Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

ASTRONOMICAL BLACK HOLES REVISITED

I've noted in earlier essays that someone crossing over the Event Horizon of a cosmic Black Hole does so from a personal perspective of one second per second - normal time. An outside observer would see that same crossover event as one frozen in time for all eternity. That implies a paradox in that something cannot happen at one second per second and yet take an infinite amount of time to happen. The paradox might be resolvable if it were only the image of the happening frozen in time. Alas, that too has issues.

I've read several times some scientific author suggest that to an external observer, someone (or something) that's on a bullseye path toward an astronomical Black Hole, well someone will not only be travelling at a time rate slower and slower by the external observer's clock as they (let's call that person a pilot) approach the Event Horizon, but in fact at contact with the Event Horizon, the pilot's time, again as recorded by the external observer, will have stopped. In other words, the external observer will never witness the pilot's crossover from outside the Black Hole's Event Horizon to inside the Black Hole's Event Horizon. The pilot will appear to be frozen in time at the Event Horizon, as witnessed by the external observer for all eternity, yet as far as the pilot is concerned, everything is normal in terms of time flowing at one second per second. The pilot, from the pilot's perspective, crosses the Event Horizon as easily as driving to the local supermarket.

Now that's a major paradox. The pilot can't be crossing the Event Horizon at one second per second, while at the same time being frozen in time while crossing, which is the case according to our external observer. Of course the paradox is bullshit. To an external observer, time only comes to a screeching halt from their point of view for someone external to them if they witness that someone travelling at the speed of light. Firstly, that's a physical impossibility. There's no reason to believe that our cosmically Black Hole bound pilot is crossing the Event Horizon at light speed. There's no absolute requirement that our pilot is crossing the Event Horizon at the speed of light. The pilot in fact might have fired retro-rockets to slow down just prior to crossing the Event Horizon in order to better savour the moment (just like crossing the equator for the first time)! So, in actual reality, our external observer will see the pilot cross the Event Horizon, albeit at a way slower rate than the pilot will because the pilot is travelling, hence doing the Event Horizon cross-over, though at less than the speed of light but still at some subluminal velocity relative to the external observer. Any velocity incurs some slowing of time when viewed by an external observer; the faster the velocity, the greater the slowdown. IMHO, some 'experts' need to go back and redo Physics 101.

Only here's the expert's explanation which explains why there is no paradox.

Space is a thing and mass (hence gravity) can warp space, twist space around its little finger. The most extreme form or amount of gravity is contained within a cosmic Black Hole from which not even light can escape - hence the blackness of the Black Hole. Because space is a thing, the Black Hole or the super ultra intense gravity of a Black Hole can suck in space (as well as matter). Okay, so a Black Hole can gobble up space.

Issues arising #1: IMHO, space is not a thing but a concept. Gravity therefore cannot interact with space. Gravity is a thing; matter is a thing; light is a thing, so interactions between gravity and matter and light (representing energy which is just matter in another form) are not an issue.

Issues arising #2: presumably that means that anything that has gravity (like you) will suck in some amount of space since even the tiniest amount of gravity will warp space to some degree.

Meantime, back to the expert: Space (as a thing), gets sucked towards a cosmic Black Hole at less that the speed of light, but speeds up as space gets closer and closer to the point of no return (the Event Horizon). When space crosses the Event Horizon, it is travelling at the speed of light. Once inside the Event Horizon, space falls down the gravity gurgler at a speed greater than that of light, which is okay since space, albeit a thing doesn't have any mass. Anything with mass cannot travel at superluminal velocities since anything with mass can't cross the speed of light boundary from subluminal to become superluminal.

Any physical object crossing the Event Horizon will be giving off and/or reflecting light (or any other form of electromagnetic energy) at the speed of light. But the Event Horizon is that exact boundary between space being sucked in at less than light speed and being sucked in at greater than light speed so light being given off at the Event Horizon is escaping at the same velocity that it is being sucked in. It's like you running on a treadmill at the exact same velocity but opposite direction to that of the treadmill. To an external observer you are running yet standing still, and would appear so for all eternity.

We have to assume that the material object itself can't be crossing the Event Horizon at the speed of light (that's not allowed), nor will it travel at or beyond the speed of light once inside the cosmic Black Hole and dropping down it's gravity gurgler. Though the material object crosses the Event Horizon at less than light speed, the visual image of that object will travel at light speed, but light at the Event Horizon is like the runner on the treadmill. It's a balancing act in that the image from the object is escaping from the Black Hole's Event Horizon outward bound at the exact same rate as it is being sucked into and past the Event Horizon by space itself.

Issues arising #3: IMHO, the Event Horizon must be extremely thin, since the Event Horizon by definition is that boundary where a velocity just a tiny, tiny, tiny (add some more 'tiny' here) fraction under the speed of light becomes just a tiny, tiny, tiny (add some more 'tiny' here) fraction above the speed of light. Or, the Event Horizon is that boundary that marks the speed of light exactly (and any tiny, tiny, tiny deviation either side is no longer the speed of light). The Event Horizon must in fact be the shortest allowable thickness that's allowed by quantum physics, which is the Planck Length (which is so small in length, or thickness, not even the most powerful of microscopes could resolve it).

