QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[RJBeery]

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

They don't mince words here; there is no subtle nuance. Black holes are not compatible with QM!

...
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place.
...
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.
...

 

[origin]

Then I wonder what that incredibly massive thing at the center of the milky way galaxy is that is invisible?

 

[RJBeery]

Then I wonder what that incredibly massive thing at the center of the milky way galaxy is that is invisible?

Using that logic you could deny Hawking radiation exists at all because you cannot see it.

"Science!"

 

[Dr_Toad]

There has been no peer review yet. Let's wait and see.

 

[origin]

Using that logic you could deny Hawking radiation exists at all because you cannot see it.

"Science!"

I don't think that is the same thing. I do not expect to be able to see Hawking radiation from a blackhole. If there are no black holes however I would expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns though.

I don't think my logic is unreasonable. I could be wrong but I am not being unreasonable.

 

[RJBeery]

I don't think that is the same thing. I do not expect to be able to see Hawking radiation from a blackhole. If there are no black holes however I would expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns though.

I don't think my logic is unreasonable. I could be wrong but I am not being unreasonable.

When you say you "expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns" you're completely discarding gravitational redshifting, which would of course exist even if the event horizon never quite formed. The area would appear black because the light has been asymptotically redshifted but not completely trapped as would be the case in a "proper" black hole.

 

[Dr_Toad]

In one of the PDFs she said that the math here doesn't rule out black holes formed by some other method, just that it works out for core-collapse BH formation.

My math isn't good enough to understand the intricacies, but if you or another highly-educated soul here cares to have a go, I'm all ears.

Edit:

When you say you "expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns" you're completely discarding gravitational redshifting, which would of course exist even if the event horizon never quite formed. The area would appear black because the light has been asymptotically redshifted but not completely trapped as would be the case in a "proper" black hole.

I am unsure if this is correct except for SMBHs. She's talking about low-mass BH formation.

I would love to see some math and an explanation of it. And maybe some cartoons?

 

[paddoboy]

And yet the gravitational effects on surrounding spacetime and matter still exists.
As Dr Toad says, and as per the scientific methodology, let's wait for peer review.
At this time though, the initiator of this thread, appears to be grasping at straws,as is so often the case with some.

 

[Trooper]

Hmm…she’s on the lifeboat foundation advisory board. That’s where rpenner was debating that odd little professor. I forgot his name. Isn't that foundation a little fringey? :shrug:

 

[Dr_Toad]

Got a reference link? I'd like to read that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

When you say you "expect to see something that has the mass of 100,000 suns" you're completely discarding gravitational redshifting, which would of course exist even if the event horizon never quite formed. The area would appear black because the light has been asymptotically redshifted but not completely trapped as would be the case in a "proper" black hole.

How does redshift make radiation invisible?

 

[Dr_Toad]

I got the idea that the last photon out would take infinite time to arrive, thus redshifted to infinity. Of course, that leaves photons that made it out before the bell still detectable.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

How does redshift make radiation invisible?

It is so long of a wavelength that we don't have detectors to see it. It still escapes, but has very low energy, but not red-shifted to infinity as with a black hole.

But I doubt that is what she's writing about - she's claiming that Hawking-like radiation starts being emitted as a star collapes, keeping the mass below a black-hole threshold. It seems preposterous; particularly in light of the existence of super massive black holes.

 

[RJBeery]

And yet the gravitational effects on surrounding spacetime and matter still exists.
As Dr Toad says, and as per the scientific methodology, let's wait for peer review.
At this time though, the initiator of this thread, appears to be grasping at straws,as is so often the case with some.

If by "grasping at straws" you mean I'm making references to actual papers published in esteemed, peer reviewed journals such as Physics Letters B, then I admit guilt. If you mean something else, like I'm making wild claims and supporting them with out-of-context misquotes from Wikipedia, then you're simply a closed-minded idiot as is so often the case with some.

 

[paddoboy]

If by "grasping at straws" you mean I'm making references to actual papers published in esteemed, peer reviewed journals such as Physics Letters B, then I admit guilt. If you mean something else, like I'm making wild claims and supporting them with out-of-context misquotes from Wikipedia, then you're simply a closed-minded idiot as is so often the case with some.

Take it easy ol son.
I'm saying as is the case with most anti mainstream quacks, that you are jumping the Gun.
The whole research needs to be peer reviewed.
Just as the BICEP2 experiments are being reviewed, and the claim that neutrinos were travelling FTL in the OPERA experiment, and who could forget the claims we had gravity wrong with the Pioneer anomaly.
Hope that helps.


ps; And of course you seemed to have missed the effects of the BH on surrounding spacetime and matter/energy, that could only be attributed to something that has collasped beyond its Schwarzchild radius.
Again, hope that helps.

 

[brucep]

How does redshift make radiation invisible?

Just recently there were 2 papers doing a similar computation to show the gravitational collapse resulted in a stable shell forming. One paper had the stable shell at r>2M and the other had the stable she'll at r=M. Both based on the quantum limit requiring the SPACETIME curvature to be finite at r=0. Not infinite as classically predicted which we know can't be right. This prediction is for the collapse to be reversed with no stable she'll forming.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686

All 3 papers don't account for the empirical observation of 'dying pulse train' predicted by GR. For the dying pulse train to be observed some kind of separation (light like) between a time like surface and a space like surface is required. The pulse is redshifted as the pulse emitter falls over the light like surface observed from the remote bookkeeper coordinates of the Schwarzschild geometry. For Joe Dolan it was finding evidence of the dying pulse train reviewing archive of the HST. The papers are interesting but I find it hard to take seriously when such empirical evidence is overlooked in the analysis. Empirical evidence which may make your derivation a moot point. So I like to keep an eye on citations for papers like that. Maybe learn something in the process.
Spacetime wasn't meant to be in caps. This new IPAD changes stuff without my knowledge until I try to proof read. Missed that one.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Thanks, Bruce. I'd forgotten the pulse train observations.

 

[rpenner]

University press release: http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/

Paper One: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 (Appears to be pre-print of brucep's link above)
Paper Two: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837

 

[RJBeery]

Just recently there were 2 papers doing a similar computation to show the gravitational collapse resulted in a stable shell forming. One paper had the stable shell at r>2M and the other had the stable she'll at r=M. Both based on the quantum limit requiring the SPACETIME curvature to be finite at r=0. Not infinite as classically predicted which we know can't be right. This prediction is for the collapse to be reversed with no stable she'll forming.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686

All 3 papers don't account for the empirical observation of 'dying pulse train' predicted by GR. For the dying pulse train to be observed some kind of separation (light like) between a time like surface and a space like surface is required. The pulse is redshifted as the pulse emitter falls over the light like surface observed from the remote bookkeeper coordinates of the Schwarzschild geometry. For Joe Dolan it was finding evidence of the dying pulse train reviewing archive of the HST. The papers are interesting but I find it hard to take seriously when such empirical evidence is overlooked in the analysis. Empirical evidence which may make your derivation a moot point. So I like to keep an eye on citations for papers like that. Maybe learn something in the process.
Spacetime wasn't meant to be in caps. This new IPAD changes stuff without my knowledge until I try to proof read. Missed that one.

Sincerely, I've never appreciated the "dying pulse train" argument. Perhaps you can explain it? I would expect a dying pulse train as matter spiraled into any large mass; the difference being that they would expect to see a collision of sorts as the matter hit the mass, whereas they did not at Gygnus XR-1. To me, this could simply mean that the collision effects were asymptotically redshifted just as the pulse was, rather than "proving" that the shell did not exist. I believe Cygnus XR-1 was our first proof that a "black hole area" existed and we could point to it, but to me that doesn't mean that all of our presumptions about the behavior of matter in that area have been proven as well.

 

[brucep]

Which is what I was alluding to when I made my "grasping at straws" at this time comment.
We have many of these types of "claims", as I have also mentioned, that a certain class of people seem to grab with glee, in the hope that it will bring standard accepted cosmology crashing down around our ears.
As with BICEP2 and others, we need to wait for further confirmation and subsequent peer review.

The Astronomer participant that participated in another forum I was on, often said, that although we have extensive evidence for BH's, we have even more evidence for DM.
Not actually sure I agree with that though.

It seems to be a common quantum gravity calculation that the negative energy at r=0 forestall collapse. Whether this actually describes natural phenomena is what is under review. This paper has been through peer review to be published in Physics Letters B. For the archive you need a sponsor or be an approved sponsor. For years they tried to do peer review but eventually they no longer had the resources to do full review and settled for the sponsor concept at the archive.