Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Abhas Mitra

Publications and source records attributed to Abhas Mitra.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Sources of Stellar Energy, Einstein- Eddington Timescale of Gravitational Contraction and Eternally Collapsing Objects

We point out that although conventional stars are primarily fed by burning of nuclear fuel at their cores, in a strict sense, the process of release of stored gravitational energy, known as, Kelvin - Helmholtz (KH) process is either also operational albeit at an arbitrary slow rate, or lying in wait to take over at the disruption of the nuclear channel. In fact, the latter mode of energy release is the true feature of any self-gravity bound object including stars. We also highligh the almost forgotten fact that Eddington was the first physicist to introduce Special Relativity into the problem and correctly insist that, actually, total energy stored in a star is not the mere Newtonian energy but the total mass energy (E = M c^2). Accordingly, Eddington defined an ``Einstein Time Scale'' of Evolution where the maximum age of the Sun turned out to be t_E = 1.4. 10^{13} yr. We extend this concept by introducing General Relativity and show that the minimum value of depletion of total mass-energy is t_E =infty not only for Sun but for and sufficiently massive or dense object. We propose that this time scale be known in the name of ``Einstein - Eddington''. We also point out that, recently, it has been shown that as massive stars undergo continued collapse to become a Black Hole, first they become extremely relativistic Radiation Pressure Supported Stars. And the life time of such relativistic radiation pressure supported compact stars is indeed dictated by this Einstein -Eddington time scale whose concept is formally developed here. Since this observed time scale of this radiation pressure supported quasistatic state turns out to be infinite, such objects are called Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO).

astro-ph↗

On the non-occurrence of Type I X-ray bursts from the Black Hole Candidates

It has been justifiably questioned that if the Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) have a ``hard surface'' why Type I X-ray bursts are not seen from them (Nayayan, R., Black Holes in Astrophysics, New J. Phys., 7, 199-218, 2005). It is pointed out that a ``physical surface'' need not always be ``hard'' and in could be ``gaseous'' in case the compact object is sufficiently hot (Mitra, A., The day of reckoning: the value of the integration constant in the vacuum Schwarzschild solution, physics/0504076, p1-p6; BHs or Eternally Collapsing Objects: A review of 90 years of misconceptions, in Focus on Black Hole Research, Nova Sc. Pub., NY, p1-p94, 2006). Even if a ``hard surface'' would be there, presence of strong strong intrinsic magnetic field could inhibit Type I X-ray burst from a compact object as is the case for Her X-1. Thus, non-occurrence of Type I bursts actually rules out those alternatives of BHs which are either non-magnetized or cold and, hence, is no evidence for existence of Event Horizons (EHs). On the other hand, from the first principle, we again show that the BHCs being uncharged and having finite masses cannot be BHs, because uncharged BHs have a unique mass M=0. Thus the previous results that the so-called BHCs are actually extremely hot, ultramagnetized, Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs) (Robertson, S. & Leiter, D., Astrophys. J. 565, 447-451, 2002; MECO Model of galactic BH Candidates and active galactic nuclei, in: New Developments in BLack Hole Research, NOva Sc. Pub., NY, p1-p44, 2006) rather than anything else get reconfirmed by non-occurrence of Type I X-ray bursts in BHCs.

astro-ph↗

Why Gravitational Contraction Must be Accompanied by Emission of Radiation Both in Newtonian and Einstein Gravity

By using virial theorem, Helmholtz and Kelvin showed that the contraction of a bound self-gravitating system must be accompanied by release of radiation energy irrespective of the details of the contraction process. This happens because the total Newtonian energy of the system E_N (and not just the Newtonian gravitational potential energy E_g^N) decreases for such contraction. In the era of General Relativity (GR) too, it is justifiably believed that gravitational contraction must release radiation energy. However no GR version of (Newtonian) Helmholtz- Kelvin (HK) process has ever been derived. Here, for the first time, we derive the GR version of the appropriate virial theorem and Helmholtz Kelvin mechanism by simply equating the well known expressions for the gravitational mass and the Inertial Mass of a spherically symmetric static fluid. Simultaneously, we show that the GR counterparts of global ``internal energy'', ``gravitational potential energy'' and ``binding energy'' are actually different from what have been used so far. Existence of this GR HK process asserts that, in Einstein gravity too, gravitational collapse must be accompanied by emission of radiation irrespective of the details of the collapse process. Consequently, all studies of strictly adibatic gravitational collapse are only of academic interest.

gr-qc↗

Radiation Pressure Supported Stars in Einstein Gravity: Eternally Collapsing Objects

Even when we consider Newtonian stars, i.e., stars with surface gravitational redshift, z<< 1, it is well known that, theoretically, it is possible to have stars, supported against self-gravity, almost entirely by radiation pressure. However, such Newtonian stars must necessarily be supermassive. We point out that this requirement for excessive large M, in Newtonian case, is a consequence of the occurrence of low z<< 1. On the other hand, if we remove such restrictions, and allow for possible occurrence highly general relativistic regime, z >> 1, we show that, it is possible to have radiation pressure supported stars at arbitrary value of M. Since radiation pressure supported stars necessarily radiate at the Eddington limit, in Einstein gravity, they are never in strict hydrodynamical equilibrium. Further, it is believed that sufficiently massive or dense objects undergo continued gravitational collapse to the Black Hole stage characterized by z =infty. Thus, late stages of Black Hole formation, by definition, will have, z >> 1, and hence would be examples of quasi-stable general relativistic RPSSs. This result is also supported by with our previous finding that that trapped surfaces are not formed in gravitational collapse and the value of the integration constant in the vacuum Schwarzschild solution is zero. Hence the supposed observed BHs are actually ECOs.

gr-qc↗

Why the observed black hole candidates do not show spin pulsation

It is shown here that the so-called spinning Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) cannot be Black Holes (BHs) at all and, on the other hand, must be spinning hot Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs). The question would then arise why the spinning BHCs do not reveal their spin pulsation unlike the spinning cold Neutron Stars (NSs). Even for magnetized NSs with ``hard surfaces'', there may be no observed spin pulsation if the dipole axis and spin direction are exactly same. However, spinning ECOs do not show spin pulsation because their surface gravitational red shift is extremely high, z >> 1 and could be in the range of 10^{7-8} for stellar mass range. In contrast NSs have z ~ 0.1 -0.3. The time profile of periodic signals generated on the surface of a spinning MECO get extremely distorted due to extreme general relativistic frame dragging effect as they traverse through extremely steep gravitational field. However, if any radiation would be formed in the ECO magnetosphere sufficiently away from the surface like in the pulsar ``outer slots''(which may happen for isolated spinning ECOs), it might be a pulsed one.

astro-ph↗

A generic relation between baryonic and radiative energy densities of stars

By using elementary astrophysical concepts, we show that for any self-luminous astrophysical object, the ratio of radiation energy density inside the body (rho_r) and the baryonic energy density (rho_0) may be crudely approximated, in the Newtonian limit, as rho_r/rho_0 ~ GM/Rc^2, where G is constant of gravitation, c is the speed of light, M is gravitational mass, and R is the radius of the body. The key idea is that radiation quanta must move out in a diffusive manner rather than free stream inside the body of the star. When one would move to the extreme General Realtivistic case i.e., if the surface gravitational redshift, z >> 1, it is found that, rho_r/rho_0 ~ (1+z). Previous works on gravitational collapse, however, generally assumed rho_r/rho_0 << 1. On the other hand, actually, during continued general relativistic gravitational collapse to the Black Hole state (z --> infty), the collapsing matter may essentially become an extremely hot fireball a la the very early universe even though the observed luminosity of the body as seen by a faraway observer, L^\infty ~ (1+z)^{-1} --> 0 as z --> infty, and the collapse might appear as ``adiabatic''.

gr-qc↗

Comments on "Derivation of the Raychaudhuri Equation" by Dadhich

In a recent preprint, gr-qc/0511123, Dadhich has given a brief yet beautiful exposition on some of the research works by Prof. A.K. Raychaudhuri. Here Dadhich highlights the fact that the apparently ``self-evident'' assumption of occurrence of ``trapped surfaces'' may not be realized atleast in some specific cosmological models though no general proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces exists in the cosmological context. However, Dadhich added, without sufficient justification, that trapped surfaces should occur for collapse of isolated bodies. We point out that actually trapped surfaces do not occur even for collapse of spherically symmetric isolated bodies. Further unlike the cosmological case, for isolated bodies, an exact proof for generic non-occurrence of trapped surfaces is available. Thus for isolated bodies, the above referred apparently ``self-evident'' assumption fails much more acutely than in cosmology. Many recent astrophysical observations tend to corroborate the fact trapped surfaces do not occur for isolated bodies. Two recent specific papers (PRD) are cited to show that when radiative non-diispative collapse can prevent formation of trapped surfaces.

gr-qc↗

On the Probable Nature of the "Dark Particle Accelerators" Discovered by HESS

We estimate that the vacuum electric field associated with a spinning Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object MECO (www.phys.uni-sofia.bg/~astro/abbrev.html) could be higher by a factor of ~ 10^4 than the corresponding pulsar value because of extreme relativistic Frame Dragging Effect. Thus isolated spinning MECOs could be source of UHE cosmic ray acceleration and VHE gamma-ray production. However because of the steeply varying gravitational field close to the surface of the MECO, any signal generated there would be both extremely redshifted and distorted. As a result, there may not be any significant pulsed X-ray or Radio emission from close to the surface, and consequently, the $γ$-ray source may appear as ``Unidentified'' and the particle accelerator may appear as ``Dark''.

astro-ph↗

Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs): Likely New Class of Source of Cosmic Particle Acceleration

It is known that spinning pulsars could be source of VHE-UHE cosmic particle acceleration. It is also conjectured that (fictitious) spinning Black Holes (BH) could be sites of cosmic particle acceleration. However, it has been shown by Mitra and Leiter and Robertson that General Relativity (GR) actually does not allow the existence or formation of finite mass BHs. It was predicted that the BH Candiadates (BHCs) have strong intrinsic magnetic fields (like pulsars) instead of Event Horizons. And this prediction has tentatively been verified in a series of papers by Robertson & Leiter. Thus all observed BH Candidates are actually not BHs, and, they are expected to be MECOs. Stellar mass MECOs are GR analogs of conventionally known isolated pulsars. While pulsars are/have (i) COLD, i.e., not supported by radiation pressure, MECOs are HOT, i.e., supported primarily by trapped radiation pressure, (ii) upper mass limit of 3-4 Msolar MECOs, being HOT, have no Upper Mass Limit, (iii) surface gravitational red shift, z ~ 0.1 -0.2, MECOs have z >> 1 so that photons can remain almost permanently trapped inside them, (iv) magnetic field B <10^{13} G, for MECOs the local value of B >> 10^{13} G. It may be recalled that isolated (non- accreting) uncharged BHs are cold and dead objects without any physical activity. On the other hand, isolated spinning MECOs are like extreme GR pulsars.

physics.gen-ph↗

Comments on the proposal of Dark Energy Stars by Chapline

We point out that the contentions of Chapline (astro-ph/0503200)[1] that (i) General Relativity (GR) is in conflict with Quantum Mechanics (QM) and (ii) GR fails even on macroscopic length scales are incorrect and based on (i) misunderstanding of GR and (ii) completely misconceived ``thought experiments''. Even without introduction of any QM, GR actually does not allow formation of any Event Horizon and is competent to figure out the actual nature of the supposed Black Hole candidates. The resultant picture is not in conflict with QM at all.

astro-ph↗

The day of reckoning: The value of the integration constant in the vacuum Schwarzschild solution

The stongest theoretical support for Schwarzschild Black Holes (SBHs) is the existence of vacuum Schwarzschild/Hilbert solution. The integration constant alpha_0 in this solution is interpreted as the mass of the BH. But by equating the 4-volumes (an INVARIANT) associated with the Schwarzschild and the Eddington-Finkelstein metrics, we directly obtain here the stunning result that SBHs have the unique mass, M_0 = 0! Thus the Event Horizon of a SBH (R_g = 2M_0 =0) gets merged with the central singularity at R=0 and, after 90 years, the mysterious EH indeed gets erased from the non-singular R >0 region of a completely empty (R_0=0) spherical POINT MASS spacetime in accordance with the intuition of the founders of GR. Consequently the entropy of SBHs have the unique value of zero, which instantly removes the quantum mechanical``information paradox'' and the apparent conflict between GR and QM, the two pillars of modern physics. This direct result firmly establishes the exciting fact, as far as isolated bodies are concerned, GR is a singularity free theory even at the classical level! The Black Hole Candidates with mass M >0 are thus NOT BHs and instead could be HOT compact objects whose possibility has so far been overlooked in favour of COLD Neutron Stars or BHs. With alpha_0 =0, the BH paradigm collapses instantly because it was built with the ASSUMPTION alpha_0 >0. This result is dedicated to the occurrence of 100 years of Relativity.

physics.gen-ph↗

Why the astrophysical Black Hole Candidates may not be black holes at all

In a recent paper[1], it has been shown that, there cannot be any rotating (Kerr) Black Hole (BH) with finite mass in order that the generic properties associated with the symmetries of stationary axisymmetric Einstein equations are obeyed, i.e, in order to have m\ge 0, we must have $a=0$. In other words, all observed chargeless BHs with finite masses must be non-rotating Schwarzschild BHs. Here, by comparing the invariant 4 volume associated with original Kerr metric [2] with the Boyer-Lindquist version of the same [3], we further find that, stationary axisymmetric {\em vacuum} Einstein solutions actually correspond to m=0 in addition to a=0! This means that if the Kerr solution is a unique one, the Schwarzschild BHs too correspond to only m=0 and therefore the observed BH candidates (BHs) with m >0 are not BHs at all. This is in agreement some detailed analysis of recent observations[4-7] which suggest the the BHCs have strong intrinsic magnetic moment rather than any Event Horizon. If one would derive the Boyer-Lindquist metric in a straightforward manner by using the Backlund transformation, it would follow that a= m sin phi, where phi is the azimuth angle. This relationship directly confirms the result that for a supposed rotating BH, actually, both a=m=0.

astro-ph↗

Why the astrophysical Black Hole Candidates are not rotating black holes

It is believed that the basic component of the central engine of quasars, micro-quasars, and energetic Gamma Ray Bursts are the rotating or the Kerr Black Holes (BH)[1]. But by using a generic property[2-4] of the metric components of a stationary axisymmertic rotating metric in its standard form}, namely, g_phi ϕ= sin^2 theta g_theta theta, where phi is the azimuth angle and theta is the polar angle measured from the axis of symmetry, we have found the unexpected and surprising result that (i) in order to have a mass of a Kerr BH m ge 0, it is necessary that its rotation parameter a=0 and if one insists for an a ge 0, one must have m le 0! Thus if the suspected Black Hole candidates with m >0 are really rotating they cannot be BHs at all which is in agreement with some detailed analysis of recent observations[5-8]. However, if it is assumed that such objects are strictly non-rotating, they could be non-rotating Schwarzschild BHs (a=0) with m ge 0 if we ignore the physical difficulties associated with the existence of such objects. This result calls for new theoretical efforts to understand a vast range of astrophysical phenomenon. If one derives the Kerr Metric in a straightforward manner by using the Backlund transformation, it is seen that a=m sin phi. This relationship confirms that a=m=0 for Kerr BHs.

astro-ph↗

A new proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and information paradox

We present here a very simple, short and new proof which shows that no trapped surface is ever formed in spherical gravitational collapse of isolated bodies. Although this derivation is of purely mathematical nature and without any assumption, it is shown, in the Appendix, that, physically, trapped surfaces do not form in order that the 3 speed of the fluid as measured by an observer at a fixed circumference coordinate $R$ (a scalar), is less than the speed of light $c$. The consequence of this result is that, mathematically, even if there would be Schwarzschild Black Holes, they would have unique gravitational mass M=0. Recall that Schwazschild BHs may be considered as a special case of rotating Kerr BHs with rotation parameter a=0. If one would derive the Boyer-Lindquist metric [1] in a straight forward manner by using the Backlund transformation[2], one would obtain a= M sin phi where phi is the azimuth angle. This relation demands that BHs have unique mass M=0 (along with a=0) which in turn confirms that there cannot be any trapped surface in realistic gravitational collapse where the fluid has real pressure and density. Since there is no trapped surface and no horizon there is no Information Paradox in the first place.

astro-ph↗

On the Final State of Spherical Gravitational Collapse

In a recent paper (FPL 13(6), 543, 2000, astro-ph/9910408), from several independent considerations we showed that GTR does not allow formation of trapped surfaces and finite mass BHs. We rediscuss here several subtle issues involved in this work. So far only the scientific critique to this work was due to Tereno (astro-ph/9905144, astro-ph/9905298) and which was answered in Mitra (astro-ph/9905175, astro-ph/9905175, astro-ph/9905329). Now Tereno (gr-qc/0111073) has also admitted that the local 3-speed of a free particle as conventionally defined by all previous authors and as measured in any coordinate system, is indeed c at the EH. Further since the acceleration SCALAR BLOWS UP at the EH, our result that there cannot be any EH at a finite R is reconfirmed. We explicitly show here that the final state of spherical collapse of very massive stars corresponds to a zero mass BH with 2M/R ->0. But at any finite epoch there would be a Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECO) of finite mass. However, if quantum back reaction in the strong gravity regime would cause a phase transition p ~ rho, there could be static ultracompact objects (UCO) of ~ 10 M (solar). Further, if the phase transition goes proceeds to p= -rho, there could be UCOs of arbitrary high mass (Mazur & Mottola, astro-ph/0109035). Both ECOs and UCOs are expected to possess strong internal magnetic field whereas the the same for a BH is zero. Robertson & Leiter (ApJ 565, 447, 2002, astro-ph/0102381) have shown that the BH candiadates may indeed possess such strong intrinsic mag field. Thus the BHCs are likely to ECOs/UCOs rather than BHs. We also discuss that there is no real evidence for detection of EH.

astro-ph↗

On the nature of the compact condensations at the centre of galaxies

There are many observational evidences for the existence of massive compact condensations in the range $10^6 -10^{10} M_\odot$ at the core of various galaxies. At present such condensations are commonly interpreted as Black Holes (BHs). However, we point out that while such Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) must be similar to BHs in many respects they, actually, can not be BHs because existence of Black Holes would violate the basic tenet of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) that the worldline of a material particle must be timelike at any regular region of spacetime. On the other hand general relativistic collapse of very massive bodies should lead to Eternally Collapsing Configurations (ECOs) or Ultra Compact Objects (UCOs). While ECOs/UCOs may practically be as compact as corresponding BHs, they will have a physical surface. Also while BHs do not have any intrinsic magnetic field ECOs may have strong intrinsic magnetic field. We point out that despite many claims actually there is no real evidence for the ``Event Horizon'' (EH) of supposed BHs and on the other hand, there are tentative evidence for the existence of strong magnetic field in several BHCs (or ECOs). The presence of such intrinsic magnetic field may render the task of explaining high energy radiation phenomenon in many Active Galactic Nuclei easier.

astro-ph↗

On the question of trapped surfaces and black holes

There are many observational evidences for the detection of compact objects with masses significantly larger (in galactic cases) or much larger (in extragalactic cases) than the upper limits of masses of em cold Neutron Stars. Such compact objects are commonly interpreted as Black Holes (BHs). However, we point out that while such Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) must be similar to BHs in many respects they, actually, can not be BHs because existence of Black Holes would violate the basic tenet of the General Theory of Relativity that the worldline of a material particle must be TIMELIKE at any regular region of spacetime. We arrive at this unique conclusion by approaching the problem from various directions. We feel that such ``operational'' Black Holes could be able to explain hard X-ray tail found in the galactic BHCs because Lorentz factor of the plasma accreting on such objects should be considerably higher than the corresponding NS case.

astro-ph↗

Final State of Spherical Gravitational Collapse and Likely Source of Gamma Ray Bursts

Following our result that for the final state of continued spherical gravitational collapse, the gravitational mass of the fluid, $M_f\to 0$, we show that for a physical fluid the eventual value of $2GM_f/R_f\to 1$ rather than $2GM_f/R_f <1$, indicating approach to a zero-mass black hole. We also indicate that as the final state would be approached, the curvature components tend to blow up, and the proper radial distance $l$ and the proper time $τ\to \infty$. This indicates that actually the singularity is never attained for the collapse of an isolated body. We also identify that, the final state may correspond to the local 3-speed $v\to c$, eventhough the circumference speed $U\to 0$. However, at a finite observation epoch, such Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) may have a modest local speed of collapse $v \ll c$, and the lab frame speed of collapse should practically be zero because of their extremely high surface gravitational red-shifts.

astro-ph↗