Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Previous Hints That ``Schwarzschild Singularity'' Is a Genuine Physical Singularity, i.e., BH Mass M=0

Here may I draw your attention to the important paper entitled ``Reality of the Schwarzschild Singularity'' by

A.I. Janis, E.T. Newman & J. Winicour,Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 878 (1968)

https://www.academia.edu/2134506/_Reality_of_the_Schwarzschild_SingularityPRL_Strongly_Suggests_That_If_a_Fluid_would_try_to_Contract_to_its_Event_Horizon_Its_Mass_Would_Become_M_2R_0

Here the authors show that little addition of a arbitrary weak massless scalar field to the vacuum solution shows that

``A spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations is presented that coincides with the exterior (r>2m) Schwarzschild solution, but where the Schwarzschild "sphere" becomes a point singularity.''

Towards the conclusion, they wrote

`` It is clear that if our truncated Schwarzschild metric is to be considered as the physical solution corresponding to a, spherically symmetric point mass, then the entire question of gravitational collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius becomes meaningless. This point of view also obviates all discussion of the topological questions of the Schwarzschild interior, which for many people has always been disturbing.''

Similarly the paper entitled ``Gravitation without black holes''

by Agnese & Camera, Physical Review D, 31, Issue 6,1280-1286 (1985)

showed that all BH EHs could be SINGULAR implying M=0.

Later Borkar & Karade, Ind. J. Pure & Applied Math, 34, 1219 (2003)

http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20008a29_1219.pdf

arrived at same conclusion.

Most importantly, contrary to the myth of BH paradigm that no scalar can blow uo at the EH, and EH is a mere coordinate singularity, the preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808055

``Detecting Event Horizons and Stationary Surfaces''

shows that there are scalars which blow up at EHs of all BHs and EH is very much detectable even by a free falling observer. This means that EH is a physical singularity in agreement with the proof

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

that BHs have M=0, and they NEVER form (Infinite Proper Time of formation).

Here one may raise the question: ``What about the EXACT GR solution, i.e., Oppenheimer Snyder solution, which apparently suggests formation of ``Black Holes'' in GR collapse?''. Well, various critical analyses have shown that OS solution is an empty mathematical exercise and it latently corresponds to NIL mass density: rho=0:

1. ``The fallacy of Oppenheimer Snyder collapse: no general relativistic collapse at all, no black hole, no physical singularity''

A. Mitra, Astrophysics and Space Science, 332, 43 (2011); (arXiv:1101.0601)

2. ``Kruskal Coordinates and Mass of Schwarzschild Black Holes: No Finite Mass Black Hole at All''

A. Mitra, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 2, issue 04, pp. 236-248 (2012); http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-4500105_26225.htm

3. ``The Mass of the Oppenheimer-Snyder Hole: Only Finite Mass Quasi-Black Holes''

A. Mitra, K.K. Singh, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 22, Issue id. 1350054 (2013)

Therefore all discussions about TRUE BHs either in astrophysics, or in Quantum Gravity and questions like ``Black Hole Information Paradox'', ``Firewall Paradox'' etc. are empty intellectual discussions or respectable exercises in mathematical physics. On the other hand, the meaning discussions . should have been on the theme ``If the so-called Black Holes are not true black holes what is the true nature of them.

Abhas,

"On the other hand, the meaning discussions . should have been on the theme ``If the so-called Black Holes are not true black holes what is the true nature of them."

The discussion then goes to the nature of the larger context from which these abstracted models have been extracted from. The focus on detail has to be kept in context, or it, evidently, becomes its own bias.

Regards,

John M

John M,

Singularities have zero mass, zero time, zero temperature, zero energy and zero extension (space) in my view.

Therefore, a singularity is not a geometric point, which in my view is not dimensionless but is extended, probably about Planck size ~10-35m.

To answer your question, the 'point' is real and not a hypothetical conceptual convenience. Since it is real, you can multiply it and get a 'line', 'lines' too are real and can be multiplied to give a 'surface', a line of zero breadth cannot give rise to a surface. Surfaces are real and have thickness and can give rise to a body. In summary space at its smallest discrete unit is 3-dimensional and is indivisible on that scale (forget what Tom tells you otherwise).

