October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

Plenary Talk: International Workshop : New Results and Actual Problems in Particle, Astroparticle Physics and Cosmology, Protvino, Russia, 2013, (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, In Press) Einsteinian Revolution’s Misinterpretation: No True Black Holes, No Information Paradox: Just Quasi-static Balls of Quark Gluon Plasma
Abhas Mitra Astrophysical Sciences Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, 400085, India, amitra@barc.gov.in Even if one would assume the astrophysical massive compact objects (MCOs) to be Black Holes (BHs), no energy can be extracted from them because neutral vacuum BHs cannot acquire any (induced) electromagnetic property, neither can any current emerge from the central singularity. This is so despite wishful models claiming the contrary by attributing the Event Horizon (EH) or an imaginary “membrane” with wishful electromagnetic properties. Similarly various Quantum Gravity (QG) theories too attribute various imaginary and mysterious properties like “Brick Wall”, “Fire Wall” with the EH even after claiming that the vacuum EH is a perfectly regular spacetime without any special property! The vacuum EH is also associated with imaginary material structures and entropy in a completely self-contradictory manner. To legitimize such contradictions & fudge, the “Holography” principle is invoked by which the information contained within the 3-D BH interior is hypothesized to be encoded on the 2-D EH. Further, some QG theories try to explain gravity & BH entropy (SBH ) in terms of random motion of “atoms of vacuum” of dimension ∼ lp (Planck Length). But since lp → 0 as → 0, a classical vacuum would possess infinite entropy by such a hypothesis and so spacetime may not be granular ever. It is asserted that though BHs correspond to exact General Relativistic solutions, the relevant integration constants are zero, i.e., a Schwarzschild BH has M = 0 (Mitra, JMP 2009), and Kerr BHs too correspond to M = a = 0, implying SBH = 0 & BHs are asymptotic ground states of preceding collapse which radiates away entire mass-energy, angular momentum & entropy. Thus the finite mass BH Candidates must be Quasi-BHs. It has been shown that the most natural case for Quasi BHs are ultra-magnetized hot quasi-static balls of plasma, Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs) radiating at their Eddington Luminosity. Spinning MECOs behave like ultramagatic GR pulsars and may naturally explain high energy astrophysical phenomena. Since there is no true BH, there no quantum “Information Paradox”, no need for “Holography”, no need to bid farewell to physical reality. As spactime membrane gets infinitely stretched and no singularity is formed, there is probably no need for any fictitious QG. Gravity may always remain classical and separated from other interactions like oil & water. Keywords : Black Hole Alternative, Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object, Information Paradox, Quantum Gravity, Gamma Ray Bursts, Quasars, Astrophysical Jets

1

1. “Black Holes”: Apparent Fall Out of Einstenian Revolution Einstein’s General Relativity (GR), preceded by his special relativity indeed ushered in a conceptual revolution in Physics in 1916. It is a logical culmination of “Principle of Equivalence” which probably crept up first in the mind of Einstein in a moving elevator. Pauli, Dirac and many others have described GR as the most beautiful physical theory because of its logical consistency. However, compared to Newtonian gravitation, GR is far more complex. So following the formulation of GR, it was natural to find solution for the simplest problem, namely the vacuum spacetime structure around a massenpunkt (point mass) (G = c = 1):

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

2

ds2 = (1 − 2M0 /R)dT 2 − (1 − 2M0 /R)−1 dR2 − R2 dΩ2

(1)

where dΩ2 = dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 and Rg = 2M0 is an integration constant. One derives a this solution by taking matter energy momentum Tb = 0. Though this solution, where the invariant area coordinate R itself is the radial coordinate, is ascribed to Schwarzschild, is actually due to Hilbert. It is also applicable for the exterior vacuum of a static spherical object of radius Rb and integration constant 2M . In such a case, the orbit of a test particle exactly follows Kepler’s 3rd law from which one can identify the constant 2M as the twice the gravitational mass of the object R M = 0 b 4πρ(R)R2 dR ≥ 0. Since real astrophysics or Kepler’s law never involves any “point mass”, one cannot apriori presume 2M = 2M0 > 0 for a massenpunkt, i.e., there is no guarantee that M0 = limRb →0 M > 0. However, the concept of “Black Hole”/singularity got developed by importing the Newtonian Concept of a Finite Mass Point Particle, i.e., by presuming M0 > 0. At R = Rg , the metric components become singular and for R < Rg , they exchange their signatures. And many authors have pointed out that the local 3-speed of a test particle in terms of √ proper radial length interval dl = −gRR dR and synchronized proper time interval √ dτ = g00 dT : v = dl/dτ approaches the speed of light v → c as R → Rg . Contrary to the excuse offered by BH paradigm, this limit v → c can be pursued even if there would be no static observer at the Event Horizon (EH) R = Rg . But BH paradigm insists that EH is a regular region of spacetime as may be seen by transforming to other appropriate coordinate system such as due to Eddington & Finkelstein:
2 ds2 = (1 − 2M0 /R)dT∗ − (4M0 /R)dT∗ dR − (1 + 2M0 /R)dR2 − R2 dΩ2

(2)

where T∗ = T + 2M0 ln(R/2M0 − 1). Such claims are backed by the fact the −4 appears to be finite at the EH (under Kretschmann scalar (KS) K EH = 12Rg the assumption M0 > 0). 2. Have Astrophysicists Really Detected Black Holes • 1. The claim that MCOs found in many X-Ray Binaries (XRBs) and Quasars must be BHs is based on the idea that cold compact objects have an upper mass limit of 3M . Here it is ignored that for self-gravitating objects which are so hot that they are radiating at their distantly observer Eddington luminosity 38 −1 L∞ erg/s, where z = (1 − 2M/Rb )−1/2 − 1 is surface ed = 1.3.10 (M/M )(1 + z ) gravitational redshift, and supported by pure radiation pressure, there is no upper limit on M .1–3 Thus theoretical “Super Massive Stars” of Hoyle & Fowler can have arbitrary high mass, and they can even be as compact as Neutron Stars (NSs) because their z < 0.15. And for extremely Relativistic Radiation Pressure Supported Stars (RRPSSs) with z ≫ 1, there is neither any upper nor any lower limit on M .1–3 Thus in principle MCOs could be RPSSs.1–3 • 2. The detection of 6.7 keV Fe-lines from several XRBs are often claimed to show that the MCOs are BHs. The study of such lines is highly model dependent

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

3

involving various unknown parameters. Such models invariably ignore the likely magnetic field around the MCOs even when the BH paradigm falsely assumes that spinning vacuum BHs effectively behave like magnetized pulsars. In fact, 6.7 keV Fe lines have been detected from some known NS XRBs too, and at the most such lines hint that they originate from hot ionized plasma at R ∼ f ew Rg . They never prove existence of any EH, as it is fundamentally impossible to directly detect the EH. Note RRPSSs have Rb → Rg , so detection of Fe lines or any other circumstantial “evidences” for BHs (like imaging of “EH” and closely orbiting stars) could be evidences for RRPSSs as well. • 3. While NSs in XRBs often show Type I X-ray bursts from their hard surfaces, XRBs containing BHCs do not show the same. And this is cited as an evidence for vacuum EHs. But it turns out that RPSSs are hot balls of fluid plasma without any “hard surface”; and accreted plasma simply merges in it like raindrops merge in a lake. Thus absence of Type I bursts does not show presence of EHs in MCOs.4 Similarly, no pulsation is seen from BHCs unlike NSs, and this is too cited as evidence for EHs. But the extreme frame-dragging effect around RRPSSs can obliterate the spin pulsations to distant observers.5

3. Why The Concept of Finite Mass Black Holes Is Incorrect
−4 −4 If M0 were indeed a free parameter, K EH ∝ Rg ∝ M0 → 0 for M0 → ∞. This shows absolute inconsistency of the BH paradigm: (i) If gravity on the EH could be weaker than that of a feather, what is meant by the epithet “where gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape..”, (ii) And why a feather or any other known object with potential larger gravity cannot trap light? Therefore there must be something fundamentally wrong in the assumption that the integration constant M0 can be finite and arbitrary large even for a point mass. The original problem of spacetime around a neutral “point mass” is by definition a static one.6,7 Of course it might appear as non-static to a free falling observer and barring this the problem is intrinsically static as seen by no temporal independence of K ∼ M 2 R−6 . But coordinate transformations invented to hide the EH sigularity render corresponding metrics non-static, and hence are physically inadmissible.6,7 Note, in spherical polar coordinates, the metric determinant for a Minkowski spacetime g = −R4 sin2 θ vanishes at the arbitrary origin of the polar coordinates and nowhere else (for θ = 0). Thus one can safely carry out coordinate transformations from say Cartesian to polar coordinates because the Jacobian J is non-singular except at R = 0. But for BH coordinate transformations, one often has J = 0 at R = Rg = 2M0 which hints that Rg = 0. Also while the occurrence of v → c at the EH was blamed on Schwarzschild coordinates, it turns out that the same divergence happens in all other coordinates too.8,9 In fact v → c for all BH EHs.10 To avoid this embarrassment, some authors define wishful prescription of measuring speeds, where the speed of one free falling particle must be measured by another free falling observer11 ! This is self-delusion because, in GR the observer and test

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

4

particle must be at the same spatial position at a given instant. And this is possible only if both have same initial conditions E1 = E2 = Energy P er U nit M ass. So the measured speed in this case is not just subluminal but v ≡ 0! Eventually these authors too admit that “it is important to emphasize that the interior structure of realistic black holes has not been satisfactorily determined, and is still open to considerable debate”.11 To avoid this ambiguity about definition of v , it was shown that as a test particle having time like worldline ds2 > 0 would approach the EH, it would tend to be lightlike (ds2 → 0) in violation of GR.8,9 Thus EH must be a physical singularity and never form, and continued GR collapse must be eternal even with respect to a comoving observer. In fact the very definition of an EH that nothing can come out of is a profound physically singular feature. The invariant scalar acceleration felt by a static observer is A = |ai ai | = (M0 /R2 )(1 − Rg /R)−1/2 .9 Thus the metric singularity at R = Rg in Eq.(1) is not due to badness of Schwarzschild coordinates, but it is due to AEH = ∞. The fact that zEH = ∞ too is a coordinate independent physically measurable effect. To explain such a EH singularity, Abrams12 and then Loinger, Antoci & Crothers fell back on the original Schwarzschild solution (which looks just like Eq.[1]) where the point particle is supposed to be sitting not at R = 0 but at r = 0 and R3 = r3 + (2M0 )3 . Here one presumes M0 > 0 so that the point mass 2 has a finite surface area of Apoint = 16πM0 . Clearly this is awkward both physically and geometrically, and we ignore this route. Obviously, this scheme would be consistent iff M0 = 0 so that indeed Apoint = 0. Earlier Bell too noted that EH does not appear to be vacuum and the source of mass-energy is sitting right at the EH.13 He however failed to reconcile the self-contradiction, and could not envisage that resolution lay in realizing M0 even though for an object like the Sun, Rg = 2M > 0 and Rb > Rg . It was the present author who could envisage such a correct resolution. Even for the Kruskal metric, ds2 → 0 as R → Rg , and further one must have M0 = 0 for a BH.14,15 If BHs will be envisaged as “fuzzballs” of strings all over i.e., not vacuum at all, then “fuzzballs” are not BHs and vice-versa. Since interior of BHs are trapped, there cannot be any static matter for R ≤ Rg , and “fuzzball”’ idea is erroneous.

3.1.

Event Horizon Is The Curvature/Physical Singularity

Katanaev16 has argued that M0 is finite but the Schwarzschild solution does not represent a massenpunkt in complete contradiction to both history & physics. He has offered algebra claiming that it is only the isotropic form of Eq.(1) which represents a “point mass”. Unfortunately, many mathematicians refuse to see that mathematical jugglery & coordinate transformations can neither obliterate intrinsic physical facts nor lead to new physical scenarios. And this has been the biggest bane for BH research. Recall, Bonnor showed that the EH singularities of both Schwarzschild & Kerr BHs (and several other vacuum solutions) have physical nature and cannot be wished away by coordinate transformations.6,7 In 2003, Borkar & Karad argued

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

5

that EH corresponds to a genuine physical singularity and not a mere coordinate singularity.17 Indeed, contrary to the staunch claim by the BH paradigm, there is a scalar made out of Riemann Tensor which becomes singular at the EH.18
2 /R6 )(1 − Rg /R); W = S −1 = ∞; R = Rg S = Rijkl;m Rijkl; m = 180(1 − Rg

(3)

In fact similar EH divergences occur for all shades of BHs. This inconvenient direct proof is however ignored by BH paradigm either by feigning ignorance or by brute force. As mentioned AEH = zEH = ∞ too. Therefore, for consistency one must have K EH = ∞ and which is possible iff M0 = 0. In fact, one can directly prove this √ as well. Note for the curvilinear coordinate transformations −gd4 x = Invariant, and by invoking this for the transformation from metric (1) to (2), it has been found that M0 = 0.19 Similarly for Kerr BH too, it has been shown that a = M0 = 0.20,21 It is also trivial to see that this result is inevitable. Note K = ∞ at R = 0 implying a Tb must have a Dirac δ behaviour there, accordingly, the Ricci Scalar has the form21
a R(R = 0) = −(8πG/c4 )Ta = −4GM0 δ (R − 0)/R2 c2

(4)

However as one would calculate R by using either metric (1) or (2) or any other transformed one, one finds R = 0. By equating the two Rs it is absolutely clear that M0 = 0.18 Following these proofs, BH paradigm collapses, and thus the so called BH candidates (BHCs) must be quasi-BHs19 irrespective of the faith in BHs. This direct proof M0 = 0 also negates Katanaev.16 4. Continued Gravitational Collapse: Eternally Collapsing Object For Kerr BHs a = M0 = 020,21 and this suggests that the mathematical state of BHs can be attained only by radiating away entire mass-energy and angular momentum. The fastest collapse is pressure free collapse, and the comoving proper time for formation of a BH is τ ∝ M −1/2 = ∞ for M = M0 = 0. Since all other collapse could be only slower, τBH = ∞ for all collapses. In other words, no true BH is ever formed and continued collapse must be eternal and the so-called BHCs, quasi-BHs, must be “Eternally Collapsing Objects”(ECO).1–3,8,9 Recall, in a paper entitled “Reality of the Schwarzschild Singularity”, Janis et al.22 showed that if the collapse of a massless scalar field would chase the limit R → 2M , M → M0 = 0, and the EH would become a point in agreement with Bell’s analysis:13 “then the entire question of gravitational collapse beyond Schwarzschild radius becomes meaningless”.22 However Janis et al. were not sure whether such a conclusion would be true for a general fluid. Also, they might have been cautious in view of the widespread belief that Oppenheimer & Snyder (OS) had given an almost exact solution for BH formation for a uniform density pressure-less dust. By critically examining the problem, it has been shown that, in reality, OS collapse does not lead to any finite mass BH formation; in fact it is a mathematical illusion because a p = 0 dust has ρ = 0 too, and there is no collapse at all.23,24 In general, it has been shown that, for spherical collapse 2M/R ≤ 1 implying there is no trapped surface

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

6

formation.25 And in case, one would like to pursue the R → 0 limit of formation of a “point singularity”, one must have M → 0 and a M = 0 BH. In order to avoid a M < 0 situation, this limiting state must correspond to R = Rg = 2M0 = 0, i.e., 2M/R = 1 rather than a Naked Singularity 2M/R < 1. 4.1. Formation of ECOs In QG parlance, in strong gravity, one must consider “back reaction”. But one does not require any mysterious and uncertain “back reaction” if one would recall the astrophysical fact that collapse must be accompanied by both emission of radiation and heating up of the collapsing object both in Newtonian and Einstein gravity.2,3,26 As √ an collapsing object dips inside its photon sphere Rb < 1.5Rs = 3M and z > 3 − 1, it starts trapping its own radiation whose density increases as ∼ (1 + z )2 while local value of Led ∼ (1 + z ).2,27 Thus sooner or later, at sufficiently large z 1, the outward trapped flux becomes Led when radiation force balances pull of gravity. The balance of the object is completely dominated by radiation pressure and the object becomes an RRPSS. But this is a dynamical quasi-equilibrium, and the object asymptotically tries to attain the true BH state. Since the trapped radiation has a tendency to move in (unstable) circular orbits, one might view the situation as dramatic rise of transverse pressure and which too may arrest catastrophic collapse.28 The fact that effective active gravitational mass density decreases due to negative self-gravity too slows down collapse.29 The local mean temperature of an ECO has been estimated as TECO ∼ 600(M/M )−1/2 MeV. Thus all stellar mass ECOs are self-gravitating balls of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP).27 By demanding that one must have T > 1 keV in oder that ECO is fully ionized plasma, one obtains an upper limit of ECO mass M ECO < 1011 M which is indeed the upper mass limit of observed BHCs. 4.2. Astrophysics Explained by ECOs & Not By BHs For an accreting NS having mass Mx , spin ω , magnetic moment µ, and accretion ˙ , the coroation radius is Rco = (GMx /ω 2 )1/3 while the magnetosphere radius rate M ˙ )1/7 . As long as RM < Rco , the accretion process is relatively is Rm = (µ4 /2GMx M ˙ would become very low (Low State), one may have smooth (High Sate). But if M Rm > Rco and the incoming plasma may largely be ejected out by the spin-down repulsive propeller action. If MCOs were vacuum BHs without any intrinsic magnetic field (µ = 0) and from which nothing can escape, the so-called BHC XRBs would have been much more quiet and inert compared to their NS counterparts. But in reality, BHC XRBs do show state transitions and are much more violent compared to their NS counterparts. This suggests that (i) BHCs are MECOs with stronger µ. Further, MECOs being ultra-magnetized plasma, they are vulnerable to unpredictable Coronal Mass Ejection like phenomenon, and this is another reason why BHC XRBs are much more violent compared to their NS counterparts. Several observational aspects of the BHC XRB as well as the galactic center MCO, Sgr

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

7

A∗ have already been explained in this paradigm.30,31,33 There are evidences that the MCOs in many quasars are MECOs rather than true BHs.34,35 And though by definition EH is a surface from which nothing can escape, existence of relativistic jets are associated with EHs! In reality, it is already known that (non-relativistic) jets found in many proto-stars do not require any compact objects let alone BHs. Also, known NS XRBs like Cir X-1 and Sco X-1 do show presence of relativistic jets. Jets may require magnetic fields anchored into a rotating accretion disk or spinning compact object which may concentrate and twist the magnetic fields into helical coils that accelerate and collimate plasma. For relativistic jets, the strong magnetic field of the MCO is necessary in collimating and guiding the plasma forcefully away. There are many evidences that “Quasars Are Belching”, a phenomenon necessary for recycling of cosmic matter for formation of new stars & galaxies.37,38 BHs with their EHs would certainly inhibit such cosmic belching and recycling; and only MECOs can play such a role. For the quasar Q0957+561, there is evidence that Rdisk ∼ 35Rg (which is explainable for a MECO) whereas for a BH one expects Rdisk ∼ 3Rg .34 For BHC XRB Cyg X-1, it has been found that the magnetic field at the inner disk is very high B ∼ 108 G which can explained only by a MECO model.36 And though, by definition, BH paradigm (assuming M0 > 0) claims the EH is a vacuum and a regular region with no special physical property, Blandford & Znajek imagined that in the presence of an exterior (accretion disk) magnetic field, spinning Kerr BHs would behave like spinning NSs/pulsars! This false paradigm was modified by claiming that there is a stretched horizon which behaves like a conducting membrane (when by definition EH is vacuum)39 ! Of course, the exact location of this “membrane” is never made clear. These authors eventually admitted that “The mental deceit of stretching the horizon is made mathematically viable, indeed very attractive, by the elegant set of membrane-like boundary conditions to which it leads at the stretched horizon....”39 This is mumbo-jumbo & no explanation. • Long duration Gamma Ray Bursts may be associated with eruption of ultramagnetized pair plasma during proto-MECO formation, and rejuvenation of the central engine may be linked to jerky contractions to more stable MECO states. GRB emission can be supplemented by relativistic magnetar like spindown of MECOs.37,38

5. Theoretical Physics in a Blind Alley: Black Hole Red Herring Though physics must be based on observations, experimentations and falsifiability, unfortunately, to a large extent, post modern theoretical physics has degenerated into analogies, wild speculations, endless mathematical jugglery, sophisticated mumbo-jumbo and media-hype.40 Time tested physics requires that physical objects be described as objects in the same physical spacetime. But by the “successful” AdS/CFT conjecture, certain quantum fields like Yang-Mills field describing real particles have correspondence with string theory/QG in a higher dimensions. Closely related to it is the “Holographic Principle” of QG which conjectures that

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

8

the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region, preferably a null surface like the EH. All such conjectures are inspired by BH thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales as R2 and not as R3 as may be expected. Recall the well tested classical fields have zero entropy: there is nothing random about electric and magnetic fields. And by “No Hair Theorem” classical BHs have nil entropy. But if one would assume a finite mass BH, the entropy/information of accreted matter would disappear, and which the supposed thermal Hawking radiation would not radiate back. We may recall here Gauss’s Theorem of good old theoretical physics which connects volume & surface integrals. In comparison to mundane Gauss’s theorem which can be derived and understood, all such conjectures of post modern physics connecting surface and volume properties appear to be voodoo physics which no respectable physicist must question. If at all there would be a volume/surface correspondence why one must require EH type null surfaces with strange properties from which nothing can escape for realization of such a correspondence. In the case of a BH, the insight was that the information content of all fallen objects can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the EH. The holographic principle supposedly resolves the BH information paradox within the framework of string theory. Earlier, many authors have 2 /Gc3 and where κB is Boltzmann constant, lp = tried to explain SBH = κB A/lp A is the area of the EH, by assuming a thermal bath of quantum field propagating to EH. But typically, SBH = ∞ in such approaches though BH paradigm asserts that EH is a perfectly normal surface. Actually SBH = ∞ is related to the fact that AEH = WEH = ∞. Unfortunately, instead of realizing that EHs must not form, to alleviate this, G. ’t Hooft conjectured a “Brick Wall”, a fixed boundary near the EH. Clearly, if “BHs” were BHs, such a conjecture is unjustified. It is also asserted that an infalling observer may not see the EH as vacuum but as a “Firewall” in direct contradiction to the idea of EH! All such weird claims may be largely traced to the original idea of Bekenstein that BHs must possess huge entropy. Though thermodynamics and Stephen Boltzmann law involve local quantities, BH “surface gravity” κ = M0 /R2 considers view of a distant observer whereas invariant acceleration felt by a local observer AEH = ∞9 ! Thus they normalized true κ by a factor of ∞! Such heuristic formulation of BH thermodynamics by Bekenstein & Hakwing could 2 be wrong becausewhile it measures EH area A = 4πRg locally, the EH temperature TBH = κ is normalizated by factor of ∞. Note, theoretical physicists conveniently ignore Belinski’s unpleasant proof showing there is no Hawking radiation.41,42 Note Unruh radiation is not related to EH and might be real. If M0 were arbitrary, K EH → 0 for M0 → ∞, then why should QG manifest strongly at EH? And why does QG not manifest itself on Earth’ s surface where K > 0? Thus all attempts by QG theories to explain BH Thermodynamics or Hawking radiation are fundamentally inconsistent. One of the motivations for QG theories is avoidance of BH and Big Bang singularities. In string theories, geometrical points are excluded and elementary strings have finite dimensions (∼ lp ). Given such a basic length, one should have an upper limit of proper acceleration A ∼ c2 /lp 25

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

9

whereas AEH = ∞. From this consideration, string theories need not predict any BH or singularities! Ironically, string theories justify itself by being able to explain SBH ! In Loop QG, space itself is granular with cell sizes ∼ lp . In “emergent gravity” conjecture of Padmanabhan,43 gravity is just due to random motion of atoms of 3 −3 vacuum having size ∼ lp . If so, the density of phase space d ∼ lp . Now note that, in the limit → 0 or lp → 0, Quantum Mechanics must yield classical result. This assertion cannot be avoided by claiming that in this limit atoms must collapse because → 0 just implies quantum number n → ∞. Indeed, there can be classical model of any macroscopic system with = 0. Look TBH ∝ → 0 (for M0 > 0) correctly in this limit. But now note that for = 0, d = ∞ implying even pure vacuum has Tvac = Svac = ∞. Thus the fanciful “emergent gravity” theories inspired by EHs must be incorrect. In fact with = lp = 0, SBH = ∞ in direct contradiction with the fact that for classical BHs SBH = 0. The main reason behind all such self-contradictions is the very assumption M0 = Arbitray . Once we would realize that M0 = 0, the paradigm of BH and “BH Thermodynamics” vanish or become castles in the air. For M0 = 0, AEH = 0, and SBH = 0. This is so because BH degree of freedom is unity and S = kB ln 1 = 0. Thus all QG BH solutions too may correspond to M0 = 0. When quantization of say energy is postulated one does not require an energy continuum in the background. But if one would postulate “cells of vibrating vacuum”, one requires a classical background vacuum. Though there could be quantum vacuum field fluctuations, vacuum does not physically move like atoms. Interestingly, the same Thanu Padmanabhan noted earlier that entropy of a spherical ideal gas would blow up if Rb → Rg and insisted that such blowing up is not due to any coordinate singularity.44 He had even asserted that “since BH formation never takes place .. , the discussion of physical behavior of BHs, classical or quantum, is only of academic interest. It is suggested that problems related to the source could be avoided if the EH did not form and that the universe only contained quasi-BHs.45 May be he feared that by pursuing such scientific truths he would miss the BH band wagon and would be considered as a fringe physicists. Soon, in a U-turn, his gravity research got pivoted to existence of EHs! In genuine QG, there must not be any EH because Quantum Green’s Function blows up there.46 Indeed there is no EH, no true BH, continued gravitational contraction is eternal as if spacetime membrane gets infinitely stretched by incipient infinite gravity. And such a stretched spacetime remains classical. Accordingly, there is no “White Hole”, no “Worm Hole”, no BH Thermodynamics, no Hawking Radiation, no need for QG, “Holography” etc. While gravity can be transformed away in a free falling frame, other interactions persist. Effects of strong gravity may be described by GR; gravity being different from other interactions, may not be amenable to any grand unification. And though there are issues with GR like problem of energy localization, there may not be any need for alternative theories F (R), F (T ), F (R, T )..F (∞) as GR has not failed any test ever.

October 24, 2013

15:46

WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in

EinsrevBH

10

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. A. Mitra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 367, L66 (2006); (arXiv:gr-qc/0601025). A. Mitra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 369, 492-496 (2006); (arXiv:gr-qc/0603055). A. Mitra, New Astron., 12, 146 (2006); (arXiv:astro-ph/0608178). A. Mitra, Adv. Sp. Res., 38, 2917 (2006); (arXiv:astro-ph/0510162). A. Mitra, arXiv:astro-ph/0510205 (2005). W.B. Bonnor, Gen. Rel. Grav., 24, 551 (1992). N. Rosen, Found. Phys., 15, 517 (1985). A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Letts., 13, 543, (2000), (arXiv:astro-ph/9910408). A. Mitra, Found. Phys. Letts., 15, 439 (2002), (arXiv:astro-/0207056). V.V. Kiselev et al. Theor. Math. Phys., 164, 972 (1010). R. Doran, S.N. Francisco S. N. & P. Crawford, Found. Phys., 38, 160 (2008). L.S. Abrams, Can. J. Phys., 67, 919 (1989). L. Bel, J. Math. Phys., 10, 1501 (1969). A. Mitra, Int. J. Astron. & Astrophys., 2, 174 (2012); doi:10.4236/ijaa.2012.23021. A. Mitra, Int. J. Astron. Astrophys., 2, 236 (2012); doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2012.24031. M.O. Katanaev, Gen. Rel. Grav., 45, 1861 (2013); (arXiv:1207.3481). M.S. Borkar and K.S. Karade, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math., 34, 1219 (2003). A. Karlhede, U. Lindstrom, & J.E. Aman, Gen. Rel. Grav., 14, 569 (1982). A. Mitra, J. Math. Phys., 50, 042505 (2009); (arXiv:0904.4754). A. Mitra, arXiv:astro-ph/0407501 (2004). A. Mitra, arXiv:astro-ph/0409049, (2004). A.I. Janis, E.T. Newman & J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. Lett., 20, 878 (1968). A. Mitra, Astrophys. Sp. Sc., 332, 43 (2011); (arXiv:1101.0601). A. Mitra & K.K. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 22, 1350054 (2013). A. Mitra, Pramana, 73, 615 (2009); (arXiv:0911.3518). A. Mitra, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 024010, (2006); (arXiv:gr-qc/0605066). A. Mitra & N.K. Glendenning, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 404, L50 (2010). A. Mitra, Int. J. Mod.Phys. D, 22, 1350021 (2013). A. Mitra, Phys. Lett. B, 685, 8 (2010). S.L. Robertson, & D.J. Leiter, Astrophys. J., 565, 447 (2002). S.L. Robertson, & D.J. Leiter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 350, 1391 (2004). S.L. Robertson & D.J. Leiter, Astrophys. J., 596, L203 (2003). S.L. Robertson & D.J. Leiter, J. Cosmology, 6, 1438 (2010). R.E. Schild, D.J. Leiter & S.L. Robertson, Astron. J., 132, 420 (2006). R.E. Schild, D.J. Leiter, & S.L. Robertson, Astron. J., 135, 947 (2008). Yu.N. Gnedin et al, arXiv:astro-ph/0304158 (2003). A. Mitra, J. Cosmology, 17, 7376 (2011). A. Mitra & K. D. Krori, J. Cosmology, 17, 7604 (2011). K.S. Thorne, R.H. Price & D.A. Macdonald(eds.) in Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (Yale Univ. Press, London, 1986). Jim Baggot, Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth (Pegasus Books, London, 2013). V.A. Belinski, Phys. Letts. A, 354, 249 (2006). V.A. Belinski, Phys. Letts. A, 376, 207, (2012); (arXiv:0910.3934). T. Padmanabhan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 21, 1241005 (2012). T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Letts. A, 136, 203 (1989). J.V. Narlikar & T. Padmanabhan, Found. Phys., 18, 659 (1988). D.G. Boulware, Phys Rev. D, 11, 1404 (1975).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful