Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

Feb 14, 2014 by Martin Lasalle
Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

On January 24, the journal Nature published an article entitled "There are no black holes." It doesn't take much to spark controversy in the world of physics... But what does this really mean? In a brief article published on arXiv, a scientific preprint server, Stephen Hawking proposed a theory of black holes that could reconcile the principles of general relativity and quantum physics.

To better understand Hawking's remarks, Forum interviewed Robert Lamontagne, an astrophysicist at the Department of Physics, Université de Montréal, and Executive Director of the Observatoire du Mont-Mégantic.

What is a black hole?

"According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a black hole is kind of cosmic central vacuum cleaner that swallows everything in its reach and lets nothing escape. It emits no radiation," says Lamontagne.

Since it is not visible and has no boundaries as such, a black hole is classically defined by an area of space called the "," where nothing can escape.

"Beyond this horizon, matter and light flow freely, but as soon as the horizon's intangible boundary is crossed, matter and light become trapped," he says.

However, if we use to describe a black hole, the laws of thermodynamics must apply. In this description, a black hole emits particles in the form of radiation and, ultimately, evaporates. Hawking himself predicted this in the 1970s.

"Following through with Hawking's argument, we conclude that if there is evaporation there must be a boundary to the event horizon, a place of transition between the inside and outside of the black hole," says Lamontagne. "A high energy envelope, a firewall, which burns up matter, is proposed."

However, this scenario poses a problem: if the firewall exists, we should be able to see it. Furthermore, the existence of a firewall around a black hole is inconsistent with the theory of general relativity.

In search of the Holy Grail

While the two major theories, that of general relativity (a theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics (a description of the microscopic world), work well in their respective fields, they are not universal: neither can explain alone how work. "The Holy Grail would be to find THE theory that would unify the other two. And Stephen Hawking has come back with a new proposal," says Lamontagne. Roughly, Hawking suggests that if the firewall is not visible, it is because its position fluctuates constantly and rapidly. "Hawking says, and this is purely hypothetical, that the fabric of space and time is in turmoil and we cannot define its whereabouts."

In short, since we cannot change the principles of either quantum mechanics or , Hawking proposes to slightly modify the description of black holes.

Hence his remark that black holes do not exist the way we thought they did, as we thought we knew them.

In a "nearby" black hole

In our galaxy, black holes are less numerous than suggested by sci-fi movies. The largest black hole near us is at the center of our galaxy – the Milky Way. It is 30,000 light-years from Earth. Its mass is about one million times that of the Sun, and it occupies a space equivalent to our solar system. "We cannot see it directly but we have located it because of effects we can observe using various technological methods: it constantly deviates the trajectories of stars in its vicinity," says Lamontagne. Moreover, in 2014, a huge cloud of gas will fall toward this "nearby" black hole. "This is exciting from an astronomical point of view because we will be able to examine the phenomenon for 10 to 20 years to come."

Explore further: Grey is the new black hole: is Stephen Hawking right?

More information: Zeeya Merali, "Stephen Hawking: There are no blackholes", Nature, 24 January 2014.

"Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes." S. W. Hawking, arXiv:1401.5761 [hep-th]

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

Recommended for you

First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

17 hours ago

While creating the first-ever images of explosives using an x-ray free electron laser in California, Los Alamos researchers and collaborators demonstrated a crucial diagnostic for studying how voids affect ...

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

Jul 24, 2014

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

Jul 24, 2014

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2014
However, if we use quantum mechanics to describe a black hole, the laws of thermodynamics must apply. In this description, a black hole emits particles in the form of radiation and, ultimately, evaporates. Hawking himself predicted this in the 1970s

I was under the impression that the virtual particle pair that is the source of Hawking radiation isn't actually emitted from the balck hole but that it's origin is just outside the event horizon (which would make it look like it is emitted, but it actually never crosses from the inside of the event horizon to the outside)
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2014
True AA, but as I understand it, the captured particle of the pairing still annihilates a particle inside the event horizon, such that the escaping particle becomes "real" and the black hole loses exactly the same amount of mass as the escaping particle. It is this phenomena that they talk about when they say the BH can evaporate.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2014
The perspective of dense aether model is
without merit, given it is a construct without a base in reality, due to its failure to use math or any other scientific basis to support it.

Are you going to downvote my comment with both sockpuppets now Zephyr?
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
but as I understand it, the captured particle of the pairing still annihilates a particle inside the event horizon, such that the escaping particle becomes "real" and the black hole loses exactly the same amount of mass as the escaping particle.

Yes. That's how I understand it, too. It was just the 'emit' that I got hung up on.

Though I don't know if 'annihilate' is the way I'd put it. It's just the the negative mass/energy part of the virtual particle pair gets added to the BH. By the time you get a bit into a BH there's not really a lot that can be talked about in terms of particles which could meet/annihilate.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2014
Reading up on it there seems to be an interpretation of Hawking radiation where quantum tunneling is involved which would actually allow a particle from (just)inside the event horizon to escape.
In that case 'emit' is correct.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
chefykins1
1 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2014
There are no Black Holes period. What we are witnessing is a Plasma Z Pinch. Please check out the Thunderbolts Project channel on You Tube. They provide short,easy to understand videos on the Electric Universe. It will open your eyes to the fact that what we have been taught is wrong. Einstein's theory of Relativity is wrong and Einstein himself had said he was not happy with the theory. There was NO BIG BANG! Everything in the Universe is Electrical in Nature and Magnetic Force is the glue that holds the Universe together,not Gravity. Peace Y
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2014
What we are witnessing is a Plasma Z Pinch

@chefykins1
links/references?
And as for
the Thunderbolts Project channel on You Tube

or
the Electric Universe

it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
what you are reading/watching is nothing but a bunch of electrical engineers who are trying to make money off of the scientifically illiterate
See:
http://www.tim-th...aqs.html

http://www.tim-th...l_1.html

its really simple: electrical engineers dont learn anything about astrophysics
astrophysicists learn a snot-load about plasma, electrical fields, fusion, etc etc etc and put it ALL together into a coherent theory
that is the MAIN REASON that EU cannot bring a viable hypothesis into the astrophysical community
there is some real science, but asking an electrical engineer about astrophysics is like asking a plumber to be a firefighter because he knows about water

save yourself grief and learn real science from real scientists...
EU is PSEUDOSCIENCE- delete it
Nestle
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
Black Hole Information Paradox: Firewalls or Chaos? Some News on the Black Hole Information Paradox of Stephen Hawking. The subject of black holes is actually pretty complex, where many observational perspectives and models intersect. You can get the realistic view only if you will consider them all. The complementarity of black holes is just the very beginning.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
The problem seems to be GR is a theory of the Higgs field. Quantum mechanics is the study of the (probable) distribution of energy within the Higgs field. There's nothing strange about a singularity - There is no Higgs field there. Therefore there is no mass there - only energy in the form of gauge bosons. Black holes are then a region of space where particles lose their mass and become bosons. Or so it seems.
Nestle
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
Black holes are then a region of space where particles lose their mass and become bosons. Or so it seems
This is just the problem for relativity. The lack of mass means no gravity means no curvature of gravity field. In real life driven with quantum gravity phenomena the highest curvature of massive bodies resides at their surface - not in their center, as general relativity implies. On the same idea the recent idea of Planck stars is based - they're supposed to be formed with hollow spheres, which may occasionally expand across whole event horizon. They do appear like the ordinary stars, covered with strong lensing effects.
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2014
In seems, both theories of event horizon, both central singularity of black holes are currently undergoing evolution, during which the original schematic model of general relativity changes to "rather" normal massive objects with physical surface - just under different names (Planck star, gravastar, fuzzball, firewall, apparent event horizon). So far the most dense stars are considered the quark stars, but theorists already speculated about even more compact objects, like the preon and electroweak stars stuffed with neutrinos. IMO it's time to reconcile all these ideas into single one, because they're differ each other only infinitesimally from observational perspective.
what_the_hell
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
Not that one ever has been observed to do so, but is it possible a black hole could ever explode, i.e. that the particles' repulsiveness could ever overcome gravity?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
Re: "According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a black hole is kind of cosmic central vacuum cleaner that swallows everything in its reach and lets nothing escape. It emits no radiation," says Lamontagne.

Eric Lerner has posted a fireside chat on why everybody is apparently getting this story really wrong …

"… the new stories have really been significantly off on this subject, because they all say Steven Hawking contradicts the predictions of Einstein's Relativity. But that's not really true …"

Einstein Said There Are No Black Holes
http://www.youtub...up7WD15w

It seems that nobody apparently cares that Einstein explained in detail why black holes cannot possibly exist. So, regardless of your views on whether or not they DO exist, it seems that this conversation is entirely made up, from the point where it is suggested that Relativity predicts black holes.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
Re: "its really simple: electrical engineers dont learn anything about astrophysics
astrophysicists learn a snot-load about plasma, electrical fields, fusion, etc etc etc and put it ALL together into a coherent theory"

Here is the link you have apparently missed to Tim Thompson explaining why he -- and ALL mainstream astrophysicists -- refuse to read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science …

Go to http://forums.ran...t=144610 and search the page for "Tim Thompson" …

Whether or not a person agrees with Tim Thompson's rant, there is something ethically wrong with what you've posted here, because Thompson has gone out of his way to explain to people that astrophysicists DO NOT READ IEEE.

And, to be clear, IEEE publishes on plasmas. So, figure it out.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
"As far as I'm concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored"

"the answer is that nobody has ever READ them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business"

"I am quite certain that most of them [JPL's Evolution of Galaxies Group] do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all"

-- Tim Thompson
richardwenzel987
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
Since the event horizon is all that one can actually deal with, anything beyond the horizon (inside) is speculative. I know that theory can tell us that a singularity forms, and other theories can tell us that something else might form, but nothing is observable from the outside. And we can't go inside to see what is actually happening. The event horizon really seems to define a kind of "end of science". I mean in the strict positivist sense.
Nestle
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
The event horizon really seems to define a kind of "end of science". I mean in the strict positivist sense
The thinking of people will not change so fast. I'm pretty sure, the voting trolls here will still downvote opposite opinions a long time after it will be already accepted with mainstream science. In the same way, like many religious people are still denying the evidence for evolution two hundred years after Darwin. The fact, they already did lose their battle just makes them the more upset.

As Max Planck has said: "the truth never triumphs — its opponents will just die out".
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2014
the voting trolls here will still downvote opposite opinions a long time after it will be already accepted with mainstream science. In the same way, like many religious people are still denying the evidence for evolution two hundred years after Darwin.


I in general have no issues with your posts, although sometimes overly repetitive and the lack of brevity gets annoying to some point, it is mostly amusing and to some extent even informative.

However, what is the need Aunt Sallying us with 'mainstream science" and comparing it with evolution deniers? It's cheap fallacy and you should be asking yourself which untrue theory is dying out, it surely isn't GR or the standard model.
Drjsa_oba
not rated yet Feb 17, 2014
black hole is one thing but singularity is something else. One does not mean the other exists. they are not reliant on each other at all - which is just as well.

Singularity is a mathematical construct like imaginary numbers whereas even horizon is something tangible which may just exist.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Feb 17, 2014
Hawking suggests that if the firewall is not visible, it is because its position fluctuates constantly and rapidly.


I'm no expert, but the Schwarzschild radius provides a very narrow value for the possible event horizon, so how - if this firewall's position fluctuates - does this rhyme with a non-fluctuating Schwarzschild radius? As, if i interpret correctly, those 2 seem to be the same thing.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2014
Repetetition is the mother of wisdom

@zephir
no... repetition is for cementing an idea
repetition of a known fallacy, like DAW or your other aether off-shoots, is nothing but an attempt to brainwash
or another way of putting it, most pseudoscience sites use repetition in order to create a value to a phrase, or to justify or strengthen an argument through use
this is a tool that is used when attempting to force a belief onto someone else or in an attempt to legitimise a known false statement in the media, for nefarious reasons or other reasons known only to the user

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2014
there is something ethically wrong with what you've posted here, because Thompson has gone out of his way to explain to people that astrophysicists DO NOT READ IEEE

@Alfven
no, there is not
IEEE is an engineering journal
engineers do NOT learn about astrophysics

an ENGINEER positing about astrophysics is like an armchair quarterback
they THINK they have all the answers, but put them in the game and they fall flat on their BUTTS
as proven in a few threads here alone!

as for IEEE: anyone publishing there about astrophysics is a hack or an idiot, and KNOWS THIS
they take the ignorance of the publishers for granted, perhaps?

Thompson is RIGHT in his argument...
astrophysicists learn plasma physics
Engineers dont learn Astrophysics

P.S. I was told by an engineer that the site is not very reputable for them either
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2014
And, to be clear, IEEE publishes on plasmas. So, figure it out.

@Alfven
yes... I have read a few of those studies. And unless I can find it validated on a more reputable site, I dismiss them
if it were a reputable site, it would NOT publish EU studies

an EU study speculating about astrophysics with NO ASTROPHYSICISTS in the study tells me that the study cannot be valid, as it does NOT take into consideration things that engineers are not taught and that WILL apply in space, near large masses with gravity, etc

whereas the standard model, and cosmological studies take plasma's and EM forces into consideration, as I proved over and over to cantdrive

if a study cannot take valid effects that are known to exist, there is no way that it can be legit, and that is the basis of my argument against EU and engineers doing cosmology
Porgie
not rated yet Feb 17, 2014
Neither is there any dark matter.
s_hyama
not rated yet Feb 18, 2014
In singularity theorems:

M=r(C^2-w^2)/2G
M = 4πr^3ρ/3
w^2 = C^2-2GM/r
4πr^3ρ/3 = r(C^2-C^2+2GM/r)/2G = M
(M:Gravitational mass, r:radius, C:Speed of light, w:Wave speed, G: Newtonian constant of gravitation, ρ:Density)

Therefore 0 only says the mass at the age of merely r=0.
Because the theory of relativity confuses w with C, it only becomes the singular point.
C^2 = 2GM/r