Are black holes theoretical or real?

In summary: No.It think what you say is true, but maybe not for much longer. There are observational programs under way to directly observer whether the hypothesized black holes in the milkyway or Andromeda have true event horizons. Within a decade, this will likely be settled observationally. This will distinguish between quantum gravity models where the event horizon never actually forms, versus those prevent the singularity but not the event horizon.etIn summary, according to the news, black holes are always said to have an event horizon, but it's not clear if this is always true. There are observational programs under way to determine this for sure, and which may lead to different interpretations of what a black hole is.
  • #1
LeeJeffries
17
0
The news always depicts them as real

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13964767

But as far as I gather from reading this forum and wikipedia, black holes are always said to be "candidates"

Has it been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
SOMETHING exists that exhibits the characteristics which we attribute to a thing that we call black holes for want of a better term
 
  • #3
phinds said:
SOMETHING exists that exhibits the characteristics which we attribute to a thing that we call black holes for want of a better term

So you say, apparently in favoring the idea that black holes have been positively measured. I'd be truly shocked to see you or anyone provide evidence to support the claim that black holes exhibit measurably different characteristics from incipient black holes. Shock me.
 
  • #4
LeeJeffries said:
The news always depicts them as real

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13964767

But as far as I gather from reading this forum and wikipedia, black holes are always said to be "candidates"

Has it been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they exist?

"Exist" has no well defined meaning in general relativity. Existance is relative, to be blunt.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Phrak said:
So you say, apparently in favoring the idea that black holes have been positively measured. I'd be truly shocked to see you or anyone provide evidence to support the claim that black holes exhibit measurably different characteristics from incipient black holes. Shock me.

It think what you say is true, but maybe not for much longer. There are observational programs under way to directly observer whether the hypothesized black holes in the milkyway or Andromeda have true event horizons. Within a decade, this will likely be settled observationally. This will distinguish between quantum gravity models where the event horizon never actually forms, versus those prevent the singularity but not the event horizon.
 
  • #7
PAllen said:
It think what you say is true, but maybe not for much longer. There are observational programs under way to directly observer whether the hypothesized black holes in the milkyway or Andromeda have true event horizons. Within a decade, this will likely be settled observationally. This will distinguish between quantum gravity models where the event horizon never actually forms, versus those prevent the singularity but not the event horizon.

Yes, see the fascinating article "Portrait of a Black Hole",

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam2.pdf.
 
  • #8
Phrak said:
So you say, apparently in favoring the idea that black holes have been positively measured. I'd be truly shocked to see you or anyone provide evidence to support the claim that black holes exhibit measurably different characteristics from incipient black holes. Shock me.
Isn't that hairsplitting? At least grammatically, one is a subset of the other!

I agree with phinds: "black holes" exist because that's the name we have chosen for a certain set of observations. That does not imply - nor should it be required to - that that set of observations is fully understood.
 
  • #9
Black holes are obviously thoretical and that is IMO clearly stated in most articles, included the one in the OP where they make clear they are talking about a quasar or in the Sciam article linked by George jones where they specifically talk about this distinction.


russ_watters said:
"black holes" exist because that's the name we have chosen for a certain set of observations. That does not imply - nor should it be required to - that that set of observations is fully understood.

This is important, not only this but the theoretical black hole is just the current interpretation of the consequences of the EFE under certain assumptions. We have no way of knowing if in the future those assumptions might change and the EFE of GR may lead to different interpretations of the observations, whether it is thru some Quantum gravity theory yet to be developed or something similar.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Isn't that hairsplitting? At least grammatically, one is a subset of the other!

No.
 
  • #11
PAllen said:
It think what you say is true, but maybe not for much longer. There are observational programs under way to directly observer whether the hypothesized black holes in the milkyway or Andromeda have true event horizons. Within a decade, this will likely be settled observationally. This will distinguish between quantum gravity models where the event horizon never actually forms, versus those prevent the singularity but not the event horizon.

Do you have a link I could visit for more information? I'm not sure what to get out of this. You seem to be saying we could have observational evidience in a decade or so whether one or more black hole candidates have a measurable event horizon. What you say could be interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Phrak said:
No.
Care to elaborate? Ie, do you think "apple pie" is a subset of "pie"?
 
  • #13
Phrak said:
Do you have a link I could visit for more information? I'm not sure what to get out of this. You seem to be saying we could have observational evidience in a decade or so whether one or more black hole candidates have a measurable event horizon. What you say could be interesting.

George Jones gave a link to the Scientific American article on this. I believe that has pointers to the primary literature.
 
  • #14
By analyzing millimeter and infrared very-long-baseline-interferometry observations, Broderick, Loeb, and Narayan http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1105 have shown that if Sagittarius A* had a surface, then the luminosity of this surface must be less than 0.3% of the luminosity of the accretion disk. But this is not physically possible, because there are fundamental limits on the efficiency with which the gas can radiate away its energy before hitting the surface. We can therefore conclude that Sagittarius A* must have an event horizon. As PAllen noted, its event horizon may be imaged directly in the near future: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4040
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Are black holes theoretical or real?

1. Are black holes just a theoretical concept or do they actually exist in the universe?

Black holes are not just a theoretical concept - they have been observed and studied through various methods such as gravitational lensing and the detection of their x-ray emissions. Astronomers have also observed the effects of black holes on their surrounding environments, providing further evidence for their existence.

2. How do we know that black holes are not just a result of our incomplete understanding of physics?

While our understanding of black holes is constantly evolving, the existence of black holes is supported by empirical evidence and mathematical models. The laws of physics, such as general relativity, have been used to explain the behavior of black holes and their effects on their surroundings.

3. Can we ever directly observe a black hole?

Direct observation of a black hole is not currently possible, as they do not emit any light or radiation that can be detected by telescopes. However, scientists are continually developing new technologies and techniques to indirectly observe and study black holes, such as gravitational wave detectors.

4. Are all black holes the same or are there different types?

There are different types of black holes, based on their mass and size. The most commonly known types are stellar black holes, which form from the collapse of a massive star, and supermassive black holes, which are found at the center of most galaxies. There are also intermediate black holes, which have a mass between that of stellar and supermassive black holes.

5. What would happen if a person were to fall into a black hole?

If a person were to fall into a black hole, they would experience extreme gravitational forces due to the intense curvature of space-time. These forces would ultimately lead to the person being stretched and torn apart, a process known as spaghettification. It is also important to note that no one has ever been observed falling into a black hole, as the intense gravitational pull would prevent them from escaping and being detected by outside observers.

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
639
Replies
10
Views
754
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
705
Replies
2
Views
947
Back
Top