Philosophy for our times: cutting edge debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers

Out of Darkness

Welcome to iai tv. You are limited to 20 minutes of video a month without signing up. X
Membership is completely free, and gives you unlimited access to our videos, articles, courses and much more
Already a member?
You have used half of your monthly limit of videos. Sign up to continue watching. X
Membership is completely free, and gives you unlimited access to our videos, articles, courses and much more
Already a member?
You’ve reached your monthly video limit.

Want to see more?

Sign up to continue watching. Membership is completely free, and gives you unlimited access to our videos, articles, courses and much more.
Already a member? .
IAI TV videos are for personal use only. For commercial or educational licensing please contact TVF International
  • The Talk

    Out of Darkness

    Is our understanding of black holes fundementally wrong? Presenting ground breaking new research, Laura Mersini-Houghton explains why event horizons and singularities might simply be a myth.

  • Speaker

Want to learn more about our speakers?
Join the conversation

to post comments or join now (only takes a moment). Don't have an account? Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or Google to get started:

BackToAnalogue on 22/12/2014 8:23pm

This is quite clearly an important and significant development. The strength of the correlation between predicted effects and observed phenomena is too strong for it to be anything else.

Laura is observing that the Cosmology community is having difficulty understanding her Mathematical methods and so they are not giving due consideration to the results. Clearly with any such breakthrough there is a risk that a model could in some way feedback known data through its transformations in a way that makes it appear to give a prediction when in fact it is really replaying known ‘information’. This can be problematic to identify because we don’t know what is causing the phenomena we have observed and so it is possible that it is related to something we already know about. In other words there is a risk that a model can produce a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy'.

When we get several new observations which all have an extraordinarily strong correlation to modelled predictions, then it is always either because this is what has happened; or it is because we have made a major breakthrough.

Normal good mathematics and data analysis practise should ensure that this ‘false prophesy’ risk is eliminated and so I believe that it is likely that it has been. But it has happened before, (and is almost certainly responsible for some of our current misconceptions), and so that possibility needs to be eliminated. It should be possible for one or two independent Mathematical reviewers to be able to do that without needing to understand and verify all of the detailed Mathematical Methods. It requires an analysis of the data that has been fed into the model and the data that has been analysed from the observations in order to identify any data sets which are common to both processes. If there are none then ‘happy days’; if there are some in common then we need to verify that we are not simply comparing two transforms of that common data. This is a straightforward task and is probably best carried out by someone objective who is not looking for their own interpretation of what may be happening i.e. not a Cosmologist.

If that all comes out fine then I would argue that the results are so strong that it is not necessary to understand the detailed Mathematical methods. This is a model of a major scale system and so if the modeller says ‘it looks something like (but not precisely like) this’, then that is more than sufficient information to be able to test different propositions with.

I would however suggest that you avoid using the term ‘multiverse’ and instead refer to ‘earlier, different Universes’. Also the term ‘entanglement’ implies some kind of weird ‘quantum communication’ between particles which those of us who prefer the real world are resistant to (to put it mildly). I would expect that many practical Astronomers are also ‘Schrodinger’s Cat non-believers’ so if you instead talk about ‘information from a previous event in an earlier Universe or Universes’ then I would hope there would be less resistance, because people like myself will not then be asked to ‘believe in the unbelievable’.

Damjan Bizilj on 27/09/2014 6:44pm

my question is ... is it possible for socalled shockwaves with particle bouncing back at "minimum point", as Laura suggests, could possibly look like water drop, where we see part of water drop bounce back in space/time with side shockwaves? "with which we escape the paradox of loosing the information in event horizont" as she claims

bouncing, shockwaves and (the positive particles of) Hawking radiation could be explained through comparing the water drop dropping to a water surface if we asume water surface and water dropping would rotate towards the centre, for example water drop dropping into rotating water funnel...if we do so, do we still get the bounce with shockwaves from upper picture?

Jimmy Vick on 27/09/2014 5:32am

Ok, what we are talking about here is by astronomical definition a Hypernova... by what process does a star give off a massive gamma ray burst then supernova 20-30 days later? Bueller? Bueller?

My resolution to the black hole information paradox and black hole merger paradox leads to a much different model. Black holes if anything are not what we think they are...

In short, when a massive star's internal magnetic dynamo collapses into a temporally neutral horizon; an external magnetic field supports what's left of the star until it eventually explodes. Information is preserved within the total volume of a temporally neutral horizon to be deterministically reassigned later....

Here is the catch and what I need to go forward, when a gamma ray burst occurs during a Hypernova event, we need stellar spectra of the star light before the supernova happens. Some variation of the Zeeman or Paschen-Back Effect should be present... observing this will explain a great deal about what is really going on in Hypernovas and the rest of our entire perceived universe... It would be nice to have stellar spectra of the Hypernova star before the gamma ray burst event for comparison, however; our current survey technology is not up to it.

Jimmy Vick on 27/09/2014 4:49am

The clock is ticking meatheads...

Jonathan Langdale on 25/09/2014 8:25pm

I always understood Hawking radiation to be a result of an event horizon, to only emit from the precise horizon.

I understand this is is based on the idea that a collapsing star will create a flux of positive/negative energy, but I never understood that you can produce Hawking radiation without having first formed an event horizon.

Beyond that, I find this fascinating in the context of virtual black holes forming, virtual Unruh vacuum Hawking radiation forming (supposedly prior to an event horizon, and this "bouncing" occurring in the quantum foam, or being the only constituent of the "empty" space-time.

Keith Butler on 25/09/2014 6:09pm

OK, I saw the video discussion and know i now need to read the paper to understand this conception. Here's my immediate problem, besides the perceived 'holes' at the center of galaxies:

Where do the leftovers go?

There has to come a point/state where during/after the collapsing star goes through the explosion stage that, the energy of the explosion being depleted, matter either ceases to expand/explode and begins to re collapse due to the gravitational attraction that began the star in the first place.

Where is that leftover matter? Is that the source of dark matter? is it dark energy? Is a collapsing/collapsed star simply a very big Kline Bottle?

Amay on 25/09/2014 5:21pm

Sorry if its reapeated question but wouldn't we be effected by a Blackwave(shockwave of a collapsing star) at certain time in history to be close to one but not close enough to disintegrate?

Also can this Blackwave be a substitute to the "great filter" of the fermi paradox?

Copy and paste the code below to embed or link to this video.

Embed options
  • Video Seek
    Converted to a link which jumps to that point in the video
    Example: 00:34
  • Bold Text
    Example: [b]Bold[/b]
  • Italic Text
    Example: [i]Italics[/i]
  • Underlined Text
    Example: [u]Underlined[/u]
  • Website link
    Link to another website or URL
    Example: [url][/url]

Rate this talk with three clicks. You can choose 3 words, or vote for the same word 3 times.

Why sign up for the iai?
  • Discover new ideas
    Free and unlimited access to hundreds of hours of debates, talks and articles from the world's leading minds, as well as courses that rival top academic institutions.
  • Have your say
    Join the iai community and engage in conversation and debate around the issues that matter.
  • Hear it first
    Be the first to hear about our video releases, articles and tickets to our upcoming events.
Sign me up