The implications revolve around the fact that any image, like that of our pilot in their spacecraft, is going to be massively larger than the thickness of the Event Horizon. In actual practice our outside observer will more decidedly not see the image frozen at the Event Horizon for all eternity. Part of the image will have to be above the Event Horizon and thus be able to escape away from the Black Hole. Part of the image will be below the Event Horizon and sucked into the cosmic Black Hole never to be seen again. Any remaining image is one Planck Length thick - invisible to the human eye and the most powerful of microscopes. Even that tiny remnant won't last long due to ever present quantum fluctuations. The Event Horizon has the tiniest of jitters but it's enough to disrupt the remaining bit of image from remaining for very long. The upshot is that the frozen image of the pilot and the craft as witnessed by the external observer will be fleeting at best.

Issues arising #4: When it comes to those astronomical Black Holes, we are all external observers. If our expert is correct, and images are frozen for all time at the Event Horizon by objects consisting of matter and energy that cross the Event Horizon, then absolutely anything and everything that has crossed over the Event Horizon since the creation of any specific cosmic Black Hole - since the year dot probably - well their images collectively should still be, well, visible. Each individual image would be piled on top of the next one top of the next on top of the next and so on. Somehow I very much doubt that's the case. It should be bleeding obvious through our astronomical telescopes. And so, I repeat that IMHO, some 'experts' need to go back and redo Physics 101.

A VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF A BLACK HOLE

Suicide missions are hardly unknown happenings, so presumably it wouldn't be too hard to find a volunteer to take a long walk off a short pier and dive into the heart of a Black Hole. Well, let's trade in the walk and the pier for a spaceship, with our suicidal pilot crew-member willing to boldly go. What might she expect? For that matter what might a chickenhearted outside observer expect to see?

Space isn't really the final frontier; rather the inside of a Black Hole that's inside of space really is the final frontier. Only the insanely suicidal need boldly go and explore, as it's unlikely that the innards of a Black Hole will become a popular tourist attraction for many a millennia to come - if ever.

Okay, we have a depressed, suicidal, boldly going spaceship pilot, and she's determined to go out in a blaze of glory and make her mark in the history books. No ordinary suicide for this woman! It's across the event horizon threshold and down the hatch of a Black Hole. I need point out here and explain that technical term 'event horizon' - it's just that location that divides the ability to return home safely from the point of no return, ever.

Countdown: Five, four, three, two, one - we have lift-off on the maiden voyage to boldly go and see what's to be seen from the inside of a Black Hole.

As far as our suicidal pilot is concerned, everything from launch to crossing the event horizon is as normal as taking the cross-town bus to work. Time will tick by at one second per second; her mass will register normal; length ditto. However, due to Einstein's concepts in all things being relative, an external observer will see our boldly going pilot's reality slightly differently.

An external observer, say relaxing back on Earth with a super powerful telescope, follows ionization trail of the boldly going voyager's spaceship to the nearest Black Hole. Basically, what this person sees is that as the suicidal voyager blasts off from Earth, picks up speed, her ship and contents (including herself) start to shrink in length, increase in mass, and her rate-of-change (time) ticks by more slowly compared to Mr. Stay-At-Home's own. Okay, that's in keeping with Einstein's relativity proclamations.

But for some inexplicable reason, I've read several times some scientific author suggest that to an external observer, the suicidal pilot will not only be travelling slower and slower by the external observer's clock as she approaches the event horizon, but in fact at contact with the event horizon her time, again as recorded by the external observer, will have stopped. In other words, the external observer will never witness the pilot's crossover from outside the Black Hole's event horizon to inside the Black Hole's event horizon. The pilot will appear to be frozen in time at the event horizon, yet as far as the pilot is concerned, everything is normal in terms of time flowing at one second per second.

Now that's a major paradox. The pilot can't be crossing the event horizon at one second per second, while at the same time being frozen in time at the time of crossing, according to our stay-at-home observer. Of course the paradox is bullshit. To an external observer, time only comes to a screeching halt for someone external to them if they witness that someone travelling at the speed of light. Firstly, that's a physical impossibility. There's no reason to believe that our suicidal pilot is crossing the event horizon at light speed. There's no absolute requirement that our suicidal pilot is crossing the event horizon at the speed of light. She in fact might have fired her retro-rockets to slow down just prior to crossing the event horizon in order to better savour the moment! So, in actual reality, our observer will see the pilot cross the event horizon, albeit at a way slower rate than the pilot herself because the pilot is travelling, hence doing the event horizon cross-over at less than the speed of light. IMHO, some 'experts' need to go back and redo Physics 101.

