Are black holes as we know them impossible ?

[UM-Bot]

One physicist has determined that what we know about black holes and the Big Bang could be wrong.

A black hole typically forms when a collapsing star of sufficient mass produces an area of spacetime with a gravitational pull so great that not even light can escape from it.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/272913/are-black-holes-as-we-know-them-impossible

[pallidin]

Our very own existence, including the whole of the universe, seems mathematically impossible(how do you get something out of nothing) yet, here we are, enjoying UM.

[Frank Merton]

People are good at denying the inconceivable, and black holes are in many ways inconceivable. My understanding is that the recent work was not peer reviewed, so I will have to sit back and wait before deciding something this important needs major revision.

[David Thomson]

In the end, they will realize that it is space that is collapsing, not matter. Black holes are caused by space becoming too dense. Matter getting sucked into collapsing space is an effect of black holes, not their cause.

[Frank Merton]

In the end, they will realize that it is space that is collapsing, not matter. Black holes are caused by space becoming too dense. Matter getting sucked into collapsing space is an effect of black holes, not their cause.

I am a little nonplussed at the idea of space having a property of density. Yes it expands and one would presume therefore it can also collapse, but density getting too high???

[pallidin]

I'm no physicist, keep that in mind...

But from what I've heard space/time can indeed go out of normality under special circumstances.

"Frame-Dragging" is a consequence of that and has been confirmed by NASA.

It's an interesting phenomenon, and it's description and confirmation is readily available on Google.

[Archosaur]

And yet, there is Cygnus X-1:

http://www.nasa.gov/...a/cygnusx1.html

The article would have been better written to say we don't fully understand how stellar balck holes form. Since there are observed stellar blakc holes, saying that they cannot exist seems a bit... off.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Archosaur

[Starhunter]

Since the theory of black holes came in, I have always rejected it, but I don't oppose the need for such a phenomenon, since we have to be able to account for the lack of gravity, say for instance within a galaxy, due to a lack of mass or number of stars in the center.

The trouble is, if black holes so greatly affect space and time and the ability of light to escape etc, then they could not have a definable location within our normal space time.

My understanding of the properties of a black hole, is that they are everywhere and even part of matter, but widely distributed according to need only. As if there was a little black hole within every atom. When there are massive numbers of atoms together such as in a star or planet, then gravity is produced. And on a molecular level, it accounts for the inexplicable attraction between some particles.

In ancient science, they call this a background force which is two faced, it has paradoxical characteristics. So for example one part of it will cause attraction the other repulsion, and these work together to produce matter and govern its space time properties.

[Starhunter]

The back ground force has no definable location either in time or space, but its characteristics, effects and causes can be seen in specific locations as it works in matter.

Say for example, that there is a gradient of this force from ground level on the earth to outer space, that would give us increased gravity towards the earth, as well as a difference in power levels, demonstrated by the tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere and released by lightning.

[Frank Merton]

I love watching people who have only the barest understanding, if that, "rejecting" some scientific concept -- why? -- because it offends them somehow?

[Rlyeh]

Since the theory of black holes came in, I have always rejected it, but I don't oppose the need for such a phenomenon, since we have to be able to account for the lack of gravity, say for instance within a galaxy, due to a lack of mass or number of stars in the center.

The trouble is, if black holes so greatly affect space and time and the ability of light to escape etc, then they could not have a definable location within our normal space time.

All gravity affects space-time, this has been verified with earth's gravity.

[Starhunter]

All gravity affects space-time, this has been verified with earth's gravity.

Not to the extent of a black hole, of course. I assume you also mean that a space time bend causes gravity?

[pallidin]

Not to the extent of a black hole, of course. I assume you also mean that a space time bend causes gravity?

From my layman understanding, this issue is not well understood, and has significant hurdles to cross over before it can.

[Frank Merton]

I must admit that the idea of a singularity -- an object of infinite density and zero size -- is not comprehensible in terms of human experience. It therefore naturally gets opposition.

I don't really know what to think; my inclination is to suspect that there must be unknown forces that stop the collapse before that happens, but we have to accept that because we cannot imagine something is not reason to say it cannot be. More likely is a failure of our imagination.

[sepulchrave]

I must admit that the idea of a singularity -- an object of infinite density and zero size -- is not comprehensible in terms of human experience. It therefore naturally gets opposition.

