Three cosmic enigmas, one audacious answer [bye-bye to black holes?]

New Scientist ^ | March 9, 2006 | Zeeya Merali

[snarks_when_bored]

Interesting to consider. Chapline and his collaborators have been talking about this for a couple of years (and have met with some skepticism, as one might expect):

"Dark Energy Stars" (December, 2004)

"Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity" (2003)

Luboš Motl has an amusing critical take on Chapline's work (in a blog posting from March 14, 2005):

Chapline: black holes don't exist

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Because information about the matter is lost forever, this conflicts with the laws of quantum mechanics, which state that information can never disappear from the universe."

Oh, yeah. Explain THAT to the liberals that run Wikipedia.

[satchmodog9]

The Dark Side of the Universe.

[Moonman62]

The most intriguing fallout from this idea has to do with the strength of the vacuum energy inside the dark energy star. This energy is related to the star's size, and for a star as big as our universe the calculated vacuum energy inside its shell matches the value of dark energy seen in the universe today. "It's like we are living inside a giant dark energy star," Chapline says. There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being.

We're still stuck inside a black hole.

[Moonman62]

"The big bang would have created zillions of tiny dark energy stars out of the vacuum," says Chapline, who worked on this idea with Mazur. "Our universe is pervaded by dark energy, with tiny dark energy stars peppered across it." These small dark energy stars would behave just like dark matter particles: their gravity would tug on the matter around them, but they would otherwise be invisible.

Aren't tiny black holes supposed to evaporate?

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Aren't tiny black holes supposed to evaporate?"

This one hasn't yet.

[snarks_when_bored]

The tiny dark stars aren't black holes (according to Chapline). So the Hawking evaporation process isn't relevant to them.

Maybe.

[snarks_when_bored]

"All the news that fits, we print."

[GSlob]

Well, of course the dark energy exists. What else is powering hillary?

[grey_whiskers]

Interesting to consider.

Even more interesting:

Look by analogy to the Michelle Malkin, Dowd(*), and Ann Coulter threads, can't we introduce some simple rules for any theoretical physics threads?

(*)Zeta-Jones discontinuity PING! ;-)

Cheers!

[snarks_when_bored]

That pic of Lisa Randall is completely gratuitous and unrelated to this thread, g_w.

 

Thanks for posting it!

[grey_whiskers]

Geez, and I worked for 30 whole SECONDS on the "Zeta-Jones discontinuity" phrase to make it sound all official and scientific. :-)

Cheers!

[snarks_when_bored]

I didn't see the phrase...never made it that far...sorry...

[Nomorjer Kinov]

I see your problem. You are confusing B (black)- holes with A-holes.

[festus]

Grrrrrrrr hubba hubba ;-)

[4U2OUI]

Mark for later read.

PS- "Audacious"??? Must be a Sanofi-Aventis employee...

[timer]

Dr Mills hydrinos(shrunken hydrogen atoms)answers the problem of dark matter. The UV lines in the solar spectrum clearly show that hydrinos are produced naturally in stars and thus hydrino molecules, which take up to 5 million degrees F to separate, is cosmic "smog". Thus as long as stars have shown, like CO2-smog producing cars have been running, shrunken hydrogen atoms/molecules have been churned out in stellar fusion-factories as a natural process. See

[snarks_when_bored]

Randall Mills is very good at sucking dollars out of the pockets of investors. It's much less clear that he's equally good at finding out how the world works.

[Moonman62]

The tiny dark stars aren't black holes (according to Chapline). So the Hawking evaporation process isn't relevant to them.

Perhaps that could be the basis for a laboratory test one of these days.