In any event, once the external observer observes our boldly going suicidal voyager cross the event horizon, the show is over for him. Nothing that's part and parcel of the voyager, not her ship's reflected or emitted light, not her radio signals nor information signalling of any kind, will recross the event horizon in the outward bound direction and heading back to Earth. Our external observer can pack away his telescope and get back to more interesting pursuits, like watching daytime television. But that's not quite the end of the story.

And so it's now over to the (never-to-be-revealed) recorded flight log of the voyager on her one-way trip to the Black Hole's never-never land. Up to and including the crossover from the safe side of the event horizon to the 'abandon hope all who enter here' side of the event horizon, all is logged as 100% normalcy. Nothing shrinks, nothing grows in weight (increases in mass), and time does its one second per second thing as it always has done. It's as easy as a trip from your home driveway to the supermarket parking lot, only once in the grip of the supermarket parking lot, forever in the grip of the supermarket parking lot. It's a one-way 'enter' gate without a corresponding 'exit' sign.

Since we have no idea what the inside of a Black Hole actually is, since theoretical physics, quantum and relativity physics, break down into a mathematical mess, what our intrepid voyager will actually observe or experience is anybody's guesstimate. There does appear to be one consensus however. Gravity rules, OK? Almost by definition there's a hell of a lot of gravity to contend with once inside the supermarket parking lot - oops, sorry, inside the event horizon.

Now here on Earth, when standing up, gravity is pulling at your feet ever so slightly greater than it is tugging at your head - because your feet are slightly closer to Earth's centre of mass. Earth's gravity however is so weak that you don't know or can't feel the difference, but tests or experiments with extremely accurate atomic clocks show that this is true. Rate of change - time - is affected by gravity, so a clock atop a tall building runs slightly faster than an identical clock in the building's basement. Now the gravity of a Black Hole is many, many, many orders of magnitude stronger than it is here on Terra Firma. So, it is speculated that if you are inside a Black Hole, say in free-fall, and say in a vertical position, then the gravity pulling on your feet will be not only vastly greater than if you were on Earth, but also the differential between feet and head will be orders of magnitude greater. Translated, gravity inside a Black Hole is going to stretch you out like a piece of taffy. Like in one of those fun house mirrors, you will be very, very, very tall and very, very, very thin. Ultimately you will be akin to a piece of string or spaghetti, but by that time you'll be very, very, very dead as the human body wasn't designed to be viable under such a state of affairs. Okay, that's the consensus.

Now for the speculation: Let us suppose that our suicidal voyager survives her voyage (curses, foiled again) and gets to play tourist. What will she see or will she see anything at all? Well, yes, she will - see that is. The event horizon is like a one-way mirror. Light can pass through the event horizon into the interior of the Black Hole, but light cannot pass from the interior of the Black Hole through the event horizon to be witnessed by an outside observer. Okay, let there be light, and there was light. Light is energy, so there's energy inside a Black Hole. It's also been shown that a Black Hole has entropy, or in other words a temperature. That too is energy.

There's matter (mass) inside a Black Hole - obviously, since there's gravity. Now the big unknown is what kind of matter is that matter? We don't know. Outside of a Black Hole matter exists in four states - solid, liquid, gas and plasma. The transition from one state of matter to another is called a phase change, as in ice to water to steam. One speculation is that the matter inside a Black Hole undergoes a phase change to something even more solid and denser than, well a dense solid.

We sort of observe this in a Neutron Star, a star extremely massive with extreme gravity, but just short of enough gravity to form an event horizon and turn into a Black Hole. Why is it called a Neutron Star? Well, the gravity is so great that the bits and pieces of the atom, electrons, neutrons and protons are squashed together into one big glob. The positive protons fuse with the negative electrons - these electric charges thus cancelling out - to make neutrons, hence join with the already neutral neutrons, so everything forms into just one huge glob of neutron soup, or a Neutron Star. Rapidly spinning Neutron Stars are also known as Pulsars.

Now if atoms lose all sense of identity, there is no atomic structure, no isotopes, no molecules, no elements, no compounds, no electrons and no protons, then I'd have to define that as a phase transition, but one we don't witness on Earth. Given the even more extreme gravity inside a Black Hole, would that same phase transition to a neutron soup hold sway, or might there be another beyond that found in Neutron Stars?

Neutrons are not fundamental particles. A glob of neutron soup is ultimately a glob of quark soup, as quark trios comprise the identity we call a neutron. Neutrons are actually composite particles. However, as quarks are fundamental particles, it's unlikely they can be crushed or fused together. Electrons too are fundamental, but it is well known - to particle physicists at least - that an isolated neutron will in fairly quick-smart order decay to a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino. Reactions are reversible so it is straightforward to create a neutron if the ingredients are brought together with sufficient energy.

Since a Neutron Star is just one coin short of a Black Hole dollar, the inside of a Black Hole could well be akin to a Neutron Star, only slightly more massive. One thing is certain IMHO, the interior will not be matter crushed down to the infinitely small (i.e. - zero volume); the interior will not be infinitely dense.

