{"id":5242,"date":"2026-05-08T13:50:48","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T13:50:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/?p=5242"},"modified":"2026-05-08T13:50:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T13:50:52","slug":"la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/","title":{"rendered":"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cela fait plusieurs ann\u00e9es que mon coll\u00e8gue Jean-Pierre Petit<\/strong> et ses collaborateurs clament l\u2019inconsistance math\u00e9matique et physique\u00a0 des mod\u00e8les relativistes de trou noir, dans le but de promouvoir leur alternative dite des \u00ab plugstars \u00bb, qui selon eux serait soutenue par leur mod\u00e8le cosmologique Janus<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre heurt\u00e9 durant des ann\u00e9es \u00e0 un rejet de publication de la part des \u00ab referees \u00bb des grandes revues scientifiques, en peaufinant leur argumentaire ils ont fini par r\u00e9ussir \u00e0 publier r\u00e9cemment deux articles dans Journal of Modern Physics (2025), 16(10), 1479-1490 et (2026), 17(2), 199 -239. Bravo pour leur pers\u00e9v\u00e9rance ! Mais cela valide-t-il pour autour autant leur propos ? Certainement pas. Dans ce premier billet je me contenterai de montrer explicitement les failles principales de leur travail sur l\u2019incoh\u00e9rence math\u00e9matique de la th\u00e9orie des trous noirs. dans un second billet j’\u00e9tendrai ma critique aux fondements du “mod\u00e8le Janus” qui pr\u00e9tend reb\u00e2tir toute la cosmologie.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Je pr\u00e9cise d’embl\u00e9e que ce n\u2019est pas parce que j\u2019ai consacr\u00e9 quelques dizaines d\u2019ann\u00e9es de recherches aux trous noirs<\/strong>, objets aux propri\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e9tranges et fascinantes dont j\u2019ai r\u00e9alis\u00e9 d\u00e8s 1978 les premi\u00e8res visualisations exactes, valid\u00e9es 40 ans plus tard par les observations t\u00e9lescopiques de l\u2019Event Horizon Telescope (contest\u00e9es par JP Petit et al.) que je \u00ab crois ferme \u00bb \u00e0 leur existence dans l’univers r\u00e9el.\u00a0 \u00a0Mais ce ne sont certainement pas les arguments erron\u00e9s avanc\u00e9s par l\u2019\u00e9quipe de JPP qui me feront douter de leur pertinence, au minimum th\u00e9orique, sinon observationnelle.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Avant de critiquer en d\u00e9tail les deux articles susmentionn\u00e9s, je voudrais rappeler que l\u2019id\u00e9e de contester la validit\u00e9 math\u00e9matique de la solution de Schwarzschild n\u2019est pas nouvelle. Je m\u2019\u00e9tais d\u00e9j\u00e0 donn\u00e9 le mal de l\u2019expliquer il y a quelques ann\u00e9es, mais sans r\u00e9sultat. J\u2019y disais que la premi\u00e8re traduction en anglais de l\u2019article de Schwarzschild (originellement en allemand), publi\u00e9e en 1999 par S. Antoci et Loinger [arXiv:physics\/9905030], avait r\u00e9activ\u00e9 des doutes sur l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du calcul de Schwarzschild chez certains chercheurs instinctivement allergiques au concept de trou noir (d\u00e9fini correctement par un horizon des \u00e9v\u00e9nements, et non, comme beaucoup le croient \u00e0 tort, par une singularit\u00e9 gravitationnelle). En effet, Antoci et Loinger avaient cru bon d\u2019agr\u00e9menter leur traduction d\u2019un bref \u00ab foreword \u00bb affirmant p\u00e9remptoirement et sans d\u00e9monstration technique:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis fundamental memoir contains the ORIGINAL form of the solution of Schwarzschild\u2019s problem. It is regular in the whole space-time, with the only exception of the origin of the spatial co-ordinates; consequently, it leaves no room for the science fiction of the black holes. (In the centuries of the decline of the Roman Empire people said: \u201cGraecum est, non legitur\u201d…).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Or, contrairement \u00e0 ce qu\u2019avancent JPP et ses coll\u00e8gues, ce n\u2019est pas parce que les articles de Schwarzschild n\u2019\u00e9taient pas traduits en anglais qu\u2019ils \u00e9taient ignor\u00e9s de la communaut\u00e9 des th\u00e9oriciens, lesquels se seraient content\u00e9s de r\u00e9p\u00e9ter depuis un si\u00e8cle une \u00ab erreur \u00bb de Hilbert sans v\u00e9rifier \u00e0 la source. Avant cette traduction de 1999, plusieurs chercheurs avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 glos\u00e9 fallacieusement sur cette pr\u00e9tendue \u00ab erreur \u00bb de Hilbert qui, selon eux, aurait invalid\u00e9 l\u2019extension analytique maximale de Kruskal et Fronsdal et le concept de trou noir. Voir par exemple L. Abrams (Can. J. Phys.<\/em> 67 (1989) 919 – arXiv :gr-qc\/0102055 ). Jean-Pierre Petit et al. reprennent la m\u00eame argumentation dans le but essentiel d\u2019\u00e9carter la possibilit\u00e9 de formation d\u2019un horizon des \u00e9v\u00e9nements et de promouvoir leur mod\u00e8le alternatif de “plugstar”. \u00a0Or, concernant du moins les interpr\u00e9tations de la solution de Schwarszchild, Hilbert, etc., le d\u00e9bat faussement ouvert par Antoci et Loinger a \u00e9t\u00e9 clos rapidement:<\/p>\n

