Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

To take things a step further..

Eddington's "Space, Time, and Gravitation" is a book I read repeatedly, as a young man, and one thing that jumped out at me was that a difference of Einsteinian with Newtonian gravity is that the lines of force - forming a gravitational well - converge not to a point, but to a ring the gravitational radius away from the exact center. But this latest work by George F.R. Ellis and colleagues suggests a further generalization that makes sense of the rest.

What if the sphere defined by the gravitational or Schwarzschild radius has no spatial volume, no space-like interior to speak of, and is purely a sphere or ball of time? This sphere that contains a parcel of time could be what sets the duration of mass-bearing objects, in general! It could be said that, in all cases, the existence of mass will cause a sphere of time to arise, which is a place keeper allowing it to persist with locality in space.

This, of course raises questions about whether photons or gravitons, usually thought to be massless, must actually have a minimal rest-mass to fulfill their function - but I'll leave that aside. The real question is how what Ellis calls the formation of an IMOTS or Marginally Outer Trapped Surface, which is purely time-like, might hold the door open while not actually allowing anything to enter - forbidding a Black Hole event horizon from forming. This has the effect of giving ECOs the property of duration in time, or allows them to persist in our universe. In effect; the event horizon contains a finite piece of eternity. This is the embodiment of an old saying from Plato, often attributed to Diogenes, 'Time is the Image of Eternity.'

All the Best,

Jonathan

On some level...

A large subset of the inflationary multiverse theories actually are a kind of steady-state universe, only with the continuous creation usually occurring beyond the horizon of observability or Hubble radius. On some level; it's also about where you are looking at it from, John. My work deriving cosmological models from the Mandelbrot Set shows me that a single model can appear to have a cold dark end, and be cyclical, and be steady state - all at once - if a God's eye view of reality is allowed.

The Wheeler-Dewitt equation implies a God's eye view, according to Fotini Markopoulou, and sometimes viewing the universe that way can be helpful. However; it is not going to be realizable by any physical entity, so it can be argued it's not really Physics. On the other hand; there are serious approaches that do not require a Big Bang, Inflationary, or Multiverse scenario, to reproduce what we see. I particularly like Fractal universe cosmologies, and I think Dr. Mitra has also been looking at this lately.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John, if you think information is not conserved, you're going to need something a bit more substantial than personal incredulity to support your claim.

On the surface..

Talking of higher dimensions, and higher-order geometries associated with them, might appear to be irrelevant to this discussion. However; what is being discussed is a kind of dimensional boundary. What is this event horizon thing?

Does it lead to another dimension? Is it 4-d, 5-d, 7-d space inside - or none at all? I'm leaning now toward the hypothesis it contains only time, and no space at all. But between us and that dimensional boundary, there is likely an energetic region that exceeds the binding energy of particles.

Perhaps the lines of space actually wrap around a Black Hole, instead of entering it. Is it possible that this puts the interior of a Black Hole outside of space, and beyond the reach of a Higgs field or field structure from multiple Higgs mechanisms?

Regards,

Jonathan

Thanks Steve,

See my comments below about the gravitational radius defining a sphere containing a parcel of time, in relation to the Matter-Time discussion, the subject of duration, persistence of objects in time - and so on.

All the Best,

Jonathan

IMOTS should be..

Inner Marginally Trapped Outer Surfaces, is the proper long form. Ellis and colleagues assert that this is the innermost layer of a Black Hole's horizon and that it is purely time-like. And my generalization is that the gravitational radius of any mass-bearing object likely defines a sphere containing only time, and being outside of space or having no interior to speak of.

All the Best,

Jonathan

It's not my business to deal with black holes. I agree with Jonathan Dickau only on that what I consider speculations about the universe as a whole are interrelated.

Please forgive me uttering my perhaps unwelcome doubt whether there are at all actual singularities and any actual infinity in the real world. Isn't history of ideas for a created and somehow complete world is a record of tenets that were proved untenable or at least seemingly rescued by means of adapted and again adapted hypotheses?

When engineers like me enjoy calculating with fictitious singularities, we never imagine them something physical real.

Eckard

There's a very nice survey of conservation of information on Physics Stack Exchange, by one of our FQXi brethren, Cristi Stoica.

Tom,

I'm not trying to be presumptuous, but my interest is not so much in the more arcane details of physics and math, but how it applies to the dynamic, social and natural reality in which we exist. One in which something like half of all wildlife species have disappeared in the last forty years.

That is what I consider information. As I recall, various of the entries in our recent contest dealt with how to preserve such genetic and cultural information.

There really is a reality outside the classroom and study.

Regards,

John M

" ... interest is not so much in the more arcane details of physics and math ..."

Then I'm curious as to why you choose to be prolific on a site where arcane details of physics and math are staples. Heck, maybe it's I who is in the wrong room.

Jonathon,

...and the Lost Particle of Time.

use it if you like :-) jrc

Akinbo,

The surface of last scattering is wherever that light emanates from, be it the sun, stars and planets, or the walls of the room and the people in it, that provide us with the information about them. Now this background radiation has no such apparent source of "last scattering," other than some primordial state that seems to radiate from the furtherest reaches of space. It was then argued that this was that glow from the initial "Big Bang." Since clarified as the stage where electron and protons combined and allowed light to propagate.

Yet if one were to consider a steady state model, in which redshift is an optical effect, there would be a very logical explanation for exactly this sort of radiation. Since light is eventually redshifted completely of the visible spectrum, then any radiation emanating from sources beyond that particular horizon line would be just what we see, black body microwaves, propagating from the edges of the visible universe.

In fact, there is an old question, called Olber's paradox, that was used to argue that the universe couldn't be infinite, since eventually every point in our perception of the night sky would eventually reach another star and nothing stopped the light, why isn't the entire sky lit up by these infinite sources of light? So this radiation is just that, the light from infinite sources, growing ever fainter, flatter and thus redder.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Believe it or not, but even the field of physics doesn't exist in isolation.

The fact is that complexity and simplicity are often sides of a larger cycle, expansion/consolidation, creation/destruction, etc, so understanding complex situation means being able to step back and sense where the energy flowing through them is going and that is the signal that will have the most effect. Much of what happens on the surface is just noise.

There is a lot of noise in politics and a fair amount in the various fields of physics.

Regards,

John M

It is not unwelcome..

To point out that many of the infinities and singularities appearing in the Maths indicate that our model is showing us that something is unphysical, is certainly germane to this conversation. Dr. Mitra's main thrust is that we cannot just ignore when various Math quantities go to infinity, and must examine the Physics there more carefully.

I think the 'no drama' scenario, where an event horizon is viewed purely as a 'coordinate singularity' that has no physical meaning is rather naive. In my opinion; it is absolutely reasonable that we ask why does the Jacobian diverge at the horizon, or what do the infinities mean, rather than simply making them go away by applying a coordinate transformation.

While sometimes we can normalize discontinuities away, just by knowing the value things converge to, we can't automatically assume they don't exist, just because our Math lets us do this.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Ugh.. logged me out, it did..

That was me above.

Jonathan

What happens if some dark matter falls into a black hole? I envision dark matter as being on a separate Higgs field, possibly one with a faster speed of light, let's call it c'. I'm pretty sure that if c' > c, then the event horizon of this other Higgs field/faster Higgs will be inside of the "c" event horizon and will have a smaller radius.

In the extreme case, if the black hole was completely made of dark matter, we wouldn't be able to tell other than the fact that a dark matter black hole might not emit radiation. The question would than be: is there any way that the two Higgs fields might connect and exchange energy?

Since my poorly understood physical consequence of the theory of gravity explains galaxy rotation without dark matter, it seems interesting for the large scale structure of spacetime.

"I don't know what a quantomologist is, though it is quite evident that your ad hoc assumption of quantum gravity brings with it a number of other ad hoc assumptions that do not correspond to what we know about the large scale structure of spacetime:"

What I have are not ad hoc assumptions, they are just "poorly understood physical consequences of the theory of gravity," i.e. the poorly understood impact of the quantization of gravity force.

Excuse me?

"I agree most 'fit' findings to theory. Call me contrary but I do the opposite."

Most theories agree with findings. The luminosity curve is the findings. The theory would agree with the luminosity curve, the findings do not change.

Show me a luminosity curve that results from a recycling model and let's see how it agrees or not with the findings.

I can now understand why you are enamored with infinity.

"Wouldn't overall recycling necessarily be occurring on the galactic level, with these stellar mass objects gradually falling inward. How much literature is out there in fitting observations onto an infinite time frame, rather than all trying to squeeze everything into 13.8 billion years?"

Look, all I was trying to show is that the current data do not show galaxy radiation anywhere nearly intense enough to support much recycling. You can always find a way by introducing some strange new particle or invisible recycling or whatever. But you do need to make the numbers work.

Luminosity is energy versus time...without a constant time interval, luminosity will scale with that time. This quasar luminosity curve has the Hubble time base built in and that is why I have plotted it versus time past.

The problem with infinite space is much the same as with black holes in the first place. As soon as you introduce singularities into a model, just about anything can be modeled since there is always a free constant in whatever renormalization you choose.

Look, we got the universe that what we got. Either we can understand what we got with math, or we will simply go on talking about why we do not understand it.