Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

It would seem that whatever falls in, will eventually be radiated back out. In normal terms, this would seem to be part of the cycle defining the relationship between mass and radiation.

Gravity is the contraction of mass, but the process does radiate out surplus energy all through the process and what this seems to suggest is that at some point, it all gets radiated out again.

It might be a good, general interest discussion as what this means for the opposite side of the cycle. That of radiation coalescing into mass.

We know light can shine out for over 13 billion lightyears, that there is a background of fairly uniform radiation, up to 2.7k and that the actual galactic effects extend far beyond the visible centers. So just hypothetically, what would be a reasonable explanation for how to fit the various bits of data into some grand cosmic cycle?

How does radiation coalesce into mass? Is it one process, or are there various stages, from the furtherest edges of the galaxy, through all the cosmic rays, interstellar gases, stars, planets, etc, down to the very core of galaxies.

For one thing, light would seem to travel as a wave, yet it coalesces to a point when it encounters atomic structure, which we call photons. Could this contraction/absorption be a part of this dynamic?

Then there is the issue of dark matter; Generally it seems to congregate around the middle to outer perimeters of galaxies, holding those further spirals and arms to the core. There are also lots of excess cosmic rays, as well as lots of cosmic gases in these areas as well. What is the boundary and relationship between cosmic rays and interstellar gasses? Could there be some bonding process going on there? Light is certainly absorbed by mass. Even plants/photosynthesis can turn it into material.

Then there is the ongoing debate over Big Bang Theory. The proof of which is the redshift of distant light and the aforementioned CMBR. Given how little we really know about the intergalactic medium, outside the hubris of certain doctrines currently espousing multiverses, could there be some very faint, but compounding lensing effect that only mimics recession as a form of reverse equivalency principle?

This would amount to Einstein's cosmological constant, that balances the contraction of gravity.

Light does expand and mass does contract. Why is it so difficult to consider they might balance each other out? All the evidence, from overall flat space, to now this possible refutation of gravitational vortices becoming singularities, would seem to point in that direction. We would have to shed a lot of intellectual supposition to get a much clearer picture and see what is left and how it might fit together.

Regards,

John M

This issue is more than just an academic curiosity..

The astronomical objects usually called black holes can tell us a lot about the universe, including what is the correct theory of quantum gravity, or what sort of theory supersedes it - from which quantum mechanics is emergent. The problem of black hole event horizon formation is a nested conundrum, where there are various processes both Quantum and Classical that can theoretically halt the formation of a horizon, all at work, and it is more a question of the specific mechanism that gets the job done.

We discussed on another FQXi Forum page Steven Kenneth Kauffmann's paper A Self-Gravitational Upper Bound on Localized Energy.., which suggests there is a point at which energy ceases to be compressible - forming a kind of condensate - or that it resists further saturation within a space by reducing self-gravitation. This is related to the effect described by Eddington, called the Eddington luminosity or Eddington limit - where a star or AGN can be so bright it opposes the force of its own gravity and pushes away what would aggregate. And this effect also relates to the force limits described by Christoph Schiller.

A number of years ago; George Chapline wrote about something called Dark Energy Stars (attached), that also provided a clear mechanism by which event horizon is likely halted - so that an event horizon never forms. But long before then; Abhas Mitra created exact solutions that make much the same predictions as Mersini-Houghton, but do not depend on quantum effects. So if it is a question of the chicken or the egg; I think the egg was first, from which emerged the first anatomically complete chicken.

All the Best,

JonathanAttachment #1: 317506.pdf

To be clear...

Black hole event horizons, and conditions for their formation or reasons for their non-formation, are by nature multi-disciplinary entities to study. What starts out to be a problem in Relativity or Differential Geometry, turns into a problem that involves Particle Physics, and Quantum Gravity - as well as questions about emergent space-time and other subjects that seem unrelated. Questions raised by experiments designed to test Bell's theorem may find relevant answers in the emanations of black holes - or rather the ECOs that are the actual astronomical objects that were thought to be black holes.