(a) En 2011, C. Corda publie \u201cA clarification on the debate on ‘the original Schwarzschild solution’<\/strong>\u201d [Arxiv 1010.6031<\/a> [gr-qc] Electron.J.Theor.Phys.<\/em> 8 (2011) 25, 65-82], dont voici l\u2019abstract\u00a0:<\/p>\n

\u201cNow that English translations of Schwarzschild’s original paper exist, that paper has become accessible to more people. Historically, the so-called ‘standard Schwarzschild solution’ was not the original Schwarzschild’s work, but it is actually due to J. Droste and, independently, H. Weyl, while it has been ultimately enabled like correct solution by D. Hilbert. Based on this, there are authors who claim that the work of Hilbert was wrong and that Hilbert’s mistake spawned black-holes and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. In this paper we re-analyse ‘the original Schwarzschild solution’ and we show that it is totally equivalent to the solution enabled by Hilbert. Thus, the authors who claim that ‘the original Schwarzschild solution’ implies the non existence of black holes give the wrong answer. We realize that the misunderstanding is due to an erroneous interpretation of the different coordinates. In fact, arches of circumference appear to follow the law dl = rd{\\phi}, if the origin of the coordinate system is a non-dimensional material point in the core of the black-hole, while they do not appear to follow such a law, but to be deformed by the presence of the mass of the central body M if the origin of the coordinate system is the surface of the Schwarzschild sphere.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

(b) En 2013, P. Fromholz, E. Poisson et C. Will publient \u00ab\u00a0The Schwarzschild metric: It\u2019s the coordinates, stupid!<\/strong>\u201d [arXiv:1308.0394 – American Journal of Physics<\/em> 82, 295 (2014)]<\/p>\n

\u00a0dont j\u2019extrais ces quelques lignes:<\/p>\n

\u201cBut Schwarzschild went on to address the integration constant b. He demanded that the metric be regular everywhere except at the location of the mass-point, which he assigned to be at <\/em>\u03c1<\/em> = 0, where the metric should be singular. This fixed b = (2M)3<\/sup>. This choice resulted in considerable confusion about the nature of the \u201cSchwarzschild singularity\u201d, which was not cleared up fully until the 1960s. Because we now are attuned to the complete arbitrariness of coordinates, we understand that <\/em>\u03c1<\/em> = 0, or rS<\/sub> = 2M is not the origin, but is the location of the event horizon, while <\/em>\u03c1<\/em> = \u22122M, or rS<\/sub> = 0 is the location of the true physical singularity inside the black hole. <\/em>The unusual radial coordinate x was forced on Schwarzschild by Einstein\u2019s constraint g = \u22121, nevertheless it led to a quite simple derivation of the exact solution.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Dans une autre section, Fromholz et al. rappellent \u00e0 juste titre que les \u00e9quations d\u2019Einstein peuvent \u00eatre reformul\u00e9es de diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res, par exemple dans le formalisme de Landau et Lifshitz ou encore celui d\u2019Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM). Dans tous les cas, la solution pour la m\u00e9trique sph\u00e9rique statique est strictement \u00e9quivalente \u00e0 la solution \u00ab\u00a0standard\u00a0\u00bb de Schwarzschild, telle qu\u2019elle est reformul\u00e9e dans les monographies classiques<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Comme cela ne semble pas avoir convaincu JPP et al., je reviens sur la question et j\u2019\u00e9tends ma critique \u00e0 leur interpr\u00e9tation alternative des images de M87* et SgrA* obtenues par l\u2019Event Horizon Telescope.<\/p>\n

