Theoretical Black Hole Vs Real Universe Physical Massive Object?

1) What are your thoughts concerning the questions that Abhas Mitra poses in his short conference paper?

2) Was there observational evidence and physical scientific logic for the hairless BH hypothesis? Is a hairless BH a theoretical mathematical object? Why do people believe what they believe concerning the hairless BH? (See Mitra's comment concerning the number of scientific references to the MECO hypothesis. It seems there is a theory change underway.) Mitra's questions and answers are basic and fundamental. Why did it take such a long time to fundamentally criticize the hairless BH hypothesis?

3) Is there astronomical evidence to differentiate between the hairless BH hypothesis and the new MECO hypothesis?

Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs): Likely New Class of Source of Cosmic Particle Acceleration

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506183v2

Comments:
The above paper was presented at a GCR conference (GCR is the term for the very high velocity particles that travel through intergalactic and galactic space).

It seems Mitra argues that the hairless black hole hypothesis assumes that the massive compact object is cold when it forms which he asserts is physically not possible. The MECO hypothesis is that the quasar’s massive compact object is a physical object that is not static with time and that has a strong associated magnetic field.

Comments where? There are only ~5 people who ever write or reference any papers about MECO. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

And, although it isn't required, I'd appreciate some coherent reply to the various points I've raised in this thread. You keep starting new threads and abandoning old ones, while ignoring criticisms that have been raised, and never really getting to the point.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I believe the set of papers associated with this subject are the most important astrophysics papers in the last 10 years. That is why I am interested in them and quasars. I am not interested in crank theories. As to five authors advancing the hypothesis, how do you think science advances?

Technically do you have comments or thoughts?

Any one else in the forum?

From Mitra's conference presentation:

"Hairless BH?" Does BH stand for Body Hair? How about Bohemian Hairless? Perhaps Borderline Hypothesis? Bad Hairspray? Body Hair? Barrier Hair?

I've lived in acronym city for nearly 20 years, and am usually quite good at nailing acronyms given the context in which they're used.

Barry Heilburg? Bottom Hair? Beer Hurl?

I haven't a clue as to what "BH" stands for.

I even did a Wikipedia search on "BH" on it's article on Quasars, and couldn't find the "BH" acronym anywhere.

Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Niets. Rien. Nichts. Τίποτα. Niente. 何も. 아무것. Ничего.

You know why that is?

Because the OP was SLOPPY in his/her OP, and failed to spell out their acronyms before posting the acronyms, that's why!

Take for example, the concept of "top dead center," or TDC (the immediately preceding words are an example - please take notice) as it's commonly referred to throughout the world of auto engine mechanics. It refers to the position of the crankshaft when the #1 piston reaches it's highest point. That's top dead center, a point in the rotation of the crankshaft where this happens, and it's actually marked on the crankshaft so that mechanics can use what's called a timing light to observe the advance/retard behavior of either a distributor cap or electronic timing functions through various revolutions per minute (RPM) regimes of the engine.

Hey! There's another one: "revolutions per minute (RPM)." (another example of how it should be done)

Key point: Spell it out, first, then put it's acronym in parentheses. Feel free to use it in it's acronym format after that.

Unless you do that, others will, quite possibly, not know what in the world you're talking about, regardless of their IQs, levels of education, or areas of education.

It's not about snobbishness. It's about communication. It's simply the polite thing to do, such as taking a moment and holding the door open for someone immediately behind you.

So do it! Spell out your acronyms in your posts. Once you've done that, feel free to post your acronyms in that post (and in that post only) to your heart's content.

If you start a different thread, please assume that others have not read your first thread and take the time to do the same!

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

In 1937 Einstein and Bose reworked the formula for Schwarzschild Radius for energy rather than mass and found wormholes did not violate the theory of general relativity. It has largely been either ignored or disbelieved. The opening conditions for an energy conduit into space although non infinite at the boundary or horizon could still be significant all the same.

The gravitational force at the horizon would be Newtonian inverse squared with distance to the energy or matter within the horizon. That is to say the appearance of an opening of a non-infinite boundary such that light from much deeper within is seen to approximate the theoretical event horizon at that much deeper position. Where in fact at a certain distance down the wormhole due to time differential light is no longer within our spatial reference frame to be able to be captured. The light is essentially receding faster away from us dragged in the local space of the wormhole than the speed of light.

Don't worry if you disagree with this statement as it is an idea I have been trying to promote against the mainstream for some time now. As this is question and answer section I am obliged to include it so that readers to the forum understand that what I just wrote does not represent the scientific mainstream.

I did respond to your question William because it has relevance to ideas that I am interested in.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Out of curiosity does anyone see the shape of a giant slinky sort of connected in this APOD picture?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

In reply to mugaliens'

mugaliens, I share you complaint concerning acronyms and speciality terminology which are a barrier to understanding. BH stands for black hole.

The term "hairless" black hole (BH) was coined by John Wheeler, and its meaning per Wheeler's definition is: Wheeler's "Hairless" Black Holes by definition can have only mass, angular momentum, and charge. A Wheeler hairless BH cannot have an intrinsic magnetic field, except if there exists a magnetic monopoles which is another theoretical object.

The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs), are not "black holes". They are hypothesized to have a very, very strong magnetic field associated with them. The strong magnetic field is required to fix and affect quasar structures, that have been observed in locations where a accretion disc generated magnetic field could not reach. While it might be possible for the compact objects to be charged, the required magnetic field could not be created by a charged rotating hairless black hole, as the charge would exceed the gravitational field of the BH and tear it apart. Based on the estimated maximum rotational velocity of the compact object and the required magnetic field strength, the compact object must carry the magnetic field. (Similar I would think to a magstar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem

In extreme physics where the objects cannot be studied in a laboratory, the theories must be checked against astronomical observations.

Well the first obvious thing to do is to confront all of the "reasons" why black holes should be impossible with the specific evidence that black holes have been observed. I have posted this evidence many times, but it just seems to keep coming up.

Consider the bulk of published evidence showing that black hole event horizons have been observed, i.e., Narayan & Mahadevan, 1995; Narayan, McClintock & Yi, 1996; Yi, et al., 1996; Narayan, Kato & Honma, 1997; Narayan, Garcia & McClintock, 1997; Narayan, Barret & McClintock, 1997; Menou, et al., 1999; Quataert & Narayan, 1999; Garcia, et al., 2001; Narayan & Heyl, 2002; Narayan, 2003; Yuan, Narayan & Rees, 2004; McClintock, Narayan & Rybicki, 2004; Narayan, 2005; Broderick & Narayan, 2006; Remillard, et al., 2006.

All of these papers combine to illustrate the difference between the hard surface of a massive compact object, and the event horizon of a massive black hole. A physical surface will radiate a thermal spectrum, an event horizon will not. An event horizon will pass through energy that would otherwise encounter a physical surface (i.e., energy seems to "disappear" into the black hole). Accreting matter will encounter a hard surface and flare, whereas accreting matter will encounter an event horizon and simply keep falling. All of these points are covered in this collection of papers, all consistent with an event horizon, and all consistent with the predictions of general relativistic models of accreting black holes.

So, in the context of the observational evidence, how do MECO's compare? Does an "eternally collpasing" object look like it has a surface or not? Observational evidence indicates that energy "disappears" into the black hole. How are those observations interpreted in the context of a MECO? What observational evidence would distinguish between a MECO and a black hole?

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

I've not read the papers linked to above. However I'd just like to pass comment on the existence of black holes (BH's).

You know there is the controversy over the Large Hadron Collider and its possible production of micro-BH's? There is a paper somewhere, on the difficulty of detecting these. The difficulty stems from the fact the event horizon cannot form in finite time, from the point of view of the outside observer!

Tim: thanks for that. More comprehensive than I would have been able to produce.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

The article linked in the OP is interesting, but I think it is pretty ATM to assert that Black Holes cannot form. So I think there´s nothing to be answered by established physics [except the question #3, which Tim Thompson addressed ]. It could yield a good discussion in the ATM forum.

__________________
"Shut up and calculate" R. Feynman

In reply to Tim Thompson’s comment:

The difference between your thought pictures and the (Magnetospherical Eternally Collapsing Object) MECO hypothesis, is that you are comparing a super neutron star to a classic black hole, rather than comparing a classic black hole to a MECO massive compact object. The MECO compact object has a very, very, strong concentrated magnetic field. That massive magnetic field that will tear apart matter creating ions which would be move along the field lines to the top of the massive compact object. With a magnetic field of that strength the x-rays generated will depend on viewing angle which is what is found with real quasars.

The strong MECO magnetic field is anchored to the massive compact object. As it rotates it creates synchronous radiation at the poles of the quasar. That explains why there can be luminous quasars without a host galaxy. The MECO’s magnetic field is creating synchronous radiation at the poles above the massive compact object. So if the evidence shows the existence of a strong magnetic field without an accretion disc, that would be indication that Black holes are MECO’s not Black holes, because a black hole cannot have an intrinsic magnetic field.

The problem in terms of methodology is that you are attempting to select a model without considering other key observations which need to be explained. It seems quite reasonable to keep the MECO model on the table at this time and to add observations which any viable models must explain. There are a number of observations which support the assertion that the massive compact object has an intrinsic magnetic field. It should be noted that there are also other theoretical and mechanism issues with the classic black hole and the accretion disc hypothesis. The feeding of the accretion disc and disc viscosity for example.

The next observation I was going to add was concerning our galaxy's central compact massive object.

You know, William, you didn't actually respond to Tim Thompson's comments at all. Let me quote them for you:

Does a MECO have "surface" like a neutron star, or not like a black hole? I don't care about the magnetic field properties right now. And, as I keep pointing out, a MECO still needs an accretion disk to get matter to it. Unless you can show otherwise.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I understand the hairless black hole theorem. I just don't agree that the mass is actually a singularity inside the event horizon. I believe there's an actual ball in their somewhere (and the event horizon has a larger radius than the ball, such that once beyond the event horizon, it ain't coming back).

I also understand that if light can't escape, that probably holds true for a magnetic field as well as charge - both would be contained inside the event horizon.

I don't understand why a rotating black hole with a magetic field would be "torn apart," as the magnetic field would eminate from it's poles, thus any change in magnetic flux at any point within the event horizon would be minimal.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

In reply to parejkoj’s comment:

A massive compact object that has a very strong intrinsic magnetic field, could resolve the angular moment and viscosity problems that the competing classic BH/accretion disc mechanism has.

The rotating strong intrinsic magnetic field of the massive compact object will heat the disc and will pull ions off the disc and in addition to the ions from gas clouds that the compact object passes through onto the poles of the compact object. The intrinsic magnetic field of the compact object would assist the compact object to gather mass. The MECO does have a surface, it is a real object that would based on other observations change with time. The MECO has a highly charged surface, which due to the very strong magnetic field, is covered with positron/electron pairs. As noted in the below paper, matter that is pulled into the vicinity of the compact object is torn apart by the magnetic field creating ions that interact as a plasma with the very strong magnetic field.

Quasar's Narrow Band Emissions.
The MECO’s extremely strong magnetic field traps ions in a rarefied cone above the compact object’s poles. Emissions in this area are hypothesized to produce the narrow band emissions of the quasar. The accretion disc/classic black hole has the narrow band region produced in a band that is out side of the accretion disc torus. There is nothing to hold the rarefied gas in that position. Hubble Space telescope detailed pictures show two cone shaped areas with rarefied gas above the quasar poles, which would support the MECO hypothesis and mechanism


This paper presents observations and analysis to support the statement that the compact object at the center our galaxy “Sgr” has an intrinsic magnetic moment. The authors of the paper have developed a detailed mathematical model that can produce the observed emissions associated with Sgr A*.

Does Sgr A* Have an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment Instead of an Event Horizon?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0603746v2.pdf

Excerpt's from the Paper:

bolometric luminosity: The total energy radiated by an object at all wavelengths, usually given in joules per second (identical to watts).

The following is an excerpt from a paper presented at a Microquasar conference. This is an excerpt from the paper that discusses the Milky Way’s compact massive object Sgr A*. These observations seem to support the MECO mechanism.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701837v1

There are other papers written about the cluster of very short life (100Myr) OB stars that have formed 10 light years from the Milky Way’s super massive black hole. The mass of the stars found in the cluster would have required a cloud of gas with density found on the surface of a star. There is a basic mass problem, if the OB stars formed in that location from a gas cloud. I am looking for a MECO related mechanism that could explain the observation. I will provide a link to a paper that discusses the theoretical mass balance issue to explain the OB stars in that location.