[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 578 KB, 4400x2475, PIA16695-BlackHole-Corona-20130227.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6855811 No.6855811 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts on this professor mathematically proving that black holes don't exist and can't exist? http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

>> No.6855831

>>6855811
a quack

>> No.6855833

>>6855811
publicity stunt because hawking movie. he may be right but either way he knows now is his chance as black holes are about to be dramatized and introduced forcefully into pop culture.

>> No.6855882

>>6855811
>black holes don't exist
They can't exist because the term is obviously politically incorrect. Everyone knows that /pol/ stuff doesn't exist.

>> No.6855899

>>6855833
Isnt he that polish guy who talked about how he thought of a solution for singularities in the gym? I just saw that episode some days ago.

>> No.6855905

>>6855811
How the hell does he explain the big black hole in the middle of our galaxy? Illusion?

>> No.6855906

>>6855882
Pardon me. African american* hole. Is that good enough?

>> No.6855911

>>6855906
No, "hole"is still way too offensive to be brought into context with "african american". "African american cavity" might be better, though I fear still not nearly polite enough to be considered passable.

>> No.6855917

>>6855811
It does give some food for thoughts. Specially the part in wich stated that singularity can't form. Wich means the big bang theory is based on wrong mathematics, and thus false

>> No.6855923

>>6855911
Isn't cavity also too offensive? It would imply that they have cavity of sort. How about depression?

>> No.6856007

>>6855905
There's no black hole in the middle of our galaxy. Just substitute it with a large mass.

>> No.6856010

>>6855923
>>6855911
>>6855906
>african american
Racism isn't funny.

It's hole of color or HoC.

>> No.6856025

>>6855923
I like concavity.

>> No.6856026

She proved classical black holes did not form in her toy model, that is not a proof that they don't exist.

Also in her toy model she gets things very like black holes, so it doesn't really matter.

>> No.6856052

>>6856025
Nobody cares what you like whit3boi. Is ot politically correct is what matters

>> No.6856056

>published in a journal that isn't peer-reviewed
Nope.

>> No.6856063

>>6856056
>peer-review
If your "peers" tear your paper to shreds just because they don't like you personally for some reason, does that constitute an invalidity of the paper's theses?

>> No.6856068

>>6856056

Peer-review doesn't really make studies more likely to be true. In fact, it's known that most scientific studies are false

>> No.6856069

>>6856063
>doesnt know how peer works

>> No.6856072

>>6856063
Multiple people checking over something is more trustworthy than one person. Not a hard concept. Nobody ever said that peer review is completely flawless. It's perfectly possible that a thesis may be valid, but the steps and justifications for that thesis is complete bunk and my paper would deserve to be torn to shreds.

>>6856068
>it's known that most scientific studies are false
[citation needed]

>> No.6856081

>>6856072
>it's known that most scientific studies are false
>[citation needed]
Preferably, a scientific study

>> No.6856089

>>6856081
At least we know that a scientific study that would claim ALL scientific studies to be false. cannot be true. Thus, either all scientific studies are indeed false, but it cannot be proven by a scientific study, or there is at least one scientific study which isn't false.

>> No.6856091

>>6856089
What that guy said was completely retarded, but he was at least smart enough to say "most" not "all."

>> No.6856108

>>6855811

>She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

this is so wrong I'm not sure where to start....

1. Hawking radiation is given off only AFTER the star collapses. No event horizon= no hawking radiation. So a star cannot become a black hole, because as soon as it becomes a black hole it emits so much radiation it cannot be a black hole.... seems legit.

2. Why the 'however' ? This is what the original Hawking's theory predicts, that black holes eventually evaporate by producing this radiation, nothing new here.

3. OK, so let's assume that we did get stellar collapse wrong and a black hole cannot form the way we thought because reasons - it doesn't matter, we know there exist objects that are so massive that nothing can escape their gravity, even if we don't know how they are formed.

>> No.6856128

>>6856081
I actually have a published journal entry about this on my desktop. There are studies, look it up.

