Current Events > Black holes could be frozen stars according to new study

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://interestingengineering.com/science/black-holes-are-frozen-stars

The study suggests that black holes are actually frozen stars, theoretical remnants of stars that have cooled down and no longer emit light or heat. Also called black dwarfs, frozen stars represent the final stage of a stars life cycle.

According to Einstein, there are two prime features of a black hole. First, it contains a point of infinite density at its center, which is referred to as singularity. Second, a black hole has an event horizon a boundary that doesnt allow anything to escape, not even light.
While this theory is widely accepted, it has also faced some big challenges. For instance, real-world observation suggests that infinities arent meant to exist in nature, and this is why everything is considered finite in physics.
Another contradiction arises from Stephen Hawkings radiation paradox which suggests that black holes can emit radiation and slowly lose mass over time, which eventually leads to their complete evaporation. But how is this possible, since Einstein proposed that nothing escapes a black hole?
Also, if a black hole vaporizes, then the matter that formed the black hole is destroyed. However, this violates the law of conservation of information, which states that information, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. Information conservation also forms the basis of quantum mechanics.
However, according to the study authors, all these paradoxes are resolved when black holes are considered frozen stars objects that lack both singularity and event horizon.

Frozen stars are a type of black hole mimickers: ultracompact, astrophysical objects that are free of singularities, lack a horizon, but yet can mimic all of the observable properties of black holes, Ramy Brustein, first study author and a physics professor at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, told Live Science.
So, if black holes are frozen stars, this means they dont have a point of infinite density or singularity. This condition suggests that they follow the same rules related to finiteness as real-world objects.

Very interesting stuff.

And the movie Interstellar is ruined forever.

Generally, scientists believe that stars take trillions of years to reach the black dwarf stage. As our universe is only 13.7 billion years old, it doesnt have any frozen stars yet.

They seem to just be ignoring this, rather than refuting it. It's a neat thought, but it seems a bit premature.

Pikachuchupika posted...

According to Einstein, there are two prime features of a black hole. First, it contains a point of infinite density at its center, which is referred to as singularity. Second, a black hole has an event horizon a boundary that doesnt allow anything to escape, not even light.
While this theory is widely accepted, it has also faced some big challenges. For instance, real-world observation suggests that infinities arent meant to exist in nature, and this is why everything is considered finite in physics.

This sounds like alternative "science" bullshit.

then whats at the center of galaxies? thousands of "frozen stars" lmfao

solosnake posted...

then whats at the center of galaxies? thousands of "frozen stars" lmfao

Yes lol. I'm not really sure what they are, but apparently they are similar to black holes but don't have singularities. Honestly, it would make sense because hawking radiation escapes black holes eventually causing them to disappear. How is that possible if nothing can escape a black hole? (Maybe there are things that can escape a black hole)

Hm

Cartoon_Quoter posted...

They seem to just be ignoring this, rather than refuting it. It's a neat thought, but it seems a bit premature.

That is a theory also though. It could be much older

solosnake posted...

then whats at the center of galaxies? thousands of "frozen stars" lmfao

I actually havent read it yet, but I assume by frozen they mean a mass so compact that all reactions have stopped, and would therefore still compress space time and create the exact same effects without the theoretical impossibility of a singularity

Cartoon_Quoter posted...

They seem to just be ignoring this, rather than refuting it. It's a neat thought, but it seems a bit premature.

Physics is ever evolving though.

Anyway, I like the theory that there's a giant entity out there, consuming solar systems and galaxies, like a giant Galactus or eldritch horror.

Pikachuchupika posted...

Yes lol. I'm not really sure what they are, but apparently they are similar to black holes but don't have singularities. Honestly, it would make sense because hawking radiation escapes black holes eventually causing them to disappear. How is that possible if nothing can escape a black hole? (Maybe there are things that can escape a black hole)

The radiation isn't coming "from" the black hole. It's coming from quantum fluctuations right at the edge of the event horizon.

It's obviously complicated, but to simplify a bit, particles can and do pop into and out of existence all the time at the quantum level. They always appear in pairs, though, and annihilate each other the instant they touch (which is normally immediate, as they appear directly next to each other). However, if this happens right at the edge of the event horizon, it's possible for one of the particles to fall into the black hole before they annihilate each other, leaving the second particle free to continue into space.

There's some strange "negative mass" or something that causes the orphan particle to reduce the mass of the black hole rather than increase it that's a bit beyond my level of comprehension. Like instead of annihilating with the particle it spawned with, it annihilates with one of the particles inside the black hole. I'm not 100% sure on that part. But it's the quantum fluctuations right on the edge of the event horizon that leads to this so-called "Hawking radiation."

IIRC "Frozen star" is an old term I haven't heard in a while. It comes from a time before the 60s when it was believed black hole gravitational singularities could not exist in nature. The last bit of light emitted from an object before it passes the event horizon lingers, causing an object's motion to slow down and freeze in time to an outside observer - hence the name "frozen".

Then Penrose did his ground breaking work on black hole geodesics. He showed that it was possible that all geodesics inside an anti-DeSitter space can converge into a singularity, meaning it was possible for "black holes" to exist in nature. It was another win for Einstein's work and the burden of proof shifted back to having to prove gravitational singularities cannot exist. This caused the term "black hole" to supersede "frozen star".

Its always ''could'' ''might'' ''maybe'' with dis space stuff, dis is a major reason why almost everyone has lost interest in space research/travel etc tbh

Vegy posted...

Its always ''could'' ''might'' ''maybe'' with dis space stuff, dis is a major reason why almost everyone has lost interest in space research/travel etc tbh

lack of imagination

The dumbest part : Hawking said blackholes emit radiation b-b-but Einstein said nothing escapes a blackhole! Checkmate science!

Vegy posted...

Its always ''could'' ''might'' ''maybe'' with dis space stuff, dis is a major reason why almost everyone has lost interest in space research/travel etc tbh

We are only able to blurringly view some of these objects millions of light years away, through dust and other stars.

We are lucky we can narrow down the possibilities at all.

Describe the internal organs of an alien on Mars with only your telescope.

Go.

when stars quiet quit

or!! maybe there is a star killer out there someplace.. working his way thru the galaxy one star at a time

Sariana21 posted...

And the movie Interstellar is ruined forever.

It should always be ruined. It makes no logical sense. Was it ever explained how the planets dont get sucked into the hole. Sounds like the cure is worse than the illness

Why would planets get sucked into a blackhole if they're beyond its event horizon?

So who fucked up. Einstein or Hawking

Strip one of their genius status imo. Need to keep the list legitimate

These are just theories. Thats what Hawking and Einstien had. Theories. They are no longer Theories when they are provable. I believe Gravity is still a theory. We see it every day, but not sure of its true nature so it's still a theory. This study is conjecture with no provable evidence

vycebrand2 posted...

They are no longer Theories when they are provable.

I think you are confusing theory, as it used in science, with how it is used in casual conversation. In science, theories can not be proven, only disproven. It holds a bit more weight than you have credited it, here.

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

Why would planets get sucked into a blackhole if they're beyond its event horizon?

How do we know that planets gets sucked into black holes at all?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If this isn't just a shitpost...

Stars die when the required temperature and pressure to continue sustainable nuclear fusion exceeds what they have fuel for. Hydrogen gets combined into helium, helium gets combined into carbon, etc. Each step requires progressively more temperature and pressure.

When it's no longer sustainable, there's a few possibilities. The step below a black hole is a neutron star, which has so much mass that it overcomes the ability of electrons to keep its nuclei apart, increasing the density well beyond normally occurring mass. A teaspoon of neutron star would weigh over a ton. A black hole is theorized to create a singularity by having so much mass that even protons and neutrons have their ability to stay separate overcome and collapse into the same singular point in space - the singularity.

I would guess that their idea of a "frozen star" is closer to a neutron star that is compressed to the point that any atomic activity is completely halted, but hasn't overcome proton resistance and therefore hasn't collapsed into a singularity. The atomic particles are squeezed together so much that they can't move at all, so it's effectively frozen.

It would still have the same mass so observed gravitational lensing would still happen. Considering they don't emit light though, seeing them through cosmic dust is almost impossible so we can't really check if they have the big fuckoff black dot in the middle.

Edit: looked at the article again and they had a link to a related video where they got a picture of a black hole as it passed in front of a star, and it was a big fuckoff black dot. Which I'd say discounts the idea. You can't undo the gravitational electron collapse that comes from the neutron star mass requirement to get something that big after.

vycebrand2 posted...

It should always be ruined. It makes no logical sense. Was it ever explained how the planets dont get sucked into the hole. Sounds like the cure is worse than the illness

That's just basic orbital mechanics. Once something is in a stable orbit, some outside force has to act on it to make it "drop" to the center of its orbit. Typically orbits do decay based on friction of surrounding gases (such as Earth's atmosphere or the extremely low density of particles in space), but at any notable distance from the center it's so slow a process that it's basically negligible.

Velocity does have an exponential effect though, so anything in orbit traveling a notable decimal of c around a black hole might decay in a few centuries or millennia rather than billions of years. It depends on density of surrounding material the hole might be sucking up into the path of orbiting bodies.

They mentioned black dwarves in OP's post, which are a different thing from a black hole. They're a stellar remnant that has cooled to the point they no longer emit light. They're also theoretical at this point, since the universe literally is not old enough for this to have yet happened.

So they are survivors of pre-Big Bang.

Don't all dead stars become blackholes?

projectpat72988 posted...

Don't all dead stars become blackholes?

If they are big, like 25 times the mass of our sun, they become black holes.
If they are smaller, they become neutron stars.

projectpat72988 posted...

Don't all dead stars become blackholes?

No, not at all.

vycebrand2 posted...

These are just theories. Thats what Hawking and Einstien had. Theories. They are no longer Theories when they are provable. I believe Gravity is still a theory. We see it every day, but not sure of its true nature so it's still a theory. This study is conjecture with no provable evidence

That's not how science works.

A scientific theory is the highest level of understanding we have for an observed phenomenon, and an explanation that is well substantiated by evidence and can be tested repeatedly.

Also to add to this, cuz a lot of people seem to think ascientific law is above theory, it's not.

A law simply describes what happens and is usually expressed through math equatuons, a theory explains how it happens.

reincarnator07 posted...

They mentioned black dwarves in OP's post, which are a different thing from a black hole. They're a stellar remnant that has cooled to the point they no longer emit light. They're also theoretical at this point, since the universe literally is not old enough for this to have yet happened.

Not quite. They mentioned that this was the premise of the frozen star idea, but then go on to say that potential problems with black hole theory could be "solved" if they were frozen stars, implying that to be the actual case.

projectpat72988 posted...

Don't all dead stars become blackholes?

Not by a long shot. Only incredibly massive stars become black holes.

The smallest stars just burn out and dissipate into a nebula and a dwarf star. Over time, the dwarf star will eventually burn out.

Larger stars go nova and basically explode. After, the core remains. If it's big enough to explode but not collapse further, a dwarf star is left that slowly burns out.

Then comes neutron star collapse. After the nova, the core remains heavy enough (about 3 solar masses) after the outer layers explode for electron collapse.

Then finally black hole collapse if the remaining core is even heavier than that.

If every star became a black hole, we wouldn't exist. (Theoretically, for good measure:) Every element heavier than hydrogen exists because it was at one point fused inside of a star.

Dalthine posted...

Not quite. They mentioned that this was the premise of the frozen star idea, but then go on to say that potential problems with black hole theory could be "solved" if they were frozen stars, implying that to be the actual case.

Honestly I don't think it solves the issue still, as there simply hasn't been enough time for these stars to freeze. On top of that, the post says "ultracompact, astrophysical objects that are free of singularities, lack a horizon, but yet can mimic all of the observable properties of black holes". The problem is that we aren't aware of a way to mimic those properties without the silly amount of gravity that black holes have.

Not by a long shot. Only incredibly massive stars become black holes.

The smallest stars just burn out and dissipate into a nebula and a dwarf star. Over time, the dwarf star will eventually burn out.

Larger stars go nova and basically explode. After, the core remains. If it's big enough to explode but not collapse further, a dwarf star is left that slowly burns out.

Then comes neutron star collapse. After the nova, the core remains heavy enough (about 3 solar masses) after the outer layers explode for electron collapse.

Then finally black hole collapse if the remaining core is even heavier than that.

If every star became a black hole, we wouldn't exist. (Theoretically, for good measure:) Every element heavier than hydrogen exists because it was at one point fused inside of a star.

I'd like to expand on some of this. The smallest red dwarfs aren't actually massive enough to dissipate into a nebula, they will likely* just use up their fuel and cool into a black dwarf. Larger red dwarfs (although still smaller than our sun) will behave just as you have said.

It's a little pedantic, but white dwarfs can't emerge from core collapse supernovae. To get that massive in the first place, the core would have enough mass that it would collapse into a neutron star.

It's extremely pedantic, but only a few elements are actually fused in a star's core. The rest of them generally came from them exploding.

*As low mass stars have expected lifetimes orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe, we can't really observe this like we can with most other stars.

OK so umm stupid question: if the event horizon doesn't exist, what did they see in the Event Horizon Telescope?

reincarnator07 posted...

Honestly I don't think it solves the issue still, as there simply hasn't been enough time for these stars to freeze. On top of that, the post says "ultracompact, astrophysical objects that are free of singularities, lack a horizon, but yet can mimic all of the observable properties of black holes". The problem is that we aren't aware of a way to mimic those properties without the silly amount of gravity that black holes have.

That was kinda my point, yeah. The article seems like it's not really making a fully baked argument. Maybe the actual scientific paper would be more convincing, but it seems like the base concept introduces more fallacies than it solves.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

So who fucked up. Einstein or Hawking

Strip one of their genius status imo. Need to keep the list legitimate

That's not how it works.
Science grows by debunking the older theory to find the truth.
They both still the genius of their time, and eventually someone will debunk Hawking too when they discovered the (newer) truth.

Dalthine posted...

That was kinda my point, yeah. The article seems like it's not really making a fully baked argument. Maybe the actual scientific paper would be more convincing, but it seems like the base concept introduces more fallacies than it solves.

Agreed. I think he's trying to find a solution rather than the truth.

For the record, Einstein himself was never comfortable with what his own theory implied.
This was the case with the expanding universe and the singularity at the 'beginning'...

But he also initially dismissed Schwarzschild's work as pure mathematical abstractions and or artefacts, not existent in true imperfect nature...