http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12089&feedId=online-news_rss20 Black holes might not exist – or at least not as scientists have imagined, cloaked by an impenetrable "event horizon". A controversial new calculation could abolish the horizon, and so solve a troubling paradox in physics. The event horizon is supposed to mark a boundary beyond which nothing can escape a black hole's gravity. According to the general theory of relativity, even light is trapped inside the horizon, and no information about what fell into the hole can ever escape. Information seems to have fallen out of the universe. That contradicts the equations of quantum mechanics, which always preserve information. How to resolve this conflict? One possibility researchers have proposed in the past is that the information does leak back out again slowly. It may be encoded in a hypothetical flow of particles called Hawking radiation, which is thought to result from the black holes' event horizons messing with the quantum froth that is ever-present in space. But other researchers argue the information may never have been cut off in the first place. Tanmay Vachaspati and his colleagues at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, US, have tried to calculate what happens as a black hole is forming. Using an unusual mathematical approach called the functional Schrodinger equation, they follow a sphere of stuff as it collapses inwards, and predict what a distant observer would see. They find that the gravity of the collapsing mass starts to disrupt the quantum vacuum, generating what they call "pre-Hawking" radiation. Losing that radiation reduces the total mass-energy of the object – so that it never gets dense enough to form an event horizon and a true black hole. "There are no such things", Vachaspati told New Scientist. "There are only stars going toward being a black hole but not getting there." Dark and denseThese so-called "black stars" would look very much like black holes, says Vachaswati. From the point of view of a distant observer, gravity distorts the apparent flow of time so that matter falling inwards slows down. As it gets close to where the horizon would be, the matter fades, its light stretched to such long wavelengths by the dark object's gravity that it would be nearly impossible to detect. But because the pre-Hawking radiation prevents the formation of a black hole with a true event horizon, the matter never quite fades entirely. As nothing is cut off from the rest of the universe, there is no information paradox. The idea faces firm opposition from other theoretical physicists, however. "I strongly disagree," says Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft of Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "The process he describes can in no way produce enough radiation to make a black hole disappear as quickly as he is suggesting." The horizon forms long before the hole can evaporate, 't Hooft told New Scientist. Lab testSteve Giddings of the University of California in Santa Barbara, US, is also sceptical. "Well-understood findings apparently conflict with their picture," he told New Scientist. "To my knowledge, there hasn't been an attempt to understand how they are getting results that differ from these calculations, which would be an important step to understanding if this is a solid result." There could be a way to test the new theory. The Large Hadron Collider being constructed at CERN in Geneva might just be capable of making microscopic black holes – or, if Vachaspati is right, black stars. Unlike the large, long-lived black holes in space, these microscopic objects would evaporate fast. The spread of energies in their radiation might reveal whether or not an event horizon forms. Alternatively, colliding black stars in space might reveal themselves, as Vachaspati says they would churn out not only gravitational waves (like colliding black holes) but also gamma rays. He suggests that they could be responsible for some of the gamma-ray bursts seen by astronomers.
black holes are crazy. just the whole concept of the black hole is extremely intriguing. gonna go blaze a bowl then come back and ponder the concept of black holes.
Well that doesn't refute the basic mechanics of a black hole; an immensely dense sphere of mater, it's just proposing new ideas about the even horizon; something which has confounded physicists for a few decades. It's also cool that Hawking has radiation named after him; he totally deserves the honor.
My theory is that stars and black holes are related and connected to each other. The star beams out light that a connected black hole (or many small ones, or several stars connected to a giant black hole) takes in and dishes back out to the star. Stars can still die in this theory, they are just moving around for some reason. (think because they want to, intellegent design) It is the act of The Father creating and Lucifer destroying so that nothing new is created and nothing is destroyed. Just a convient disguise for the two. It is because of the black holes that stars are even allowed to shine. I derive this from the conservation of energy. So evil really DOES allow for good! Ironic too that a star's core and form of energy is fusion, based off of crushing forces... A black hole seems pretty related to the forces inside a star- and stars even collapse into them... Maybe black holes form into stars? (I know about star factories (nebulas)) Just a theory
I hate to say it, but that just professed your ignorance of stellar activity. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that; the vast majority of people fall into the same category. We're all ignorant of something, right? Here are some links and resources for your reading pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkmain.html There is more, but I think those two sites cover it fairly well.
And they are. Afteral, black holes are nothing but massive stars that collapse in on themselves. Gravity pushing all its mass into a tiny point. Black holes are former stars. And that is their only relation as such. Apart from, you know, gravitational pull on their surroundings and eachother. This do not make any sense to me. Sorry. No. Stars shine because they burn matter in a fusion process. Thus releasing a lot of energy. EM radiation to be precise. Black holes absorb the same due to them being huge gravity wells. What goes down there do not come out. Well, generally speaking. Black holes do emit some radiation, but it is quite tiny compared to what they gobble up in an average year. this is just pure moral-theology and got nothing to do with how the universe works. Now you are onto something. A black hole is basically a star. Just one where the gravity do not allow any EM emission. Thus it is "black". No light, no radio, no microwave, no nothing. We only "see" them by the way they bend passing light due to their massive gravity. Kind of like how we "see" dark matter. Not quite. In the common sense, yes. If by theory you mean a wild assed guess. In a scientific sense it is not a theory. Possibly a hypothesis, but even those got stringent need of objective data to support their further development and research.
This is a spiritual theory, it has nothing to do with the way it's been observed. LOL I have books on it, and all it does is explain what has been observed. What if someone was capable of observing with understanding? If you only understand what you can see and observe, you will never understand spiritual concepts. What do you say of love? @Zylark- Wild assed guess is the same as a theory, because it hasn't been proven. I guess before Einstein devoted his life to proving what he understood, his theories were considered wild guesses. I am only a 22-year-old kid who saw something while I was on LSD, MDMA, THC, and N2O all at once. But after about 30 years of studying the universe I will be able to show how I come up with my ideas with more clarity in scientific terms. I will write about it though and try to form a basis beyond what is already understood as fact by me. If you don't believe in the ALL, or Absolute- my theories are just some crazy speculation. To me however, those who don't believe are blind. (and specifically asked to be) It's true for both, we both see it differently and equally valid. So in a sense this is just one side of the coin trying to tell the other to be the same as it. Isn't going to happen, the other side will always want to be opposite.
You DIRECTLY contradicted yourself. Please try again. And I'm sorry to say, that if that was true, than what you're talking about would indeed be science, by definition -- but it's not. Um... yes... such as the scientific method? Perhaps that is because spiritual concepts are bunk, and a fabrication of one's imagination? Is that not a possibility? Is that in-fact not the most probably scenario? I say love in an endocrine reaction, deep seeded in our evolution, in order to promote altruism in a communal species, and to promote procreation. Unfortunately, you are again, wrong Yes, and nobody believed them, until they were substantiated with evidence and reason. Again; the scientific method. Hypothesis aren't accepted as a consensual truth until there is evidence. That is why string theory remains a hypothesis. Well the large amount of hallucinogens could explain it. ...good luck with that. If your ideas are eventually accepted as scientific truth, then I will give you a formal apology. Untill then; I'm calling bunk. But see, that's the thing, you *already* understand it as fact. It is a dogmatic conviction of yours; not a an idea or hypothesis. You already have a massive bias; you want to be right and assure yourself that you are. Even Einstein wouldn't have claimed he is 100% correct without information; no good scientist would. *see above comment* I would contest that. I would call it baseless speculation; not a valid outlook.
I was talking about a theory, or whatever I'm supposed to call having an idea about something going on behind the scenes. I was saying that I know you are talking about what you can observe. I am talking about something different- spiritual in nature. Can you observe a spirit? Your definition of love shuts me completely down. Love is so much deeper than that to me. I believe science is a fabrication of the mind. Love brought about the universe you study!
Fabrication of the mind? Even though we can substantiate this kind of thing through controlled experimentation and direct observation?
Unstated major premise. First you need to provide evidence that spirits exist (outside and independent of the human brain. More commonly known as the Id, or personality). So far no such thing have ever been proven. Infact it is just a religious notion of the supposed duality between our cultural self and our animal self. No such duality exist. We are us, culture and animal and all. We might not like it, or always accept it, but we are driven by instinct just as much as any cat or dog. Difference is, we can consider our actions abstractly. Animals can't. They are quite literal. Big brain makes for smart monkey And religion, notions of spirits, god? Is that not fabrications? At least science got objective data to back up any claim made. Sure the scientific models are human constructs, but they are constructs that fit the data. Liken it to a map if you want. Science plot the terrain and make an accurate map to the best of our ability. Superstition disregards the terrain, and draws up a map of how one would like things to be, not how they actually are. Then you know more than me. I do not know how the universe we live in started. I will make no such claim. There is a simple reason for that: Wanting something to be true do not make it so. Who am I to profess all knowledge, including what we cannot possibly know quite yet? Such a claim as you just made is non-founded arrogance. Nothing more. Prove your claims or do not make them.
In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have completely different laws of physics—anything may be possible. So possibly he is correct somewhere no?
I don't think so in any universe governed by the indifferent laws of nature. But just for sake of argument, even if it were possible, it would still be entirely incorrect for this universe.
I'm not talking about spirits. I'm talking about THE spirit, the All, the Absolute. It is composed of energy that is infinite in nature. Because of that we are all connected to it and apart of it. You could go as far to say we ARE it. A hair on your arm is a part of you, but it's still you. The hair is not different than you, only a part of you. Take away the small parts and you are left with nothing. There is a duality in science, that of action/reaction. Our concious mind is the action and the subconsious the reaction. You could observe this from looking at a leaf- you take it in and examine it with your concious mind, and your subconcious mind is the infinite ways you can decide to think about it. It's as if you draw your thoughts from the examinaton from a well in your mind. Where do they come from- if not from you? Because of this, without you the leaf is for nothing and no one to examine and thus does not exist and/or is pointless considering your ability to give it a name and appreciate it, instead of it being pointless and alone. Not trying to force any ideas on you man. I see duality as an extremely important piece of existance. It is how boundaries are defined and things can be observed. The light is beaming out energy. Energy that cannot be created out of nothing, only transfered. Because of the conservation of energy- this energy must be collected and then redispersed if the cycle is to continue. Thus the corrilation between star factories/stars and black holes/giant black holes. Yes, everything is fabrication of the amazing mind which is the Divine One. Your "data" is actually a convient disguise for a horrible yet solvable issue with the current desire of this being. He is us. He is all things. We are all He has to realize it or deny it. You can believe what you want though. Science and the universe is an amazing thing because it is so real. I just became bored with the surface and found it incredible what was going on behind the scenes. For this to be real, He sacrificed everything He had to give. All He is, is possibility- The Father, The Son- Lucifer, and Satan. And everyone and everything in between. I see a star as The Father- the Creator. It represents life and creation. Then I see Lucifer as a black hole, the destroyer and collector of all energy that is "given away"- it only takes. The Father only gives. Then we are inbetween the two. From this, the energy that a star "gives away" is "taken" by black holes and then redispirsed or transfered elsewhere because it can't destroy it. If I have to prove that love brought about the universe... OK. I will do my best, give me a few days and I will bring evidence. But I still think it's sad that I have to prove such a beautiful thing exists when I saw what I saw. You should be able to as well. If you can't- all it will be is a picture I painted. It will not be the actual experience. But I will do my absolute best, I owe that to you. I feel it is your right to know how amazing your existance is in every way possible.
You are correct there. And I do realize it, but perhaps not in the same manner as you. I find existence entirely baffling, and I also feel that I am hugely lucky to say that _I_ am here to experience it. And I find knowledge, the sum of our understanding of the actual universe and nature, actual explanations even given our current limits, to be beyond all doubt more rewarding than any conjuring or wishful thinking. As for the rest of your post, I might get back to it when not as "spaced" as I am now Coherent thought requires a sober mind. Nonetheless, I will remind you now and again to produce the evidence you talk of...
