Dark Energy Stars contradictions in the theory of black holes?

[mitchellmckain 0]

At the beginning of March, George Chapline, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin of Stanford University and their colleagues suggested at the 22nd Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting in Santa Barbara, California, that the objects that till now have been thought of as black holes could in fact be dead stars that form as a result of an obscure quantum phenomenon. These stars could explain both dark energy and dark matter.

Full article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925423-600-three-cosmic-enigmas-one-audacious-answer/ ://http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Exciting perhaps but far fetched this has a long way to go before being accepted in the scientific community, especially considering the amount of work done on the theory of black holes. The following comment, also troubles me.

Another problem is that light from an object falling into a black hole is stretched so dramatically by the immense gravity there that observers outside will see time freeze: the object will appear to sit at the event horizon for ever. This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics. "People have been vaguely uncomfortable about these problems for a while, but they figured they'd get solved someday," says Chapline. "But that hasn't happened and I'm sure when historians look back, they'll wonder why people didn't question these contradictions."

This may just be bad journalism but it seriously makes me question the believablity of the whole article, because there is no contradiction or paradox in this effect. This is a purely optical effect and the object would actually redshift and fade from view (as the photons reaching you from the object quickly become less frequent) at the same time. The actual event (during which you would supposedly see such slowing down) occurs so fast that all you are really going to see is the object vanish. So what descriptions like the one above about the object "frozen on in time" at the edge of the black hole, really means, is that it is theoretically still possible after thousands of years to detect a photon arriving from that object before entering the black hole, just because it may take some photons that long to escape from the gravity of the black hole.

The gravitational time dilation has the opposite of this optical effect. Gravitational time dilation will only exacerbate the time dilation likely to be experienced due to velocity. It is extremely difficult to enter a black hole slowly (by which I mean at non-relativistic speeds). What the time dilation means is that the clocks on an object approaching the black hole will slow down according to a distant observer. This does not mean that the object will slow down. Instead it means that the person on the object with the clock will experience an even shorter ride than the already extremely short ride he could expect otherwise (without the time dilation). Just as a person traveling to another star at relatistic speeds experiences a shorter trip than the people watching from earth.

I have done simulations of trying to oribit a black hole or pass near a black hole and the everything happens so quickly that I have to have the simulation automatically slow down the time scale by a factor of millions in order to see anything at all. And that is even without the gravitational time dilation which will make it worse. Part of the difficulty is that these objects are so small. One with the mass of our sun would be only 6 kilometers across. Although there are bigger black holes, the bigger ones would be no easier to see than the small ones because proportionately higher gravity. If you are close enough to a black hole there is most definitely something to see because of the distortion of light around it, including a second image of everything in the sky in a ring around the black hole (called an Einstein ring). Actually there are an infinite number of such images in concentric rings but the others are too small to see with your eye. BUT if you are close enough to see anything like this, you don't really have any time to see anything at all.

[illini319 0]

Interesting ideas. I'd like to know how one can measure black holes and their properties given all these physical constraints. It would seem like the ultimate Heisenberg example. I'm guessing that you do not measure the black hole, per se, but rather the consequences of its existence? If that's true, is this only a limitation of our current metrics, or is it a mathematical improbability to be able to get reliable information from such a celestial body? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the point of studying these things if: 1. we won't be able to get reliable measurements (therefore how can we ever use this information pragmatically?) 2. even if we got a handle on black holes, how will this help us in space travel, new technologies etc.? I don't mean to sound negative. I really want to understand this line of research, being so far away from this field.

[mitchellmckain 0]

I'd like to know how one can measure black holes and their properties given all these physical constraints. It would seem like the ultimate Heisenberg example. I'm guessing that you do not measure the black hole, per se, but rather the consequences of its existence?

There are 3 basic ways that black holes are detected. The most common is by the energy released as they devour matter drawn off of a star in close binary orbit. Capable of transforming this 40% of this matter into pure energy these things can be as source of very high radiation. Next is by the effect they have on the orbits of bodies or material around it. The orbit reveals the mass and if the mass is large enough then a black hole is the onlything it can be. The third and least likely method is by the distortion of the light from objects behind it. There are extremely large black holes in the center of most (if not all) galaxies and globular star clusters.

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

There are 3 basic ways that black holes are detected. The most common is by the energy released as they devour matter drawn off of a star in close binary orbit. Capable of transforming this 40% of this matter into pure energy these things can be as source of very high radiation. Next is by the effect they have on the orbits of bodies or material around it. The orbit reveals the mass and if the mass is large enough then a black hole is the onlything it can be. The third and least likely method is by the distortion of the light from objects behind it. There are extremely large black holes in the center of most (if not all) galaxies and globular star clusters.

Given the original quotes that started this tread/discussion, wouldn't a "dark star" cause the same, or similar, effect. With a star dying and going dorment wouldn't it create a massive gavitaional pull? Now if you follow that assumption wouldn't it also then start pulling in matter, and eventually, following this same line of thought, absorb enough energy to once again become a living star and create a miniture "big bang" giving new life to a dead solor system/galaxy?

I'm no astrophysisist by any means but to me that sounds a bit more logical then a universe full of black holes that are pulling it appart at the seams....