Slashdot Mirror
Black Holes 'Do Not Exist,' Contends Physicist
SpaceAdmiral writes "Nature reports that, according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, 'It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist.' George Chapline argues that the collapse of massive stars is more likely to lead to dark energy stars. These dark energy stars behave somewhat like a black hole outside of the surface, but the negative gravity inside could cause matter to 'bounce back out again.'"
In other news, donuts almost certainly don't exist. Instead it is much more likely that there exists circular pieces of cooked dough with a hole in the centre.
Crackpottery would be saying something is true and then saying everything must conform to that. Science doesn't work like that. You have a bunch of data, and you make a theory that best fits the evidence. Or you make a theory that makes some prediction. That theory remains valid until some piece of data is uncovered that does not fit in with the theory, at which point the theory is modified.
Right now, black holes are what seem to fit observations and theory. If we get more data (perhaps what this article is referring to) that does not conform, then the theory will change with it.
Thats not crackpottery, thats the way its supposed to work. There is no such thing as a 'final' theory. Its a process.
Preach it brother! And add to that list time dialation, length dialation, non simultaneity, spontaneous quantum particle creation, particle smearing, the particle-wave duality, 2-slit experiments, splitting atoms, bowling balls and feathers falling at the same speeds, and the earth being round. Crackpottery, all.
Geez, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong. Weirder stuff has already been proven.
The ______ Agenda
From the paper's summary:
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
And photons do not exist because they contradict the double-slit experiment? Give me a break. It doesn't make sense to proclaim that something does not exist because it contradicts an established theory, especially if there is quite a bit of evidence that it's actually there. It's the other way round: If such a thing exists, the theory needs fixing (and not just in an ad-hoc manner).
Apparently, the author makes some claims with respect to the observable behavior of "dark energy stars" which differ from black holes, so his theory could be empirical after all, but the quoted paper does not rigorously derive these properties.
One day I'm reading an article about how dark matter doesn't need to exist to explain the Universe. A couple days later, an article comes out saying how black holes don't exist, and they're starts made up of dark matter.
I'm sorry, but to the layperson, it looks like these bozos don't know what they're talking about.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Have you ever seen a black hole?
Well when I first saw this I was sceptical, but on further reflection I wondered - perhaps he isn't wrong. The world reacted with shock when Hubble provided evidence that the galaxies were moving away from each other, meaning the universe was expanding, and similarly the world was shocked when Hawking showed that matter "must" be leaving the other side of a black hole. Perhaps we will soon find that this scientist is correct in saying that black "holes" do not really exist.
Wow, are we applying PHB standards to an already politicized world of science? Are you in the college text business or something? Whatever happened to the most elegant and simplist solution being the likely right explaination?
I'm sure someone who's actually had a relativity class can explain it better than I can, but I think I'm on the right track at least.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
What is "true science?". Science is a process, not a result. Things that turned out to be wrong, like phlogiston or ether, aren't necessarily bad science, they are still part of the process.
They were disproved, and lead to better (as in having more accurate predictive power) theories. Black Holes are extrapolations of existing theories that seem good (like General Relativity), so they shouldn't be dismissed unless we can disprove them or come up with a better theory.
That, after all, is science.
Who modded this insightful? Probably someone who's never been to a conference...
Take a look at the header - this was submitted to a conference, *not* a full peer-reviewed journal. Many conferences (I know for sure most IEEE conferences are like this) limit paper submissions to 4 pages. URSI (Union Radio-Scientifique Internationale - they're just like IEEE Antennas and Propigation Society, with mostly the same members and co-host their conference) papers are even limited to 1 page for their conference. *Conference* papers really more discussion points than full blown "proofs". I'd suspect he'd follow this up with an "official" paper in one of their peer-reviewed journals.
At one time most people thought the world was flat, including many scientists. Yet, a proof that the world was round could easily be written on 4 pages. The proof for Fermat's last theorem took many pages to prove, yet disproving it (if it had turned out to be wrong) could be done in one line, by filling in values for x,y, and z for the equation x^n + y^n = z^n. Sometimes disproving something is much more trivial than proving something.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It's fairly incontrovertable that there *are* objects in the universe with gravity so intense that light can't escape them (at least visible light), but as for what actually happens at the 'event' horizon, it's all a guess. Gravastars, Dark Energy stars, and Black Holes all would look about the same in a radio telescope. There's no reason this can't be true.
