May 16, 2008
Are Black Holes Two-Way Streets?
From Science:
Black holes are just about the least friendly places in the universe. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, they're so powerful that they warp space and time, and they've condensed so much matter and energy into a tiny point called a singularity that nothing, not even light, can escape. Getting sucked down a black hole should be a one-way trip. But is it? Stephen Hawking thought so. Back in the 1970s, the eminent physicist hypothesized that a black hole eventually--over time scales lasting trillions of years--would evaporate into nothingness. The problem for Hawking's idea was that it clashed with quantum mechanics, of which one of the primary tenets is that information cannot be lost. Hawking could not reconcile the conflict, and a few years ago he recanted his position on information loss.
Now, physicists from Pennsylvania State University in State College have shown that Hawking was right to change his mind. Delving into a cousin of quantum mechanics called quantum gravity, Abhay Ashtekar and colleagues Victor Tavares and Madhavan Varadarajan calculate that singularities cannot exist. According to relativity, a singularity is essentially a frontier where spacetime ends. As such, nothing should be able to escape it. But complex calculations by Ashtekar's team show that singularities are not allowed by quantum gravity. That means that although the center of a black hole may be very, very dense, it's not so dense that it traps information forever. "Quantum spacetime doesn't end at a singularity," Ashtekar says.
The findings, reported in the 20 May issue of Physical Review Letters, are good news for quantum mechanics, because they support the idea that information cannot disappear permanently. But, by calling singularities into question, they spell trouble for relativity. If black holes are not singularities, then the continuum of spacetime described by Einstein must be only an approximation, says Ashtekar. That's not necessarily a bad thing. "[It] opens the door to a lot of new explorations," Ashtekar says. "They may lead to physics beyond Einstein."
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 05:33 AM | Permalink










Comments
What I (a non-scientist) love about this is its open-endedness;
it's sense of stepping-stones receding beyond singularities into an argument of duplicities.
I love its tension between theories. I love its non-religiosity but godlike mystery. I love its either-or,
its this or that, its quantum vs. relativity, it's yes or no with caveats.
With sects you get the cleavers, absolute as death.
But science picks apart the bits of life and serves up
possibilities of things unsolved or undreamed of yet.
"Beyond Einstein" does not seem odd
and has the smell of life; but who'd
expect to hear a priest discuss a god
beyond his God?
Thanks, Azra, for this post.
Posted by: Jim | May 16, 2008 9:01:21 AM
Jim,
You are exactly right. Religious people mock science for its changing theories when it is this openess to change that is its greatest strength and proof that science is a real voyage of discovery, while religion is nothing more than fossilized dogma.
Posted by: Jared | May 16, 2008 10:24:51 AM
Well, religions do change, so they are not entirely fossilized.
What is more important though is that they seem to change according to the whims of their adherents, or possibly according to something besides whims. But in any case, there is no rigorous, fact-disciplined method of change, as there is in science.
It's not said without reason that "theology is like playing tennis without a net."
Posted by: JonJ | May 16, 2008 4:28:04 PM
Jon, you're right of course, religions do change. And though they may not be entirely fossilized, isn't it remarkable how quickly they refossilize after they've morphed into something more sympatico with a particular group's view?
Though some scientists may cling to certain perceptions beyond their viability, the basis of science is to be open-minded.
Posted by: J | May 16, 2008 5:08:51 PM
Azra thanks for the post.
Jim thanks for the poem.
Posted by: Pete Chapman | May 16, 2008 5:16:46 PM
Ditto to Pete...
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | May 16, 2008 5:44:58 PM
Post a comment