Monday, April 15

Black holes just won’t reveal their secrets.


Following on from my last post I decided to again revisit the material but under a different heading. That is to encapsulate the previous fruitful discussions kindly provided by Tom and expand upon the topic.    
 
The recent sighting of a black hole, some 50 billion light years from the earth, brought back memories of first reading the late Stephen Hawking’s ‘A Brief History of Time ’.  For Hawking, together with Roger Penrose, were the pioneers in proving the existence of black holes beyond doubt, by observations of the surrounding activity which validated what Einstein had first reluctantly concluded, as a corollary to his general theory of relativity. 
 
At the time when I first read his best seller, I couldn’t understand many of the concepts, but on a second and third attempt some of it began to sink in as inevitably things do if you give the subject sufficient patient thought and/or research. Once I got the hang of his first publication I read the remaining books and hence have entertained an interest in our marvellous cosmos ever since. So that Hubbard’s pictures stretching back into the early universe we’re a fascination to me, just as were the pictures beamed back from Voyager.  But what a thrill it would have been for Hawking, if he was alive today, to see these remarkable images of a black hole!
 
Amongst other things, what Hawking was able to do was to explain in graphic detail, just how dramatically Einstein’s general theory of relativity disproved the previous notion that the universe operated like a giant clockwise movement, more or less principally a product of Newtonian science. Rather, Einstein talked about curved Space -Time, an amalgam of 3 dimensions of space and time combined to make up a continuum. 
 
The inevitable result is the formulation of singularities, the consequence of stars, over immense periods of time, becoming unimaginably heavier and dense, to emerge as white and brown dwarfs, to the heavier Neutron Stars. A Neutron star about 20 km in diameter would have the mass of about 1.4 times our Sun. This means that a neutron star is so dense that on Earth, one teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons!
 
Given sufficient initial stellar material, stars will eventually shrink to where their size is zero and their density is infinite, when you have a so called singularity. 
 
At the heart of every black hole is a singularity where it is believed nothing can escape. That is what we see today with the event horizon as matter is drawn inward into the invisible centre. Einstein reluctantly concluded that nothing can escape from a black hole where the laws of science break down. 
 
Big Bang theory. 
This is accepted in cosmology despite the fact that it does not provide an authoritative answer, but remains a hypothesis, as to the origin of the universe. In a nutshell its logic flows from observations the universe has always been expanding, so that it must have arisen from a corresponding explosive finite beginning. We have the evidence in the left over cosmic radiation effects today in the form of cosmic microwaves. The clear inference for those who followed Einstein was the Universe had a definite beginning.  This idea was first put forward by George Lemaitre in 1927, who called it ‘the hypothesis of the primeval atom’. As a catholic priest the idea of a definite beginning ideally allowed him to link science to theological implications. But interestingly enough Einstein saw this idea as an anathema to his general theory of relativity and his idea of a continuum. But the idea of Lemaitre grew in favour so that its name (big bang) was coined from a radio broadcast in 1949 when Hubble made reference to Lemaitre’s ideas and called it the BBT, so the name has remained ever since. 
For Einstein was uneasy concerning the conclusions that arose from his work and invested the idea of a cosmological constant which has turned out to be almost correct but for the wrong reason. The discovery of the ubiquitous dark matter gravity waves made up the difference in lieu of his cosmological constant.
Conclusion
We have made tremendous strides in technology and engineering feats that has underpinned space exploration since those heady days. But in terms of Einstein’s contribution very little is new or was not previously predicted by him. The mystery remains.   
 

5 comments:

Tom said...

Last evening I watched a programme on 'The Box' called, "The Seven Ages of Starlight" - I think. Anyway, regardless of the possibility that I have the title incorrect, the programme told the story of the birth, life and death of stars. At one point, the commentator was talking about black holes and their infinite density. "Do we have any other example of this?" he said. "Yes! The Big Bang." Somehow I suspect there is a circular argument being played out here.

What did occur to me was that if the density of a black hole truly is infinite, then we do not exist because we have already been crushed inside a black hole. Indeed, the whole universe may have disappeared even before you wrote your post. Why?

Gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the mass under consideration, in this case a black hole. But any fraction of infinity is itself infinite. Therefore no matter how far away the Earth is from the black hole at the centre of our galaxy [let alone any others] we are in an infinite gravity field. That we cannot survive. So if you, my friend, couldn't have written this post, who did? It is said that the laws of physics break down inside a black hole. Why do they? All that is required is that black holes are dense enough to prevent light photons escaping, and that condition exists. [If memory serves, Hawking was uncertain as to whether nothing could escape, and Einstein had his doubts about certain conclusions being drawn about, black holes.]

If God doesn't play dice with the universe, why do we by claiming that the universal laws of physics break down......when it suits us? These and many more questions I ask. [Answers in a book of encyclopaedic proportions, please. But please, no Zeno paradoxes!]

Lindsay Byrnes said...

Hi Tom,
The answer is we do not exist in this world as such, but rather experience the universe of which we are privy during this temporary period of life long existence.
I am not saying what we see or experience is illusory but rather that we experience is real enough, but that our life experiences are an amalgam of varying states of existence, of which we are aware, only to the extent that is necessary for our existence. This of course involves the idea of parallel universes and states. For if we regard reality as knowledge, then the answer to such conundrums is we are not privy to such information.
We are given an inkling of how we might understand this with quantum mechanics, that the seemingly intractable mystery as to how activities can occur simultaneously and be known before they even occur might be we simply do not have the information that sheds light on the matter. After all what we are dealing with makes up you and me, at the more basic level, so why would we not make some comparisons to our existence? In quantum mechanics, we might posit that those anomalies are resolved in other universes and states of existence outside of the one we temporarily experience.
So that this life journey, is like the Seeing Eye conveyed of our experience. An excursion from our eternal home.
The soulful part of being remains our eternal home from another world where our feet are on firmer ground. Like migratory birds that inextricably are able to return to the exact spot of the first nesting, so that reality remains. This then is the experience that shapes our future role in creation, for how could it be otherwise that we must experience that which is already created by its creator
For indeed, how could we survive the intense radiation of the death of a star or the infinite density of a singularity.
Best wishes

Halle said...

Lindsay, you have certainly conveyed the frustration of those of us who dabble in the real world of quantum entanglement and probability waves functions. We just want to understand God, that's all; why is it so difficult??

Sometimes a hint of clarity comes my way, but then everything shimmers back into solidity and I once more forget what I knew before I was created.

Halle said...

This discussion has prompted me to set down my thoughts on the subject:

https://onanotherhand.blogspot.com/2019/04/harder-than-rocket-science_15.html

Lindsay Byrnes said...

Thanks Halle
I have commented on the blog entry.
Best wishes