The truth about black holes

Yours and mine. This is where you can gas on about how you think the universe works. To a point, after that we'll expect you to actually test your stuff and report.

The truth about black holes

Postby David Ashley » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:28 pm

There is a pet theory of mine I'm trying to get people to think about. It has to do with black holes. I don't believe they can form in our universe. That is, I believe they are a fantasy, and all speculation regarding them (such as Hawking's life's work) is an utter, valueless waste of time. Here's an essay I wrote up in 2004:

http://www.xdr.com/dash/essays/blackholes.html

then a later one I wrote up in 2011:
http://www.xdr.com/dash/essays/CosmicRecycler.html

Briefly the point is trivial: Matter falling inwards to form the super-dense object called a black hole can't actually keep falling in to form the event horizion because of gravitational time dilation. As the matter compresses more the escape velocity gets closer and closer to the speed of light, but necessarily the progression of time is slowing down (from the point of view of the outside observer). Time stops before the mass can compress enough to form the event horizion. An infinite time outside is still insufficient for the event horizon to form. Since we live in the outside universe (outside the black hole) and from our point of view the black hole never has time to form, they don't really exist. So there is no singularity, no point where the physics break down, no problem with information loss. No problems at all, in fact.

BTW I don't believe in the big bang theory either. I think the universe is eternal, has lasted forever and will last forever.
User avatar
David Ashley
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:42 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:46 pm

First, there was nothing, then it exploded! Well, there's plenty of room to play games in cosmology, the last "Science" that you can do over just beer and pizza, since no one is going out to check anytime soon. There are paradoxes to be sure, and wouldn't the inside of a black hole (assuming for the moment, their existance) be a big bang for creating another universe anyway? I've never been a huge fan of Hawking, who now makes his living debating with Wheeler over things that are on the obsolete side, physics-wise, and am more enamoured of M theory when it comes to the really tiny/quantum stuff - which, BTW, would let both points of view be correct at the same time - just looking at if from different perspectives, see Ed Witten's work on that. He might be the smartest scientist ever, IMO (rarely humble, sorry). If we really have all those other dimensions, it explains a lot - energy from the collapse of some might have been the driving force for inflation from a quantum fluctuation in a DeSitter space, you know - it's a tough one, but there is a seemingly reasonable explanation for most of the current model. Or, you could interpret "let there be light" as "let's have a space-time where Maxwells equations are true" and it comes out the same.

For my personal goals around fusion, about as quantum as we get (much less the alternate theories of everything) is tunnelling...plain old nuclear stuff, not even sub-nuclear. It's my belief a lot of low hanging fruit was left behind in nuclear physics, due to the fads and money going to the subnuclear stuff, and we hope to find some more of that - we've found some already.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:58 pm

Hello David, I can see you might end up getting me to go into my description of the geometry of our Universe, here. I think I 'threatened' to do it once before already!

It may square your thinking with the traditional view of the 'Big Bang' for me to say that as I see it there is a 'Big Universe', which is on-going, and 'small universe' which is where we live and is a 3 dimensional manifold within the larger. You might have designs on 'BU' while conventional thinking is sticking to 'su' and the restricted limits of what we can see from here. I can explain very simply how our 3-space has evolved spontaneously, and instantaneously, within the higher dimensional manifold. Instantly you end up with external entropies to consider, and so the idea that there must be 'dark matter/energy' (which I view as totally speculative hunkum) to explain accelerated expansion instantly drops away as an unnecessary theoretical complication.

I can cover that with specifics later.

As to black holes, I have my doubts too, but I can see the logic and mathematical descriptions of it. I have other sources of doubts, however, but I am also not blind to the astronomical evidence for them. The Event Horizon Telescope project watching Saggitarius A should tell us more as we are fortunately timed to see and monitor emissions from a proto-planetary cloud being eaten up by it. I've become more persuaded by Black Hole physics over the years, and there is recognised to be information loss from a Black Hole, as I understand the current thinking, so there is no incongruency with the phenomena that things may be 'seen to freeze in time' at the event horizon.

My fundamental concerns are more mechanistic and fundamental - the Black Hole will not form evenly and will draw masses in powerfully and asymmetrically. The chances that it will not also be spinning at relativistic rotation rates seem very very slim to me. I would be stunned if the thing doesn't stretch out into a dumbbell, and that should have a striking effect on its local gravitational effects. So the fact that observations show orbiting objects around an object that can be simulated as a point-like mass at Sag A might suggest that it isn't a black hole there. That could be Bad Thinking on my behalf, but not really though it through much more when there is observational data already coming in to make better sense of it all.
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby David Ashley » Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:46 pm

chrismb wrote: I've become more persuaded by Black Hole physics over the years, and there is recognised to be information loss from a Black Hole, as I understand the current thinking, so there is no incongruency with the phenomena that things may be 'seen to freeze in time' at the event horizon.


My take is information loss is predicated on the existence of the black hole and event horizon in the first place, which are entirely theoretical. A dark-hole (really really massive object where escape velocity at surface is close to c) is indistinguishable from a black hole (as described by conventional wisdom). There's definitely something dense at the center of our galaxy. See star S2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_%28star%29

That star is in orbit around Sagittarius A* (which is at the center of the milky way) and by observing S2's orbit they can figure it's going around something with 4.1 million solar masses. Some people take that as proof of black holes. But a mass that big would only get down to 2.42 million kilometers radius in order for the escape velocity at the surface to be 'c'. It can actually be very much larger and still cause S2 to orbit as it does without any problems.

