Black Holes Not There

Scientists have lots of bizarre theories about black holes. Black holes gobble up everything that gets too close, even light. 

They can cause time to slow. They contain entire universes.

But here's something about black holes you might not have heard: they simply don't exist.

At least that's the contention of Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In a new paper submitted to the non-peer-reviewed online research paper repository ArXiv, she offers what she calls proof that it is mathematically impossible for black form.

The paper was greeted with skepticism by other physicists, and Mersini-Houghton herself admitted her finding was hard to swallow.

"I'm still not over the shock," she said in a written statement issued by the university. "We've been studying this problem for more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

The paper suggests a possible resolution of the so-called "black hole information loss paradox," in which Einstein's theory of relativity predicts that black holes should form but quantum theory says no "information" can ever permanently disappear from the universe.

In the conventional view, a black hole forms when a dying star collapses under the force of its own gravity to become a single point in space. The gravity within the region surrounding this so-called singularity is so intense that not even light can escape--hence the term black hole.

But according to Mersini-Houghton, a collapsing star sheds mass as it shrinks--so no black hole ever forms. Instead, as she and her collaborator--University of Toronto computational relativity expert Dr. Harald Pfeiffer--write in their paper, the star "stops collapsing at a finite radius...and its core explodes."

If Mersini-Houghton is correct, long-held theories about the origin of the universe may need revising. But not everyone is buying her ideas.

"I'm not convinced," Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist and professor of physics at MIT, told The Huffington Post in an email. "It's great to see numerical calculations being done, but the results disagree with many published findings, and this might be because of incorrect assumptions.