The concept of a true singularity gets quite a lot of opposition in scientific circles as well.

However this has very little to do with black hole cosmology.

The most important aspect of a black hole is the event horizon, which is reasonably comprehensible. Any sufficiently dense object can possess an event horizon; and you will never know whether an object with an event horizon is a ``true'' singularity or actually just a super-dense object who's physical surface is a mere millimetre below the event horizon (unless you cross the event horizon yourself, and then nobody will ever know what you found).

It is interesting to note that the existence of an event horizon was actually postulated in 1783 by astronomer John Michell, well before general relativity was developed. Although the physical reasoning (Newtonian Mechanics, and a particle-based theory of light) was incorrect (or at least incorrectly applied), Michell's result is actually exactly the same as the Schwarzschild radius calculated using general relativity 133 years later.

[DONTEATUS]

Ok lets load up all the people in Ark-A, that believe in Black Holes and Didgi watches, Send them into a black Hole and see really whats in there. And In Ark B, We can Stay Here and Have a Great U/Mm party and b.B.Q. !justDONTEATUS

[danielost]

And yet, there is Cygnus X-1:

http://www.nasa.gov/...a/cygnusx1.html

The article would have been better written to say we don't fully understand how stellar balck holes form. Since there are observed stellar blakc holes, saying that they cannot exist seems a bit... off.

unless we are off on our math.

[danielost]

I love watching people who have only the barest understanding, if that, "rejecting" some scientific concept -- why? -- because it offends them somehow?

you mean like you did earlier.

People are good at denying the inconceivable, and black holes are in many ways inconceivable. My understanding is that the recent work was not peer reviewed, so I will have to sit back and wait before deciding something this important needs major revision.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

you mean like you did earlier.

Only he didn't.

He pointed out that the work isn't peer reviewed and said he will wait for more information before deciding. That is not a rejection, it is remaining sceptical but open-minded...

which is the CORRECT way of thinking in science.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

And yet, there is Cygnus X-1

The problem here is that Cygnus X-1 has never had it's black hole directly observed. Like all black holes it's existence is inferred by indirect evidence:

Cygnus X-1 was the subject of a friendly scientific wager between physicists Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne in 1974, with Hawking betting that it was not a black hole. He conceded the bet in 1990 after observational data had strengthened the case that there was indeed a black hole in the system. This hypothesis has not been confirmed due to a lack of direct observation but has generally been accepted from indirect evidence.

(my emphasis).

Source: wikipedia

Since there are observed stellar blakc holes, saying that they cannot exist seems a bit... off.

Since there are NO directly observed stellar black holes a mathematical prediction that they can't exist is a valid hypothesis:

By their very nature, black holes do not directly emit any signals other than the hypothetical Hawking radiation; since the Hawking radiation for an astrophysical black hole is predicted to be very weak, this makes it impossible to directly detect astrophysical black holes from the Earth.

(my emphasis).

Astrophysicists searching for black holes thus have to rely on indirect observations. A black hole's existence can sometimes be inferred by observing its gravitational interactions with its surroundings. A project run by MIT's Haystack Observatory is attempting to observe the event horizon of a black hole directly. Initial results are encouraging.

(my emphasis).

Source: wikipedia

[Frank Merton]

you mean like you did earlier.

What are you getting at. I did not "reject" something because I can't understand it but did just the opposite. Seems to me you would do well to read things more carefully. Ugh.

[danielost]

Only he didn't.

He pointed out that the work isn't peer reviewed and said he will wait for more information before deciding. That is not a rejection, it is remaining sceptical but open-minded...

which is the CORRECT way of thinking in science.

when I do it you call it rejection.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

when I do it you call it rejection.

You don't do what Frank did. You post stuff which is provably wrong and claim it as fact... exactly as you did when you incorrectly attacked Frank,s point of view. And I don't call it rejection, I call it lack of knowledge, lack of logic and lack of understanding... the lack of understanding you demonstrated when incorrectly attacking Frank's point of view.

Frank's post was that of someone that understands the scientific method, yours was that of someone that really REALLY doesn't.

Now do you have something on topic to say?

[Frank Merton]

when I do it you call it rejection.

I should butt out of this since I have a personal interest, but I really can't believe you can't see the difference.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I really can't believe you can't see the difference.

Believe it Frank, believe it.