Black Holes or Anything Else? by C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. J. Mosquera Cuestra, S. Robertson, and R. E. Schild

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your condolences on the passing of Darryl Leiter, for reading your Essay and for your interesting comments.

Concerning SMBH with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses, we propose 3 different alternatives with respect to ordinary black holes. The first two are the so-called Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) and Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs). MECOs are proposed like alternatives to black holes by Darryl Leiter, Stanley Robertson, and Rudy Schild. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra. In those objects the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can.

Together with Herman Mosquera Cuesta we proposed a third alternative to black holes, the Non-Linear Electrodynamics objects (NLED). We have shown that, by inserting a non linear electrodynamics term in the right hand side of the Einstein Field Equation, an exact non-singular solution of such an equation can be found for a collapsing body. Such a solution well matches with the external Schwarzschild solution.

Concerning the recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," you can find the paper by Mitra here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4754.

I am also going to comment the ideas that you discussed in your comment, but, before making this, I prefer to read your Essay on the Galaxy Rotation Problem. I will put my comments in your Essay page.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ch.

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your rating. But it looks to have been a low rating. In fact, I have seen that our Essay went down from the 8th to the 10th position just before your message above.

Is this correct? In that case it should have been better that you did not rate our Essay.

Sincerely,

Ch.

Christian,

I suspect that the equation 3x^3 8c1a^2B^4x - a^2B^2x = 0 is reducible to the cubic equation having a pair of conjugate complex roots. I do not know what it means taking physically.

Dear Michael,

Actually, the correct equation in our Essay is 3x^3 -(B^2)x 8c1B^4=0.

The correspondent polynomial admits a minimum in x=B/(3)^1/2, a maximum in

x=-B/(3)^1/2 and it is positive for x=0. Hence, all the 3 solutions are real.

In any case, you put my attention on your Essay on the Wrong Mathematical Assumptions in Physics. I am going to read it nd I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Darryl Jay Leiter would be truly content to see the essay you wrote together.

This is a fine way to continue the cooperation even when a part of the group is no longer in our causal universe.

I read the essay, but you lost me with the equations, however the most important thought is clear to me, the essence of BH's is not yet clear to us and you together also doubt the "existence" of singulairities.

In "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my perception is that singulairities cannot exist in our causal universe, because it is limited by the Planck length and time.

What you are posing about the event horizon is indeed a foundational question, this event horizon is an exact limit and when you don't accept singulairities there are also no exact borders , because the Planck length is the minimum length, after that there is no longer cause and effect.

I hope you will read/rate and comment my essay.

Wilhelmus

Dear Chris,

Thanks again for your kind consideration! I replied to your comment in my essay's blog, including some additional thoughts about the Bullet Cluster. I'll summarize below in case you don't get back to my page...

I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, in my view, the fundamental issue with galaxy gravitational evaluations is not (when correctly applied) Newtonian physics, it is the expedient misapplication of even simpler methods of approximation by astronomers and others. There are several references to research in my 'Supplemental Info." and "Cited Works" sections (the latter correcting one erroneous URL) that more correctly represent galactic mass configurations using Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to successfully represent observed galaxy rotation. There is also a reference using general relativity - Fred Cooperstock also takes the view that the failing is inherent in Newtonian physics.

Sincerely, Jim

Dear Jim,

Thanks again for this interesting discussion.

I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your kind words on Darryl Leiter. He was a great person and a great scientist and I agree with you that he would be truly content to see the essay we wrote together.

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Chris,

Again I have a more complete reply on my essay's blog, but I'm not a physicist & can't do math - please consider:

James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.

Joanna Jalocha et al. "Is dark matter present in NGC4736? An iterative spectral method for finding mass distribution in spiral galaxies." Astrophysical Journal 679 (May 20 2008): 373-378. doi:10.1086/533511. arXiv:astro-ph/0611113v3.

Sincerely, Jim

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergei,

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,

Ch.

Thanks Jim, I am going to read the papers that you cite.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian:

Did you get a chance to read my paper --" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" and provide any comments?

Thanks

Avtar Singh

Dear Dr. Corda, and colleagues,

My condolences for Dr. Leiter, whom I admire from previous fqxi essay contests. Your essay is very compelling, and one should not exclude the possibility that singularities and horizons don't actually exist. I think you are doing an important job by exploring this possibility. Being more intimidated by theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman, I took the complementary task to consider the singularities as inevitable, and see what happens. In my essay "Did God divide by zero?" I show that nothing that bad as expected, that black hole and big bang singularities not only are benign, but even introduce a metric dimensional reduction which may help at the quantization of gravity. So if the singularities will turn out to exist, I hope to provide a safety net with my approach. I would appreciate feedback to my essay, if you find time for this.

On the other hand, you may very well be right and nothing like singularities is admitted in reality. It may be possible that the strong equivalence principle be ensured by global consistency. I use global consistency in "Global and local aspects of causality" (independent of this contest's essay), to make quantum mechanics more reasonable and more compatible with general relativity.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Avtar,

I have just read,commented and rated your interesting Essay.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Cristi,

Thanks for condolances for Darryl. He was an excellent person and a great scientist.

I saw that you are, like us, one of the victims of the strange "rasing and dropping" of the Community Rating.

Concerning physics, I think that the theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman are a fantastic mathematical result, but not sacred cows. Physics of compact objects could be different.

OK, I am going to read your Essay and I will put my comments in your page.

Cheers,

Ch.

I rate yours 10.

Thanks my dear Jin.

I am going to read and rate your Essay too.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian Corda,

Thanks for your rating. But that does not work. The scientific academia is controlled by the powerful celebrity in the same way the Western financial system is controlled by those powerful celebrity.

Thanks anyway.

Jin He