Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

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

It is confusing when you throw out a term like AGN, which are active galactic nuclei and are SMBH's from the quasar epoch a billion or so years ago. Our SMBH is not now an AGN nor are all SMBH's AGNs, right?

Supermassive stars form black holes in lieu of supernovas, not because of supernovas. Therefore black holes supposedly do not radiate much while they undergo core collapse at the end of their lives. Therefore, they would not be like AGN's or pulsars at all.

The crab nebula is a SN remnant from a very famous supernova of M

There is some kind of convergence coming that will finally give us quantum gravity and get rid of all of this patchwork of GR, but science will still have all of the valid observations of GR. Red shifts, Lorentz invariance, time and space dilation are all observations with which a quantum gravity will be consistent.

As far as a final singularity, I agree. The event horizon that lies just beyond the CMB, which is at 99.9998% of c, is the only event horizon in this universe. And it is obvious to me that that event horizon defines c as the collapse rate of the universe. It is so much fun having the answer to this puzzle...

Once science gets a quantum gravity, the SMBH event horizon will become something more like the nonradiating ground state of an atom. For quantum action, nonradiating ground states are well accepted and the same will be true for quantum gravity. This will mean that SMBH's will become more like boson stars, for which there is already a rich literature waiting.

I like this idea because it has the decay of the galaxy as the indicator of the universe, which is true. You do have good instincts. However, your expansion with energy and conversion back needs a little more work...and some numbers. I can't get the math to work.

Radiation is only a very tiny fraction of matter equivalent energy and there simply is not enough radiation to balance matter in the universe. If you tap into the dark matter and dark energy reserves of the Bank of Big Bang, the BBB, you end up with the big bang bank credit card and the big bang owns you. The big bang is much more likely than any other more fanciful desire of your own.

In other words, if you borrow mass from the BBB, they have your essences in their big pockets...

Steve,

I think gravity is not so much a property of mass, as a full spectrum effect of energy coalescing into mass. Quite simply, when we release energy from mass, whether structural order, chemical, atomic, quantum, etc, it naturally occupies more space and the resulting effect is pressure. So what would the opposite effect be? A vacuum. Much of the area supposedly occupied by dark energy, on the outer portions of galaxies, there is a lot of cosmic activity going on and the creation of of increasingly dense and complex mass seems to be the result. E=mc2, then M=E/c2.

Such a full spectrum composite effect would explain why it is so effectively described topologically.

As for dark energy, it is a patch to explain why the ratio of redshift drops off fairly rapidly over the furtherest out/first part of the expansion and then flattens out since. The assumption being that there has to be some natural expansion to explain this flatter, closer decline, not caused by the initial "Bang."

Now if we were to commit cosmological sacrilege and consider what would be observed if redshift was caused by a lensing effect, for one thing, we would be at the center, since we are at the center of our view of the universe, which would go to our previous discussion of why using relativity to explain this anthropocentric effect overlooks the fact that to be relativistic expansion, the clock rate would have to increase as well, in order to remain constant.

Another effect would be that it would compound on itself and thus go parabolic. Creating the impression that the further away the source, the faster it is receding. Which is exactly what we do see. It is not that redshift drops off, then flattens out since the Big Bang, but that it increases exponentially the further the source is and it is that upward curve in the rate that is being observed.

No, we and I don't have all the math and the details, but finding those details might be a far more productive and feasible endeavor than exploring for other universes.

We accept that gravity can be modeled as acceleration and call it the equivalence principle. Could there be an opposing equivalence principle, by which the expansion of light looks like recession of the source? The fact is that this is science and alternative view points should be open to examination, not simply dismissed because too many people think differently.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

Yes, it does seem as if the discussion is about the eye walls of hurricanes and what is happening inside them, with little attention being paid to the external forces going into creating this vortex.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

Matter as a precipitate of energy in an energy super-saturate universe, conserves space. That is a different paradigm than your own operating theatre where space is the result of matter and time. So in the 'Big Rock Candy Mountain' picture, Hoyle could be more than half right, and the BB is a consequence of the limitations of GR. In eliminating force from the equation, Einstein leaves the question hanging as to what sort of 'field' there must be if there is no region of space devoid of a field. AND, GR does not address the problem of a causal theory relying on the Gravitational Constant for which there is no known cause. Are we to suppose that the precise orbital predictions of GR follow some limit of a magnetospheroid (?), or how about putting the gravitational field back into the picture and the GR orbitals following a line of equilibrium between the tendency for mass/energy to decelerate into matter, and it's tendency to accelerate into energy at light velocity? Existant light velocity would then be the limit of the gravitational field (zero boundary condition) at a finite energy density, not infinity of time, distance and density. No one has had any luck making a unified field theory out of GR, it is not a complete theory. There is a profound difference between 'constant' density and 'average' density, and GR uses 'average' mass density. And singularity is a mathematical property, not necessarily a physical property. :) jrc