What lies at the heart of a Black Hole? The traditional answer is a 'singularity' - a point of (near) infinite density and (close to) zero volume, matter crushed down to the final, ultimate limit - or maybe not.

Start with a hunk of matter. Keep on keeping on adding more and more and more matter (mass) to it. Your original hunk grows larger, ever denser; its gravity swells in proportion. Finally it's just a fraction away from achieving Black Hole status - meaning its gravity is so strong not even light can escape from its grasp. It's that Neutron Star entity.

So you are a thimbleful of salt away from crossing the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary. You can (barely) still see your now super-sized hunk of Neutron Star stuff. Now toss in that final thimbleful of stuff onto the hunk. No light now reaches you - you've crossed the threshold or boundary and have got a Black Hole. But do you doubt that lurking on the other side of the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary, though unseen, you still have that super-sized hunk of stuff, not a singularity, but a really real solid 3-D hunk of stuff? Or, in other words, if the escape velocity of your hunk is 185,999 miles per second, no Black Hole and no singularity, but if it climbs to 186,001 miles per second you have a Black Hole and your hunk morphs into a singularity? A two mile a second difference makes that much difference? I don't think so.

The other issue though is this really going to be a one-way trip for our boldly going voyager, dead or alive? One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the 'other side' (i.e. - producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I'd wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn't mean there's not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what's empty; you empty what's full, but in-between those two there's storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

Let's adopt that point of view that what goes in, ultimately has to come out.

And so, our intrepid voyager might well exit elsewhere, maybe even elsewhen. The exit could be deemed the opposite of a Black Hole, or a White Hole; the passageway from Black Hole entrance to White Hole exit is that staple of sci-fi, albeit based in the realm of theoretical physics, the Wormhole. That the exit could be elsewhen is based on the theoretical 'fact' that a wormhole could be manipulated in such a manner as to allow for time travel. If that's too far out for you, then a Wormhole elsewhere shouldn't be. The apt analogy is with an apple. Mr. Worm can crawl around the outside of the apple to get from one side to the other, or Mr. Worm could take a short-cut and worm his way through the apple to get to the other side, or elsewhere.

Now the question arises, is there any observational evidence that White Holes and associated exits exist? Astronomers and cosmologists would argue in the negative, but I'm not convinced. What would be the signature of a White Hole? Well, it would be roughly stellar-sized, not planetary or galactic. It would be vomiting out one heck of a lot of stuff including lots of energy. Does the cosmos contain such beasties? Obvious candidates are quasars - quasi-stellar objects. Quasars are roughly stellar in size, but violently emitting the froth and bubble of nearly an entire galaxy worth of stuff and energy. The other high-energy astrophysical anomaly is gamma ray bursts. They occur way out back of beyond, in the outer fringes of the cosmos, which is all to the good for if a gamma ray burst happened in our stellar neck of the woods, the results would be akin to Kentucky Fried Humans! Still, we don't know enough squat about them to be able to predict exactly where and when one will happen. So, astronomers who are into studying these cosmic critters are akin to sleeping fireman who never knows when they will be rudely awakened to respond to that rare five-alarm event.

So, in short, we have Black Holes that are your ultimate in garbage disposals; Quasars and gamma ray bursts that are your ultimate in, IMHO, recycling that garbage back into useful cosmic stuff - matter and energy. In other words, they are the exit to the Black Hole's entrance.

No matter. Either our boldly going voyager has snuffed it going into a Black Hole; is forever trapped in a Black Hole; or has been turned into a Kentucky Fried Human and vomited back out again via a White Hole quasar or gamma ray burst to become as one with the cosmos. We all started out as star-stuff - and so shall we (or what's left of our remains) all ultimately return to become star-stuff again a millennia of millennia from now.

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS ABOUT COSMIC BLACK HOLES

Every now and again a thought about this or that occurs to me which I then scribble down for posterity. Here are a few that relate to the concept of the astronomical object known as a Frozen Star but way more commonly referred to as a Black Hole.

# Space is not the final frontier. The ultimate challenge is to 'boldly go' past the event horizon of a Black Hole and see what's to be seen.

# One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the 'other side' (i.e. - thus producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I'd wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn't mean there's not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what's empty; you empty what's full, but in-between those two there's storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

# A Black Hole has a finite amount of mass therefore a finite amount of gravity and therefore a finite escape velocity, even if the value of same is in excess of the speed of light - the ultimate cosmic speed limit. Somehow this makes these astrophysical objects really special. However, there's nothing different in principle vis-à-vis the Earth having a finite amount of mass, gravity and escape velocity. If Planet Earth isn't all that special for having those three properties, why should a Black Hole be?

# If an electron acquired enough mass (say by being accelerated to near light speed), would it become a Black Hole, and if so, would the 'inside' still be an electron, which after all, is considered a fundamental particle?

# Black Holes would make excellent, in fact perfect, thermos (vacuum) flasks. Pour into a Black Hole the contents of a star, say like the Sun. All that heat is then trapped and I do mean trapped!

