IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Black Holes don't exist.
Phys.org:

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. 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.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.


It certainly would seem to solve a lot of problems....

Chandrasekhar apparently was surprised by his work that predicted them in the first place. I wonder if he'd be pleased with this result.

Cheers,
Scott.
New So what's at the center of the galaxy then?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Lots of heavy stuff and dust, I guess.
The paper at Arxiv is way over my head, but the discussion (pages 7-8) seems to indicate that the results are general. I take that to mean that "supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxy" don't exist either.

It'll be interesting to see what holes are poked in her paper. Or maybe this will give even more reason for people to take dark matter more seriously.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Real scientists should love stuff like this
"Ooh, something 'everyone knows' isn't true. Time to do some new research and publish!"
--

Drew
New In the face of all this, now meta- physics, one hopes
that the lesson of Boltzmann's Atom has percolated throughout the intelligentsia ... sufficiently.
Scientists are no less affected by visions of Approbation, Fame, thus a fine Career ..than others-with-brains.

Meanwhile, the finer we focus our newest microscopes, the more we see to Wonder about; this phenomenon should temper
having much emotional-attachment to the common truthiness, at any time. Wouldn't ya think?
Humility; don't pontificate without it! (I think that has not yet become a koan.. but A.E. surely came near it.)

(Methinks that, the more that [Reality} appears to be a statistical locus [???] the less able is human jelloware
to derive any useful metaphors: those handy icons we daily live-by.)

Einstein could imagine riding a light wavicle.
NdeGT could dramatize spaghettification(!) after the Event-horizon.

But all must punt, in 11 or 22 Dimensions; math-alone won't do it. Because Gōdel.


Over and out.
New The fabled pot of gold!
New Woah, easy tiger.
Let's wait for the peer review, eh?

There's a metric fuckton (that's an official scientific unit, btw) of Very Hard Maths between her saying "black holes can't exist" and other people agreeing with her.
New Thanks.. darkly illuminating
Degenerate matter for instance (aside from its associations in wet-ware), spawns a whole set of sub-categories (strange matter: consisting of strange quarks.)

It seems that these-all shall always be gedanken experiments, given the limitations of a septillion-tonne home planet, as never shall provide a safe lab
for any conceivable experimental verifications. Theoretical physics can't return from its meta- trajectory now; Pauli, Heisenberg: meet The Buddha
(Is that a Heh! or not?)

I tried (not quite valiantly) to envision some of the math eqns. re 'holes' in semiconductors; then some (quadruple integral?) of Mass, Space, Time + consciousness:
much as Hofstadter did in Sci. Am. in looking at the beauty of a Chopin score, as written on paper. Wrong medium, I guess.



Is it not sorta *comforting? to recognize, after a one has adsorbed some cogent outline of the hard-sciences, via all those baby-steps from trig upwards
to a soupçon of Hamiltonians (say)--that the [Reality] idea, as must Be {There!] someHow--shall remain forever, quite beyond both our wetware-at-Max
and our personally-limited imaginations: We'll continue to live-out metaphors, taking these to be worth killing/dying-for (and endlessly analyzing)
--in lieu of any comprehension, either of consciousness or {{sigh}} any revealing concept of [Reality]

(* Por moi, no need to be daunted next by the rapidly increasing complexity?) Once it's clear (enough) that my/our tools are inadequate
to achieve any closure on fundamental Questions. aka Bliss is: ~ignore infinite new data: Just enjoy The Play. ;^>
     Black Holes don't exist. - (Another Scott) - (7)
         So what's at the center of the galaxy then? -NT - (malraux) - (4)
             Lots of heavy stuff and dust, I guess. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Real scientists should love stuff like this - (drook)
                 In the face of all this, now meta- physics, one hopes - (Ashton)
             The fabled pot of gold! -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
         Woah, easy tiger. - (pwhysall)
         Thanks.. darkly illuminating - (Ashton)

Yeah! Coterminous!
282 ms