Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

MECO Vs Hairless Black Hole

  1. May 3, 2010 #1
    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”



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

    Tale of two Quasars


  2. jcsd
  3. May 3, 2010 #2
    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.


  4. May 3, 2010 #3
    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.


    Non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and Black Holes in spherical gravitational collapse: An abridged version Authors: Abhas Mitra (BARC, Theory Division)

    This is a later paper was presented at a cosmology conference that summarizes the BH criticism down to four pages.

  5. May 3, 2010 #4
    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 [Broken]


    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. May 3, 2010 #5
    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.

  7. May 4, 2010 #6

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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).
  8. May 4, 2010 #7

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Currently, MEC0 is not mainstream physics
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook