Slashdot Mirror
More Blackholes Discovered...
Lispy writes "Space.com has this story about the surprising finding of missing blackholes. There might be up to five times more blackholes in space than previously estimated.
"The European Southern Observatory in Munich, Germany reports that the black holes were all in "active" galaxies, meaning they were actively consuming large quantities of galactic matter.""
How can someone be surprised by this find? What we know about the universe is virtually nothing in comparison to what is out there.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Actually, it's not such a ridiculous statement. I remember reading in a popular science book (can't remember if it was "Brief History of Time" or "In Search of the Big Bang") that some scientists are speculating about the existence of ultra-small black holes to 'solve' the problem of missing matter. Such "mini black holes" would not be a product of stars collapsing.
:-)
Unfortunately, I cannot remember more, just that Hawking himself considered it a possibility. He pondered about using them in place of power plants
With all due respect to sir Occam, the solution which appears to be the simplest is not always the simplest, simply because there is so much we don't know. Especially about black holes, missing matter, unified field theory and such fundamental questions.
:-)
I mean, a proton was such a lovely, simple thing, before they went ahead and turned it into a gazzilion complicated nonsensical sub-particles
Since the more usually accepted theory fails to account for certain phenomena (where is all that mass?), it is conceivable that a more complex theory is required instead.
Anyway, I'll go back to pretending I'm a software engineer now ;-)
Occam's Razor (...) Don't make things more difficult then they have to be. Black holes are the simplest explanation
With all due respect to the advantages that Occam's Razor has given to the advance of science, this was exactly the key factor that made the leading scientist of late XVIII century like Antoine Lavoisier to judge that stones cannot fall from the sky. In 1768, 1794 and 1795 there were substantial sightings of meteorite showers in France, Italy and England - yet according to the Occam's Razor, it was easier to explain them by assuming the witnesses just lie. Use Occam's Razor as any razor - with extreme caution.
Yes but we don't have any evidence or basis for believing their collapsed stars in the first place AFAIK. That's just a guess.
AFAIK we've never actually seen a star collapse and a black hole appear... that wouldn't even be proof but it certainly would be the least of what we'd need to see before claiming that IS how they are formed. Rather, it's just our best guess of what could create this thing we call black hole.
Again AFAIK, the closest thing to evidence we have of this are computer simulations which... assuming we haven't botched a variables and all other relevant GUESSES are correct shows that the collapse of a star COULD cause the formation of a black hole.
That means it's theoretically possible... not that it's an exclusive contract or even that it's likely enough to actually happen in reality. Lot's of things are theoretically possible.
For example, it's theoretically possible (and probably can be proven via a controled computer simulation designed for that purpose) a gust of wind could blow through a crack in your window. The gust could shift the air currents in such a way that it pins a paper on your desk against your monitor and rolls it up reasonably tightly. Then the wind shifts and pops the roll off your desk onto your chair standing upright on end. And then in the morning when still sleepy you sit down for your morning coffee without noticing and ream yourself.
So you see damn near anything is theoretically possible. And if it's theoretically possible it can be proven via computer simulation, we control the initial variables. We set the computer to try different initial gusts until one works. But more importantly, our world works the way it really works, but in the simulation physics work the way WE THINK they work. Potentially a very big difference there.