Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking

PTI
Tuesday, August 3, 2004

An Indian theoretical physicist who questioned the
existence of black holes and thereby challenged Stephen
Hawking of Britain at last feels vindicated. But he is
sad.

Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
in Mumbai, was perhaps the first and the only scientist
who had the guts to openly challenge Hawking of Cambridge
University who is regarded by many as the modern-day
Einstein.

For over 30 years Hawking and his followers were
perpetuating the theory that black holes -- resulting
from gravitational collapse of massive stars -- destroy
everything that falls into them preventing even light or
information to escape.

Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the
reputed journal, Foundations of Physics Letters, showed
that Hawking's theory was flawed. He proved black holes
couldn't exist because their formation and existence
flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Except a handful, the majority of mainstream scientists
dismissed Mitra's conclusions even though, till now, no
scientist has contradicted him in writing. Mitra invited
several notable black hole theorists including Hawking
and Jayant Narlikar of India to criticise his work but no
one replied.

Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's
own admission two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin,
Ireland, that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute
sense."

In essence, Hawking's "new" black holes never quite
become the kind that gobble up everything. Instead, they
keep emitting radiation for a long time -- exactly what
Mitra showed in his paper.

Hawking's about-turn has vindicated Mitra. But, in
retrospect, he feels sad about the treatment he got at
home while trying to take on Hawking all by himself.

Too "embarrassed" to be associated with a man who
challenged Hawking, even Mitra's close colleagues avoided
him and he became an outcast. To add insult to injury,
BARC authorities removed Mitra from the theoretical
physics division on the excuse that this division was
meant only for those doing "strategic research."

"The ironic element in this whole exercise," Mitra told
PTI, "is that the person who actually dared to show that
there cannot be any black holes was completely ignored
both by the academicians and the media."

A black hole is characterised by an imaginary boundary
called the "event horizon" that shuts everything within.
But in 1976 Hawking introduced quantum mechanics into the
problem and claimed that black holes do radiate energy --
although at a low rate -- and ultimately vanish into
nothingness.

The vanishing act, however, destroys all the trapped
information as well - directly conflicting with the laws
of quantum physics that say that information can never be
completely wiped out. This is the "information loss
paradox" associated with black holes that, in a way, was
created by Hawking's own work.

One logical resolution of this paradox would have been to
realise that black holes did not exist. But Mitra says
that such sweeping, yet logical thinking "was never
undertaken by either party involved in this prolonged
debate and they kept on debating effectively to make the
paradox more popular and perpetuating."

It was then that Mitra published his seminal paper
showing that gravitational collapse of massive star can
at best produce an "Eternally Collapsing Object" but not
an "event horizon" or a black hole in the strict sense.
"Since no event horizon is formed, there is no paradox at
all in the first place," Mitra argued.

In a subsequent work Mitra showed that the "Eternally
Collapsing Objects" that he proposed are actually the
massive compact objects now referred to as Black Hole
Candidates (BHCs).

Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley
Robertson and Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that
BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra
and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have
magnetic field.

Mitra says that in the light of new developments, "the
supposed black holes are not really black holes and it
would be intellectual dishonesty to still call them as
black holes and keep the debate alive."

Though his own colleagues had sidelined Mitra after his
first paper, he is solaced by the encouraging e-mails he
had received from several physicists around the world.

One from Salvatore Antoci, University of Padova, Italy, a
noted relativist says: "Let me express to you my great
joy in seeing your much-disputed paper eventually
accepted for publication by Foundations of Physics
Letters. Convincing the community of relativists about
the mythical nature of black holes will remain a
tremendous task, but it is a little less desperate thanks
to your success."

Peder Norberg, of the Department of Physics, Durham
University, UK, said he carefully read through Mitra's
paper and found "that most of the results presented there
are more than impressive" while Stanley Robertson, a
relativist of South Oklahoma State University, USA said:
"On first becoming acquainted with your work, I was
dubious, thinking it unlikely that something as profound
as belief in the existence of black holes could become
erroneously established in the literature. In the
meanwhile, I have found no errors in your work. It is
fascinating."

The only Indian who praised Mitra's work was relativist
Pankaj Joshi of the Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research in Mumbai.

The BARC scientist recalls the episode in the 1930s when
Subramanian Chandrasekhar's work on the upper mass limit
of white dwarfs was considered incorrect by celebrated
astrophysicists like Sir Arthur Eddington even though no
one could precisely point out any error in Chandra's
work.

More at:
http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/03hole.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not so send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.

"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote in message
news:yBh8c03SMDc6@bw238w7tbAAlgG...
Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking

NO REFERENCES

SWB wrote:
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote in message
news:yBh8c03SMDc6@bw238w7tbAAlgG...

Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking


NO REFERENCES



no black holes

But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. And if it cold, then where
does the sun gets its energy, not from fusion reactions of course.

Arindam Banerjee.

But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!

Arindam Banerjee.

In article ,
(Arindam Banerjee) posted:
But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

"Hot or cold"? It is using absolutes that got Hawking
in trouble. "Hotter or cooler" is what I'd consider.

Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!
Arindam Banerjee.

You are welcome, Arindam. What stage has been reached?

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
om...
But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!

Arindam Banerjee.

Keep in mind Arindam that Jai is neither a Dr. or competent in physics, he
is a well known kook and crank in usenet.

In article ,
"B Gilmour" posted:

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
om...
But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!

Arindam Banerjee.

Keep in mind Arindam that Jai is neither a Dr. or competent in physics

Bill Gilmour just demonstrated that he is a liar.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:DVf1g82glfX0@Jv353n0rmaeWsT...
In article ,
(Arindam Banerjee) posted:
But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

"Hot or cold"? It is using absolutes that got Hawking
in trouble. "Hotter or cooler" is what I'd consider.

But it is either -273 degrees C or thereabout for superconducting
currents, or a few million degrees to support fusion following e=mcc.
It can't be both at the same time, nor can it switch from hot to cold
states. Practically everyone thinks that the core of the sun is a few
million degrees hot, and the core of the earth is a few thousand
degrees hot (that is in fact what they show in school physics text, as
absolute truth). But if it is so hot, they why o why the magnetic
fields of the Sun (and also Jupiter) and the Earth? This is precisely
the point hot-core-wallahs evade, the less people talk of this the
better evidently for them, it allows them to keep their precious
theories.


Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!
Arindam Banerjee.

You are welcome, Arindam. What stage has been reached?

I have completed some practical experiments which involved the
construction of the world's first spaceraft, and am analysing the very
interesting and positive results in the light of classical mechanics,
going beyond what is written in the textbooks I studied long ago. The
basic design is simple at the core - however the practical realisation
even in the crudest form was very difficult just with my own resources
- but the underlying theories and the mathematics, involving
rotational kinematics, are complex and interesting. I am not 100%
sure that I have got it right, but it does appear to break the First
Law, though with some external help to overcome friction effects. But,
in the past I was wrong with my tiffin-box-toy-car experiment
(friction impeded the slow force from constant acceleration, but could
not impede the impact force from rapid contact) and also the design
for the IFMB in my book "To the Stars!" is wrong, from a balance of
force perspective. Like, from energy balance the system should move,
but there is a double-reaction instead of the single-reaction at
impact. However, one learns from mistakes, when one door shuts,
another opens. This is the way it has been for me, in all the
research work that I have done! Just learn from mistakes, and
continue. But, if I am wrong now, it will be being wrong in a
interesting manner. And no doubt some other window will open as a
consequence, maybe leading to another blind alley... But I do think I
got it right at last.

Thanks once again for your kind interest, and with regards,
Arindam Banerjee.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Ah, sounds like your spacecraft has a few too many open doors and windows
thus limiting it's ability to contain your core flatulence.
DAVe

"Arindam Banerjee" wrote in message
om...
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
news:DVf1g82glfX0@Jv353n0rmaeWsT...
In article ,
(Arindam Banerjee) posted:
But does he tell us whether the core of any star is hot or cold? And
if it is hot, how does the star's magnetic field exist? Like we know
our sun has a very strong magnetic field. Can you have a strong
magnetic field without superconducting currents in the core, or a
strong permanent magent? You cannot have superconducting currents in
the core unless it is very cold, and permanent magnets as we know from
our experience lose their magnetism when hot.

And if it cold, then where does the sun gets its energy, not from
fusion reactions of course.

Such are the questions that plagued me in my studies of physics, which
I finally resolved by throwing out relativity as complete nonsense,
and deriving an equation for unlimited energy.

"Hot or cold"? It is using absolutes that got Hawking
in trouble. "Hotter or cooler" is what I'd consider.

But it is either -273 degrees C or thereabout for superconducting
currents, or a few million degrees to support fusion following e=mcc.
It can't be both at the same time, nor can it switch from hot to cold
states. Practically everyone thinks that the core of the sun is a few
million degrees hot, and the core of the earth is a few thousand
degrees hot (that is in fact what they show in school physics text, as
absolute truth). But if it is so hot, they why o why the magnetic
fields of the Sun (and also Jupiter) and the Earth? This is precisely
the point hot-core-wallahs evade, the less people talk of this the
better evidently for them, it allows them to keep their precious
theories.


Jai, thanks for your deep interest in this matter, and my work. It
has come to a certain stage now, I am happy to say!
Arindam Banerjee.

You are welcome, Arindam. What stage has been reached?

I have completed some practical experiments which involved the
construction of the world's first spaceraft, and am analysing the very
interesting and positive results in the light of classical mechanics,
going beyond what is written in the textbooks I studied long ago. The
basic design is simple at the core - however the practical realisation
even in the crudest form was very difficult just with my own resources
- but the underlying theories and the mathematics, involving
rotational kinematics, are complex and interesting. I am not 100%
sure that I have got it right, but it does appear to break the First
Law, though with some external help to overcome friction effects. But,
in the past I was wrong with my tiffin-box-toy-car experiment
(friction impeded the slow force from constant acceleration, but could
not impede the impact force from rapid contact) and also the design
for the IFMB in my book "To the Stars!" is wrong, from a balance of
force perspective. Like, from energy balance the system should move,
but there is a double-reaction instead of the single-reaction at
impact. However, one learns from mistakes, when one door shuts,
another opens. This is the way it has been for me, in all the
research work that I have done! Just learn from mistakes, and
continue. But, if I am wrong now, it will be being wrong in a
interesting manner. And no doubt some other window will open as a
consequence, maybe leading to another blind alley... But I do think I
got it right at last.

Thanks once again for your kind interest, and with regards,
Arindam Banerjee.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti