Physicist Claims Black Holes Mathematically Don't Exist 356
Koreantoast writes: Black holes, the stellar phenomena that continue to capture the imagination of scientists and science fiction authors, may not actually exist. According to a paper published by physics professor Laura Mersini-Houghton at the University of North Carolina and Mathematics Professor Harald Pfeiffer of the University of Toronto, as a collapsing star emits Hawking radiation, it also sheds mass at a rate that suggests it no longer has the density necessary to become a black hole — the singularity and event horizon never form. While the arXiv paper with the exact solution has not yet been peer reviewed, the preceding paper by Mersini-Houghton with the approximate solutions was published in Physics Letters B.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about... 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."
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about... 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."
Well of course. (Score:4, Funny)
Respectable mad scientists have known for years that supposed 'black holes' are really just wormholes to the goatee universe.
Re:Well of course. (Score:5, Funny)
Better that than "worm"holes into the goatse universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
As long as they don't go to the goatse universe. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the one we're currently in—hence all the apparent giant black holes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this marked +1 informative? It should be +1 funny.
Learn about meta-humour, grasshopper...
Re:Well of course. (Score:5, Funny)
You all really shouldn't do that. What is going to happen when some naive person, say a Congressman or Senator, wanders onto Slashdot and see's posts like that marked "Informative"? They're going to think we're a bunch of tossers. They won't listen to our carefully worded comments and summaries.
Then where would the world be?
Funny is it's own reward.
Re:Well of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll say "What the carnations is that apostrophe doing there? It's not even a plural!"
Saints preserve us.
Re: (Score:2)
This will never be acceptable, true or not. The theory reduces to nonsense, more than half of the Science Fiction plotlines that deal with interstellar travel.
Physics breakdown (Score:2)
Black holes are real, we observe them all the time (Score:4, Interesting)
IAAASBH (I am an astrophysicist studying black holes): Yeah, um, no.
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're observing phenomenon that appear to be Black Holes but are really gravstars or other normal stellar phenomena that don't require exotic and contradictory explanation and you don't realize it.
After all, just because you learned something growing up as a child doesn't mean it's true.
You are after all doing remote observation on objects that are 100's to billions of light years away.
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
"After all, just because you learned something growing up as a child doesn't mean it's true."
Or perhaps the sensationalist non-peer reviewed paper making wild claim about the nature of the universe will wilt under scrutiny?
I generally don't throw out everything I learned as a child the first time I hear a contradictory claim, I perk up my spidey sense and look for extra info pro/con and decide if it is time to adjust my mental model of the world around me. Often it turns out that wild claims are a load of bunk from crackpots (shocker!).
My favorite early formative experience like this from my teenage years was a guy at a cafe who, after overhearing my step-dad and me talking engineering, and posed a riddle about a piece of string wrapped around the earth, and if by adding some length (I forget now) while evenly raising its height above the ground, could a poodle walk under it? Turns out that simple analysis showed his answer was completely wrong and BS (he claimed it took miles, while it takes 2*pi*poodle). My take-away was to be skeptical of crack-pots making wild claims about the world, they are often either idiots or wrong (especially if they clearly have an anti-science agenda).
Re: (Score:3)
Are we talking about a spherical poodle?
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensationalist? What are you talking about?
Not peer-reviewed? Mersini-Houghton's results were published this month in Physics Letters B, Backreaction of Hawking radiation on a gravitationally collapsing star I: Black holes? [sciencedirect.com] I don't expect you to read the existing literature, but the least you can do is check the indices to see if it exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, but you don't need calculus.
c+dc = 2*pi*(r+dr)
substitute 2*pi*r for c & expand
2*pi*r + dc = 2*pi*r + 2*pi*dr
simplify
dc/dr = 2*pi
assuming dr>0. i.e. we are not dealing with a poodle singularity.
Which by remarkable coincidence have recently been shown mathematically to not exist [slashdot.org]
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooooo its something of huge mass that pulls things in like they're falling down a hole and it emits no light and therefore would appear to be black.
Why can't we call this thing a black hole again?
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you indirectly observe what are supposed to be black holes, or better yet, you directly observe instrument readouts that you interpret as indicating the existence of black holes. If this paper is correct, perhaps a different interpretation is in order, and exciting science can be done.
