Black holes do (not) exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong ?

  • 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.

A scientist from University of North Carolina states she has mathematical proof that black holes (illustrated) can't exist. She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Previously, scientists thought stars  larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes as they died

A scientist from University of North Carolina states she has mathematical proof that black holes (illustrated) can’t exist. She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Previously, scientists thought stars larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes as they died

The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.

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

THE BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX

One of the biggest unanswered questions about black holes is the so-called information paradox.

Under current theories for black holes it is thought that nothing can escape from the event horizon around a black hole – not even light itself.

Inside the black hole is thought to be a singularity where matter is crushed to an infinitesimally small point as predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity.

However, a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

This creates a paradox; how can a black hole make matter and information ‘disappear’?

Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory manages to explain why this might be so – namely because black holes as we know them cannot exist.

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.

THIS is what a black hole looks like – simulation shows disc…

During the collapse process stars release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation (shown). But Professor Mersini-Houghton claims this process means the star loses too much mass and can't form a black hole. And this also apparently means the Big Bang theory, that the universe began as a singularity, may not be correct

During the collapse process stars release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation (shown). But Professor Mersini-Houghton claims this process means the star loses too much mass and can’t form a black hole. And this also apparently means the Big Bang theory, that the universe began as a singularity, may not be correct

THERE ARE NO BLACK HOLES, ONLY GREY HOLES, CLAIMS HAWKING

Earlier this year Professor Stephen Hawking shocked physicists by saying ‘there are no black holes’.

In a paper published online, Professor Hawking instead argues there are ‘grey holes’

‘The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity,’ he says in the paper, called Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting For Black Holes.

He says that the idea of an event horizon, from which light cannot escape, is flawed.

He suggests that instead light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be held as though stuck on a treadmill and that they can slowly shrink by spewing out radiation.

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.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html#ixzz3ELcu47ue
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Advertisements

#big-bang-theory, #black-holes, #fantastic-discovery, #florida-state-university, #laura-mersini-houghton, #new-theory, #science-news

Darwin’s “Horrid Doubt”: The Mind

Charles_Darwin_by_Barraud_c1881-crop.jpg

Many people in their forties today grew up with science as the business end of naturalist atheism. In their view, a “scientific” explanation is one that describes a universe devoid of meaning, value, or purpose. That is how we know it is a scientific explanation.

Science wasn’t always understood that way, and the new approach has consequences. It means, for example, that multiverse cosmology can consist entirely of evidence-free assumptions. Yet only a few question whether it is science.

Indeed, physicist Carlo Rovelli sounds distinctly old-fashioned when he says, “Science does not advance by guessing.” That depends on what you count as an advance. If science means projects such as ruling out the Big Bang and fine-tuning of the universe — irrespective of evidence, because they smack of theism — then guessing is an accepted and acceptable strategy.

Similarly, origin-of-life studies are “scientific” to the extent that they seek an origin without any intelligent cause. A century and a half of dead ends prompts no rethink; neither would a millennium. Even if probability theorists can show, beyond reasonable doubt, that an intelligent cause is required, their correct explanation would be rejected because it is not “scientific.”

And in studies of human evolution, the starting point is that “humans are evolved primates, an unexceptional twig on the tree of life, though like other twigs, we are accidental outliers.” Again, no one seeks to demonstrate that proposition. And no finding that doesn’t support that interpretation can be considered “science.” Any thesis that does support it, even that humans are chimp-pig hybrids, may be considered science.

So the “scientific” approach to that least material of entities, the human mind, means interpreting it in a naturalist and materialist way.

Darwin had doubts about how the Cambrian period fitted his theory. But his “horrid doubt” concerned the human mind:

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

In future articles, we will look at the “hard problem” of consciousness and the conundrums that free will, altruism, and religion create for naturalism. Plus a side trip into naturalism’s pop culture expressions: “evolutionary” claims about psychology, politics, business, and art. These claims are often taken seriously by opinion leaders. After all, however exotic, they need only be fully naturalist to qualify, at least potentially, as science.

Most partial or whole explanations of the human mind propose one of the following models:

  • The brain randomly generates illusions that self-organize as a “mind.” Behavior is thus better accounted for by the study of neurons (neuroscience) than the study of the illusory “mind.”
  • Our hominoid ancestors passed on hypothetical genes via natural selection acting on random mutation. These claimed (not demonstrated) genes result in our attitudes, values, beliefs, and behavior — mistakenly seen as the outcome of thought processes (evolutionary psychology).
  • Identified genes determine behavior in the present day, the way a light switch controls a circuit. These include the “bad driver” gene, the infidelity gene, and the liberal gene, for starters. Whether or not such claims correspond to how genes work, the pop science media deems them plausible because they are naturalist. They bypass widespread illusions such as moral and intellectual choice.
  • Our primate cousins’ behavior can explain ours, because we are 98 percent chimpanzee. Naturalism means never having to ask commonsense questions like: If chimps’ behavior explains ours, why didn’t they develop as we did? Naturalism simply does not process such questions. It is true without evidence, and cannot be confuted by evidentiary failures.
  • Artificial intelligence enthusiasts hope to create conscious machines with superior intelligence, in short, a material mind. 2020 is the current apocalypse year according to some. We’ll swing by that approach, if only because so many people take it seriously. Again, however preposterous, if it is naturalist, it is science.

Ironically, while Darwin may have doubted the fully naturalized mind and felt horrid about it, most of his latter-day supporters believe and feel good. And, on its own terms, their faith cannot be disconfirmed.

My “Science Fictions” series on cosmology is here, origin of life is here, and human evolution ishere.

#darwin, #id, #science

World First As Message Sent From Brain To Brain

A man wears a brain-machine interface, e

A technique known as electroencephalogry recorded thoughts.

In a world first, a team of researchers has achieved brain-to-brain transmission of information between humans.

The team managed to send messages from India to France – a distance of 5,000 miles – without performing invasive surgery on the test subjects.

There were four participants in the study, aged between 28 and 50.

One was assigned to a brain-computer interface to transmit the thought, while the three others were assigned to receive the thought.

The first participant, located in India, was shown words translated into binary, and had to envision actions for each piece of information.

For example, they could move their hands for a 1 or their legs for a 0.

A technique known as electroencephalogry – which monitors brain signals from the outside – was used to record the thoughts as outgoing messages and send them via the internet.

At the other end, electromagnetic induction was used to stimulate the brain’s visual cortex from the outside and pass on the signal  successfully to the three other participants in France.

The report’s co-author, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, said: “We wanted to find out if one could communicate directly between two people by reading out the brain activity from one person and injecting brain activity into the second person, and do so across great physical distances by leveraging existing communication pathways.

“One such pathway is, of course, the internet, so our question became, ‘Could we develop an experiment that would bypass the talking or typing part of internet and establish direct brain-to-brain communication between subjects located far away from each other in India and France?”

The research team was made up of researchers from Harvard University, as well experts from France and Spain.

#brain-to-brain-transmission, #news, #science

Harsh Thoughts: Cynicism Linked to Stroke Risk

Diagram Network

Middle-age and older people who are highly stressed, have depression or who are perhaps even just cynical may be at increased risk of stroke, according to new research.

In the study, more than 6,700 healthy adults ages 45 to 84 completed questionnaires about their stress levels, depressive symptoms, feelings of anger, and hostility, which is a measure of holding cynical views about other people. The researchers then followed the participants for eight to 11 years, and looked at the relationship between these psychological factors and people’s risk of having a stroke.

“There’s such a focus on traditional risk factors — cholesterol levels, blood pressure, smoking and so forth. And those are all very important, but studies like this one show that psychological characteristics are equally important,” said study researcher Susan Everson-Rose, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

View original post

Self-Folding Robot Suggests Answer to Common Objection to Intelligent Design

An article that recently appeared on Google News, “Origami robot doesn’t need a human to assemble itself and start working,” has a fascinating video of a self-folding robot that mimics the way proteins or insect wings spontaneously fold into their functional form.

This suggests an answer to a common objection to the theory of intelligent design. The objection, stated in various forms by thinkers dating back to David Hume, goes something like this:

We do observe that intelligent designers build complex technology. But they never build things that grow, reproduce, or evolve — i.e., we humans never produce things like life. Thus it’s inappropriate to analogize between human-designed technology and living organisms because human-designed technology lacks key features of life. This causes the argument for design in nature based upon nature’s similarities to human designs to break down.

This objection has always seemed less than compelling to me. Consider reproduction. True, humans haven’t (yet) produced technology capable of self-replication or reproduction in the biological sense, but why should that count against the argument for design? Surely something that cannot reproduce or self-replicate is less complex than something that can. But if human technology (which cannot reproduce) is less complex than biological systems, yet it is designed, doesn’t that suggest a fortiori that living organisms — which are more complex and can reproduce — were designed? In other words, the flaw in the analogy seems to strengthen the argument for design rather than weaken it.

Moreover, the objection is based upon the presumption that human technology will never reproduce. Who is to say what human technology will be able to do in the future? We’re now starting to build self-folding robots. Why is it so hard to imagine that in the future, human technology might reproduce and grow and self-assemble? (In fact, computer simulations can reproduce all of these capacities already.) This objection seems to retreat into the gaps as human technology becomes more and more advanced. And, incidentally, much of that progress comes as human technology mimics nature.

In short, the objection claims that differences between human technology and natural structures count against intelligent design in nature. But I think the logic of the objection is backwards. Here’s how I would frame it:

  • (a) If intelligent causes make more complex and efficient designs than unintelligent causes,
  • then (b) if nature’s designs are more complex and efficient than human technology, and
  • (c) human technology is designed,
  • then (d) nature’s features must also exhibit some design.

True, human technology and natural features are not always identical. But those differences tend to point towards design in nature rather than against it.

#intelligent-design, #news, #science

Maths and Extra Terrestrial Civilization

Actual—-

Diagram Network

I’ve found an interesting article from Robert Walkers which can be found here:

Modern maths has a “Heath Robinson” type approach – at least philosophically –  with its many sizes of infinity and logical paradoxes. Would this be the same for ETs? Also, what if they experience time and space differently from us? Perhaps they can only reason using flashes of insight?

Or, perhaps topology is easy, but counting, for them, is an advanced concept few understand? Or perhaps they use quantum logic or some other logic we haven’t thought of yet? Or, might they see everything as fractals?

With no experience of ET mathematicians, we haven’t got much to go on. But, let’s take a look at a few of the ways ET maths could take different approaches from ours, or be hard for us to understand.

INFINITY, SETS AND LOGICAL PARADOXES

This is an area of maths (use of sets…

View original post 6,579 more words

Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money

Trees burn as flames move towards the City of Berkeley's Toulumne Family Camp near Groveland, California in August 2013. Global warming creates conditions that intensify wildfires and the costs of fighting them.
Trees burn as flames move towards the City of Berkeley’s Toulumne Family Camp near Groveland, California in August 2013. Global warming creates conditions that intensify wildfires and the costs of fighting them. Photograph: Noah Berger/EPA

Connecting the dots between human-caused global warming and specific extreme weather events has been a challenge for climate scientists, but recent research has made significant advances in this area. Links have been found between some very damaging extreme weather events and climate change.

For example, research has shown that a “dipole” has formed in the atmosphere over North America, with a high pressure ridge off the west coast, and a low pressure trough over the central and eastern portion of the continent.

Departure of the November 2013 – January 2014 250 hPa geopotential height from the normal climatology.
Departure of the November 2013 – January 2014 250 hPa geopotential height from the normal climatology. Source: Wang et al. (2014), Geophysical Research LettersPhotograph: Wang et al. (2014), Geophysical Research Letters

These sorts of pressure ridges in the atmosphere are linked to “waves” in the jet stream. Research has shown that when these jet stream waves form, they’re accompanied by more intense extreme weather. The high pressure zone off the west coast or North America has been termed the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” due to its persistence over the past two years. It’s been the main cause of California’s intense drought by pushing rain storms around the state.

California drought as of 26 August 2014.  58% of the state is in 'exceptional drought' conditions.
California drought as of 26 August 2014. 58% of the state is in ‘exceptional drought’ conditions. Source: United States Drought Monitor

A paper led by S.-Y. Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges. The authors concluded,

It is important to note that the dipole is projected to intensify, which implies that the periodic and inevitable droughts California will experience will exhibit more severity.

Similarly, a recent paper led by Kevin Trenberth and published in Nature Climate Change concluded,

Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.

Another study recently published in the Journal of Climate examined data from past climate changes, and found that climate models are underestimating the likelihood of intense droughts in the southwestern USA due to global warming.

In the US Southwest, for instance, state-of-the-art climate model projections suggest the risk of a decade-scale megadrought in the coming century is less than 50%; our analysis suggests that the risk is at least 80%, and may be higher than 90% in certain areas. The likelihood of longer lived events (> 35 years) is between 20% and 50%, and the risk of an unprecedented 50 year megadrought is non-negligible under the most severe warming scenario (5-10%).

There are several ways in which global warming intensifies drought. Hotter temperatures increase evaporation from soil and reservoirs. They cause more precipitation to fall as rain and less as snow, which for a region like California that relies on the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains as its natural water storage system, is problematic. Hotter temperatures also cause the snowpack to melt earlier in the year. The problem can be alleviated by building more water storage infrastructure, but that costs money.

On top of all that, there’s the apparent strengthening of high pressure ridges off the coast, pushing rain storms around California. Research suggests that there may be a connection between these ridges and the decline in Arctic sea ice, although this connection is debated among climate experts.

#climate, #disaster, #publication, #science