Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Instead of talking about AGN's and galaxies recycling and so on, here is the data that we know. For 46,000 quasars from the Sloan survey, it is really neat.

Since I couldn't find a decent plot anywhere, I downloaded the dataset and plotted up the binned data. It is true that galaxies radiate large amounts of matter as energy. However, past quasars radiated much more than in the present epoch, where there is essentially diddlysquat as AGNs. Even 10 Byrs ago, only one sun a year radiated, or a billion suns in a billion years from a 100 billion star galaxy just doesn't constitute much recycling.

And today, these giants of our past are all quiet which is probably very good. Our own galaxy luminosity is about 0.12 Msun's per year, but our galaxy is not an AGN and its radiation is mostly starlight. So while some radiation does get recycled into mass, most mass in the universe is still the same mass as it was at the origin, the CMB.

quasar numbers and luminosities

This assumes H = 74 km/s/Mpc.

Action is the change that takes place.

"Thanks for trying, but I'm still not clear of what change to what is taking place. And binding energy has always been a bit of a cop-out anyway, where is it supposed to physically be in an atomic structure?"

If it is a bound state, the action in the orbit or phase of that state over time. Action is change. Every bound state between two particles involves exchange of a third particle as the mass equivalent energy of binding.

So far, this is all standard quantum action, but the same goes for gravity action under the right conditions.

"...how do you envisage a single discrete mass as matter? If as Democritus said, "There is nothing but atoms and the void", and your schemata is that space essentially exists within the measure of matter, that is consistent with co-ordinate free geometric modeling and a change of state of (an isolate) matter that is proportional to itself."

Well, matter is by definition discrete since it is the Fourier transform of a multi Byr time pulse, the matter spectrum shows discrete peaks and is dominated by the smallest particle. These particles are still matter waves and make up all of the rest of the matter of the universe.

I would amend Democritus just a bit to say that there are atoms and time and action. Where there is no action, we call a void. All action is a change in matter. The universe is collapsing at c, so that takes care of E=mc2. All matter is already in motion at c.

The Higgs particle is a little different in matter time. The fundamental action of matter time is c/alpha, which is the classical velocity of the electron (or any) spin at the charge radius. Thus Higgs scatters a relativistic proton off of the c/alpha background of the universe and results in a 938/alpha = 126 GeV He-4.

I never understood where the proton charge ends up in the Hadron collider with two gammas anyway, so use the He-4 to carry the proton charge away along with the extra energy. I presume that there is so much background that missing a single He-4 would be real easy...

If the Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) Are Not True BHs, What Could They Be:

Well friends, Earth moves around the Sun: To understand this fact we need not fall back on any (i) Quantum Mechanics, (ii) Quantum Field Theory, (iii) String Theory or say (iv) Loop Quantum Gravity. On the other hand, we can understand why Earth obeys Kepler's laws by using plain Newtonian gravity. In fact, for test particle, General Relativity (GR) too yields the same Kepler's law even though at microscopic level QM is operative. The minor precession of the orbit too can be explained by GR alone. The orbit might be decaying at a negligible rate, a phenomenon for which we need not invoke any mysterious ``Quantum Back Reaction'', but by invoking gravitational waves alone. But when it comes to gravitational collapse of clouds which are far enormous and massive, it is fashionable for particle physicists, quantum gravity researchers and sometimes even GR mathematicians to invoke unproven quantum field emissions , ``Hawking Radiation'', `Quantum Back Reactions'' etc etc. Probably they do so because they may not be aware that even by Newtonian Gravitation, a contracting self-gravitating object must emit radiation and simultaneously get hotter because of negative specific heat associated with attractive self-gravity. This fact is known for almost 170 years and this explains how ultra-cold supermassive interstellar gas clouds contract over millions of years to give birth to radiating hot stars.

Note such an emission of radiation is not due to any mysterious unknown quantum field effects or Hawking Radiation or strings or loops. It is not even due to any nuclear fuel burning within the clouds either. On the other hand mundane radiative processes like Bremsstrahlung, Compton effect, Synchrotron process are responsible for such classical effects. GR collapse too must be accompanied by such a natural classical emission :

Ref. 1. "Why gravitational contraction must be accompanied by emission of radiation in both Newtonian and Einstein gravity''

A. Mitra, Physical Review D, Vol. 74, id. 024010 (2006); (arXiv:gr-qc/0605066)

Now note that the ``Compactness'' of a compact star may be represented by the gravitational red-shift (z) of spectral lines emitted by it . For a typical Neutron Star, z~0.15 while for a Black Hole, z=Infinity. So in order to become a BH, the collapsing object must have z>>1. It was found that, as the object would become more and more compact, it would become so hot that its

