Do Black Holes REALLY exist after all?

Post Reply New Topic

So I was searching google for more information about Black Holes and I stumbled across this article. And although it's a bit dated(5 years), it's quite thought provoking. Apparently physicist Jose Pecina-Cruz claims that these objects are impossible because the singularity, which is an infinitesimal point with infinite density violates quantum mechanics(specifically the uncertainty principle). But what I wonder if in fact, a black hole isn't actually a singularity, but in the case of Schwartzschild black holes it is a nanoscopic hole in space time. That is, once the gravitational collapse progresses to the point that the object shrinks to a critical size, the induced space-time curvature becomes so large in magnitude that it rips a hole in the space-time continuum. Now a Kerr black hole has a ring singularity which, even if it's not infinitely dense, serves as the opening of a space-time tube with an event horizon on each end. But the issue is whether Quantum Theory is a stronger theory than Relativity in the sense that QM binds GR and Relativity can never violate Quantum Mechanics...........OR if the curvature of spacetime becomes so extreme, quantum physics breaks down.



The thing is, as it turns out there already is astrophysical evidence for black holes. The closest object to us which astrophysicists are 100% certain is a Black Hole beyond a reasonable doubt is the one at the Milky Way galactic center, in the vicinity of the Sagittarius A formation. I even found an article mentioning that its event horizon has already be detected and there is a project to capture an actual image of it. And FTR this object shows the features of a Kerr black hole as do most supermassive black holes.

The trouble with detecting Schwarzschild(irrotational) Black Holes, is that most candidates are stellar black holes which are difficult to distinguish from neutron stars. Cygnus X-1 is thought to be such an object, but there is no evidence yet that it has an event horizon.

Discuss....

all those theories have nothing to do with wether black holes do or don't exist.

We are surrounded by black holes though they are to small to do anything.

Wrong

Some black holes are gigantic (i.e. have very large mass), like the one that exists at the center of our galaxy

ruveyn

As far as I know, QM can't "bind" GR. The two theories are completely at odds with eachother; whenever physicists have tried to combine the two to make a TOE (Theory Of Everything), the equations blow up (spit out a mess of infinities) in their faces. And a black hole is wonderful example of just how deeply these pillars of modern physics contradict eachother.

You see, when presented with a black hole, GR says that the thing is just going to draw everything that's too close into it, and that, because nothing can travel faster than light and the event horizon is where the escape velocity is that of light, nothing's going to escape once you get past the event horizon. In addition, since anything that ventures past the EH will become completely cut off from the outside world, the information that falls inside the black
hole is lost forever.

Now, QM says that that's impossible; information can't be permanently lost; it must be conserved, like energy or matter. So it must be that radiation is escaping through Hawking radiation, and the radiation is carrying the "lost" information.

But then, GR counters, saying, "How can anything escape? It must have to travel faster than light, and that's impossible!"

QM replies smugly that the Hawking radiation appears because if an antiparticle falls into the black hole it's the same as an ordinary particle going out of the black hole, because antimatter is matter going backward in time.



And then GR yells at QM for making up all this antimatter mumbo-jumbo and storms out of the room, slamming the door rather loudly.


Now, QM says that that's impossible; how can information be l

QM, however, says

It may be that any information that travels into a black hole is forced through and out the other end of it. And it very well may be that black holes connect this Universe to other universes. AFAIK, Hawking radiation has never actually been observed(if I'm wrong do cite your sources). But the attitude by some of those comments is that since GR contradits QM, then it is GR which must be wrong. Godel's incompleteness theorem makes a Theory of Everything impossible because no theory can be both consistent AND complete.

The issue though is that GR predicts a singularity of infinite density, which clearly violates QM. So physicists are trying to generate alternatives that are consistent with QM even if they violate GR.
But this is all just theoretical.......................







......Yet the object nearby Sagittarius A has observational properties that fit nicely with what GR predicts a black hole should have! I say that Black Holes do exist after all.

I don't know enough of all this, but I think a theory of everything is possible. Because otherwise the whole universe wouldn't be enough to contain the theory and therefore it wouldn't be the theory of this unioverse.. My opinion about black holes is that they are frozen stars in some way. There's no singularity.

What is this? A word salad factory?

ruveyn

Yup


I certainly wish more knowledgeable people would contribute to this discussion. Where's Jono anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OCa8wSg8g

It must be hard to enjoy physics if getting everything you know violated upsets you.

This isn't about my state of mind, it's about Black Hole physics. Get it right or STFU.

When the theorists figure out that a certain type of object is possible, and then the experimentalists find something which has the properties that the theorists were talking about, it gives me a lot of confidence that people know what they're talking about. If it had happened the other way around, it would be a different story.

Guess what? Physics!=Math. New physical theories often arise when observational data is discovered that is not explainable by existing theories.

General relativity is nearly 100 years old, and despite repeated challenges it has proven to be very robust in the sense that it has been confirmed by experimental evidence and observational evidence.

The massive object at the center of the galaxy in the Sagittarius A region is currently being intesively studied and exhibits all of the expected properties of a supermassive, rotating black hole. However, it's impossible to determine from outside of it if it actually has a singularity of it the interior is something far more exotic than we can imagine.

Some interesting papers discussing this issue:

A. Against/avoiding singularities:

Does Gravitational Collapse Lead to Singularities?
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest- ... _Black.pdf


On a finite universe with no beginning or end
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

B. Singularities okay:

Did God Divide by Zero?
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest- ... ideby0.pdf

Last edited by Kon on 17 Aug 2012, 8:37 pm, edited 6 times in total.