What 'opinion' is that? Yes thats my point, GR predicted whatever was pulled into a black hole was lost, now they discover the complete opposite. I dont cite things that are common knowledge (in relation to the subject matter).
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html " For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space –imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it. The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox."
It's funny, I'm pretty sure if someone proved blackholes didn't exist it would be groundbreaking and would flare up the science world. This is because blackholes are accepted as fact. Astronomers can see their gravitational pull affecting the celestial objects around it. So to propose a theory that blackholes don't exist, one would need a whole need groundbreaking evidence to say other wise. However your citation does not provide evidence. This is from the phys.org citation, note the non peer reviewed part. "The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of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. Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive". This is a non peer reviewed paper, with just one scientist who reviewed it. Got any better articles? Preferably peer reviewed.
You're forgetting that the majority of scientists working on this themselves are not (least hopefully not) forgetting about the law of conversation of energy. Whatever gets sucked into a black hole will still be within the black hole in one form or another or possibly end up getting ejected from the black hole in one form or another.
That would be my line of thought too but apparently they are privy to something we are not since it is. I find it strange a theory (quantum) is said to be so accurate yet they try to reconcile it with another theory (GR/SR/DSR take your pick) that otherwise should be abandoned.
You missed the point of what I was getting at. I've never heard a reputable scientist or even much of anyone else ever claim that energy (information) disappears. We know black holes grow and vary in size.. and they do so because they take what they suck in and compress the hell out of it and jam it in there. That's how they grow, by consuming matter and energy and whatever else they consume.. I guess a better way to say it is that the information loss paradox is kind of a strawman.. cause no one is really saying that anything "disappears". It was people who don't agree with black holes and such creating a strawman in favor of their theory.. when we know that black holes consume and compress. As far as we can tell, anything that a black hole gobbles up is either still in the black hole in one form or another or evaporated back out into the universe in one form or another.. including information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne–Hawking–Preskill_bet You should havetold Hawking before he attempted to solve the strawman.
According to this.. he even thought that black holes can lead to a bridge into another universe. They can't all be winners.. and according to this, he also realized that he was wrong in thinking what your quote suggested. He realized the general relativity and quantum mechanics aren't at odds with one another. The only time they are at odds with one another is when someone has their own personal interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects general relativity because GR doesn't support their personal theory.. so they create a strawman against general relativity.
And general relativity, quantum mechanics, and all the future branches of science that grow from them will not be able to reveal the true nature of black holes without direct observation. 'Black hole' is a pretty much a scientific place holder term.. we know that there is something there with an intense amount of gravity that sucks in energy, like a hole in space.. and we know they don't emit light.. hence, a black hole. Any theory that claims to disprove a place holder term at least needs a theory as to what is in it's place instead.
Btw ty for that link, it says exactly what ive been saying " The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared -- a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved." From one of my links " Thorne and Hawking argued that since general relativity made it impossible for black holes to radiate, and lose information, the mass-energy and information carried by Hawking radiation must be "new", and must not originate from inside the black hole event horizon. Since this contradicted the idea under quantum mechanics of microcausality, quantum mechanics would need to be rewritten. Preskill argued the opposite, that since quantum mechanics suggests that the information emitted by a black hole relates to information that fell in at an earlier time, the view of black holes given by general relativity must be modifiedin some way. The winning side of the bet would receive an encyclopedia of their choice. In 2004, Hawking announced that he was conceding the bet..." Hence my claim "the black holes predicted by GR definitely do not and cannot exist, it failed there" It = General Relativity
Lol you literally just restated the subject by quoting my link. Also you failed to add in that the rest of it l, which proposes how information is not lost in a blackholes thus solving the informational paradox. Btw you keep referencing Hawking about the information paradox, without knowing that Hawking retracted his claim about the information paradox. You would know this if you would have actually critically examined the article, instead of using it for confirmation bias. The article states,"In the 1970s, Hawking proposed that black holes were capable of radiating particles, and that the energy lost through this process would cause the black holes to shrink and eventually disappear. Hawking further concluded that the particles emitted by a black hole would provide no clues about what lay inside, meaning that any information held within a black hole would be completely lost once the entity evaporated. Though Hawking later said he was wrong and that information could escape from black holes, the subject of whether and how it's possible to recover information from a black hole has remained a topic of debate."(found in my link). It remains a topic of debate by proponents of the blackhole theory trying to tear it down (usually religious) or by armchair physicists who have no clue what they're talking about. You don't see reputable scientists in the blackhole debate because it almost a waste of time. Scientists can see with their own eyes the distortion these massive objects have on space time and astronomers frequently use these distortions for gravitational lensing. The point is that there's something there and saying there isn't is denialism. Got any peer reviewed studies? I'll change my mind in an instant if you show real evidence with a rational study as to why blackholes don't exist.
Let me lay out the actual debate going on here so you dont lose focus again. You objected to my "opinion" that black holes as predicted by GR dont exist. So i provided links (and even enboldened for you above) to validate my claim. Its quite entertaining that your own link and quote validates my claim yet your (apparent) ignorance procludes you from realizing this. I dont mean that as an insult either. Yes Hawkings originally said energy can escape but that this energy "would provide no clues about what lay inside", that was the nature of the black hole as derived from GR, which he has retracted his claim because such a black hole (again) as derived from GR cannot exist (unless you wish you throw out quantum theory or modify it?).
Btw how do you differentiate between who is a "reputable scientist"? Also what is "real evidence" and what constitutes a "rational study"? Sounds like you have set up the mental gatekeepers, anyone who disagrees with your bias is either an "armchair scientists", "religious" or is providing fake evidence or irrational studies. Btw i am not trying to change your mind on anything, you are the one who charged me with essentially disseminating unsupported opinions (even though it is the opinion of probably every expert in the area) so I am defending my contention.
Did you actually memorize that?? I love science and read a lot of physics but for the life of me I can't remember shit I read.