Could a hairy black hole show gaps in Einstein’s theory?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 8, 2013

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

New Scientist thinks so. You read and decide. It is free:

It sounds like the stuff of nightmares: feed a black hole, and it might just sprout hair. That’s the bizarre-sounding conclusion of calculations for the way black holes behave when they consume matter. Though the hair is metaphorical, the results could open a window into physics beyond the traditional picture of the universe.

Look, we were gonna do a cobra frite last Friday, but the dam cobra ended up on somebody’s endangered species list and got himself impounded and didn’t show up until yesterday when he made us find him sixteen grasshoppers, so we were busy. So this black hole frite will have to do.

Hey, wait a minute, you really NEED a cobra frite?

Comments

no no. black holes are what cause unpoofery.Mung_{October 9, 2013
October
10
Oct
9
09
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Blackholes, like multiverses and life on mars is poofery.......Andre_{October 8, 2013
October
10
Oct
8
08
2013
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

But if we allow that God can play the role of person, as even Godel himself allowed when he chided Einstein's notion of an abstract god,,,
The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
,,, then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. A reconciliation into a 'theory of everything' that is truly a 'complete theory' since it also includes God within its formulation:
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX
bornagain77_{October 8, 2013
October
10
Oct
8
08
2013
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

as to this comment from the article:
if relativity is ever to be reconciled with quantum mechanics.
The first thing I noticed between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is not their inability to be reconciled but was a striking point of congruence between the two. In General Relativity, in what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, we find that the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon, and that every point is central to the expansion of the universe, and that every point IS central if that is where you live (to borrow Gil Dodgen's phrase)!
Centrality of Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879
Where this meshes with Quantum Mechanics is that Quantum Mechanics holds that conscious observation is central to wave collapse to its particle state:
Quantum Physics - Time Reversal Symmetry & Super Positioning - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU
If you hold that what was described in the preceding video cannot possibly be a true description of reality, you are not alone. Even the Nobel Prize winner who developed Leggett's inequality, Anthony Leggett, which proved the claims of the preceding video true, refused to accept the results of his own experiment even though his inequality was violated by an astounding 80 orders of magnitude
Do we create the world just by looking at it? - June 4, 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism (i.e. a reality apart from conscious observation) is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory. to which Anton Zeilinger replied: When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/
There are other experiments, (Quantum Zeno Effect, Wigner's Quantum Symmetries & Wheeler's Delayed choice) which all converge along with Leggett's inquality to show us that the universe is centered on conscious observation and not on some material point 'out there in the universe somewhere'. But this unambiguous result from quantum mechanics is so alien to what most people believe to be true about reality, of a reality separate from consciousness, that they are unable to understand it and/or accept it.
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
But anyways, to move on, and to reiterate the extremely interesting point of congruence between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:
The Galileo Affair and consciousness as the true "Center of the Universe" Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15] Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
That certainly is a very interesting point of congruence in my book, and, at first glance, one would think that they should be unified into a 'theory of everthing' fairly easily. But that was not to be. Now to look at where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree sharply. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/ THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
Moreover, even if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics would have been able to be successfully united into a single mathematical 'theory of everything', Godel's incompleteness shows that the truthfulness of that mathematical theory of everything would still be dependent on God so as to derive the truthfulness inherent within the equation (which should be readily apparent because of the centrality of consciousness in quantum mechanics):
Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
bornagain77_{October 8, 2013
October
10
Oct
8
08
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply