Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it

[Ace Nova]

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.

• Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist
• She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity
• Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in 'shock' from the find
• Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died
• During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation
• But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn't be able to form a black hole
• If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong

When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity - creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.

At least, that’s what we thought.

A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims.

If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity as predicted never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

‘I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.’

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe.

But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

What’s more, the research could apparently even call into question the veracity of the Big Bang theory.

Most physicists think the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then that theory would also be brought into question.

One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that they pit two fundamental theories of the universe against each other.

Namely, Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes. But a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

Efforts to combine these two theories proved problematic, and has become known as the black hole information paradox - how can matter permanently disappear in a black hole as predicted?

Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage to mathematically combine the two fundamental theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting black holes to exist.

‘Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories - Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics - for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘And that’s a big deal.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/8565/Physcist-Black-Holes-Do-Not-Exist.aspx

http://www.ibtimes.com/do-black-holes-exist-physicist-shocked-find-no-evidence-black-hole-formation-1694978

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/16483/20140925/physics-professor-says-black-holes-are-mathematically-impossible.htm

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/268684/speedreads-physics-professor-says-she-has-proof-that-black-holes-dont-exist

Edited September 27, 2014 by Kasanova King

[magisme]

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

[Ace Nova]

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

That's (pretty much) the same thing Damn Smooth said in the other thread.

[Ace Nova]

What's tonight's featured beverage? Grappa?

Nope. 100% sober. This actually is real news.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Strange Broue]

Let me guess

She is christian as fuck

Mathematical proof to this?
Hawking become the killer of the evolution theory?

lelz

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

wow so you're mysoginist

Cool

(nope, you're just pretentious as fuck)

Edited September 27, 2014 by Motivation

[Ace Nova]

Let me guess

She is christian as fuck

Mathematical proof to this?

Hawking become the killer of the evolution theory?

lelz

Nope. She's a physicist. And she's not implying anything about the creation of the Universe other than that the Big Bang Theory could be wrong.

[magisme]

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

wow so you're mysoginist

Cool

(nope, you're just pretentious as fuck)

Get a clue before you make a fool of yourself. And learn what words mean. Do I need to hold a vocab class up in this bitch?

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

That's (pretty much) the same thing Damn Smooth said in the other thread.

Damn it. I'm a derivative little bitch.

[Ace Nova]

There's over 500 replies to this on Reddit....the theory is legit...but from what I read, it still needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal....so it's basically wait-and-see for now.

[Jakey Styley]

How long does it take for something like this to get peer reviewed and published?

[Ace Nova]

How long does it take for something like this to get peer reviewed and published?

Depends...weeks...maybe months.

[Strange Broue]

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

wow so you're mysoginist

Cool

(nope, you're just pretentious as fuck)

Get a clue before you make a fool of yourself. And learn what words mean. Do I need to hold a vocab class up in this bitch?

It's a woman? Then clearly the math is fucked.

That's (pretty much) the same thing Damn Smooth said in the other thread.

Damn it. I'm a derivative little bitch.

you should learn about women, bro

seems like you're the actual cool kid here, but it not changes the fact that you're pretentious

have fun

[magisme]

Guy thinks I was serious.

....

So it looks like all those links pretty much reprinted the same story almost verbatim. One of them talks a little about how the math was published in an online non peer reviewed physics journal already. Peer reviewed on the way, I hope. Also mentions how a mathematician from U of Toronto helped out. Isn't that where downzy goes? Get us some inside information, man.

This is a great story if it turns out to have merit.

[downzy]

Guy thinks I was serious.

....

So it looks like all those links pretty much reprinted the same story almost verbatim. One of them talks a little about how the math was published in an online non peer reviewed physics journal already. Peer reviewed on the way, I hope. Also mentions how a mathematician from U of Toronto helped out. Isn't that where downzy goes? Get us some inside information, man.

This is a great story if it turns out to have merit.

Yes, I went to U of T but I studied at the North end of the campus (where the attractive girls hung out, ie. where the arts and humanities are taught). The science geeks studied in the south end of the campus. So sadly, I have no insight.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm a little suspicious of the claim that it could invalidate the big bang theory. Scientists have been able to measure the rate of expansion for the universe so I'm fairly certain if they can ascertain that they can determine how long ago the universe started. Perhaps it didn't expand from a singularity, but I'm fairly certain from the limited books I've read on the subject (Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" being a great read), scientists have pretty much proven beyond question that the universe was much smaller 13.8 billion years ago than it exists today.

[downzy]

From geek.com:

So, is it true? Well, nobody knows just yet, but in all likelihood this paper is like most seemingly definitive mathematical arguments in astronomical physics, in that it is technically correct but undercut by some glaring physical loophole. The math on display here does prove, solidly, that black holes can’t form given certain assumptions about how they form, meaning that perhaps they don’t form precisely according to those assumptions. There are a wealth of direct observations telling physicists that, for instance, there’s a super-massive black hole (or something very much like our idea of such an object) at the center of many galaxies; all the mathematical logic in the world won’t undo that empirical data, just make the data harder and harder to usefully understand.

[Ace Nova]

From geek.com:

So, is it true? Well, nobody knows just yet, but in all likelihood this paper is like most seemingly definitive mathematical arguments in astronomical physics, in that it is technically correct but undercut by some glaring physical loophole. The math on display here does prove, solidly, that black holes can’t form given certain assumptions about how they form, meaning that perhaps they don’t form precisely according to those assumptions. There are a wealth of direct observations telling physicists that, for instance, there’s a super-massive black hole (or something very much like our idea of such an object) at the center of many galaxies; all the mathematical logic in the world won’t undo that empirical data, just make the data harder and harder to usefully understand.

That is actually answered in the theory....something along the lines of that the "Black Holes" in the center of Galaxies aren't really black holes...they just "appear" to us as being black holes....apparently they are something completely different.

Guy thinks I was serious.

....

So it looks like all those links pretty much reprinted the same story almost verbatim. One of them talks a little about how the math was published in an online non peer reviewed physics journal already. Peer reviewed on the way, I hope. Also mentions how a mathematician from U of Toronto helped out. Isn't that where downzy goes? Get us some inside information, man.

This is a great story if it turns out to have merit.

Yes, I went to U of T but I studied at the North end of the campus (where the attractive girls hung out, ie. where the arts and humanities are taught). The science geeks studied in the south end of the campus. So sadly, I have no insight.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm a little suspicious of the claim that it could invalidate the big bang theory. Scientists have been able to measure the rate of expansion for the universe so I'm fairly certain if they can ascertain that they can determine how long ago the universe started. Perhaps it didn't expand from a singularity, but I'm fairly certain from the limited books I've read on the subject (Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" being a great read), scientists have pretty much proven beyond question that the universe was much smaller 13.8 billion years ago than it exists today.

I think you already answered your own question. Just because the Universe "appears" to be expanding doesn't necessarily mean it started as an explosion from a singularity.

[downzy]

From geek.com:

So, is it true? Well, nobody knows just yet, but in all likelihood this paper is like most seemingly definitive mathematical arguments in astronomical physics, in that it is technically correct but undercut by some glaring physical loophole. The math on display here does prove, solidly, that black holes can’t form given certain assumptions about how they form, meaning that perhaps they don’t form precisely according to those assumptions. There are a wealth of direct observations telling physicists that, for instance, there’s a super-massive black hole (or something very much like our idea of such an object) at the center of many galaxies; all the mathematical logic in the world won’t undo that empirical data, just make the data harder and harder to usefully understand.

That is actually answered in the theory....something along the lines of that the "Black Holes" in the center of Galaxies aren't really black holes...they just "appear" to us as being black holes....apparently they are something completely different.

Guy thinks I was serious.

....

So it looks like all those links pretty much reprinted the same story almost verbatim. One of them talks a little about how the math was published in an online non peer reviewed physics journal already. Peer reviewed on the way, I hope. Also mentions how a mathematician from U of Toronto helped out. Isn't that where downzy goes? Get us some inside information, man.

This is a great story if it turns out to have merit.

Yes, I went to U of T but I studied at the North end of the campus (where the attractive girls hung out, ie. where the arts and humanities are taught). The science geeks studied in the south end of the campus. So sadly, I have no insight.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm a little suspicious of the claim that it could invalidate the big bang theory. Scientists have been able to measure the rate of expansion for the universe so I'm fairly certain if they can ascertain that they can determine how long ago the universe started. Perhaps it didn't expand from a singularity, but I'm fairly certain from the limited books I've read on the subject (Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" being a great read), scientists have pretty much proven beyond question that the universe was much smaller 13.8 billion years ago than it exists today.

I think you already answered your own question. Just because the Universe "appears" to be expanding doesn't necessarily mean it started as an explosion from a singularity.

That doesn't seem like a satisfying answer. It seems strange that scientists have empirical evidence that they exist, but now we're being told that what we perceive isn't true, and that we still don't know what they are.

This part of the geek article sums it up for me, at least for now:

That’s likely to be the form of any major counterpoint to these articles; it’s unlikely there’s an error in the pure mathematics, but frankly quite likely that there’s a problem in the math’s theoretical underpinnings. Note that those problems, if they exist, are problems with physics in general and not with this study in particular; even if roundly discredited by further research, this paper will have directed and motivated that very discrediting research, and thus pushed a major area of physics forward. That’s science for you — it’s very possible that by attacking Big Bang dogma, this paper could help to prove it.

In the end, until this article gets peer-reviewed, probably best to hold off on abandoning decades worth of analysis and findings.

[Not An FSB Agent]

How long does it take for something like this to get peer reviewed and published?

The thing about this is that it has not been submitted to any journals that I am aware, but has been published as open access on arXiv.org, but I would expect to see some of it addressed in the letters sections of some of the cosmological journals next month.

From the data obtained over decades, it is clear that there is something that is very massive that affects orbits, and disrupts gas clouds. So, one paper will not a paradigm shift make.

From the paper's conclusion: What might go wrong with this picture? It is possible that the assumptions of symmetries and dust for the star are not realistic. Thus a perterbation around the solutions found here may make the star unstable to collapse. Further work remains to be done for the stability of the solutions found here. and for testing if these findings depend on the choice of initial state for the Hawking radiation.

I have had my share of physics, but I am not qualified to address the issues. However, this guy is: Yes, Virginia, There Are Black Holes

EDIT: link to the paper if anyone is interested in reading it-- http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1525v1.pdf

Edited September 27, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[wasted]

But we can still nuke Iraq, right?

[Bumblefeet]

Does this mean Morgan Freeman lied to us?!?

[Ace Nova]

From geek.com:

So, is it true? Well, nobody knows just yet, but in all likelihood this paper is like most seemingly definitive mathematical arguments in astronomical physics, in that it is technically correct but undercut by some glaring physical loophole. The math on display here does prove, solidly, that black holes can’t form given certain assumptions about how they form, meaning that perhaps they don’t form precisely according to those assumptions. There are a wealth of direct observations telling physicists that, for instance, there’s a super-massive black hole (or something very much like our idea of such an object) at the center of many galaxies; all the mathematical logic in the world won’t undo that empirical data, just make the data harder and harder to usefully understand.

That is actually answered in the theory....something along the lines of that the "Black Holes" in the center of Galaxies aren't really black holes...they just "appear" to us as being black holes....apparently they are something completely different.

Guy thinks I was serious.

....

So it looks like all those links pretty much reprinted the same story almost verbatim. One of them talks a little about how the math was published in an online non peer reviewed physics journal already. Peer reviewed on the way, I hope. Also mentions how a mathematician from U of Toronto helped out. Isn't that where downzy goes? Get us some inside information, man.

This is a great story if it turns out to have merit.

Yes, I went to U of T but I studied at the North end of the campus (where the attractive girls hung out, ie. where the arts and humanities are taught). The science geeks studied in the south end of the campus. So sadly, I have no insight.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm a little suspicious of the claim that it could invalidate the big bang theory. Scientists have been able to measure the rate of expansion for the universe so I'm fairly certain if they can ascertain that they can determine how long ago the universe started. Perhaps it didn't expand from a singularity, but I'm fairly certain from the limited books I've read on the subject (Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" being a great read), scientists have pretty much proven beyond question that the universe was much smaller 13.8 billion years ago than it exists today.

I think you already answered your own question. Just because the Universe "appears" to be expanding doesn't necessarily mean it started as an explosion from a singularity.

That doesn't seem like a satisfying answer. It seems strange that scientists have empirical evidence that they exist, but now we're being told that what we perceive isn't true, and that we still don't know what they are.

This part of the geek article sums it up for me, at least for now:

That’s likely to be the form of any major counterpoint to these articles; it’s unlikely there’s an error in the pure mathematics, but frankly quite likely that there’s a problem in the math’s theoretical underpinnings. Note that those problems, if they exist, are problems with physics in general and not with this study in particular; even if roundly discredited by further research, this paper will have directed and motivated that very discrediting research, and thus pushed a major area of physics forward. That’s science for you — it’s very possible that by attacking Big Bang dogma, this paper could help to prove it.

In the end, until this article gets peer-reviewed, probably best to hold off on abandoning decades worth of analysis and findings.

That's true...and that's what most people are saying for now.

Either way, this goes to show how little we really do know about the Universe - I mean, if a scientist can come out after decades of scientific data showing otherwise and state that he/she can prove mathematically that it is all wrong.....what else could we be wrong about?

[downzy]

Who knows, which why it's an interesting thing to talk about. I personally don't think this will throw out everything that's been theorized to this date, but may move the study of blackholes and astrophysics into new directions.

[Ace Nova]

Who knows, which why it's an interesting thing to talk about. I personally don't think this will throw out everything that's been theorized to this date, but may move the study of blackholes and astrophysics into new directions.

It's true. Will be interesting to see (if true) how this affects Quantum Physics, String Theory....Multi-Universe Theories, etc, etc.

[bacardimayne]

The only good thing that could come out of this is the cancellation of The Big Bang Theory.

[Lithium]

The only good thing that could come out of this is the cancellation of The Big Bang Theory.

That show is fucking awful.

[Johnny Drama]

You're both hooray for tolerance!s.