0
$\begingroup$

Well I read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhas_Mitra

and he has claimed that "The so-called massive Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) must be quasi-black holes rather than exact black holes"

Yet people tell that the wave detected was due to the joining of 2 black holes.

So are there black holes or not?

Any comments?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, I would not be asking this if his reputation was questionable but it does not seem to be so. $\endgroup$
    – Sidarth
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Physics doesn't run on reputation but on observation... let us know when we have observational evidence for "quasi-black holes". $\endgroup$
    – CuriousOne
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:07
  • $\begingroup$ but what about this statement "His peer reviewed paper published in Journal of Mathematical Physics of the American Institute of Physics supports this contention by showing that Schwarzschild black holes have M = 0." @CuriousOne $\endgroup$
    – Sidarth
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:08
  • $\begingroup$ Possible relevant comment in another thread: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238801/… $\endgroup$
    – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why was this a wikipedia page? Self-written I presume. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Feb 25, 2016 at 7:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

What LIGO experiment observed are two very dense and heavy celestial object collide and thus giving ripples in space-time, known as gravitational waves. Abhas Mitra's claim doesn't get forfeited by it. Even if the objects were not black holes but rather Eternally Collapsing Objects(ECO's) as Dr. Mitra claims, they would still give you same wave structure detected. The difference between the two theories are completely about the internal structure of black holes and has nothing to do with their external behaviours i.e. creating gravity waves and so on.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ then why is it being propagated by the media that it was due to "black holes" ...even the scientists tell that in the interviews... $\endgroup$
    – Sidarth
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ If you take the standard accepted theory, they were black holes. It means that it can't be any other object like quasars or big stars. But whether they are real black holes or quasi-black holes are not verified obviously. $\endgroup$
    – Ari
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ what about neutron stars? $\endgroup$
    – Sidarth
    Feb 25, 2016 at 5:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sidarth read this: briankoberlein.com/2016/02/20/gravity-wave-grb . This is considering the FERMI gamma ray burst.:"From its apparent peak brightness we can calculate its peak luminosity. It turns out the peak luminosity of this event is an order of magnitude dimmer than any previous short GRB event. This would support the idea that it was not caused by a neutron star collision." $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Feb 25, 2016 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Ari It certainly can't be "big stars" or quasars that orbit each other in 0.01 s before merger. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Feb 25, 2016 at 7:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.