Starship Asterisk*

Isaac Asimov, in his 1979 book A Choice of Catastrosphes: The Disasters That Threaten Our World, raised the possibility that mini-black holes created with the Big Bang may burrow into stars and cause them to wink out (pp. 92-96).

Stephen Hawking in 1974 suggested that (to quote Asimov) "... in the first moments of the formation of the universe, innumerable black holes of all masses from that of a star down to tiny objects of a kilogram or less" were produced. The smaller ones Hawking dubbed "mini-black holes."

I have two questions related to the above:

1) What is the current thinking about mini-black holes, including the creation of black holes of any size or mass with the Big Bang?

2) Has anyone seriously looked for missing stars?

WRT (2), astronomers constantly search for any unusual variation or brightness (e.g., supernova) in any stellar object. Some researchers have also looked for brown dwarfs eclipsing background stars in the Milky Way or the nearby companion galaxies.

However, has anyone actively compared past and current surveys of star fields for missing stars?

1.) I believe it is still an accepted hypothesis, but there is still no evidence of it*. If Hawking was right, the smallest would have Hawking-radiated into energy almost instantaneously, while the larger ones would still be around today. Intermediate sizes would evaporate over time.

2.) I've never heard of any study doing that, but I know a couple methods have been suggested for looking for mini black holes. I think the one that sounds most promising is using a gamma ray observatory to study gamma ray bursts and see if any of them match what is expected from a miniature black hole's final evaporation.

According to the theory, the rate of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass. As a small hole becomes smaller, the rate of its evaporation increases, tending toward infinity. I read somewhere, although I never tried to find the equations and calculate it myself, that the last several million tons would evaporate in a second, all that mass E=mc^2 'ing itself into a powerful flash of radiation.


* Some people maintain rather fantastically that the 1908 Tunguska blast over Siberia was actually a mini-black hole passing clean through the earth. It's generally believed to have been a comet disintegrating rapidly in midair.

iamlucky13 wrote:* Some people maintain rather fantastically that the 1908 Tunguska blast over Siberia was actually a mini-black hole passing clean through the earth. It's generally believed to have been a comet disintegrating rapidly in midair.

Yes, I read that, too. I accept the more prosaic explanation until proven otherwise. For one, records show that particular meteor or comet was seen as a fireball in the southern hemisphere before it came crashing down over Siberia. The object did not transmit a flight number, but it is a safe bet what people in New Zealand and Australia saw was the same object heard about one hour later over Russia.

I am somewhat skeptical that the area affected was truly uninhabited, and I do feel sorry for those hardy witnesses who bore the brunt of that explosion and paid for it with their lives.

I've never heard of any study doing that, but I know a couple methods have been suggested for looking for mini black holes. I think the one that sounds most promising is using a gamma ray observatory to study gamma ray bursts and see if any of them match what is expected from a miniature black hole's final evaporation.

That method would depend on an orbiting observatory being able to catch such a total evaporation at the moment it occurs in our local time. I also am not certain if all GRBs are related to black holes. Theoretical calculations done by Stan Woosley (UC-Santa Cruz) and his team on the energy released by a neutron star-neutron star merger, a neutron star-black hole merger, and a black hole-black hole merger come up short by several orders of magnitude in terms of the ergs released versus observed for many GRBs. We also get into short and long-duration GRBs.

OTOH, looking for winked out stars would only depend on comparing current images versus images taken some time ago using a blink machine, albeit electronic and automatic today. Instead of looking for variable or increased brightness, researchers would be looking for darkness where a pinpoint of light once prevailed. Today's catalogs and surveys are largely digitized, making such a comparison very feasible in the years just ahead, if such an undertaking is not already being indirectly done as part of some other study.

According to the theory, the rate of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass. As a small hole becomes smaller, the rate of its evaporation increases, tending toward infinity. I read somewhere, although I never tried to find the equations and calculate it myself, that the last several million tons would evaporate in a second, all that mass E=mc^2 'ing itself into a powerful flash of radiation.

Given quantum weirdness, I'm not certain all or even part of that radiation would necessarily be driven into our familiar dimensions.

Hello All

The Big Bang theory

Early Universe was packed with mini black holes
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _3701.html

If you know anything about cosmology, the above link is wrong.

=============================================

There are millions of small black holes ditributed throught the Milky Way.
I had the link refering to this but I cannot find it.

Most of these small black holes have been formed from a large star that had gone supernova leaving behind a high density compact star core with an event horizin, that we call a black hole.

They keep on growing and move towards the centre of the MW and eventually collide with the main black hole.

Some black holes keep on growing to become monsters while others eject matter back to space recycling matter.

As for the compaction of matter thats another issue that can be discussed as per the partical or wave theory.

RJ Emery wrote:I am somewhat skeptical that the area affected was truly uninhabited, and I do feel sorry for those hardy witnesses who bore the brunt of that explosion and paid for it with their lives.

I've always wondered about that. Siberia is a big place, and not particularly habitable. Tunguska is 60 degrees N and in the dead center of Russia, but apparently there were some nomads in the general area. If some were too close, probably no one ever knew.

That method would depend on an orbiting observatory being able to catch such a total evaporation at the moment it occurs in our local time. I also am not certain if all GRBs are related to black holes. Theoretical calculations done by Stan Woosley (UC-Santa Cruz) and his team on the energy released by a neutron star-neutron star merger, a neutron star-black hole merger, and a black hole-black hole merger come up short by several orders of magnitude in terms of the ergs released versus observed for many GRBs. We also get into short and long-duration GRBs.

I see you're pretty familiar with much of this, so I probably only reiterated a lot of stuff you already knew. To add on to what I wrote before though, I gathered that a hypothetical black hole GRB would have a characteristic signature, possibly building up "gradually" in magnitude and abruptly cutting off.

OTOH, looking for winked out stars would only depend on comparing current images versus images taken some time ago using a blink machine, albeit electronic and automatic today. Instead of looking for variable or increased brightness, researchers would be looking for darkness where a pinpoint of light once prevailed. Today's catalogs and surveys are largely digitized, making such a comparison very feasible in the years just ahead, if such an undertaking is not already being indirectly done as part of some other study.

Hmm...good point. That would be a relatively simple way of looking for that sort of event. However, would a small black hole encountering a star actually destroy it? If the mass contained within the event horizon doesn't interact electromagnetically there's no friction. The only slowing effect I see is the momentum of infalling mass from the star, which may or may not be sufficient to keep the hole from falling out the other side of the star. I would think a mini black hole could potentially pass clean through the star while only taking a minor fraction of its mass.

Given quantum weirdness, I'm not certain all or even part of that radiation would necessarily be driven into our familiar dimensions.

Well that's treading on string theory so I don't think there's much useful speculation to be done with it at the moment. Ordinary QM doesn't have extra dimensions for energy to be lost in, so I think we'd expect to see it all in some form.

Hi Harry,

My theory is that the supermassive black holes are the remains of the first generation of stars, but of course that invokes the big bang theory, so I doubt you'll find it very convincing. Strangely, I haven't seen much commentary on this idea in publications, so I may be a little out on a limb here, particularly regarding whether a black hole can grow to be supermassive in the estimated age of the universe.

Hello Iamlucky

The Big Bang theory is not logical.

There is over 300 million supermassive blackholes. Some are a few billion times that of our sun. The leargest I think is about 10 G times.

The logic of the Big Bang is too far gone.

It restricts people's abilty and thoughts to think along a path.
This path leads to a dead end.

Do some research into the big bang.

============================================

There is no such thing as first generation stars.

The universe is cyclic and being cyclic star objects evolve and change.
Therefore no first generation as such

iamlucky13 wrote:I see you're pretty familiar with much of this ...

My knowledge base is very incomplete. Also, Woosley's work of which I wrote is more than ten years old. I have not had an update since, and I am sure he and the field has not stood idly by. I just read what I can when I can. By no means, do I claim complete or current knowledge in any area. You and others should feel free to comment further. I welcome all serious insights.

... That would be a relatively simple way of looking for that sort of event.

As I think more about such an effort. I believe it would yield overwhelmingly more false positives than positives. One has to consider variable stars whose range of brightness may make them appear to wink out.

For example, if a particular survey image only reveals stars down to the 11th magnitude (I have the Millennium Star Atlas in mind, which was created from Hipparcos and Tycho data), and a particular star's variation was between 10th and 13th magnitude, it may appear to have winked out, especially if it is a long period variable. The opposite case can be made for stars that wink in, which could be a distant nova or a flare star.

Such variables are likely to be in high abundance, and while each could be further confirmed through use of a large telescope, getting observing time on one probably could not be justified.

If there are stars out there that have been recently eaten by black holes, their direct discovery will more than likely have to wait for other and better means of detection.

However, would a small black hole encountering a star actually destroy it?

I don't know. Asimov seems to have thought so in 1979. Perhaps if he were alive today, and with newer knowledge, his thinking would be different.

Ordinary QM doesn't have extra dimensions for energy to be lost in, so I think we'd expect to see it all in some form.

You are probably correct. I happen to be one who is excited by string theory, but I am also one who lacks the math skills to truly understand the field. On QM, I do believe it is a very incomplete theory, and I look forward to the day (probably not in my lifetime) when the uncertainties will be removed and the theory will be made deterministic. To my mind and thinking, that will not occur until more dimensions are involved. Quantum Cosmology is yet another nascent field of study.

Has anyone at any time proved that QM cannot be made deterministic?

I wish I had the time to completely absorb all that is in Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe or possess even one-tenth his capabilities.

Well, a false positive would still greatly narrow down the candidates, so that more detailed, labor-intensive study could be conducted to learn why these stars disappeared.

So suppose an astronomy professor has a grad student he doesn't particularly enjoy spending time with...give him this as a straightforward project to make a dissertation out of, using existing data. If no other researchers are interested in the results, no major loss. If they are, the prof gets some credit as the project mentor.

Is that much variation in stars (3 magnitudes) really common?


Regarding string theory, I'm also very excited about it, but it's got a very long ways to go. However, I don't think it requires that QM be deterministic. To the best of my knowledge, principles like Uncertainty imply genuine randomness.


Hmm. Now my mind is stuck on the image a small black hole passing through a star. That's a pretty awe-inspiring thought.

RJ Emery wrote:On QM, I do believe it is a very incomplete theory, and I look forward to the day (probably not in my lifetime) when the uncertainties will be removed and the theory will be made deterministic. To my mind and thinking, that will not occur until more dimensions are involved. Quantum Cosmology is yet another nascent field of study.

Has anyone at any time proved that QM cannot be made deterministic?

Uncertainty is an integral part of QM and reflects a fundamental limit of accuracy, not imperfections in measuring technique, or a hole in the theory, or anything like that. At the risk of overusing an example, it follows from QM that it's impossible, even in principle, to determine both the position and momentum of a particle such that the product of the uncertainties in the two measurements is much less than the order of Planck's constant h.

I hope I didn't misunderstand what you meant by removing uncertainties from QM...

iamlucky13 wrote:So suppose an astronomy professor has a grad student he doesn't particularly enjoy spending time with...give him this as a straightforward project to make a dissertation out of, using existing data. If no other researchers are interested in the results, no major loss. If they are, the prof gets some credit as the project mentor.

In order for one to be awarded a Ph.D., one must solve a problem and advance the science of the field. Looking for and not finding any winked out star would not qualify for a dissertation. Worse, even if some winked out stars were found, confirmation may require more than the seven years in which a Ph.D. must be completed.

By way of example, many US grad students switched fields when the Superconducting Super Collider was canceled, because their research for their dissertations could now not have been completed within the seven year time period.

Is that much variation in stars (3 magnitudes) really common?

No, but a three magnitude range is not uncommon either. For example, RV Tauri variables exhibit a 3-4 magnitude range. FU Orionis variables come close. Eruptive type variables certainly would qualify. Dwarf nova can vary by as much as six magnitudes.

Regarding string theory, I'm also very excited about it, but it's got a very long ways to go. However, I don't think it requires that QM be deterministic. To the best of my knowledge, principles like Uncertainty imply genuine randomness.

