Page 1 of 1

Do "Black Holes" Exist?

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:51 pm
by Dark Knight
This is an interesting question, you would think with all the talk, and the movies and programs showing them, that they would exist, right?

Actually we are still in the dark, when it comes to the question of wether they exist or not....
No one has actually seen a black hole,


And even more surprising
Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist.
Is this the end of black holes?
Cosmic Star Formation: When Elegant Theories Are Wrong 06/30/2007
An astronomer wrote about “cosmic train wrecks” in Science recently.1 Paolo Coppi (Yale) was speaking about galactic mergers, but he could have just as well been talking about current cosmological models. Things once thought to be understood are coming in for new scrutiny, now that more powerful telescopes can peer deeper into the veiled hearts of galaxies. One galaxy in particular, NGC 6240, thought to be the result of a merger, was mapped recently in unprecedented detail.
In the middle of a rather straightforward article describing current thinking about what happens when galaxies collide, how stars form, and how black holes behave, he ended one paragraph with a surprise. It was kind of like the ending word “not” in the slang of young people – e.g., “Astronomers understand star formation – NOT!”

Detailed observations of nearby galaxies, the only kind we could carry out until recently, identified two main modes of star formation: powerful and rapid “starbursts” caused by NGC 6240-like collisions and the much less dramatic but quasi-steady formation seen in the disk of our Galaxy. Because objects like NGC 6240 are rare today, one might speculate that most stars form “quietly” in disks. The larger, so-called elliptical galaxies, which do not contain much gas, then come from late-time mergers of smaller disk-dominated galaxies that have turned their gas into stars. Mergers play a minor role, mainly gravitationally scrambling already-made stars. While elegant, this story seems wrong.

The problem is that now it appears most star formation appeared early in the history of the universe. NGC 6240, with two black holes apparently orbiting its center, and no star formation going on today, may be a “common oddball,” – something that should have been rare, but appears to be representative of the state of the early universe. Coppi called this “very surprising” and something that creates an “intriguing new problem for us” –

Today’s elliptical galaxies are “red and dead” because they contain predominantly old (red) stars and are not forming new ones. Very surprisingly, some of the elliptical progenitors also appear to be “red and dead”. Unless we invoke a new mechanism that rapidly and permanently stops star formation, the most massive objects in simulations turn out to be too massive and never sufficiently red and dead.

One solution is to include feedback from the accretion of a supermassive black hole in the models. There seems to be observational support for actively-accreting black holes in systems like NGC 6240, with regions of active star formation going on. “This plus the surprising discovery that every nearby elliptical galaxy contains a black hole with a mass proportional to that of the galaxy strongly hints that rapid star formation and rapid black-hole feeding and growth are both inevitable and closely connected consequences of a cosmic train wreck like NGC 6240 where gas is gravitationally squeezed into a very small volume.” But where does the language of observation get distinguished from theory in such a statement?
From that point on, Coppi focused on prospects for improved observations. The Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), expected to be operational in 2015, might be able to detect the signature of black hole mergers through gravitational waves they emit. But there is “considerable speculation,” he said, about whether black holes accrete slowly by feeding on their own stars, or form catastrophically through mergers of galaxies. He’s not even sure LISA would be able to tell.
In his discussion, Coppi was assuming black holes are real. Better not tell him about other astronomers who are denying that black holes even exist. A recent article in ScienceNOW Daily News began,

If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.

There’s no doubt that very massive, compact objects exist in the centers of many galaxies. Asked what to do with these observations, which lead most astronomers to believe the universe is full of black holes, “‘[Lawrence] Krauss replies, ‘How do you know they’re black holes?” No one has actually seen a black hole, he says, and anything with a tremendous amount of gravity--such as the supermassive remnants of stars--could exert effects similar to those researchers have blamed on black holes.”
Krauss and colleagues performed detailed calculations taking into account the relativity of time. They showed that time stops before a singularity forms, meaning “black holes can’t form at all.” If so, one consequence is that “In essence, physicists have been arguing over a trick question for 40 years.” Their claim is controversial at this time. Critics point to other observations which support the “traditional” black hole explanation. What all might agree on is that the new observations and theories show that the universe is, indeed, getting stranger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Paolo Coppi, “Inside a Cosmic Train Wreck,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, pp. 1852-1854, DOI: 10.1126/science.1139057.


The point of this entry is not to take a position on controversies about star formation, black holes or galactic mergers, but to illustrate the difference between real objects and scientific objects. A scientific object is something about which we cannot know directly through experience: a black hole, a quark, the core of the earth, the interior of the sun, a universal common ancestor, a prebiotic soup, etc. Nobody denies that cars exist, and that if you drive one into a telephone pole, bad things will happen. But scientific objects can only be inferred indirectly. Scientists conceive of their objects as useful entities in equations, and elements of their models in theories. How real are they? That is an entirely different question.
From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm
More write up at creationsafaris...

Very massive, compact objects exist in the centers of many galaxies>>> I wonder what they are?

Black holes? or something else?

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:48 pm
by Llew
Posh, there are black holes.

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:30 pm
by LightBrigade
Not only Black Holes or as I would rather put it more accurately, Singularities exist, they are produced on purpose here, on Earth.

The European Scientific Centre by the name CERN, last September, if I am not totally mistaken about the time, produced Black Holes in vitro, in laboratory conditions. The aim was to advance research for mankind to replace fossil fuel for the production of energy, electric power and vehicle fuel (cars, airplanes) usage, in our hope to fight environmental destruction.

A few months ago, we began to produce fuel doing what the Sun does, collapse the electrons to the core of atoms (implosion as it compares to explosion). We use sea water which is abundant, in installations in the south of France at present. The process leaves no residue or fallout and poses no risk of environment contamination in any other way even in the case of an accident in the reactors.

Soon the American research industry will begin a similar programme.

Before the experiment with the Black Holes was to begin, there was widespread worry and extended debate in the Media in Europe, that we would cause the Earth to explode in dust in Space or disappear in a speck of dust, reduced to a tiny mass. They feared that once we started producing Black Holes at CERN, a chain reaction would escape the laboratory and destroy Earth which would be devoured by the Black Holes which would emerge. Like all innovations face ignorant criticism, it proved an idle fear.

As for Space, they exist there, too. *s*

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:35 pm
by Magus
Of course black holes exist: don't you watch Doctor Who??? They clearly showed them in The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit.

:wink:

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:59 am
by LightBrigade
Oooh, yes! Silly me! :smt021

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:29 am
by who me
after careful consideration and accepting that the rings of Saturn are made of lost air line luggage, I have come to the conclusion that black holes do exist and that is where all that stuff goes that one put down one second ago and then can not find.

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:33 am
by Qray
That's also where all those lost socks from the washing machines transverse space and time so that they can form a spherical object roughly the size and shape of the moon.

Thank you Douglas Adams.

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:54 pm
by LightBrigade
L @ Who Me and Qray's (remarks). As long as we do not panic!