I think there is some semantic inconsistency in the paper by Mersini-Houghton, by calling what is radiated Hawking energy - because that is seen as leaking from behind an event horizon - but in general the correct point is conveyed. The real question is why the event horizon fails to form in many or all cases, and what sort of emanations will allow us to detect the the actual nature of the resulting object - to distinguish it among all the various proposed alternatives. My guess is that many of the predictions made by Abhas Mitra, in numerous papers over the years, will prove to be correct. But I doubt his work will find mainstream acceptance without some kind of academic consensus.

Regardless of who made the theory; I am hopeful the objects themselves will reveal though some detectable emanations exactly what they are.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I CONGRATULATE Laura Mersini-Haughton & Harald Pfeiffer. Reality is desperately needed in cosmology and this is a giant leap.

Those who study the finding who also read my cyclic cosmology paper(s) will notice the consistencies; The stellar scale black hole (BH), most visible at the heart of the Crab nebula (see fig here; Helical CMBR Asymmetry is shown to have the same dynamic morphology as active galactic nuclei (AGN's), called 'super-massive BH's' (SMBH's) outside astronomy.

The ubiquitous re-ionized bi-polar outflows (Quasar 'jets' when at full power) are directly equivalent to the so called 'Hawking Radiation', producing the 'lobes' of lenticular galaxies (pre-quasar stage) and the anomalous 'Fermi bubbles' and 'hypervelocity star' ejections of the Milky Way (low power stage).

The shock hypothesis I describe is that the jets do NOT stop, until ALL the disc matter is accreted, the column of re-ionized matter then commencing rotation to a virial axis on the orthogonal axis to form a new open spiral. Not only are a whole series of anomalies resolved by such a model (similar to Penroses CCC discussed nearby but resolving the problems) but the peculiar anisotropies are repeated as a 'fractal' model at the CMBR scale. All as published (HJ) and described in detail with references here;

A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars.

The model may be wrong, will sound crazy to many and is certainly incomplete, but it does seem to resolve all key issues with current theory. The 'Big Bang' would become an eternal sequence of big bi-polar 'Blasts'. Could we cope with the loss of Black Holes AND the Big Bang all in one century!?

Best wishes

Peter

" ... black holes can tell us a lot about the universe, including what is the correct theory of quantum gravity, or what sort of theory supersedes it - from which quantum mechanics is emergent. The problem of black hole event horizon formation is a nested conundrum, where there are various processes both Quantum and Classical that can theoretically halt the formation of a horizon, all at work, and it is more a question of the specific mechanism that gets the job done."

Once again, Jonathan, your talent for exposition of complicated subjects shines through the haze.

My opinion is that Hawking's newest theoretical innovation will withstand challenge, because it is one more step toward eliminating the boundary between quantum and classical domains. It may well be Joy Christian's measurement framework that turns the tide experimentally; the black hole topology absent of event horizon has a built-in topological twist that implies simple connectivity between the singularity and its spacetime environment.

Peter,

We seem to be in general agreement as to the overall picture and good luck fleshing out the many details. I think that once a clearer picture of the entire cycle begins to emerge, that gravity will become evident as an overall effect of the system and not a particular force on its own and that is why it is currently best described in the topological terms of "spacetime."

On a more sociological note, given the amount of pressure currently building in this particular bubble, there is probably more opportunity for facilitators than originators. The nature of the game is that those much more professionally centered in the discipline will be given credit, such as Mersini-Haughton. What will be most useful now are those able to spread the message among the many professionals working in associated areas, as you mentioned previously, who avoid discussions of theory, in order not to be judged crackpots by the thought police, but who will, when the tide does start to turn, be more than ready to jump on the band wagon. It might not make one the center of attention, which has its pros and cons, but will put one in the position of riding one of science's great waves and then one's own work becomes part of that wave.

Regards,

John M

Zeeya, I like Joe Polchinkski's quote in your Nature article:

"We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales."

That's just the case that militates against Polchinski's own firewall hypothesis, in my opinion. An event horizon of quantum effects that demarcates quantum and classical domains implies that there is no accumulative effect of quantum fluctuations on the small scale.

