Dark energy itself is a controversial topic. It is a hypothetical form of energy that acts opposite to gravity over very large distances. It is used by some physicists to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe and the “missing matter” in the universe.
From the article: “Outside the ‘surface’ of a dark-energy star, it behaves much like a black hole, producing a strong gravitational tug. But inside, the ‘negative’ gravity of dark energy may cause matter to bounce back out again.”
The paper was originally published (PDF) in the Texas Conference on Relativisitc Astrophysics, 12/12-12/17/04.
They still have an event horizon! They still have huge gravitational effects. Matter still falls in and can’t go out at least in the form it came in. Black holes evaporate too. What he’s done is describe a scenario for what goes on inside the event horizon, but is there any experimental test of this, short of actually going inside yourself?
The paper’s first sentence:
is based on the issue of time simultaneity that’s at the center of relativity; admittedly there’s a problem here, but Penrose’s Road to Reality (now advertised on the sciscoop home page!) takes the opposite tack: Einstein got time right, and it’s quantum mechanics that needs modification.
Anyway, the author does seem to propose some experimental tests so this may not be entirely moot. It is interesting that the main arguments seem to be by analogy to behavior of materials in a superfluid/superconducting state. We’ll see…
It turns out this is closely related to some ideas of Bob Laughlin, Nobel prize winner for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect. And what do you know, Laughlin has a new book out too; apparently about how reductionism must be replaced with “emergence” in our understanding of the universe.
This explains why that thousand-mile ball of pure evil was heading for Earth in The Fifth Element. I am relieved; I thought maybe it wasn’t a hard-science flick.
— Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
What is the difference between this and the concept that a black hole cannot exist because matter inside it has a velocity and location which is too well known? That concept specified that where the event horizon would be was a skin of all the matter, surrounding a quantum forbidden zone.
along comes some physicist and he knocks “conventional” theory in a cocked hat. Bah.
If black holes don’t exist, but they are dark energy stars, we have ask where did the gravity go?
Dark energy was originally invoked to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Dark energy expands space and simulates a repulsive force. If a black hole is really an event horizon filled with dark energy, we should see expanding space rapidly accelerating outward.
Instead, we still see an even horizon, with massive gravity pulling objects in through the event horizon. The gravity is still there. The mass is still there. These are the effects of black holes.
The only missing effects are the effects of dark energy. It seems that the dark energy is not there. What is there is the black hole.
If black holes don’t exist, but they are dark energy stars, we have ask where did the gravity go?
Dark energy was originally invoked to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Dark energy expands space and can seem like a repulsive force. If a black hole is really an event horizon filled with dark energy, we should see expanding space rapidly accelerating the event horizon outward. Instead, we still see a well defined event horizon, with massive amounts of gravity pulling objects in through the event horizon. The gravity is still there. The mass is still there. These are the effects of black holes, not the effects of dark energy.
Where did the gravity go? Nowhere. It’s right there inside the black hole as always. Right, it is a black hole, not a dark energy star.