Another Study Suggests Black Holes Are Nothing But An Optical Illusion

Discussion in 'Science' started by haidut, Jun 2, 2016.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Back in 2014 I posted a study that claimed black holes do not exist.
    Black holes do not exist, so there was no Big Bang either

    This study is a more recent one in support of that idea.
    The case for black holes being nothing but holograms just got even stronger

    "...If anything can sum up just how little we truly know about the Universe, it’s black holes. We can’t see them because not even light can escape their gravitational pull, we have no idea what they’re made of, and where does everything inside goonce a black hole dies? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Physicists can’t even agree on whether black holes are massive, three-dimensional behemoths, or just two-dimensional surfaces that are projected in 3D just like a hologram.
    But a new study just made the case for holographic black holes even stronger, with a new calculation of the entropy - or disorder - inside supporting the possibility of these giant enigmas of the Universe being nothing but an optical illusion."
     
  2. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    That last bolded part sounds a little misleading. It sounds like black holes and their effects on the 3D universe still exist, but they might be a 2D horizon instead of 3D blob. From the article:

    "With this in mind, Pranzetti and his team now have a concrete model to show that the 3D nature of black holes could just be an illusion - all the information of a black hole can theoretically be contained on a two-dimensional surface, with no need for an actual 'hole' or inside."
     
  3. Westside PUFAs

    Westside PUFAs Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,973
    Since they seem to exist at the center of every galaxy, they may be the portal to other galaxies, which doesn't matter because we will never be able to reach there and we may not be able to pass though such energy and live. We have to figure out what dark matter and dark energy are before we can understand black holes.

    What is Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

    Black Holes Explained – From Birth to Death

    x.jpg
     
  4. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    So, where is all this physical mass concentrated? Or is converted into pure energy and somehow present in the hologram? I have just never found the idea of a bottomless pit convincing and every physicist that I have talked to starts to mumble incoherently within 5min of trying to explain how matter is kept inside the black hole.
     
  5. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    If we indeed live in an electric universe there are electrostatic forces that propagate much faster than light. The Universe should be able to communicate with every object inside in a matter of seconds, not light years. The large scale order and structure observed so far suggest that that is indeed so. Look up Halton Arp's work. I am not saying it has all been worked out but the idea of light speed being the ultimate barrier to everything is not very tenable, at least not in quantum mechanics.
     
  6. robknob

    robknob Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    384
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Louis
    Dark matter and Dark energy are just made up forces to hide the flaws in the theory of relativity.
     
  7. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Well let me clear that up for you! :wink

    I have no idea. My leading guess is portal to another 3D space/new universe, but that's based on nothing more than it being an interesting, popular theory. I just wanted to point out that even if they are 2D holograms, they still seem to possess the main qualities we associate with their 3D counterparts, namely their black holeness.

    What are your leading hunches?
     
  8. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I think them occupying 3D space is a requirement for producing gravitational waves in 3D space. Not sure if I have a good guess as to what happens but I suspect black holes are not singularities. When the Large Hadron Collider was being built they published a study saying it is guaranteed to produce mini black holes that would live long enough to be detected and be experimented with, thus proving the existence of black holes directly. Several years later, I have not heard of a black hole being generated, observed or interacted with in the LHC. Also, there was a study showing a good portion of the Higgs bosons generated by the LCH would end up getting swallowed by those mini black holes. AFAIK that has not been observed either. I am just highly suspicious of these theoretical objects that cannot really be seen or detected in any way except through gravitational lensing. The lensing could just be an electrical effect, not bending of space due to huge mass in proximity.
    Anyways, time will tell but until I see more solid evidence of black holes the theoretical physicist do not have much of my trust :):
     
  9. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Probably no such thing as gravitational lensing:



    If one wants a full debunking of Black Holes, from the first-principles up, enter Stephen Crothers:



    All this is based on Math .... and the math is wrong ..... There is no evidence to say that Black Holes exist ;)

    (And sidenote: it should be clear from my previous posts that I think Quantum Mechanics is completely false)

    ...
     
  10. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Does that mean a 2D black hole sinks quantum gravity?

    I share your suspicion of singularities. It seems like a macro approximation whose equations spew nonsense at a micro scale. :ninja
     
  11. Soren

    Soren Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    Messages:
    786
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a lot of observational evidence for black holes, the fact that we cannot observe them through our current methods does not mean they are not there. We cannot observe or measure the force of gravity but there is pretty strong evidence that it exists. Even if it is just a hologram, surely it still exists, its just a hologram.

    I think it is a big leap to suggest that the big bang did not occur. Even if there are no such thing as singularities from dying stars within the universe this does not automatically mean that singularities are impossible. The singularity that formed the universe would be of a completely different nature to the singularities that may or may not be formed by dying stars.

    If as the study says, we have a collapsing star that is shedding mass as it collapses where is that mass being shed into? The surrounding space. This fact alone makes it a fundamentally different kind of singularity to the one that we refer to as the big bang. In the big bang, space itself was compressed as well as all matter and energy in the universe, there would be no where for any excess mass or energy to escape to, all matter and energy in the universe was the size of a pinprick.

    The expansion of the universe is pretty well established, largely by the fact that we can see that it is expanding. The borde-guth-vilenkin theorem is one of the best cases for a universe that must be finite in the past. It proves that any universe that is on average expanding cannot have an infinite past, it must have had a beginning. It is possible to have a universe that is infinite in the future, such as an ever expanding bubble universe, but as far as I am aware even string theory (which I believe to be one of the worst theories every devised by science) struggles with the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem.

    Also the idea of an actual infinite universe in the past is an absurdity. If you accept that the universe is infinite in the past, you are also accepting that there are an infinite number of past events. But the existence of an actual infinite number of past events is an impossibility. You can talk about infinity but you cannot actually conceptually grasp it. An actual infinite number of things cannot exist. You could not actually have an infinite number of objects or numbers only a potential infinite.

    One of my favourite ways to demonstrate this is Hilbert's Hotel which is a mathematical concept that demonstrates the absurdity of an actual infinite number of things. This is a good video discussing it. Hilbert's Hotel

    Side note. LOVE that this kind of discussion happens on these forums. Had no idea! :thumbleft

    Apologies for the sloppy wording (it's late and im tired :tonguewink:)
     
  12. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    @Soren

    Regarding the observations of black holes, I do not think the observations made by astronomers are fair. They see energy being "sucked towards a point" and then see X-rays being emitted, and then call these "Black Holes", based on an existing theory rooted only in Math.

    There is a lot more evidence for Electric Cosmology, that is congruent with actual observations on Earth.

    Sidenote: and the Earth is heavily electrically scarred as well. Here the last of a 3-part series by Andrew Hall on electric Geology


    Why can't these so called "Black Holes" be a multitude of electrical phenomena? Why not just a simple plasma Z-pinch that has been reproduced in labs thousands of times, and has been consistently observed in many other structures in space? ;)

    This produces all the behaviours seen in "Black Holes", is explicable with known theories of plasma that are both mathematically and empirically consistent, and seems like a far far far more plausible theory than some arbitrary Black Hole Math (which has been falsified by numerous individuals)

    -----

    Expansion of the Universe is also not conclusively established. This is again, mainstream theory interpreting observed Redshift as a standard Doppler effect.

    Halton Arp has put this theory to rest, by showing observationally, that the only way to interpret Redshift values is by treating almost all of the Redshift component as "Intrinsic Redshift" -- Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

    Moreover, he showed that greater Redshift is an indicator of Youth of an observed structure in space. This has nothing to do with distance.

    Moreover, he showed that Redshift values are quantised in discrete steps, indicating discrete energetic shifts as the "coherence of the entire system" being observed loses energy in fixed steps (very much like how so called "electron orbitals" are quantised -- I disagree with the mechanics, but agree that an electron at an "orbital" has to be given a fixed quantity of energy to be "promoted to a higher energy orbital")

    Regarding the Big Bang, all we can say is "we don't know".

    ----

    Agree with the rest of the points ;)

    ....
     
  13. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    10,984
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
  14. tyw

    tyw Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    407
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Software Developer
    Location:
    Cairns, Australia
    Heh, more like the ENTIRE AMERICAN WEST COAST made with Thunderbolts of the Gods :eek:.

    Note how Alaska all the way down to Chile looks like a Spiral galaxy, and the entire stretch is scarred with Mountains that bear the marks of supersonic, extreme-heated winds in electrically-predictable shockwave patterns.

    ....
     
  15. Hugh Johnson

    Hugh Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,104
    Sorry, I'm kind of stupid, I can't conceptually grasp most things I observe. So I am having hard time understanding how an infinite number of things is any more absurd than, well, everything else I observe. If I can accept that math, a numerical representation of reality, actually works, why can't I accept that time is infinite? Also, if an infinite number of things are impossible, doesn't that imply an end to existence and time itself?
     
  16. robknob

    robknob Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    384
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Louis
    EU for the win! I love hearing scientists try to explain gravity and dark energy... they invoke so much nonsense its hysterical. I like seeing the parallels between the physics propoganda and the medical propoganda, it's all about establishing the loudest voice and then making things seem way more complicated than they actually are, so people think scientists are demi-gods for understanding it and should be trusted even tho they say things like "Dark matter can't be detected at all, but its there"... or "sugar is toxic".
     
  17. jandrade1997

    jandrade1997 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    58
    Before making fun of science, perhaps you should actually know some. No self-respecting physicist would ever say "dark matter can't be detected at all." In fact, there are currently dozens of experiments being run attempting to detect dark matter, either through direct or indirect detection. Maybe put more time into learning, and less into being undeservedly arrogant.
     
  18. robknob

    robknob Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    384
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Louis
    Well maybe I lack imagination but it seems to me that it would be impossible to detect "dark matter" if there is no radiation coming from it. It is only posited to exist because general relativity equations do not at all describe observed phenomena, and the addition of huge amounts of matter is required to make the equations work, that's where dark matter and dark energy come from...talk about arrogance lol.
     
  19. lollipop

    lollipop Guest

  20. Douglas Ek

    Douglas Ek Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    I can agree that a lot of theories of today is basically just speculations to answers that we don't know.
    The concept of a black hole is fascinating to many because of the mystery behind it. And that's really what it is to us a mystery.

    All we know is that there seems to be a center to galaxies what happens there we don't know. We know there seems to be a lot of light in the middle like gas clouds and matter.
    But where does it all go? How we came up with the theory of black holes is simple.
    First, you ask what is at the center of galaxies?
    Okay so if we said there's nothing just a twirl of the matter now where does that matter go after it reached the center?

    You can reconstruct that in your own kitchen sink the water is space and the drain is the source of energy pulling everything to the middle just like a black hole the space-time disappears from the sink into the drain. What happens when you plug the sink? The vortex resolves and the water will eventually become still because there's no continuous force pulling. if you add some ink to that the ink would just disappear into the drain when it is unplugged. With the drain plugged the ink would fly out all over the water and dilute it just like matter would fly out of galaxies into space and dilute eventually resolving galaxies into nothing. For a galaxy to even form just like vortexes there has to be a continuous force. There has to be a strong gravitational pull towards the center of the universe and matter is the only thing we know that affects gravitation. So if not matter then what?

    I don't know if black holes are supposedly able to grow in weight but if they can that must mean that matter somehow is built up inside. I totally get the there's a universe inside theory because a new universe can have new laws of physics etc and even if there's not enough matter from our universe being sucked into the hole to form something similar to our universe. It doesn't have to. It can create a universe with other laws of physics. If matter and energy are the same then that energy could be used to create new types of matter (forces) that fits the laws of physics for that specific universe.
    A small fire doesn't seem like a lot of energy for us but for an ant a small fire is huge. This means energy is relative to size and space. If you fell into a black hole, in that case, your body would disintegrate but the energy from you as an electrical being could become something new. You could become space in this new universe.


    Anything can fit inside anything. In our skin there's a world of molecules and atoms with electrons etc that sort of reminds us about our universe. That's just one layer. We don't know what's inside the atom. Basically the atom of an atom. What would that be? How deep inside can you go? Are there any rules for this?
    No.
    Our universe might as well be just an atomic particle of another universe which sorta makes sense to the whole the universe is infinite theory. Instead of a multiverse where universes are existing parallel to each other, it would make a lot more sense if they existed within each other being the actual fabric and forces of each other communicating with each other just as molecules communicate with our world through forces we don't comprehend or see.

    If these are crazy ideas that we can't answer and seem too far fetched to answer then there's no point in speculating or even asking simple things as the reason we are here and why/how the universe was created in the first place.
    This theory would explain both black holes and the birth of our own universe. It makes sense also because time and space are the same since time is a made up concept to describe travel across space at varying speeds there must be different times depending on what you are.
    If you as an example are a light particle you can go fast through our universe and there are probably things that can go faster in our universe just that they become invisible to us but in the larger zoomed out universe that force would become slower at traveling through space and loose energy.
    Light particles would possibly slow down and solidify to matter because space just became a lot larger so these forces of energy are not as large in relativity to the new forces that compresses these smaller ones so they cool down and solidify.
    You can see a lot of similar behavior in our own universe with energy.
    Just as matter is solid in our universe but in the atomic level the world of matter as we know it is not solid anymore and starts going haywire.

    Another thought of mine is that forces we can perceive are just ripples of interactions with these nearby universes. Forces like gravity, electromagnetism and all the different forces we discovered so far. The longer you zoom in the weaker that force of the smaller universe would be to our universe making it really hard to detect and the more you zoom out of our own universe the larger these forces will become eventually we don't notice them. Just like we don't notice that we are spinning around the sun as we sit behind our computers and we can't notice if our universe was spinning around another object made up of a higher state of energy.
    The concept is sort of more matter and energy are the same and they are just forces of layers integrating with each other on all levels.

    atoms are universes, quarks are galaxies and what's inside the quark is new planets with new atoms with new universes with new quark galaxies with new planets made out of atoms all layers creating stronger and weaker forces that ripple into each others universes and interact with each other as one thing.
     
Loading...