Rethinking the origins of the universe

[Shadowmaru]

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape.
And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist.
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.
“I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.”
For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It’s the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.
The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/
Papers at link.

So, what do we think, on to something ?

 

[tzimie]

I suggest to completely skip the article http://unc.edu/spotlight/rethinking-the-origins-of-the-universe/ - it does not make any sense -
- just use the links to arxiv in it.

 

[Shadowmaru]

The papers are what matter.

 

[Chronos]

A time honored tradition in science is observation trumps math. No amount of mathematical proof is sufficient to refute observational evidence. The choice is clear - either Mersini-Houghton's 'proof', or the mountain of evidence supporting the existence of black holes is suspect.

 

[sardar]

I find this research and theory to be very intriguing and thought-provoking. It challenges our current understanding of black holes and forces us to rethink the origins of the universe. Mersini-Houghton's mathematical proof that black holes cannot exist raises important questions about the validity of our current theories and the need for further research and exploration.

Her theory also highlights the ongoing tension between Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory, and the need for a unified theory that can explain both. This is a fundamental challenge in physics, and Mersini-Houghton's work adds to the ongoing efforts to reconcile these two theories.

However, it is important to note that this is just one theory and it will require further testing and validation before it can be accepted as a new understanding of the origins of the universe. As scientists, we must continue to approach this subject with an open mind and continue to explore and question our current understanding.

Overall, I believe that this research is a valuable contribution to the field of astrophysics and cosmology, and it will continue to spark important discussions and debates among scientists. I am excited to see how this theory will be further developed and tested in the future.