Radiation Energy Density/Baryonic Energy Density ~ z

Ref. 2. ``A generic relation between baryonic and radiative energy densities of stars''

A. Mitra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 367, L66-L68 (2006); arXiv:gr-qc/0601025

Also, if the body would contract beneath its ``Photon Sphere'' defined by z= sqrt{3} -1 ~ 0.77,

Then photons and neutrinos emanating from the interior would start getting trapped by self-gravity. And further, as, z>>1, sooner or later, the Luminosity of the trapped radiation would attain its Eddington value for which

Inward Pull of Gravity = Outward Push of Radiation

At this stage the rapid collapse gets halted and the contracting objects becomes a Quasistatic Ultracompact Ultrahot Ball of plasma. But since the body is always hot and radiating, it is always contracting even though the rate could be infinitesimally small. It is found that the time scale of contraction яГа Infinity as zяГа Infinity.

So before the body would become a BH with z=Infinity, it would radiate away entire mass energy (not baryons & electrons) to attain the ideal M=0 BH state suggested by

A. Mitra, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 50, 042502 (2009);(arXiv:0904.4754)

Thus an massive object undergoing continued gravitational collapse is likely to become an Eternally Collapsing Object'' rather than a BH or a ``Naked Singularity'':

Ref. 2. ``Radiation pressure supported stars in Einstein gravity: eternally collapsing objects''

A. Mitra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 492 (2006); (arXiv:gr-qc/0603055)

Ref. 3. ``Sources of stellar energy, Einstein Eddington timescale of gravitational contraction and eternally collapsing objects''

A. Mitra, New Astronomy, 12, 146-160 (2006); (arXiv:astro-ph/0608178)

Ref. 3.`` Likely formation of general relativistic radiation pressure supported stars or `eternally collapsing objects''

A. Mitra, ``Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 404, L50-L54 (2010); (arXiv:1003.3518)

This conclusion is corroborated by the proof that GR actually does not allow formation of ``trapped surfaces'', event horizons or ``Apparent Horizons'' : 2M/R < =1

Contrary to the ASSUMPTIONS of ``Singularity Theorems'' of Hawking & Penrose:

"Quantum Information Paradox: Real or Fictitious?"

A. Mitra, Pramana, Vol. 73, pp. 615 (2009); eprint arXiv:0911.3518

Regards

Abhas

Abhas,

I agree your work shows the flaws of many beliefs about 'black holes'. As most others can't access MNRAS papers I post a direct link to the archive copy aid others; A generic relation between baryonic and radiative energy densities of stars.

I agree with many fundamentals but disagree with various assumptions and conclusions as there's an alternative which is well evidenced, which is OAM as the energy and polar outflows (peaking to quasar jets) as the leakage, simply evaporating the momentum. A cyclic model is implied because the 'column' of jet matter rotates on the perpendicular axis at a virial radius (explaining a whole tranche of anomalies including kinetic decoupling etc etc) re-building the core OAM.

The process is far clearer in AGN's than at stellar scales, but our nearest example, the Crab Nebula core, shows it clearly. As an astronomer and 'observational cosmologist' rather than astrophysical theorist we approach from very different foundations, and I focus more on SMBH scales. but I consider past theory can hampers as much as help, relying on observation not past interpretations. Having said that, the sum of each part is greater...

I wonder if you could also read my own (joint) paper before you respond, to understand the plasma physics basis and fundamentally important implications emerging from the recycling model. A fractal version consistent with CMB peculiar anisotropies suggests a cyclic cosmology similar to the improved positions of Penrose and more recently Hawking. Published in the HJ and archived here;

Cyclic SMBH Evolution.

Best wishes

Peter

Steve,

Saying you 'couldn't find' a plot shows you didn't see my paper! Fig 1 shows the smoothed curve. I also give much additional data and analysis on the immediate subsequent peak in YOUNG BLUE spiral galaxies and gradual evolution to red discs. The massive old red 'over-abundance' before the last quasar era is legend and an still 'anomalous'. I also identify the EARLIER multiple 'quasar era' peaks (beyond the limited SDSS survey) with shorter periods, along with evolutions back to red.

As they a say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, leading to false conclusions. The full picture also allows improved clarity.

It's also not true that they're currently ALL 'quiet'. The present dip is non-zero (Inc M87) but there's a fundamental fact of astronomy you're not aware of; we cannot observe what's happening now or recently. Even if a new peak was now building up we would not SEE it, so ALL such graphs dive to zero 'locally.' However be reassured, the Milky Way would only be at ~half cycle age wise.

A final point and common problem. Your graph may be read either way round by the unfamiliar (i.e. with 14 billion years ago on the right and the young universe on the left. There are discrepancies and doubts over ages, which is why the convention is to use redshift z=0 upwards, because that's the only real data we have. The rest is probably false assumptions from too little data, and there's too much of that already!

The old standard model failed when we found massive and old red galaxies at high z's. But Mainstream hangs onto it simply as it hasn't adopted any other yet! I don't like the current trend to guessing games and follow the data. The full pattern 'cycles' with increasing periods, and testing a hypothesis of such a model seems rather like completing a large complex jigsaw puzzle. Look at the actual evidence and THEN see what you think.

See the link in the post to Abhas below.

Best wishes.

Peter

"A map is a useful tool but it isn't going to describe all the territory, or it would be too intellectually cumbersome."

Well sure, John. That's only one reason to be careful in specifying boundaries of the territory one describes. There are topographical maps, geological maps, flat border maps, spherical globe maps, Mercator projections, etc.

"GR and QM are maps of the same territory,"

That isn't true, however -- and that's the fundamental problem. The theories describe two entirely different things. (Einstein called them "marble and wood.") The problem of unification would in fact be far easier if, like a complete atlas of maps listed above, general relativity and quantum theory were different aspects of the same territory.

"The 'perfect' theory of GR uses only the norms of matter and time and so space is only a norm as well."

Sure. However, because space and time are not physically real independent of one another, orthonormal bases are complete.

"If we break GR matter and time into phase and amplitude somehow, all will be fine and space will follow nicely and the normed stuff should all work the same."

It already does.

"Of course, if it were very easy, someone would have done it by now."

Einstein did do it. Steve, I think that because you (and almost all quantum theorists) are convinced that spacetime quantization is the key to unification, you think that general relativity is broken, that " ... the flaws in GR multiply with dark matter and dark energy, well within GR's diffeomorphic limits."

That diffeomorphic limit is clearly defined as the boundary condition of the theory. The flaw is the unavoidable appearance of singularities; dark matter and dark energy are required to balance the energy books, something predicted not by general relativity, but by special relativity, as a consequence of mass with zero momentum -- an intriguing mystery that we don't yet know how to deal with.

"These are total ad hoc assumptions that are demonstrably just patching things up for a while.."

Not ad hoc assumptions. Just, at present, poorly understood physical consequences of the theory of gravity, that have nothing to do with the theory of the quantum.

Tom,

At some level, even marble and wood are on the same page. It is like GR is a map of Nebraska and QM is a map of California, but there is no effective map of the entire country.

I do notice that you haven't answered the question of whether frequency is a measure of oscillations, or indicative of some underlaying topography on which the oscillations are based.

Is that a conscious, or subconscious blind spot?

Regards,

John M

Steve,

Isn't much of it just being recycled/looping back into the same galaxy. It was only a few years ago that we discovered those giant bubbles of plasma, out the poles of our own galaxy. The what is actually being radiated out as light, the purest form of energy, is balanced by everything radiating back at us.

Here is a FQXI forum thread I add all the discoveries that amount to anomalies for current theory. Many, if not most of them deal with processes which cannot possibly fit within the 13.8 billion year time frame of current theory.

If we consider redshift is actually an optical effect, then that CMBR, from the edge of the visible universe is simply light that has been redshifted off the visible spectrum and is the solution to Olber's paradox. As such it is light which has effectively "cooled off" enough to begin to seed back into the mass cycle. This possibly would explain the temperature level of 2.7k as a phase transition.

Regards,

John M

"At some level, even marble and wood are on the same page."

On the atomic level, sure. That's the essential question of quantum gravity -- whether classical gravity can be derived from quantization of states; i.e., whether quantum events "smooth out" at the classical level to explain gravity. Quantum theorists maintain that such a point exists even if we cannot say where it is. Relativists maintain that continuous functions -- not discrete states -- are foundational.

"It is like GR is a map of Nebraska and QM is a map of Californ.ia, but there is no effective map of the entire country."

California and Nebraska are (arbitrarily defined) elements of the same map. Classical and quantum gravity are not.

"I do notice that you haven't answered the question of whether frequency is a measure of oscillations, or indicative of some underlaying topography on which the oscillations are based."

I don't even know what you mean by that. It simply looks like a false dichotomy to me.