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that's not possible. Per definition a black hole cannot be observed. If it could, it would have to allow light to escape its event horizon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you can however observe stars orbiting Sgr A* at speeds that indicate something with 4 million solar masses is contained within a very small volume, and that no "star" is there.
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being pedantic. Indirect observation is still observation, and they're indirectly observing things that behave consistently with our theory of black holes. As for black hole formation, which is what the article is actualy about, I don't think they've ever observed such a thing.
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Funny)
IAAASBH (I am an astrophysicist studying black holes): Yeah, um, no.
So... The science is settled then? OK...
Re: (Score:2)
A challenge! Trial by stone!
Re: Black holes are real, we observe them all the (Score:3)
Third time's the charm: trying to come up with something you can just click-and-read:
This one's in html:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-7... [scirp.org]
Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we can just assume something is fact because it fits with what we know right now. Modern physics was built on quashing the assumptions that infinities and infinitesimals exist. We cannot go arbitrarily fast, and we cannot chop things up infinitesimally small, or measure to an arbitrary accuracy. These ideas were built in to classical mechanics as deeply as black holes.
To be clear I am not saying that black holes do not exist and what we observe and call black holes are not black holes. Just that when we are dealing with artifacts of mathematical models, time could identify them more as artifacts of the model rather than the most useful representation of the observable universe.
Headline slightly inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
The headline-- black holes don't exist-- is at odds with the actual article.
The article doesn't say the mathematicians said that black holes don't exist: it says they showed black holes aren't formed by the collapse of massive stars. Black holes such as the ones at the nuclei of galaxies may very well be formed by other processes.
--even if it were true that black holes don't exist, by the way, it doesn't solve the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum mechanics. At best it would solve the black hole information paradox; but since it still incorporates Hawking radiation in the solution, it doesn't even solve that.
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically, the researcher is saying that the process of stellar collapse sheds so much mass via hawking radiation that there's not enough left to form a black hole. Given this is a fresh paper, and at odds with astronomical observations, I'm skeptical.
Re:Headline slightly inaccurate (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it at odds with observations? We've (indirectly) observed some of objects consistent with our theories of how black holes would behave, but to the best of my knowledge we've never observed the *formation* of such an object.
Moreover, as I recall there is more than a little controversy as to whether supermassive black holes could actually form and grow in a manner consistent with prevailing theory, as opposed to having been formed in the early moments of our universe, or through some yet-to-be-theorized process. And if the biggest candidates couldn't actually form according to our theories, then I see no reason to assume their much smaller bretheren couldn't be formed throgh the same alternate process, whatever that might be.
It could even be, as the headline deceptively states, that back holes don't actually exist and our candidate objects are something else that only superficially resembles them at phenominal distances, but that certainly wouldn't be my first assumption.
But do we see them? (Score:3)
How is it at odds with observations? We've (indirectly) observed some of objects consistent with our theories of how black holes would behave, but to the best of my knowledge we've never observed the *formation* of such an object.
The headline-- Black holes don't exist-- is at odds with our observations: we see things that appear to be black holes.
The actual summary is not at odds with our observations: the summary says that stellar collapse doesn't form black holes, and we don't have observations to say know how the black holes we seem to be observing were formed.
Now, you could go on and ask whether the things that we see which we are interpreting as black holes might be something else. But that would require a new theory that coul
Re: (Score:3)
There has to be more to it than the question, because you can trivially ask it of every theory ever. The paper at least brings something new, pointing to detailed inconsistencies in the theory - it has lots of actual work behind it. Just babbling on about "it might be this or that" doesn't.
Leonard Susskind is famous (as physicists go) for making outlandish claims every five years or so, which then later turn out to be true. But of course it's the latter part that makes his claims interesting, and as he's
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the arxiv summary, it sounds less like "we don't think black holes exist" than like "when we add hawking radiation to our model, it doesn't collapse down that far, wtf", leading to (in my mind) the questions "well, do we see anything that looks like what this model is saying" and "in that case where do the things that look like black holes come from". (I suspect the answer is going to be "there's a bug in this model right _here_", but we shall see :)
If you happen to read the whole paper and feel li
Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what are those big honking things [astronomy.com] seeing [physicsworld.com]?
Is this a case where something has been mathematically proven to not exist after it's been observationally confirmed?
Re: (Score:3)
Pfft, my psychiatrist does that all the time.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was waiting for someone to say this...
That's not what she's saying (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's not what she's saying (Score:5, Insightful)
just that they never collapse further than the state that gravity can overcome the speed of light.
It sounds like a new term like "black star" rather than "black hole" might be in order. Because the stars at the center of our universe are orbiting around something really heavy that doesn't emit any visible light.
If I'm reading this right there's something really big and heavy there, we just can't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Black Star isn't a new term though.
Re: (Score:2)
If the even horizon was actually the body of the object then I don't believe we would be seeing some of the effects we see. Not being an astrophysicist I can't put it in words but there are observed phenomenon relating to black holes that are tied to matter collapsing into the singularity from the event horizon (at least that's our current understanding) if the event horizon is the edge of the body then these phenomenon wouldn't happen.
In all likelihood there is going to be a review that finds some mistake
Re:That's not what she's saying (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
And there's also a reallllllllllllly telling quote in the actual paper [sciencedirect.com] I'm still reading to make sure I understood the context right, but,
Consider a spherically symmetric, uniform density, perfect-fluid star, undergoing gravitational collapse. The stress energy tensor of the fluid is ...
Looks like a hell of assumption to make about stellar density. We know the cores are way more dense than the rest of the star, that's the magic that makes the fusion happen.
Now if this assumption is qualified and addressed later in the paper, I'll be guilty of not being careful enough, but I haven't found that clue yet.
Re: (Score:2)
the core of a normal star. Once gone nova, is there really much difference in the remnant white drwarf or neutron star? A star does not go from normal to black hole in an instant.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Informative)
A follow up. The abstract for the second paper is linked in the summary, and the conclusion of the paper I'm referencing above suggests that the second paper(which we only have the abstract to) will attempts to address some of the concerns of simplistic assumptions. I think I'd need to do some really hard math, and pay for the full paper to determine if I personally agree with it justifying those assumptions, which I think is better left to experts who aren't supposed to be doing some programming right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what are those big honking things [astronomy.com] seeing [physicsworld.com]?
Don't know. Sometimes you think you've seen one thing but then it turns out it's something entirely different. That's the joy of learning. Our understanding (generally) improves over time.
Is this a case where something has been mathematically proven to not exist after it's been observationally confirmed?
Could be. Or not. I don't have the background to know if this paper is factually correct or not. But that's the thing about radio astronomy regarding things massively distant... you're not actually observing anything. You're taking in massive amounts of data then interpreting it. Sure, your eye does that when you l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If black holes don't exist, then the answer is "something other than a black hole". I would say that things as massive as black holes have been observationally confirmed. Whether these things have been observed to have all the properties of the traditional mathematical model of a black hole is a different claim.
I'm skeptical of the claim that "black holes don't exist", but saying "we observed them" is begging the question, because it presupposes that the observed phenomena was a black hole.
Of course (Score:3)
If it emits Hawking radiation as it's collapsing, it doesn't become a black hole, it becomes a Hawking hole.
Re: (Score:2)
If it emits Hawking radiation as it's collapsing, it doesn't become a black hole, it becomes a Hawking hole.
Fry-hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is The Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?
Re:Of course (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not Mexican but I believe it's spelled "frijole"
think of the artists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like they fell into a hole of some kind.
"into harmony" (Score:3, Insightful)
this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony."
and into direct conflict with observations. I'm going to guess your math is wrong, not that black holes don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
As the scientific method dictates, we should send these scientists into a black hole to verify the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
No, for this kind of testing you start with a lesser, more expendable species ... I suggest politicians and lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize how far the nearest black hole is and how long it would take to get there? What do you think the scientists are going to eat on the trip? Politicians and lawyers seems like a good compromise. Those atoms will never return to earth and I think we can live with that.
Re:"into harmony" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK. BUT! (Score:3)
In the true spirit of /. I only read TFS but from it I see that only the "collapsing star" method of creating a black hole is covered. So there must be other methods for obtaining a black hole which won't violate mathematical simulations.
Mathematically speaking... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Colonel is dead, yet we still eat his chicken.
