Environmental Graffiti’s Guide to Black Holes
Fri, Feb 6, 2009
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
From Abstract Math to Reality
Black holes were first predicted by Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity in 1915 but were quickly assumed to ‘not exist’ in the ‘real’ universe. However, in that very same year, Karl Schwarzschild’s research using the very advanced mathematical equations of quantum mechanics ‘discovered’ that black holes could theoretically exist in the universe. The astonishing thing was that these equations describing black holes were now understood to have infinite terms; where the equations ‘broke down’ (i.e. they could not be solved, there was no ‘answer’) a boundary had been discovered beyond which all known physics and quantum mechanics seemed not to apply. The Schwarzschild radius was beginning to be understood as the radius of the black hole’s event horizon – a boundary beyond which time stopped, and outside of which an observer would see the surface of a star frozen in time at the moment it collapsed into a black hole. Beyond this boundary was a whole new universe that was a complete mystery of form and function.
At first, colleagues showed little interest, and this important breakthrough was not widely accepted. But one of the extraordinary adventures of modern atomic physics is the subsequent confirmation of Schwarzschild’s research – proof of existence of several atomic and cosmological entities first discovered in the abstract ‘universe’ of higher mathematics. Time and again, physicists have proven that objects first described by these equations in theory actually exist when confirmed by experiment and observation in the real universe. For instance, in 1930, the astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar worked out the minimum diameter necessary for a non-rotating star to collapse into itself. Further characteristics of collapsing stars determine whether the result is a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole. And in 1939, Robert Oppenheimer and his colleagues predicted that stars heavier than three solar masses would collapse into black holes.
Cygnus X-1, the first black hole discovered by scientists
Image: Space Telescope
The list of discoveries goes on. In 1958 David Finkelstein demonstrated that the boundary just outside a black hole, the ‘event horizon’, was a unidirectional membrane, meaning that once an object passed through, it could not return. In 1963, black holes became more believable to astrophysicists when Roy Kerr showed that black holes that rotate can fit into the developing Standard Model. Real stars rotate, so was it possible that black holes did exist? And the discovery of neutron stars in 1967 established the reality of the first known ultra dense objects in the ‘real universe’. Finally in 1970, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose proved that black holes are a feature of all solutions to Einstein’s equations of gravity. The first ‘real’ black hole was discovered in 1971. A star in our galaxy was wobbling in an unusual manner that revealed an invisible companion – a black hole – that was named Cygnus X-1.
When You Fall into a Black hole… >
Tiny Black Holes that Devour Stuff!>
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
February 9th, 2009 at 1:39 am
I think it is intellectually irresponsible to claim that the black holes potentially produced by the LHC could be life-threatening. If the comment was made in jest it should be noted that the tone was lost in the writing. Furthermore, from what I could find you cite no sources for these “very worried physicists”.
Here is a link to the Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC (http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf). If you don’t care to read it allow me to sum it all up with a quote: “Thus we conclude that black-hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal processes.”
Hope this helps.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:31 am
This article is a complete waste of time. As a guide to black holes it is utterly useless.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Looks cool…but are they really black.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Ryan -
The article you reference was read and understood by me some time ago. It is noted in this article that a ‘few’ scientists are worried about dangers they perceive (?imagine) might result from micro black holes produced by the next round of experiments at CERN. I agree these worries are ‘fringe’ concerns and not supported by the research reported in the link provided. Mentioning them is not ‘intellectually irresponsible’, it merely notice of events that have appeared in recent news as the result of several petitions to US and European courts. For a good discussion of these fears and the studies that led to potential lawsuits, read this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. This article has an extensive bibliography with many links and references to flawed research by those upset by the design of the CERN experiments, news reports of court petitions, independent safety studies commissioned by CERN etc. At the end of the day, these ‘concerns’ appear to have no substance and have been solidly refuted as you correctly point out.
Re-read the last paragraph of this article.. slowly. “Minute black holes, such as those modeled for the LHC experiments, are predicted by many physicists to undergo runaway evaporation and disappear in a final burst of radiation.” That is, they are harmless. The tiniest of black holes end their short lives in a burst of minute radiation. I think we are both in agreement.
Thanks for checking in and commenting..
Bennett
February 12th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Bennett,
Yeah, I’ll agree that calling it “intellectually irresponsible” was overly harsh. I apologize for that. Upon first reading it seemed a little sensational and I suppose that I am just overly sensitive to perceived misreporting.
The one lawsuit I remember hearing reported was the botanist from Hawaii who frankly seemed not to have the slightest idea what he was talking about, scientifically or legally.
While this entire LHC experiment is hugely novel it seems that every precaution is being taken to keep Earth safe. The science also seems to support the claim that the LHC is a safe machine. This quality analysis and relative consensus among the scientific community should be given weight over the claims of a few ‘fringe’ scientists, to say nothing of any ulterior motives for outspoken disapproval. I don’t mean to discount the possibility of a revolutionary discovery proving the consensus wrong, but such events are rare enough that the should not come to be expected.
My own fields (evolution and climatology) are extremely susceptible to reporting that portrays both sides of the “debate” as equal in scale and legitimacy and I was worried that a similar misrepresentation was occurring here.
I also did not mean to imply that you wouldn’t have read the necessary prerequisite literature on the subject, my intention posting the article with my summary quote was for the larger reading public, that in all likelihood wouldn’t bother reading such a dense and technical document.
To finish, I agree that we are also in agreement. Thanks for the thoughtful response. It’s nice to find that is it indeed possible to have a civil and open discussion online that is drowned out by noise and name calling.
Best,
Ryan
February 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I have to agree with Ryan’s first comment more than his second.
From your response, it’s clear that you’re AWARE that the argument you put on the intro is bull, and that you put it on the front page makes it clear that you intend to use the controversy to make the article more ‘dramatic’.
A short blurb at the end about how ‘most’ ‘predict’ it won’t be a problem doesn’t make you innocent. It’s an incredibly weak statement, especially in the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the area. How hard would have been to mention that collisions as and more powerful than LHC’s happen in our atmosphere all the time and have been for billions of years, which anyone can understand nullifies the concerns without depending on what scientists say? And it’s still irresponsible to overstate the problem on the intro and retract it on the last page.
The disparity in language between lay use and science is a huge sticking point. We’re all aware that if you’re being pedantic, nothing’s 100% certain, ever. This doesn’t make it acceptable to skew facts just to hold the interest of people who come here for interesting and factual information. When ‘a few physicists’ means ‘a vanishingly small number of people who don’t work in the field’ and ‘most’ is ‘everyone who knows what they’re talking about’, then yes, you’re being intellectually irresponsible, even if those statements are technically true.
Sorry to go on at such length, I’m not angry or anything. I just want to make it clear that over-dramatized science reporting is a problem that leads to the kinds of stupid lawsuits and public misunderstanding that hurt the research that you report on. Really, it’s possible to hold people’s interest without having to stretch a scenario where the subject matter might kill them.
Cheers
March 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
hey spencer, you’re utterly useless ?!(and stupid)