• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Researcher claims our current model for how black holes form appears to be flawed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indrid Cold1

Indrid Cold1

Member
Mersini-Houghton also once claimed the WMAP Cold Spot was empirical evidence of the existence of a parallel universe. I think she's kind of out there, to put it mildly.
 
M

Messofanego

Banned
peerreview.jpeg

Mammoth Jones said:
Science has to be willing to look at new evidence and adjust itself accordingly.

So let's see if this holds up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
In the meanwhile that this gets peer reviewed and confirmed, we can mock that the researcher put this up.

George_of_the_Jungle-s390x277-409763.gif
 
J

Joe

Member
Link to actual study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686

Comments stolen from r/science:

A TL;DR summary of the actual paper (and not the article or abstract) might be :
Numerical simulation of a collapsing star that takes into account both GR and QM effects shows that instead of forming a black hole, the star should either explode or evaporate in the process as too much Hawking radiation is generated in the process to allow the star to reach the Schwarzschild radius. As a star cannot reach it, black holes (according to present understanding of science) cannot exist.
Click to expand...

In other words, she doesn't say "black holes aren't real" she says "our current model for how black holes form appears to be flawed."
Click to expand...


Science media has a real click-bait problem.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Not sure I buy it. Isn't Hawking radiation formed by pairs of virtual particles splitting wherein one falls in and the other does not? Thus, it does emit particles but particles not from the black hole itself.
 
manfestival

manfestival

Member
oh boy here we go. black hole defense force is all over this thread. This is what I get for surfing a black hole fanboy web site.
 
abstract alien

abstract alien

Member
Let's just entertain this as true. If this is the case, then what has science been detecting this entire time? What's throwing starts around at nearly light speed near the centers of galaxies?

Dat title change lol
 
Ghost_Messiah

Ghost_Messiah

Member
Her "science" seems to rely purely on the process of the collapse of a star. What's stopping black holes existing elsewhere in the universe via an entirely different process? Full disclosure: I'm somewhat of an idiot when it comes to Physics. Failed it at school.

EDIT: Yeah that's a much better thread title now. More accurate.
 
D

Dreamgazer

Member
There is nothing wrong with uploading preprints onto ArXiv.org or other open access platforms. Many researchers and scientists worldwide do so regularly for preliminary/open reviews before seeking to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

It's like some of you don't want open access or something.
If anything, she's putting out there so anyone can criticize her, as oppose to a closed group.
 
D

DarkFlow

Banned
CornBurrito said:
This is a logical fallacy. You shouldn't ever take Hawking's word for something just because he said it. Science is about peer review and nobody should get a pass. This is the sort of bullshit that leads to people going "hurr Einstein believed in god so obviously god is real."
Click to expand...

I'm more saying that Hawkins had his shit peer reviewed, and this person did not. I likely should make that clear. If Hawkins told me I could fly, I wouldn't just take his word for it.
 
L

Log4Girlz

Member
DarkFlow said:
I'm more saying that Hawkins had his shit peer reviewed, and this person did not. I likely should make that clear. If Hawkins told me I could fly, I wouldn't just take his word for it.
Click to expand...

I'm picturing his peers gathered around reviewing his bowel movement.
 
D

Dreamgazer

Member
DarkFlow said:
I'm more saying that Hawkins had his shit peer reviewed, and this person did not. I likely should make that clear. If Hawkins told me I could fly, I wouldn't just take his word for it.
Click to expand...

Would you believe in String Theory if I tell you a bunch string theorists peer-reviewed it?

>.>

<.<

(I just want to mention string theory for no reason, not picking on you.)
 
G

Grym

Member
didn't Hawking state in a recent paper (like this year I think) that black holes don't exist?

If I remember correct that was the 'gotcha" headline but what he was getting at is that they don't exist like we have thought of them in the past. Something about the event horizen and things being able to escape? My memory on it is fuzzy. Am I totally wrong?
 
H

HTupolev

Member
speculawyer said:
Not sure I buy it. Isn't Hawking radiation formed by pairs of virtual particles splitting wherein one falls in and the other does not? Thus, it does emit particles but particles not from the black hole itself.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with this particular region of physics, but energy conservation would pretty much require the particles to take energy from the object they're emitting from.

Also, Hawking radiation is regularly claimed to cause black holes to lose mass over time.
 
S

SRG01

Member
Guys, ArXiv isn't just some random repo. People post their papers on ArXiv usually right before submission, either so that people can read it without a paywall or to get comments on their research and thus improve their chances of acceptance.

The stuff on ArXiv is usually pretty good.
 
V

V_Arnold

Member
People screaming "no peer review" are exactly those whom I wont consider reputable sources on science. You guys need to read *just* a bit more to get to the interesting part.

Ill help you: "offers exact numerical solutions to this problem"

Peer review is not an integral part of this, it is not some magical juice sprinkled all across research that makes one legit or not.

NOW it will be peer reviewed. Soon.
And then you can come back to this thread and feel bad for only commenting on that part :p
 
C

CornBurrito

Member
V_Arnold said:
People screaming "no peer review" are exactly those whom I wont consider reputable sources on science. You guys need to read *just* a bit more to get to the interesting part.

Ill help you: "offers exact numerical solutions to this problem"

Peer review is not an integral part of this, it is not some magical juice sprinkled all across research that makes one legit or not.

NOW it will be peer reviewed. Soon.
And then you can come back to this thread and feel bad for only commenting on that part :p
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing how peer review isn't an integral part of this.

SRG01 said:
Guys, ArXiv isn't just some random repo. People post their papers on ArXiv usually right before submission, either so that people can read it without a paywall or to get comments on their research and thus improve their chances of acceptance.

The stuff on ArXiv is usually pretty good.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I'm not saying "this is false because it wasn't peer reviewed."

I am saying "people should still take it with a grain of salt because it hasn't yet been scrutinized by other professionals in that area."
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Interesting but I'll wait for more information. Does the paper offer an explanation of what the nonluminous massive entities we"be been calling black holes are? Can't read it now

Or wait, is it just saying those are black holes but they aren't collapsed stars?
 
M

metalslimer

Member
V_Arnold said:
People screaming "no peer review" are exactly those whom I wont consider reputable sources on science. You guys need to read *just* a bit more to get to the interesting part.

Ill help you: "offers exact numerical solutions to this problem"

Peer review is not an integral part of this, it is not some magical juice sprinkled all across research that makes one legit or not.

NOW it will be peer reviewed. Soon.
And then you can come back to this thread and feel bad for only commenting on that part :p
Click to expand...

I would like a group of people to go over these solutions which is why we have peer review. I'm not really well versed in physics, but I certainly don't trust myself as one person to be able to look at stuff in my field and say with any certainty that it is has been done correctly.
 
L

Lum1n3s

Member
manfestival said:
oh boy here we go. black hole defense force is all over this thread. This is what I get for surfing a black hole fanboy web site.
Click to expand...
Lol it's pretty hilarious. Do these people have actual knowledge in this kind of stuff? When will we know whether she is right or wrong btw. Interested in seeing the end result from this claim.
 
B

Bear

Member
SRG01 said:
Guys, ArXiv isn't just some random repo. People post their papers on ArXiv usually right before submission, either so that people can read it without a paywall or to get comments on their research and thus improve their chances of acceptance.

The stuff on ArXiv is usually pretty good.
Click to expand...

Yep. This story reminded me that Hawking also posted a paper on arXiv earlier this year (prior to peer review) and his assessment of the current model bears some similarities to this one.

Article
(it even made the same click-bait headlines)

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that &#8220;there are no black holes&#8221; &#8212; at least not in the sense we usually imagine &#8212; would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it&#8217;s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking&#8217;s radical proposal is a much more benign &#8220;apparent horizon&#8221;, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

&#8220;There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,&#8221; Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, &#8220;enables energy and information to escape from a black hole&#8221;. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. &#8220;The correct treatment,&#8221; Hawking says, &#8220;remains a mystery.&#8221;

Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation and weather forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review.
Click to expand...
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
edit: Yeah ^

Grym said:
didn't Hawking state in a recent paper (like this year I think) that black holes don't exist?

If I remember correct that was the 'gotcha" headline but what he was getting at is that they don't exist like we have thought of them in the past. Something about the event horizen and things being able to escape? My memory on it is fuzzy. Am I totally wrong?
Click to expand...

You're talking about this right here. He also posted it to arXiv without - drumroll - peer review. His more recent papers haven't been very well received by the scientific community anyway though.

This is really common, by the way. Scientists use arXiv all the time before peer review to see if their ideas gain any immediate rejection among their peers, since that's usually a quicker process than waiting for full peer review and allows them to modify their theories more quickly.

So the lady in this article, if she really does have solid mathematical proofs, is not doing anything unscientific by submitting her work this way. Scientists will pour over it and find out how valid it is.
 
S

StickSoldier

Member
Weirdddd. I wish I took science more seriously when I was younger. Things like this make me feel like I'm missing out on a lot of life! I want to know more!
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
What happens if two black holes collide? How could they interact with one another if nothing can escape a black hole? Also, do blackholes even have momentum? Wouldn't the part at the event horizon stay in place?
 
N

Norml

Member
Ether_Snake said:
What happens if two black holes collide? How could they interact with one another if nothing can escape a black hole? Also, do blackholes even have momentum? Wouldn't the part at the event horizon stay in place?
Click to expand...

They have sims of the milky way and andromeda colliding. The smaller one smashes into the bigger and they get ripped apart, and then later form into a super massive BH/galaxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Black Hole Information Paradox Solved
2
73
7K
Always-honest replied
  • Locked
Stephen Hawking "There are no Black Holes"
7
2K
Stumpokapow replied
  • Locked
How building a Black Hole in 'Interstellar' led to an amazing scientific discovery
20
4K
Orbis Tabula replied
  • Locked
Paging Science-GAF: Are we living in the Matrix? (Read OP before you answer that)
29
2K
Lunar15 replied
  • Locked
Gravitational waves hints at Physics Beyond the Big Bang
16
2K
Opiate replied
Top Bottom