Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do away with them.

[Admin]

Black hole singularities defy the laws of physics. New research presents a bold solution to this puzzle: Black holes may actually be a theoretical type of star called a 'gravastar,' filled with universe-expanding dark energy.

Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do away with them. : Read more

 

[FireNWater]

I doubt that anything in the universe is capable of "defying physics" . . . not even Scottie . . .

 

[Atlan0001]

Black holes as "gravastars"?! NOT A CHANCE! ON YOUR LIFE, NOT A CHANCE! as I now realize gravity to be.

The gravitational force (inclusive of the asymptotic Casimir effect strong (nuclear) binding force) is the force of the open systemic, I now realize. Which assigns the closed systemic to the other and anti-gravitational force, the electroweak force.

Rather than a "gravastar", a black hole is an "electroweak star" (and all that entails)! And intrinsically has integral particle-wave point-portal singularities! It isn't all the "four horsemen" of the closed world system "Apocalyptic" Q (DQ) (QM)-Verse. I probe it, discover from it, and use it all the time in my picturing and modeling, much as I detest any "closed world system."

 

[billslugg]

I don't understand the assumption the center of a Black Hole be a singularity. We know a neutron star has a finite radius, we know when it gains mass and the escape velocity exceeds c it becomes dark. Why must it necessarily collapse further. The event horizon is a function of mass, spin and charge. It would not change whether the BH was crowding the inside of the event horizon or a singularity at the center.

 

[Atlan0001]

Black holes as "gravastars"?! NOT A CHANCE! ON YOUR LIFE, NOT A CHANCE! as I now realize gravity to be.

The gravitational force (inclusive of the asymptotic Casimir effect strong (nuclear) binding force) is the force of the open systemic, I now realize. Which assigns the closed systemic to the other and anti-gravitational force, the electroweak force.

Rather than a "gravastar", a black hole is an "electroweak star" (and all that entails)! And intrinsically has integral particle-wave point-portal singularities! It isn't all the "four horsemen" of the closed world system "Apocalyptic" Q (DQ) (QM)-Verse. I probe it, discover from it, and use it all the time in my picturing and modeling, much as I detest any "closed world system."

The Schrodinger and asymptotic "point-portal" singularity (singularities) [of the black hole] points to elsewhere in the universes from the local black hole itself . . . Points to, tunnels to, the transparent (possibly "dark matter" spewing) white hole(s) elsewhere in the universes. Now, there -- if at all -- is a "gravastar" (now, there -- if at all -- are the "gravastars")!

My modeling works.
-------------------------

** Quotes from Merriam-Webster Dictionary **
"Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space." -- Zeeya Merali, Discover Magazine, 19 June 2017.

"The quandary of the elusive magnetic monopole goes back more than 150 years." -- Adam Hadhazy, Discover Magazine, 13 Nov. 2018.

 

[Classical Motion]

I propose another solution. Maybe the stellar object at our center is a star, just like other stars only the center star rotates much quicker than a sphere can rotate. So quick that the equator spins so fast that it spins as it rotates....and pulls the poles into the center.......and then into the equatorial spin.....a rotating torus star. There might be a limit on spherical plasma RPM. Plasma field self interaction. Fast RPM might indicate a torus star.

Any net ions or charge would generate a M field. Which might accelerate net charge from time to time, to the center and be expelled as galactic bubbles. With no net charge, no M field. Until another feeding.

Could the center gravity be a directional gravity? Or a bow-tie gravity?

 

[Atlan0001]

I propose another solution. Maybe the stellar object at our center is a star, just like other stars only the center star rotates much quicker than a sphere can rotate. So quick that the equator spins so fast that it spins as it rotates....and pulls the poles into the center.......and then into the equatorial spin.....a rotating torus star. There might be a limit on spherical plasma RPM. Plasma field self interaction. Fast RPM might indicate a torus star.

Any net ions or charge would generate a M field. Which might accelerate net charge from time to time, to the center and be expelled as galactic bubbles. With no net charge, no M field. Until another

I don't understand the assumption the center of a Black Hole be a singularity. We know a neutron star has a finite radius, we know when it gains mass and the escape velocity exceeds c it becomes dark. Why must it necessarily collapse further. The event horizon is a function of mass, spin and charge. It would not change whether the BH was crowding the inside of the event horizon or a singularity at the center.

feeding.