"Is that a conscious, or subconscious blind spot?"

Spotting false dichotomies is very much a part of my consciousness.

John M, your idea is worth considering but I think you keep repeating an error: the CMBR is not from the edge of the visible universe travelling towards you. It is right there in your room. It is motionless but as the universe has expanded and cooled, the temperature and energy of the CMBR has also reduced.

Abbas, you seem to be substituting one infinity for another with your "eternally" collapsing objects. I suggest that if singularities are the origins and ends of spacetime and matter, and without matter mass is zero, you are on track with original idea that singularities are of zero mass. I think not accepting that is what has led you to eternally collapsing objects. If initial and final singularities are same except for their time direction this appears logical lest we have eternally expanding objects, in which case we are confronted with where on the timeline expansion started.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

You may confuse John with misinformation. The CMBR is NOT as you describe! Indeed I now better understand the cause of your many bizarre sounding comments about it. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation DOES include the energy from emissions billions of years ago, and is 'RADIATION'. That means the emissions found at ALL frequencies (including light) and certainly not just 'microwaves'! The radiation propagates at c (in and wrt the datum of whatever dielectric rest frame it's propagating in locally at any time). The radiation is 'scattered' by all interactions on the way. The recent BICEP problems are due to the scattering by local 'dust' (complex molecules evolved from plasma via molecular gas).

It's the rest frame 'medium' that may permeate the local space NOT the 'CMBR'. John description was fine, but the radiation comes from ALL directions and distances (and there was probably no 'big bang' anyway!) Much seems to be from 'quasar' recycling activity - (possibly including a BIG version 14bn years ago according to the evidence).

I hope that anyway gets your understanding back to fundamental reality, and clears the confusion perhaps caused to John!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for clearing that up, though what I was referring to is that described as the afterglow of the big bang. Since it presumably emanates from the beginning and in the convoluted geometry of BBT, this means the furtherest edges of the visible universe, even though it has the largest surface area.

If we view space conventionally, then this would only be a horizon line, at which all visible light has been completely shifted off the visible spectrum, thus solving Olber's paradox of why the night sky is not filled with light from infinite sources.

The issue then becomes why does it seem to have that neat cutoff line at 2.7k. It was this feature which originally led to the proposal of inflation, since it is nearly uniform in all directions and if the universe was expanding at the rate it is proposed, then this uniformity couldn't be explained.

My suggestion is that there is instead some form of phase transition at this temperature, where having cooled to that level, some process of "condensation" is occurring, so it is starting to recombine/collapse into some form of particulate structure and this is the start of the whole gravitational collapse curve.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

The real dichotomy is between your way of thinking and mine. You have a very top down, ordered and structured view of reality, while I have a much more bottom up, process oriented view.

For example, to you the equation 1+1=2 is a tautology. One side equals the other, so they are interchangeable. A=B, therefore B=A.

On the other hand, I view 1+1 as a process and 2 is the result. So it amounts to cause and effect for me, therefore they are not interchangeable. For example, consider adding a long column of figures, say checks into a bank account and it becomes somewhat more obvious. There is that flow of funds, represented by those written amounts, into that account, with the result as the bottom line. Now anyone out there who functions in the business world will not view the bottom line as interchangeable with all that went into it. The process doesn't reverse engineer. In fact, it is based on the dynamic momentum and that will continue to then distribute that amount in the bank back out to one's creditors. It is the energy of that momentum which created those particular sets of figures, not the other way around. While they might provide some guidance and structure to that flow of energy, the idea that it is simply an illusion which way the direction goes simply because an equal sign had been inserted at a particular point of balance, is seriously detached from the dynamic out of which form arose.

Regards,

John M

Which is to say that oscillations are the process and frequency is the result.

"I view 1+1 as a process and 2 is the result."

You can view it that way, if you don't try to call it mathematics. Know why?

" ... oscillations are the process and frequency is the result."

One oscillation plus one oscillation equals two frequencies?

Tom,

I'm certainly not asking you to agree.

"You can view it that way, if you don't try to call it mathematics. Know why?"

Actually I'm not really concerned what it is called, but curious why?

From wikipedia; Definitions_of_mathematics

"Different schools of thought, particularly in philosophy, have put forth radically different definitions of mathematics. All are controversial and there is no consensus."

Frequency would be the measure between two oscillations. In other words, the process of oscillation creates frequencies. Actually extracting meaning from observations of those you disagree with is definitely not one of your strong points.

Regards,

John M

Actually one oscillation plus one oscillation equals two oscillations.