Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory

January 30, 2015 by Lisa Zyga feature
This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a torus, is made up of gas and dust. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(Phys.org) —The quintessential feature of a black hole is its "point of no return," or what is more technically called its event horizon. When anything—a star, a particle, or wayward human—crosses this horizon, the black hole's massive gravity pulls it in with such force that it is impossible to escape. At least, this is what happens in traditional black hole models based on general relativity. In general, the existence of the event horizon is responsible for most of the strange phenomena associated with black holes.

In a new paper, physicists Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Barun Majunder have shown that, according to a new generalization of Einstein's of called "gravity's rainbow," it is not possible to define the position of the with arbitrary precision. If the event horizon can't be defined, then the black hole itself effectively does not exist.

"In gravity's rainbow, does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval," Ali, a physicist at the Zewail City of Science and Technology and Benha University, both in Egypt, told Phys.org. "So, all objects existing in space and occurring at a time do not exist below that length and time interval [which are associated with the Planck scale]. As the event horizon is a place in space which exists at a point in time, it also does not exist below that scale."

When Ali talks about "all objects," he literally means everything around us, including ourselves.

"We also do not exist physically below that length and time interval," he said. "However, for us, our house, our car, etc., it does not matter if we do not exist at any one point of space and time, as long as we exist beyond a certain interval. However, for the event horizon it does matter, and this causes the main difference in our calculations."

Gravity's rainbow

Gravity's rainbow arises from attempts to develop a theory that combines both the theory of and quantum mechanics. To fully solve the problems related to black holes, or even the beginning of our universe, physicists require a theory of quantum gravity.

"Even though no one has been able to discover such a theory, there are various candidates," Ali said. "These include ideas like taking space and time as fundamentally discrete, or using some mathematical loops as a fundamental quantity to construct space and time, or even replacing particles by tiny strings, and many other exotic ideas.

"What many of these models have in common is that it can be inferred from them that the energy of a particle cannot get as large as possible, but that there is a maximum energy that any particle can reach. This restriction can be easily combined with Einstein's special theory of relativity, and the resultant theory is called the doubly special theory of relativity, or DSR."

As the physicists explain, it is possible to generalize DSR to include gravity, and this theory is called gravity's rainbow.

"General relativity predicts that the geometry of space and time curves in the presence of matter, and this causes gravity to exist," Ali said. "Gravity's rainbow predicts that this curvature also depends on the energy of the observer measuring it. So, in gravity's rainbow, gravity acts differently on particles with different energies. This difference is very small for objects like the Earth. However, it becomes significant for objects like black holes."

Information paradox

The point of the work is not simply to abolish one of the defining features of a black hole, but rather the results could resolve the 40-year-old black hole information paradox that began with work by Stephen Hawking back in the 1970s. At that time, Hawking proposed that black holes emit radiation as they rotate, causing them to lose mass faster than they gain mass, so that they steadily evaporate and eventually disappear altogether.

The paradox in this scenario is that Hawking radiation originates from the mass of objects that fell into the black hole, but (in theory) the radiation does not carry complete information about these objects as it radiates away from the black hole. Eventually this radiation is expected to cause the black hole to evaporate completely. So the question then arises: where does the information about the objects go?

In everyday life, shredding or burning paper documents may be common practice to destroy information, but according to quantum theory, information can never be completely destroyed. In principle, the initial state of a system can always be determined by using information about its final state. But Hawking radiation can't determine the initial state of anything.

Many proposals have been put forth to solve this paradox, including the possibility that some information slowly leaks out over time, that information is stored deep inside the black hole, and that Hawking radiation actually does contain complete information.

One of the most developed explanations of the paradox is called black hole complementarity, which is based on the idea that an observer falling into a black hole and an observer watching from a distance see two completely different things. The in-going observer sees information (in the form of himself) pass through the black hole's event horizon, but to a distant observer it appears that the in-going observer never actually reaches the event horizon due to the strange effect in general relativity of time dilation. Instead, the distant observer sees the information being reflected away from the event horizon in the form of radiation. Since the two observers cannot communicate, there is no paradox (though to many people, such a solution may sound even stranger than the paradox itself).

Planck-scale limits

In their new paper, Ali, Faizal, and Majunder show that something very different happens in black hole complementarity when there is no event horizon below a certain length and time interval, as suggested by gravity's rainbow. Instead of it appearing to the distant observer that it takes an infinite amount of time for the in-going observer to reach the event horizon, in the new theory, that time is finite. In other words, the distant observer eventually sees the in-going observer fall into the black hole.

Using this new insight gained from gravity's rainbow, Ali, Faizal, and Majumder claim that the mysteries surrounding a black hole arise from the fact that space and time are being described at a scale at which they do not exist.

"If we restrict our description to scales at which space and time exist, then the apparent paradoxes associated with black holes seem to naturally resolve," Ali said. "For example, as the information paradox depends on the existence of the event horizon, and an event horizon like all objects does not exist below a certain length and time interval, then there is no absolute information paradox in gravity's rainbow. The absence of an effective horizon means that there is nothing absolutely stopping information from going out of the black hole."

Beyond black holes

In addition to offering a solution to the black hole information paradox, the physicists explain that the existence of minimum length and time intervals reminds us that it is important to know what questions one is allowed to ask in physics to get the correct answer. The scientists explain this idea using the analogy of a metal rod:

"We can ask, how much will a rod bend at a given force without breaking the rod? When we apply a force so great that it breaks the rod, it is meaningless to talk of bending that rod. In the same way, in gravity's rainbow, it becomes meaningless to talk of space below a certain length scale, and time below a certain interval.

"The most important lesson from this paper is that space and time exist only beyond a certain scale," Ali concluded. "There is no space and time below that scale. Hence, it is meaningless to define particles, matter, or any object, including , that exist in space and time below that scale. Thus, as long as we keep ourselves confined to the scales at which both space and time exist, we get sensible physical answers. However, when we try to ask questions at length and time intervals that are below the scales at which space and exist, we end up getting paradoxes and problems."

Explore further: Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

More information: Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Barun Majumder. "Absence of an effective Horizon for black holes in Gravity's Rainbow." EPL. DOI: 1209/0295-5075/109/20001

Also at: arXiv:1406.1980 [gr-qc]

Related Stories

Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

September 24, 2014

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 ...

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Recommended for you

Flexible ferroelectrics bring two material worlds together

January 17, 2017

Until recently, "flexible ferroelectrics" could have been thought of as the same type of oxymoronic phrase. However, thanks to a new discovery by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory in collaboration ...

First-ever X-ray image capture of material defect process

January 17, 2017

From blacksmiths forging iron to artisans blowing glass, humans have for centuries been changing the properties of materials to build better tools – from iron horseshoes and swords to glass jars and medicine vials.

Theory lends transparency to how glass breaks

January 16, 2017

Over time, when a metallic glass is put under stress, its atoms will shift, slide and ultimately form bands that leave the material more prone to breaking. Rice University scientists have developed new computational methods ...

A novel way to put flame retardant in a lithium ion battery

January 16, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Stanford University has found a novel way to introduce flame retardant into a lithium ion battery to prevent fires from occurring. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, ...

95 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (22) Jan 30, 2015
Black holes don't exist where time and space don't exist, nor do they exist where time and space do exist. Well at least there is consistency.
Gigel
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015
I wonder if space and time exist without a black hole... The normal matter mass and dimensions of the observable universe are close to those of a black hole.
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wullum
2 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015
Now wait just a minute.

In the "metal rod" example, the experiment concludes with the remnants of two (possibly more) broken rod segments, wherein the ambiguous event horizon theoretically eliminates the black hole -- with no remnants.

This comparison makes no sense to me. I understand the "meaningless" conclusion in the example, but not as it applies to the existence of a specific black hole. Perhaps, someone can offer a better analogy.

Also, at what point does the black hole cease to exist? Did it once exist and then vanish, or does it exist only because its event horizon can be defined? If it vanished, where did it go, and what did it become?
JIMBO
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2015
This paper is extremely model-dependent & has no deep or broad base of support. DSR was created ~ 10 yrs ago by Lee Smolin & Joao Magueijo to extend special relativity to arbitrary energies. One pimple on it is a `variable speed of light' (VSL) to explain away inflation. Since then, a VSL has pretty much disappeared into the dustin of physics history, w/little or no remaining research being done in the mainstream. Likewise for its gen.relativistic cousin, Gravity's Rainbow.
Recall that Hawking, in a 2014 paper devoid of math, speculated that BHs do not possess an event horizon. Balderdash !, as astronomers are developing experimental techniques to actually image the event horizon of galactic BH nuclei with X-rays. Once they do, the authors' `pot of gold' at the end of this rainbow will prove to be as illusory, as the one children are told exists after a springtime shower.
KBK
2 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2015
The only fact we know, is that there are no facts. Paradox, at either end of the global scaling of the dimensional system, as far as human perception and human technology goes.
richard miller
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015
This must be rather gauling to all those who have proposed a discrete spacetime/universe. That includes myself, and I am definitiely not the first or originator of the idea, albeit I do give it some mathematical/number-theoretic support, re 'Unity Root Matrix Thoery'

It is old news that infinities and singularities can disappear if the concept of a point also disappears, hence string theory (and URMT) amongst others. Whilst the authors do mention this, quote

"These include ideas like taking space and time as fundamentally discrete, or using some mathematical loops as a fundamental quantity to construct space and time, or even replacing particles by tiny strings, and many other exotic ideas."

they seem to be making a rather big deal about an old concept!

Bongstar420
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015
UGH...is it me, or is this more "ex nilhilo" stuff?
Like its possible to exist and not exist at the same time. Balderdash!
Bongstar420
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
This must be rather gauling to all those who have proposed a discrete spacetime/universe. That includes myself, and I am definitiely not the first or originator of the idea, albeit I do give it some mathematical/number-theoretic support, re 'Unity Root Matrix Thoery'

It is old news that infinities and singularities can disappear if the concept of a point also disappears, hence string theory (and URMT) amongst others. Whilst the authors do mention this, quote

"These include ideas like taking space and time as fundamentally discrete, or using some mathematical loops as a fundamental quantity to construct space and time, or even replacing particles by tiny strings, and many other exotic ideas."

they seem to be making a rather big deal about an old concept!



Observe, then describe. Here, apparently its describe then observe. Do you see the difference?
jb1516
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
This principle must also apply to the Big Bang at the early expansion. When the whole of time and space has yet to expand sufficiently to consider "energy travels at x meters per second in space" due to meters and seconds both being insufficient to calculate, much less energy being unraveled enough to differentiate from space, any calculations must fall apart in the same way as inside the event horizon of a black hole. Early Big Bang has to be considered as quantum mechanics, actually pre-quantum mechanics but who knows what that would even mean? Early Big Bang can't qualify for Hawking radiation, anti-Hawking radiation or any other type of radiation from a boundary that in itself is the boundary of all boundaries. In short, there had to be a point before which differentiation wasn't yet. What/when/where was that point?
richardwenzel987
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
All we have to work with are conceptual spaces, idealized mathematical constructs that may (or may not) describe actual space. Since ideal mathematical spaces are useful to a certain extent we can be lulled into thinking that actual physical space conforms perfectly to the idealizations represented by the math. Geometry ought to sooner or later encounter the sort of crisis that jarred classical physics when quantum phenomena were found.
adave
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
So if Planck length changes with increasing curvature of space to an outside observer, then the black hole will never be less than the size and energy of a virtual particle. The mass is hidden in a curled up holographic surface of space like a fractal fuzzy Calabi Yau shape. Temperature, gravity and the known forces would become non existent, a dark something waiting for the beginning of time. The rest of the black hole could evaporate but wouldn't it leave this fuzzball of curvature with a Heisenberg fuse? And then there is the question of entanglement in the interior of this dark energy. Once gravity became repulsive, All points of new space time would have the property of entanglement. Inflation would happen everywhere at the same time. Neutrino emission would cool some of the space time froth of baryonic particles until first light. Dark matter and energy should be equivalent but have no cooling mechanism except expansion. Sound familiar? Well its fun speculation!
pepe2907
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
"If the event horizon can't be defined, then the black hole itself effectively does not exist."

And why so? Quantum mechanics effectively says we can't define any particle - not precisely at least. Pretty much the same situation as with the EH according to that theory. Does that mean nothing exists?
Losik
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
plejarenrrite
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
It would seem to me that black holes are where time and space do not exist.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
When they find out that dark matter is the foundational particle that holds the construction of charged particles to make neutrons,protons ,and hydrogen atoms, they will know when these atoms will reach their structural limits in a stars core, turning them back into there respective construct parts into a particle plasma in the core with the dark matter unable to escape the core forming a containment barrier for this core plasma, making just indirect access to the volatile unstabe heavy atom fuel thru the containment barrier, and in nova the plasma escapes the dark matter is compressed into a super hot radioactive ball with mass and gravity with a particle plasma field orbiting it, an inverted star core, a dark matter mass at the galactic center
Wake
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
Doesn't time dilation say that infinite mass creates the absence of time so that without time there can be no velocity and hence nothing could "fall" into a black hole?
indio007
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015
A 100 years from now the will laugh at the black hole believers.

It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.
-Oliver Heaviside

cfmill3r
5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015
So according to the headline, "Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory".
Well, that caught my attention. And it immediately raised two questions in my mind.
First, did "old theory" suggest that black holes could exist where space and time do not exist?
And second (and I think much more interesting), according to this "new theory", what DOES exist where space and time don't exist?

"The most important lesson from this paper...." is that what exists, exists and what doesn't exist doesn't exist. What a breakthrough! This changes everything that it changes and changes nothing that it doesn't change! Which, coincidentally, are two identical sets.
voice
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
If I wanted to get from one place to another place within the known or for that matter, unknown, universe, how could I get there? Impossible you say because there is nothing in your science that would allow such travel. Perhaps we are all wrong. Think! The speed of thought heightened to a level beyond comprehension. I think it and I'm there. Do I need to be in some kind of ship in order to bring my environment wih me? Maybe not. I am cocooned in my environment by thinking it. I coast through the universe, marvelling at all I see.
pfrenger
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
I don't believe black holes can "steadily evaporate and eventually disappear altogether." At some point the residual mass of the original black hole falls below the threshold where an event horizon is generated. At that point the black hole ceases to be a "black hole" and the interior would be revealed, likely very suddenly. Any captured information remaining should now be visible. The evaporation process should cease as well (Hawking radiation). Additionally, as the mass of the black hole decreases, the size of the event horizon's radius would change and this should be detectable from outside.
tomnorman
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
Wouldn't the event horizon be the place where objects orbit the black hole at the speed of light? Wouldn't this be a fuzzy location that depended on distortions due to the black hole ingesting new material, disturbing the otherwise spherical shape of the gravitational field?

I am not a physicist nor an astronomer, but this just kind of makes sense to my simple mind.
pfrenger
4 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
A black hole and a wormhole were postulated in the recent movie "Interstellar". The wormhole was entertaining, but what would be inside one? Not normal space-time, because that would transform the topology of the universe into a torus. In my NASA presentation, 3 Oct 2014, "Frenger's Gambit: Making FTL Work" (download free copy from academia.edu) I proposed that outside normal space-time is NOTHING, i.e.: a pre-creation void, which surrounds the threads of each parallel universe. No potential particles. In this area, which I nicknamed "hyperspace", the non-Newtonian dilatant effect of space-time is absent, so that constant acceleration can eventually produce faster-than-light velocities. At this point, the prediction is that travel into the past may occur outside the spaceship. The universe would appear to shrink, so that reaching distant galaxies would be a short trip. At the destination, slow to sub-light, re-enter normal space, and your time will pop back to the original "present".
TechnoCreed
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2015
@pfrenger
Yawn! ER = EPR ie: no information travel faster than light.
mysterioso
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
My bone to pick with the event horizon duality of actor and observer is…the theory states that the observer will never see the actor crossing the event horizon because the actor's radiation, (information), is continually projected back to the observer. My problem with this is, when does the actor become information ? Where does this information get radiated from ? I would have to believe it would be in the singularity, center or "kitchen" of the black hole. There, all material junk caught in the gravity of the black hole is broken down or "cooked" into radiation and information. After that, it can be radiated out to the observer. Not when the actor is still falling across the event horizon. He has not reached the kitchen and has not been cooked yet. And, will the radiated information be projected back along the same path that the actor fell into the black hole along ? It could be spread out across the entire "sphere" of the event horizon and the observer misses 99% of it.
mysterioso
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
@ pfrenger….what about "non-local" information. The information between paired particles that causes, "spooky action at a distance". Its supposed to be instantaneous.
Osiris1
2 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
The writer does not know what she is talking about. She does not even try to guess what she would replace the interior with except nonsense. More probably is the idea in an older article concerning probable Planck stars as the true black holes. I do think, however, that at some certain large size, ultramassive black holes may tear a hole in the fabric of the universe and literally fall out to superspace or whatever is the interuniversal medium between universes, or into a higher dimensional space. Or...who knows, bud off into a 'little big bang' and create a new universe from its contents. Alternatively it could fall out and then become a 'white hole' in another or even our universe at another higher dimensional entrance point.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
Wouldn't the event horizon be the place where objects orbit the black hole at the speed of light?

That's the photon sphere, which is a bit further out than the event horizon

...which is easy to undestand because at the photon sphere an object must travel tangentially at c, while at the event horizon an object must travel radially at c to stay at the same distance relative to the center of the black hole. The photon sphere is the lowest stable orbit you can achieve. Anything below that and you better bring some good boosters to get away.
movementiseternal
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Jan 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
the non-Newtonian dilatant effect of space-time is absent, so that constant acceleration can eventually produce faster-than-light velocities.
So tell us where the infinite quantity of energy comes from to accelerate beyond FTL? Energy is derived from transformation of mass & there is no such thing as "infinite mass", as soon as all the "mass" in the universe is consumed acceleration comes to a screeching halt (Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle).

At this point, the prediction is that travel into the past may occur outside the spaceship
If you could do FTL & look backwards on the photons you passed up, sure, but you can't.

The universe would appear to shrink, so that reaching distant galaxies would be a short trip. At the destination, slow to sub-light, re-enter normal space, and your time will pop back to the original "present
The distances between everything in the universe would "appear to shrink" & at Light speed everything coalesces into a dot.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015
The "black hole" concept is not only illogical it is unobservable and defies confirmation. It is a mathematical construct made to save the theory that gravity drives planet, star and galaxy formation. The key to understanding these processes is plasma physics, not mathematics. Electromagnetic forces are 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity. As such, they do not require the creation of nonsensical ideas such as neutron stars, black holes, nuclear fusion and dark matter/energy. These unobservable fantasies were manufactured one after another as newer data failed to support gravity-based models. All of these ideas require the breakdown of the laws of physics and come closer to magical science fiction than science.
A much clearer, logical, and confirmable paradigm fits the recent observations being made. See the Electric Universe Conference 2014 for the latest information.
The success of the plasma physicists to describe
Bill Gaede
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
"We also do not exist physically below that length and time interval,"
.
Motion consists of locations of an object like a film consists of frames. A frame is a photograph, a static image, a statue. However, the bright mathemagicians are now arguing that a still image has a minimum interval of time (i.e., at least two frames). It just goes to show how much rubbish relativists have invented to cover their appalling ignorance.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
and experimentally show the processes of galaxy formation in the lab is startling. New NASA photos from Chandra clearly show Birkedale currents between galaxies on a massive scale. The NASA mission to impact the comet Temple I was a complete vindication of all predictions by the Wal Thornhill and left NASA scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. Star structure and function is poorly explained by the nuclear fusion model including the mysteries of coronal vs. surface temperature, accelerating charged particles, solar winds, differential equatorial rotation, cool penumbras and solar flares. Watching massive, classic electric arcs at the surface and their magnetic fields reminds one of "Tesla coils". The electric model of the sun is coherent, logical and explains current "mysteries" easily. Nuclear fusion is not required.
The future of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology lies in electromagnetism, not gravity.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
Electromagnetic forces are 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity


So, integration of gravitational forces over distance will overcome the effects of shorter distance electric fields.

While gravity & electric forces are subject to the inverse square law, the effects of gravity never dissipates to zero, in fact it is additive as proven by gravitational lensing. Can you demonstrate some similar effects by electric fields?
mikecandance
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
To begin, it's called an accretion disc.

There are also many theories that involve physics below the Planck length.

I believe that a Black Hole destroys information so completely that there is nothing to recover. Anything passing an event horizon effectively leaves this universe. That at least suggests the known laws of physics are no longer at work in a Black Hole.

If the standard model is no longer at work, don't expect it to give correct answers that apply to the universe at large, much less a laboratory.
deanbrown3d
3 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
You can get out of a black hole if another black hole comes sweeping by at a glance, at the right time. The second BH will push the event horizon of the one you are in further towards its center, giving you a chance to escape. I like to imagine the moon of our Earth being captured by another planet if it came by at the right moment. I also like to imagine that if the two planets were just the right mass, then the moon could be pulled out and end up being free, stuck in the gravitational balance point in between. Same idea applies to two BHs, unless I'm mistaken.
jamesblair3
2 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
what if (just a thought) the big bang went in rather than out? To an insider it looks as everything is expanding and even speeding up but, everything gets smaller with time. There is always excess energy. A black hole then joins the shrinking universe to the membrane thus it is separate from its surroundings, space/time, and is larger so it has to radiate.

htoknow
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
Esoptrics, the algebraic logic of the mirror, is the cosmological theory I've been honing since 1957. Esoptrics holds nothing in the Universe is rightly called a "black hole"; rather, that's the misnomer Science applies to the effect of something it knows nothing of: the more massive of what Esoptrics calls "super-massive point-particles". Such a concept is possible only to Esoptrics, because it rests on another concept unique to Esoptrics: a 4th dimension it calls "ontological distance" and OD for short. It's a dimension comprised of 2^256 (i.e.: c. 10^77) layers each describable as figuratively having a unique diameter equal to 2 or 4 or 6 etc. up to 2^257 times the measurement of 2^-128 (Note the minus sign!) times the diameter of the hydrogen atom with an electron in its outermost orbit [i.e.: (2^-128) x (5x10^-8) cm. = 1.469 x 10^-46 cm.]. OD level 2^256 would thus figuratively have a dia. of c. 18 trillion l.y. Oops! I'm out of characters. EDWARD N. HAAS.
GoodElf
3 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
Not all 'solutions' in mathematics have any Physics applicability when applied to physical problems, When used properly maths, is awesome. On the other hand Quantum Physics suggest there is no such thing as 'points' in space or time because of the Uncertainty Principle. Not only that a localized 'point' carries infinite energy. Nature will not allow this to occur and will evade this crisis by allowing quantum tunneling in such cases at much lower energies. That is what a Black Hole is. Spacetime does not have granularity according to all current experiments while all theories accept this assumption as a given. Wrong! You can't fit the 'square block' into the 'round hole'.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has just one general solutions unlike all other theories in Physics. One special case of this symmetric solution is the Black Hole with a singularity and due to theory limitations is way 'over-studied'. In nature the quantum theory subsumes GR and hence overrules it.
Hui Zhang
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
We still need evidence to prove this. So we can't veto infinity at present.
jerry bushman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015
Black holes are not all that complicated. Except they are not holes. The event horizon is not some moment in time or space, it is just the place in orbit around a black hole that matter is crushed and becomes part of the super mass. That is what black holes are, super masses. When matter gets too close it gets pulled in and adds to its mass. Just like an asteroid getting to close to a planet, good-bye asteroid. There is no line in the sand. Larger asteroids have to get closer than smaller ones to lose out to the earths gravity. If another SMBH traveling close to the speed of light were to cross this so called event horizon of another SMBH it could continue on without making contact. Each SMBH's trajectory would be affected but the line would have been crossed and uncrossed. No mass, whether is be a meteor or a smbh, has no affect on time or space. They only affect other matter and light. Space is not bent, only the light around an object is. It is called gravitational lensing
Porgie
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
Boy is this good news. I thought they might exist without time and space. Whew. Neither could scientists exists without it.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
the in-going observer sees information (in the form of himself) pass through the black hole's event horizon, but to a distant observer it appears that the in-going observer never actually reaches the event horizon due to the strange effect in general relativity of time dilation. Instead, the distant observer sees the information being reflected away from the event horizon in the form of radiation.


This implies that time dilation is a trick of the light, that light slows (it can't) and/or loses energy (it does) and/or that light can't escape for some other reason. But the implication is that time does not actually freeze relative to the space based observer.

This naive view can easily be disproved if we consider the observer at the event horizon. This observer sees the space based observer speed up. At the point where the space based observer sees the event horizon observer freeze, the event horizon sees an infinite amount of time pass at the space based observer.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
If the time dilation that the space based observer sees occurring at the event horizon is a trick of the light then the same must be true for the event horizon observer who see hundreds, millions and billions of years flash by. How can the future be projected if it hasn't happened yet?

The only possible solution to this paradox is that time dilation between the frames actually exists and that time actually freezes relative to the space based observer.

Thus the Black Hole can not gain any mass after its formation in the proper time of the space based observer. The black hole is frozen in time. Any Hawking radiation is impossible in a finite interval of any observer at any distance from the event horizon.
vickster339
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015
Humans are so backwards...
Rotoscience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015
We are really not going to know anything until the inner most detectable perimeter of black holes have been thoroughly mapped by radio interferometry, gamma, X-ray and visible light. In minute detail. In this case, theory is powerless without these kinds of experimentation. A black hole is that weird. Conjecture is almost meaningless at best and not useful at worst.
ichisan
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015
Talk about crackpottery. If space exists, where is it? And if time exists, when is it? Since neither exists (they're abstract entities), then neither black holes nor wormholes exists.
burningpostage
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
UGH...is it me, or is this more "ex nilhilo" stuff?

Perhaps "it's" actually hidden in the genesis of your username..? ;)
burningpostage
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
I'd like to hear Thomas Pynchon's take on the theory's name...
burningpostage
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
To begin, it's called an accretion disc.


What is..? The event horizon? Because if that's what you mean, it actually isn't, which is why there are two different terms.
AZWarrior
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Assuming a point at which time no longer exists within the black hole, then space no longer exists and the Higgs field no longer exists, so mass no longer exists, but interestingly, gravity seems to increase with every object consumed. I think that is a paradox to solve before we get too excited.
narayansalvi_vikas
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
but what if the expanding or shrinking nature of black hole is relatively small with respect to time and space, in this case black holes exist.
kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
Timespace is bent by matter so that two observers will not agree upon the time nor the location of an event or object. This is a generalization of quantum mechanics which is indeed a manifestation of momentum phase space at the plank level, and which expands with scale to make objects as large as black holes uncertain thus eliminating the Hawking information paradox. Curved momentum space is just quantum space-time
movementiseternal
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Job001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Philosophical silly, time is a pretend measure between events while space is a pretend measure between things. Either can be multiplied or mathematically manipulated to get zero to infinite scales proving nada in pretend land.
The issue is, does pretend zero time and zero space exist? Na, zero does NOT exist, it is a convenient handy accounting pretend, 0=1-1=0. Mathematically valid, but zero does not "EXIST".
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Lower limits on Planck length, time and mass are remnants of the probabilistic statistics of QM and don't represent the deterministic processes at smaller scales, from which larger particles emerge.
TimLong2001
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
BTW, obscurantism is a scientific crime (i.e., restrictive "ratings"). Another example is the way Humason restricted access to the Mt. Wilson Observatory to only those Astronomers who accepted Lemaitre's interpretation of the background red shift.
swordsman
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015
"Black holes don't exist where space and time don't exist".

Nor does anything else.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
Math wars.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015
pfrenger, hm, if there's no space and time /I really don't know what "normal" means in this context/, don't you think it would be a little bit problematic to travel, let's say from point A to point B if there's no points A and B and, well, traveling itself is a process, so you also need time for it?

viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
BTW, obscurantism is a scientific crime (i.e., restrictive "ratings"). Another example is the way Humason restricted access to the Mt. Wilson Observatory to only those Astronomers who accepted Lemaitre's interpretation of the background red shift.


You are right. Thus defend the dogmas of cosmology. Not much different as in medieval Europe. The same immature way of thinking, centering on strong feelings and desires. Scientists who defend ideas different from the politically correct theories, not receive funding and access to relevant key information. Modern times and darwinian moral standarts.

kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
pfrenger, hm, if there's no space and time /I really don't know what "normal" means in this context/, don't you think it would be a little bit problematic to travel, let's say from point A to point B if there's no points A and B and, well, traveling itself is a process, so you also need time for it?

Spacetime consists of intervals. Momentum consists of points. Where time or space intervals are large two observers may experience different spacetimes. For example the black hole could be in two different locations for two observers at a given time. In other spacetimes the black home may not even exist. What curves momentum space is unknown. I suspect it may be information
jimbo92107
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015
Now wait just a minute.

In the "metal rod" example, the experiment concludes with the remnants of two (possibly more) broken rod segments, wherein the ambiguous event horizon theoretically eliminates the black hole -- with no remnants.

This comparison makes no sense to me. I understand the "meaningless" conclusion in the example, but not as it applies to the existence of a specific black hole. Perhaps, someone can offer a better analogy.....


I know what you mean. The rod example is a matter of changing a definition (you still have a rod, in pieces), where the black hole concept is existential. What they do share is the idea of rules of the game. They're saying that below certain size levels, the time and space rules of the universe no longer apply, so at that point you should stop your calculations.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015
They're saying that below certain size levels, the time and space rules of the universe no longer apply, so at that point you should stop your calculations.
Or any size at all, given a sufficient time interval. Spacetime is subject to uncertainty at classical scales just as particles are subject to uncertainty around multiples of the Plank length
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
BTW, obscurantism is a scientific crime (i.e., restrictive "ratings"). Another example is the way Humason restricted access to the Mt. Wilson Observatory to only those Astronomers who accepted Lemaitre's interpretation of the background red shift.


You are right. Thus defend the dogmas of cosmology. Not much different as in medieval Europe. The same immature way of thinking, centering on strong feelings and desires. Scientists who defend ideas different from the politically correct theories, not receive funding and access to relevant key information. Modern times and darwinian moral standart


@ viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?
Losik
Jan 31, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015
@ viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?


For good reason, he was justifying his religious POV;

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven
4D4Life
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015
Under the gravitational force of a super massive black hole, I understand that the event horizon is the sphere in which the escape velocity of all objects within must be greater than the speed of light. How then can black holes emit radiation, which is another form of light? Is the event horizon really spherical with weak areas (poles?) which allows energy to escape?
dumpsta101
4 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
i always thought the idea of planck scale fractal dimensions were a interesting idea that COULD explain this whole event horizon/quantum gravity problem. here is a article on that http://phys.org/n...574.html
its alittle old so im not sure if evidence has come up to disprove it since then but id like to hear peoples ideas on this subject :D
movementiseternal
Feb 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Feb 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rickey
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
I can understand some theory of what someone might have . BUT the facts that they want to base what as when they can base what on event horizon by a base of a a theory or when the event Horizon is . The facts that from this side that if we dont see a event horizon that it mean that there is not one . The bases of that they wish to base time on even horizon and have not based on event because they have had no event horizon ? then in the dark when there was not light that people would try to claim time started when 2 objects hit in the dark and sparked a event horizon and not before . the bases of handling time in space would be always considered different to the bases of what would be a bases of time as we have had the theory of . The claim of a Black hole could not be without time . I would think it would be with or without time since there is no real laws to time or without time that can be shown . if the tree falls in the woods does it make a sound ? no real evidence on theory .
Rickey
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
In other words that black holes are there and you cant say they cant be there without space or time since a black hole that is there without a event horizon that is known of . that means it is in both world of time and without time right and then there would conflict of the way people think time is or what it can be based on . it would only show within reason that you cant make laws of time when other facts is shown that some thing are there that they claim cant be there because of theory . see thats the bad parts of the theory's that some base on maths and they claim that something cant be there but everyone sees it . they claim you cant make fire but yet we light a match . is it theory's need to be a new way of thinking or the maths to use to base theory on need to be done again or do we need a complete new math and ways of thinking because the facts that we have fire OR a black hole they said we could not have and in facts that we do .
viko_mx
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
@TechnoCreed

" viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?"

I do not think there is a sign of equality between a catholic priest and a true christian. Does any church officer is a minister of God? There are many esoterics in the ranks of the clergy.
Rickey
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
yeah it can be long battles and arguments on a base and each wants their opinion to be right and theory to be right . we are missing so many things that people looks past BECAUSE they wish to base their Theory's and bases of thinking on . its only a start and for fact that Hawkings is extreamly smart person . Nothing is always perfect . A real massive subject and it needs a lot of work on it because of facts that things are there that people claim can not be there .
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015
All we have to do to answer this is ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?".

Luke 19:27 - "Everyone who does not agree that I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The truth is that there is ONE eternity before this moment in time, and there is ANOTHER eternity after this moment in time, so 2 x eternity = the cube root of infinity, squared, squared.

It's in the bible - idiots.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
All we have to do to answer this is ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?".

Luke 19:27 - "Everyone who does not agree that I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The truth is that there is ONE eternity before this moment in time, and there is ANOTHER eternity after this moment in time, so 2 x eternity = the cube root of infinity, squared, squared.

It's in the bible - idiots.

The bible is a codex, written in parable/metaphor style. Those two "eternities" you speak of are actual physical states that we are sandwiched in the middle of. We're a "boundary" layer.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
To TechnoCreed re: BTW, obscurantism is a scientific crime (i.e., restrictive "ratings"). Another example is the way Humason restricted access to the Mt. Wilson Observatory to only those Astronomers who accepted Lemaitre's interpretation of the background red shift.

You are right. Thus defend the dogmas of cosmology. Not much different as in medieval Europe. The same immature way of thinking, centering on strong feelings and desires. Scientists who defend ideas different from the politically correct theories, not receive funding and access to relevant key information. Modern times and darwinian moral standart

@ viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?

That is totally ridiculous! It is on the basis of being a simplistic interpretation of the cause of the background red shift. The obscurantist aspect is also prevalent relating to Humason and should be researched.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
BTW, obscurantism is a scientific crime (i.e., restrictive "ratings"). Another example is the way Humason restricted access to the Mt. Wilson Observatory to only those Astronomers who accepted Lemaitre's interpretation of the background red shift.


@TimLong2001
Where have you heard that story and who is Humason ? reference please... links

TechnoCreed
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
@viko
Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit; same society has today's Pope Francis. The Jesuit society demands four vows of its members: poverty, chastity, obedience to Christ, and obedience to the Pope. The purpose of the Jesuits is the propagation of the Catholic faith.
In 1960 he was named Prelate by Pope John XXIII and this is why he is referred to as Monsignor Lemaître. So in the church he had the same ranking has a Bishop. The same year he also became president of the Pontifical Academy.
So if you are a man of faith and science Lemaître should be one of your models.
http://theor.jinr...bio.html
Losik
Feb 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015
@TechnoCreed

"So if you are a man of faith and science Lemaître should be one of your models."

For me he is an ordinary person like everyone else. I do not see logic and reason to accept his ideas.which are not biblical. If one christian questioned creation described in the first book of the Bible - Genesis, as did this priest, and express such ideas about the creation of the being, he in fact is esoteric, but not a true christian.
GoodElf
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
i always thought the idea of planck scale fractal dimensions were a interesting idea that COULD explain this whole event horizon/quantum gravity problem. here is a article on that http://phys.org/n...574.html
its alittle old...
Theory tries to solve the problem of smaller scales from divergence by fractals. The surface of a black hole and a fundamental particle are two dimensional (plus time). The three dimensions plus time universe is gradually reduced to two in small fractal steps. All current experiments indicate spacetime is not granular or modifying dimensions with scale and 'empty space' obeys classical Lorentz Covariance. All fundamental particles obey quantum principles and measurement measures their properties, breaks LC are non-local. IMHO this apparent non-commutative break is due to near field quantum tunneling or "wormholes" with virtual particles from 'elsewhere'. The apparent dim loss due to length contraction and SR. Perhaps a Scale Symmetric Theory works.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
Pretty obvious, our mathematics is based upon topology, the topology of space-time has never been defined with Formal Logic. So here is a classical error in definition! Not to mention the "dementia." The proof of it's non-existence with the faulty logic is "mind blowing!"
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
LOL, simple dense structures definable by an elementary kid, "It's humongous!"
TechnoCreed
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
So if you are a man of faith and science Lemaître should be one of your models.

For me he is an ordinary person like everyone else. I do not see logic and reason to accept his ideas.which are not biblical. If one christian questioned creation described in the first book of the Bible - Genesis, as did this priest, and express such ideas about the creation of the being, he in fact is esoteric, but not a true christian.
Have you any interests in the physical nature of the world? Why are you here if not to discuss the different aspects of what is observed and measured in nature and in laboratories?

Cont
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
...
Are you telling me that you are here commenting but you are not relating in any way to what is being said? What would be the point of having discussions with people that you cannot relate to? Those are only questions to satisfy my curiosity. I need to understand your motivations. I have to tell you that I am agnostic but do not see your faith as a flaw; I do not have any prejudgement on that. But if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you bet that I will put you on ignore. If you are just a curious about the opinion of others that is more interesting.
t_d_lowe
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015
"according to a new generalization of Einstein's theory of gravity called "gravity's rainbow," it is not possible to define the position of the event horizon with arbitrary precision..."
But it is not possible to define it with arbitrary precision *currently*, the horizon varies depending on your velocity, and your velocity is subject to quantum uncertainty.

"...If the event horizon can't be defined, then the black hole itself effectively does not exist."
That is not a logical consequence.

"an event horizon like all objects does not exist below a certain length and time interval"
But the event horizon is not an object, it is just an imaginary surface in space.
dumpsta101
not rated yet Feb 02, 2015
Theory tries to solve the problem of smaller scales from divergence by fractals. The surface of a black hole and a fundamental particle are two dimensional (plus time). The three dimensions plus time universe is gradually reduced to two in small fractal steps. All current experiments indicate spacetime is not granular or modifying dimensions with scale and 'empty space' obeys classical Lorentz Covariance. All fundamental particles obey quantum principles and measurement measures their properties, breaks LC are non-local. IMHO this apparent non-commutative break is due to near field quantum tunneling or "wormholes" with virtual particles from 'elsewhere'. The apparent dim loss due to length contraction and SR. Perhaps a Scale Symmetric Theory

thanks for the comment. I've got some research to do! :D
jazzy_j_man
not rated yet Feb 02, 2015
Reminds one of the Whoniverse concept of "interstitial time", or as Sgt. Benton called it, what's between now and now, what exists on below the Plank scale. Mon dieu, Moffatt should rewatch one of those old episodes and remember that there's an adjective with "science fiction" and it's not all just stupid fiction, as with last season's "Shoot the Moon" and "In the Forest of the Night". It's like he hired Tarantino as the physics consultant. That man's intuitive grasp of physics has to be the worst on the planet. http://tardis.wik...ial_time
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2015


""Have you any interests in the physical nature of the world? Why are you here if not to discuss the different aspects of what is observed and measured in nature and in laboratories?"

Yes, thats why I'm here with timid hope to read a realistic article about the world in which we live. It seems that department technology is most interesting and realistic, and this is understandable due to competition in the technology sector. But departments for the fundamental sciences, physics and cosmology for example are in permanent stupor the last few decades unfortunately. There is not even small step forward. Who fleeing from the truth can not progress. I still hope to have a movement in forward direction.

When I argue always declare a clear position. You just do not read my comments enough to understand my point of view and motivation but this is not my problem.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2015
In the scientific community dealing with fundamental science today there is no real competition. Funding and access to new key information from observations and experiments receive mainly those research groups that follow the political line.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2015
A 100 years from now the will laugh at the black hole believers.
Like the way we laugh at the story of an apple falling on a dude's head? Dunce.
=-=-=

I coast through the universe, marvelling at all I see.
Cool, how 'bout coasting over to 67P and tell us where Philae is...
=-=-=

Conjecture is almost meaningless at best and not useful at worst.
Not at all—it's extremely helpful in allowing us to more quickly recognize what we'll be observing. The need for the observations you mention is a very good point.
=-=-=

As for the article, an easy and extremely fascinating example to the contrary is Sgr A* – it certainly seems to exist and calling it something other than a black hole doesn't change that fact. And below the Planck scale, {Doesn't Exist} + {Doesn't Exist} + ... =/= {Does Exist}
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015


""Have you any interests in the physical nature of the world? Why are you here if not to discuss the different aspects of what is observed and measured in nature and in laboratories?"

Yes, thats why I'm here with timid hope to read a realistic article about the world in which we live. It seems that department technology is most interesting and realistic, and this is understandable due to competition in the technology sector. But departments for the fundamental sciences, physics and cosmology for example are in permanent stupor the last few decades unfortunately. There is not even small step forward. Who fleeing from the truth can not progress. I still hope to have a movement in forward direction.

When I argue always declare a clear position. You just do not read my comments enough to understand my point of view and motivation but this is not my problem.


You must not have heard about the accelerating expansion of the universe and other interesting advances.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.