Pour les lecteurs motiv\u00e9s, je passe maintenant exclusivement \u00e0 la langue anglaise.<\/p>\n

********** <\/strong><\/p>\n

Critical analysis of the article \u201cQuestionable Black Holes\u201d <\/strong>by JP Petit and G. d\u2019Agostini<\/strong><\/p>\n

General outline<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s central pattern is this: it takes legitimate historical or mathematical facts \u2014 Schwarzschild used different coordinates, Hilbert influenced later notation, Eddington\u2013Finkelstein coordinates contain cross terms, the interior Schwarzschild solution has a pressure singularity for an ideal incompressible fluid \u2014 and then converts them into much stronger physical claims that are not justified. The biggest flaws are category errors: confusing coordinate choices with physical topology, coordinate singularities with true boundaries, metric sign conventions with imaginary time, mathematical extensions with physical interiors, and image brightness\/temperature maps with gravitational redshift measurements.<\/p>\n

The paper itself states its thesis clearly: standard black holes allegedly arise from Hilbert\u2019s \u201cwrong\u201d interpretation of Schwarzschild, from an imposed contractible topology, from Birkhoff\u2019s theorem excluding cross terms, and from a choice of Lagrangian; it then proposes \u201cplugstars\u201d with mass inversion and redshift ratio 3 as alternatives to M87* and Sgr A* . That chain has several weak links that I develop below.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Coordinate choices do not change the physics!<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The paper argues that the \u201cso-called Schwarzschild solution\u201d is not Schwarzschild\u2019s original solution and that Hilbert\u2019s coordinate choice led people to wrongly treat r<\/em> as a radial variable. There is a real historical distinction here: Schwarzschild\u2019s original radial coordinate differs from the later areal-radius coordinate. But the JPP\u2019s paper overstates the consequence. In standard general relativity, changing coordinates does not change the spacetime geometry. The modern Schwarzschild coordinate r<\/em> is not \u201cordinary Euclidean radius\u201d; it is the areal radius<\/em>, defined so that spheres have area 4\u03c0r2<\/sup>. That is a perfectly geometric definition. Calling it \u201cnot the original Schwarzschild coordinate\u201d does not invalidate the modern Schwarzschild solution!<\/p>\n

    So the flaw is that the paper turns a coordinate-history point into a physical objection to black holes, without showing an invariant geometric contradiction. A serious critique would need curvature invariants, causal structure, geodesic completeness, trapped surfaces, or horizon properties \u2014 not merely the fact that another coordinate system exists.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Schwarzschild horizon is NOT a physical boundary!<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The paper repeatedly suggests that the Schwarzschild sphere should be treated as a boundary or throat rather than as a horizon in an extended spacetime. It claims the original Schwarzschild geometry is \u201cnon-contractile\u201d and has a boundary at the Schwarzschild sphere.<\/p>\n

      But the event horizon at r=2M is not a curvature singularity. Curvature scalars remain perfectly finite there. The \u201csingularity\u201d at r=2M in Schwarzschild coordinates is a coordinate singularity<\/em>, removable by Eddington\u2013Finkelstein, Kruskal\u2013Szekeres, Painlev\u00e9\u2013Gullstrand, or other coordinates.<\/p>\n

      So the flaw is that the paper treats a coordinate-limited chart as evidence that spacetime itself must end or change topology at r=2M. But that does not follow : a coordinate patch can fail without the manifold ending.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The criticism of Birkhoff\u2019s theorem is misleading<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The paper says Birkhoff\u2019s theorem \u201cimmediately prohibits the presence of a cross term in drdt<\/em>\u201d and ties this to an allegedly unjustified uniqueness assumption.<\/p>\n

