Balck holes in black holes

[K.I.L.E.R]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20

I can't believe this.
What does this mean for physics in general?

 

[nthd]

What can't you believe?

 

[Crisidelm]

No black holes at all?

 

[mjtdevries]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20

I can't believe this.

Why do you find the existance of black holes easier to believe, than the non-existance?
(Anyway, physics is not about believing...)

What does this mean for physics in general?

Nothing.

Both the existance and non-existance of black holes cannot yet be proven. There is too little information about these objects, because they are very difficult to study. They are merely quite interesting theories.
Furthermore, these objects are subjects to very extreme physics situations of which we also don't know much. (We are not even sure if the normal laws of physics as we know them still apply in those situations)

 

[Neeyik]

The article is misleading - the evidence presented suggests that the central object within a quasar might not be a black hole; it's quite a jump to claim that this is sufficient evidence to show that all 'observed' black holes are MECOs.

 

[Powderkeg]

The article is misleading - the evidence presented suggests that the central object within a quasar might not be a black hole; it's quite a jump to claim that this is sufficient evidence to show that all 'observed' black holes are MECOs.

Agreed. And the article seems to present the observations as fact, rather than potentially flawed which any true scientist would say is opposite of the norm. A single observation of anything should be assumed to be flawed until it can be verified with similar observations made by other people or groups.

And it sort of ignores the fact that it's ALL theory. We don't know if Black Holes exist or not, nor do we know what is actually in that particular quasar. It's all theory, no facts.

 

[Fred]

There is fairly strong experimental evidence for black holes, eg bulk like movement rotation curves at the centers of galaxies as well as anomalous high energy signatures that cannot be produced by anything short of the catastrophic conditions necessary for the creation of a black hole. In the old days astronomers called such conditions AGNs (active galactic nuclei)

Also theoretically it is more or less an inevitability.

No comment on the article, I dont have anything nice to say about it.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Should I just stop reading those articles?

 

[Powderkeg]

Should I just stop reading those articles?

Not at all. They might actually be right. Read them, just remain skeptical until it's verified by other scientists.

 

[nthd]

Try reading them critically.

 

[mjtdevries]

There is fairly strong experimental evidence for black holes, eg bulk like movement rotation curves at the centers of galaxies as well as anomalous high energy signatures that cannot be produced by anything short of the catastrophic conditions necessary for the creation of a black hole. In the old days astronomers called such conditions AGNs (active galactic nuclei)

Also theoretically it is more or less an inevitability.

No comment on the article, I dont have anything nice to say about it.

That evidence doesn't seem all that strong, because these objects display the same high energy signatures. In fact, the researches thought they would be studying a black hole in more detail, only to get results, that say that it isn't a black hole after all.

And if that is true for this black hole, it could also be true for all those others black holes that have never been studied in detail. (because there isn't a handy galaxy in the way to act as a gravitational lens)

It's certainly a very interesting result, and since we know so very little about black holes, it deserves more research.