Could the center gravity be a directional gravity? Or a bow-tie gravity?

Good thoughts, CM. Toroidal vortex of toroidal vortices from event horizon to event horizons. Some so fast as to be observed to be seemingly, relatively, singularly hard ring causing the appearance, and possibly reality, of a waterfall motion directly into them.

Bill, think in terms of an obvious "Iron Curtain" master-link vulnerable bubble of countless many invisible invulnerable bubbles (invulnerably present until the master-link disappears, disappearing them all). The "electroweak star" (black hole) itself is the master ring event horizon asymptotic point-portal singularity, Bill, of all its countless many constituent asymptotic point-portal singularities (all the subject constituency subject to a dizzying neo-magical Schrodinger functionality . . . and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
------------------------------------

** Quotes from Merriam-Webster Dictionary **
"Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space." -- Zeeya Merali, Discover Magazine, 19 June 2017.

"The quandary of the elusive magnetic monopole goes back more than 150 years." -- Adam Hadhazy, Discover Magazine, 13 Nov. 2018.

 

[billslugg]

Excellent point. Would not an infinitely small point of infinite density violate the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle? Such a point would not have a fixed multiple of energy times location.

Also, Einstein's difficulty with the singularity was avoided by subsequent formulas that used the spherically shaped event horizon as "zero distance" in a vector space using polar notation.

This simple change of coordinate systems avoided any singularities. I also believe singularities cannot exist, because, if they were in existence they would be available on the internet, which they are not.

 

[Atlan0001]

Black hole spin rate:

(Post #542)

Page 22 - From a drop of water....

Page 22 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

 

[Helio]

“DEGENERACY “ does begin with “DE”.

They need to give these objects a much better label than “….star”. We’re finally seeing very few saying “white dwarf stars”.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

What is it about black holes, dark energy, and dark matter that always brings out the pseudo-science nut jobs? It's like the paranormal for a new age.

You think you understand blackholes when no one else doesn't? Watch the movie Event Horizon. Alone. Late at night.

 

[billslugg]

The way I figure it, the spectrum of understanding of cosmology is a bell curve. The pseudoscience ideas occupy the tail at the "low end" of understanding. They have a tiny amount of understanding therefore must bridge vast gaps somehow.
There are no more pseudoscience practicioners than there has always been, their prevalence is a function of the internet's ability to give everyone a worldwide broadcast license, and with little accountability.

 

[Atlan0001]

Excellent point. Would not an infinitely small point of infinite density violate the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle? Such a point would not have a fixed multiple of energy times location.

Also, Einstein's difficulty with the singularity was avoided by subsequent formulas that used the spherically shaped event horizon as "zero distance" in a vector space using polar notation.

This simple change of coordinate systems avoided any singularities. I also believe singularities cannot exist, because, if they were in existence they would be available on the internet, which they are not.

Consider that "nutjob" pseudoscientist Stephen Hawking with his pseudoscientific nutty idea of Lilliputian "baby universes."

"An infinitely small point of infinite density" explodes expanding infinitely into our universe of countless 0-point centers and their countless horizon spheres obeying an inverse square law along countless spoke-lines of observed radius (being both the infinitesimal and the infinite all at once (magnitudinous "fractal zooms (gravitational) structure of universe")). Of course, we are all pseudo-scientific nutjobs for having the temerity to think about the cosmopolis and its makeup. We are supposed to leave it to certified "know-it-alls", which would not include either Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, or any of their imaginative-like . . . like this great bunch of the insightful thoughtful Sherlock Holmes on Space.com Forums.
-----------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

What is it about black holes, dark energy, and dark matter that always brings out the pseudo-science nut jobs? It's like the paranormal for a new age.

You think you understand blackholes when no one else doesn't? Watch the movie Event Horizon. Alone. Late at night.

Sometimes, when you can't understand what someone is saying, it's because they're not making sense. I did major in astrophysics at Cornell in '77 — one might think I could grasp a thought or two.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Fire-Starter James, when you majored in "astrophysics" things were different than now majoring in "cosmology", especially in that the quantum-mechanically minded have taken over the theory of the early universe. (I took my only astrophysics course earlier than yours.)

Bill, I agree that the matter inside a black hole might not be crushed beyond the densities we see in neutron stars. But, the quantum mechanics people have a theory that can crush all matter in the universe into something smaller than an atom, with intervening steps as "quark matter", etc. Supposedly, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old, there was no matter - it is all "energy" in "fields" long before it gets that small.

But, that is the basis for the BBT that you defend. So, why should you not expect the center of at least the largest supermassive black holes to be crushed to the point that all matter has disintegrated into energy, and confined to some space smaller than the Heisenberg limit of detectability?

 

[Helio]

Sometimes, when you can't understand what someone is saying, it's because they're not making sense. I did major in astrophysics at Cornell in '77 — one might think I could grasp a thought or two.

That's great and glad your aboard! I look forward to seeing your future posts.

I quit my only astronomy course because they, at the last minute, selected my Calc II prof ("Cube root Kent") to teach it, and the book (Astronomy; Baker; 8th Ed; $6.75 used) was somewhat dated (1964) and inaccurate. It was also B&W.

Due to the many posts made by astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, physicists, engineers and other scientists posting in this and other forums, I've learned a great deal. They rekindled my youthful thirst for astronomy, and I have accumulated a somewhat significant book library as a result.

 

[Helio]

Bill, I agree that the matter inside a black hole might not be crushed beyond the densities we see in neutron stars. But, the quantum mechanics people have a theory that can crush all matter in the universe into something smaller than an atom, with intervening steps as "quark matter", etc. Supposedly, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old, there was no matter - it is all "energy" in "fields" long before it gets that small.

I think that involves theories that unite forces. These theories, unfortunately, lack, IIRC, the ability to be tested. The LHC can test quantum physics to incredible energies that take us to abut t= 1E-12sec. This reaches the quark-gluon activity but after the theoretical Inflation period. [A good book on this is At the Edge of Time; Dan Hooper]

But, that is the basis for the BBT that you defend. So, why should you not expect the center of at least the largest supermassive black holes to be crushed to the point that all matter has disintegrated into energy, and confined to some space smaller than the Heisenberg limit of detectability?

BBT was never a theory that addressed objectively in any way what happened at t=0. Extrapolating is so logical from, say t=1E-12sec, to 0 sec. is unavoidable, admittedly. But BBT began by looking at today's expansion as an explanation for GR, then working backwards. Lemaitre simply understood what Friedmann had also understood earlier that space itself could expand. Lemaitre held time as a separate dimension. He took Slipher's redshifts and Hubble's distances as objective evidence to support his expanding GR space model. [He did a poor job selling it, though what were his chances once Einstein told him directly that his model was fine in math but the physics was "abominable"? Eddington and deSitter later, once Lemaitre showed Eddington his work, soon convinced Einstein of its elegant merits.]

I have used the analogy of Darwin's evolution. His theory never had any intention of addressing abiogenesis. His "Origins" was never about first life origin but only how one species can produce, over huge time scales, a new species. BBT is a lot like that. Am I wrong to use this analogy?

The one singular issue BBT should not be judged on is singularities.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Helio, I think the analogy is fitting.

But, the problem with the BBT is that it is an extrapolation based on everything going back to a single point. Claiming to stop short of that point by 10^-x inches does not alleviate the issue of why would it even get that small. Unless there is some basis for a beginning, there is a remaining question about whether the BBT extrapolates too far back in time, and whether there are some other phenomena that we are missing that makes for a "bounce" or some other process not headed inexorably to an infinitesimal. The BBT cannot logically escape the infinitesimal just by refusing to talk about it.

Regarding space "inflating", "expanding" and "warping", it always amuses me that the people who believe that it does those things will also adamantly refuse to consider that space might also "flow". Yet, one explanation of why light cannot get past an event horizon to get out of a black hole likens it to a speedboat trying to go up-river in a waterfall that is going down-river faster than the speedboat can travel. But, when somebody tries to point that out to BBT advocates, they respond with "that is just a lie we tell children". Insulting form of deflection!

Actually, if you look at it objectively, the escape velocity from a mass correlates exactly with the time dilation in proximity to that mass. And, the Special Relativity time dilation also is the same as would be calculated for an observer standing on the surface of the mass with space flowing by going into the mass at the local escape velocity, when compared to the time seen by another observer at infinite distance from the mass, where the velocity of space into the mass would be zero. In other words, it is the same as the Special Relativity time dilation between 2 observers traveling at different velocities "through space".

I think that is interesting, but BBT proponents just don't want to discuss it.

And, I think it would be useful to conduct an experiment to see if the time dilation still correlates with the escape velocity as a function of depth below the surface of a mass. Or, does it correlate with the local gravitational force, instead, which goes to zero in the center of the mass. That would be of direct interest with respect to the observations we have of star orbit velocities inside the mass of galaxies. But, the replies I get are that we already know the answer from the theory, so why bother doing the experiment. Obviously, you do that type of experiment to test the theory. Unwillingness to even consider it is a sure sign of non-scientific thinking.

One of the big problems with current cosmology is that practitioners are clinging to the concept that the universe is basically uniform in all directions, always has been and always will be. And that persists, even with some evidence to the contrary. The main reason it persists is that to think otherwise opens so many possibilities that it would be extremely difficult to make sense of it. And, space "flowing" could do just that.

Remember, I am not claiming to "know" that space "flows". I am only asking how we know that it cannot flow.

 

[Atlan0001]

Unclear Engineer,
You, I, anything everywhere else, are "event horizons" light cannot and will not 'pass' ("why light cannot get past an event horizon....")! Has never passed / will never pass! (Light is "information" emitted, transmitted, and received!)

FYI, by and by again, career-wise, I just happen to be an "information systems specialist" (computer and communication . . . system and systems), retired!

 

[Helio]

Helio, I think the analogy is fitting.

But, the problem with the BBT is that it is an extrapolation based on everything going back to a single point. Claiming to stop short of that point by 10^-x inches does not alleviate the issue of why would it even get that small. Unless there is some basis for a beginning, there is a remaining question about whether the BBT extrapolates too far back in time, and whether there are some other phenomena that we are missing that makes for a "bounce" or some other process not headed inexorably to an infinitesimal. The BBT cannot logically escape the infinitesimal just by refusing to talk about it.

I don't consider size to be the issue in the extrapolation. The question should be, IMO, is where did all that initial energy come from? Religion or metaphsyics may be the best we can have for a very long time.

But a scientific theory needs to stay within the confines of objectivity. Drifting into areas that are patently untestable is fine for supposition that might, someday, lead somewhere, but BBT shouldn't be drug into this singularity land that looks too often more silly than science.

The other time direction is almost as true. In a trillion years will DE have faded or grown stronger, thus affecting the acceleration rate of BBT at that time? Who can say? Perhaps research will reveal the essence of DE and we can produce a theory that amends BBT, but till then, IMO, this too isn't BBT. I wish it had a name for both temporal ends of the theory. Perhaps BBT++. [C++ is better than C+, ] Until BBT can make some DE predictions then that will be the time we may wish to incorporate it.

DE will affect the earlier periods as well. Einstein dumped is cosmological constant, but Lemaitre and Eddington held to it. Lemaitre's 1927 paper showed a graph of the expansion over time. In it he showed and acceleration period that settled into a more linear rate today.

Regarding space "inflating", "expanding" and "warping", it always amuses me that the people who believe that it does those things will also adamantly refuse to consider that space might also "flow". Yet, one explanation of why light cannot get past an event horizon to get out of a black hole likens it to a speedboat trying to go up-river in a waterfall that is going down-river faster than the speedboat can travel.

Yes, I've seen that analogy. Throwing a rock out of a well requires only velocity as is true of a gravity well. The flowing view is problematic for me, admittedly. It's tough enough to imagine that it takes on varying shapes depending on the neighboring mass.

Actually, if you look at it objectively, the escape velocity from a mass correlates exactly with the time dilation in proximity to that mass. And, the Special Relativity time dilation also is the same as would be calculated for an observer standing on the surface of the mass with space flowing by going into the mass at the local escape velocity, when compared to the time seen by another observer at infinite distance from the mass, where the velocity of space into the mass would be zero. In other words, it is the same as the Special Relativity time dilation between 2 observers traveling at different velocities "through space".

I think that is interesting, but BBT proponents just don't want to discuss it.

Well, it's interesting and I wish I knew enough to address it but I tend to stumble with relativity.

One of the big problems with current cosmology is that practitioners are clinging to the concept that the universe is basically uniform in all directions, always has been and always will be. And that persists, even with some evidence to the contrary. The main reason it persists is that to think otherwise opens so many possibilities that it would be extremely difficult to make sense of it. And, space "flowing" could do just that.

Einstein originally used homogeneity in this theory. The anisotropy prediction for the CMBR with 1:100,000 temp. variation likely sealed the deal. Today, of course, that anisotropy has grown in to massive galaxies and massive voids between them, so not as homogenous as it once appeared.

Remember, I am not claiming to "know" that space "flows". I am only asking how we know that it cannot flow.

Perhaps there is a test for that. Why wouldn't frame-dragging be a little like that?

 

[Questioner]

Time dilation is insufficient to explain the apparent redirection from an extrrnal viewpoint of bodies moving through a mass field.

Time dilation only slows things down from an external viewpoint on continuing Euclidean straight vectors.

Only a change in space explains external viewpoint apparent redirection through a mass field.

Because gravity is a convergent and not divergent (deflecting) there must be less space in a mass field.

If one can't grasp that fact how will one have the conceptual tool(s) to understand what is happening with the incredible mass of a black hole?!?

Certifications are no substitute for applied thinking.

Smug conciete inhibits vigorous mental activity.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Helio, Frame dragging would be a lot like that - a whirlpool of space.

Frame dragging is definitely not one of the things I have figured out how to calculate. And, there are others who claim that the "mainstream" is not doing it right, either, and that "dark matter" in a galaxy can be explained away with "proper" accounting for frame dragging by all of the visible mass, not just the black hole spinning in the center. But, I don't know if that is right or not. I have seen the assertion on the Internet, but have never seen it "debunked", nor accepted.

Putting together a theory that uses "flow" of space into mass in place of dark matter might not really produce anything testable against dark matter plus General Relativity Theory, since it seems to provide the same answers. I have not tried to do it. It would produce "gravitational lensing". It might also explain the apparent expansion of space, if the space between galaxies is getting stretched by some of it being pulled into the galactic masses - sort of like a gas getting less dense. That would also stretch the light passing through it, causing an apparent red shift. I don't have any idea whether it could explain the galactic star orbits without DE. But, since that is still being debated with just GRT frame dragging, that might not be a conclusive test, at least not at this point in our understanding.

Again, remember that I am not trying to claim that space definitely flows, but I do think it is a concept worthy of some consideration. I have never heard of an explanation of why it can expand and bend and drag, but never flow.

 

[Classical Motion]

I think once we get on the outside of our Oort cloud we will find a new background spectrum. Water, that is ice, might be the perfect moderator for recombining solar wind. This reforming of dipoles probably has an electrical hiss. And a blanket of dipoles around our system might interact with the soup of outer space and hiss.

We might be listening to a reflection of Sol's hiss.

 

[Questioner]

(Pardon my related tangent diatribe)

If what we would project on it from an external frame,
a moving body would have to slow down in spatial progress (to external us) because to keep inertia [distance time relationship] constant the distance aquired would have reduce proportionately with reduced time flow.

We would 'see'/perceive that.

It would seem to slow down to our external selves.

But it doesn't do that from our POV.

It continues and even seems to accelerate to us.
The only way what we 'see'/perceive is if there is less space, that distances are shorter inside the/a mass field.

(I need to break it down enough so some of the 'slower' academics might be able to grasp it,
and make it 'iron clad' to absolutely convince myself. )

 

[caltech59]

I don't understand the assumption the center of a Black Hole be a singularity. ..

I guess it's just going along the lines of 'classic' relativistic math as Penrose took to a logical conclusion, without consideration of the quantum side, at least. Seems it has to be impossible that the mathematical abstraction of a dimensionless thing can have attributes, so a singularity would have to have other dimensions that can't emerge from Penrose's math. There is also Kerr's ringularity theory quite recently published.. pretty impressive for a guy in his 80's.