# It's impossible IMHO to have stuff of infinite density and occupying zero volume so whatever is inside a Black Hole has finite density and occupies a finite volume.

# What lies at the heart of a Black Hole? The traditional answer is a 'singularity' - a point of (near) infinite density and (close to) zero volume, matter crushed down to the final, ultimate limit - or maybe not.

Start with a hunk of matter. Keep on keeping on adding more and more and more matter (mass) to it. Your original hunk grows larger, ever denser; its gravity swells in proportion. Finally it's just a fraction away from achieving Black Hole status - meaning its gravity is so strong not even light can escape from its grasp.

So you are a thimbleful of salt away from crossing the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary. You can (barely) still see your now super-sized hunk of stuff. Now toss in that final thimbleful of stuff onto the hunk. No light now reaches you - you've crossed the threshold or boundary and have got a Black Hole. But do you doubt that lurking on the other side of the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary, though unseen, you still have that super-sized hunk of stuff, not a singularity, but a really real solid 3-D hunk of stuff? Or, in other words, if the escape velocity of your hunk is 185,999 miles per second, no Black Hole and no singularity, but if it climbs to 186,001 miles per second you have a Black Hole and your hunk morphs into a singularity? A two mile a second difference makes that much difference? I don't think so.

# In our Universe there are two kinds of astronomical objects. There are cosmic faucets like stars and anything else that gives off or reflects electromagnetic (EM) waves. That's the cosmic "In Tray". Then there are cosmic sinks and drains that absorb electromagnetic waves - Black Holes, the cosmic "Out Tray".

It would seem to me that over the course of 13.7 billion years, an awful lot of EM (light, IR, UV, radio, microwave, gamma-ray, etc.) photons, not to mention neutrinos and cosmic rays, would have gobbled up and removed from the Universe's inventory by being sucked into and forever residing in the insides of Black Holes. Since all astronomical observations, hence conclusions about the state of the Universe, rely on the detection of that which is emitted or reflected by cosmic faucets, then it stands to reason that in order to arrive at valid conclusions, what cosmic sinks and drains remove from the Big EM Picture must be taken into account. But is it? I've never read any account where the removal of EM photons from the Universe's inventory has been considered.

# Black Holes won't ultimately evaporate via Hawking radiation since input of matter and energy will exceed output. In other words, more matter and energy will find there way into a Black Hole than will escape via that Hawking radiation.

SINGULARITIES: THE HEART OF BLACK HOLES AND THE BIG BANG

Singularities are fascinating objects and places, yet entirely 'inaccessible' in the sense that you can't actually go there on vacation and send back a postcard, or travel to one on a government grant as a scientific expedition and report back via a peer-reviewed article in a technical scientific journal about the local environment, geography, inhabitants, etc. In a sense singularities are like Heaven in terms of accessibility. You have to rely on intuition or theory or second-hand observations as to what's what and who's who.

Okay, for those readers I've already befuddled, I'd better tell you exactly what a singularity is! You've all heard of the phrase 'Black Hole' and not the one in Calcutta either! I refer to astronomical or cosmic Black Holes. Black Holes are 'black' because they have packed inside them so much stuff, so much mass, and hence so much gravity that not even particles of electromagnetic energy (photons) can escape their gravitational clutches. If photons, and that includes visible light photons, are jailed, can not pass go, can not collect $200, then they might as well as, as far as your perception of them is concerned, not exist. If what you don't see exists, that existence is of no matter (well lots of matter actually). Translated, Black Holes are black because visible light can't get from them to your eyeball! The absence of light is well, blackness.

So, is a Black Hole just a big lump of stuff, albeit stuff you can't see? Well, 'yes' and 'no'. First off, we can 'see' Black Holes indirectly because of their gravitational influence on stellar objects we can see. I mean if you see a star whirling around something you can't see, then the logical interpretation is that the star you can see is in orbit around something you can't see - i.e. a Black Hole. Well 'no', you can't 'see' a Black Hole because light from the Black Hole can't get away from the crush of that Black Hole's gravity.

What's all this got to do with singularities? Well, the stuff composing a Black Hole, all that stuff that clumps together and is the centre of the massive all-encompassing gravity that prohibits the photons to escape the house (Hole) that Jack built is the Black Hole's singularity. An analogy: The extent of the Black Hole is the extent of the Earth's outer atmosphere; the singularity is the solid Earth proper. So think of a nebulous outer edge with a solid core of stuff in the middle. The stuff in the middle generates the intense gravity; the nebulous outer edge marks the boundary between gravity below the threshold of light escaping and light not escaping. That boundary is referred to as the 'event horizon'; the stuff in the middle is the singularity.

Now the idea of a singularity doesn't stop with the idea behind an astronomical Black Hole. No, a singularity is any concentration of stuff or mass that has such a massive amount of gravity as to prevent photons from leaving the gravitational well or prison so created. What's the ultimate Black Hole - the Mother of all Black Holes? Well, if bits of our Universe can clump together to form astronomical Black Holes, then our entire Universe, when clumped together and in a relativity tiny state, would have been the Mother of all Black Holes and hence the Mother of all singularities. When was our Universe in such a state? Well, in the beginning!

Our Universe is expanding. That's verified by direct cosmological observation. Every cluster of galaxies has such astronomically bad 'body odour' that every other cluster of galaxies is moving out of the vicinity quick-smart! Well actually you can't have 'body odour' in space, so that's not the real reason. The real reason is that in the beginning or once upon a time, there was some sort of explosive oomph event that started the expansion process. We call that the 'Big Bang' event. At the time of the Big Bang event, our entire Universe had a close encounter with, well, our entire Universe. Our entire Universe was roughly all in the same space at the same time. Translated, if you run the film of an expanding Universe backwards, you eventually get the entire contents of our Universe on collectively very intimate terms. Such a massive collection of stuff, matter, mass, hence gravity, all of the stuffs, matter or mass that the Universe possesses, well let's just say you'd have the Mother of all singularities - in the Big Bang beginning; or anyway once upon a Big Bang time at least .

Well surely one didn't have this Mother of all singularities just sitting around for aeons then for no apparent reason go 'poof' and thus have an explosive oomph moment which kick-started things off as far as our Universe is concerned. The intense gravity of the Mother of all singularities probably would have muted any oomph to begin with; the birth of our Universe stalled at the onset.

But, let's throw some momentum into the mix. What's the opposite of a Big Bang? It's a Big Crunch! So let's propose that we have this other universe which, the bits and pieces thereof, under all those mutual gravitational attractions, is slowly, ever so slowly, but ever so surely, coming together. And as it comes together, the contracting velocity gets faster, and faster, and faster. Eventually, you have this massive collection of stuff rushing together to meet at a single point in space and in time at a fantastic velocity. There is such momentum present that the contracting Big Crunch universe just can't stop on a dime any more than an automobile going a hundred miles an hour can stop with inside of a foot of having the brakes applied. The Big Crunch at the omega point obviously forms the Mother of all Black Holes and singularities, but the sheer momentum of that contracting universe just tears the fabric of things (space and time) apart, and like a glove turning inside-out, the contraction passes through the omega point, spewing its guts out, becoming an alpha point, which is our Big Bang event and the start of our new expanding Universe.

Okay, so we have two sources that have singularities - singularities at the centre of astronomical Black Holes, and the Mother of all singularities residing inside the Mother of all Black Holes, the one that existed at the Big Bang beginning of the Universe.

We of course can't see a singularity directly (unless you're willing to take a one-way trip down a Black Hole, but even if you survived that and landed safely on the singularity, you couldn't ever broadcast back your findings - that speed of light restriction that by definition a Black Hole imparts regarding sending stuff out). So, we have to rely 100% on what theoretical equations predict a singularity to be. Unfortunately, those equations, when pushed to the sorts of mass and gravitational extremes that a singularity would represent, well you get nonsense answers. Translated, if taken at face value, the equations note that the intense gravity crushes the stuff that itself is responsible for that gravity down to a point of zero dimensions and hence infinite density.

The essential problem behind this nonsense is that gravity is represented by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity which is a classical physics smooth continuum phenomenon. That is, you can have this gravitational value, and that gravitational value, and every possible value in-between. However, tiny objects, which is what a singularity is postulated to be, is in the realm of the quantum, which is a non-continuum phenomena. Think of a staircase. You can be on this step, or the next step, but there is no step in-between the two. That is, you can have this value, or that value, but only certain other values in-between. It's also like money - you can have a five dollar bill, and a ten dollar bill, but not a six-and-a-third dollar bill, or an eight-and-three-quarters dollar bill, or even a seven or a nine dollar bill. Money and staircases are non-continuum quantum-like; money and staircases are not a smooth continuum like gravity is.

So, to adequately come to terms with the really real properties of singularities, you need a theory of quantum gravity. Alas, despite the best efforts of thousands of theoretical physicists over many, many decades, no quantum gravity theory to be had. There's no quantum gravity dice.

So, let's abandon that theoretical track and go back to common sense predictions.

Either Black Hole singularities, or the Big Bang singularity, are infinitely dense and have zero volume, or they do not. If they do not (and the alternative defies common sense and is IMHO ridiculous), then singularities have a finite volume and can grow in size as more stuff is added on. You have an original tiny singularity with extremely high, but not infinite density. You keep piling stuff onto it. For a while, the density keeps on increasing, but since it can't become infinite, there will be a point reached where further increases cease. As more and more stuff continues to be piled on, the only other option is that the size of the singularity must grow. The volume increases, and increases and increases. The upshot is that singularities can reach a size where quantum effects become negligible. Or, in other words, singularities can grow to where they aren't quantum objects any more, and while theories of quantum gravity might be still be useful in explaining their properties, it's probably no longer essential. Singularities have entered the realm of classical physics.

