Do MECOs Challenge the Existence of Classical Black Holes?

[Saul]

The classical black hole is only one possible solution to what happens to massive bodies as they collapse.

Observational evidence does not support the assertion that the classical hairless BH exists. Quasar specialists have found Quasar structures and quasar morphological differences (what change is required to create a radio loud and a radio quiet quasar that require the massive object to have an intrinsic magnetic field that rotations with the massive object. A classical BH cannot have an intrinsic magnetic field.

The MECO's massive magnetic field exists with or with an accretion disks which explains why 10% of quasars are naked quasars. Naked quasars have no lines of absorption from a accretion disk or gas cloud. There are also naked quasars that emit that have no accompanying galaxy or dust cloud. The point is a classical BH requires a accretion disk to radiate. A rotating MECO does not. The massive magnetic field emits via synchronous radiation by electrons and protons that travel along the field lines.

This is a sample of the series of paper that have been published on this subject. I notice that is now a graduate course that now includes MECO's in their section on quasars.

The MECO object appears based on astronomical observations to not be static. Quasar magnitude pulsate with an asymptotically increasing pulse. As an object cannot increase in emission asymptotically forever it appears the increase leads some event which is then repeated.

The massive MECO object collapse is arrested by the magnetic field that is sufficiently strong to cause space to separate into electrons and positrons.

“The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Hole Candidates and Active Galactic Nuclei”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602453

Although there are widely studied models for generating magnetic fields in accretion disks, they can produce equipartition fields at best [Livio, Ogilvie & Pringle 1999], and perhaps at the expense of being too luminous [Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Lovelace 2000] in quiescence and in any case, too weak and comoving in accretion disks to drive jets. While tangled magnetic fields in accretion disks are very likely responsible for their large viscosity, [e.g. Hawley, Balbus & Winters 1999] the highly variable mass accretion rates in LMXB make it unlikely that disk dynamos could produce the stability of fields needed to account for either spectral state switches or quiescent spin-down luminosities.

The spectral, timing, and jet formation properties of neutron stars in low mass x-ray binary systems are influenced by the presence of central magnetic moments. Similar features shown by the galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) strongly suggest that their compact cores might be intrinsically magnetic as well. We show that the existence of intrinsically magnetic GBHC is consistent with a new class of solutions of the Einstein field equations of General Relativity. These solutions are based on a strict adherence to the Strong Principle of Equivalence (SPOE) requirement that the world lines of physical matter must remain timelike in all regions of spacetime. The new solutions emerge when the structure and radiation transfer properties of the energy momentum tensor on the right hand side of the Einstein field equations are appropriately chosen to dynamically enforce this SPOE requirement of timelike world line completeness. In this context, we find that the Einstein field equations allow the existence of highly red shifted, Magnetospheric, Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO). MECO necessarily possesses intrinsic magnetic moments and they do not have trapped surfaces that lead to event horizons and curvature singularities. Their most striking features are equipartition magnetic fields, pair plasma atmospheres and extreme gravitational redshifts.

http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf

Black Hole or MECO? Decided by a thin Luminous Ring Structure deep within Quasar Q0857+561

Tale of two Quasars
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2422v1.pdf

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/135/3/947

We show how direct microlensing-reverberation analysis performed on two well-known Quasars (Q2237 - The Einstein Cross and Q0957 - The Twin) can be used to observe the inner structure of two quasars which are in significantly different spectral states. These observations allow us to measure the detailed internal structure of quasar Q2237 in a radio quiet high-soft state, and compare it to quasar Q0957 in a radio loud low-hard state. We find that the observed differences in the spectral states of these two quasars can be understood as being due to the location of the inner radii of their accretion disks relative to the corotation radii of rotating intrinsically magnetic supermassive compact objects in the centers of these quasars.

 

[Saul]

This paper is a good summary of the research and the observational evidence that shows hairless black holes do not exists. The massive object in the center of our galaxy (Sgr A*) and the massive object that powers quasars and AGN is a MECO.

http://journalofcosmology.com/RobetsonLeiter.pdf

Does Sgr A* Have an Event Horizon or a Magnetic Moment?

Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 6, 1438-1472 Cosmology, February 15, 2010

In this work we extend the general relativistic Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) model for application to Sgr A*. In a series of papers published within the last few years, it has been shown that the MECO model has been able to account for all of the observational phenomena associated with the galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) and more luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN). For a given mass, the MECO is characterized by only two mass scaled parameters; surface magnetic field strength and rotation rate. Without changing either of these parameters previously found for GBHC and AGN, we demonstrate that the MECO model for Sgr A*:

a) satisfies all of the luminosity constraints that have previously been claimed as proof of an event horizon,

b) reconciles the low bolometric luminosity of Sgr A* with its expected Bondi accretion rate by means of a magnetic propeller driven outow,

c) accounts for the Sgr A* NIR and X-ray luminosities, the general characteristics of its broad band spectrum, and the temporal sequence of ares in different spectral ranges as well as the pattern of its observed orthogonal radio and NIR polarizations.

High resolution radio images of a MECO would be produced in an equatorial OUTFLOW, while high resolution images in NIR wavelengths would be elongated along two INFLOWS into the magnetic poles (apparently generally N-S). These patterns would be distinguishable from black hole RIAF models for which all emissions would arise from an accretion disk. Combination black hole disk-jet models for which the NIR originated in a disk viewed at high inclination would also be distinguished by showing only unidirectional flow.

 

[Saul]

I believe this in one of the first theoretical papers that discussed the fundamental theoretical issues with the classical hairless black hole solution.

Typically theoretical issues are decided by observations. Observations support the assertion that Hairless Black Holes do not exist.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408v5Non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and Black Holes in spherical gravitational collapse: An abridged version Authors: Abhas Mitra (BARC, Theory Division)

C. Matter - Antimatter Annihilation ?
In STR, there is no gravity and hence there is no Kelvin- Helhmoltz process, neither could there be any real finite material body held together by any long range force ( a plasma has to be confined by external electromagnetic fields). And there could be a naive idea that the entire initial mass energy may be radiated only if there are processes like e+e− → 2γ. If this is envisaged as the only way to generate radiation (in this case photons), it must be remembered that such a thing refers to systems having total lepton number or total baryon number as zero. For matter consisting of a definite baryon number and lepton number there cannot be any energy extraction by this process. Yet such matter radiates because of normal electromagnetic processes like Bremsstralung or Compton processes, or by nuclear
processes like p + p → π0 → 2γ. Actually at very high densities and temperatures, in astrophysical scenarios, energy is liberated by the so-called URCA or weak interaction processes involving emission of ν¯ν. Whatever be the process,if the global Kelvin- Helmholtz process heats up the matter to sufficiently high temperature near the singularity (to which everybody agrees), the center of mass energy of the colliding particles, like, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks or whatever it may be, will be accordingly high enough. And in this limit, for an individual collision, the colliding particles can radiate not only an energy equal to their rest mass but any amount higher than this. The easiest example would be that an e−−e+ collider can generate particles (photons, neutrinos, quarks etc.) much heavier than 0.5MeV .

And it should be also remembered that when we say that the entire Mic2 may be radiated, we do not mean that this happens in a flash as is the case for matter-antimatter annihilation. On the other hand, in gravitational collapse, it is the integrated radiation over the entire history of the process we are concerned with.

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the continued collapse of any perfect fluid possessing arbitrary EOS and radiation transport properties, a proper amalgamation of the inherent global constraints arising because of the dependence of spatial curvature like parameter on the global mass-energy content, M, directly shows that no trapped surface is allowed by GTR. This result becomes independent of the details of the radiation transport propert ies because the integration of the (0,0)- component of the Einstein equation, yields the definition of M by absorbing all quantities like ρ, q, and H, in whichever fashion they may be present. Then it follows that if there is a continued collapse, the final gravitational mass of the configuration necessarily becomes zero. This Mf = 0 state must not be confused as a vacuum state, on
the other hand, the baryons and leptons are crushed to the singularity with an infinite negative gravitational energy Eg → −∞. On the other hand, the positive internal energy is also infinite Ein → ∞. However, in the present paper, we did not investigate whether this state corresponds to 2GMf /R < 1 or 2GMf /R = 1. In another work [40], we find that, it is the latter limit which should be appropriate, i.e., the system keeps on radiating and tends to attain the state of a zero mass BH characterized by zero energy and entropy, the ultimate ground state of classical physics.

This is a later paper was presented at a cosmology conference that summarizes the BH criticism down to four pages.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0506/0506183v2.pdf

Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs): Likely New Class of Source of Cosmic Particle Acceleration

Abhas Mitra

2. Reasons for Non-existence of BHs
It is true that the so-called vacuum Schwarzschild solution of GR apparently makes a strong case of existence for BHs. This solution involves an integration constant _0 which is interpreted as twice the mass of the BH: (see paper) where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. It has all along been assumed that this integration constant can have arbitrary finite value. But by application of basic differential geometry (invariance of 4-volume), it has been shown recently, that, actually, this integration constant is unique: _0 ≡ 0[3]. This shows that, the vacuum Schwarzschild solution is only of notional value in the sense that BHs have a unique mass M0 ≡ 0, and as far as real objects (M > 0) are concerned, they cannot be BHs. What are the physical reasons for non-occurrence of finite mass BHs?

 

[Saul]

This later paper by Mitra is a better explanation of the fundamental issues. I see Abhas Mitra is starting to make a name for himself.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25472637/Brief-Scienti%EF%AC%81c-Career-Outline-of-Abhas-Mitra http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608178v3.pdf

Sources of Stellar Energy, Einstein- Eddington Timescale of Gravitational Contraction and Eternally Collapsing Objects Abhas Mitra

We point out that although conventional stars are primarily fed by burning of nuclear fuel at their cores, in a strict sense, the process of release of stored gravitational energy, known as, Kelvin - Helmholtz (KH) process is either also operational albeit at an arbitrary slow rate, or lying in wait to take over at the disruption of the nuclear channel. In fact, the latter mode of energy release is the true feature of any self-gravity bound object including stars.We also highlight the almost forgotten fact that Eddington was the first physicist to introduce Special Relativity into the problem and correctly insist that, actually, total energy stored in a star is not the mere Newtonian energy but the total mass energy (E = Mc^2). Accordingly, Eddington defined an “Einstein Time Scale” of Evolution where the maximum age of the Sun turned out to be tE ≈ 1.4 10^13 yr. This concept has a fundamental importance though we know now that Sun in its present form cannot survive for more than 10 billion years. We extend this concept by introducing General Relativity and show that the minimum value of depletion of total mass-energy is tE = ∞ not only for Sun but for and sufficiently massive or dense object. We propose that this time scale be known in the name of “Einstein - Eddington”. We also point out that, recently, it has been shown that as massive stars undergo continued collapse to become a Black Hole, first they become extremely relativistic Radiation Pressure Supported Stars. And the life time of such relativistic radiation pressure supported compact stars is indeed dictated by this Einstein -Eddington time scale whose concept is formally developed here. Since this observed time scale of this radiation pressure supported quasistatic state turns out to be infinite, such objects are called Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO). Further since ECOs are expected to have strong intrinsic magnetic field, they are also known as “Magnetospheric ECO” or MECO.

 

[Saul]

I found this summary by Mitra to be the best explanation of the physical different between a MECO and the Classical BH solution. The MECO never reaches the theoretical BH state for practical physical reasons.

http://www.scitopics.com/Eternally_Collapsing_Object.html

 

[Jonathan Scott]

As far as I know, the controversial MECO theory assumes that GR is basically correct but that magnetic effects resist collapse indefinitely. The general idea that magnetic effects would provide some resistance to collapse is very well established, but the MECO theory effectively suggests that they provide infinite resistance to collapse, which doesn't seem well supported theoretically, despite some supporting experimental evidence.

There is an alternative hypothesis which leads to very similar experimental results, which is that Einstein's field equations are correct but Hilbert's mathematically plausible adjustment to Schwarzschild's original integration constant in the Schwarzschild solution (leading to black hole theory) does not match physical reality. This possibility was pointed out in a paper by Leonard S Abrams and pursued in further papers by Salvatore Antoci and others, which you can find by searching in Google for the relevant names. As far as I can see, existing theory does not uniquely determine this integration constant so it will either require new theory or experimental evidence to determine which group are right, although even this level of caution is considered a heretical viewpoint by many GR supporters.

(One of the most vociferous supporters of the "Hilbert's assumption was wrong" position, Stephen J Crothers, unfortunately seems to have a habit of overstating the case and finding fault in everything GR-related, which tends to undermine his own position, although he has produced some very useful general mathematical results about how the Schwarzschild solution can be expressed in terms of alternative coordinate systems).

 

[George Jones]

Currently, MEC0 is not mainstream physics