Page 1 of 2
1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:00 pm
by Aidoneus
http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the ... -universe/If this paper holds up to review, it seems that the story of the origin of the universe may need to be rewritten. (IMHO, the situation in astronomy today is beginning to look more and more like the period just before Copernicus overthrew the Ptolemaic model.)
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:11 pm
by Bill Spight
And here I was looking for a game record where the Black Hole opening was a loser.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:17 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
I'm inclined to group this with the proverbial paper that proved that bumblebees can't fly. There are things that act like the mathematical models of black holes, and any paper that argues that they are not black holes should have some alternate theory for their existence.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:50 pm
by ez4u
Realize that the 'article' is from the PR department of the author's university.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:09 pm
by snorri
I used to follow gr-qc and hep-th religiously and there was a time when I wouldn't have missed the 1st preprint. How low I have fallen since selling out to corporate America...
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:20 pm
by DrStraw
I have one comments on this:
Until more evidence is given I know which side of the Hawking vs Mersini-Houghton equation I will give weight to.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:43 pm
by oca
Bill Spight wrote:And here I was looking for a game record where the Black Hole opening was a loser.
Me too...
saw that on SL
StrangeOpeningsOhashi Hirofumi 6p has a video has introduced several openings, The Black Hole on all four 7-7 points
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:29 am
by Aidoneus
ez4u wrote:Realize that the 'article' is from the PR department of the author's university.
But the relevant paper is linked at the end. Surely, you did not judge the authors' work based on the PR blurb.
Having said that, I put quotes around proof precisely because this is a proof via a numerical model. And I have to beat it into my students' heads that a model is not the reality--or the map is not the territory, if you will.
Again, I found the paper interesting but lacking sufficient detail for me to judge the exact "simplifying" assumptions and numerical methods used to obtain the conclusion (dissipation of mass through Hawking radiation just before reaching the Schwarzschild radius, producing a subsequent expansion instead of collapse into a black hole). Of course, even full details would not enable
me to hazard a final assessment. Like DrStraw, I await reaction from specialists in the field.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:35 pm
by cyclops
To me her theory is very elegant. She makes the second law of thermodynamics, General Relativity and QM a holy trinity. It would be nice to proof that two of them implies the third. Male physics would be upset.
"LEGIONS of disembodied brains floating in deep space threaten to undermine our understanding of the universe. New mathematical modelling suggests string theory and its multiple universes may just provide our salvation – and that could win the controversial theory a few more backers. " copied from
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:44 am
by TheBigH
Male physics? What?
Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:49 am
by oca
TheBigH wrote:Male physics? What?
There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:04 am
by Aidoneus
I've read Woit's blog a few times, but I always suspect that I am reading a joke that goes over my head or maybe an item rejected by the Onion...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/raving ... ysic,1145/
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:44 am
by ez4u
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:11 am
by Bill Spight
TheBigH wrote:Male physics? What?
Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.
A really dark gray hole?
Re: 1st "proof" against black holes
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:32 am
by Bantari
TheBigH wrote:Male physics? What?
Anyway, the observational evidence in favour of black holes existing is overwhelming. There is something weighing millions of solar masses in the center of our galaxy (and most other galaxies), and nothing else but a black hole fits the description.
Nothing else we know of?
