Posted on 07/23/2006 1:05:35 PM PDT by LibWhacker
How an alternate theory of the universe exposes the 'war of words' that underlies modern cosmology.
Theoretical physicists have recently been frustrated by a bold hypothesis concerning black holesspecifically, that they don't exist.
In March, at the 22nd Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting in Santa Barbara, Calif., George Chapline, an applied physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, gave a talk based on ideas he's been incubating for several years. His goal: to amend astrophysics by applying theories of dark energy and condensed matter physics.
His work reinvents black holes as so-called "dark energy stars," which are what is left over when matter transitions to dark energy as it passes a point of no return similar to a black hole's event horizon. That redefinition, if correct, would invalidate much of the intellectual framework of traditional black holes.
Chapline's ideas take inspiration from his colleague Robert Laughlin, a condensed matter physicist at Stanford University who won a Nobel for his work on quantum fluids.
Laughlin is quick to point out that the hubbub he and Chapline's ideas have caused "is a battle of words rather than a battle of science.
"In science, you decide whose theory is right (or wrong) by means of an experiment," he said, "not by polling experts."
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.
"In some ways our playground is too big," said Leonard Susskind, a theoretical particle physicist at Stanford and an outspoken critic of the Chapline-Laughlin theory.
"Practically speaking, much of our subject matter is inaccessible to direct experimentation," he continued. "It doesn't make the science any less validwe didn't need to go to the Moon to know that it wasn't made of cheese."
But indirection, inference and, ultimately, guesswork all chafe against some of science's core values. Understandably, some researchers inevitably suggest less-fuzzy alternatives, which is how Chapline and Laughlin see their work.
"George and I made a very plausible case that general relativity, as we have observed it experimentally, could be perfectly true, and yet fail to describe a black hole event horizon properly," said Laughlin. "What would allow this to happen is failure of the relativity principle on very short-length scales."
His and Chapline's model, he argues, fixes violations of quantum mechanicssuch as information loss and the freezing of time at a black hole's event horizon in traditional black hole models. Laughlin notes that the argument may offend his peers, but that they have no valid criticism of his and his partner's arguments. He insists their redefinition is correct.
"The point is that there is no way to tell one way or the other right now," he said. "If there were, there would be no controversy."
The Chapline-Laughlin hypothesis will linger like most cosmological theories, which are only partially or indirectly testable as well as often incomplete and replete with corrections needed to describe the universe we actually observe. The process of pinning on these amendments can get messy.
"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."
Samir Mathur, a physicist at the Ohio State University who has his own theories of black holes, which he calls "fuzzballs," has no use for the Chapline-Laughlin theory.
"I feel comfortable dismissing it," he said. "Their model does not account for the entropy of black holes, or for Hawking radiation. These are basic signatures of what black holes are. It appears that what is most appealing to them about their theory is that they are the ones who thought of it."
For his part, Chapline suggests his critics are predictably lashing out at him using what he calls "the first law of physics," where an idea is immediately derided if it questions well-ingrained notions.
"Experts don't like it when you tell them they are not experts anymore, that books they have written are obsolete," he said. "They don't like to have to learn new things."
Lubo Motl, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University, doesn't buy the idea that black holes don't exist. In fact, at Harvard, a NASA/Smithsonian partnership using the Chandra X-Ray Observatory has produced swarms of black hole data.
"Who wouldn't want to be the researcher who dismantles Einstein and Hawking?" Motl said. "That is seductive. But this is a matter of ego, not science."
Get rid of the internal combustion engines and they won't be able to get to their supercomputers.
Oh it's not nearly as bad as evolution, which relies almost entirely on extrapolation, imagination and ad hominem attacks on religion. :-P
Seriously, should I give a flying you-know-what?
Why?
'Cause I really don't.
Between the two I say destroy the telescopes!
I'll keep my 300HP 65 Chevy PU, hopefully on gas without alcohol.
Can't do that. Ad hominem requires a person, not an institution on the receiving end. Maybe an ad institutionem.
I like telescopes. In fact, I used to work on design of the big ones. If you knew the man who ground and polished the secondary of the big scope we built you would not want him out of work. There was never a less scientific person, but there was never a man with such a touch for glass. He used to say, "You can't push glass," and that's about all he ever said. Everybody else who tried to grind that secondary ended up breaking it.
And the singularity is/are elections..
Boston is known as the Hub of the Universe, a phrase coined by Oliver Wendall Holmes. And, Boston has a black hole, locally known as he Big Dig. As we speak Mitt Romney, hoping to be president someday, is skipping around the universe using this black hole worm tunnel to cross the heavens looking for ways to restructure the tunnel with cut bolts. He doesn't like epoxy bolts installed by union help. This black hole has sucked about $15,000,000,000 out of our wallets. It ain't gonna stop sucking.
Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet
Then why read this thread?
Thought there might be something interesting in it. I was wrong.
The distances of the stars and between the stars cannot be explained as achievable (enough energy in the big bang or now), given what science knows about the weak force, gravity and the strong force, electromagnetism.
So, mathemetics is used to come up with formulas to explain the discrepancy and the formulas always posit either some additional form of matter, and or/additional energy.
At present science understands the additional matter/and or energy (dark - their term and only because they have no knowledge of how to "see" it) only in the math and science has no way, yet, to devise equipment that would actually detect the additional matter or energy. Like knowing you need an ampmeter but not knowing what "amp" would look like.
"What if black holes did'nt exist"? Simple:then there would'nt be any!
Next thing you know somebody's going to make the TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM that F = MA(!)
I wonder how many miles of border fence could be purchased for $15 billion.
Bump
Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
Rediff.com | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com
Posted on 08/03/2004 1:16:56 AM EDT by CarrotAndStick
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183887/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.