Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II · HackerPapers discussions

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II — mentioned by eesmith

Fri, 23 Jun 2023 04:40:17 GMT

This is a copy of https://uncnewsarchive.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-me... , which it gives as a source. That is titled "Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist". That source (unlike this one) gives a date - from 2014. So, not a new study. The only publications mentioned are http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 ("Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?") and http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 ("Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II"). Google Scholar lists 72…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II — mentioned by scott_s

Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:36:00 GMT

I think that interested people should just read the abstract, introduction and conclusions of the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 You will not understand the full implications of it (well, unless you are an astrophysicist), and I didn't bother with the meat of the paper (because I am also not an astrophysicist). But the abstract, introduction and conclusion are rather understandable, and far less hyperbolic than the press release. And even though I can't understand all of it, I'd much rather get a misunderstanding from the original source material, then get a compounded…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II — mentioned by scott_s

Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:15:32 GMT

I don't think that is a response to this work. That is dated February 1. He links to this paper's author, Laura Mersini-Houghton, but he links to a paper and blog post of hers from January. Reading that blog post (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2014/01/if-it-quacks-like-b...), what she says seems to be in contradiction with the more recent paper she wrote (http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837). In her blog post from January, she says: "What Hawking is saying is essentially that he believes that a matter collapse only leads to a temporary apparent horizon but not to an eternal event horizon.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.