Black holes: inspiring theoretical constructs for sci-fi writers or real space monsters?
Yesterday, February 11th 2016, the rumors about an experimental evidence of the existence of gravitational waves, usually considered part of Einstein’s Theory of relativity, have been officialized. Long story short, on September 2015 Californian interferometer LIGO has detected the gravitational phenomenon, caused by the collision of two massive black holes (large 29 and 36 solar masses) located 1.3 billion light years away from us.
Scientific community is celebrating this important success that will allow mankind to better understand the mechanisms that regulate the universe. Scientists are confident about the reliability of the measure because it reached in Standard Deviation, a statistical probability of the accuracy of gathered data, a value of 5.1 sigma which can be roughly translated as 99% positive.
However I’m not going to write the umpteenth celebratory article that today fills the newspapers: as this blog is aligned with ASPS mindset I would like to propose an alternative point of view for this event.
I then propose what Laureti commented in a newsgroup in 2014, after a conversation with professor Umberto Bartocci, in response to an article published on Italian scientific magazine Le Scienze (in Italian).
Due to the length of the text, I’ve preferred to split it in multiple posts.
Here’s the first part, all comments are by Laureti (in Italic).
U. Bartocci (introduction):
Dear (Laureti), thank you too for this new example of.. ideological-mathematical contortions. Probably they even have some theoretical grounds but I’m surprised at how many people don’t realize that this is only Fanta-physics or science-fakefiction! It won’t be easy to break free from all this garbage: too many have even built academic careers over it.
Article – What Stephen Hawking (really) said about black holes – about Hawking’s announcement that black holes don’t exist.
“[..] If we define a black hole as a space-time with an event horizon, then the statement is correct. However there will be objects, let’s call them “apparent black holes”, that almost perfectly resemble black hole for a time span that notably exceed the life span of the universe”
Looks like Todeschini’s Theory of apparences 🙂
“[..] and no currently possible observation will be able to say if, for example, the center of the Milky Way is home to a black hole with an event horizon or to an apparent black hole that looks like a black hole with an event horizon”
So, if you don’t observe don’t do physics: those ruminations best fit a philosophy or mental illness program.
“In substance, what Hawking is saying is to consider that collapse of matter can lead only to an apparently temporary horizon and not to an eternal event horizon. This is a view shared by many of his colleagues (including me) and there is nothing new in this idea.”
But if it’s not observable then it’s not referred to a physical event.. this is called ‘conjecture’ 🙂
“It’s really a shame that this Hawking’s statement has been so misinterpreted, as there really are persons who claim that black holes don’t exist”
It’s really very strange that they think so.. since for your own admission you don’t know what the hell lies in the center of the Milky Way… but in the center of the galaxy I see bags of $$$ and jobs positions that would collapse or better, would evaporate if this unobservable hoax was removed from mass media and physics books.
“They argue that what we observe in reality are only very dark massive objects that don’t collapse beyond their Schwarzschild radius [a distance associated and proportional to the mass of a celestial body, editor’s note] and that have a material surface”
It would be a more plausible object than the set of unobservable imaginary hoaxes that the existence of a black hole implies.
“It’s quite a minor opinion, because it requires substantial modifications to Einstein’s gravity theory.
Einstein didn’t believe to black holes existence.. eager physicists who came later invented them.
“Not mentioning that it’s in conflict with the observations”
Which observations if before it was unobservable?
“I’m more than sure that this is not what Hawking intended”
Oh! So she’s interpreting what Hawking intended.. rotfl!
This was Laureti’s introduction to Angelo Loinger‘s excerpt (it will be covered in Part II) that reflects on Einstein’s original thought, which has been reworked in a delinquent way by eager physicists after his death (and probably it will be the same for Hawking’s afterthought).
Stay tuned for part II!
PS: What a coincidence! While I was preparing this post I’ve received a tweet about an article which states that NASA observed X-rays emission from a black hole.. and it shouldn’t happen! This emission however is in accord with Indian astrophysicist Abhas Mitra’s theory. The complete article can be found here.