Einstein's free fall analogy combined with Hawking's 'apparent horizon' is without boundary of scale.

Anonymous post was mine.

John,

I agree, 'seeking glory' is a false god and counter productive. My Email to Laura MH enclosing my supporting results identified that she had far more chance of publication in a leading PRJ than JM and I.

But you may be able to bring your experience to bear. It seems the problem with a new wave to ride is that it has to be generated and built. That takes some degree of collaboration, but almost all seem to be loners and not interested.

It seems the way of the dissident in particular i.e. Eric Reiters work is in good agreement, but the idea of collaboration seemed to make him run a mile! 'Herding cats' comes to mind, which is where you're the expert! I've tried the tempting morsels at feeding time. Any other ideas? lol.

I lost by the way. Me playing off scratch was silly. Back to fleshing out details from the information overload. Do keep hitting those balls, I hope your next opponent keeps the noise down a bit.

Best wishes

Peter

PS There's nothing new under the sun they say; Found these today, on helicoils! and

'The Wave Theory of the Field'.

Hello again,

I don't want to rain on the parade of Mersini-Houghton or Rovelli, for their recent and soon to be published work, but I would prefer that some attention was given to earlier work that makes similar predictions for reasons that may yet prove to be correct. I think I likely misspoke above, in some of my claims, as George Chapline's paper on Dark Energy Stars is dated March 2005, while the paper below by Mitra and Glendenning, is dated April 2010.

Likely formation of general relativistic radiation pressure supported stars...

This paper predicts the existence of Eternally Collapsing Objects, or ECOs, as an alternative to objects that undergo a final collapse, form an event horizon, and become Black Holes - in the conventional sense of the word. This inspired the work of Darryl Jay Leiter, on MECOs (where the M is for magnetospheric) that culminated in a paper with Christian Corda and other colleagues, which was published after his demise and became the basis for an FQXi contest essay, a few years back. Links for that work are given below.

Farewell to black hole horizons and singularities?

Black holes or anything else? (FQXi contest essay)

There is considerable astrophysical evidence now that Black Holes do have hair, as Hawking predicted years ago, but that it is magnetic hair as well. This finding might suggest that the work of Leiter with Corda, Moaquera Cuestra, Robertson, and Schild, was on the right track.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I misspelled Herman's last name, Mosquera Cuestra, just now...

apologies

JJD

Thanks Peter,

I want to commend you for pointing out some of the things above, which might to unenlightened readers seem unrelated to this question. But it is indeed germane to assert that the exact properties of the objects we've been calling black holes both depend upon the large-scale shape of the universe, and tell us a fair amount about what that shape must be. So the choice of cosmology and the predictions about how the background space shapes the properties of these astrophysical objects influence each other, or are intertwined.

All the Best,

Jonathan

For what it is worth..

I have been in touch with some of the people mentioned above, along with a few others, and I have invited them to participate in this discussion.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Peter,

I would have to say the momentum is there and as such, it will follow its course. It's not that I'm a fatalist, or a determinist, but the large scale dynamics of this process have been building for a century and since incorporating the narrative perception of change/time is a major source of confusion, much, much longer.

There are a large cohort of quite influential people, having been adding upper floors to this structure, who will defend it to the best of their abilities, but the edges have started to crumble.

Those picking at the loose threads may understand there are much deeper cracks in this structure, or they may simply be following the trail of evidence and don't speculate much further than that.

You are right that trying to develop a united argument isn't likely, given the nature of the personalities involved, yet that in itself, especially since some of us are independently coming to similar conclusions, would make an interesting human interest story, rather than a clearly formulated alternative. The question is, would someone find it interesting to write up such a piece. Maybe title it "A Collaboration of Cranks."

We could always put it to Zeeya. She is a good writer, young and has been moderating this forum for awhile now. Necessarily her bosses, such as Tegmark, may not approve of the subject matter, but it could be done entirely tongue in cheek and we, or at least me, would be entirely happy to play the part of the clown. One thing I've learned is not to let the message overpower the medium. Basically keep it light hearted. Obviously this isn't the scientific style, which goes for gravitas above all, but the best we could hope for is to slip something in the back door, because we would never be able to barge in the front door.