Besides, uninformed dismissal based on previous works is what put Galileo in the pokey. Proper management of a paper like this would be to determine an experiment and examine the results.
The difference is we have proof the world is not flat. Can you offer proof that relativity is wrong?
Not to disagee that scientists are human, and for all the "if new facts disprove it, the theory will change" some will have a personal investment in old theories and not want to let go.
Still, if someone told me they didn't beleive in relativity I'd be inclinded to dismiss them unless they had something pretty good to back it up. I mean do I beleive Einstien (and all the physics built on his work) or some guy I don't know? If you couldn't produce any proof or alternates I wouldn't expect anyone to treat you seriously.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Cygnus XR-1 is a good example of such an object. Do we know for certain that it's a black hole. Well no, we don't. Perhaps there are other classes of objects out there that can produce similar effects, which is what I believe this fellow is saying. Nothing wrong with coming up with alternate solutions. That's what science is all about. There was a time when Hawkings and Penrose were causing stirs in the establishment, and it seems only right that now that they are establishment, that a scientist comes along to challenge them. It's all about the evidence, so we'll see if what this fellow says survives scrutiny.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I suppose you could have an electric version of a black hole
Not likely, and even if so, not for very long. What would hold this enormous amount of like-charged particles together? (Note: the electromagnetic force is way stronger than gravity.) But even if you had the electric equivalent of a black hole, it wouldn't last very long, because it would only attract oppositely charged particles, and they would reduce the net charge on the "hole".
Put another way, charge aggregation is a negative feedback loop, whereas mass aggregation is a positive feedback loop.
Which you ain't.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Incidentally, the page you cite contains no references to experiments which indicate that string theory is more correct than quantum field theory. The main implications of the theory are well below the threshhold of current experiment.
Whenever, over the ages, science seems to get too complicated, the usual answer is that it has gone off in a tangent. Most of the best theories have been elegantly simple at explaining our observations. These "discoveries" when proposed were considered revolutionary ideas. Later, when they were developed they usually were over-complicated by trying to explain everything. That's when a revolution in simplification happened and the process began from nearly scratch. Think of what happened to Keplerians' formulas and Newton's idea of gravity. They are still used today, even though they are wrong, and have been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Gravity, because the models of Newton & Kepler are very accurate. Better yet: look at the models offered by geo-centric solar system projections. Here is one really nice animation: http://catholicoutlook.com/images/movingsolar7.gif
The idea is that once it gets too complicated all of the evolutionary ideas that get developed are probably causing more harm to the original thesis. Although the original work did a great job of explaining a certain observation when new data was added the theory had to expanded to a level of undue complexity to have weight. Then a competing and revolutionary idea was developed, seemed to match the data, and the process began anew.
I guess it's getting time for a powerful new theory. One that will get ruined in the future, since we really know so little.
I get an object cannot accelerate past the speed of light. I get an object cannot reach escape velocity for a black hole.
However, my point is you don't need to reach escape velocity to escape from an object's gravity, escape velocity is for unpowered objects, objects exerting their own force don't need to reach escape velocity.
The fact it is under it's own power is entirely relevant, becuase if it is escape velocity doesn't apply, escape velocity applies when the only factors are the object escaping's speed and the gravity field it is escaping from.
So, if I want to leave a planet by, say, firing out a gun, I need to be travelling at escape velocity (assuming no atmosphere). However, in a rocket I just need to excert more force in thrust that the planet's gravity does on my rocket. If I do this I can leave without ever reaching escape velocity.
Now, since I can leave a gravity field without ever reaching escape velocity, why can't I get out from the even horizon behind a black hole without even reaching escape velocity? (Ignoring the gravity, tidal forces, blueshift, time dilation etc that would kill me).
I assume there is a reason, just curious what it would be.
There are no sacred cows in science (or at least there shouldn't be). I'm not defending the guy, as I'm not a physicist and couldn't begin to. A lot of very bright guys have worked on black holes, and it's very damn rare that any theory in science gets tossed out lock, stock and barrel. It's quite likely that there will be some flaw found in this fellow's alleged falsification. It's a sign of healthy research that scientists try to throw stones through even reasonably well established theories. Even if they're completely wrong, it forces other scientists to more clearly ponder those theories.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Likewise speaking a word that you have only read, but never heard will make you sound equally a fool.
Let's not forget that the reason why we use math to describe these phenomena is because the real world is based on mathematics. For example, there is an 'event horizon' at 1, where multiplying a number by >1 makes it larger but by <1 makes it smaller. Maybe dark matter can be described in some equation as <1 whereas 'light' matter is >1 (so dark matter interacting with light matter would diminish it). Or maybe the event horizon of a black hole is like 1 and the center is 0.
In any case these concepts (x<1<y, 0, etc) have manifestations in the real world that should not be forgetten... that's why string theory smells so wrong. Basically {0} can't be explained by the equations so they pretend it is a vector {0,n}... only then n could be zero making a zero-vector {0,0} so they add more dimensions until they are out of concepts. Doesn't sound like a winner to me.
Yes, but don't forget that Black Holes were PREDICTED to exist, in theory, before some of the (probable) black holes were actually measured by radiotelescopes (I says measured and not "seen").
What I'd like to see is a physical equation saying that the theoretical predictions on black holes are WRONG.
If he can't prove with equations that Black Holes don't exist, then his theory is flawed. Of course, he could prove that dark energy stars DO exist. But from that to saying that ALL black holes don't...
You are caught up in semantics and circular reasoning here.
Fundamental != Simple
Fundamental, in this context (fundamental laws of the universe) just means the foundation or base. Just because you can't break them down more doesn't mean it is simple, or humans can understand it, or laypeople can understand it.
If there is one unified theory of everything, it would be the most fundamental one, from which everything derives, but it could be mathematically and conceptually very complex indeed.
Theories predicting more are often more complex. For example, Newton's laws of motion are quite simple to understand, and the maths is simple. However, they are limited in scope. Relativity covers more, is more "fundamental" to understanding how the universe works, but is much more complex.
If I understand Newton's Laws (and there limitations) but not GR and SR, I'm clearly not as clueless as someong who doesn't know them. Nobody knows a general theory of everything, yet some people are much more clued up on science than others.
Complex theories don't mean the people involved don't understand. They often just mean as best we understand it, parts of reality are pretty damn complex. The real test is if these theories offer predictive abilities. If experimentation hold up the theory it is hard to dismiss the originators as "clueless".
If you work in a specialised area of science then you think in those specialise terms all the time. You don't need to translate it into something simple because you (and your peers) know exactly what you are talking about, and any simplification would loose details.
To take something complex, turn it into something relatively simple and loose as little as possible as a different and rare skill. This is why scientific geniuses and good science TV presenters tend not to overlap much. One comes up with complex theories, another can explain complex theories to the lay person. Doesn't mean the first doesn't know what they are talking about.
It may irk you that some very smart people know and understand stuff you don't, that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
They didn't find a black hole, that's for sure. If you read the fine print, what was proposed was that the nuclear physics going on inside the accelerator was "dual to", in a certain mathematical sense, the gravitational physics of a black hole. This does not mean that nuclear physics formed an ACTUAL black hole.
Water is a bigger issue than food. They could catch and eat fish; fresh water is much harder to come by.
I heard on the radio, a little more than a year ago, that Columbus had used more than half his water before they found North America. He was definitely wrong about the distance he had to cover. Was he a wiley sea captain with knowledge of the Americas (before Vespucci named it after himself), or was he a fool who bet his life and the lives of his crew that he was correct, lost the bet, but then lucked out?
Sometimes just the opposite. Proving there is intelligence life elsewhere in the universe, takes only one verified example.
OTOH, proving that no other intelligence exists, would involve a very exhaustive process.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
The problem with black holes is that they are, by definition, singularities. Unadulterated GR says that matter becomes infinitely dense, that the event horizon is infinitely sharp, etc.
