1st "proof" against black holes

Aidoneus · #1

http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the ... -universe/

If this paper holds up to review, it seems that the story of the origin of the universe may need to be rewritten. (IMHO, the situation in astronomy today is beginning to look more and more like the period just before Copernicus overthrew the Ptolemaic model.)

Bill Spight · #2

And here I was looking for a game record where the Black Hole opening was a loser.

Joaz Banbeck · #3

I'm inclined to group this with the proverbial paper that proved that bumblebees can't fly. There are things that act like the mathematical models of black holes, and any paper that argues that they are not black holes should have some alternate theory for their existence.

ez4u · #4

Realize that the 'article' is from the PR department of the author's university. ;-)

snorri · #5

I used to follow gr-qc and hep-th religiously and there was a time when I wouldn't have missed the 1st preprint. How low I have fallen since selling out to corporate America...

DrStraw · #6

I have one comments on this:

Until more evidence is given I know which side of the Hawking vs Mersini-Houghton equation I will give weight to.

oca · #7

Bill Spight wrote:

And here I was looking for a game record where the Black Hole opening was a loser.

Me too...

saw that on SL StrangeOpenings

Quote:

Ohashi Hirofumi 6p has a video has introduced several openings, The Black Hole on all four 7-7 points

Aidoneus · #8

ez4u wrote:

Realize that the 'article' is from the PR department of the author's university. ;-)

But the relevant paper is linked at the end. Surely, you did not judge the authors' work based on the PR blurb. :scratch:

Having said that, I put quotes around proof precisely because this is a proof via a numerical model. And I have to beat it into my students' heads that a model is not the reality--or the map is not the territory, if you will. :roll:

Again, I found the paper interesting but lacking sufficient detail for me to judge the exact "simplifying" assumptions and numerical methods used to obtain the conclusion (dissipation of mass through Hawking radiation just before reaching the Schwarzschild radius, producing a subsequent expansion instead of collapse into a black hole). Of course, even full details would not enable me to hazard a final assessment. Like DrStraw, I await reaction from specialists in the field.

cyclops · #9

To me her theory is very elegant. She makes the second law of thermodynamics, General Relativity and QM a holy trinity. It would be nice to proof that two of them implies the third. Male physics would be upset.

"LEGIONS of disembodied brains floating in deep space threaten to undermine our understanding of the universe. New mathematical modelling suggests string theory and its multiple universes may just provide our salvation – and that could win the controversial theory a few more backers. " copied from http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907

TheBigH · **#10**

Male physics? What?

Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

oca · **#11**

TheBigH wrote:

Male physics? What?
There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

Aidoneus · **#12**

I've read Woit's blog a few times, but I always suspect that I am reading a joke that goes over my head or maybe an item rejected by the Onion... http://www.theonion.com/articles/raving ... ysic,1145/

ez4u · **#13**

Aidoneus wrote:

I've read Woit's blog a few times, but I always suspect that I am reading a joke that goes over my head or maybe an item rejected by the Onion... http://www.theonion.com/articles/raving ... ysic,1145/

Thanks Aidoneus! I needed that. :tmbup:

Bill Spight · **#14**

TheBigH wrote:

Male physics? What?

Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

A really dark gray hole?

Bantari · **#15**

TheBigH wrote:

Male physics? What?

Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

Nothing else we know of?

Bantari · **#16**

Bill Spight wrote:

TheBigH wrote:

Male physics? What?

Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

A really dark gray hole?

That's right!
I always thought "black hole" was not really politically correct name.

Aidoneus · **#17**

Bill Spight wrote:

TheBigH wrote:

Male physics? What?

Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.

A really dark gray hole?

According to Stephen Hawking black holes may not exist after all: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawk ... es-1.14583

As for myself, I ever endeavor to resist categorical assertion... Je pense donc Je suis très confus. :scratch:

Knotwilg · **#18**

Since I left university 15 years ago :cry:

with a master degree in mathematics, my understanding of the laws of the universe has mostly dissolved. There were some laws that made great sense to me, like Maxwell's and Schrödinger's. These were laws that you could intuitively feel would pass the test of time. I felt a little awkward about Einstein's relativity theory but there was rather little arguing with it.

However ...

Much of the theory about formation, lifetime and death of stars has always seemed very speculative to me. The lethal blow to my faith in astronomy came with the following message, which I reformulate here in its Wikipedia shape:

Quote:

Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.

I have no alternative theory, but the fact that 95% of what should be there does not interact with our capability to measure, leaves a high likelihood that reality is a bit different than our current theories have to offer.

So, when someone comes up with an alternative theory for what's out there in space, I'm much more receptive than if another quack comes up with a perpetuum mobile on earth.

Bantari · **#19**

Knotwilg wrote:

Since I left university 15 years ago :cry:

with a master degree in mathematics, my understanding of the laws of the universe has mostly dissolved. There were some laws that made great sense to me, like Maxwell's and Schrödinger's. These were laws that you could intuitively feel would pass the test of time. I felt a little awkward about Einstein's relativity theory but there was rather little arguing with it.

However ...

Much of the theory about formation, lifetime and death of stars has always seemed very speculative to me. The lethal blow to my faith in astronomy came with the following message, which I reformulate here in its Wikipedia shape:

Quote:

Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.

I have no alternative theory, but the fact that 95% of what should be there does not interact with our capability to measure, leaves a high likelihood that reality is a bit different than our current theories have to offer.

So, when someone comes up with an alternative theory for what's out there in space, I'm much more receptive than if another quack comes up with a perpetuum mobile on earth.

I have had exactly the same feeling about the dark matter for years. My feeling is that if we have to go to such lengths to make our equations balance, then there just might be something wrong with the equations to begin with.

Black holes, however, do make sense to me, sort of. I can imagine huge amounts of matter accumulating in one spot producing unbelievable amounts of gravity. I know or see nothing that would contradict such process and such result. If that then produces the exact construct we mathematically define as "black hole", with all its weird properties, I cannot tell. But the general idea makes sense to me. More so than many of the other weird ideas, like wormholes, for example.

But what do I know. I stopped seriously studying physics and cosmology many years back, precisely because of such stuff as "dark matter". When I think of the universe, it is much simpler than that, and at the same time much more complex. The math and physics is simpler, the idea grander. And it all makes sense, you just have to throw off all that artificial padding.

Bill Spight · **#20**

Aidoneus wrote:

As for myself, I ever endeavor to resist categorical assertion.

You'll never say never again again?

1st "proof" against black holes

Who is online