And more for Abhas, Matter is the basis for what we measure as mass. Therefore, if we are to believe Penrose and Hawking as I quote previously that: Not just all matter, but EVEN the very space-time becomes destroyed in final singularities and that initial singularities represents the creation of space-time and matter, it follows that in the absence of matter singularities cannot have mass.

This removes the idea that the Big Bang started from a point mass of infinite density. It also removes the need to scratch our heads, how a universe can escape the clutches of such immense gravity. It resolves the temperature problem, because the beginning can now start from 1032K (after the absolute zero temperature representing 'nothing' before the quantum fluctuation that is our cosmogenesis) instead of infinite temperature. And many more...

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

"In summary space at its smallest discrete unit is 3-dimensional and is indivisible on that scale"

Exactly. Space is not a creation of measurement, but is what is being measured. A zero dimension point is no more real than a zero dimension apple.

So it is not created at a singularity. What we are seeing is not a universe expanding and shrinking, but a convection cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass. I suspect they will eventually discover that cosmic redshift is a consequence of the expansion of light interacting across vast distances and is an optical effect. Remember that Einstein proposed the cosmological constant to balance the collapse of gravity and redshift matches that calculation.

Since this thread is about how gravity doesn't collapse mass to a point of infinite density and that presumption is only a mathematical abstraction of only one side of this relationship, as energy is being constantly radiated back out through the entire process, then we should be looking at this expansion of radiation as the expansion of measured space, to balance the contraction of measured space that is gravity.

What falls into galaxies is balanced by what expands between them. It is overall flat space, not because these two sides balance, but these two sides balance because space is neutral.

Regards,

John M

John,

In reply to your previous query, indeed there should be significant difference between the properties of stellar mass & galactic mass BHCs. As per our research such BHCs are quasi-static ultracompact ultrahot balls of plasma (Eternally Collapsing Objects) about which I will brief in another post. They are also ultramagnetized and called Magnetospheric ECOs or MECOs. There are almost direct observational evidences that the so-called BHCs indeed have strong intrinsic magnetic field whereas true uncharged BHs have no intrinsic magnetic field.

For a 10 solar mass ECO, the mean local temperature ~ 200 MeV which means it should be Quark Gluon Plasma. Though there cannot be any precise theory for determining the magnetic field, our tentative estimate is that stellar mass ECOs/BHCs may have B~ 10^{15} to 10^{16} G which is of the order or little stronger than that of MAGNETARs. And the mean local temperature decreases with M as T ~ M^{-1/2}.

By virtue of such strong B, ECOs may behave like ultra relativistic pulsars. Also MECO magnetic fields couple to surrounding accretion disk magnetic fields to generate various astrophysical phenomena including launching of jets.

Regards

Abhas Mitra

"It sounds like you agree that theories should be about predictions of action. Since there are no exact measurements of action, there are no exact theories either. I do not understand why that is so difficult."

Only because you don't understand analysis. The principle of least action is exact.

"The Klein-Gordon equation does have its flaws as does GR, but both work really well in their respective regimes. Equation 3.30 in that link is your example equation and this link does not refer to any exact solutions of any kind, just probabilistic solutions."

Right. That's what's wrong with it.

"Binding energy is exact?"

It is.

"The Rydberg energy is the binding energy of hydrogen and is approximately = 13.60569253(30) eV with the listed uncertainty. However, it is exactly equal to a bunch of other approximate constants, all exactly limited by uncertainty."

The limit of calculation does not imply uncertainty of solution. The mass-energy equivalence is complete.

"Obviously you do not have a solution to the imperfections inherent in GR that necessarily limit GR to only parts of the universe."

Nonsense. All that's obvious here is that you assume a fundamental difference in physics between quantum and classical scales. If there were such a difference, we would have to abandon general relativity altogether.

"There are any number of different ways to deal with the event horizon and with microscopic singularity."

Good luck.

