PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 https://pos.sissa.it/ ∗ -ray signal of GW170817, with its (large) emission distance of 40 Mpc, and its gigantic γ [email protected] Speaker. In this talk, I maintainand that even many wrong. published In statements summary, of Iholes modern will (BHs) (try in are to) our inconsistent, Universe, prove neither the ofother following stellar 4 mass. mass, claims: nor 1) supermassive 2) ones There The (SMBHs), arefusing nor gravitational-wave no binary of signals black any neutron (GWs) stars. detected 3) sinceby Almost nearby 2015 all (Galactic) were ‘loud’ sources, all received not emitted electromagneticbursts by signals by (GRBs), sources were at and emitted cosmological the distances; fastshort such radio as bursts the gamma-ray (FRBs).formation An energy (of exception 2 to merging neutron ‘nearbyit stars). loud is 4) often GRBs’ Astrophysics not deals is easy with to the ‘inorganic model machines’; these machines correctly. ∗ Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative Commons c Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Frontier Research in Astrophysics - III (FRAPWS2018) 28 May - 2 June 2018 Mondello (Palermo), Italy Wolfgang Kundt Argelander Institute for Astronomy, Auf demE-mail: Hügel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germany Gravitational Astrophysics PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 ) by

Wolfgang Kundt [Antoniadis et al, 2016],

1 , it will get hopelessly unstable, and collapse under its own

ten years. And even if there existed a binary some- – essentially by the Fermi pressure of free neutrons, combined &

In this presentation, I will argue that our understanding of the Universe, based on observa- a) Why should we expect to encounter BHs anywhere in the Universe? Most of us have b) What have been the evidences? The international discussion on BHs started for me at And why should (many of) the hot, luminous central sources of massive galaxies be super- But so far, all observed neutron stars have masses below some 2 M tions with ever improving spatial andsolutions spectral of resolution, Einstein’s can GRT, be without consistentlyand singularities described without – by phenomena that regular such would as violategrowth BHs, the of fundamental or entropy. conservation naked laws We have singularities of allUniverse 4-momentum, (NSs) under or been certain – hasty extreme conditions, when or ‘concluding’ whenworries that allowing arose singularities for super-energetic at could happenings. the form Such very inbe beginning the reconsidered of with a greater new patience. era of increased technical facilities, and should2. now Reasons for, and against the occurrence of BHs in our cosmic neighbourhood learned that BHs form anby unavoidable internal last step pressures in exerted themoons by compression are of the stabilised matter. hot, by Stars liquid- nuclear-burning are and plasma stabilised solid-state in forces, their white interiors; dwarfs planets (of and mass below 1.4 M Varenna in the summer of 1972, with Cygcompanion. X-1, a A bright, few massive years star with later,was an in unseen a [Kundt, massive neutron binary 1979], star I surrounded concludedand by that a Jerry the massive Ostriker. unseen, accretion massive Some disk, companion further kindly26) 10 refereed known by years Galactic Ed later, stellar-mass van Daniel BH deninside Fischer candidates Heuvel of (BHCs) and massive could I accretion be disks, concluded [Kundt well that & described all Fischer, by the 1989; neutron Kundt, (then 1998]. stars massive black holes (SMBHs), as hasthe been AGN pushed, look in like particular, by the Donald largest Lynden-Bell? nuclear To me, reactors in the Universe, fed by the inspiralling matter of Gravitational Astrophysics 1. Introduction electron-degeneracy pressure, and neutron starsstill – of their mass decay below product, some when 3 overloaden, M though and all binary neutron starscycled’, are rather observed to not oscillate to in spintimes, spin up at period secularly oscillation – around periods via some of accretionwhere quasi-stable in – spin our i.e. value Galaxy, or throughout to Universe, cosmic get whoseaccreted companion ‘re- matter dropped would large reach amounts its of surface matter‘recycle’ at onto it, an it, not such infall to velocity crush ofNo it almost wonder out the that of speed even of existence. now, light, Nothe and some BH sky. try 50 would to years form. after their Neutron baptism, stars no are BH stable has objects. been reliably detected in with nuclear repulsive forces. Butmass, then, beyond so a we total learned,weight, of if to some a the neutron 3 unstable star M state isbecause of loaden according an to with GR, ever additional even shrinking pressure black hassupport. weight, hole, and without eventually weighs a heavier stable than surface, what it or can interior; PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 cm = 14 yr, at the high- Wolfgang Kundt 8 at present, during cosmic

M 6 had been measured early on by out · M = in · M 2 , near z = 5, to some 10

sec before fusion, when it transcends all our attempts. Here M 7 . 1 10 − -rays – of order PeV – through 18 orders of magnitude in frequency, and γ For me, since 1974, it has been a safe expectation that at some time in the future – once we In section 2 we have noticed that our human existence is inconsistent with the presence of c) A property of Hawking’s BHs that has been overlooked for some 50 years is their unsteady is its governing equation: have managed to build sufficiently sensitive detectorsof – two physicists neutron will stars, be among able them totheir the witness Hulse-Taylor gigantic the Binary gravitational fusion Pulsar shatter. – No detected other asenough celestial PSR to phenomenon 1913+16 we compete – could via in think strength: ofOn was solar the powerful masses other approaching hand, each otherquantitatively even at predict decades almost the later, the none detailed speed of shapecame of the light! us of two-pointmasses has such approximation been a in ablethe gravitational Landau to ‘chirp-mass fusion and approximation’ derive Lifshiz signal. II, a – § which formula Closestsuch 102 an yields that to event a would reality except – fair for its description now final of well-known 10 such as an event, or rather: for BHs around us. Howyears, then could even Advanced a LIGO lot detect morethe some massive evaluation six than of of those our them, 6 Sun?justifications? during detections (As the Are gone has past gravitational astray? happened three waves before). Have magic I two vote detectors? Nobel against the prizes Or BHs. been has issued with faulty is time-variable on all scalesnuclear-burning down innermost part to of 0.1 our minute. Milky-Way disk. Its I radius like measures no to more call than it 10 a burning disk (BD), being the behaviour: they swallow everything they canclusters, get galaxies; hold they of, are radiation, not stationary stellarlaw; objects. winds, but flows, It’s their a stars, growth chaotic reaches star even process, galactic not scales obeying on any interesting analytical time scales, like 10 3. Gravitational Waves reach us from merging binary neutron stars Suzy Collin, suggesting complete(Galactic) re-ejection potential of well the [Collin-Souffrin, infalling 1993, Kundt,strongly matter 1996, supported from 2013]. by near the This the SDSS interpretationdecrease bottom plot, has statistically, according been of from to its some which 10 theexpansion core [Kormendy masses & of Bender, all 2011]. sampledunderstanding galaxies (BHs of the would functioning grow of with ourIt time, Galactic is core instead not ). – all that My SgrA* wellmagnitudes most described of recent – in absorption has the by appeared literature foreground in because [Kundt, dust,ened its 2017a]. and by optical because having radiation its climbed is radiation out reduced reachesfrequencies of by us the up some strongly deepest to 31 weak- potential hard well in our galaxy. It extends from low radio 10 AU. Apparently, its burning is1993], extremely unique unstable, inside like our that Galaxy. of In a my 2-dimensional understanding, star no [Roxburgh, BH hides anywhere near Sgr A*. mass end. The largerthere their been mass, SMBHs the around already faster at theythe large accrete, redshifts, SDSS in simply plot our has via Galaxy shown gravitational and suchexistence in attraction. to high neighbouring their ones masses Had absence. – – and all of us would now be inside of them. We owe our Gravitational Astrophysics their disk, whereby in the case of our own Galaxy, PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 seconds – to 2 Wolfgang Kundt } Hz in the four time 3 10 . 5 / 3  ·  3 / 8 − ω  . 2 1 is their common angular velocity around 5 3 √ ω − 32 0.8 m  3 , and ≈ G c i 3 1 = m 5 5 / / 1 5 1 / − ) 3 2 ) 2 m = 2 m c + 1 1 m ( ,M m 2 ( 01} sec . . 0 = : = m . c 1 M , 0.9, 0.44, 2 constrains the 2 involved masses m {10 c − Shape of the recorded terrestrial oscillations of the first 7 GW events detected by Advanced LIGO, -ray burst, whose onset delay – by 1.7 sec – should be understood as caused by the time γ For GW170817, even its electrodynamic afterglows have been successfully measured, includ- We live in a world without BHs. Instead, the publications by [Abbott et al, 2016] listed not only the two masses for their merg- ing its supply reliable estimates of (only) thedistance masses from of us their – mergers: both twoinstead as fusing of expected! neutron for stars, Here msecs and begins – their newstars. and science, with with independent signals mass lasting determinations for of minutes old, – merging binary neutron required for the expansion ofvisible its from scattered our fragments planet’s into distancemuch farther a (of away, again large 40 from enough Mpc). fusing neutron volume,chirp-mass stars, All formula in but (because the were order of incorrectly (6) to their evaluated by weakness, earlier be means and GW of implied the signals shortness). reached us from ing objects, but also their spins,parameters, and which their they distance, probably i.e. extracted theynever from claimed have certain to been have numerical taken resolved simulations, more threecious: but seriously further which than as should as a rough drastic speculativelast over-determination, estimates. published predicted detection, for They GW170817, almost made has been identical-looking me monitored signals! suspi- long enough Only – for their some 10 in which M each other. Note that for m between 2015 and 2018. Itswindows frequencies at range successively through {24, 38, 50, Figure 1: Gravitational Astrophysics PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 Host lensing Wolfgang Kundt of a spectral line can redshift times farther than all interesting again, each cell in the right place. 8 10 times brighter signal in order to compete 16 4 processes, with X of order 10 X cells of various kinds, and tasks, each of them in the right place, with its proper 10 ’ are often detected during long-lasting observing sessions: When their observers had fi- Biological creatures – plants, and animals – involve even more complicated machines in their We present-day humans are quite familiar with facilitating our daily work, hobbies, and fun Astrophysical distance estimates have quite often resulted in over-determinations, in my judge- In every particular case, the judge should consider quasi-homogeneity of our Universe: A host task, all by themselves, some 10 No human architect could remotely& achieve that! Crick – We that have all learned these somethe biological 50 structure processes yr of are ago the not – double random viaengineer processes helix at Whatson at the DNA same all, which time. rather stores And determined[Nature we all by have 558, the even 35 found necessary “organizer (2018)]. information, regions” which Biological andlike steer processes to acts such act processes call as often them an more ‘organic machines’. reliably than machine-made ones! I bodies, like hearts and lungs andnerves stomachs, guts, and and brains, outlets, which eyes and evenof ears repair the and themselves noses, same muscles when type, and hurt, or‘micro-evolution’ – and occasionally or, which children more rarely, can of children even of a[by a create new David distinctly children type, Layzer, different 1990]. type, either called Just of ‘macro-evolution’ dropped fancy a into the rather growth a similar of nest, type theby or baby – its of just called mother, a into or bird, surrounding father, insideits via sand, an ‘breeding’, solid egg and for that shell kept a had at with been couplehomogeneous, moderately its of white-yellow constant weeks, beak, egg until temperature fluid and the evolves starts wakinglittle into bird, baby its some the bird 10 new ordered pierces life. shape and structure During of those a couple newborn of weeks, the almost activities by using tools, transport‘machines’, facilities, like and bicyles, all sorts skates,machines, of cars, we muscle-powered know and airplanes, how motor-powered and toknown construct many materials, them, constructors, others. how and to building repair plans. As them, humans how have they function. built such They involve 5. The inorganic Machines of the Universe with the latter; why did weDoesn’t miss that out violate on cosmic all homogeneity?! those giganticly brighter signals from our own Galaxy? ment, by huge factors, mostnations critically can for result the systematically, GRBs, in and the for following the 3 FRBs. ways: Such 1) huge The over-determi- galaxy of cosmologically large redshift tends to be more than10 Gravitational Astrophysics 4. Cosmic quasi-homogeneity forbids extremely loud distant sources be mistaken to be cosmological,you rather are unaware than of local the kinematic;effects light-echo can this create geometry case unexpectedly of strong often their luminosities appliesgalaxies of emissions nearby to (which point GRBs, I sources, e.g. if favour). ofnally 2) FRBs. invested Rare 3) a ‘ lot of patienceconsideration, into even their if finding; fake; again, he GRBs or are she often regretted concerned. to eventually drop them from Galactic sources of similar type, hence requires a 10 PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 , , pair ± manmade Wolfgang Kundt on their various , and of magnetic dynamos , gravitational shear flows , organic machines heliosphere of the Universe. They obey strictly the sources terrestrial volcanism , 5 10 Myr for the longest among them: relativistic e & inorganic machines’ , and in particular the , the shape and size of our solar-system formations -ray bursters γ explosions , , stellar , both of them rather reliable, with building plans to make their creations reproducible. So in our Universe – with life on Earth – we avail of This presentation has strongly profited from repeated interaction with and help by Ole Marggraf, You wonder why I stress the ‘machine-made’ character of our astrophysical solutions, as a Present-day astrophysics is full of inconsistencies; we should be more careful and selective Gravitational Astrophysics machines But what about structures instorms the around non-animated, us, life-less in Universe, the with formsions of matter, and galaxies radiation, collapses: and objects, are galaxy all clusters, ofprocesses? stars them Or and arbitrary, do without planets we working and again plans moons, dealthe or explo- with skies? constructors, ordered, I mere machine-like think random processes of when events we like look carefully into stellar winds cosmic-ray boosters scales. And I like to call them the ‘ and also by Hans Baumann. necessary condition? Modern astrophysicsulations, likes often to without approach complete non-trivial insightwithout tasks into checking by their stability. numerical local sim- As structures oneall – of obey with the or the best without same examples, BHslight mechanism? let – jet us often fluid, I consider continually think the supplied jet so. for sources. For Do stability they reasons alone, they need an extremely Acknowledgements laws of GR, of stable solutions ofcists the Einstein-Maxwell are plus sure. particle-physics equations, We astrophysi- oughtdifficult. to find their detailed structures [Kundt, 2014]. Which can be often quite when trying to model its various sources. 6. Summary plasma. Which the sources harvestof buoyancy: from the magnetic newly reconnections. formed pair Aand plasma twin down, rises gets jet by post-accelerated buoyancy forms to on with both theirnebula, the sides emitted way help of by by the the low-frequency rotating, feeding magnetic magnetised, disk, innermost waves,ing up disk), (like on and in the narrowed local the in photon Crab frequency bath, bya and scatter- subsequently surrounding, transformed heavy, from chimney-like subsonic deLaval to nozzleAll supersonic formed motion these by by conditions the are ambient simultaneouslyaccretion baryonic provided disk, core by both plasma. a for heavy, theanywhere rotating stellar nearby, magnet (which jet at would sources, the damp and out centerliterature, for all of among the ordered, dozens an galactic rising of ones, motions simulated by provided jetabove swallowing). papers, there stability In I is criteria, the have no exception seen wide taken BH none2004] by that and my would its have own later satisfied paper improvements all with [Kundt, the Gopal 2017b], Krishna I hope. [Kundt & Krishna, PoS(FRAPWS2018)016 , L7-L10, , 80 . 53 Wolfgang Kundt , 115-127, 2004 J. Astrophys. , 265-270, 1996 25 . , 445 S., 2014 471 , vol. 20, 1-119, 1998 Advances in Mathematical Astron. Astrophys Springer , 041015, 2016 6 pp.193-212, 2014 J. Astrophys. Astron Phys. Rev. X , Lecture Notes in Physics , 97-152, 1993 6 -drifting Jets, 413 B , 374-379, 2011. Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics x E 469 arXiv:1605.01665 Cambridge Scientific Publishers Nature 636, 1993 264, You’re asking a key question, Jim! Why do I accept certain astrophysical Lecture Notes in Physics Jets from Stars and Galactic Nuclei , 119-138, 1989 Wolfgang, you agree that neutron stars are objects which are described in part by 10 , vol.2015, Article ID 617128, 4 pp., 2015 Gravitation, Mangaratiba 2012, PoS(MULTIF17) 075, 1-8, 2017b Supplement 2013, pp.506-512, 2013 Physics Astronomy 1979 Mergers in the First Advanced LIGO Observing Run, Pulsar Mass Distribution, 2016, [1] Abbott, B.P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Binary Black Hole [9] Kundt, W.: The Inorganic Machines of the Universe, XVII Brazilian School of Cosmology & [7] Kundt, W.: Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, [8] Kundt, W.: Our Galactic Center - the nearest Burning Disk, ACTA POLYTECHNICA [4] Kormendy, John, Bender, Rolf: [6] Kundt, W.: in: [2] Antoniadis, John, Tauris, T.M., Özel, F., Barr, E., Champion, D.J, Freire, P.C.C., The[3] Millisecond Collin-Souffrin, S., [5] Kundt, W.: Cyg X-1 – a Neutron Star Surrounded by a Masive Disk? [13] Kundt, W., Fischer, D.: Is There a Black Hole among the Black-Hole Candidates? Gravitational Astrophysics References [10] Kundt, W.: A brief Observational History of the Black-Hole Spacetimes, [11] Kundt, W.: Sgr A*, the best-sampled[12] of allKundt, AGN W.: ? The PoS Astrophysical (MULTIF17)050, Jets 1-12, (again), 2017a as the most complicated, inorganic machines known to us, [14] Kundt, W., Krishna, G.: The Physics of [15] Kundt, W., Marggraf, Ole: Physikalische Mythen[16] auf demLayzer, Prüfstand, David: Cosmogenesis, Oxford University Press,[17] 322 pages,Roxburgh, 1990 Ian: MNRAS DISCUSSION JIM BEALL: General Relativity; why do you not also accept the existenceWOLFGANG of KUNDT: black holes? objects as realistic, whereas Imy interpretations reject to others be consistent as with non-existent?all all the their As known implications observations, a and for decades-long inbuilding future addition physicist, blocks. consistent observations, I with So including want when the I cannotdifferently formations, see from and how the to destructions way form of BHs a wouldought their BH, behave, to and I be when consider eliminated. all BHs objects as we unrealistic observe behave building blocks, which