Black hole ain't for real - Polidicks

[quote]Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist. By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.[/quote] [url=http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/]Read the rest[/url]

And bumblebees can't fly.

Seems like an interesting idea. There's a good amount of evidence to the contrary however... more research needed.

How do they explain the light distortion causing stars to appear twice? Or Quasars? I don't buy it. Sounds like a nobody saying some shit to get a bit of attention.

So there's a giant vacuum cleaner in the middle of every galaxy. Cool, that explains everything.

Then what the hell keeps our galaxy together then? Come on even Im a Christian and i know this crap.

[QUOTE=Zerohope;46064092]So there's a giant vacuum cleaner in the middle of every galaxy. Cool, that explains everything.[/QUOTE] Incorrect, several giant vacuum cleaners

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46064107]Incorrect, several giant vacuum cleaners[/QUOTE] Giant vacuum cleaners, holding together galaxies and devouring stars, atom by atom. Makes perfect sense.

We already know that in our universe are things and phenomena that can't be explained with our current laws of physics.

[quote]The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed[/quote] This hasn't been peer reviewed yet, with such a big claim we should know soon whether or not this holds up.

[QUOTE=Zerohope;46064127]Giant vacuum cleaners, holding together galaxies and devouring stars, atom by atom. Makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE] Fucking giant vacuum cleaners, can't live with them, can't live without them. That paper isn't even peer reviewed. Might as well be reading a facepuncher's post. Its probably something "impossible to explain using the science we current have" or some shit. As I said just a nobody trying to make a name.

[QUOTE=Riller;46064061]And bumblebees can't fly.[/QUOTE] And you read the article.

I'm not going to take this to heart until it is the conclusion accepted by the overwhelming majority of the physics community, hopefully after examining and explaining what the objects we believe are black holes really are. It's fine that they can prove it mathematically, but empirical evidence is much more persuasive.

[QUOTE=Riller;46064061]And bumblebees can't fly.[/QUOTE] Not sure what your point is with this, if it's a joke or if it is some sort of "science can't explain everything" comment. If the latter then keep in mind that no sane scientist has ever suggested this, it's a silly myth. OT: As far as I can tell from the article, there is some interesting maths to this, but it's not peer-reviewed and there's still plenty of evidence suggesting the existence of black holes. I wouldn't jump on the "black holes don't exist" bandwagon yet, but it will be interesting to see if we hear more about this.

Not peer reviewed and effectively making claims that require a unification of QM and GR? Yeah, not fucking buying it right now. I want to see some proper peer review.

so what is that giant unseeable massive gravity sink at the center of our galaxy... i'm all for proving they can't exist but we've kinda shown empirically that they do exist, or at least something that functions exactly as a black hole is described exists in the center of the galaxy

Click bait?

[QUOTE=sltungle;46064215]Not peer reviewed and effectively making claims that require a unification of QM and GR? Yeah, not fucking buying it right now. I want to see some proper peer review.[/QUOTE] Do they make those claims though? I only skimmed but I didn't see anything that requires more than the kind of semiclassical calculations Hawking used for the thermodynamics of black holes. Still, we have observational evidence for black holes so it's likely these results fail somewhere. Also, she claims that a trapped null surface forms momentarily? That doesn't seem to make sense. Unless the space she's using fails an energy condition or contains closed timelike curves, a singularity should be forced to form. That or quantum effects break the singularity theorems, but that definitely should bear further discussion.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46064260]Click bait?[/QUOTE] On a university website? It's just someone throwing an idea out there along with some maths so that other people can take a look and try to figure out if this makes any sense. Unless you're talking about the thread title, in which case; yes.

[QUOTE=Zerohope;46064127]Giant vacuum cleaners, holding together galaxies and devouring stars, atom by atom.[/QUOTE] You mean Boy George's anus

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46064264]Do they make those claims though? I only skimmed but I didn't see anything that requires more than the kind of semiclassical calculations Hawking used for the thermodynamics of black holes. Still, we have observational evidence for black holes so it's likely these results fail somewhere. Also, she claims that a trapped null surface forms momentarily? That doesn't seem to make sense. Unless the space she's using fails an energy condition or contains closed timelike curves, a singularity should be forced to form. That or quantum effects break the singularity theorems, but that definitely should bear further discussion.[/QUOTE] Well the quote, [quote]"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,” said Mersini-Houghton. “And that’s a big deal."[/quote] seems to imply that!

The first paper was posted back in June. You'd think if this was being taken seriously as a major discovery we'd be heard more about it by now.

Aren't black holes simply put masses so dense that not even light can escape from its surface I don't really see how impossible it'd be for something like that existing

[QUOTE=sltungle;46064289]Well the quote, seems to imply that![/QUOTE] I think she's just talking about black holes but it does seem pretty sensational.

The Emperor has spoken. Burn the witch.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46064290]The first paper was posted back in June. You'd think if this was being taken seriously as a major discovery we'd be heard more about it by now.[/QUOTE] A lot of theories that are now accepted were at first ignored. I don't think that a time span of 3-4 months without anyone giving a statement means that the theory is automatically wrong.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;46064344]A lot of theories that are now accepted were at first ignored. I don't think that a time span of 3-4 months without anyone giving a statement means that the theory is automatically wrong.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was automatically wrong, though, did I? [editline]24th September 2014[/editline] Observational evidence for black holes is a pretty strong indicator that something with this model is incorrect, though.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;46064296]Aren't black holes simply put masses so dense that not even light can escape from its surface I don't really see how impossible it'd be for something like that existing[/QUOTE] It's not that that causes problems, it's the part where it becomes infinitely dense and physics starts to cry like a fat ass who lost their block of cheese.

I will remain skeptical and let the brains disect it and approve or disapprove it.

Commata error in the second sentence of the abstract or am I misreading? [quote]When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity.[/quote]