Black Holes might not exist after all, new study shows(anomalien.com) |
Black Holes might not exist after all, new study shows(anomalien.com) |
That source (unlike this one) gives a date - from 2014. So, not a new study.
The only publications mentioned are http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 ("Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?") and http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 ("Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II").
Google Scholar lists 72 paper siting the first one: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1402943078866844400... . Oh, and it was later published in Phys Lett B. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931...
Picking one of them includes this paper as part of: "Regular collapse models where the black hole singularity is replaced by some smooth geometry have a long history. The leitmotiv of these models is the attempt to understand issues related to the Hawking information loss paradox on an effective background spacetime capturing the idea that black hole singularities must be resolved by quantum gravity effects." - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04566.pdf
Also, FWIW, the three other HN articles from anomalien.com are:
* Google-Earther discovers excavated “alien base”, airstrip in Antarctica
* Meditation shown to slow aging of brain
* The KGB Had a Classified Information Exchange Program with Extraterrestrials
While that does not detract from the paper, they are the ones who came up with the title shown here on HN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Clicking through the relevant wiki reference: "How do black holes destroy information and why is that a problem?" https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-do-black-holes...
If a particular thing cannot come into being, then what we observe cannot be that particular thing. That's all.
Pretty compelling evidence for a black hole right there, given the energy levels, orbital speeds, etc .. but not "a picture of a black hole".
( More a Margritte picture of a Black Hole ).
NB: I still believe in black holes despite this new study.
We also know there's a very massive and small something at the center of the Milky Way, because we can see things orbiting it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* video "Stars moving around Sagittarius A*, 20-year timelapse, ending in 2018")
And we can measure gravitational ways from what appear to black holes - something needs to explain the observations at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_obs... .
In any case, the paper doesn't claim that black holes can't form.
It claims that under conditions X, Y, and Z they don't form.
And, as usual, there's been a slew of robust responses.
Dates blur at my age, I opened the linked article, saw Mersini-Houghton, and was happy to run with 'new study' as it was certainly within the last decade .. :)
I'm more numerical engineering | geophysical data aquisition than astro .. although there's overlap as projects such as SKA need a bit of ground signal elimination in their processing pipelines.