More about black holes…

211jun12 Update: I’m sure that there are some of you out there, who know about astronomy, cosmology, and physics, and it is for you that I post the new and update from Stephen Crothers and others; but these are for anyone at all, as well. If you’re reading this and have a wordpress blog, for heaven’s sake add a comment or a ‘like’ so that we’ll know you’re there.

Dear Robin Barnard,

Thank you for your reply (appended below) to my email regarding your
claim for the discovery of multiple black holes and/or black hole
candidates in Andromeda (M31), as reported in the article ‘Black-hole
bonanza discovered near Earth’, published online on 13 June 2013,

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/13/trove-black-holes-discovered-in-andromeda-galaxy/

Thanks also for the preprint of your paper with Garcia and Murray on this topic:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7780

I have read your reply and your paper, but nowhere do you or your two
colleagues justify or validate the notion of multiple black holes,
multiple black hole candidates, or black hole binaries. You don’t even
specify the types of black holes or black hole candidates you claim to
have found. You simply presume that nondescript multiple black holes
and black hole binaries exist and on that presumption you and your
colleagues interpret your observations as black holes and/or black
hole candidates. Indeed, in your reply you said:

“Several of these binary systems have masses that exceed the limit for
neutron star systems, regardless of equations of state. They also must
be at least as compact as neutron stars, because they have similar
power output from the same energy source. Therefore, they are more
dense than neutron stars, and there is little else they can be except
black holes.”

“Basically, we see a bunch of powerful, point-like X-ray sources in
the region of the centre of Andromeda; these can be either neutron
star binaries, black hole binaries, or background galaxies;”

They are certainly not black holes since all alleged solutions to
Einstein’s field equations for the black hole pertain to a universe
that is spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not
expanding, and is asymptotically flat. However, the alleged hot big
bang model pertains to a universe that is spatially finite (one case)
or spatially infinite (in two different cases), of finite age,
contains radiation and many masses (including many black holes some of
which are claimed to be primordial), is expanding, and is not
asymptotically flat. Thus the black hole and big bang cosmology
contradict one another; they are mutually exclusive.

You claim that,

“there is no need to worry about flaws in field equations.”

That is simply not true, because the black hole itself is alleged to
have been predicted by General Relativity via the Einstein field
equations. The simplest type of black hole is allegedly obtained from
the field equations Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by mathematical
construction contains no matter. Einstein’s field equations are
nonlinear and so the Principle of Superposition is invalid in General
Relativity. Thus, if X and Y are separate solutions to Einstein’s
field equations, and ‘a’ and ‘b’ are scalars, then the linear
combination aX +bY is not a solution. This means that one cannot
superpose any black hole solution upon any other black hole solution,
different or not, or upon any big bang solution. It is just not
possible to superpose spacetimes upon one another. Yet your claims
amount to a linear combination of solutions (superposition) in
violation of General Relativity to obtain many black holes, neutron
stars, and other matter, and big bang, assuming you also maintain that
one of the three alleged big bang solutions pertains. There are no
known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses
and no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his
field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses.
Unless you or your colleagues can produce a solution to Einstein’s
field equations for many black holes or an existence theorem for such
configurations of masses, then all talk of multiple black holes is
merely wishful thinking. But that would be a tall order, knowing
already that all alleged black hole solutions to Einstein’s field
equations pertain to a one mass universe that is asymptotically flat,
spatially infinite, eternal, and not expanding, by definition.

In your reply you also say:

“high school maths may be sufficient to understand the algebra, but
high school physics is not enough to understand the physics.”

This is also incorrect. It does not take much physics at all to
understand that the black hole and big bang are mutually exclusive, as
explained in my previous email and again above. Suppose now just two
black holes (from what field equations do they come from?); each black
hole disrupts the asymptotic flatness of the other black hole so that
the spacetime between them is not asymptotically flat. In addition,
each black hole encounters an alleged ‘infinite curvature’ at the
singularity of the other black hole. Now consider the 2.5 million
‘supermassive’ black holes that NASA scientists have claimed to have
found (‘NASA’s WISE Survey Uncovers Millions of Black Holes’ August
29, 2012, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/aug/HQ_12-295_WISE_Black_Holes.html).
None of the alleged black holes are in a spacetime that is
asymptotically flat owing to the presence of the other black holes,
and each of them encounters 2,499,999 ‘infinite’ curvatures due to the
other 2,499,999 alleged black holes. But all alleged black hole
solutions to Einstein’s field equations are defined in part by
possession of a spacetime that is asymptotically flat, in a universe
that is spatially infinite and not expanding. Multiple black holes and
black hole binaries violate the very definition of the black hole.
This does not require anything more than high school physics to
understand. Indeed, it requires even less than high school physics to
comprehend.

In your paper you say,

“We know of ~20 X-ray binaries with dynamically confirmed black hole
(BH) accretors; these include 15 low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) and 3
high mass X-ray
binaries (HMXBs) in the Milky way and Magellanic Clouds”

“We have identified 10 BHCs from their high luminosity low states to date.”

“We have identified 26 new black hole candidates in the central region
of M31, using their structure functions or luminosities to identify
them as X-ray binaries, and their
high luminosity hard state spectra to classify them as BHCs.”

It is of note that you and your colleagues claim the finding of so
many black holes, black hole binaries, and/or black hole candidates,
when the very definition of the black hole excludes multiple black
holes, and the black hole and big bang ‘solutions’ are mutually
exclusive.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers
http://viXra.org/abs/1306.0024

_________________________________

Barnard, Robin
To: Stephen Crothers
Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Hi Stephen,
thank you for your interest. As you have noted, and is evident in your
paper, the mathematics and theory of black holes is extremely tricky
and hard to understand; high school maths may be sufficient to
understand the algebra, but high school physics is not enough to
understand the physics. Luckily, our lack of understanding has no
impact on the actual physics of the universe; there is no need to
worry about flaws in field equations. I personally believe that it is
futile to speculate what happens inside the event horizon, since the
known laws of physics no longer apply.

Our black holes classifications are empirical, coming from
measurements from known neutron-star binaries and black hole binaries
in our Galaxy. They all exist in so-called X-ray binary systems.

X-ray binary systems consist of a compact object (either a neutron
star or black hole) plus a companion star, in close orbit, so that
matter is transfered from the companion star onto the compact star.
They produce tremendous amounts of X-rays, and are powered by
gravitational energy that is extracted from the material falling onto
the compact star.

There are similar systems containing a white dwarf instead of a black
hole or neutron star, but these release much less energy, even though
white dwarves have similar masses to neutron stars. This is because
white dwarves are many times larger than neutron stars, meaning that
much less energy is extracted from the falling material before it hits
the surface of the white dwarf.

The known black holes in our Galaxy have been “dynamically confirmed”
by examining the orbits of their companion stars. Using Kepler’s laws,
we can get the total mass of both stars; if we can find the mass of
the companion star, we can therefore find the mass of the compact
star. Several of these binary systems have masses that exceed the
limit for neutron star systems, regardless of equations of state. They
also must be at least as compact as neutron stars, because they have
similar power output from the same energy source. Therefore, they are
more dense than neutron stars, and there is little else they can be
except black holes.

As for how we make our classifications, I invite you to read the
preprint of our upcoming paper using the following link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7780.

Basically, we see a bunch of powerful, point-like X-ray sources in the
region of the centre of Andromeda; these can be either neutron star
binaries, black hole binaries, or background galaxies; the paper
details how we make the distinctions.

Happy reading!
Robin