I've heard of "dark holes" (Score:2)
Black holes can exist without a singularity (Score:5, Interesting)
It is generally posited that a singularity is the result of a gravitational collapse resulting in a black hole. However an event horizon will form whenever sufficient mass density occurs, thus a 'black hole'. If the contention is that the Hawking radiation dissipates the mass before the singularity forms, so be it. Does not mean no black hole, just no singularity.
I have not read the article, so I don't know if this is reflective of her contention, however:
Imagine 2 observers, 1 falling into the black hole, one with great patience a safe distance away. Over time the distant observer will see the black hole eventually become isolated and cease to accumulate new mass (trillions of years perhaps). Thereafter, Hawking radiation begins to dominate and the black hole goes on a diet, eventually going out of existence with a hot bang.
Meanwhile the more adventurous observer is falling toward the postulated center of the black hole, but is experiencing greater and greater time dilation relative to the low density external universe. Thus at some point, before reaching the singularity state, the observer 'sees' the entire future of the external universe, including an ever increasing flood of Hawking radiation that results in the black hole evaporation. So incoming matter never gets to infinite density, no singularity occurs because the evaporation happens on a different time scale than the collapse. Black hole? Yes, Singularity? No
If this is not the equivalent of the cited paper, I am free to go to Oslo at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to General Relativity (without quantum mechanical consideration), a (gravitational) event horizon MUST have a singularity inside, proven by Hawkings and Penrose in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Not have, lead to.. which allows time for other events to intervene.
Re: (Score:2)
eh, don't understand your first phrase.
in classic GR nothing can intervene once the event horizon forms, all matter inside MUST wind up in singularity in finite time, and there is no infinite force that can keep that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
'Lead to' implies something that occurs after passage of (local) time.
Sure, and in classical GR you end up dividing by zero. The point I was making was that 'finite time' is not zero time, and the disparity in the rate of time inside the event horizon vs far away allows plenty of time for quantum effects in the form of Hawking radiation to intervene and dissipate the black hole before the posited singularity come into existence. Since the events transpire over finite time, no infinite force is required.
Re: (Score:2)
And the 'without quantum mechanical consideration' is exactly ignoring Hawking radiation
Re: (Score:2)
Are you clear this theory says no event horizons and no singularities either? Only hawking radiation in area with strong enough gravity to lose gravitational energy by affecting spontaneous particle pair formation. Hawking radiation in case of black holes existing do not prevent singularity from forming as it only exists outside the event horizon. It does not provide a mechanism for changing space-time geodesic inside event horizon, which must end on singularity. If quantum mechanics does prevent singul
Short Memories (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The scientific community claimed no such thing. Random idiots did though. Says Wikipedia:
The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the bumblebee (as well as other insects) are actually quite well understood, in spite of the urban legend that calculations show that they should not be able to fly. In the 1930s, the French entomologist Antoine Magnan, using flawed techniques, indeed postulated that bumblebees theoretically should not be able to fly in his book Le Vol des Insectes (The Flight of Insects).[159] Magnan later realized his error and retracted the suggestion. However, the hypothesis became generalized to the false notion that "scientists think that bumblebees should not be able to fly".
Only one way to solve this (Score:2)
Better dumbed down article.... (Score:2)
Just means that the choice of word should change:
His precise words were: "The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes -- in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity."
It seems clear. There are no forever and ever holes of blackness. There is always the chance that light might emerge.
Hawking continued, however: "There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field."
What about Cygnus X-1? (Score:2)
To take what is probably the strongest example of an observed phenomenon that can be explained as a black hole and not much else. Even Hawking gave in and paid off his bet with Kip Thorne.
History of issue; Calculation not so relevant (Score:5, Informative)
While this calculation may help convince about some aspects of some arguments, it isn't necessary for the headline claim. There was always an old issue non-formation (or more accurately partial realization in finite-time or general paradox/etc) because of the coordinate singularity at the event horizon (time slows to a stop). There is even a book called Frozen Star by Greenstein from the 1980s if you are interested in the history of this.
The reason what the article of this thread says may cause controversy or confusion is because of the cultural way the resolution of the original issue got converted into a "talking point"/recurring example/"de-confused". In free falling coordinates, crossing the event horizon is no more special than walking across Earth's North Pole. There is no "problematic" infinity until the actual center point (which is what the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem is about, but that theorem in essence assumes non-evaporation). That theorem itself was in response to speculation of some process intervening to "bounce" collapsing stars and censor black holes from the universe.
All these statements are fine and still correct as far as they go, but one has to be careful about the background assumptions embedded in analyzing things in free fall coordinates. A long history of poo-poo'ing the coordinate singularity or some hypothesized bounce process as "unreal" or "unphysical" led to a tradition of always analyzing things in free fall coordinates (as the arXiv paper in the OP does!). The validity of this transform does have implicit requirements, just not in the pure math of the general relativity transforms but in the physical context. E.g., it requires an infinite background future (i.e. no Big Crunch) which seems to be implied by data these days but was in great doubt for decades. It also assumes a non-evaporating situation which has been in doubt since the mid-1970s with Hawking Radiation.
Here's the important point which I cannot emphasize enough: WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES IS REFERENCE-FRAME INDEPENDENT. At some (maybe far) future time, a mass concentration is either there or it isn't. Period. Reference frames change observed rates/the clocks/positions maybe but not the actual core situation. If a distant, non-freefalling observer can see a Black Hole evaporate to nothing in a finite-time, then at the end of the day [ or the hole ;-) ] it will have taken less time to evaporate than to form in both the freefalling frame and the distant observer frame. That is just another way of saying it just didn't finish forming. That's it.
People have been speculating about micro-black holes evaporating into nothing ever since Hawking's initial result. In that light there is no news younger than 40 years old here.
To be sure there are some specific dynamics to be modeled here and what this paper does is model them in free fall coordinates. All those details are surely important to pro physicists. The zinger headline of non-formation doesn't rely on such details. It only relies upon any mass-energy transfer from within the hole to a great distance away and enough time in the heat death to have evaporation be the dominant process (or else a small enough black hole that it doesn't need much time). Hawking Radiation is but one such process, though a theoretical one. Most think (on similar general theoretical grounds) that any quantum gravity will have ways for strong gravitational fields to decay. So, it seems likely that there will be some process, but sure, sure, evidence is needed, too.
Logically, though, reference frame independence of what actually happens means that any argument against non-formation is translatable to an argument against Black Hole decay. Contrapositively, any argument for black hole decay is an argument for only incomplete black hole formation. There may be possible glitches in last-moment of existence type stuff, but that truly is blind-leading-the-blind territory. I actually tried to raise this in 1988 with my freshman relativity professor but I don't think he understood my point and he mostly poo'poo'd about how Hawking Radiation would break down at the last moment of decay or something.
Black Holes Don't Exist (Score:3)
Black holes as we conceive of them now would actually be easy to see.
Light originating from behind the black hole (from the perspective of the viewer), traveling in a direction toward the black hole (but not intersecting the event horizon), would be bent by the black hole. The result would be extreme gravitational lensing. When looking at the black hole, the effect would range from a general increase in brightness around the black hole, to an extreme brightness appearing to originate from the location of the black hole.
Objects of such mass and density have not been found. We have speculated that they exist at certain places, but we have not seen the requisite lensing effects akin to a kid using a magnifying glass outside (either just looking at shit or using it to burn shit).
Black holes, with the requisite lensing effects may exist, but they'd be easy to spot. What we seen so far, and have labeled as black holes, cannot be of the size and mass we think they are.
A Loop Quantum Gravity Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
The authors propose a singularity is not created when a black hole collapse occurs. Instead, the suggest that the material falling into the gravity well forms a "Planck star". The mass does not disappear into a singularity, but remains as a form of matter compressed to the Planck scale. The Planck pressure (my term) stops the gravitational collapse, so no infinite mathematical feature is involved.
A Plank star has very similar characteristics to a conventional black hole. It has a Schwarzschild radius, so matter and energy are swallowed up in the same way. The difference is what happens inside the Schwarzschild radius and the long term fate of the star.
Two effects come into play: time dilation and Hawking radiation. Because of the immense gravity, time dilation makes events inside the Schwarzschild radius appear to take billions of years to the outside observer, although the happen rapidly in the frame of reference of the Planck star. As in-falling matter hits the Planck matter core, it bounces back. It does not simply collect at the core.