"Oh and maybe that will help get the bugs out of the very successful, albeit imperfect, Klein-Gordon approach as well."

Maybe this, maybe that.

John, it's beyond me how your mind works, that you think a mathematical model written in objective language is less real than what you concoct in your private thoughts.

Steve;

"nor are all SMBH's AGNs, right?" No. Wrong. That's where all the misunderstanding seems to arise. I'm just one of very many astronomers who've studied active galactic nuclei (AGN's), similar mass nuclei and black hole candidates in great detail for many years, now with incredible resources compared to when old theory was proposed. Theorists seem to lag far too far behind exploration.

All we find at any scale are 'AGN' type, which have a toroid 'helicoil' structure very similar to a nuclear Tokomak. Also see Garret Lisi's excellent video entry on particle structure. Matter is accreted on the disc plane, self organises into the helical contraflows, broken down (re-ionized) and ejected at a z-pinch venturi with a high peak flow rate, on the spin polar axis via twin (precessing) jets. At high power we find significant blue shift up to 'GRB's' from the collimated (layered) flow and it's shear planes.

A similar process and morphology is evident at stellar scales (see the Crab Nebula core torus and outflows) and all black hole candidates studied in adequate detail. I've identify that the peculiar helical and axial morphology of the jets is even repeated in the CMB, inferring a possible infinite fractal dynamic and cyclic cosmology, but that bit's speculation.

I've posted a number of links to excellent papers also on arXiv in the past. I suggest reading them would be informative and useful in updating theory to something more coherent and empirically evidenced. Just ask and I'll do so again on any particular topic.

Roll on free access! Best wishes,

Peter

Abhas,

John Cox made an interesting comment earlier in the thread;

"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 seems an interesting relation between static and dynamic, in terms of electrical charge.

So consider how this atomic level relationship might be scaled up to the stellar and galactic levels, forming those object like structures at the center and not just clouds of electrically charged gases.

As you point out;

"There are almost direct observational evidences that the so-called BHCs indeed have strong intrinsic magnetic field whereas true uncharged BHs have no intrinsic magnetic field."

It would seem to be impossible to have an uncharged BH. Like having a coin with only one side.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

On the other hand, you would only surprise me by acknowledging something I say as valid, which on very rare occasions, you have. That's because I do accept the patterns of other people's personalities as being reflected in their actions.

Let's try using an analogy you will have more trouble accusing me of concocting, that of the dichotomy of map vs. territory;

Spacetime is a mapping device. As an effective map, it necessarily is accurate to the territory. Now it is complete hubris to then assume that this map, derived from measurements of the territory, is perforce foundational to the very nature of the territory.

Pagan rulers would make this conversion, when they would anoint themselves gods, as evidence of their own power.

Yes, it is a very useful model, but that is all it is. Measures of distance, area and volume are measures of space, while measures of time/frequency and temperature/amplitude, are measures of dynamic activity occurring in that space.

You can avoid the issue, you can personalize it, or you can convolute it, but, as yet, you haven't refuted it.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

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? More likely in a full field scenario, the 'sum being greater than the parts' is simply that the individual parts are preferred energy:volume optimums which require less energy individually than if they are ganged into a quasi optimal volumetric such as the currently held atomic model. I like to think of the nuclear region being a bit like the old 'lava lamps'. I don't want to get into a lengthy monologue on an unpublished theoretical model but if I can do it, a hell of a lot of other people probably have done similar modeling which mathematically shows that there physically exist distinct quantities of energy that we can call discrete masses. That is essentially what the Higg's mechanism intends to differentiate. (Why only these few?)

