black hole and its impossibility

[dannyf]

We talked numerous times about the only truth in science is that it advances by reputing itself. What's true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.

As if to highlight that, here is an article on black hole and its impossibility: http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

The gist of the story is that the lady proved mathematically that black holes cannot exist.

I don't know her well but her co-author, Peiffer from Toronto, is very well known in this field.

So let time you attempt to quote something as "settled science", think again.

[miguelvp]

And the funny thing is that the link to the article says that they do exist

carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist

I'm not sad about Black Holes not existing, but i'm a bit bummed out about the Event Horizons going away with them.

[ptodorov]

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed

[dannyf]

not peer-reviewed

So is Newton's work and tons of other works that lay the foundation of science as we know it today.

don't give too much credit to "peer-review", as you may have learned through the climate gate.

[Dongulus]

A single paper submitted into a non-peer-reviewed repository and whose conclusion is based entirely on manipulating mathematical models is yet to prove anything. It is merely a suggestion which needs to be rigorously verified. If we're lucky and in time this paper comes to show that there is something wrong with our current understanding, then we might start to shed some light on what we don't know.

If this does accomplish something regarding truth in science, I think it should be to make us think about what it is that we consider science. True that the conclusion of this paper derives entirely from theory, the same can be mostly said for the conclusion that black holes should exist (though some limited experiential evidence might support black holes). The state of physics at the moment places too high a value upon derivations. Science needs to be grounded in observations of the natural world, not equations.

[wiss]

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed

Peer-reviewed means that 2 other researchers in the field (hopefully) spent a few hours reading the manuscript. At least 80% of what is published in scientific papers is a waste of forest. BTW, the researcher did publish the first paper in Physics Letters B ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686 ).

[Rufus]

What's true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.

Science doesn't give any truths, it gives theories. Disproving a theory makes it false. Failing to disprove a theory doesn't make it true, it just makes it a better theory than one that has failed to be disproved less.

[T3sl4co1l]

What's true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.

Science doesn't give any truths, it gives theories. Disproving a theory makes it false. Failing to disprove a theory doesn't make it true, it just makes it a better theory than one that has failed to be disproved less.

*Clears throat*

Hypotheses are unproven theorems.  "Theorem" is colloquially taken to mean 'hypothesis', for some reason.
Theorems are proven hypotheses.  (Weight of proof varies with discipline; math and philosophy use logic alone, while science admits statistical proof.)
Disproven hypotheses are anywhere from "just ideas" to... shoddy labwork.  Like the above.

Tim

[coppice]

Hypotheses are unproven theorems.

Most hypotheses are much less than that. A theorem is a way to explain observations. Most hypotheses are not based on any observations.

[electrophiliate]

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole. Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

Doesn't the collapse of a dying star occur rather rapidly once fusion has ceased i.e. seconds time scale? The energy rate given off as Hawking radiation must be staggering if it can decrease the density of a high-mass collapsing star fast enough to prevent the formation of a black hole.

[edit: added quote]

[Len]

So let time you attempt to quote something as "settled science", think again.

You should take your own advice.

There's a ton of evidence now that black holes do exist. It's going to take a lot more than one paper with no real evidence behind it to prove otherwise.

[Richard Head]

What about the observed binary system Cygness X1 where the one star orbits its invisible partner and is continually being consumed by it?
I thought this was the best evidence of the existance of black holes.

[westfw]

The way I read the article, what was claimed to be proven was that a collapsing star could not FORM a black hole, which is somewhat different than "black holes can't exist."

[Wytnucls]

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/09/25/yes-virginia-black-holes/

[tggzzz]

don't give too much credit to "peer-review", as you may have learned through the climate gate.

Does that imply you are a climate change denier?  (BTW, the "climate gate" claims of the deniers were very thoroughly investigated and shown to be false; climate change science's reputation is intact.)

While I am curious to the answer to the above question, but I will not respond to climate change true/false discussions since they are too OT for this board - and inevitably generate more heat than light.

[Artlav]

Strange thing is, i read something like that coming from Hawking himself, years ago.
The basic idea is that "singularity" will never form, since all the mass will radiate away before it could fully collapse.

Taking time dilation into account, that would still mean billions of billions of years from outside perspective, during which there will be an object sitting there that is super-massive, and by all looks and appearances a black hole.

So, i don't really know what this paper is even supposed to show.

don't give too much credit to "peer-review"

Peer-review is important as a double check on your publication, a fresh look by an expert in the field.
It's like someone else looking over your design, much more likely to find errors.

as you may have learned through the climate gate.

Debunked thoroughly and so many times over the last years that it isn't even funny any more.

[wiss]

Strange thing is, i read something like that coming from Hawking himself, years ago.
The basic idea is that "singularity" will never form, since all the mass will radiate away before it could fully collapse.

I can easily buy that the true singularity does not form, but the event-horizon will still form. An outside observer will never observe anything actually pass the event-horizon, just get redder and closer.
For practical purposes; a black hole is something with an event-horizon, for me at least .
The event-horizon will not start out with a small diameter, it will "suddenly" appear at some radius depending on the mass inside of it.

[dannyf]

Strange thing is, i read something like that coming from Hawking himself, years ago.

That was his solution to the firewall paradox, introduced as a solution to the original blackbox singularity / entropy issue. Widely reported as his saying that black holes don't exist - which he didn't mean.

The energy rate given off as Hawking radiation must be staggering

That was my initial reaction as well. But hawking radiation is very small, for a reasonably sized blackhole. So unless she was saying that every blackhole is a micro blackhole, I don't see how that could hold.

I think what she is saying is that the radiation prior to the formation of a blackhole (so the radiation she was talking about is not hawking radiation) is so intense that it evaporates the mass faster than the collapse of the mass -> no blackhole.

Haven't seen her paper so it is entirely my conjecture at this point.

[rs20]

not peer-reviewed

So is Newton's work and tons of other works that lay the foundation of science as we know it today.

don't give too much credit to "peer-review", as you may have learned through <insert topic which doesn't seem to prove any peer-review themed point at all>.

They want to just keep things the same. Perhaps they are the descendants of those who argued that the earth was flat, that we didn't need cars because horses worked just fine, told the Wright Brothers they were out of their minds, or insisted that we'd never reach the moon. Or perhaps they are the voices of larger entities who are now feeling threatened by the paradigm shift that is Solar Roadways.

See a parallel? Stick to arguing the facts, rather than ridiculously trying to downplay peer review by naming contrived, cherry-picked, historical scientific progress. If so much crap gets peer reviewed, it's all the more damning that this hasn't been peer reviewed. I don't believe anyone on this forum is particularly adept at particle physics, so I'd just wait a month and see if anyone of stature finds the flaw in this claim. A single paper is a blip of noise against the signal that is scientific consensus. This smells just like those faster-than-light neutrinos.

[Wytnucls]

The researcher dilemma: 'publish or perish'

[Rufus]

What's true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.

Science doesn't give any truths, it gives theories. Disproving a theory makes it false. Failing to disprove a theory doesn't make it true, it just makes it a better theory than one that has failed to be disproved less.

*Clears throat*

Hypotheses are unproven theorems.

I think you are confusing mathematics with science.

[electrophiliate]

Good point about time dilation. I haven't seen the full paper either, and probably wouldn't understand it all anyway, judging from the earlier paper.

Pre-publication peer review certainly has significant problems (and much of what is published ends up being irrelevant), but what is the better alternative?
Post-publication peer review seems to be increasingly important these days. Along with meta-analysis, being careful of GIGO of course.

"Publish or perish", or hide null results in the drawer never to see the light of day if data-dredging and post-hoc protocol revisions fail to support the hypothesis.

Jokes aside, publication bias and selecting reporting are a significant problem.

It is said that science is eventually self-correcting in practice. Hopefully that also includes flaws in publication procedures!

[Wytnucls]