Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Ethos_ on 25/09/2014 03:50:22
-
Stunning new evidence against the formation of Black Holes has just been found.
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
According to this new mathematical evidence, before the prospective black hole can complete it's collapse to the singularity, it will radiate away enough mass thru Hawking's radiation to stay just below this threshold and eventually explode. This will shake up the Cosmological world for years to come if peer review confirms these mathematical findings.
-
The density of the matter conatined exactly within the event horizon drops as the source mass increases. You can then end up ultimately with a density where each particle is 1mm distant from any other. That is a gas. Just because we have used mathematics to find a point of interest does not mean that we understand the implications. Take the case of the density being 1mm between particles. This could mean that more gravitation escapes the internal environment as a more dense mass could trap a large percentage of the gravitational energy. I personally do not believe that gravitation moves through a mass unaltered and that density is of great significance.
-
The density of the matter conatined exactly within the event horizon drops as the source mass increases.
I'm having difficulty following your thoughts here Jeff. And BTW, the author of this article states that, according to the math, no singularity or event horizon can be the result. Just to be clear; Peer review will need to follow before I can accept these findings, especially after not having seen the math in question myself. Nevertheless, a very provocative subject.
-
The density of the matter conatined exactly within the event horizon drops as the source mass increases.
I'm having difficulty following your thoughts here Jeff. And BTW, the author of this article states that, according to the math, no singularity or event horizon can be the result. Just to be clear; Peer review will need to follow before I can accept these findings, especially after not having seen the math in question myself. Nevertheless, a very provocative subject.
The article was published in Physics Letters B and therefore already went through the peer review process.
-
Has the author taken account of the relationship between gravitational acceleration and escape velocity? That is something I am looking into and I hope they have.
-
The density of the matter conatined exactly within the event horizon drops as the source mass increases.
I'm having difficulty following your thoughts here Jeff. And BTW, the author of this article states that, according to the math, no singularity or event horizon can be the result. Just to be clear; Peer review will need to follow before I can accept these findings, especially after not having seen the math in question myself. Nevertheless, a very provocative subject.
As a mass collapses there will be a point in time where the all the matter will be contained by the event horizon but with some matter still coincident with the horizon. If you calculate the density for increasing mass then this density drops as the volume increases. So the larger the initial mass the less dense it will be at this point of collapse. I have not really looked too deeply into the no hair theorem which must relate to this. What the author proposes may be more like a 'has hair' theorem.
-
As a mass collapses there will be a point in time where the all the matter will be contained by the event horizon but with some matter still coincident with the horizon. If you calculate the density for increasing mass then this density drops as the volume increases.
I was under the impression that once collapse initiates the singularity forms resulting in the subsequent formation of the event horizon. Given the mass of this black hole, there will be a substantial distance created between the singularity and the event horizon. And this is what I'm not understanding about your last post. Are you saying that as the mass of the black hole separates itself from the event horizon, the density of the intervening area is lowered? That would be true if the event horizon had already existed but the event horizon doesn't come into play until the singularity is created. That being the case, the density of the singularity surely increases but I would speculate that the intervening area between the singularity and the event horizon would remain similar to the surrounding environment.
When you say to calculate the density for increasing mass, this density drops as the volume increases. We both understand that the density increases as the mass reaches singularity so what volume are you talking about when you say; " this density drops as the volume increases." Are you speaking of the volume inside the event horizon or the specific volume of the singularity?
-
I am talking about a frozen moment in time and nothing to do with the singularity. The point at which the mass has collapsed to a volume described by the event horizon. We have no experimental information on the initiators of the collapse. It is all theoretical and hypothetical.
-
Let's consider another curious point. Say we have a photon traveling exactly perpendicular to the surface of a mass with a gravitational wave following at a set distance behind. If both are traveling at c as defined in their frame of reference and affected by time dilation then gravitation cannot catch up to the photon and it is unaffected. So we conclude that only photons that are at some angle to the mass surface can be affected by gravitation. What happens to laser light if we shine it exactly perpendicular to the surface and detect it at altitude. Will it have red shifted at all? If it redshifts then the speed of light and gravitation are not the same. In which case gravitation is frame independent.
-
BTW It is best to carry out this experiment on a mountain summit.
-
I am talking about a frozen moment in time and nothing to do with the singularity. The point at which the mass has collapsed to a volume described by the event horizon. We have no experimental information on the initiators of the collapse. It is all theoretical and hypothetical.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I don't think it is really possible to speak about an event horizon without recognizing the existence of the singularity.
-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I don't think it is really possible to speak about an event horizon without recognizing the existence of the singularity.
You're aware, aren't you, of the Rindler horizon? It's an event horizon which is found in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference and in that case there's no singularity.
-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I don't think it is really possible to speak about an event horizon without recognizing the existence of the singularity.
You're aware, aren't you, of the Rindler horizon? It's an event horizon which is found in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference and in that case there's no singularity.
I don't know where you pick up this stuff Pete but I wish I were a year or two behind you. Do you have a link for information on the Rindler horizon?
-
I have just read up on the Rindler Horizon. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Rindler/RindlerHorizon.html
A very enlightening web page. I will be looking at this further.
-
I have just read up on the Rindler Horizon. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Rindler/RindlerHorizon.html
A very enlightening web page. I will be looking at this further.
I'm also looking into the subject with interest. From what I've gathered so far, this black hole would be so massive that little curvature would be evident at the horizon. And not necessarily requiring a singularity at the center. Sounds very much like a hypothetical case and not a realistic probability in my opinion. If the black hole was massive enough, it would mirror our own universe in many ways and would not have a center where the singularity would usually occupy. In such a case, could we even refer to this model as a black hole? Nevertheless, thank you Pete for the interesting link.
-
This is exactly the type of horizon that would exists at the surface of the Hubble sphere. As spacetime expands galaxies apart at exactly c and beyond communication with our universe would become impossible. This would be indistinguishable from a universe sized white hole.