Black Holes

---

What is a Black Hole (according to traditional theory)

According to the traditional accepted theory, a black hole is a collapsed star. It has collapsed so far that the gravitational field becomes greater than the electromagnetic repulsive forces that exist between individual particles at the center of the star. In essence, not even light would be able to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole.

Do Black Holes really exist?

While the traditional line of reasoning behind black holes might seem to make sense to a large number of scientists, I do not agree with it. There are many assumptions made, and at least one very questionable mathematical technique used. While I do not agree there are "Black Holes" out there, I do believe in something very close to Black Hole theory. My Ball-of-Light Particle describes something very close to Black Holes -- balls-of-light. Let me emphasize, the differences between the descriptions of a "Black Hole" and a "ball-of-light" may seem either extremely large, or extremely small depending upon your point of view. The lay person may think the differences do not even exist. A theoretical physicist who has studied Black Holes for years may be shocked by the differences.

There is no doubt about the bulk of astronomical observations concerning these massive objects -- whatever they are called, or however they are described -- they do exist.

My first thoughts on Black Holes

When I was about 16 years old, I read a book by Isaac Asimov called, "THE COLLAPSING UNIVERSE, THE STORY OF BLACK HOLES". This was the first time I heard a scientific description of the traditional 4 forces of nature: nuclear, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. He carefully compared these four forces, describing something about their relative strengths. He went on to describe the traditional view of the atom, and how the electrons and nuclei both attract and repel each other. He talked about density, giving various examples of how dense common materials are. Then he went on to describe gravity, and that while it was the weakest of the 4 forces, its effects were cummulative.

"Gravitation, then, is by far the weakest of the four forces. Even the so-called weak force is 10,000 trillion trillion times as strong as gravitation."

 

"It is no wonder, then, that nuclear physicists, when studying the behavior of subatomic particles, take into account the nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the weak force but totally ignore gravitation. Gravitation is so weak that it simply never influences the course of events within atoms and atomic nuclei by a measurable amount."

This quote contains one of the biggest mistakes in physics, ignoring a fundamental force. While gravity between particles may be insignificant, gravity within the particles is critical. (I will come back to this shortly.)

Then Isaac Asimov went on to desribe the density, gravitational pull, and escape velocity of: planets, stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and finally Black Holes. In each case the escape velocity increased, until, with Black Holes, even light could not escape the gravitational pull of the Black Hole.

I immediately disagreed with Asimov on two points.

One example that is usually discussed when describing Black Holes, is the imaginary falling particle. The particle that falls into the Black Hole. It is imagined that a particle falling into a Black Hole would pass the "event horizon" -- the edge of the Black Hole -- and continue "falling" towards the center of the "singularity." First of all, this is something that can not be proven. This an instance where science stops and faith begins. Even at the age of 16, I had heard that Relativity said an object of mass could not reach the speed of light. I believed this conclusion. I could not imagine that an object of mass could reach the event horizon of a Black Hole -- or pass through it -- with out reaching the speed of light. These two beliefs contradicted each other. I knew the speed of light had been tested here on earth, but black holes had not. Thus, the speed of light conclusion seemed more reliable -- less of a guess.

My conclusion was: the imaginary particle of mass falling into a black hole never reaches the "edge" of the black hole -- at least in the form of matter! I knew, again from Einstein, that mass can be converted into energy. Thus, it seemed immediately evident to me, that if a particle did fall into a Black Hole, that it never reached the event horizon. Instead, just before the event horizon, the particle of matter "broke down" into energy, and became part of the "Black Hole's" real edge, just outside of -- mathematically speaking -- the event horizon.

Thus, matter never makes it into the Black Hole, it changes into energy first, and as a result Black holes do not "contain" matter. In essence, they are single particles.

I have never had a reason to adjust this belief, and it has led me to develop the "Ball-of-Light Particle Model."

Summary of the difference between Black Holes and Balls of Light

To summarize, I believe:

• the so-called "event horizon" is mathematical fiction and is never really reached in a "Black Hole"
• there are no particles of matter "within" the "Black Hole"
• the "Black Hole's" real edge is slightly larger than the so-called "event horizon"
• a "Black Hole" is not a collection of collapsed particles, it is one particle
• an object falling into a "Black Hole" is converted into energy
• the energy of an object falling into a "Black Hole" merges with the prior energy of the "Black Hole"
• a "Black Hole" never reaches a high enough density to collapse into a "singularity"
• thus, light can escape from a "Black Hole", thus the reason for all of the quote marks I have been putting around the words, Black Hole
• thus, there is no reason to call a "Black Hole" black
• thus, it is possible to describe "White Holes" (I did not like this name though.)
• thus, it does not make sense to describe these objects as "black" or "white" because they are spherical balls of light, they can emit or absorb light
• thus, mathematically, the only difference between a "Black Hole" and a "Ball of Light" is how small of a radius you divide by. If you divide wrong, everything reaches infinity.
• there is no limit to how big these objects can become
• there is a minimum size to these objects, an at rest neutrino

This led me to the following questions:

• How does one imagine the the electric and magnetic fields on the surface of the ball of light?
• How do these objects radiate? In other words, How can the electric, and magnetic fields on the surface of these objects radiate or emit a photon?
• How do these objects absorb radiation? What is the difference between one of these objects absorbing radiation and an electron absorbing a photon?
• How do you describe the wave of energy, created by a falling particle of matter, when it is absorbed by the surface of one of these objects?
• If the surface of a ball of light is composed of electric and magnetic fields, then how do they create the gravitational field? Is this a direct derivation of the grand unification of physics?
• Can one of these objects get bigger? Smaller? Pulsate? Move? Accelerate?
• If one of these objects was moving with respect to an expanding sphere of light, then what would happen if one of these objects slowed?
• What is the difference between one of these objects, and an elementary particle, such as: electrons, protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei?
• Why can't the physics that describes one of these massive balls of light also describe an electron, a proton, or some other elementary particle?
• What would happen if two of these massive objects collided?
• What would happen if one of these objects exploded?
• Why would one of these objects explode?
• How much larger than a supernova would one of these explosions be?
• If all of the matter and energy of the universe exploded in a Big Bang, then what is the difference between the Big Bang and one of these exploding balls of light?
• What if the Big Bang did not explode from a "singularity", but rather a ball of light that encompassed all of the "mass" and energy of the universe? (If it did, then there were no "particles of matter", just one great big ball of light.)
• Is there some technical oversight on my part where there is a good reason to believe in the "too big" White Holes, the "just right" Balls of Light, or the "too small" Black Holes? Or, does insisting in White Holes, Balls of Light, or Black Holes amount to "belief" or is there "technical/scientific/logical/philosophical/religous merit" to prefer one or the other?