QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[RJBeery]

Moreover (sorry, no editing allowed...), prior to the formation of the black hole, it is possible to communicate with objects inside what will become the event horizon. And there is a specific time when that is no longer possible - the time the BH forms.

You're right, this is what we are taught that GR suggests but that doesn't mean this is what happens in reality.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Well put, but not true. My explanation works just fine.

Could you be a bit more specific about what "your explanation" is? Because you seem to post any story that mentions "Black holes Don't Exist!" and the different explanations are not always consistent with each other. This particular thread (the paper) doesn't contain any alternatives.

I only ask for a truth which is consistent across all accepted models, and BHs are incompatible with QM. In my opinion QM wins.

Thar's odd because your typical objection has nothing to do with QM: it is a GR or even Newtonian objection (frozen star).

 

[paddoboy]

Doesn't surprise me. Didn't take long to expose your shortcomings. What is your position at UNC, exactly?

There is another possibility you know....Perhaps it is you with the "shortcomings"
But anyway, up until your "spitting the dummy" in the above post, I actually commend the questions and manner in which you have asked them, and highly commend the excellent logical replies by Declan.
His knowledge on BH's and GR seems excellent.
A pity he is not around as much as he should be.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You're right, this is what we are taught that GR suggests but that doesn't mean this is what happens in reality.

Please explain:
1. Are you claiming GR is being misinterpreted?
2. Are you claiming QM provides a way around this?
3. Are you claiming observations across an EH have been made?
4. Are you claiming a way/theory may be devised in the future that gets around this?

 

[Russ_Watters]

You need to brush up on what is theoretically observed to happen, Russ.

Which part of that do you object to?

 

[paddoboy]

You're right, this is what we are taught that GR suggests but that doesn't mean this is what happens in reality.

As already mentioned, GR has overwhelmingly stood up to every test put its way.
While someone in a remote FoR, may never see something actually cross the EH, just gradually redshifted beyond the range of his or her instruments, from the FoR of the person falling in, [other then for tidal gravit

 

[paddoboy]

ww

As already mentioned, GR has overwhelmingly stood up to every test put its way.
While someone in a remote FoR, may never see something actually cross the EH, just gradually redshifted beyond the range of his or her instruments, from the FoR of the person falling in, [other then for tidal gravity] nothing unusual happens and he or she reaches the Singularity and oblivion in a short but finite amount of time.

 

[Aqueous Id]

]This thread is simply evidence that humans, all humans, have a major problem accepting evidence which contradicts their world view.

Who is ignoring evidence?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1310.0146

 

[brucep]

@ brucep,

Laura has produced many, many peer reviewed papers. This paper hasn't been through the referee process yet because she only submitted two weeks ago. You can bet the farm that it will be published, AND it will probably receive as many citations as any of her previous work. She is very well thought of in the theoretical physics community at large, and greatly esteemed at the University of North Carolina. Her work is top shelf.

I think what the popular press and readers are missing in this is: Her specialty, her focus is on THEORETICAL physics. It's the game of taking all possible questions, constraining as far as practical with known physics and 1st principles, developing self consistent maths and see where it goes. This type of work is not presented or intended as a "fundamental truth" or reality, it is for testing the limits of theorizing. It is the practice of modeling methods taken to the extreme.

I can assure you, that in her classes, she will never teach "black holes can not exist". She would not even say that in an informal conversation with cosmologists, astrophysicists, or general physicists. I can say that with confidence because I am associated with the same school she is at. This work is not meant to be mistaken as cosmology or astrophysics, it's more in line with string theory or quantum loop gravity theories, it's speculative, not experimental.

She's brilliant, but she is a theorist who uses maths few mortals can hope to master, so I hope everyone will note that theorizing is not experimental or observational physics. We see to many varied manifestations of phenomena associated with black hole to think they might not exist. Observation and experiment always trumps theory. And she will teach exactly that. (That's what seperates cranks, crackpots and pseudoscientists from out of the box thinking physicists like Laura.)

Thanks Declan. Your workspace must be really interesting. Thanks for that again. Hope I didn't sound like I thought

@ brucep,

Laura has produced many, many peer reviewed papers. This paper hasn't been through the referee process yet because she only submitted two weeks ago. You can bet the farm that it will be published, AND it will probably receive as many citations as any of her previous work. She is very well thought of in the theoretical physics community at large, and greatly esteemed at the University of North Carolina. Her work is top shelf.

I think what the popular press and readers are missing in this is: Her specialty, her focus is on THEORETICAL physics. It's the game of taking all possible questions, constraining as far as practical with known physics and 1st principles, developing self consistent maths and see where it goes. This type of work is not presented or intended as a "fundamental truth" or reality, it is for testing the limits of theorizing. It is the practice of modeling methods taken to the extreme.

I can assure you, that in her classes, she will never teach "black holes can not exist". She would not even say that in an informal conversation with cosmologists, astrophysicists, or general physicists. I can say that with confidence because I am associated with the same school she is at. This work is not meant to be mistaken as cosmology or astrophysics, it's more in line with string theory or quantum loop gravity theories, it's speculative, not experimental.

She's brilliant, but she is a theorist who uses maths few mortals can hope to master, so I hope everyone will note that theorizing is not experimental or observational physics. We see to many varied manifestations of phenomena associated with black hole to think they might not exist. Observation and experiment always trumps theory. And she will teach exactly that. (That's what seperates cranks, crackpots and pseudoscientists from out of the box thinking physicists like Laura.)

 

[brucep]

For Declan
I messed that up. I did want to say thanks for explaining that to me. This will give me some new perspectives on how I review stuff.

 

[C C]

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! [...] "The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed..."

Meh. Sounds like the "BH alternative" slot that the gravastar hypothesis initiated has a new member. It surely won't be last. Fledgling categories, like bureaucratic agencies, like to keep growing till they reach some level of satisfactory bloat.

 

[brucep]

Meh. Sounds like the "BH alternative" slot that the gravastar hypothesis initiated has a new member. It surely won't be last. Fledgling categories, like bureaucratic agencies, like to keep growing till they reach some level of satisfactory bloat.

Sounds more like you're trolling nonsense.

 

[brucep]

It is, however, the only current explanation that doesn't contradict observations. Will someone someday come up with another solution? Perhaps, but this one isn't/doesn't claim to be it.

In any case, you just accidentally agreed that the "black hole" explanation is at worst no worse than any other. In other words, it is the best explanation, and at worst others may be tied with it.

Also - and I need to look into this more - I don't think a remote observer ever sees the infaller decelerate. But either way, the relativistic effects don't happen *gradually" - nothing unusual happens until a tiny fraction of a second before the object disappears.

There is no acceleration or deceleration. The infalling observer is following a natural free fall geodesic. In this case the geodesic is described from remote coordinates and is coordinate dependent.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You're right, this is what we are taught that GR suggests but that doesn't mean this is what happens in reality.

A lot of things are being taught. And new things are learned every day about what happens in reality, which is why all scientific teaching relies on empirical evidence. No apparent conflict in theory and/or mathematical formulation can override empirical evidence. Evidence comes first, and the rest rises or falls as needed to best explain it -- in its totality.

Approximately 10% of active galactic nuclei exhibit relativistic jets, which are powered by accretion of matter onto super massive black holes. While the measured width profiles of such jets on large scales agree with theories of magnetic collimation, predicted structure on accretion disk scales at the jet launch point has not been detected. We report radio interferometry observations at 1.3mm wavelength of the elliptical galaxy M87 that spatially resolve the base of the jet in this source. The derived size of 5.5 +/- 0.4 Schwarzschild radii is significantly smaller than the innermost edge of a retrograde accretion disk, suggesting that the M87 jet is powered by an accretion disk in a prograde orbit around a spinning black hole.​

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/355

​

Hubble, measuring fluctuations in ultraviolet light from gas trapped in orbit and around the black hole found two examples of a so-called "dying pulse train," the rapidly decaying, precisely sequential flashes of light from a hot blob of gas spiraling into the black hole.
​

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/

New evidence has been uncovered for the presence of a jet of high-energy particles blasting out of the Milky Way’s supermassive black hole. As outlined in the press release, astronomers have made the best case yet that such a jet exists by combining X-ray data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory with radio emission from the NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA). ​

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/c...ky-way-black-hole-composite.html#.VCSWPEpX-uY

​

​

In 2011 ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) discovered a gas cloud with several times the mass of the Earth accelerating towards the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way (eso1151) [1]. This cloud is now making its closest approach and new VLT observations show that it is being grossly stretched by the black hole’s extreme gravitational field.​

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1332/

​

​

 

[C C]

Sounds more like you're trolling nonsense.

??? And this "does not follow" in response to someone simply expressing their level of interest about a conclusion, that hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet, stems from what specifically? That you never heard of gravastars or that your reading inferences are so poor that you felt I was actually advocating the latter? Come on, you can surely clarify where you were coming from more substantively than with ambiguous or seemingly arbitrary codswallop like "Sounds more like you're trolling nonsense."

Or to quote an old movie: "As I've heard from some quarters, you truly aren't very novel or discreet when it comes to making mountains out of molehills or projecting misconstrued representations into what other people say. Why don't you just put up a neon sign advertising what you're doing?"

 

[tashja]

Hi RJ. I forwarded your questions to Prof. Laura Mersini-Houghton and this is what she replied:

Do you agree that QM, as a theory, forbids traditional black holes? And would you agree that QM is incomplete or even wrong if black holes do "exist"?

The wording is tricky here: If black holes exist then they do violate QM since information is lost. By traditional black holes you mean classical black holes?

My final question is, which is right (in your opinion): black holes or our current understanding of QM? incompatible. In other words, our current understanding of QM would not allow for black holes. Maybe QM is wrong? Perhaps it is, but I'm willing to bet that it isn't.

QM has been proven experimentally to exquisite precision. Otherwise you would not be able to communicate with me electronically, all of that is based in QM. Black holes on the other hand have never been understood in terms of their singularities and event horizons. And there can not be direct proof of them either. So I would bet on QM being correct.

I asked her what she thought the dark, compact source (Sag A*) at the core of the milky way was and she replied:

The same as before, a very massive star. The only difference is this star does not collapse all the way to size zero -aka to a singularity that a black hole would have.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

LMH

 

[paddoboy]

Hi RJ. I forwarded your questions to Prof. Laura Mersini-Houghton and this is what she replied:

I asked her what she thought the dark, compact source (Sag A*) at the core of the milky way was and she replied:

Interesting...In fact so Interesting, I would Imagine that if as she says BH's don't exist, then I would wonder also about the BB.
And if this was as "faitre complei" as RJBeery would want us to believe, we would really need to examine our whole present model of cosmology, as I would say it is on the verge of collapse.
Outstanding, Incredible, civilisation changing news!
Yet it has barely been spoken about, other then here.


Questions: What are these unseen companions we see in apparent binary systems.
What are the polar jets we see emanating from around apparent BH's?
What do we put down these other observations to, that give results for objects with an apparent escape velocity at or exceeding "c"

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
Laura Mersini-Houghton (née Mersini) is an Albaniancosmologist and theoretical physicist, and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a proponent of the multiverse theory which holds that our universe is one of many.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] She argues that anomalies in the current structure of the universe are best explained as the gravitational tug exerted by other universes.[

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 atSyracuse 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


No, as with the past headlines re the Pioneer anomaly, Neutrinos travelling FTL in the Opera experiment, and the BICEP2, I'll still hold onto accepted models at this time, and until further research is done.
Which I'm 100% sure it will.

 

[Declan Lunny]

I asked her what she thought the dark, compact source (Sag A*) at the core of the milky way was and she replied:


Laura Mersini-Houghton said:
The same as before, a very massive star. The only difference is this star does not collapse all the way to size zero -aka to a singularity that a black hole would have.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

LMH
Click to expand...

She said that, did she? Did she explain how QM trumps the General Theory and Newtonian mechanics when explaining "a very massive star" of 4.3 x 10^6 solar masses? (After she explains that to you, ask why she answers your email so much quicker than she answers anyone else, what's your secret? Four hours, after working hours, that has to be a record.)

 

[OnlyMe]

She said that, did she? Did she explain how QM trumps the General Theory and Newtonian mechanics when explaining "a very massive star" of 4.3 x 10^6 solar masses? (After she explains that to you, ask why she answers your email so much quicker than she answers anyone else, what's your secret? Four hours, after working hours, that has to be a record.)

I don't see the issue Declan. Not the email issue the issue involving singularities/black holes. When I read the responses the careful early qualifiers, set up the definition of a black hole. That last comment only suggests that she does not believe that the mathematical singularity does not exist. I don't disagree with that myself.

Understanding the definition establishes the context, here and in most situations.

The way that post was presented there is no way to know what the full context of the way the questions were asked.

From where I sit that last qualification of saying that the massive star (Sig. A) does not colapse to zero-size (IOW a point singularity) establishes the context! Interesting thing is both GR and QM breakdown at that point.., even though it can be argued that, that is where GR leads us...

All I read in her response, is that her answers were based on an assumption that a black hole and a mathematical singularity share definition, within the context of that exchange.

 

[Declan Lunny]

I don't see the issue Declan. Not the email issue the issue involving singularities/black holes. When I read the responses the careful early qualifiers, set up the definition of a black hole. That last comment only suggests that she does not believe that the mathematical singularity does not exist. I don't disagree with that myself.

The issue is the provenance of the "email quote".

And the fact that she would never describe a 4.5 million solar mass object as "a very massive star".

Physics does not allow a star so massive. Physics does not permit a neutron star so massive. Known physics requires that it be a "black hole". Quibbling semantics about what is going inside the event horizon, doesn't make a "black hole" as we understand them any less a "black hole". That is exactly how she states the issue.

Singularities? I've never cared much for what that has morphed into meaning. I prefer the original usage, "we do not because because the maths and physics can't handle it".

Bottom line? Beware anonymous persons who post "emails" citing authority.