So in seeking common ground commencing with the recognition that the electron could not be a hard sphere, but could behave both as a particle and a wave of some sort, which really launched the quantum revolution; 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 would needs be proportional to itself. I've argued myself that velocity within an energy self-limited volume is proportional to density. Could you articulate how we can say that a single quantity of mass/energy, unperturbed and at relative rest, manifests itself as matter? jrc

John, there's an apocryphal story about the French revolutionary Denis Diderot in the court of Catherine the Great, where the mathematician Leonhard Euler was employed. Euler was supposedly irritated at Diderot's militant atheism, whereupon he presented the philosopher with a paper on which he had written an equation: a+b^n)/n = x. "Sir, here is proof that God exists. Refute it!" Diderot, said to be innocent of mathematics, was humiliated. The incident most likely never happened. However, suppose Diderot had attempted a refutation -- the equation is complete nonsense. If he is truly innocent of mathematics, though, how does he know it's nonsense? -- he starts in refuting it by assigning his own imagined values to the symbols and coming up with some version of a refutation that satisfies him.

That doesn't change the fact that the equation had no meaning in the first place. Do you realize I feel the same as Euler might have toward Diderot, when you make ersatz mathematical statements like, "space is the denominator and time is the numerator" or whatever that crazy claim was? If you just stayed away from mathematics entirely, I would have more respect for your view. When you ridicule and abuse mathematical language, you lose the respect I might have had, and you compel me to try and set the record straight.

" ... binding energy has always been a bit of a cop-out anyway, where is it supposed to physically be in an atomic structure?"

In the rest mass. Where was kinetic energy supposed to be when it was only potential energy?

http://https//cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html

John,

"It seems these stellar versions of black hole candidates are quantitively and qualitatively different than those at the core of galaxies."

Out here in astronomy (beyond the wonderland of theoretical guessing games) they are not found to be significantly different. The toroidal nucleus accretes and ejects the protons re-ionized, which in turn propagate fresh fermion pairs to form the columnar or 'cylindrical' foundations for the new young blue iteration on the new perpendicular axis to the virial radius..

Can you really see any vast differences between the larger scale AGN and galactic disc bounded by the halo, and the stellar scale Star and planetary disc bounded by the heliosheath? (study particularly stellar discs before planet formation is complete). They have the same dynamics and look fundamentally the same, though clearly scale has interesting effects.

The big question here is where does all the accreted matter go. I've identified where in detail with overwhelmingly consistent evidence; to the next iteration of the entity. That falsifiable model hasn't been falsified, and even Hawking (bosons) is now joining Penrose (CCC) heading in that direction, but still with no solution to the 'what happens then' question.

Or does mankind think it's a better idea to rely on just ancient theory and guesswork?

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

Where did I ever say, "space is the denominator and time is the numerator?" Is that a product of your own imagination, or are you the one purposefully making nonsensical arguments and assigning them to me? I'm honestly not trying to play games and there are others in these conversations who have been able to deduce much more of my logical intentions than you ever have, whether they agree with them or not, so it is evident to me that you do make a concerted effort to avoid seeing even the semblance of sense in anything I try to describe. The fact is that this really doesn't bother me, as I've argued with quite a few fanatics of various belief systems in my life and recognize the symptoms.

Now you might feel it is an effective tactic to adopt the imperious position and treat me as a mental peon, but you should be a little more careful with the accuracy and logic of your arguments, as there might be others making judgements.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

The point of that distinction is trying to understand where the line between surface tension being the source of form, ie. spherical stars, planets, etc, ends and the stage where its more some combination of vortex, bar magnet and torus of magnetic fields, begins.

Is there, in some of these entities, an actual body of mass, density, etc, somewhat stabilized as a core and then which are essentially dynamic processes, where what is being drawn in is roughly matched by what is being ejected, or radiated?

The larger point is whether energy is conserved in the physical system, or is it being lost to those presumed alternate dimensions.

Regards,

John M

"Where did I ever say, "space is the denominator and time is the numerator?" Is that a product of your own imagination, or are you the one purposefully making nonsensical arguments and assigning them to me?"

I have a poor memory for fatuous statements.

So any example from recent posts will do, like, " ... it is complete hubris to then assume that this map, derived from measurements of the territory, is perforce foundational to the very nature of the territory."

Burn all your Rand McNally atlases. They mean nothing.

"I'm honestly not trying to play games and there are others in these conversations who have been able to deduce much more of my logical intentions than you ever have ..."

Just remember, John, that it's only your friends who dare to speak the truth.