Regards,

John M

This paper appears to be part of a growing body of work that shows the incompatibility of gravity with quantum action at black hole horizons. However, this particular paper seems to have a somewhat ad hoc radiation efficiency that somehow is just right to convert all collapsing matter into energy as Hawking radiation. They do not discuss the consequences of such an energy release, but complete mass to energy conversion for a collapsing black hole would be many orders of magnitude greater than observed for any supernova.

The take away message here is not that this particular approach is the be all and end all, it is rather that science is beginning to focus on the right question. The paper acknowledges the information and firewall paradoxes and here is a quote from the paper along with further citations of related recent work:

"The conclusions derived from both theories, the existence of black holes from Einstein's theory of gravity and the existence of Hawking radiation from the theory of quantum fields in curved spacetime, were soon found to be in high friction with one another, (see articles below for an interesting treatment)."

J. T. Firouzjaee and G. F. R. Ellis,arXiv:1408.0778 [gr-qc];"Cosmic Matter Flux May Turn Hawking Radiation Off," 2014.

G. F REllis, R. Goswami, A. I. M. Hamid and S. D. Maharaj, arXiv:1407.3577 [gr-qc] "Astrophysical Black Hole horizons in a cosmological context: Nature and possible consequences on Hawking Radiation," 2014

It is important to recognize that this nice paper shows a single flaw in GR gravity, but the paper does not show the solution, nor does it illuminate the other flaws in gravity action. Before you hop on this bus, you need to know if it is going where you want to go...

Steve,

"complete mass to energy conversion for a collapsing black hole would be many orders of magnitude greater than observed for any supernova."

True, but that's not how it works. Shown evident in astronomy AGN type outflows are the 'real' manifestation of loss from SMBH's in the same way as the jet from the Crab Nebula core torus is the stellar scale version. The energy of these grows gradually forming the ubiquitous 'lobes' (our is the so called 'Fermi bubble' ), peaks as a quasar jet and only dies out when all the disc matter has been 'consumed' (re-ionized).

The problem you envisage then doesn't need to exist in reality. Outflow energies have been calculated quite precisely, but have a wide temporal distribution linked to OAM and accretion rates.

I'm a little surprised by your comment; "Before you hop on this bus, you need to know if it is going where you want to go..." Surely that's not doing science properly and we should objectively watch where the evidence suggests it goes. How can we be honest if we decide what we 'want it to go'? Testing hypotheses is one thing, but isn't that rather more like 'cherry picking'!

Best wishes.

Thanks greatly Steve..

What I am seeing is a convergence of the Quantum and Classical arguments, regarding the non-formation of event horizons. I think perhaps the only physically realistic circumstance in which a purely Schwarzschild Black Hole entity is possible is as a final singularity - when it is the only object left, because everything else in the universe is being sucked into the horizon.

However; I find the papers cited in your comment above to be particularly interesting, in that the concept of the inner bound being purely timelike, with the outer shell being purely spacelike, resolves many paradoxes. I need to read those papers for detail, but other work beckons right now. I am happy that at least a few great minds are giving these issues the attention they deserve.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Everyone keep in mind the whole process.

While black holes are a mathematical projection of gravity to infinity and we are just now starting to accept that it is also a dynamic process of shedding radiation, it is not only just at the very core, but from the visible edge of galaxies, because, by definition, that's where we start seeing the light radiating out.

Then there is the question of where is this energy radiating out going to and is it the same general radiation pouring into and powering galaxies in the first place.

In which case, we could very likely find explanations for why the light of distant galaxies is redshifted and for that cosmic microwave background radiation, without all the baggage required to fix the Big Bang model.

Think of a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. Not only would this dichotomy explain the universal dynamic, but even down at the quantum level, it is order trying to pull everything in line and energy equally pushing everything out. Order is top down and energy is bottom up.

Regards,

John M

I think we will understand