Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Black Holes New proposal !

  1. #1 Black Holes New proposal ! 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Please, have a look to this doc: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.2734.pdf

    Abstract— The established concept of black hole emerged from several results founded on Einstein's
    General Theory of Relativity. In this article, the relationship between these results is analyzed, and it is
    pointed out how, in spite of being individually correct, the sum of all them do not actually determine the
    existence of black holes. Some logical incompatibilities in the standard Black Hole model are put into
    evidence, and the alternative scheme of the Never-Stationary Gravitational Collapse is defended. To
    illustrate the essence of the new paradigm, a simple but conceptually complete toy model is worked out
    and a qualitatively suitable metric for Never-Stationary Gravitational Collapse is presented.


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Have you checked their mathematics?

    As this was written by an engineer (rather than a cosmologist) and is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, I won't hold my breath.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    It's complete nonsense. The author subdivides a spherical matter distribution into shells and examines the behaviour of the shells without taking into account either the structure of the matter distribution, nor the gravitational interaction between the shells. According to this "toy model", a neutron star would qualitatively behave in the same way as a sphere full of air !

    The correct treatment of a gravitational collapse needs to take into account structure, pressure, density and stresses of the mass distribution, as well as counterforces introduced by atomic and particle interactions. You can't just apply a vacuum solution ( such as exterior Schwarzschild geometry ) to the interior of a spherical mass and expect everything to work out. Here's how it is really done:

    http://www.aei.mpg.de/~rezzolla/lnot...e/collapse.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3660v1.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Please, hava a look to the following article in spanish (but you could tranlate into english): Un fsico espaol neg los agujeros negros clsicos cuatro aos antes que Hawking - ABC.es

    Mainly it says:

    A few weeks ago, the British physicist Stephen Hawking caused a considerable stir in the academic world to propose, in a first investigation yet peer reviewed, that black holes do not exist as such, but are very different from what we thought we knew . In its conclusions, eliminated the "event horizon", the invisible boundary from which nothing can escape, not even light, to go for a "apparent horizon" that temporarily holds prisoners of matter and energy and then release them again. When Miquel Piñol, a Spanish young physicist currently working at the Hospital La Fe in Valencia, read these results was amazed. Four years ago, signed by Ignacio López-Aylagas, computer engineer, a job that greatly resembles in its theoretical conception, to which now says Oxford scientist.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Please, hava a look to the following article in spanish
    Not sure what this has to do with the OP, the article linked to is still nonsense, for the reasons pointed out already.
    DogLady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Please, hava a look to the following article in spanish (but you could tranlate into english): Un fsico espaol neg los agujeros negros clsicos cuatro aos antes que Hawking - ABC.es

    Mainly it says:

    A few weeks ago, the British physicist Stephen Hawking caused a considerable stir in the academic world to propose, in a first investigation yet peer reviewed, that black holes do not exist as such, but are very different from what we thought we knew . In its conclusions, eliminated the "event horizon", the invisible boundary from which nothing can escape, not even light, to go for a "apparent horizon" that temporarily holds prisoners of matter and energy and then release them again. When Miquel Piñol, a Spanish young physicist currently working at the Hospital La Fe in Valencia, read these results was amazed. Four years ago, signed by Ignacio López-Aylagas, computer engineer, a job that greatly resembles in its theoretical conception, to which now says Oxford scientist.
    Sounds like this guy is dishonest as well as wrong. Hawking's paper was about quantum effects, which this Spanish engineer does not consider at all.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    So, your opinion is that:

    - The contents of this proposal has nosense.
    - The autor is dishonest as well as wrong.
    -
    Hawking's paper was about quantum effects, and other concepts.

    Ok...will see...it is being in study !
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Have a look to this other...it gives other points of view: El joven físico español que se adelantó a Hawking: "En ciencia también se trabaja con prejuicios"

    Miquel Piñol is now Medical...but he studies Physics before...and the Engineer is the co-author...

    "All this involves too much break with what has been done," Piñol values​​. "While yes it has had greater impact than when we get out, the academic level is very systematically rejected," says physical immobility and says see as the main engine of the widespread negative: "Some people have assumed that the old theory that does not value the new hypothesis or even as a possibility and clings to objections if they reconsidered, be discovered that are not so. "
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Do you have a link to the Hawking paper?... I cannot find it !
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    So, your opinion is that:

    - The contents of this proposal has nosense.
    - The autor is dishonest as well as wrong.
    -
    Hawking's paper was about quantum effects, and other concepts.