My point is all the speculation about black holes is fol-de-rol. They're theoretical. There's no evidence they exist, only evidence of very massive objects. I assert black holes can't exist. I can't see the point of investing time mastering the math behind the so-called understanding of black holes when from the word go (as I see it) they're a fantasy. It's like the world is caught up in working out the intricate details and habits of ghosts, and all I see is, "But ghosts aren't even real!"

Anyway I don' t mean to co-opt any of these forums. I just wanted to share one of my pet theories. I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on the subject.
User avatar
David Ashley
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:42 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby chrismb » Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:19 pm

You're not. Looks like the right forum to me. So is the conundrum that nothing truly meets the event horizon in 'any real time-line' your one and only objection to rejecting black holes as a hypothesis?
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby David Ashley » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:57 pm

chrismb wrote:You're not. Looks like the right forum to me. So is the conundrum that nothing truly meets the event horizon in 'any real time-line' your one and only objection to rejecting black holes as a hypothesis?


I suppose so. From the view outside it seems to me the event horizon can't occur. As such the black hole has an imaginary aspect to it. Yet there is vast human mental effort expended in working out the intricate details of what's inside the black hole, the nature of the singularity. I just can't wrap my mind around the pursuit, and the public attention it receives. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin and all.
User avatar
David Ashley
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:42 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:16 pm

I guess people like things that look like extreme mysteries - look at all the crazy attention that vid on motherboard got for a very minor example of that (over 10k emails, 3 TV offers, one book offer, and two offers of large bucks - so far). I of course have my own theories about all this, and am kind of favorable to the multiverse-springs-from-DeSitter-sea thinking (but only because it's "pretty"), but it's all something I just wonder about when I don't have anything else to think of. Which is fairly rare. I am not sure what we think we're going to learn from this stuff at present.

I personally think that m theory explains quite a bit, if I understand it, maybe I don't. Just read a few good books, is all, that make it moderately accessible to someone who "gets" that a topologist can't tell a coffee cup from a doughnut because they have the same number of holes.

I know that both Curtis Faith and I - both people who've done a heck of a lot of modelling - think that dark matter and dark energy are just fudge factors used to over-fit something a lot less mysterious that we simply have no real clue about - yet. It just looks like cheating - we've done our share of cheating in our models of stuff and know what it looks like. This looks like that. We spent quite a bit of time on it, and that's our conclusion. It really looks like someone clinging to a defective model, because they can't see what could replace that model (and it would have to explain all the other junk we've observed already - so it's getting harder to do as we observe more unless you're way, way, out of the box in your thinking).
Curtis has been working up another TOE, that dovetails nicely and might be the one Ed Witten says he's missing to really tie it all up in a nice package - has managed to unify and renormalize all the others so far. Dunno, but it's possible.

I do laugh at all the experiments I've yet seen to detect gravity waves. Not that there can't be those - there most likely are. But nearly 100% of the ones I've looked at (all the ones I've looked at hard) would be modified along with the wave in such a way that your "ruler" changes length at the same time in the same way as the thing its measuring. Smart people can have dumb ideas, I know that one from my own life.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby Donovan Ready » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:30 am

I think Hawking's latest stub of a paper does more to explain the event horizon than anything before: It is subject to fluctuations at the Planck scale, so it is indeterminate but still measurable.

As to speculating on dark energy, we don't know the right equation (read model) for spacetime yet, but we're getting closer. (Ever read the Nine Billion Names of God?)

Dark matter? Maybe, but my bet is on model failure. Maybe I'll still be around when they can answer that in a better way.

All the models evolve, or should.
Image Donovan
Donovan Ready
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:22 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby Jeff Rice » Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:53 pm

A few months ago I came across this guy who has developed a unified field theory based on the "correct" solution of Einstein field equations while taking into account for torque and the Coriolis effect. The links below are; 1) his peer reviewed paper “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass” and 2) a short presentation “Nassim Haramein Cognos 2010 - ENGLISH PART 1 OF 6”, about 6 hours (1 hour per part). I say short because he has some 12 hour lectures on YouTube, however this one most succinctly explains his physics. Every mainstream physicists thinks this guys a crank. I have never seen so much negative chatter about someone, he's the first person I've seen that has both released documentaries,and has been removed from Wikipedia. Yet I can’t find anybody with your types of back ground and intellect to actually do a full review of his information. It’s as if people disregard 99.99999% of his work in order to protect their dogmatic view of reality. I am a manufacturing engineer that works in the industrial motor industry, and this stuff is pretty cutting edge.

1) http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/ ... RI3363.pdf

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7UOCw-FsIc
Jeff Rice
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: The truth about black holes

Postby fusordoug » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:11 pm

Haven't had a chance to read those yet, but as someone said, physics advances one funeral at a time. It's harder and harder to do a new theory that doesn't conflict with existing observations. The sad thing is that with our crap educational system (world wide) most don't know very much in either breadth or depth and can't debunk those things with actual facts. It's like I read the science news and see a plasma triode has been invented. Well, I've had one in my fusor now for years, but was able to go to a bookshelf and pick up a phillips tube manual from the early 50's where they were selling them. Dumb ass academic thought he had something new...nope. Way too many examples of that out there, which makes the prejudice problem worse.

I'll look that stuff over when I have a bit of time, and if it's shit, I'll say so. If not, I'll say so. If can't tell - well, like Feynman said, if a new theory doesn't give me something new to test in the lab, it's not really worth a cup of coffee to hear about. But right now, I have 10k more emails to handle.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
User avatar
fusordoug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:59 pm

Next

Return to Theories and speculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron