Talk:Nonsingular black hole models

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Page started

This page was created based on discussions from Black_hole#Alternative_models on Talk:Black hole. I think more types of pages should redirect here, for example "black hole nonexistence". I would like to include more summary articles and less scientific papers. To let you know my bias, I have seen talks by all four scientists mentioned here and must say that, without being a GR specialist, I believe them, and I believe that these new models easily meet criteria for notability necessary to create a separate page. SamuelRiv 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelRiv, I was the one who wrote the little paragraph about "Alternative black hole models" and I would like to tell you a little bit more about the models of the scientist negating the existence of black holes. Most of them hate things like black holes but most of them have no idea of general relativity, too. They come up with crazy ideas which has nothing to do with real science. See this blog [1] from a string theorist point of view. For example do you know that the gravastar picture does only work when there is a phase transition of the vacuum-state? There is as of today no physical theory which forecast such a phase-transition. I could work out a model in which a collapsing star becomes a blue elephant. Nobody would belive me, but the gravastar model is no more scientific because it makes assumptions about the behavior of the space-time which are so unsubstantiated like the blue elephant. Moreover gravastars are not stable under rotation so as an astrophysical object they are ruled out.

Black stars (Tanmay Vachaspati and Lawrence M. Krauss): There is nothing to talk about. This proposal is fundamentally wrong. This is due to the fact that the scientist confound the fact that an asymptotic observer will never see a signal from the event horizon due to the space-time curvature with the misbeliev that it takes an infinite amount of time for horizon formation. Andrew Hamilton, one of the leading experts in GRT goes into detail about this misbeliev on his page [2]. See the quiz!

If Vachaspati and Co. were right, the supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way would evaporate due to "pree-Hawking radiation" within hours- but you know that this is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.74.10 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know more about this than you must search (on arxiv or elswhere) for dynamical-, slowly evolving- and trapped- horizons for a better understanding of realistic black holes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.74.10 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links you directed me to do not scientifically debunk the mathematical conclusions of Krauss et. al., and the blog is by a string theorist (not GR cosmologist as all three authors are) and links to only a review article by Vachaspati (mockingly calling it a 2-page article) rather than the actual Phys Rev paper. The fact remains that we need a conclusive picture of a collapsing black hole, and none exists yet, which is why this article is necessary and the conclusions presented are scientific. Now, if it is demonstrable that horizon formation is not a paradox (which I believe it is, which is why I included information in the article justifying the formation of a horizon), then that should be in the article and any additional resources describing such resolutions are welcome. But just because the supposed paradox is a motivation for this research does not mean that the mathematical conclusions are invalidated - pre-Hawking radiation is still a prediction during the collapse that restricts the formation of the horizon and I don't think it is invalidated if there would be no physical problem with horizon formation.

And finally, just remember that our picture of a black hole is incomplete still because of the information loss paradox and, more importantly, because of the singularity. SamuelRiv 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new comments about alternative black hole models in the main talk. There is an explanation why the Krauss model is wrong.The simply reason why these models are not ruled out by other is that one does't take them serious except some persons who have no idea of GR, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.71.52 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the last abstract. This was absolute necessary because these alternative models are not worth to be regarded as serios alternatives and a reader with no deeper physical backround would not be able to notice that.