    Ok...will see...it is being in study !
    My opinion is that the author did not do the analysis correctly, because of the following reasons :

    1. He failed to take the gravitational interactions between his "shells" into account
    2. He did not consider any contributions by pressure, density and stresses of matter
    3. He bases the analysis on a metric which is valid only in vacuum, not in the interior of matter

    Hence the conclusions reached are physically meaningless.

    "All this involves too much break with what has been done," Piñol values​​. "While yes it has had greater impact than when we get out, the academic level is very systematically rejected," says physical immobility and says see as the main engine of the widespread negative: "Some people have assumed that the old theory that does not value the new hypothesis or even as a possibility and clings to objections if they reconsidered, be discovered that are not so. "
    This is off-topic and inconsequential so far as the paper in the OP is concerned. It is still physically meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you have a link to the Hawking paper?... I cannot find it !
    [1401.5761] Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
    DogLady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you have a link to the Hawking paper?... I cannot find it !
    [1401.5761] Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
    OK thaks !

    Please, could you tell me the difference between both proposals?... Are they both not the same or similar proposal?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post

    OK thaks !

    Please, could you tell me the difference between both proposals?... Are they both not the same or similar proposal?
    They are very different approaches to very different problems. The link you have provided attempts to get rid of the singularity at the centre, whereas Hawking attempts to address the "information paradox" by considering what happens at the event horizon once you take quantum effects into account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK.. I will try to invite to the FORUM to the author to discuss it !
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    So, your opinion is that:

    - The contents of this proposal has nosense.
    - The autor is dishonest as well as wrong.
    -
    Hawking's paper was about quantum effects, and other concepts.

    Ok...will see...it is being in study !
    My opinion is that the author did not do the analysis correctly, because of the following reasons :

    1. He failed to take the gravitational interactions between his "shells" into account
    2. He did not consider any contributions by pressure, density and stresses of matter
    3. He bases the analysis on a metric which is valid only in vacuum, not in the interior of matter

    Hence the conclusions reached are physically meaningless.

    "All this involves too much break with what has been done," Piñol values​​. "While yes it has had greater impact than when we get out, the academic level is very systematically rejected," says physical immobility and says see as the main engine of the widespread negative: "Some people have assumed that the old theory that does not value the new hypothesis or even as a possibility and clings to objections if they reconsidered, be discovered that are not so. "
    This is off-topic and inconsequential so far as the paper in the OP is concerned. It is still physically meaningless.
    Wow, those are some significant shortcomings, shortcomings that would completely disqualify it from passing peer review.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,343
    With those shortcomings if it were submitted to a journal it would probably fail the initial "laugh test" by the editor and they wouldn't waste time sending it for review...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK.. I will try to invite to the FORUM to the author to discuss it !
    dapifo, this is an amateur forum for people interested in the sciences; it is not a place to peer-review papers. I am not a physicist, nor is anyone else here so far as I am aware, so we are not the appropriate target audience for the author. If he is serious about it he needs to get this published and submitted for peer review in the proper technical journals - no one on this forum, including myself, can do that for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    OK, but possible he would like to explain you better...just as an amateur also !

    You seam to be very sure it is not correct and it is different to the Hawkigns proposal..and possible he could explain us it better and in detail !

    We´ll see !
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    it is different to the Hawkigns proposal
    They address completely different issues.

    You seam to be very sure it is not correct
    I have given my opinion on that already - after all, how can you model a gravitational collapse without making reference to the energy-momentum tensor of the collapsing object even once in the entire paper ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Goddess of Eternity rmbettencourt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Beverly Hills
    Posts
    221
    *peeks in thread and whispers
    I love black holes
    avec amour,
    RM
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Black holes, Dumb holes and accelerating EoS
    By leohopkins in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 13th, 2013, 06:19 AM
  2. White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.
    By Victor2009 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 21st, 2009, 07:12 AM
  3. Black Holes
    By dave markon in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 11th, 2008, 05:01 AM
  4. Black Holes
    By rhysboi1991 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2008, 02:15 AM
  5. black holes
    By shawngoldw in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: March 8th, 2007, 05:53 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •