What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?

Seed Magazine ^ | 7/21/06 | Richard Morgan

[LibWhacker]

There are numerous embedded links in this article that I haven't bothered with here. So you might want to go directly to the source.

Sorry... The heat's making me lazy! ;-)

[sourcery]

"This is starting to bug a lot of people," said Geoff Marcy, an astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley. "You can end up with a patchwork that's so ad hoc, with so many after-the-fact add-ons and addenda and caveats, that you might as well throw the whole thing out."

Chapline and Laughlin face an uphill battle among the many theoretical physicists who have already devised their own fixes for the quantum violations of black holes either via string theory or a concept called "black hole evaporation," wherein two particles fluctuate at the event horizon of a black hole so that one is sucked in while the other is shot out, making it seem as though the black hole is emitting the particle, or "evaporating."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What we have here is a pissing contest to determine whose "epicycles" are the least elegant.

[garyhope]

But enough already about "Star" Jones,..........

[Steely Tom]

"In science, you decide whose theory is right (or wrong) by means of an experiment," he said, "not by polling experts."

You should let Al Gore in on this, Prof.

[Billthedrill]

I dunno - they're going to have to come up with an alternate explanation for the fact that Algore's head bends light...

[Bommer]

What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?

There would be no gays?

[YOUGOTIT]

Since they cannot use what they see to adequately forecast the universe they come up with dark matter first and that did not provide enough mass to forecast what was happening so they have come up with dark energy that they say makes up from 75% to 80% of the matter or mass of the universe. The question I asked is how they know there is dark matter and dark energy if one has never been able to see or capture any of it? Or is there some other force that is driving the universe? Or are we a microscopic point on the head of a pin and do not know the difference?

[Zuben Elgenubi]

This guy Chapline doesn't believe black holes suck. On second thought, maybe he does.

[Tench_Coxe]

"What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?"

A lot of Union folks would be out of work, due to a lack of construction projects such as the 'Big Dig'.

[pleikumud]

Black holes are thought to be at the center of every galaxy. Maybe they lead to other dimensions (dimensions unlike our 3 spatial plus time). Maybe they lead to other "universes" where the laws of physics are different.

Maybe that's where Democrats' brains come from.

[gotribe]

Then we'd have to invent them.

[mjp]

"In science, you decide whose theory is right (or wrong) by means of an experiment," he said, "not by polling experts."

Except for darwinism

[coconutt2000]

I think black holes do exist.

The nature of the universe without black holes becomes extremely exotic... to the point where just looking through a telescope at local objects might require a reevaluation of the world.

Then again, pointing the telescope up toward the stars might yield a different picture entirely.

[mikrofon]

we didn't need to go to the Moon to know that it wasn't made of cheese

Since when ??!

[LibWhacker]

The question I asked is how they know there is dark matter and dark energy if one has never been able to see or capture any of it?

Well, that's just it; they KNOW it's there because they can measure its influence on the universe's expansion rate. However, they can't see it. Therefore, it must be "dark."

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for posting the article.

"In science, you decide whose theory is right (or wrong) by means of an experiment," he said, "not by polling experts."

One shouldn't determine the validity of a theory by taking a vote - but people keep trying! Michael Crichton has argued that consensus is a virtue of politics rather than science, and I think that is a telling point.

Unfortunately for theoretical physicists, experimenting on the nature of the universe is not an easy undertaking. Revisionism of one sort or another is constantly occurring, due to the field's heavier-than-normal reliance on theories based on observation, extrapolation and imagination.

"Practically speaking, much of our subject matter is inaccessible to direct experimentation," .... But indirection, inference and, ultimately, guesswork all chafe against some of science's core values.

I welcome this acknowledgment that some scientific endeavors are speculative. It’s about time! In economics, micro is better established than macro. Supply and demand is very solid, but I think we have a long way to go in macroeconomics. Certainly some aspects of physics are rock solid, but some aspects are not. Personally, I have my doubts about psychology in general. But none of this is meant to detract from researchers in particular fields. It’s usually the subject matter that is the issue. If you can replicate valid relevant experiments in the lab, that is great. If you can make repeatable observations in the field, without interacting with your subjects, that’s pretty good. But when you have little data, rely greatly on inference, extrapolate greatly, or interact with the observed phenomenon, your conclusions are speculative, and it is O.K. to say so.

[cj2a]

Then we'd have to invent them.

Your post: simplicity+irony=genius

[spinestein]

Wow, it took twelve whole posts before someone tried to hijack the thread into CREVO territory. They're practicing more restraint.

[YOUGOTIT]

"Well, that's just it; they KNOW it's there because they can measure its influence on the universe's expansion rate. However, they can't see it. Therefore, it must be "dark.""

From reading the article from the dark energy folks and others and listening to their story on TV (Science Channel) they added the dark energy to their equation so it would reflect gravity as they and the present laws of physics understand gravity. Some scientist and others do not believe in the dark energy theory and instead think that gravity does not conform to everything as believed. So at present it is a theory which may be proved true or not in the future. However it may be something entirely different that is causing the universe to expand at its present rate. Just as the big bang voided all the laws of physics as it expanded much, much, much faster that the speed of light in the beginning.

[RightWhale]

There was a time, back when I was in school studying physics, when there were no black holes. Neutron stars were on the edge of conceivability and now we not only have black hole stars, we have tiny black holes and black holes with interior structure. Who knows if we live inside a black hole; it has been suggested. If black holes are never found and eventually disappear again due to further discovery, they will go the way of phlogiston.