This isn't very satisfactory, and we've known for a long time that something interesting must happen to smooth out these infinities at the Planck scale (something to the tune of 10^-33 cm). In this limited sense, we've known all along that "strict" black holes don't exist: that is, the pure, mathematical singularities that GR predicts must be smoothed out by quantum effects at very short scales.
In keeping with the sloppy thinking that makes physics the Queen of the Sciences (IAAP, as it happens) we've decided that those Planck-scale effects don't really count, and implicitly modified our concept of "Black Hole" to accomodate them.
What this guy is playing with is the idea that something interesting happens on much larger scales. In this case, although there is still something like an event horizon, it is no longer a singularity in the space-time co-ordinates of distant observers, but rather a phase transition in the quantum-mechanical vaccuum. He is proposing a macroscopic quantum mechanism for smoothing out the singularity.
This is a nice move for two reasons: the study of quantum critical behavior has a variety of analogues such as superfluids that can be studied in the lab; and there are physical phenomena that he predicts which may explain a variety of otherwise problematic observations. These are: high-energy positrons from the centre of our galaxy (where there is a 10^6 solar mass dense object); gamma-ray bursts; cosmological dark matter.
Overall, this is a nice, plausible, interesting approach to a serious problem.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
While I would hate to disagree with Stephen Hawking, he would seem to be in disagreement with most modern philosophers of science. A single observation can only disprove a theory if you know that observation to be definitively true -- but any observation you make hinges on a theory as well, e.g. the theory that "what I see in this microscope is a big version of what's really there, and not distorted in some substantial way." An observation that disagrees with a theory could instead disprove the theory that says you're seeing what you think you're seeing.
What a lot of bull. It's a response to a standard myth that people in the last few hundred years knew the earth wasn't flat. Intellectuals were fully aware. Even Christians were fully aware, despite erroneous claims by many historians. But the population of the Earth has always been largely uneducated and it's not trivial to deduce that the Earth is spherical from the existence of a horizon (for one thing this only works at sea and yet prior to 1900 few people traveled more than a few miles in their lives). There is a tendency in historical writing to conflate "educated people" with "everyone" and we frequently see incorrect statements like "everyone knew the world wasn't flat" in historical writing. And I don't see what any of this has to do with karma whoring, the same could be said of any statement anyone makes on slashdot.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
To a far-off observer, time seems to stand still here. A spacecraft falling into a black hole would seem, to someone watching it from afar, to be stuck forever at the event horizon...
This is not the common theory. It would NOT stand still as a normal image.
I think the image of the spacecraft would shift into red until it reaches frequency zero and is no longer detectable.
Don't get confused by the nature of Schwarzschild coordinates at the horizon. Light from the horizon never reaches an outside observer, and it's the rate at which light pulses leave a point (or are redshifted) that defines "time relative to an external observer". So by that mathematical definition, nothing ever reaches an event horizon (and you could argue that the horizon "never" forms). However, a more meaningful question is, what does an observer falling into the hole actually experience? And it's easy to show that such an observer does encounter an event horizon, and from which it cannot escape, even if an outside observer can't tell that this has happened. In that sense, black holes very much do exist. See also this FAQ.
Not true.
Curly from The Three Stooges was evidently quite the ladies' man.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
While I would hate to disagree with Stephen Hawking, he would seem to be in disagreement with most modern philosophers of science. A single observation can only disprove a theory if you know that observation to be definitively true
No, Hawking is totally correct. If you have a theory, then no matter how many times the experiments go along with the theory, it's still a theory and there is a possibility that eventually they won't. But that first time that the experiments conflict with the theory, then the theory is bunk. This is a common tool in the mathematics world called proof by example. You cannot prove something true by one example, but you can prove something false that way.
E.g: I theorize that any two numbers added together give an answer that is even.
Counter-proof: 2+3=5.
What you are saying is that any experiment may be a collection of many theories working together, and you may not know which part has gone wrong. This is true, but most scientists employ Occam's razor to such situations and go with the simplest answer. If I think a ball is bouncy, and I throw it against a wall and it sticks, I'm not going to assume that the light from the ball has somehow been altered during the experiment.
-zTolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Likewise speaking a word that you have only read, but never heard will make you sound equally a fool.
Yeah,
epitome screwed me on that one when I was a kid.