# The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Farsight, Mar 12, 2014.

1. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,509
Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.”

possibly wrongly attributed to both Eleanor Roosevelt and Admiral Hyman Rickover

Messages:
27,534
Except when fools are involved, possibly why your discussion rights are curtailed somewhat elsewhere?

5. ### river

Messages:
16,756
Define a fool ; pad .

7. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,509
Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.”

possibly wrongly attributed to both Eleanor Roosevelt and Admiral Hyman Rickover

8. ### river

Messages:
16,756
As I have asked before , what form of matter , creates a BH ( blackhole ) .

Upon witch form of matter is a BH , based ?

9. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
No. Frozen star models predict stable configurations without infinities.

But, say, in my own frozen star model there is a parameter $\Upsilon$ which can be as small as one likes, which makes the redshift on the surface as large as one likes.

Can one nonetheless make predictions based on this? It seems not completely excluded. See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/abyss.php
Correct.

Sorry, but as long as alternative proposals do not make different predictions about particular effects, any observational evidence is useless to decide between them, thus, cannot favor one of them.
One can name something sloppily "evidence for BHs" if one ignores alternative theories of gravity completely, given that in GR BHs would be the only way to get something similar to what is observed.
But this is no evidence against any alternative theory which makes the same predictions.

10. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
According to GR as well as theories predicting stable gravastars, the origin of star-sized BHs is usual matter of usual stars. The big central BHs of galaxies may have been created by different mechanisms, and dark matter may play a role there, but the material is the usual one found in galaxies (inclusive the usual dark matter presupposed to exist there).

11. ### river

Messages:
16,756

Does this make sense to you ?

12. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
Yes.

Messages:
27,534

Obviously beside your own alternative hypothetical, there are many other alternative hypotheticals of gravity, and none as yet has changed or created any doubt in GR being still the supreme model at this time.
The other bit of evidence that eliminiates any frozen star hypothetical is the "dying pulse train"
Dying Pulse Trains in Cygnus XR‐1: Evidence for an Event Horizon?*

Abstract
"The X‐ray–emitting component in the Cyg XR‐1/HDE 226868 system is a leading candidate for identification as a stellar‐mass–sized black hole. The detection of an event horizon surrounding the point singularity in such a system would constitute a positive identification of a black hole as predicted by general relativity. One signature of such an event horizon would be the existence of dying pulse trains emitted by material spiraling into the event horizon from the last stable orbit around the black hole. We observed the Cyg XR‐1 system at three different epochs in a 1400–3000 Å bandpass with 0.1 ms time resolution using the Hubble Space Telescope's High Speed Photometer. Repeated excursions of the detected flux by more than 3 σ above the mean are present in the UV flux with an FWHM of 1–10 ms. If any of these excursions are pulses of radiation produced in the system (and not just stochastic variability associated with the Poisson distribution of detected photon arrival times), then this short a timescale requires that the pulses originate in the accretion disk around Cyg XR‐1. Two series of pulses with characteristics similar to those expected from dying pulse trains were detected in 3 hr of observation"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.3164.pdf

A SEARCH FOR DYING PULSE TRAINS IN CYG X-1 USING RXTE

ABSTRACT:
Dying pulse trains (DPTs) ñ pulses of radiation with decreasing intensity and decreasing intervals between them ñ are predicted by General Relativity to occur from material spiraling into an event horizon after detaching from the last stable orbit in an accretion disk around a black hole. Two events resembling DPTs were detected in 3 hours observation of Cyg X-1 in the far UV using the High Speed Photometer on the Hubble Space Telescope (Dolan 2001). We observed Cyg X-1, a leading candidate for a black hole, with the proportional counter array on RXTE to seek such events in the low-energy X-ray region. No dying pulse trains with a characteristic timescale between pulses of 1 - 40 ms were detected in 10 hours of observation during Cyg X-1ís high luminosity state, low luminosity state, and transitions between states, although individual pulses are clearly detectable in data with 1 ms temporal resolution. The 2Û upper limit on the rate of DPTís in the X-ray region is less than half the rate reported by Dolan (2001) in the UV. These negative results are consistent with Cyg X-1 being an extreme Kerr black hole with a characteristic timescale between DPT pulses less than 1 ms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/dyingpulsetr.php

The Day Hubble Space Telescope
Discovered "Dying Pulse Train"
"It was more than ten years ago, when NASA's Hubble Space Telescope for the first time provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon," the boundary between a black hole and the outside universe".
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Your article naturally supporting your alternative hypothetical is interesting, but that's it at this stage. I take it you and your compatriots have submitted a paper for professional peer review?
Other papers are also of interest, particularly one concerning Vector gravity which also rejects BH formation.
But obviously the vast bulk of scientists still see GR as our best model by far. I can't really see that changing as yet.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
14. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
None has changed the point that GR is still viable. It makes GR in no way supreme - except for historical reasons.

They in no way eliminate it, but simply gives upper bounds for the radius. It should be quite close to the Schwarzschild radius. For some such theories this may be a problem. For my theory it is not. The big bang already defines an upper bound for the parameter which controls the distance between the radius and the Schwarzschild radius.

Messages:
27,534
Except that GR is the supreme theory of gravity, not withstanding any weird slant or meaning you chose to put on it.
They certainly do eliminate it. The Schwarzchild radius/EH is not any physical barrier.
But of course if you as a scientist believe different, then do the scientific thing.

16. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,222
The people making these composite pictures made the same presumptions as you -- that the standard concept of a black hole (with an event horizon) is what they are looking at. A frozen star would have no event horizon but it would have mass at approximately the same radius. We would NOT expect to see light emitted from this surface any more than we would expect to see light reflected from distant planets. The infalling matter would strike the surface and stop radiating light because it would stop accelerating.

The evidence obviously does not rule out traditional black holes, but the frozen star interpretation is viable with the same evidence, and does not suffer from the black hole's logical contradictions.

Messages:
27,534
I don't believe that is true and is invalidated by the dying pulse train.....Irrespective, I also do not accept in this day and age, [with young up and coming cosmologists/physicists that would give their right arm to show GR BHs as invalid] that mainstream science are indulging in any cover up or conspiracy.
There are many alternative hypotheticals out there, and they remain out there for obvious mundane reasons. ie, they do not surpass the incumbent.

18. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
Again: Only for gravastars much greater than their Schwarzschild radius. The dying pulse train shows, essentially, that we cannot see the event of the piece of matter hitting the surface. Usually, for small surface red shift, we would see it. But there are two effects which reduce this if the surface redshift is very large. First, the obvious one - we would see the explosion heavily redshifted. The other one is that the part of the radiation created on the surface which is able to reach infinity decreases - it decreases from 1/2 (everything going at least slightly up) to a very a thin cone around the ideal 90 degrees upward direction, with all the other light falling back to the star.

Messages:
27,534
Anything as I understand it, with a surface which would obviously just be at this side of where the Schwarzchild radius would be, at a very minimum...otherwise of course, GR comes into play. That is once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse is compulsory. Or a BH as defined by GR.
And again that evidence being just a small part of the evidence we do have for GR type BH's.
Again, if you are able to show different, then you have a recognised process to go through.

20. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
Yes, the surface of a gravastar is on this side of the Schwarzschild horizon. But very close to it, so GR effects (resp. what replaces them in the alternative theories) come into play anyway. The alternative theories which have gravastars, in particular my own, are quite close to GR predictions in the region far away from the horizon.
Not really. Most of the evidence is simply evidence of the existence of sufficiently small objects with sufficiently large mass so that they would become black holes in GR assuming the usual assumptions about how matter behaves.
Narayan at al have published as evidence for horizons also some observations of the BH in the center of the Milky Way. And actually we have the gravity waves from the BH collisions. This is already all.
Already done. It is published in Schmelzer, I. (2012). Black Holes or Frozen Stars? A Viable Theory of Gravity without Black Holes, in: Bauer, A.J., Eiffel, D.G. (eds.), Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-61942-929-1, arXiv:1003.1446.

Last edited: Jul 30, 2019

Messages:
27,534
I don't accept any of that sorry, and again, if the Schwarzchild radius is not reached then the 'dying pulse train' would sort out all the imposter hypotheticals, not that they havn't already been sorted out.
Yes really, as much as you chose to downgrade the generally accepted mainstream account. And of course you mean gravitational waves or radiation from BH collisions, which just so happen to fit the templates for all the 14 or 15 collisions so far [I've actually lost count]
An reputable independant professional review is what is required. A viable theory of gravity although is probably questionable at this time, but irrespective, GR is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. I mean in actual fact there are many so called viable alternatives, and that in the main is where they stay. If they were to invalidate GR or an aspect of it, if they were to make a prediction not made by GR, then they may arise from the pack.
But seriously, good try and nice to see you making the attempt. Afterall, experiments are being conducted everyday, to test the limits of GR.

22. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,003
Sorry, but nobody cares about what you accept as long as you do not present arguments.
Peer-reviewed publication is the standard way to publish alternatives. And, of course, viable alternatives to GR do not invalidate GR, GR can be invalidated only by itself (as it does via its infinities) or by observations falsifying it (as it does with tests of Bell inequalities).