V.5 No 2
|On reality of black holes|
On reality of black holes
S. B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina
Special Laboratory for Fundamental Elaboration SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg., Prospect Gagarina, Kharkov, 61140, Ukraine
AbstractWe will analyse the basic phenomenological and mathematical approaches of Relativity when having built the General theory of relativity. In particular, we will consider the ways, how Einstein derived the regularity of light velocity with respect to the value of gravity potential; how Schwarzschild derived the metric of stationary point black hole; how Landau made his derivation for a collapsing dust sphere; Oppenheimer's derivation for a collapse of dying star, as well as the features and incentives, how and why had Einstein introduced his lambda term.
On the basis of analysis of the above approaches, we will show full inconsistency of the statements of problems to the corresponding processes in real physical systems, artificial mathematical transformations based on ignoring the logic sequence of formal mathematical derivation, on unfoundedly introduced ad libitum, doubtful postulates and on arbitrarily composed mathematical expressions.
Keywords: cosmogony, cosmology, general theory of relativity, general covariance, equivalence principle, black holes, Schwarzschild sphere, collapse of dust-like sphere, collapse of dying star
Classification by MSC 2000: 83C05, 83C57, 83C75
Classification by PASC 2001: 04.20.Cv, 04.20.Dw, 04.20.Ex, 04.40.Dg, 04.70.-s, 04.70.Bw, 97.60.-s, 97.60.Lf
1. IntroductionAccording to the practice of communication between the adherents of classical physics and Relativity, relativists permanently reproach those first that the classical methods are limited, low-quality, tendentious. Having come to believe in the total power of geometrical description of the nature with the help of tensor methods, having substituted the rigorous phenomenological analysis by a mere sophistry, relativists got an idea that namely they give a full, exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of natural phenomena. They are sure that "now we have not to discover the properties of a value that we revealed in nature, we have to establish, how can we reveal the value whose properties we postulated beforehand" [1, p. 18]. "The search of physical laws is like a children's game in bricks of which we have to compose an integer picture. We have multitude bricks, each day we have them more. Many lay aside and seem like irrelevant to others. How do we know, they are from one set? Why do we know, their amount has to compose an integer picture? We are not fully sure, and this bothers us a little. But the fact that many bricks have something in common gives us a hope" [2, lecture 3, p. 84]. With it, the part of classical formalism is taken precisely so: "A dead hand of an obsolete theory goes on pressing us, as in this case the conventional terminology is still implicitly related to it. But of course, this is only a small defect in comparison with many advantages that we obtain from the classical generalisation of the energy as a definite stage to a more complete theory" [1, the footnote in p. 19]. Such dually scornful attitude to classical physics naturally has been reflected on the attitude to the adherents of classical way in physics: "I think, the difference between these cultures is reduced to the difference between the people who understand and people who do not understand mathematics to an extent necessary to estimate the nature fully" [2, p. 58].
Naturally, with such categorical claims of relativists, the question arises: what do not understand the adherents of classical formalism, while efforts of many generations of them have thoroughly developed the basic disciplines of physics - such as optics, kinematics, dynamics of systems, electromagnetism, circuit theory, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, solid body theory and so on? To advance in physical understanding, they developed not only the tool of differential and integral calculus, but on its basis developed such basic formalisms as Lagrangian and Hamiltonian representation, vector analysis, spectral analysis, variational analysis, potential theory, tensor analysis; they have proven the basic conservation theorems, - we even cannot list everything done. This is just the mathematical tool which relativists actively use, while, with all their assurance and statements, their own methods puzzle them: "But how can we guess, what have we to retain, what may we give up? We have so many fine principles and known facts - and nonetheless, we cannot make both ends meet. Or we again yield infinitely large values, or our explanation appears incomplete - something is in lack" [2, p. 183].
Before, in , , ,  and , we showed the cause of discrepancies that has hurt Feynman. It was, having taken from classical physics only outward forms like bricks, relativists reduced the thorough and comprehensive consideration of physical phenomena to a trivial adjusting the bricks by their likeness.
But the practice shows, temptatingly easy rearrangement of bricks-symbols results that the relativists lose the interrelations even in their own relativistic conception and destroy even that not large amount that the relativistic authors succeeded to formulate in frames of integer construction.
In full measure this concerns to the black hole theory; scientists now so actively attempt to find them in the near and far cosmos. But, as we will show in this study, all these attempts are doomed, because the basic equations modelling the black holes have been grounded not on the phenomenologically substantiated criterions, not on the self-consistent mathematical tool, as a "dead hand" of classical formalism requires, but on a full disregard of initial rules of mathematical modelling of physical processes that reduces all their efforts to a trivial adjusting the amount of symbols to the author's idea of this process.
Contents: / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 /