>> No.6856134

>>6856108
AKTCHUALLY while Hawking Radiation is probably given off by anything with an event horizon, an occurrence of mass only needs to exist in a small radius than it's Schwarzschild radius. It's a significantly different thing than saying the object has to be a black hole.

>> No.6856136

>>6856081
>>6856128
https://www.google.com/search?q=most+scientific+papers+cannot+be+replicated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Or you could just... search.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebooth/2013/11/08/science-being-studied-replication-publication-and-resource-allocation/

>> No.6856138

Vid on how black holes were just made up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA

>> No.6856145

>>6856134

anything with a radius smaller than it's Schwarzchild radius is a black hole. What's your point?

>> No.6856148

>>6856068
It is a problem of statistical analysis, not really with the methods employed. It plagues biology the most as they try to get the most out of their findings and rarely do they understand the shortcoming of the statistical methods they are employing and the small sample populations they are generally working with.

>> No.6856160

>>6856145
Not precisely. For something which is passing through it's SC radius, it would be black, but it would not be a black hole in the normal sense. That's what the paper really focuses on.

By definition as it is accelerating inwards and bending space-time the time it experiences goes slower and slower relative to the rest of the universe. In a sense, it is probably true that if you dove into the black hole at the center of our galaxy, you would be entering a time machine and would get to watch the rest of the universe pass by faster and faster, if you could see into that spectrum of light.

>> No.6856161

this is electric-universe theory level of pseudoscience

>> No.6856162

>>6856160

It only makes sense if the paper shows that Hawking radiation is much more intense than previously thought, so that the collapsing star evaporates before a singularity is created. This is clearly not the case.

>> No.6856164

>>6856138

I'm sorry but I cannot take that person seriously with his massive aussie accent.

>> No.6856177
File: 1.41 MB, 256x256, 1356996062384.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6856177

wat

>> No.6856226

>>6856010
Did you mean PoC?

>> No.6856247

>>6856177
black hole confirmed

>> No.6856254

>>6856162
That's not how it works. As the star collapses, it's time lapsing slows down. You're ignoring that, stop. The increasing density of the collapsing star and increasing rotational speeds would cause severe time dilation, and would inhibit the formation of whatever you want to sperg out over calling it (I saw you switched to singularity, you will not pretend to be retarded when I am arguing).

>> No.6856255

>>6856247
>>6856177
>implying
Math says it's impossible, therefore it doesn't exists, no matter what you see on that pic

>> No.6856260

I thought it was obvious that they couldn't really form, at least from the perspective of an external observer.

The event horizon of a black hole is infinitely far from everything outside of the black hole.

For a black hole to form, matter has to collapse beyond an infinite distance from everything else.

Black holes are singularities. A singularity is a place where mathematics shits itself and dies. Singularities invariably mean your model is an approximation, and here's a place where it doesn't work.

>> No.6856266

>>6856136
This is basically about cancer research. It does not prove your claim nor is it relevant to the topic.

>> No.6856267

>>6856255
then what with such high mass are the stars orbiting?

>> No.6856271

>>6856267
Optical illusion, eyes playing tricks on you, faulty hardware in your brain, faulty measuring instruments, messy programming, cosmic interference etc.

>> No.6856273

>>6856271
>illogically dismissing the work of astrophysicists with complete nonsense
Yeah, okay.

>> No.6856275

>>6856271
okay so my brain is just telling me that the stars are going fast, even though theres an animation showing them how fast they go and that you can calculate the mass of the object they are orbiting etc

I'm open to suggestions but its quite obvious theres a really heavy object in the center there, probably a black hole

>> No.6856279

>>6856273
>>6856275
Well, isn't that what the post in OP want's you to believe?

>> No.6856286

>>6856254

>I saw you switched to singularity

You switched, you are the one who said:

>something which is passing through it's SC radius, it would be black, but it would not be a black hole in the normal sense.

so... something with an event horizon, but not a black hole. So something smaller than schwarzschild radius, but without a singularity inside... so it doesn't really matter, because for an outside observer it would be indisinguishable from a black hole.

Yeah, the theory is still retarded.

>> No.6856598

>>6856089
>>6856091

Here is an interesting article on it.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ajj/how_to_fix_science/

>> No.6856691

>>6856267

A high density object near the center of gravity (neutron star) and just the cumulative gravity of the stars pulling on each other.

>> No.6856698

>>6856266

Sure it is, I have medical doctor cousins who complain about this shit. If your data doesn't prove your hypothesis then you don't get published, even if it clearly proves something else that you weren't directly studying but can clearly observe.

Tell me that never happens in any other field and I've got some land in Arizona to sell you.

>> No.6857294
File: 54 KB, 400x345, 1412711744723.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6857294

>>6855811

That is exactly what i said since years : Black Holes don't belong to this reality.

Same for consciousness or elementary particles .We see their effects in OUR reality but they are not.

>> No.6857316

>>6856160
...Your whole argument is based around defining a black hole but just not calling it one. This theory is retarded and so are you mongoloid.

>> No.6857364

>>6855905
All that we know is that there is something with a large enough mass that it can bend light, and cause the orbit of massive stars near the center of our galaxy, and it is giving off a high amount of energy to give off constant x-rays, gamma-rays. The ''black hole'' is still not yet observable to determine that it truly exists.

>> No.6857778

>>6856698
Its supposed to be "beachfront property in Arizona", but Ill forgive you for keeping that, one of my favorite sayings, alive.

>> No.6857787

It is pretty much bullshit

http://motls.blogspot.sk/2014/09/a-surge-of-attacks-against-classical-gr.html

>> No.6857852

>>6857364

>All that we know is that there is something with a large enough mass that it can bend light

No, we can calculate the mass of the object by observing the stars orbiting it ( more than 4 million solar masses ) and we also the maximal size of the object (it can only be so big before it collides with or breaks up the stars orbiting it with tides ) . It's size is smaller than it's Schwarzschild radius, therefore it's a black hole.

>> No.6857937

>>6856698
Medicine != all of science

>> No.6857940

>>6857937
Yea, because medicine is profession, al though it uses some knowledge from several sciences

>> No.6857977

People who think that we have observed black holes apparently fail to realize that you could just substitute them for a very significant mass and the observations would come back just the same.

>> No.6857979

>>6856267
You realize that not everything supermassive is a black hole, right?

>> No.6857999

What actual evidence is there that Hawking radiation even exists?

>> No.6858017

>>6857937

go back to rebbit with your incorrect pedantic bullshit

>> No.6858027

>>6857852
>therefore it's a black hole

whatever. black holes is a theory.
ITS A FUCKING THEORY.

>> No.6858047

>>6858027

black holes are physical objects, not a 'theory'. General relativity is a theory. Newton's mechanics is a theory. I think you meant they are hypothetical, which they are not: we are just not sure they work the way THEORY predicts.

doesn't change the fact that whatever is in there, the escape velocity from that object exceeds the speed of light. Maybe there is no singularity inside, maybe the event horizon is only apparent (something Hawking recently hypothesized), it is not really that important. It's fucking dense as hell, it sucks in and rips apart everything that gets close, including light, it's a black hole.

>> No.6858051

>>6857977

define a black hole then.

>> No.6858125

>>6857977
If you took a black hole (A singular region of space-time with infinite density) and replaced it with a start with "significant mass" the observations would not come back the same. The gravitational waves it emits would be relative to its mass and density, the results would be similar, but not on the same scale.

>> No.6858128

>thinking anything is "provable"
ha! plebs

>> No.6860288

>>6855811

the very first sentence of the abstract gets it wrong:

>Particle creation leading to Hawking radiation is produced by the changing gravitational field of the collapsing star.

Just no. It is not produced by a changing gravitational field.

>It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form.

except that without the event horizon there is no Hawking radiation.

>> No.6860293

>>6855811

also this paper claims to solve the information loss paradox by preventing the formation of black holes by assuming that black holes evaporate through Hawking radiation before they form - this is pure retardedness. It doesn't matter if a singularity is formed or not, if the matter falling into a collapsing star gets turned into random Hawking radiation the paradox still holds.

Is this 'paper' a joke, a trolling attempt or what?

>> No.6860298
File: 17 KB, 193x245, 1402893686308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6860298

>>6856025
>mfw no one has suggested cooncavity

Get it together, /sci/.

>> No.6860301

>>6857999
None.

>> No.6860305

>>6860301

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-radiation/

it is not a proof, but you could count it as evidence.

>> No.6860313

>>6860305
It's hardly convincing. They're actually making a lot of assumptions to get their analogy right.

Honestly, while Hawking radiation seems to be an interesting concept, it appears to me like a phenomenon somewhere between QFT and GR that screams for the need of quantum gravitation to be described correctly. But that is exactly what makes it so interesting. It could be an important test of both theories at their limits.

>> No.6860318

>>6860313

that's why I said evidence, not proof. In order to directly observe Hawking radiation we would have to either find primordial black holes, preferably in intergalactic space so the HR wouldn't be drowned by the accretion disk or perhaps create some micro black holes in particle accelerators...both of which sound rather sci-fi to me.

>> No.6860319

It's just the media blowing up things out of proportions, we had threads on this paper before, and there's nothing special there, they just talk about how certain starts don't collapse into black holes.

>> No.6860324

>>6860318
Never say never. Maybe it's possible to indirectly measure it by energy conservation or other effects.

>> No.6861631

>>6860324

unlikely, given how faint HR is predicted to be in any stellar or supermassive black holes

>> No.6861668

>>6860318
>perhaps create some micro black holes in particle accelerators
These micro black holes evaporate extremely fast due to just HR.

>> No.6861730

>>6861668

that's why it is the best way to directly measure and finaly proove that HR is real. Lots of things decay or disappear extremely fast and yet we can detect and measure them.

>> No.6861732
File: 159 KB, 435x419, 1394662697491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6861732

>>6855811
Robot wheelchair man BTFO

>> No.6861792

>>6861732
How? It's Hawking radiation that causes the black hole not to form, and (one of) the (two) initial state(s) used/studied is the Hawking-Hartle state.

>> No.6862160
File: 370 KB, 500x484, 1391639110579.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6862160

>>6856010
>>6855911
>>6855906
>>6855882
nigger pit.
/discussion

also it explains its purpose since it steals everything from the universe

>> No.6862253

>>6857294
What do you mean?

>> No.6862355

>>6856108
Maybe you should stop assuming the force you are observing is in the form of mass and not energy. They are interchange yes?

>> No.6862359

>>6856177
All you see is a few stars with a common center of gravity. Doesn't really prove black holes. Lol

>> No.6862370

>>6858047
> black holes are physical
If your black hole is a zero point singularity it is everything but physical. I stopped reading after that lol

>> No.6863582

>>6862370
>I stopped reading after that lol

then you should have, because I pointed out that while we have no idea whether singularities exist and what are their properties it doesn't change the fact that incredibly dense objects with event horizons - black holes - exist.

>> No.6863665

>>6862355
>the force you are observing is in the form of mass and not energy

what. Force is a force, mass is mass and energy is energy. What are you talking about?

>> No.6863723

>>6855811
explain this to the center of our galaxy

>> No.6863728

>>6856063
>everything is politics!
this is some weird reverse marxism going on

>> No.6863732

>>6863582
Black holes are confirmed, singularities are not. Done and done.

>> No.6863749

>>6856177
this merely proves that there is a huge mass in the center and its sling shooting what I assume are stars.

>> No.6863948

>>6855811
Does she have a better theory than black holes to explain all the observational data?

>> No.6864994

A black hole is a tear in space-time that leads to a different dimension, of course it's not mathematically logical.

>> No.6865011

>>6864994
How do we know it leads anywhere? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but we don't know anything about the insides of a black hole right?

>> No.6865077

>>6865011
Well them how did the people who write for TV and movies figure it out?

>> No.6865108

>>6855811
i dont get it

>> No.6865167

>>6865077
Hollywood has a bigger budget.

>> No.6865208

>>6855811
Just a hack desperate for attention