The defining characteristic of a black hole may have to give, if the two pillars of modern physics — general relativity and quantum theory — are both correct.
Di dalam buku ' A Brief history of time.pdf ' Stephen Hawking menulis yang intinya menyatakan bahwa teori Black Holes yang dicetuskannya keliru jika nantinya terbukti teori relativitas umum (general relativity) itu salah. Teori relativitas umum yang bertahan selama hampir satu abad sejak dicetuskan oleh Einstein pada tahun 1916, dan selalu menimbulkan kontroversi, sekarang semakin jelas kelirunya.
Einstein mengabaikan adanya refraksi cahaya ( light refraction ). Pembelokan cahaya bintang yang melewati medan gravitasi matahari bukan disebabkan karena pengaruh medan gravitasi matahari sesuai hipothesisnya dalam teori relativitas umum, melainkan disebabkan karena refraksi cahaya. Jika cahaya tidak dipengaruhi oleh gravitasi, maka black hole adalah sesuatu yang tidak mungkin terjadi. Dengan kata lain, singularitas yang diprediksi oleh Einstein tidak akan pernah terjadi ...................
Light deflection is not caused by gravity, but by refraction.
In astronomy, the deflection of light is something very common, and not caused by gravity field of a massive object, but it occurs due to the light refraction: astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction . ( astrobasik )
Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.
Zeeya Merali
24 January 2014
Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a
paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we
usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to
redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking
notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of
Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away
with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud
every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
In its
stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”,
which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually
releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.
“There
is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory,
however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full
explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that
successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But
that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct
treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”
Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation
and weather forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review.
The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013
(watch video of
the talk).
Fire fighting
Hawking's
new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall
paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was
discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute
and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics:
Fire in the hole!').
In a
thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut
unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically
simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first
pointed out by the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in a letter he
wrote to Einstein in
late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that
picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through
the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being
pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually
crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense
core.
But on
analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling
realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small
scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates
that the event horizon must actually be transformed into a highly energetic
region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.
This
was alarming because, although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted
Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in
free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in
the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty
intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should
be an unremarkable place.
Beyond the horizon
Now
Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and
general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event
horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the
black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary
surface to exist.
In
place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface
along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will
be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two
horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole
can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though
stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be
distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event
horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.
Conversely,
in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing
out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory,
become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the
apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means
that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't
escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.
“The
picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert
on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who
collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to
propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and
there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a
definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”
Although
Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event
horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall
paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could
well cause the same problems as does an event horizon.
Unlike
the event horizon, the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve. Page notes
that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in
principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in
his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that
when it has shrunk to a certain size, at which the effects of both quantum
mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that
point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released
(although not in good shape).
If
Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black
hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent
horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole,
but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter
would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released
through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it
almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
“It
would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its
ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the
weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice it is too
difficult to do with much accuracy.
Polchinski,
however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in
nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the
Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so
different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see
space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large
scales.”
Raphael
Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and
a former student of Hawking's, says that this latest contribution highlights
how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However,
he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no
points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more
radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” he says.
"But the fact that we’re still discussing such questions 40 years after
Hawking’s first papers on black holes and information is testament to their enormous
significance."
Black holes don't exist
Black Holes Do Not Exist and Big Bang Theory Wrong
Einstein with Edwin Hubble, in 1931, at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, looking through the lens of the 100-inch telescope through which Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in 1929. Courtesy of the Archives, Calif Inst of Technology.
*) at another time .......
Usulan yang disarankan oleh Einstein sama sekali tidak ilmiah, alasannya dijelaskan dengan dua gambar berikut ini.
Gambar 1 adalah potret dua bintang yang diambil oleh seorang pengamat dari kota A pada suatu saat, dan Gambar 2 adalah potret dua bintang yang sama, yang diambil oleh pengamat yang sama dari kota B pada saat yang lain misalnya dua bulan kemudian. Kota A terletak di kawasan benua Eropa sedangkan kota B terletak di kawasan benua Afrika, ke dua kota itu berbeda jauh Lintang dan Bujurnya. Penampakan ke dua bintang yang sama itu akan selalu berbeda karena masing-masing tempat - kota A dan kota B - memiliki Bulatan Angkasa sendiri, oleh sebab itu ke dua potret itu tidak bisa dibandingkan. Dan lagi .....ke dua potret itu adalah penampakan Posisi Semu ( Apparent Position ) dari ke dua bintang, bukan Posisi Sejati ( True Position ). Oleh karenanya dari ke dua potret itu tidak bisa - dan tidak mungkin bisa - menghitung perbedaan sudut antara Posisi Sejati dengan Posisi Semu bintang yang menjadi obyek pengamatan.
Pembuktian teori relativitas umum sesuai yang diminta oleh Einstein dan dilaksanakan oleh Arthur Eddington dan timnya pada tahun 1919 : memotret bintang Hyade dari kota Oxford, Inggris, ketika bintang tersebut tampak pada malam hari. Memotret dilakukan pada malam hari karena cahaya bintang tidak melewati medan gravitasi matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 1.
Sekitar dua bulan kemudian Eddington dan timnya memotret bintang yang sama, Hyade, dari pulau Principe yang terletak di sebelah Barat Afrika. Pemotretan dilakukan bertepatan dengan saat Gerhana Matahari total, sesuai dengan hipotesis Einstein cahaya bintang yang melewati medan gravitasi akan disimpangkan mendekati matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 2.
Kemudian Potret 1 dibandingkan dengan Potret 2, potret 1 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Sejati, sedangkan Potret 2 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Semu ketika cahayanya telah disimpangkan, dan mereka mendapatkan hasil perhitungan sudut penyimpangan mendekati hasil yang diprediksi Einstein. Tentu saja cara pembuktian itu tidak ilmiah dan tidak bisa dibenarkan, karena baik Potret 1 maupun Potret 2 memberikan gambaran Posisi Semu bintang.
Dengan ke dua potret itu, tidak mungkin bisa mengetahui Posisi Sejati bintang. Posisi Sejati suatu benda anggkasa hanya bisa didapatkan dengan mengukur ketinggian bintang menggunakan Sextan ............dan banyak argumen-argumen koreksi yang harus diperhitungkan dengan hasil pengukuran menggunakan Sextan tersebut.
Kesimpulan :
Cara pembuktian teori yang diminta oleh pencetus teorinya, dalam hal ini Einstein, sama sekali tidak ilmiah.
Black Holes Do Not Exist and Big Bang Theory Wrong
Roger Penrose and I showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a beginning and, possibly, an end. ( Stephen Hawking )
Roger Penrose says physics is wrong
When a genius such as Einstein makes a mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.”
“From these purely theoretical considerations Einstein concluded that light, like
any material object, travels in a curve when passing through the gravitational field
of a massive body. He suggested that his theory could be put to test by observing
the path of starlight in the ravitational field of the sun. Since the stars are invisible
by day, there is only one occasion when sun and stars can be seen together in the
sky, and that is during an eclipse. Einstein proposed, therefore, that photographs
be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an
eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another
time.*) According to his theory, the light from the stars surrounding the sun should
be bent inward, toward the sun, in traversing the sun's gravitational field; hence the
images of those stars should appear to observers on earth to be shifted outward
from their usual positions in the sky. Einstein calculated the degree of deflection
that should be observed and predicted that for the stars closest to the
sun the deviation would be about 1 -75 seconds of an arc. “
Usulan yang disarankan oleh Einstein sama sekali tidak ilmiah, alasannya dijelaskan dengan dua gambar berikut ini.
Gambar 1
Gambar 2
Gambar 1 adalah potret dua bintang yang diambil oleh seorang pengamat dari kota A pada suatu saat, dan Gambar 2 adalah potret dua bintang yang sama, yang diambil oleh pengamat yang sama dari kota B pada saat yang lain misalnya dua bulan kemudian. Kota A terletak di kawasan benua Eropa sedangkan kota B terletak di kawasan benua Afrika, ke dua kota itu berbeda jauh Lintang dan Bujurnya. Penampakan ke dua bintang yang sama itu akan selalu berbeda karena masing-masing tempat - kota A dan kota B - memiliki Bulatan Angkasa sendiri, oleh sebab itu ke dua potret itu tidak bisa dibandingkan. Dan lagi .....ke dua potret itu adalah penampakan Posisi Semu ( Apparent Position ) dari ke dua bintang, bukan Posisi Sejati ( True Position ). Oleh karenanya dari ke dua potret itu tidak bisa - dan tidak mungkin bisa - menghitung perbedaan sudut antara Posisi Sejati dengan Posisi Semu bintang yang menjadi obyek pengamatan.
Pembuktian teori relativitas umum sesuai yang diminta oleh Einstein dan dilaksanakan oleh Arthur Eddington dan timnya pada tahun 1919 : memotret bintang Hyade dari kota Oxford, Inggris, ketika bintang tersebut tampak pada malam hari. Memotret dilakukan pada malam hari karena cahaya bintang tidak melewati medan gravitasi matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 1.
Sekitar dua bulan kemudian Eddington dan timnya memotret bintang yang sama, Hyade, dari pulau Principe yang terletak di sebelah Barat Afrika. Pemotretan dilakukan bertepatan dengan saat Gerhana Matahari total, sesuai dengan hipotesis Einstein cahaya bintang yang melewati medan gravitasi akan disimpangkan mendekati matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 2.
Kemudian Potret 1 dibandingkan dengan Potret 2, potret 1 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Sejati, sedangkan Potret 2 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Semu ketika cahayanya telah disimpangkan, dan mereka mendapatkan hasil perhitungan sudut penyimpangan mendekati hasil yang diprediksi Einstein. Tentu saja cara pembuktian itu tidak ilmiah dan tidak bisa dibenarkan, karena baik Potret 1 maupun Potret 2 memberikan gambaran Posisi Semu bintang.
Dengan ke dua potret itu, tidak mungkin bisa mengetahui Posisi Sejati bintang. Posisi Sejati suatu benda anggkasa hanya bisa didapatkan dengan mengukur ketinggian bintang menggunakan Sextan ............dan banyak argumen-argumen koreksi yang harus diperhitungkan dengan hasil pengukuran menggunakan Sextan tersebut.
Kesimpulan :
Cara pembuktian teori yang diminta oleh pencetus teorinya, dalam hal ini Einstein, sama sekali tidak ilmiah.
The LHC isn't going to produce
anything period.
The LHC is the Bernie Madoff of scientific looting schemes.
It was constructed to waste money. It was constructed to bloat the paychecks of
the scientific elite. It was constructed to bloat the bottom lines of
government contract workers. It is a sham. It is a rip off. It is a joke.
The particle physics model the LHC research is based on is a joke. The
scientists participating in it know full well its a joke. Its a billion dollar
boondoggle that will continue to "break down" and have catastrophic
errors throughout its lifetime. This is mainly because the scientists know that
if it were to work correctly for any long period of time, they would eventually
have to acknowledge that it has discovered nothing new and was a huge waste of
scientific resources and tax payer dollars.
You don't have to worry about black holes or anti-matter blowing up the Earth
because of the LHC. Black holes and anti-matter aren't real. Their are no such
things. Observations of space show that explanations of black holes do not
provide an adequate explanation for the effects of the M87 galactic jet. If
gravity is causing the jet, it must be accelerating matter beyond the speed of
light to account for observations. This is not possible even by the standard
theory. Only the electric force can account for the observations, not gravity.
Cosmology is a joke. The same scientific suppression we saw in the Climategate
scandal is alive and well in the field of theoretical physics. The physicists
are milking us like cattle for our tax dollars. Scientists can replicate the
formation of galaxies and stars using standard Newtonian physics by simply
adding the electric force into the models.
Space does not expand, bend, warp, twist, or in anyway do anything other than
exist as a place that matter occupies. Matter itself does not bend space, warp
space, or cause holes in space. Matter is stable and obeys coherent laws of
provable physics that range from the level of the electron all the way up to
the level of galaxies. There are no multiple dimensions, multiple realities, or
time traveling particles.
Gravity is an electromagnetic function of matter. It arises from matter. It
varies and is not constant. When scientists try to measure it they find gravity
changes and varies from place to place. There are no consistent measurements of
gravity. All methods of measuring gravity produce the same inconsistent
results.
The Earth was not formed out of dust circling the Sun. The provable physics of
dust in space absolutely prevent dust from forming into planets. This is most
obvious in the rings of Saturn. Planets don't form from dust circling bodies.
Even the standard theory’s own models fail to show how this is possible. Also,
all other planets discovered to-date around other stars have turned out to be
closely orbiting gas giants. This is impossible to explain if gravity formed
the planets around the stars.
Space is not expanding, there was no big bang. The red shift of light coming
from distant sources arrives in discrete steps meaning the Earth must be the
center of the universe if the big bang theory is true, thus its not. We see
high and low red shifted objects interacting with each other in space,
impossible if red shift is a function of velocity. We have laboratory proven
effects of light acting in a vacuum that can account for all observations in
space without the need for a big bang or expanding space.
READ MORE:
Kelly Clarkson
New Release
Menyongsong Hari Kemerdekaan RI ke-70 tanggal 17 Agustus 2015
Buku Berbahasa Indonesia
- Amazon
