What problems would 'black holes' not being formed solve?

  • #1
20
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

So when a star collapses, if the event horizon doesn't form, but the object remains in ordinary space, in increasing gravitational time-dilated collapse, what problems with these objects would be solved or more easily addressed?
I would think at least the information loss problem, and then there is the conservation of rotational momentum, and then there is the production of the magnetic field.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mathman
Science Advisor
7,800
430
Your question is about a physically impossible situation. It seems very hard to answer.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, stefan r and davenn
  • #3
1,771
276
So when a star collapses, if the event horizon doesn't form, but the object remains in ordinary space, in increasing gravitational time-dilated collapse
As mathman already mentioned, the event horizon will always form in such a collaps. But I wonder if the singularity could be avoided. Is it possible that the black hole evaporates before the singularity forms?
 
  • #4
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
In a classical sense a singularity is the inevitable result of gravitational collapsei of any sufficiently massive body. Ir is not entirely clear if a gravitational singulariy is the truly the physical consequence of such an event. There is no real disseny over the formation of an event horizon. There is good reason to doubt this happens even if quantum corrections conspire to preclude the formation of a singularity. Whether or not an event horizon is accompanied by a singularity does not appear to be relevant to event horizon properties given there is little to suggest a singularity is even necessary
 
  • #5
stefan r
Science Advisor
Gold Member
829
237
... Is it possible that the black hole evaporates before the singularity forms?
My impression was time dilates to infinity as you approach an event horizon. Assuming I understood that correctly then a falling particle would not make progress until the black hole evaporates enough to allow progress.

The singularity is there anyway. I thought this was the reason for the no hair theorem.
 
  • #6
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,096
6,089
My impression was time dilates to infinity as you approach an event horizon. Assuming I understood that correctly then a falling particle would not make progress until the black hole evaporates enough to allow progress.
Your impression is wrong. Objects fall through the event horizon as thought nothing is there because in physical terms, that is exactly correct. Nothing is there. You can't get back out again after you cross it, but other than that it really doesn't exist.
 
  • #7
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,096
6,089
Your impression is wrong. Objects fall through the event horizon as thought nothing is there because in physical terms, that is exactly correct. Nothing is there. You can't get back out again after you cross it, but other than that it really doesn't exist.
The time dilation of which you speak is an observational phenomenon of an observer far removed from the BH, not something that happens to the infalling object.
 
  • #8
20
0
but say that 'something' does prevent the event horizon forming, what problems with these objects would be addressed in part, or in full?
 
  • #9
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,096
6,089
but say that 'something' does prevent the event horizon forming, what problems with these objects would be addressed in part, or in full?
This question amounts to "if the laws of physics did not apply, what would the laws of physics say about <insert nonsense of your choice>?"
 
  • Like
Likes Zedertie Dessen, sophiecentaur and rbelli1
  • #10
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
They could comprise part of the macho population contributing to the DM budget without violating gamma ray background constraints imposed by observational astronomy. They could also cause gravitational lensing and possibly waves without triggering EM emissions, or basically a variety of phenomena.that are not necessarily accompanied by significant EM events. Keep in mind, however, that gravitational collapses are not entirely free from collateral consequences
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DarkStar42
  • #11
stefan r
Science Advisor
Gold Member
829
237
but say that 'something' does prevent the event horizon forming, what problems with these objects would be addressed in part, or in full?
We have found objects that collapsed and did not form an event horizon.
 
  • Like
Likes Rubidium_71
  • #12
20
0
We have found objects that collapsed and did not form an event horizon.
Yes I have heard of neutron stars. I was rather meaning objects in a continual state of collapse, that would usually be considered to form event horizons.

Or alternatively, if you like, you could considered an unknown force/process, which prevents the object from collapsing enough to form an event horizon.

I find it more intuitive to imagine an object conserving its angular momentum if it remains an actual object. Plus, as I mentioned, the generation of the magnetic field.
 
  • #13
The problem is not with event horizons. Any body with an escape velocity of at least c will necessarily form an event horizon, there is no doubt about this, as it's inevitable. The question is whether there is an actual physical singularity "behind" the horizon or not.
 
  • #14
Nugatory
Mentor
12,705
5,294
We have found objects that collapsed and did not form an event horizon.
Yes, but these do not collapse past their Schwarzschild radius, so General Relativity predicts that an event horizon will not form. It's only if the collapse reduces the size of the object to less than that radius that we expect the horizon to form.
 
  • #15
22
3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object

"...He argued that all proposed black holes are instead quasi-black holes rather than exact black holes and that during the gravitational collapse to a black hole, the entire mass energy and angular momentum of the collapsing objects is radiated away before formation of exact mathematical black holes ... Mitra argues that he has proven that the world-line of an in-falling test particle would tend to be lightlike at the event horizon, independent of the definition of "velocity"."
 
  • #16
mathman
Science Advisor
7,800
430
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes, very large ones at the centers of galaxies and companions in some binaries. Speculations involving physics which contradict observations are pointless.
 
  • #17
20
0
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes, very large ones at the centers of galaxies and companions in some binaries. Speculations involving physics which contradict observations are pointless.
But how would the observations differ between an event-horizon black hole and the above given magnetosphere eternally collapsing object?
 
  • #18
mathman
Science Advisor
7,800
430
But how would the observations differ between an event-horizon black hole and the above given magnetosphere eternally collapsing object?
I'm missing something. What is "magnetosphere eternally collapsing object"?
 
  • #19
20
0
I'm missing something. What is "magnetosphere eternally collapsing object"?
the one in post #15.
 
  • #20
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
Without venturing too deeply into the swamp, it is safe to say Einstein was opposed to the notion that an event horizon could be physically realized without a singularity forming. And the fact most physicists are opposed to the notion that a singularity can be physically realized leaves very much a conundrum. Suffice it to say the easiest trap to fall into [aside from a black hole] is an unfortunate choice of reference frame and inconsistent usage throughout a solution that results in realization of an event horizon. I am not aware of any widely accepted solution for this problem, but, am resist the notion that such a solution is not possible. We know that a neutron star can get close to forming an event horizon [depending, of course, on how strictly you elect to define 'close'] so I am willing to concede it should be possible to span the remaining gap without defying the currently known laws of physics.
 
  • #21
mathman
Science Advisor
7,800
430
the one in post #15.
How does that explain the evidence for black hole existence? If they aren't there what is causing the observations?
 
  • #22
20
0
How does that explain the evidence for black hole existence? If they aren't there what is causing the observations?
some other collapsed object.
 
  • #23
mathman
Science Advisor
7,800
430
some other collapsed object.
What makes this different from a black hole? If its volume is small enough and mass is high enough, wouldn't the escape velocity be greater than c? In which case it is a black hole. The main problem as I understand it is that current theory cannot really describe what is happening within the event horizon.
 
  • #24
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
24,468
4,429
This question amounts to "if the laws of physics did not apply, what would the laws of physics say about <insert nonsense of your choice>?"
It’s just another example of lack of respect for the body of science. The worst offenders in this respect are, of course, Politicians with Journalists a close second. [emoji846]
 
  • Like
Likes unusually_wrong
  • #25
20
0
It’s just another example of lack of respect for the body of science. The worst offenders in this respect are, of course, Politicians with Journalists a close second. [emoji846]
depends whether the 'body of science' is an Egyptian pyramid or a space elevator..
 

Related Threads on What problems would 'black holes' not being formed solve?

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top