Could these black hole 'morsels' finally prove Stephen Hawking's famous theory?

[Admin]

Stephen Hawking suggested black holes "leak " and evaporate away — scientists could use "morsels" launched from catastrophic black hole collisions to prove it.

Could these black hole 'morsels' finally prove Stephen Hawking's famous theory? : Read more

 

[danR]

A brief morsel on the mechanism of the nano-BH production among the 20-odd paragraphs might have been helpful. One shouldn't have to go to the paper; it would be one of the more salient topics for this article.

That said, the paper leaves me with the vague apprehension that the authors are papering over a theoretical crack with their proposed morsels. Eg:

"...one can still envision that, under certain strong non-linearity in the gravitational field within general relativity or beyond, small BHs may form."
"As we remain agnostic about the details of the BH morsel production, we assume the existence of a distribution of masses that escapes the merger." [emph. added]

So OK; we'll just bung along with the math and hope it all works out..

 

[NickOfTime]

To suggest that the referenced "morsels" PROVE Hawkings theory is obviously wrong. After all, Black Holes are supposed to be the one thing that doesn't "leak", so to find alleged evidence that a dense, dark object is leaking is NOT even uniquely supporting of the leaking is from black holes. QED. As a further note, which most/all will dismiss without thought, is that the existence of Black Holes, as formally defined with event horizon and singularity (if massive enough), have yet to be PROVED. Yes, large, dense DARK objects have been "observed", but not their alleged singularity which is a defining element. In addition, physicists such as Stephen Crothers and others have shown how the derivation from GR of a Black Hole with singularity is rather obviously flawed. Crothers and others were rewarded by being fired for pointing out flaws in currently accepted theory. Crothers was actually doing GR a favor because if the derivation was accurate, it would have shown that GR was fundamentally flawed. Incidentally, GR's field equations are fine (but not necessarily all interpretations of them), however, some SR flaws and the flawed Equivalence Principle were added to broaden the scope of GR. GPS data has shown light on these flaws, for example, the SR time dilation equation will only give the correct result if one measures velocity with respect to the single preferred frame (in the vicinity of the earth), namely the ECI frame, as noted by THE expert on GPS data, the late great Ron Hatch, and others within GPS and GPS consultants such as Tom van Flandern.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't think that black hole requires a singularity at its center. All it requires is enough mass to create a gravitational escape velocity at a radius which is larger than the radius of the physical matter of that mass. A big enough, diffuse cloud of gas could do it, without that gas needing to collapse into a singularity, or even condense. It is not clear that a black hole slightly more massive than a naked neutron star has anything in it other than a neutron star that we can no longer see.