Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Space & Astronomy > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Space & Astronomy

Are black holes as we know them impossible ?

By T.K. Randall
September 27, 2014 · Comment icon 30 comments

Is what we know about black holes all wrong ? Image Credit: NASA / Alain Riazuelo
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.

Now physics professor Laura Mersini-Houghton has called in to question the very nature of black holes thanks to new research suggesting that our conventional view of these phenomena and how they work may actually be fundamentally wrong.
When a star dies, she argues, it loses too much of its mass to sustain sufficient density to collapse and form a singularity. On this basis the idea of a black hole as we know it may not even exist at all.

If this turns out to be true that it could also mean that scientists will need to rewrite the book on our understanding of the Big Bang which was also thought to have started within a singularity.

"I'm still not over the shock," said Prof Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

Source: Tech Times | Comments (30)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #21 Posted by danielost 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #22 Posted by Waspie_Dwarf 10 years ago
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?
Comment icon #23 Posted by Frank Merton 10 years ago
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.
Comment icon #24 Posted by Waspie_Dwarf 10 years ago
I really can't believe you can't see the difference. Believe it Frank, believe it.
Comment icon #25 Posted by CRYSiiSx2 10 years ago
So... I didn't have time to read the complete article as I'm at work. But what about the supermassive black holes at the heart of most galaxies?
Comment icon #26 Posted by Waspie_Dwarf 10 years ago
But what about the supermassive black holes at the heart of most galaxies? What about them? They have never been DIRECTLY observed.
Comment icon #27 Posted by Archosaur 10 years ago
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: (my emphasis). Source: wikipedia Since there are NO directly observed stellar black holes a mathematical prediction that they can't exist is a valid hypothesis: (my emphasis). (my emphasis). Source: wikipedia It was my understanding that a black hole, due to its very nature, could only be inferred indrectly, as the event horizon would block all direct observation of the super-dense or super-massive object itself. We could measure its gravita... [More]
Comment icon #28 Posted by qxcontinuum 10 years ago
That sums up cleary about how science can be based on assumptions or how wrong this can be... It is sad actually.
Comment icon #29 Posted by Waspie_Dwarf 10 years ago
That sums up cleary about how science can be based on assumptions or how wrong this can be... It is sad actually. Your post sums up how poorly some people understand science... It is VERY sad actually
Comment icon #30 Posted by qxcontinuum 10 years ago
Your post sums up how poorly some people understand science... It is VERY sad actually Of course that after i wrote a good chunk of ads explaining some of the most ridiculous claims and experiments performed by scientist including the Geo 600 experiment in which a Nobel Laureat was claiming earth is just a hologram and therefore you Waspie are not even real, the science behind apple ios 8 ( the most advance Os feom the planet) had frozen my entire screen and browser. Well another evolutioray step in becoming more inefficient. So answerimg again to your above post i will say... meh!


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles