy having been emitted. The organized units of matter approximate full condensation, virtual complete consolidation; and it requires ages upon ages for such enormous masses of highly condensed matter to be recharged in the circuits of space and thus to be prepared for new cycles of universe function following a collision or some equally revivifying cosmic happening."

Concerning the Big Bang, I only half believe it. I believe that was a point in time that the Universe did not exist and then it did exist. I think it is natural to think of that as an explosion, but the Universe is not expanding in that manner. There are cosmic bodies moving in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. It also implies randomness and the Universe does not show that.