Back in March, I posted one of my first blog entries about an experiment that some people thought might have created a teeny weeny black hole. I’m no quantum mechanic, so I didn’t speculate too much on it, but made some predictions based on past experience.
One was that I’d get lots of emails. I was wrong. I only got one, really, from a fellow named Jay Kane. I’d introduce you, but I’ll let him do it himself. His email is reprinted with his permission.
I’m a fan of your website (and Randi’s) and I noticed in your blog you mentioned the “black holes” at RHIC at Brookhaven National Laboratory. As it turns out, I (2 weeks ago) received my PhD in heavy ion physics, and my research was carried out at BNL. And, as it further turns out, my thesis was about the disappearance of jets mentioned in that black hole paper.
You mentioned that there were probably more mundane explanations for this “jet quenching”, as it is known. You’re right, and this was an effect that was predicted as early as 1982 by Bjorken. The jet quenching that we see is thought to be a result of the interactions of these very high energy partons with a medium of deconfined quarks and gluons, aka the Quark-Gluon Plasma. [Ed.: well, duh.]
This result, although far from definite, is very exciting, and, in my opinion, a better explanation than black hole theories.
I try not to argue from authority, but am generally willing to take advice handed to me from people far more knowledgeable in the appropriate field than I am. So thanks, Jay. I appreciate the email and the update.
Also, a press release of sorts came out of Brookhaven, clarifying the black hole stories. Basically, the original statements made by Horatiu Nastase, the scientist from Brookhaven, is not that a black hole might have been made, but that the phenomenon is analogous to a black hole. In other words, the math is similar, but the real physical effects are very different. So not only was this phenomenon observed not a black hole, it was never really claimed to be one either.
I so knew it wasn’t a black hole.
May 16th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Aww shoot, I would’ve wanted so much my black hole vacuum to clean my carpet
I wonder if it’ll make the woowoos breathe easier or make them think that scientists are yet again lying to the populace to hide the hideous truth?
May 16th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Michelle: Probably the 2nd! Because we all know it a huge conspirecie and the US has a black hole cannon than can destroy entire world… >_
May 16th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I heard tale that blackholes don’t exist, but are some other thing, according to some guy who wrote something that was published in the journal nature (i think) then I heard they created a wee black hole in an accelerator or colider or some other word ending in ‘r’ and I was like, “this guy says black holes are erroneous, yet this guy says he just made one… hmmm, maybe I should bake some cookies.”
It is nice when miss-information is turned into un-miss-information. and I am still curious to hear more about the dude who thinks black holes are not really black holes.
Perhaps I shall do some searching on the subject.
May 16th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
The argument for black holes not existing runs something like this (at least, from the articles I’ve read):
As a star collapses into a black hole, its matter has to become compressed into a space small enough so an event horizon to form. However, as the collapsing star gets smaller and smaller, time stars running slower and slower because time slows down on high-gravity objects (relative to someone far away). Furthermore, time stops at the event horizon (again, relative to someone far away). Therefore, it would take an infinite amount of time for an event horizon to form (which, in physics terms, is never).
May 17th, 2005 at 11:29 am
And Xeno’s Paradox says it is possible to ever go through the door, because first you have to go halfway to the door, then you have to go halfway from there, then halfway from there, for infinitely smaller halves.
Methinks there just might be something wrong with the premise somewhere.
May 17th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I’m with Irishman on this one (assuming he meant “it is IMpossible to ever…”). Anybody who’s been through a basic pre-calculus class can tell you that “paradox” garbage.
Zeb, where did you read about this?
May 17th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
I read it in Astronomy magazine, written by Bob Berman, who regularly writes a column called “Strange Universe”. I don’t remember exactly what issue it was. I know that I’ve heard about similar arguments from different people as well.
In my defense, I don’t know if its correct either, I’m just trying to pass on information. In either case, for all practical purposes, you still shouldn’t get too close to these things.
May 18th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Zeb,
The answer to lies in determining what an observer sees. For an observer (let’s call him Ted) on the surface of the collapsing star (yeah, I know, not the best place to be) time doesn’t appear to slow down and the star collapses through the event horizon and into a black hole. Another observer (let’s call her Pam) far from the collapsing star will observe Ted’s time slowing (and light redshifting) to the point where it appears to Pam that Ted freezes at the event horizon (It also becomes impossible to see Ted at this point anyway due to the redshifting of ligth). So does Ted freeze or does he fall through the event horizon? Based on whats called a “Finklestein frame of reference” (it incorporates both Ted and Pam’s frames of reference) he does fall through and his freezing at the even horizon (as view by Pam) is an optical illusion.
May 21st, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I wrote a critique of Chapline’s objection to black holes a while back (it refers to a post by Jacques Distler which is also good).
June 10th, 2005 at 1:33 am
Black Hole of Brookhaven, Redux
Black Hole of Brookhav…
November 13th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
do a search on the red shift and it explains this phenomenon well, even to someone like me with no mathematical background.