One property of singularities I find interesting is that the stuff that eventually forms the singularity isn't the same sort of stuff that went down the Black Hole's throat in the first place. There's been a phase transition of one kind of stuff to another kind of stuff. You're quite familiar with phase transitions in your day-to-day life. There's nothing mysterious about the concept. The most common example is steam or water vapour condensing to liquid water condensing or freezing to ice; ice melting to liquid water hence boiling or evaporating into steam or water vapour. Apart from your division into solid, liquid and gas, there's also plasma. Now the sort of matter that composes a singularity is probably something else yet again, a phase transition that only extreme gravity can achieve. That such a new state of matter exists is predicted by the following: If you have an ordinary matter star, and if it should happen to collide with an antimatter star, what you get is one hell of a big Ka-Boom; the annihilation of matter/antimatter into pure energy. However, say your matter star implodes into a Black Hole with singularity. And say your antimatter star implodes into a Black Hole with singularity. Now have these two Black Holes collide. No Ka-Boom results, just a larger Black Hole!

I don't agree, BH exists and furthermore have a rule of recycling and production and also a rule of motion.

And me who thinks that they are sphères with a mass and cosmposed by quantum sphères.

They exist,fortunally furthermore for the rotations Inside our universal sphere around the central black hohe.They permit with their enormous mass to embark stars simply.

Regards

Of course it exists several kinds of BH , sphères.But they have alsays the same rules.

A stellar BH it is the same when the carburants are finished, so it is a recycling.

A supermassif BH is central to galaxies

A primordial BH was the center of our Universe before the BB,

It is so simple that this.

The micro BH them are in our quantum world with the same relative logic considering the volumes of sphères.

Sometimes I say me , but how isit possible that so many scientists interpret our Universe like that ????

Ask to Schwarzschild ,and you shall see their diameters,11 millions for pour galaxy the milky way.

Cheers

It is not complicated when you see the GENERAL simplicity of our universal sphere in evolution and complexification of mass.

All has a rule of complementarity.If they exist, there are reasons,they have a mass, a volume, a density, an intrinsic energy,....If they were not there, how do you want that stars turn around it and be embarked around the central BH.

It is not a door you know or this or thant????

read this paperAttachment #1: 2_Gravity_originates_from_variable_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_1.pdf

Dear Researchers

Kindly have a look at this talk by Prof. Dr. Abhas K Mitra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgtfndZy8xU

He told that the so called 'Black Holes' are likely to be ultra hot ultra magnetized balls of fire and as suggested by observations, there exists no Black Hole and hence, no Paradox.

Suggestions are welcomed

Wishes

Kalpana

Hello Kalpana,

I guess you didn't notice that Prof. Mitra was already a contributor to this thread, and made some comments in support of his ideas above. For what it's worth, the acronym MECO was coined to describe this; a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. Some other researchers contributing to that work also appear in the conversation above. Check it out! Feel free to add anything you feel was left out, once you do.

I think it is indisputable that there are supermassive dense objects in the cosmos, and that it is a bit of grandstanding to say they are not Black Holes, but the other side bears investigating seriously. Perhaps calling them MECOs would be more accurate, or there is a still-better descriptive term. But it is more likely that we will simply redefine what a Black Hole really is, and keep calling them that - even if the name does not fit precisely, or as we imagined.

I'm sure I'll hear plenty of expert opinions at GR21 this week. Jorge Pullin and Carlo Rovelli will both be there, among others. But I prefer an open dialog, over believing this is a closed issue. And my interactions with Prof. Mitra have been cordial and respectful. While I do not precisely agree with his program, I find he has a lot of good insights that have been swept under the carpet by other researchers. Better that people hear both sides, and then decide which models make the most sense.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I can understand that people wants to find the real meaning of BH ,dark matter and also gravitation.I can understznd that people must eat and also that copetition is a reality.People must publish, if not the business en are not happy.That said we must be rational and also try other ways than our actual roads.Gravitation, BH and dark matter needs a better analyse in all huility.Some argues that gravitation is an emergent force of our electroagnetic forces.Others tell us that BH are whorholes,after that BH does not exist, after this and that.???? Is it real researchs or is it just business due to pression of these businessen ?All this decreases the velocity of evolution of sciences.It is not the good method.Too much isolated persons and toomuch vanity also.We go all in a wall if we continue on these bad habits.Sad for the global sciences community in fact. It is crazy all this in fact and so sad globaly speaking.Regards

E=mc²+ml² Here is a small idea about dark matter and BH and spherons.

The principle of equivalence between matter and energy is essential for a real determinism.If we consider that it exists particles of gravitation smaller and speeder than bosons photons.These paritcles are probably the secret of darkmatter ,they are probably produced by our Black Holes.The relevance is about this linear velocity before encoding of these particles.They are encoded more far and differently than our standard model with our special relativity and thermodynamics.A boson photon cannot pass c , a spheron yes in logic.The quantum of gravitational energy is different than our quantum of thermodynamical energy.We can go faster than c but with spherons, these particles of gravitation.The universal entropy and its irreversibility correlated with the increasing matter energy due to evolution of mass can be approached.Our nucleis encode these bosons ans spherons,the spherical volumes become an universal key linking the quantm sphères and cosmological sphères.In this line of reasoning, the centralcosmological sphere produces the smallest and speedest spherons.Intriguing this central sphere, this singularity connected with all quantum singularities, the central quantum sphères,the main gravitational codes,these series,stable and finite encode simply what is produced by cosmological sphères.

Gravitation, dark matter and BH are explained in this line of reasoning when we consider this matter not baryonic.Our standard model is simply encircld by gravitation.Even probably the photons.So the main central quantm sphères are the main codes and so it is not appraochable, that is why a photon is a photon respecting the special and general relativity.

Regards

All helps are welcome because I work actualy about the geometrical spherical algebras.I study the different methods with Clifford mainly.I beleive that his works are very relevant.I ask me all to correctly formalise all the good paramters.The vectors,the matrixs,the volumes,the rotations,the phases,the numbers(reals,imaginaries,complexs..)How to harmonise all this with the sphères and the spherical volumes.I consider the serie of volumes with a categorification due to our matters and énergies.The serie of uniqueness is a finite serie.I consider this finite serie of volumes like universal for the two scales.They are stable gravitationaly speaking in our space time.The serie cosmological is unique and the quantum series them tends to infinity due to this central cosmological BH producing the gravitational aether.This center produces all quantum stable series and its diversity.There is two productions so from this central biggest BH.The stable series encoding and the spherons.I consider this finite serie begining from this number 1 like a serie of primes p adic numbers.I d like to formalise this serie of primes correlated with spherical volumes.The differentials are relevant.These series are the gravitation in logic.The two others informations are the photons and the spherons but it is linear particles and they are encoded in nucleis.My second equation mlosV=constant permits to see the series of volumes, stable or linear.The relevance it seems to me is that space does not exist due to this link of spherical volumes,because the volumes decrease towards the smallest spherons.Now how can I formalis this reasoning with the good vectorial analysis considering the time and the encodings with superimposings, sortings and sunchronizations.It is intriguing when we consider spherons and spherical volumes above our standard model.This weakest quantum force is due to this smallest spherons but in the same the stable serie is thz strongest force more far than nuclear force.So the standard model is really encircled because nuclear forces are not the last due to quantum BH not baryonic and also the electroagnetism is not the last in the other sense, the weak force.Spherons are above photons and quantum BH are more far than protons.Hope I am clear :)The space does not really exists.The lagrangian can be correlated with determinism.We can derivate and integrate the vectors and the spherical volumes in the two senses and we can correlated the quantum scale and the cosmological scale.We could take the body S and utilises the vectorials spaces with the spherical volumes with an associativity comutativity logic and the scalar products also like the intégrations and dérivations.Gravitation appears but can be also classed.

ooops It was me

All helps are welcome because I work actualy about the geometrical spherical algebras.I study the different methods with Clifford mainly.I beleive that his works are very relevant.I ask me all to correctly formalise all the good paramters.The vectors,the matrixs,the volumes,the rotations,the phases,the numbers(reals,imaginaries,complexs..)How to harmonise all this with the sphères and the spherical volumes.I consider the serie of volumes with a categorification due to our matters and énergies.The serie of uniqueness is a finite serie.I consider this finite serie of volumes like universal for the two scales.They are stable gravitationaly speaking in our space time.The serie cosmological is unique and the quantum series them tends to infinity due to this central cosmological BH producing the gravitational aether.This center produces all quantum stable series and its diversity.There is two productions so from this central biggest BH.The stable series encoding and the spherons.I consider this finite serie begining from this number 1 like a serie of primes p adic numbers.I d like to formalise this serie of primes correlated with spherical volumes.The differentials are relevant.These series are the gravitation in logic.The two others informations are the photons and the spherons but it is linear particles and they are encoded in nucleis.My second equation mlosV=constant permits to see the series of volumes, stable or linear.The relevance it seems to me is that space does not exist due to this link of spherical volumes,because the volumes decrease towards the smallest spherons.Now how can I formalis this reasoning with the good vectorial analysis considering the time and the encodings with superimposings, sortings and sunchronizations.It is intriguing when we consider spherons and spherical volumes above our standard model.This weakest quantum force is due to this smallest spherons but in the same the stable serie is thz strongest force more far than nuclear force.So the standard model is really encircled because nuclear forces are not the last due to quantum BH not baryonic and also the electroagnetism is not the last in the other sense, the weak force.Spherons are above photons and quantum BH are more far than protons.Hope I am clear :)The space does not really exists.The lagrangian can be correlated with determinism.We can derivate and integrate the vectors and the spherical volumes in the two senses and we can correlated the quantum scale and the cosmological scale.We could take the body S and utilises the vectorials spaces with the spherical volumes with an associativity comutativity logic and the scalar products also like the intégrations and dérivations.Gravitation appears but can be also classed.