Thank you Zylark, I know I have done a poor job of explaining how I came up with these ideas. It is very frustrating but all I want to do is give so I don't care how many times I sound completely out there. I will one day be able to explain it in a way that does not sound like that's the only way to look at it. The universe and the Almighty are nothing but sheer possibility, so wishful thinking just might be the whole reason we are even here. I will do some writing and make a thread. Most of the philosophy involves understanding how physics and science is a representation of the energy which is the Absolute. If you understand infinity as being undefined; then you are well on your way. However I am not sure if explaining this is what you want. I don't want to force any type of belief in God on you at all, only paint a picture of what He is to me. So if you really want me to explain my philosophy I will, but I respect your beliefs and do not want to annoy you or frustrate you. I only want to entertain and interest you- if I can not do that; I would prefer to change the subject
i believe black holes exist in galaxies hundreds maybe thousands of light years away and the material that is supposeldy "lost forever" comes out of a "white hole" the opposite of a black hole. The material that passes through the black hole is bypassing time essentially creating a shortcut through time " the wormhole" none of this will ever be proven though, to even be in the same galaxy as a black hole would wreak catastrophic consequences. anyway, this is how the universe is expanding with every breath we take. as soon as material is sucked into the black hole, it comes out somewhere else, thus the cycle of planetary, and also star formation continues.
It is believed that our galaxy, and many many others, have Supermassive blackholes[1][2][3][4] at the center.
although a galaxy is a very large amount of space to us, it is very small in the eyes of the universe as a whole. If a black hole were in our galaxy, then much of the matter in the milky way would collapse in this black hole. therefore, the black hole must be further away than just our galaxy. If you want something really weird to think about, consider this. On the history channel was a special on the 10 things that would ruin humanity as we know it, the 10 global disasters if you will. one of them, i believe it was number 7 was a "wandering black hole." now i have no idea how that could happen but someone outthere has an outlandishly extravagant theory about these black holes. But could they actually have a sufficient foundation for this theory? I mean, a wandering black hole that will suck the matter around us up like a massive vacuum. It is almost incomprehendible. just something for you to try and wrap your mind around.
I think you're a bit confused regarding astrophysics in general greenmeany. You haven't quite grasped the enormous size of the universe, let alone our galaxy. The distance to other galaxies aren't measured in hundreds or or even a few thousands of lightyears. You won't get far in our galaxy alone traveling such distance. The nearest galaxy comparable to ours is 2 million l/y away. There are some dwarf galaxies closer, satellites/companions to the milkyway actually, ranging from about 25.000 l/y to 1.3 million l/y. But still. Our galaxy have a diameter of approx. 100.000 l/y. Here's a nice picture of it, as seen from earth As for black holes, they do not work the way you imagine them. As everything else they are governed by the laws of nature. Allthough they are huge gravity-wells, they are usually no bigger gravity attractors than the star they formed from and subsequent matter absorbed. What makes them "special" is that the the matter that exert the gravity pull is so incredibly dense. As such the gravity is so high close to the center, that nothing escapes. Gravity in general is a pretty weak force, so once you got some distance from the center of a black hole (outside the event-horizon) the gravitational pull won't be bigger than what your average star pulls. And as you get even greater distance, it becomes weaker again. Much weaker in fact. Like EM radiation, gravity follows the law of inverse squares. That is, double the distance from the source, and the pull of gravity is reduced four times. As such you very fast reach a point where the gravity pull from even a supermassive black hole becomes rather insignificant. Much less than the centrifugal force of orbiting objects. As such, a black hole in the center of our galaxy won't ever gobble up the entire galaxy, for the simple reason that its influence do not negate the centrifugal force _or_ the gravitational force of the objects themselves. Just like the moon do not crash into the earth, eventhough earths gravity pull is several orders of magnitude larger than the moons. It will however function as a great anchor or hub to the galaxy. Something to spin around, since afterall, it is the most massive object in our galaxy by far. And as we all know, lesser objects orbit greater objects. As for wandering black holes, allthough a possibility, they do not wander all that much really. The original black hole will follow the orbit around the galaxy exactly in the same orbit as the star that formed the black hole to begin with. Star orbits do get rather close from time to time, as some Binary-systems clearly show. Once such a black hole gets close to another star, and instead of making a binary system, they get too close and eat up the neighbouring star. Quite comparable to stars colliding, which is _very_ unlikely. However, This would effectively merge the orbits of the "wandering" black hole and the star being gobbled. In essence slowing down any wandering.