This could serve as an interesting test of Eric’s astronomy vs. the BB and black-hole-centric conventional theory: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/63612/title/Black_hole_silhouettes
It looks like this collaboration of radio telescopes is going to use the T-ray spectrum, between IR and MW, to pile up 700 TB of observations of the Milky Way core “black hole”, and a much larger one.
The problem with Black Holes is that scientists think they exist because they think they are a prediction of general relativity. The purported properties of Black Holes though cause serious problems in showing they exist. You would have to show that particles or other masses entering the BH have the property of infinite clock-maker time to enter the BH horizon. Another problem would be that you would need to show that one could legitimately expect a singularity to exist, but since no observer could report getting to the singularity—since the observer would be supposedly destroyed in the process, and any such observer could not expect to report their findings once past the event horizon of the BH, the theory of BH’s is non-falsifiable.
So Astronomers find a volume of space with sufficient energy-density and report a BH. The only thing they should be really allowed to report in all honesty is a region of space with such and such an energy density. The BH part only comes from theory.
The theory behind BH’s is flawed however. Stephen Crothers has shown that the math behind one of the simpler types of BH’s is not what the Astronomers say it is. History plays a part as well. My main complaint about the GR solutions that purport to show that BH’s come from GR is that they do not follow in the best traditions of physics. Let me explain why next.
Consider the following problem. One has a sphere of matter that has constant charge density. Say you want to know what the Electric Field is. Using Gauss’s Law we know that inside the sphere the E-field goes like r (where r is the distance from the radius of the sphere in question). Outside the sphere the E-field goes like 1/r^2. This makes good physics sense since the E-field does not blow up anywhere. Inside the sphere the E-field goes to zero where we would expect it to (at the center where by symmetry arguments we know it should be zero) and outside of the sphere the E-field goes to zero at infinity because of the square-inverse of the dependence of the E-field there (also expected physics wise).
This solution is a two-part solution. Now let’s look at how Schwarzschild’s (really Hilbert’s Solution) does things. It says the metric has a certain form for the whole of the BH. There is no two-part solution! This is a problem because one should expect at least initially for there to be a two part solution to the metric, that being inside matter and outside matter. So in analogy with the sphere of constant charge it is like as if Gauss predicted a one-part solution to the sphere of constant charge (the outside part) and incorrectly applied it equally to the inside part where it would cause a charge singularity.
I am writing a paper on exactly this and hope to present it some time soon. Of course this topic can be complicated by all sorts of considerations but seriously think about Einstein for a second. It was only after he died and after Oppenheimer et. al wrote a paper on spherical collapse of dust (using computers to simulate it if I remember correctly) that the Astronomical Community came to believe in BH’s. I seriously question whether Einstein did not think of this very possibility and reject it based on his or someone else’s calculations. I say this because Einstein was very conservative when it came to his theories. If he saw a singularity in his math he would have most likely been one of the first to cast doubt on GR. He did not. I guess you can take that as you please but to me it is pretty damning.
I do not like seeing PC/EU advocates bash GR. I submit that the problem with the Astrophysics Community is not so much that they think GR is corect but that collectively they have made erroneous predictions using GR (as well as just not being able to admit the highly electromagnetic nature of Astronomical Phenomena that should be obvious if you know Plasma Physics, and this even after it has been pointed out to them).
refresh my memory. if black holes cannot exist,
what halts the collapse of a massive object, > 4 M[Sol]?
To explain it would require me teaching you my paper or giving it to you and learning it yourself as long as you know enough to follow an article on GR, which I admit, is perfectly possible. The short and the skinny of it is that the conventional solution to the simplest exact problem in GR (known erroneously as The Schwarzschild Solution when it is really The Hilbert Solution) that can be solved is not physical and should therefore only be considered as a kind of pseudo-solution, the same way that the Electric Field of a point charge is not really the Electric Field of an electron, because that is silly.
I give in the paper a solution of a static ball of constant in time and space within a particular region of a two-region stress-energy tensor to model the gravitational system of a sphere made up of rigid homogenous material in an otherwise empty universe. This stress-energy tensor is expressed as a two-part matrix equation. Solving this problem I show that it gives a two-part solution for the metric. I use this two-part solution to critique The Hilbert Solution by showing that for The Me Solution there are no event-horizons or singularities. I show how the conventional view is conceptually mistaken in the same way that one would mike a conceptual error if the Electric Field of a Sphere of constant charge density were “solved” but the erroneous solution is the solution for outside of the sphere incorrectly applied to the whole space. I conjecture that real physical-like solutions to GR never have singularities or event-horizons. That having either singularities or event-horizons is the sign of a pathological solution that is unphysical. All singularities and event-horizons are clothed.
Finally, what you are interested in. Since light can always escape any gravitating system no matter how strong it is as long as the system does not create an event horizon (this is proveable too), and the system I have has no event-horizons (or worse, singularities), what does happen when gravity just keeps crushing down on some huge mass? Well, from Particle Physics we know that the probability for the particles to start colliding, creating huge sprays of new particles, becomes much greater. A fair fraction of the possible interactions though involves creating Bosons. The bosons will escape the pull of the gravity due to the hyperbolic nature of even curved space-time and so while nothing halts the collapse what-so-ever (some other force or something) the material itself that allows the collapse fizzles away in the form of massless but highly energetic particles. People talk about BH evaporation and I say BH’s do not exist, so what does happen then? Simple (in a complex sense), you get Fermion evaporation. Matter particles (Fermions) rapidly collide trying to create bosons to releave the stress of gravity and by the laws of physics they are always guaranteed to succeed. So, large masses that are undergoing unrestrained gravitational collapse eventually enter a stage I call Matter Evaporation. It is somewhat similar to evaporation too in the real world. It is at the interface (the current surface of the sphere) that I would expect the “phase-transition” to occur. Matter there would allow light to escape, thus reducing the strain of gravity on the system. Eventually, depending on how the physics works out, you might get a Fermionic Condensate or just have the matter all blow apart, I really can not say for sure, but those two possibilities seem the most logical ending points given what the solid physics is that is currently known about the subject.
In a recent interview conducted by TIME, Stephen Hawking talks briefly about Einstein, relativity, and black holes:
The field equations of his theory of relativity imply that a large star or cloud of gas would collapse in on itself and form a black hole. Einstein was aware of this but somehow managed to convince himself that something like an explosion would always occur to throw off mass and prevent the formation of a black hole. What if there was no explosion?
He also mentions fusion power as a scientific advancement he’d like to see in his lifetime.
In a recent interview conducted by TIME, Stephen Hawking talks briefly about Einstein, relativity, and black holes:
The field equations of his theory of relativity imply that a large star or cloud of gas would collapse in on itself and form a black hole. Einstein was aware of this but somehow managed to convince himself that something like an explosion would always occur to throw off mass and prevent the formation of a black hole. What if there was no explosion?
He also mentions fusion power as a scientific advancement he’d like to see in his lifetime.
Yes, I love that you brought up the issue of Einstein not thinking Black Holes (although in his life-time that term did not yet exist but the concept did) exist. I remember on Stephen Crother’s site that he has a referrence to a paper by some german physicist (not a famous one) that worked on the problem of BH creation. In the paper the physicist showed that BH’s are NOT a prediction of GR, that in fact, just like I have been saying, GR predicts that BH’s should never exist. I wish I could give a referrence but my memory fails me here.
As far as the question of “what if there was no explosion?” goes, the current physics implies there always will be one. Another paper of more recent origin questioned the BH idea by showing that if one has an astronomical body like the ones that astronomers think are BH’s, you have the problem that eventually a relativistic pressure shockwave would form that would not allow matter and energy to fall into the region.
My own take, seriously, think about it for a minute. Even if I thought GR predicted BH’s all that would say to me is that GR must fail as a physical theory somewhere inside the event-horizon. It would be like the ultra-violate catastrophe (this is how some physicists think about it too) showing that EM theory and Thermodynamics break down for a simple Blackbody radiator—QM was the answer. Fortunately for GR as a theory it does not break down in such a dramatic fashion for the problem of high energy-density situations.
The classical Black Hole definition with a singularity and an event horizon only exists on paper.
The various sciences of Nuclear theory, scalar field theory, super conductors and supersymmetry can explain the properties of ultra dense Nuclear matter that shows some of the properties of Black Holes without a singularity and an event horizon.
The problem with Black Holes is that scientists think they exist because they think they are a prediction of general relativity. The purported properties of Black Holes though cause serious problems in showing they exist. You would have to show that particles or other masses entering the BH have the property of infinite clock-maker time to enter the BH horizon. Another problem would be that you would need to show that one could legitimately expect a singularity to exist, but since no observer could report getting to the singularity—since the observer would be supposedly destroyed in the process, and any such observer could not expect to report their findings once past the event horizon of the BH, the theory of BH’s is non-falsifiable.
Sounds a lot like the argument: “I have never been to France, therefore France does not exist. QED”
There is a lot of direct observational evidence that there exist extremely large mass objects in the universe. At the center of our own galaxy, where stars’ orbits have been used to estimate that object’s mass, and its other properties, and closer objects that represent the decaying remnants of stellar explosions.
It doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch to extrapolate that, at some mass, the gravitational pull of the object will yield an event horizon beyond which nothing inside can escape outside.
That the inside of a BH can not be vetted by an observer communicating back to us is not a limitation of the theory, it’s just a limitation imposed by reality.
BUt GR also says that BH take an infinite amount of time to form, as viewed from a distant oberver. Since all indivudual objects must have finite ages, they never form. Of course, compact objects get quite close to a BH very quickly, but the event horizon never forms. That is why Einstein himself wrote that they can’t exist.
Ultra dense nuclear matter can develop scalar fields, killing fields, trapping horizon that EMR cannot escape.