        This is not right. Cross terms can appear in perfectly valid coordinate systems for the same Schwarzschild spacetime. Eddington\u2013Finkelstein coordinates, Painlev\u00e9\u2013Gullstrand coordinates, and other forms include dtdr<\/em> -type terms. That does not mean Birkhoff\u2019s theorem is false, nor does it create a new physical solution.<\/p>\n

        Birkhoff\u2019s theorem says that any spherically symmetric vacuum solution is locally isometric to Schwarzschild. It does not say every coordinate representation must be diagonal! A cross term may be a coordinate artifact, not new physics.<\/p>\n

        So the flaw is that the paper confuses \u201ca metric has a cross term in this coordinate system\u201d with \u201cBirkhoff uniqueness fails\u201d or \u201cthere is a physically distinct spacetime.\u201d<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The Lagrangian argument is confused<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The paper argues that the modern use of a quadratic geodesic Lagrangian changes the topology and permits geodesics \u201cinside\u201d the Schwarzschild sphere, whereas Schwarzschild\u2019s original length functional supposedly forbids such curves.<\/p>\n

          This is a serious problem. In Lorentzian geometry, geodesics are not generally \u201cshortest paths\u201d in the Riemannian sense. Timelike geodesics extremize proper time; null geodesics have zero interval; spacelike, timelike, and null curves behave differently. Using the quadratic Lagrangian L=g\u03bc\u03bd<\/sub> x’\u03bc<\/sub> x’\u03bd<\/sub> is standard and gives the same affinely parametrized geodesic equations as the square-root action where applicable. It does not by itself determine global topology.<\/p>\n

          So the flaw is that the paper wrongly claims that the choice between ds<\/em> and ds<\/em>2<\/sup> as a variational object determines whether the black-hole interior is physically allowed.<\/p>\n

          Topology is not chosen by the geodesic Lagrangian. It is part of the manifold structure and global extension, constrained by field equations, causal structure, and physical boundary conditions.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. It conflates metric signature, imaginary time, and physical time reversal<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The paper suggests that Hilbert\u2019s approach preserved a \u201cpurely imaginary time\u201d legacy and that modern black-hole theory inherits this problem . This is historically and technically weak.<\/p>\n

            Modern general relativity does not require physical time to be imaginary. The use of different metric signatures, such as (+\u2013 \u2013 \u2013) or (\u2013 +++), is convention. Wick rotation or imaginary time appears in some mathematical and quantum-field contexts, but standard Lorentzian black-hole geometry uses real time coordinates.<\/p>\n

            So the flaw is that the paper treats sign convention and historical notation as if they implied a physical error in black-hole theory. That is not a valid inference.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. The \u201ctime factor becomes negative, therefore mass becomes negative\u201d claim is unsupported<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              This is probably the most speculative part. The paper argues that beyond \u201cphysical criticality,\u201d a time factor f<\/em> becomes negative; then dt<\/em> becomes negative; then time reverses; then energy and mass reverse; then matter transfers to a PT-symmetric sheet.<\/p>\n

              However this chain is not at all established. A negative metric coefficient does not automatically mean that physical time reverses. In Schwarzschild coordinates inside the horizon, the roles of t<\/em> and r<\/em> change character, but that is not equivalent to matter acquiring negative mass. Similarly, PT symmetry in quantum or field-theoretic contexts does not imply gravitational mass inversion merely because a coordinate changes sign.<\/p>\n

              So the flaw is that the paper jumps from a sign change in a metric component to negative mass and another universe without deriving this from Einstein\u2019s equations plus a physically defined stress-energy tensor.<\/p>\n

              To make this credible, it would need a full dynamical solution with energy conditions, matching conditions, conservation laws, stability analysis, and observable predictions. The paper does not provide that.<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. The use of Schwarzschild\u2019s interior solution is physically inappropriate for neutron stars<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                The paper leans heavily on the interior Schwarzschild solution for an incompressible fluid and its pressure divergence. It then interprets that divergence as evidence for variable light speed, topological surgery, or mass inversion.<\/p>\n

                But the interior Schwarzschild solution assumes constant density and an idealized perfect fluid. Real neutron stars do not have constant density. They require an equation of state, relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium through the Tolman\u2013Oppenheimer\u2013Volkoff equation, nuclear physics, causality constraints, rotation, magnetic fields, and possibly phase transitions.<\/p>\n

                So the flaw is that the paper treats a known idealized-model pathology as a message about new topology or variable speed of light c<\/em>, rather than as a sign that the incompressible-fluid model has exceeded its physical domain. The pressure singularity in the constant-density model is not evidence that mass inversion occurs!<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. The proposed neutron-star mass limit is asserted, not derived<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  The paper claims the plugstar mechanism would limit neutron-star masses to \u201cjust over 2.5 solar masses\u201d. But it does not provide a proper stellar-structure calculation.<\/p>\n

                  A credible mass-limit claim would require solving the TOV equations with a specified equation of state, stability conditions, perturbation analysis, and comparison with observed neutron-star masses and merger constraints.<\/p>\n

                  So the flaw is that the 2.5-solar-mass limit appears here as a qualitative consequence of the proposed mechanism, not as a rigorously derived astrophysical bound. This is especially problematic because observed compact-object mass limits are strongly equation-of-state dependent.<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. The EHT redshift argument is not valid<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    The paper claims that the chromaticity bar in EHT images of M87* and Sgr A* gives a wavelength ratio close to 3, and that this supports plugstars because black holes would produce infinite gravitational redshift .<\/p>\n

                    This is a major observational flaw<\/strong>. EHT images are reconstructed radio-intensity maps, not direct surface-temperature photographs. The color scale is a visualization of brightness\/intensity or model-dependent emission, not a direct gravitational-redshift ruler. Also, black-hole observations do not require radiation to be emitted from the event horizon itself. The observed radiation comes mainly from hot plasma outside the horizon, in an accretion flow, jet base, or photon-ring region.<\/p>\n

                    So the flaw is that the paper compares a plugstar surface-redshift prediction to an EHT image color scale as though the latter directly measured gravitational redshift. That is not how EHT data work.<\/p>\n

                    Also, saying black holes predict \u201cinfinite redshift\u201d is misleading in this context. Infinite redshift applies to light emitted exactly from the horizon by a static emitter, but realistic observed emission comes from outside the horizon.<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. The paper ignores stronger black-hole evidence<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      The paper focuses on M87* and Sgr A* images, but black-hole evidence is broader: stellar orbits around Sgr A*, compactness bounds, X-ray binaries, gravitational-wave ringdowns, accretion-disk spectra, relativistic jets, tidal disruption events, and binary black-hole mergers.<\/p>\n

                      The paper\u2019s alternative model would need to explain all of these at least as well as the standard model. Instead, it mostly targets selected features and gives qualitative reinterpretations.<\/p>\n

                      So the flaw is that the paper attacks a simplified version of black-hole evidence rather than the full observational case.<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. The Hoag\u2019s Object \/ quasar section is highly speculative and disconnected<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        The later section jumps from plugstars to Seyfert galaxies, Hoag\u2019s Object, Hubble constant anomalies, density waves, quasars, cosmic rays, M87 jet structure, and metric fluctuations. These claims are not developed from the earlier equations in a controlled way. The paper expands into large cosmological and astrophysical speculation without deriving testable quantitative predictions. This weakens the paper because it mixes a (wrong) mathematical critique of Schwarzschild geometry with broad conjectures about quasars and galaxy evolution.<\/p>\n

                        Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                        The JPP et al<\/em> paper\u2019s central weakness is that it repeatedly promotes coordinate, notation, and model-dependent features into physical claims. It treats Schwarzschild coordinate choices as physical topology, cross terms as violations of Birkhoff uniqueness theorem, a quadratic geodesic Lagrangian as a topology-changing assumption, an ideal-fluid pressure divergence as evidence for variable light speed or topological surgery, and EHT image color scales as direct redshift measurements. The proposed plugstar mechanism therefore rests on several unsupported transitions rather than on a complete solution of Einstein\u2019s equations with a physically defined stress-energy tensor and observationally testable predictions.<\/p>\n

                         <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                        Cela fait plusieurs ann\u00e9es que mon coll\u00e8gue Jean-Pierre Petit et ses collaborateurs clament l\u2019inconsistance math\u00e9matique et physique\u00a0 des mod\u00e8les relativistes de trou noir, dans le but de promouvoir leur alternative dite des \u00ab plugstars \u00bb, qui selon eux serait soutenue par leur mod\u00e8le cosmologique Janus. Apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre heurt\u00e9 durant des ann\u00e9es \u00e0 un rejet de … Continuer la lecture de La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5244,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[58,27,4],"tags":[790,789,791,262],"class_list":["post-5242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-astronomie","category-mes-publications","category-sciences","tag-jean-pierre-petit","tag-modele-janus","tag-plugstar","tag-trous-noirs"],"yoast_head":"\nLa pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Cela fait plusieurs ann\u00e9es que mon coll\u00e8gue Jean-Pierre Petit et ses collaborateurs clament l\u2019inconsistance math\u00e9matique et physique\u00a0 des mod\u00e8les relativistes de trou noir, dans le but de promouvoir leur alternative dite des \u00ab plugstars \u00bb, qui selon eux serait soutenue par leur mod\u00e8le cosmologique Janus. Apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre heurt\u00e9 durant des ann\u00e9es \u00e0 un rejet de … Continuer la lecture de La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question? →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LUMINESCIENCES : le blog de Jean-Pierre LUMINET, astrophysicien\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-08T13:50:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-08T13:50:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1536\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"866\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jean-Pierre LUMINET\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jean-Pierre LUMINET\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/\",\"name\":\"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-08T13:50:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-08T13:50:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/d61f577b54398f0ecee81e140e7643cb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":866},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/\",\"name\":\"LUMINESCIENCES : le blog de Jean-Pierre LUMINET, astrophysicien\",\"description\":\"J\u2019eus le vertige et je pleurai car mes yeux avaient vu cet objet secret et conjectural dont les hommes usurpent le nom, mais qu\u2019aucun homme n\u2019a regard\u00e9 : l\u2019inconcevable univers. Jorge Luis Borges, L\u2019Aleph (1949)\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/d61f577b54398f0ecee81e140e7643cb\",\"name\":\"Jean-Pierre LUMINET\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a6d27645b8081b2f766677414e6a83e1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a6d27645b8081b2f766677414e6a83e1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jean-Pierre LUMINET\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/author\/jpluminet\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet","og_description":"Cela fait plusieurs ann\u00e9es que mon coll\u00e8gue Jean-Pierre Petit et ses collaborateurs clament l\u2019inconsistance math\u00e9matique et physique\u00a0 des mod\u00e8les relativistes de trou noir, dans le but de promouvoir leur alternative dite des \u00ab plugstars \u00bb, qui selon eux serait soutenue par leur mod\u00e8le cosmologique Janus. Apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre heurt\u00e9 durant des ann\u00e9es \u00e0 un rejet de … Continuer la lecture de La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question? →","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/","og_site_name":"LUMINESCIENCES : le blog de Jean-Pierre LUMINET, astrophysicien","article_published_time":"2026-05-08T13:50:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-08T13:50:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1536,"height":866,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Jean-Pierre LUMINET","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Jean-Pierre LUMINET","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/","name":"La pertinence physique et math\u00e9matique des trous noirs est-elle en question?, par Jean-Pierre Luminet","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png","datePublished":"2026-05-08T13:50:48+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-08T13:50:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/d61f577b54398f0ecee81e140e7643cb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/2026\/05\/08\/la-pertinence-physique-et-mathematique-des-trous-noirs-est-elle-en-question\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/05\/Capture-decran-2026-05-08-a-15.32.59.png","width":1536,"height":866},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/","name":"LUMINESCIENCES : le blog de Jean-Pierre LUMINET, astrophysicien","description":"J\u2019eus le vertige et je pleurai car mes yeux avaient vu cet objet secret et conjectural dont les hommes usurpent le nom, mais qu\u2019aucun homme n\u2019a regard\u00e9 : l\u2019inconcevable univers. Jorge Luis Borges, L\u2019Aleph (1949)","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/d61f577b54398f0ecee81e140e7643cb","name":"Jean-Pierre LUMINET","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a6d27645b8081b2f766677414e6a83e1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a6d27645b8081b2f766677414e6a83e1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jean-Pierre LUMINET"},"url":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/author\/jpluminet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5242"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5252,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions\/5252"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.futura-sciences.com\/luminet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}