By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
See news posting at: http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/
The two theories that are a) the theory of the formation of black holes based on an extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity and b) quantum theory which stets that no information can ever disappear from the universe. She shows that as a star collapses, in conventional physics scenario, it should give off “Hawking radiation” which should convert the collapsing mass to energy and thereby cause this mass to shrink in amount, so much that it no longer has the density needed to become a black hole. A very elegant and powerful disproof of black hole theory.
With this disproof, the idea that the universe must have originated from a big bang singularity also goes out the window. For example, see this posting:
But the damage to the standard physics paradigm seems to be even greater. Worm holes must be dispensed with and the idea of stargate portals that supposedly bring the remote parts of a galaxy into close touch with each other. It also calls string theory into question, at least its claim that as a superstring moves in time it warps the fabric of space around it producing black holes, worm holes, and other exotic structures. So string theory now needs a make over.
If you see physicists staring blankly off into space, detached from reality, not responding to waves of the hand in front of the eyes or pinches to the arm, you will know that they have heard the news of Mersini-Houghton’s disproof of black hole theory. The world familiar to physicists has now disappeared, and they have nothing to replace it with. Their minds now fill with questions like: How did the universe come into being? What are supermassive galactic cores, if they can no longer be explained as being black holes? With black holes and big bang theory gone, is there any need to hold onto Einstein’s general theory of relativity? Maybe they should be looking for an alternative theory of gravity (something way overdue). And what about all their startrek fantasies of wormhole trips and time travel into the past and future? Clearly physicists are in a state of shock.
Tesla, if he were alive today, would have been appalled at the idea of a black hole. In 1932 he stated:
- I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
- New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)
Well maybe physicists should start reading about subquantum kinetics. Since its publication almost 30 years ago, subquantum kinetics has maintained that black holes cannot form. For example see previous postings: The Nonexistence of Black Holes and Steven Hawking Rejects the Idea of a Black Hole. It explains that supermassive Galactic cores are instead mother stars — supermassive stars whose collapse is prevented by the tremendous outpouring of genic energy continually created spontaneously in their interiors. Also subquantum kinetics has consistently maintained that there was no big bang and that the universe is not expanding. It replaces the idea of a singular “localized” or initially collapsed creation event with gradual creation proceeding continuously throughout all of space; see posting: Continuous Creation Cosmology.
Perhaps physicists have reached the point where they are now ready to make the jump from their former “tree” that they once clung to and that is now dissipating into oblivion to the inviting branches of subquantum kinetics.
Dr. Mersini-Houghton should be interested to know that subquantum kinetics allows for the existence of parallel universes and even higher dimensional realms beyond our own that lie at the limits of our imagination. Perhaps her multiverse cosmology might find much to draw on in this paradigm. But the unexpected anomalies in the 3 K background radiation may not be the best proof of the existence of other universes, as Mersini-Houghton would believe. According to subquantum kinetics, the temperatures below 2.73 K that prevail in the cosmic voids that exist between galaxy clusters are an expected outcome of continuous creation since this microwave background is theorized to be generated by beta decay from nascent neutrons materializing in space. Since the continuous creation of matter in space is predicted to proceed at a far lower rate in such subcritical void regions, there will be fewer beta particles to excite the generation of microwave radiation, and as a result, the microwave temperature in such regions will be lower.