Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

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

Intriguing, John R!

Somehow I seem to understand what you are trying to articulate, but then I do not seem to be able to articulate it myself. There are many different ways to scale gravity to charge force. My favorite is the quotient of the radius of the hydrogen atom with the radius of the universe. That scaling, which Dirac pointed out, is about right and it is possible to build a cosmology around it.

The matter time complement is the ratio of the mass of the smallest particle to the mass of the universe. The smallest particle is a consequence of the Fourier transform of matter and time into amplitude and matter, a matter spectrum.

Another way to think about the scaling of forces is to represent gravity as charge force in a folded universe. As long as you can keep the phases aligned and coherent despite a 2e39 ratio is force, you have a chance to unify force. The real key is to use quantum action for gravity, because with quantum action, a lot of things will become clear.

The idea of a galaxy as a matter wave is very appealing. Matter waves are solutions to the Shrödinger equation and so show the kind of effects that we expect for quantum action.

Steve,

Quantum action is a bit ambiguous to me. Are we speaking of using the Planck Constant as the unit of measure ( which is conveniently tiny for particle and field work ), or do you refer to the standard modeling of 'exchange particles' and 'photons' doing the work of keeping non-local discrete particles in a cohesive nuclear and/or atomic structure.

Also, I'm am always baffled by what anybody means by 'charge'. Like inertia, we only have an operational rather than general definition. Negative or positive seem to me to relate as distinct properties which might be determinable within a light velocity magnitude of density range which we macroscopically recognize as electrical phenomenon, and be dependent on the quantity of energy being equal on either side of a neutral (neutron) equilibrium. 'Positive' might be the predominant side of deceleration, and 'negative' being the predominant characteristic on the accelerant side; hence the electrical separation of centers on atomic masses.

It's a matter of time. :)

Tom,

I was hoping you would find the line of equilibrium conjecture interesting, it does possibly make sense of the cosmological constant as being a scale transform. If black holes exist in any formulation, I would expect the density limit to be a magnitude of c^2 dot m. Like the center of a free rest mass; that is the 'why' of inertia in my modeling. :->

jrc

Steve and Tom,

OOOPS... got in a hurry.

For mass to exhibit inertia, some portion of the total quantity of energy must exist at a constant density as the greatest density in the proportion of;

I = E dot c^2, or m dot c^4. :| jrc

Zeeya,

Thanks for introducing this new thread. Before we talk of saying goodbye to ``Black Holes'', we must bear in mind that astronomers have evidences for the existence of hundreds of Massive Compact Objects (MCOs) which certainly cannot be COLD compact objects like Neutron Stars or White Dwarfs. There are estimates that the radii of such MCOs could be close to respective Schwarzschild radii, and thus such objects may be loosely called ``Black Hole Candidates'' (BHCs). Thus any claim like the one by Laura Mersini-Houghton that ``there cannot be any black holes'' should address on the likely nature of BHCs. And if the conclusion ``We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes.'' were true, there would not have been any MCO or BHC. In turn, the conclusions of the present paper are bound to be atleast partly erroneous. Having going through the manuscript, I find it to be highly crude numerical treatment of the complex problem of ``gravitational collapse''. Any meaningful treatment of gravitational collapse must connect the interior solution with the exterior one (seen by the distant observer). But the authors are silent on the exterior solution, may be they are not even aware that the exterior spacetime is to be described by Vaidya metric!

The authors may not be aware that ``Hawking Radiation'' involves radiation from around the Event Horizon (EH) of a BH. And it is not at all about radiation from a collapsing star (which is not a BH). Thus the claim that ``Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star'' is preventing the formation of BH is patently self-contradictory. In reality, their paper does not involve any Hawking Radiation formula or any Quantum Gravity (QG) treatment! On the other hand, it involves some wishful & crude numerical treatment of classical general relativistic (GR) collapse. And the media headlines that these authors have ``Mathematically shown non-formation of black holes...'' are absolutely misleading and erroneous. I am making these statements even when I have reasons to believe that there are indeed no true BHs and the MCOs must be at the best quasi-BHs. In a next post I would try to qualify these facts.

Here is the opinion by William Unruh on the paper of Mersini-Houghton:

"The [paper] is nonsense," Unruh said in an email to IFLS. "Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible."

According to Unruh, black holes don't emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, "it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate," he explains.

"The standard behaviour by such people [who don't understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger," he continued. "Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large... Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement."

I think that the arguments by Abhas Mitra are very stronger than the ones by Mersini-Houghton.

