Slashdot Mirror
Doubting the Existence of Black Holes
The Good Reverend writes: "It seems that there's a growing movement that doubts the existence of black holes, going against most of the rest of astrophysics. They suggest the existence of gravastars, "star-size agglomerations of "wavelike" substance" (space-time fabric, if you will). Different scientists claim to have created the "wavelike substance" in a lab, called Bose-Einstein condensates." I understand gravastars taste terrific with cream cheese and red onion.
"Claim" is hardly the correct word, since it is not disputed (to my knowledge). Last years Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to the first experimenters who created this sixth (depending on how you count) state of matter. The existence of Bose-Einstein condensate is not in itself any challenge to black holes.
The article states: Calculations show that a black hole would contain astoundingly more "entropy" than the matter that fell into it
If the article was less sensationalist, they would have mentioned that there are also calculations based on Hawking radiation that show the entropy of a black hole to work out perfectly. Some say the entropy is wrong, others don't. Also, referring to singularities as "paradoxes" seems strange. One would rather not deal with them, of course, but paradoxial? Nah. Since they are always hidden and cannot be reached in finite time, the philosophical question is whether they even can be said to exist in the same way as other things exist.
The article also does not increase in credibility, when it refers to the uncertainty principle as "eerie" and to black holes as "spooky" and "scary".
What about gravastars then, are they for real? Dunno... Most theories are at the fringe for a good reason, though.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
First Corollary to Skirwan's First Law of Creationism: Skirwan's First Law of Creationism provides direct support for creationism.
Second Corollary to Skirwan's First Law of Creationism: Evidence designed to contradict Skirwan's First Law of Creationism does not exist. The nonexistence of such evidence provides direct support for creationism.
In related news:
--
Damn the Emperor!
My first opinion of this hypothesis is that it is a big stretch. First, a little background.
A very massive star has a very massive gravitational field. Through its lifespan the star does not collapse under its own weight due to the ongoing fusion reaction which powers all stars. When the nuclear fuel finally runs out, the star begins to collapse inward. (For those of an astronomical bent, yes I am skipping over some details as to the various stages of fusion that grant temporary repreives to the collapse).
As a star collapses, the atoms that make up the star are packed more and more tightly together. If the star is massive enough, the electrons and protons are finally merged together to form neutrons. The neutrons then pack together more and more tightly until the repulsive force between the neutrons prevents further collapse (for stars not quite massive enough to become black holes) or the neutrons themselves crush in upon each other into even more degenerate states of matter. As far as we know, once you pass this point there is NO OTHER REPULSIVE FORCE available to keep the collapse in check. The star collapses all the way down to a single mathmatical point.
The second bit of background we need is an explanation of Bose-Einstein Condensates. First, you need to know that all particles can be described as waves. In the macroscopic world in which we live our daily lives, the waves are such tiny little packets that we don't perceive them as anything more than particles. However, on the microscopic level, particles begin to really demonstrate just how wave-like they can be. When a group of atoms is collectively cooled down to very close to absolute zero, the behavior of the individual atoms become linked together and they begin to act a single atom. (The wave functions describing the individual particles merge). It is a funky-cool state of matter that is regularly used now in a range of physics experiments.
The hypothesis in the article on black holes is that spacetime itself can undergo a "phase change" not unlike the way that matter can go from solid to liquid to gas -- or even (in labs) to a Bose-Einstein condensate.
The important thing to note here is that
(a) no one has ever seen a phase change in the fabric of spacetime (I'm not sure the concept even makes sense, personally).
(b) The authors are NOT saying that the black hole's stellar material BECOMES a Bose-Einstein condensate -- they are saying the the fabric of spacetime itself becomes the "spacetime-equivalent" of a Bose-Einstein condensate (whatever that would be!).
My feeling is that while it *could* be the case, basically they are trying to dream up a totally hypothetical new phenomenon (phase changes for spacetime) to find some way to get rid of black holes in physical theory. I don't see that the new phenomenon has any grounding in theory or observation -- it's strictly hypothesized for the end result -- and is therefore very unlikely to be true.
Now, that's NOT to say it CAN'T be true. However, I expect their may be dozens to hundreds of other such hypothetical creations designed to counter the infinite collapse that supposedly occurs in black holes -- the concept of a black hole is "offensive" in physics because you end up with a big "divide by zero" error in the universe. We do, however, have good evidence for the existence of black holes, so no matter how much physicists hate what they do to the math, we may have to simply accept them.
Life is short: void the warranty.
A black hole is a term for a mass that is compact enough that it lies within an event horizon. Heuristically speaking, light cannot escape because the escape velocity from the object is faster than the speed of light, so it appears dark.
In General Relativity, given a sufficiently large mass (say, a 10 solar mass star), there is no source of rigidity strong enough to withstand gravitational collapse, so black holes will eventually form.
Big stars exist, so avoiding black holes requires either a new theory of space time (or gravitation), or a new type of matter.
These guys have opted for a new type of matter,_analogous_ to a Bose-Einstein condensate. The existance of Bose-Einstein condensates in the lab for regular matter (routine, now), says nothing about whether this exotic matter exists out there.
This is still pretty wide open from a theory vs experiment sense. Most claims for black holes are really observations of dense collections of matter. Some would be black holes for sure in General Relativity, but this is no proof.
The best source of proof for black holes will probably come from detection of Gravitational waves from their formation, which should come in the next few years from experiments such as LIGO or LISA .
I have often wondered (but never had the time, inclination or intelligence to go find out :)) how a quantum view of gravity would affect theories on black holes and the birth of the universe. Basically my question is: If gravitational attraction is carried by a particle (the graviton) as is conjectured by many scientists, then how can one of these escape from a black hole any more than another particle?
The latest theory of quantum gravity under discussion is the 11 dimensional m-theory, which models the universe as a four dimensional spacetime embedded in 10 space and 1 time dimensions. In this theory, gravity, and therefore gravitons, are the interaction between two closely seperated membranes, one of which is our universe. gravitons propagate in all 11 dimensions of the theory, and can therefore propagate out of the 4-d black holes 3-d event horizon by taking a trip through the higher dimensions.
It's not that Einstein was wrong, as his field equations still produce the correct results for large scale gravity in m theory, but just that he didn't go far enough towards a quantum theory of gravity, for which the mathematical tools just weren't available.
I'm not talking about string theories which deal with 10d line objects, of which there are 5, but the parent theory of all 5 string theories and supersymmetry, that deals with membranes in 11-d.
So far no one has produced any strong objections to m-theory, and m-theory has been used to produce a model (the Ekopyrotic model) for the instant of the big bang. The ramifications of this model are currently being worked out, by amoung others, Martin Rees, Steven Hawking and Neil Turok (in Cambridge alone). The current work is to calculate the effect the Ekopyrotic model has on nucleosynthesis, baryon fraction and primordial CMB imprints and structure formation in the early universe. With the advent of CMB anisotropy experiments such as the VSA, CBI, DASI, Planck and MAP, these predictions will be tested in the next decade or so.
M-Theory also has possible implications for results in within the reach of the LHC accelerator at CERN, which should start producing results of searches for supersymmetric particles about a decade from now.
QCD does have problems with renormalisation, and perturbation techniques at low energies, but these vanish as the energy of the particles increases.
I won't comment on you theory above until you have a working mathematical model for the theory.