Additionally, Hawking radiation occurs. This means that energy can be released outside the Schwarzschild radius, which allows the star to loose mass. In this theory, about a third of the mass can escape via this mechanism. However, this process also takes a long period because of time dilation. (There is more complexity to this, but since I'm not certain how it works I'll not try and describe it.)
Eventually the radius of the expanding Plank star matter and the Schwarzschild radius intersect, and from the point of view of the external observer the formerly "black" hole explodes. This is different then the long term evolution of a classical black hole, which looses most of it's mass via Hawking radiation. The final evaporation of a classical black hole is not a big explosion since the final mass is relatively small, and no matter how big the black hole was, the final bang is the same size. For a Planck star, the size of the explosion depends on the mass inside the Schwarzschild radius.
This theory has some very nice properties. First, there is no infinitely dense matter. Classical black hole models have been trying to grapple with this issue for a long time. Also, since the final explosion can be massive, it could be the source of very high energy cosmic rays. Some have already suggested that gamma ray bursts may be the visible result. The theory predicts that the explosion can take about 14 billion years to occur to an external observer, so that fits in with the current age of the universe. Note that there are testable features relating to cosmic rays and other radiation coming from Plank stars, so observational verification is possible.
An important part of the theory is that it resolves the black hole information paradox [wikipedia.org]. According to this article at Phys.org [phys.org]
This is potentially a big deal. If true it solves some troubling theoretical problems and man tie black holes and cosmic rays together. It would also present a huge challenge to string theory, because it gives credence to loop quantum gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Magnets?
Re: (Score:2)
Magnets?
Yeah, but how do they fucking work?
Re: (Score:3)
Just fine. Thanks for asking.
Re:Counterintuitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Microscopic invisible critters living on magnets shoot out invisible rubber band tethered harpoons at anything metal they see nearby. These beings are known as Magtonians. They feed on metal, but since they're microscopic you'll never actually see the damage. You can prove this by holding a magnet in your fingers and getting it close the metal, you can feel the rubber bands stretch and snap as you move the magnet close to metal and pulling it away. Some of the Magtonians can shoot their harpoons further than the others, that's why the pull increases as you get the two objects nearer to one another. More Magtonians successfully launch and attach the closer the magnet gets to metal.
There's another interesting fact about Magtonians. The males live on one side of the magnet, and the females on the other. However when the two are separated the females stay on one side and the males on the other. They're horny little bastards. This is why the pull of the harpoons are stronger when you use two magnets instead of just metal as both genders are launching their harpoons towards the others land.
Magtonians are not gay however and don't like the introduction of other Magtonians of their own sex into their group. When you try to introduce two male sided Magnets to one another or two female sided magnets to one another instead of harpoons they will try to keep themselves apart by extending poles pushing the two magnets apart. This is where the term "polarity" comes from. These crafty Magtonians are even fairly good at flipping the opposing magnet over with their harpoons and poles. Try it, try setting one disk magnet on top of the other with same sex sides facing, they will usually flip in mid air pole induced flip then quickly harpoon together.
Rubbing a magnet on a piece of metal will cause some of the Magtonians to fall off off and take up new residence on their food source, thus creating a new home for them and turning what was once a simple piece of metal into a new magnet.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice.
Please explain how this hypothesis fits with the observed effects of breaking a magnet in half, and with related theories of electromagnetism.
Magtonians are not gay however
Are you proposing this as an explanation as to why we have not been able to obtain evidence of monopoles?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course! Now it all makes sense!
Re: (Score:3)
Try re-reading your question, the answer is embedded in it. I'll clarify: Black holes are a theoretical construct which cause a contradiction between quantum mechanics and general relativity, if it's proven that they cannot exist, then the contradiction they create likewise doesn't exist.
A simpler example: The statements "All crows are black" and "This is a white crow" contradict each other. If I prove that white crows can't exist (maybe your "white crow" is actually a deformed pigeon) then the contradi
Re:yet more proof (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: yet more proof (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've done it. Emma Watson is going to come in to this forum and we'll have to discuss the gender inequalities with respect to black holes.
Re: (Score:2)
you really gotta specify male homosapiens? .... or homosapiens for that matter? i take issue with your redundancy.