Cheers,

Ch.

WHY THERE CANNOT BE ANY FINITE MASS ``Black Hole''

First recall, the gravitational mass appearing in the vacuum Schwarzschild solution appears as an `Integration Constant'' (IC) $$\alpha = 2 M$$ (G=c=1).

For an object with finite radius (Sun, Earth, Galaxy), this IC ($\alpha$) is obviously finite (and positive):

\begin{equation}

M = \int_0^{R_0} 4 \pi \rho R^2 dR

\end{equation}

But is there a guarantee that $\alpha$ would remain finite in case the body would contract to a ``Point Mass'', i.e., $R_0 \to 0$. BH paradigm is based on the HYPOTHESIS that this IC must be finite even when the upper limit of the integration would merge with the lower one ($R_0=0$). However, it was shown by me that this hypothesis was incorrect, i.e., the gravitational mass of a neutral ``Point Mass'', the source of BH solution is zero:

Ref. 1. A. Mitra, Journal ofhttp: Mathematical Physics, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp. 042502-042502-3 (2009): //arxiv.org/abs/0904.4754

Such a result was earlier inferred (not proved) by French mathematical relativist Luis Bel

Ref. 2. L. Bel, "Schwarzschild Singularity," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 10, No. 8, 1969 pp. 1501-1503. doi:10.1063/1.1664997

The abstract of the above paper is a one liner ``A new point of view is presented for which the Schwarzschild singularity becomes a real point singularity on which the sources of Schwarzschild's exterior solution are localized.''

The Sch singularity becomes a ``point singularity'' only when M=0 for a ``point particle'' and for the Schwarzschild BH.

WHY THIS RESULT IS INEVITABLE?

Suppose the point particle has a mass $M_0$. Then one would expect a Ricci Scalar ($\cal R}$ at $R=0$

\begin{equation}

{\cal R} (R=0) = - 4 \pi \delta{R=0} M_0/R^2

\end{equation}

where $\delta{R}$ is Dirac delta function. But the BH solution yields

$\cal R} =0$. These two results can be reconciled iff $M_0=0$.

There for massive ``Black Hole Candidates'' (or any thing else with finite gravitational mass) CANNOT be true BHs.

Therefore we could have bade farewell to BH paradigm in 2009. In another post I will analyze this result from the view point of GR collapse, no numerical hanky panky, but by generic or exact means.

Abhas,

After glancing at your 2009 paper and your statement here that: "Therefore massive ``Black Hole Candidates'' (or any thing else with finite gravitational mass) CANNOT be true BHs", if I interpret you correctly the end result of gravitational collapse is a singularity of Zero mass rather than one of infinite density?

That will be an interesting result if so. Earlier Hawking and Penrose1 had formulated 'singularity theorems' which are of cosmological importance, an initial singularity at the Big Bang and a final singularity at the Big Crunch. They hold on to the model that ALL singularities, including black holes must be massive. This has led to paradoxes and problems requiring solution, such as flatness problem for example, requiring inflation scenario for resolution.

I have been proposing the opposite, that initial singularities have zero mass. I was therefore interested to see that Black holes if they exist must be of zero mass as well. My model is that the initial singularity was of zero mass and the mass of the universe has been increasing with its radius. This solves many cosmological problems. I didn't much consider the gravitational collapse of a Big crunch, but it would also follow now that the end result would also be Nothing, a singularity of zero mass. Bye-bye to black holes in their current form!

Regards,

Akinbo

1. Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R., (1970), The Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology, Proc. Roy. Soc., A314, 529-48.

This Daily Beast article agrees with Unruh. (I don't like the overstated headline, though; good science has often resulted from unconventional models.)

And I agree with Christian. As much as we have invested in the study of gravitational collapse from the standpoint of classical gravity, it's a bit ambitious to jump in with quantum explanations that include ad hoc numerical parameters.

Even with the constraint of boundary conditions for continuous function calculations, we have a much more complete model of gravity in the classical picture. One can always add assumptions to any theory and come up with one's desired conclusions -- which in my opinion is a fundamental flaw of conventional quantum theory, that it begs interpretation.

Let's get back to first principles.

Akinbo,

A zero gravitational mass M=0 may still admit local energy density $\rho=\infty$. One may think that ``bare mass'' or positive contributions of mass due to $\rho$ is neutralized by the NEGATIVE self-gravitational energy. Infact this state M=0, R=0 corresponds to a spacetime curvature singularity where Kretschmann scalar $K=\infty$ . However this does not mean that such a singularity actually forms, this is so because the comoving proper time for formation of a zero mass BH is Infinite. So continued GR collapse can only asymptotically strives to achieve this elusive singular state. Hence, continued GR collapse must give rise to Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) rather than BHs or true spacetime singularities. In practical terms, such a collapse must be halted by appropriate physical process to result in a quasi-static configurations which nonetheless must keep on radiating (at howsoever miniscule rate) to hopelessly arrive at the M=0 true BH state.

Regards

Abhas

Abhas,

While I cannot dispute your mathematical abilities (which is obvious), we may not agree entirely on your model. E = mc2, may not be correct, but if it is, then that equivalence suggests that where energy density is non-zero, we cannot talk of zero mass. Moreover, in the intensely dense and hot environment that must be present near singularities, matter cannot be stable, only radiation will.

Then concerning your remark, "However this does not mean that such a singularity actually forms, this is so because the comoving proper time for formation of a zero mass BH is Infinite. So continued GR collapse can only asymptotically strives to achieve this elusive singular state. Hence, continued GR collapse must give rise to Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) rather than BHs or true spacetime singularities."

Again, another point of departure from my position. 'Proper-time' is the time taken for light to travel a 'proper-distance', according to GR language. Obviously, if light velocity is zero, 'Proper-time' will be infinite. To grasp my point, do you acknowledge that the proper-time in a vacuum as far as Sound is concerned is infinite? As far as Sound is concerned, 'vacuum' is a form of singularity. This illustrates that in a physics founded on the velocity of 'something', be it light or sound, the fact that that something takes an infinite time to travel within a physical entity, does not mean that collapsing or expansion from singularities will take an infinite time. Our existing and expanding universe bears this witness, and formation of vacuum in the laboratory does the same. Where space-time is non-existent, light cannot travel. And space-time according to the singularity theorems is 'non-existent' in cosmological singularities (I hope I am right?). In short, infinite proper-time does not mean that collapse is an eternal process and will take an infinite time.

If you have any comment or criticism of my model, would be glad to know.

Regards,

Akinbo

Tom,

Not too get in too deep here, but it does seem that just about all gravitationally dense structures/processes/objects are also radiating significant energy, whether pulsars, quasars, galactic black holes, etc. and are spinning rapidly. It seems as though that the energy isn't just vanishing into some other dimension/black hole, but is being expressed back out, in any way possible.

In fact, the entire process of gravitational collapse, starting at the visible edge of galaxies, seems to radiate energy back out.

Regards,

John M

Akinbo, Abhas,

Could it be the singularity is essentially a pivot point, around which collapsing mass spins down to the point of radiating away all constituent energy. Such that as a form of vortex, what is inside the horizon is actually a vacuum, just as inside the eyewall of a hurricane it is quiet.

Regards,

John M

John, please read Unruh's statement that Christian quoted. The energy density near the black hole horizon is actually very small. Relevant to whether it is vanishingly small is the question of whether an event horizon exists at all.

Tom,

I see that, but I'm just trying to get confirmation. It has been my argument that the actual observations, as opposed to projections of features of those observations, could be explained as a form of cosmic convection cycle, with mass falling inward, balanced by energy radiating outward.

So if we are to the point of accepting that whatever falls into these gravitational vortices is being radiated out at an equal rate, that would be one side of the cycle completed, so the question, eventually, goes to the other side of the cycle; Does that light and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum eventually reach various points that it too eventually coalesces back into mass? Obviously there are lots of examples where some of it does, but the same issue as here applies; Does all of it?

If we can show all the loose ends tie together and the cycle is complete, there is no need for those extra forces, dimensions, etc. to explain the loose ends.

Regards,

John M

Thinking about it John, it is worthy of consideration. Your analogy, with hurricanes is also apt. Sound travels at infinite proper-time inside the eyewall of a hurricane, so if space-time can be destroyed in a singularity, light would have infinite proper-time there as well.

In the words of Penrose, p.436, The Emperor's New Mind...

"Not just all matter becomes destroyed in this way, but EVEN the very space-time must find its end! Such an ultimate catastrophe is referred to as a space-time singularity... These are conclusions that follow from the classical equations of general relativity, in any circumstance when a black hole is formed..."

(more) "...initial space-time singularity which now represents the big bang, ...rather than representing the ultimate destruction of all matter and space-time, the singularity represents the creation of space-time and matter.."

What Pensose did not address is whether ALL the matter in the universe is created all at once or gradually over the course of the universe's evolution.

Regards,

Akinbo