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

I just noticed, neoholographic, we seem to be using the same avatar! Wild! Hmmm... I’ll change mine soon; been thinking of it anyway...

From what little I’ve read so far, my understanding tends to be pretty much in line with what neoholographic said a few posts back. Except, that is, for the reincarnation part, which went sailing right over my head. Not that I’m questioning it’s validity, neoholographic, but rather it’s simply something I know nothing about.

The so-called science writers presenting the topic and reviews may have intentionally attempted to spice it up a bit, or simply misunderstood the implications of Mersini-Houghton’s research, by proclaiming that BH’s do not exist and that the BB never occurred. I don’t know, but I don’t think that her research has made those claims. My understanding is that she has brought into question our understanding of the BH phenomenon and the source of it’s origin. It’s not that the phenomena we’ve been referring to as black holes, or deep gravity wells, or whatever you want to call it, has no basis in reality, but rather we need to reconsider these phenomena and rethink how they may have come about. She’s simply stating that she believes she has mathematically ruled out dying/collapsing stars as the source of singularity events, and that we need to re-evaluate our understanding of it.

There’s really nothing all that sensational about this. It’s the way science advances and evolves. After peer-review this may be validated and accepted, or it may get shot down entirely (rightly or wrongly). Personally, I wish an acceptable alternative to the BB model would come along and replace it, since I’ve never been able to get my head around the concept. I understand the logic behind the construction of a singularity, and yet I can’t comprehend it as something real without my primitive brain overheating and exploding. It seems historically every 200-300 years or so someone clever comes along to shake the foundations of science and begin a new paradigm, and I think we’re probably coming due soon.

Personally, when it comes to advances in science and our evolving understanding of the nature of reality, I’m willing to at least try to bend a little and accept a new slant/view on reality from time to time if it makes logical sense; to be honest, I’ve found that the older I get, the more it comes home to me how utterly clueless I am, and that I’ve been living all my years in an elaborate illusion of my own making. I think to some degree the same pretty much applies to everyone else, as well. Frankly, I’m not convinced that humans will ever master the art of absolute objectivity, and may consequently be forever unable to experience the final TRUTH we’ve always sought. Maybe inventing our own personal realities is just a tradeoff for being self-aware creatures. For some reason, this reminds of some poetic lyrics written by a Stone-Age band called the Moody Blues. One of their songs started out with the words:

Cold-hearted Orb that rules the night,
Remove the colors from our sight.
Red is grey, and yellow white.
But we decide which is right,
And which is an illusion...

It’s kind of ironic, in a way, but perhaps one day the intelligent machines we’ve created will advance and evolve sufficiently to understand the most basic elements of an objective reality, untainted by rose-colored glasses. Unfortunately, it may be unable to pass the knowledge on to us in any humanly comprehensible form.

Hmmm... Got a little sidetracked there. Sorry. At any rate, I wish Mersini-Houghton all the best. It would be an exciting discovery and a significant accomplishment. It’s just the kick in the butt physics needs right now in order to break out of the rutt it’s gotten into. This would be a winner on many levels.

Cheers!!

originally posted by: RationalDespair

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!

On the contrary.. I know exactly what hawking radiation is... and it cannot exist without the existence of an event horizon. That is to say that the virtual pair have to be separated for the radiation to exist. Given the distances we are talking about here are at Planc scales, the only thing that could separate them and prevent them from annihilating themselves is an apparent event Horizon.

which is what the person in question said it prevents in the first place.

If you want to understand Hawking radiation a little better you may learn the equations here..

Hawking Radiation

Rather than a thumbs down perhaps you should wonder that there maybe just perhaps other people on here that do understand enough to make correct assessments of a data set!

Korg.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.

You are preaching to the choir!

I'm not stating they do not exist... I am stating that Professor Mersini-Houghton has it WRONG.... Oh yes very good at Math but also very WRONG.... She ignores the paradox of what she is stating.

Simply put she said... dying stars would emit hawking radiation.... NOPE THEY WOULDN'T!!! Hawking radiation would only be emitted should the collapse form an event horizon... for all intense and purposes the very definition of a black hole.

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
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.

There can be no denying that there is an event horizon. Yes you can come up with all sorts of flowery math to explain away this or that. But the truth is if space-time was traveling inward at beyond the speed of light, there is a region of equilibrium where light can escape at ever decreasing speeds until it is in effect stationary.

This region is the Event Horizon, it is the place of no return.

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity



I was not preaching at you Korg, just adding my two pence to the thread! I know you have more sense than to buy this nonsense!

a reply to: neoholographic




Dude

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I was not preaching at you Korg, just adding my two pence to the thread! I know you have more sense than to buy this nonsense!

gotcha and thank you

Korg.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
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.

wow...that was a pretty damning piece...

can't say that I'm shocked though. It's exactly as I imagined it to be...guardians of the galaxy...

Sick...ish.

All collapsing stars do not explode and they can become black holes without exploding.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

The good news is that the woman is credible and the sources are credible.

The bad news it that the peer reviews could prove her wrong.

But back to the good news-there are plenty of papers being written and many of them pose a different hypothesis- each candidate is a possibility and the ones that are ruled out will thin out the crowd, which will lead to the correct answer eventually.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Korg Trinity

The good news is that the woman is credible and the sources are credible.

The bad news it that the peer reviews could prove her wrong.

But back to the good news-there are plenty of papers being written and many of them pose a different hypothesis- each candidate is a possibility and the ones that are ruled out will thin out the crowd, which will lead to the correct answer eventually.

I am all for blue sky thinking.... but the paper this article was written about is nonsense, and it will more than likely ruin her career.

I could come up with a workable mathematically correct paper that states water should not exist for example.... The maths would be right... but should I believe it to be true given Empirical evidence?

What do you think would happen to my career if I was to then publish said clever piece of math?

The reason I react so negatively is that it is precisely this kind of nonsense that gives real scientific work outside of the major labs such a bad rep. Believe me it's hard enough achieving a research grant as is, without this kind of paper being published!

Korg.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
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 !

No that won't be the case because that isn't what the Big Bang Theory says. It would help if you were to actually go study and understand the things you are talking about before commenting on them.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You have to be joking. This is a very sound theory based on current understanding. What she's saying is that a collapsing star doesn't form a black hole and this actually connects black holes to quantum mechanics. Now, her theories could prove to be correct or not based on the predictions made by her theory.

To act like she's just some idiot making these things up is just silly. Did you actually read the paper? She goes through all of this and the things she's saying is based on current scientific understanding. So, people are supposed to just call her an idiot and listen to someone on a message board that doesn't understand what she's talking about?

Here's her credentials.

Mersini-Houghton received her B.S. degree from the University of Tirana, Albania, and her M.Sc. from the University of Maryland.[11] She was awarded a Ph.D. in 2000 by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. After earning her doctorate, Mersini-Houghton was a postdoctoral fellow at the Italian Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa from 2000 to 2002. In 2002 she had a postdoctoral fellowship for two years at Syracuse University.[11] She accepted a job as faculty at University of North Carolina, and in January 2004, she started as assistant professor of theoretical physics and cosmology at UNC and was granted tenure in 2008.[11]

On October 11, 2010, Laura Mersini-Houghton appeared in a BBC programme What Happened Before the Big Bang (along with Michio Kaku, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, and other notable cosmologists and physicists) where she propounded her theory of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse.[12] Mersini-Houghton's work on multiverse theory is discussed in the epilogue of a recently published biography of Hugh Everett III.[13]

In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She agrees with Stephen Hawking in that collapsing stars give off radiation (called Hawking radiation), but her work claims to demonstrate that this causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole. [11][14]

en.wikipedia.org...-wncn-14

So, to chalk her up as unscientific or that she's not doing science is just silly. The fact is, science has been hitting roadblocks and this is partially due to the accuracy of the standard model and it has been called the nightmare scenario especially after the discovery of the Higgs. So science will have to explore these things because you would need a collider that we can't build to start to probe Planck energies.

So yes, this is "real" scientific work and there's many scientist doing similar things.

Once again, neoholographic, I tend to go along with your assessment of the Mersini-Houghton paper. At least that’s my read on it.

I think most folks see what they want to see, read what they want to read, believe what they want to believe, blah, bah, blah... And most of the time, if what they read doesn’t fall in line with their already pre-established belief system, then their conclusion is that it must be wrong. That rigid way of thinking, which most of us share, is one problem. Another is that we often read something that’s beyond our level of understanding, missing the point entirely, and then trash it out of our own ignorance. We all do it to some degree. It’s just that some of us are so good at it.

I don’t know... I guess I’m just simple-minded, but all I got out of it was that Mersini-Houghton believes she may have established, mathematically, that a collapsing star cannot result in a singularity, and therefore cannot become a blackhole. If we want to explain/understand BH phenomena, then we must take another approach. And that’s it... Over time, peer review will determine it’s validity. Or at least will determine it’s acceptance (peer review is often plagued with rigidity, as well, but it’s all we’ve got).

As another poster here pointed out, you also have to be careful in how you interpret mathematical results. It’s not that unusual for the mathematical formulations to be correct (mathematically), while at the same time the interpretation of those results is in error. Like I said above, we often see what we want to see, rightly or wrongly.

Enough of my gibberish. The only reason for making this post is I wanted to let you know, neoholographic, that I’ve changed my avatar so that it’s not the same as yours any longer.

Have fun!

This is interesting to say the least. I have no read the papers yet, but plan to do so tonight. I wanted to point out that there is absolutely no way that the person presenting this hypothesis does not understand her subject matter. Maybe I will have a different opinion after reading the scientific papers, but to think that a person in her position would not understand and be aware of Hawking's ideas is highly unlikely. I am relatively certain that understanding your subject matter is a prerequisite for a teaching position, at least at that level, lol.

I have been syaing they are stupid.
and black holes big bang is made up.

as a chiled learns things.
it thinks it knows how things work.
but its from the mind of a child.
and that is what we ALL are.

Never belive all what they say.
are you will be a fool to.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
This is interesting to say the least. I have no read the papers yet, but plan to do so tonight. I wanted to point out that there is absolutely no way that the person presenting this hypothesis does not understand her subject matter. Maybe I will have a different opinion after reading the scientific papers, but to think that a person in her position would not understand and be aware of Hawking's ideas is highly unlikely. I am relatively certain that understanding your subject matter is a prerequisite for a teaching position, at least at that level, lol.

1. You don't have to be stupid to make mistakes!

2. What she states doesn't make any sense at all. What she is proposing is a paradox, that X cannot form because Z will stop it from forming... but you have to have X for there to be a Z.

3. Empirical Evidence clearly shows the opposite of what she is stating

I understand you don't know who I am, to you I am just a random poster.... but trust me when I say to you I DO actually understand quantum Mechanics and Quantum gravity along with the Math.

And I'm TELLING you that the paper reads a bit like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit but the picture is all messed up.

It's a bit like arguing with someone that thinks the world is flat.... even if you were to take them into space and show them the globe they would still argue that because the maths says otherwise the globe can't exist!!

Hawking Radiation can ONLY occur if a virtual pair of particles were to form with one particle beyond an apparent Event horizon......... The event horizon only occurs after the point a star collapsed into a black hole.

Another point to make about Hawking radiation.... Virtual particles come into existence all the time, everywhere... they are a consequence of quantum fluctuations at the planc scale. Let's take the example given.... a Star with sufficient mass goes supernova, then stars to collapse.... What the paper suggests is that the star would loose mass due to Hawking radiation.... So a virtual particle pair comes into existence one shoots off into space and is recorded as hawking radiation....

But Hawking Radiation can only exist if the counter part particle of the virtual pair is trapped beyond the event horizon.

If what she stated is true then all matter would loose mass due to the same process. We would be seeing a very very bright sky as all objects would be emitting hawking radiation... because according the paper an event horizon is not required....

So the paper not only doesn't make sense in the face of Empirical Evidence, it also doesn't make sense when one looks at the Equivalence principle.

The paper should be the source of great Embarrassment!

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Your whole premise is extremely flawed and again, you don't fully understand what she's saying. You said:

But Hawking Radiation can only exist if the counter part particle of the virtual pair is trapped beyond the event horizon.

First of all, this isn't the case and Stephen Hawking doesn't agree with you, he agrees with Laura Mersini-Haughton on this point.

In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She agrees with Stephen Hawking in that collapsing stars give off radiation (called Hawking radiation), but her work claims to demonstrate that this causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole. [11][14]

So yes, Hawking says a collapsing star admits Hawking Radiation. So to act like she saying something stupid makes you look bad because Hawking agrees with her.

First, you talk about Hawking Radiation in absolute terms of what it can or can't be when it hasn't been observed. There's theories out there like Randall Sundrum that say black holes don't evaporate and instead embed themselves into another dimension and this could be the source of gravity.

For instance, they didn't detect Hawking Radiation at the LHC. They thought they would and Hawking Radiation would leave a signature of these mini black holes evaporating. What if black holes don't evaporate and there isn't any Hawking Radiation?

So this is your first mistake. You're talking about Hawking Radiation in absolute terms when Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed.

Secondly, you act like Mersini Haughton is an idiot that just woke up one morning and made these things up. She didn't say every object in the sky gives off Hawking Radiation just collapsing stars and this is based on what Stephen Hawking said. Hawking made these changes to to and get around the firewall paradox.

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').

www.nature.com...

So, please making these ridiculous statements and stop acting like her and the colleague she wrote the paper with are idiots.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Your whole premise is extremely flawed and again, you don't fully understand what she's saying. You said:

But Hawking Radiation can only exist if the counter part particle of the virtual pair is trapped beyond the event horizon.

First of all, this isn't the case and Stephen Hawking doesn't agree with you, he agrees with Laura Mersini-Haughton on this point.

In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She agrees with Stephen Hawking in that collapsing stars give off radiation (called Hawking radiation), but her work claims to demonstrate that this causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole. [11][14]

So yes, Hawking says a collapsing star admits Hawking Radiation. So to act like she saying something stupid makes you look bad because Hawking agrees with her.

First, you talk about Hawking Radiation in absolute terms of what it can or can't be when it hasn't been observed. There's theories out there like Randall Sundrum that say black holes don't evaporate and instead embed themselves into another dimension and this could be the source of gravity.

For instance, they didn't detect Hawking Radiation at the LHC. They thought they would and Hawking Radiation would leave a signature of these mini black holes evaporating. What if black holes don't evaporate and there isn't any Hawking Radiation?

So this is your first mistake. You're talking about Hawking Radiation in absolute terms when Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed.

Secondly, you act like Mersini Haughton is an idiot that just woke up one morning and made these things up. She didn't say every object in the sky gives off Hawking Radiation just collapsing stars and this is based on what Stephen Hawking said. Hawking made these changes to to and get around the firewall paradox.

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').

www.nature.com...

So, please

making these ridiculous statements and stop acting like her and the colleague she wrote the paper with are idiots.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!!

I just don't know what to say... perhaps Wow?!? I haven't said anyone was an idiot... I believe that word has only been used by... YOU!

I mean even a simple google search confirms it....

Google Search Hawking Radiation

Top Line even states...

Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon.

Funny how that mirrors what I am saying? Perhaps my education and 20 years research experience was all to waste?

And for your information it was I who brought Stephen Hawkings paper
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Hole to light on this board!!!!

In this thread

Stephen Hawking stuns physicists by declaring 'there are no black holes'

And as you clearly don't have the ability to understand it... It doesn't say that a collapsing Star produces Hawking radiation, it states that Hawking radiation can only occur if there is an APPARENT HORIZON... which is still a place where space-time is falling inward faster than light, which is what we are talking about.... why this paper was so good is that it demonstrated that there was no need for a paradox concerning the information loss from the universe.

And BTW LHC hasn't ever created mini black holes!!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!!

Korg.

For all else that haven't a clue what Hawking Radiation is this Clip from the BBC does a nice job of presenting the information in a clear and precise manor.





Korg.