One of the properties of UDNM is a dipole moment that forms guage field and vortex that basic matter such as axions/anions can escape via a jet and not be influenced by the extreme gravity of the core. The wave that forms is similar to the definition of a soliton wave that remains unchanged until quantum memory allows for the tansition from axion matter to quark to Neutrons and so forth and gravity from the core starts to act on this matter forming knots. This sounds like Nuclear synthesis.
I base this information after reading, quantum memory, color superconductors, supersymmetry and scalar field theory, dipole jets and etc.
Finally, what you are interested in. Since light can always escape any gravitating system no matter how strong it is as long as the system does not create an event horizon (this is proveable too), and the system I have has no event-horizons (or worse, singularities), what does happen when gravity just keeps crushing down on some huge mass? Well, from Particle Physics we know that the probability for the particles to start colliding, creating huge sprays of new particles, becomes much greater. A fair fraction of the possible interactions though involves creating Bosons. The bosons will escape the pull of the gravity due to the hyperbolic nature of even curved space-time and so while nothing halts the collapse what-so-ever (some other force or something) the material itself that allows the collapse fizzles away in the form of massless but highly energetic particles. People talk about BH evaporation and I say BH’s do not exist, so what does happen then? Simple (in a complex sense), you get Fermion evaporation. Matter particles (Fermions) rapidly collide trying to create bosons to releave the stress of gravity and by the laws of physics they are always guaranteed to succeed. So, large masses that are undergoing unrestrained gravitational collapse eventually enter a stage I call Matter Evaporation. It is somewhat similar to evaporation too in the real world. It is at the interface (the current surface of the sphere) that I would expect the “phase-transition” to occur. Matter there would allow light to escape, thus reducing the strain of gravity on the system. Eventually, depending on how the physics works out, you might get a Fermionic Condensate or just have the matter all blow apart, I really can not say for sure, but those two possibilities seem the most logical ending points given what the solid physics is that is currently known about the subject.
The idea that particles in a deep gravity well collide & recombine into other particles - I can understand that. The idea that they recombine to create particles (bosons) that fly off as a means to bleed mass off of the object, that I have a problem with.
If that were true, it should place an upper limit on the density/mass of any high-mass object. Because, as the mass of the object increases, then so should the likelihood of the creation of this boson. Because of this, the mass of the object would then be limited by this mechanism, and that all BH objects would exhibit the same maximum mass.
This doesn’t seem to be supported by observation.
As I understand the math, the creation of a BH occurs at something far less that the observed mass that is at the center of our galaxy. If the mechanism you proposed operated, then this should not have occurred; the mass would have long ago been stopped-out through the production of bosons millions of solar masses ago.
As regards ‘evaporation’ of BH envisioned by Stephen Hawking, the mechanism that creates this evaporation is not the same as mass exiting the BH across the event horizon. Rather, it’s an additive mechanism where anti-matter (anti-mass, if you will) from outside the event horizon of the BH falls into the BH, and cancels out mass inside the BH.
The anti-particle is created as part of a pair of particles; a particle and anti-particle matched set, as it were. When the anti-particle falls into the BH, and its ,matching particle does not, then there is a net loss of matter in the BH behind the event horizon.
As regards the distant observer’s clock, and the idea that time stops as the in-falling object approaches th event horizon of a BH - I’ve got problems with that, too.
If that were true, it should place an upper limit on the density/mass of any high-mass object. Because, as the mass of the object increases, then so should the likelihood of the creation of this boson. Because of this, the mass of the object would then be limited by this mechanism, and that all BH objects would exhibit the same maximum mass.
However it’s a non-linear relation, and i see no upper bound.
The law of the Lid shows considerable bias towards only the most successful leaders, and breaks down in analyzing unsuccessful ones. My reading of business history is that there are many successful leadership models, and a good proportion of them involve leaders who first failed at other ventures before becoming successful. In fact, that dynamic is frequently shown as a strength of American business style, as opposed to say Japan, where your first failure “tracks” you to the bottom.
What is misunderstood in lauding “exceptional” business leaders is that good business leaders are rarely successful because they are efficient, innovative, or even charismatic, but because the businesses over which they preside are inherently, massively, profitable. Most major businesses are so profitable that corporations (and their leadership) are able to waste these profits on an enormous scale before the company’s viability as a going concern is affected. When it is, CEO’s are sometimes fired (but often they are not). Either way, major restructuring of the company is rare, and returning profits result in the succeeding leader looking at the best ways to channel the profits to keep everybody happy. Their “leadership” consists of convincing everyone that this state of affairs is due to their leadership.
At best, great CEO’s are great salesmen. Why salesmen, as opposed to other important business archetypes, tend to rise to the top, has to do with salesmanship being applied to increasing the demand for salesmen.
As for startups like McDonalds, or Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Most successful startups are helmed by leaders who learned by failing in several other businesses first. The genius who gets it right first time off is infinitesimally rare. The Law of the Lid is not a law in my understanding of the word. More like the Anecdote of the Lid.
In the case of Ray Kroc, for instance, the limitation on McDonalds was the lack of a salesman (not necessarily a leader). But the salesman who came along eventually led the company, because he was the best at convincing everybody he could lead.
Focus Fusion Society 
