Hawking finally sees the light: Says black holes do not exist

Gfield

Gravity potential field around a Mother star. © P. LaViolette 1995

.

Paul LaViolette
January 27, 2014

Physicist Stephen Hawking has now reversed his stand on black holes.  He gives his reasons in a paper that he posted five days ago on the physics preprint internet archive at (http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761).  He says that according to his new analysis “There would be no event horizons and no firewalls.  The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity.”  He says that the concept of a black hole should be “redefined as a metastable bound state of the gravitational field” which has a chaotic interior.  In other words, he now envisions that a supermassive Galactic core should be a collapsed region from which energy can escape through an “apparent horizon“.  An apparent horizon is described as a surface that traps light but which also varies its shape due to quantum fluctuations allowing the possibility for light to escape.

His new stand on black holes has caused quite a media frenzy since Hawking had been an early developer and long-time supporter of black hole theory dating back as far as 40 years.  Here are a few links to media stories:

Nature.com
Foxnews.com

news.com.au

    For many years I have argued against the black hole idea, which has been a very unpopular stance to take among physicists.  For example, as early as 1985 when I first published subquantum kinetics in the International Journal of General Systems (Special Issue on Systems Thinking in Physics), I wrote “Black holes would not exist in a subquantum kinetics cosmology” (LaViolette, 1985, p. 342).  I explain that this is because a black hole gravitational singularity is unable to form in subquantum kinetics.  Furthermore even a quasi singularity that Hawking calls a “bound state of the gravitational field” would be unable to form.  One reason is that the gravitational field of a subatomic particle does not rise to infinity at its center, but rounds off to a plateau at the particle center, thus preventing unrestrained gravitational collapse.  This predicted particle profile is apparent in simulations performed of subquantum kinetics’ Model G and this contour for the particle’s nuclear electric field has been confirmed through particle scattering experiments.  Thus as particles approach increasingly close to one another, their mutual gravitational attraction approaches zero instead of infinity.

Another reason singularities are unable to form is because a star continuously produces enormous amounts of genic energy (spontaneously generated nascent energy) which effectively opposes any gravitational collapse even when fusion reactions have died out.  Red dwarf stars (M < 0.45 Msolar) are 100% powered by genic energy; about 12% of the Sun’s radiation is of genic origin; and only a few tenths of a percent of the energy radiated by a 20 solar mass blue giant star is of genic origin.  But when fusion burning subsides and a blue giant begins to gravitationally collapse, the genic energy production equations predict that genic energy sky rockets and becomes the dominant stellar energy source.  The result is a very dense stellar core that I have termed a Mother star, which continually creates, radiates, and ejects both energy and matter.  Smaller Mother stars are objects astronomers call neutron stars, X-ray stars, and magnetars.  Mother stars that have grown far more massive over their billions of years of existence are what astronomers observe as supermassive Galactic cores.  Those interested to learn more about genic energy are referred to various papers (LaViolette, 1992 and LaViolette, 2005), the following webpage on the Pioneer effect, as well as the verification of Prediction No. 3.  For further discussion about the problems with the black hole idea view the following webpage: Five Reasons Why the Milky Way’s Core is Not a Black Hole.  For the most thorough treatment of the nonexistence of black holes and the reality of genic energy and matter creating Mother stars, read the book Subquantum Kinetics (4th edition).

Over the years I have continued to maintain my stand against black holes throughout the years and have bolstered this with observational evidence that counters the black hole idea.  So to hear that Hawking now admits, after many decades, that black holes should not exist is music to my ears.  But Hawking still has a long way to go to make the journey from the classical black hole concept to the Mother star concept of subquantum kinetics.   Hawking still believes that any energy radiated from a Galactic core, which he views as a metastable bound state of the gravitational field, would come entirely from the accretion of surrounding matter.  For one thing, he would have to relinquish this idea and embrace the subquantum kinetics idea of genic energy.  It is this energy that  supermassive Galactic cores radiate and which keeps in check their further collapse.  Genic energy unabashedly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) as conventionally construed.  Physicists who adopt the closed system positivist view that the only real existents are physically observable phenomena would find this idea intolerable.  However those adopting the wider perspective that the physical universe operates as an open system and is part of a much more expansive higher dimensional environment that remains inherently unobservable to us, then the genic energy concept becomes quite acceptable.  Ultimately, if physics (and society) is to progress, physics will need to move towards this latter view which not only comes closer to age old spiritual teachings but also opens up a golden age for humanity based on the commercialization of over-unity energy generation technologies and gravity defying propulsion devices; see the December 2013 news posting.

The subquantum kinetics Mother star idea does not deny the possibility that there is a radius within which light rays approaching tangent to the surface of the Mother star would become trapped in a closed orbit.  If we identify this radius with the classical concept of the Schwarzschild radius, such a light trapping horizon would likely lie in the Mother star’s interior in the case of the Milky Way’s galactic core.  For example, to my best estimation, the surface of the Sgr A* Mother star would lie a radius of about 22 solar radii from its center, whereas the ungravitationally lensed Schwarzschild radius for this supermassive body would be 19 solar radii, just below the surface of the Mother star.  But light rays traveling radially outward from the surface of Sgr A* or at an angle to the surface would radiate outward without a problem; although they would be gravitationally redshifted by about 45%.

How does Hawking’s revised view relate to the upcoming G2 cloud encounter with the Galactic core that astronomers are so closely following?  Well, current papers describing this encounter are based on the standard black hole theory and the assumption that the Galactic core has an event horizon through which no matter or radiation can escape.  This model must be dispensed with on the basis of Hawking’s new view.  According to this new view if a massive body such as a one solar mass star were to fall into the Galactic core (and there is a relatively small probability that this might happen during the G2 cloud/star encounter), all the energy released from its infall could be explosively discharged back out as a cosmic ray volley accompanied by X-ray and gamma ray radiation.  If we go beyond Hawking to the subquantum kinetics view, not only would such an infall allow the release of the energy of mass infall, but it could ignite an exponential rise in the genic energy being produced by our Galactic core Mother star and this as well could be radiated outward to the rest of the Galaxy resulting in an energy output many of orders of magnitude higher than the total energy released from the infall of the star alone.  In short, it could possibly ignite a Galactic core explosion of the kind seen in Seyfert galaxy nuclei.  The magnitude of this energy release and the finding that cosmic rays from such an event would begin impacting Earth about the same time would come as a total surprise to current astronomers who operate on the classical black hole idea. If this scenario happens, they had best stay indoors and keep out of harms way.