I wasn't implying a connection between string theory and quantum mechanics must exist. I was simply wondering if there is any known reason why QM could not be deterministic.

small black hole going thru a star. Blows my mind to imagine a mathematical solution interacting with a physical entity. Pass me the beer, please.

RJ Emery wrote:In order for one to be awarded a Ph.D., one must solve a problem and advance the science of the field. Looking for and not finding any winked out star would not qualify for a dissertation. Worse, even if some winked out stars were found, confirmation may require more than the seven years in which a Ph.D. must be completed.

I would think determining an upper constraint of the number of black holes of a given mass range (if zero or X cases are found by this method, you can estimate via various assumptions the maximum number of holes possible that would statistically be expected to yield the actual result) would be an advancement of astronomy. At the very least it could be a master's level project.

I was half-making a joke about the straight-forwardness of comparing images and the cliche of grad-students as cheap labor, but if you consider background tangents like what a star/small-black hole collision would look like or actually determining the upper bounds based on the volume of empty space and the motion of stars and black holes, I think it could be grown into a decent project.

I wasn't implying a connection between string theory and quantum mechanics must exist. I was simply wondering if there is any known reason why QM could not be deterministic

I probably could have stated that a little better. If quantum mechanics does involve genuine randomness, then it is not deterministic. You could make the same measurement twice, under the exact same conditions, and get different answers no matter how good your instrument is. I think the jury is still out on whether it is or not. Perhaps someone else can clarify better.

ta152h0 wrote:small black hole going thru a star. Blows my mind to imagine a mathematical solution interacting with a physical entity. Pass me the beer, please.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but there is the mathematical solution that led to the search for black holes, and then there is the real physical entity that is a black hole. While the interaction would be wildly non-conventional, it would be between two physical entities, not a physical entity and a concept. A little easier imagine, but not much...

I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but there is the mathematical solution that led to the search for black holes, and then there is the real physical entity that is a black hole. While the interaction would be wildly non-conventional, it would be between two physical entities, not a physical entity and a concept. A little easier imagine, but not much... ( iamlucky13 )


Black holes have never been observed. and because, of how I interpret Einstein time warp concept, the black hole may have been there yesterday but it is not there today, and I believe, destined to be never seen. They are simply not there at the moment we are looking at the location. Let's put three significant magnets on a dinner table and bolt them down. Somewhere in that geometry the magnetic lines interact and are magnified, similar to waves colliding on a open ocean. That location could be where we detect the effects of a black hole, and call it that. The observed infalling matter may just be ejected into space ( in a time warp ) in an undetectable form, as of yet. Just maybe the universe is elegantly simple and we haven't figured that out yet. There, I submit my theory to peer review and feel free to tear into it, I don't take things personal, specially in an internet scenario..

Oh, don't worry. I'm pretty good about not taking things personal online. 8)

I'm afraid I don't understand the comment about the black hole not being there. From our frame of reference it either is or isn't, correct?

I was thinking in terms of time warp. Like for example there is no geographical location for the Big Bang. You can't go out and tell my boys, look," that is where the big bang happened ". similar in nature to walkng on a empty train track and knowing a train had passed before but cannot be seen.

Hello All

This maybe of interest reading for some.

Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... .342.1041D


Understanding the blackhole is very important. Before we ad hoc ideas to it.

Keeping it simple.

A most interesting paper, Harry.

As Tycho Brache showed us, it is the accurate gathering of data by observation that is the crucial first step towards a correct understanding of the universe.

Hello All

Hello Kovil

You hit the nail on the head.

Note to all:

I post many links, it does not mean I agree with them. At this moment in time science information is updating and changing with better observations and so on.

I see what you mean Harry, about posting papers but holding back on going gung-ho into believing them fully. I tend to jump into accepting them right away, and later poke holes in them. Better to hold off on the full acceptance for a while and see how the 'house of cards', or 'papers' actually, stands up to further peer review. Peer review meaning a wider circle of readership than the approval committee who reads for the publisher. As one paper builds upon another preceding paper, a house of papers gets built. Pull one paper from the house and it becomes a snow storm of paper !

When we actually get to within a couple of light hours of a neutron star with an observation probe, there will be circumstances we never envisioned that are responsible for present observational data, and current theories will be modified to account accordingly.

I do like their reasoning about the spectrum area denial for neutron stars vs black holes. Whatever is accounting or responsible for this; is suspected to be the neutron star's surface albedo in conjunction with the more complex interaction with the accretion disk's boundary layer at acquisition due to a hard surface instead of an event horizon.

Neutron stars do not have sufficient gravity to create an event horizon. Preon or quark stars most likely do have event horizons.

Why the inner disk of accreting material goes through periods of varying luminosity may be due to overcrowding of the ingestion rate or delivery rate from the outer disk, is still a subject of speculation. Perhaps there is a similar magnetic field reversal or periodicity like our sun has for instance, that is causing the variation in observed brightness by interfering with or aiding the boundary layer of the inflowing material.

I must say again how much I appreciate your finding these papers and posting occasional links to them !!!

Hello All


Hello Kovil
I'm happy that you have that humble attitude.

Kovil said

Neutron stars do not have sufficient gravity to create an event horizon. Preon or quark stars most likely do have event horizons.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 20410.html
Evidence Found for New Form of Ultra-Dense Matter



I will tend to agree with you, but without evidence its hear say.

Neutron stars are basically a matrix of neutrons and in that state electromagnatic radiation can escape. The atomic forces are not strong enough to hold back light.

Quarks make up neutrons, although the atomic forces are great we need to look at the type of quark composite. Varies in density from 10^19 to 10^22 or something like that. In the 10^22 density there maybe enough forces to create this composite and to hold light back from being released.

When does a black hole become a black hole? Is this the density that matter has to reach to prevent light from escaping. Some scientists who have the info can tell us that. Its out of my area.

That makes preon particals the matter that makes black holes.

Wait one sec.

The basic partical or wave centre is the electron/positron. Can matter be compacted to this level and if so, what we get are Black holes made from different particals having different densities.

Wow!!!!!!!!! imagine the possibilities and the doors this will open.

Hey! its only an opinion like any other.

Trouble is we will never know if we never ever go. Sounds like the never ending story or never land.

Why the inner disk of accreting material goes through periods of varying luminosity may be due to overcrowding of the ingestion rate or delivery rate from the outer disk, is still a subject of speculation. Perhaps there is a similar magnetic field reversal or periodicity like our sun has for instance, that is causing the variation in observed brightness by interfering with or aiding the boundary layer of the inflowing material.

Varies luminosity can be caused by the ejecting matter from normal stars ,Neutron stars and black holes.

Infalling matter does give off lots of light. Once the solar envelope is sucked away by the black hole or neutron star, This may trigger a supernova of a different type giving off lots and lots of light. This would be a good topic to look into. Lots of unknowns.

I must say again how much I appreciate your finding these papers and posting occasional links to them !!!

Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,No problem mate.

One more thing, many links are written by Big Bang cosmologists mind set.

Is a black hole such a collection of mass as to have slowed time, at the singularity, to a stop? Is it possible time has even been reversed?

Food for thought.

-Noel

Well, to an outside observer, time stops at the event horizon. Beyond that, time swaps out with the spacial direction towards the singularity, such that the singularity instead of being ahead of you, now lies in your future, meaning it's unavoidable. So time doesn't reverse inside a black hole (theoretically), it just... means something else, I suppose.

Hello All

It's only at the movies that time stops and different dimension occur when we go through a black hole.

Most people see the black hole as a WELL sucking matter in. It is in a way,but not as in the movies. The so call WELL is a jet ejecting matter into space.


The method of communication is by electromagnetic radiation.If we slow the speed of EMR or even stop it than there will be a communication break down.

Any matter that enters the EH is altered to sub-sub atomic particals, maybe preo partical composites or maybe to positrons and electrons.

That means the message will be delayed, its as simple as that.

The event horizon is a point from the centre of the compact core. It's distance is realtive to the size of the compact core.

for NoelC,

In regard to Hawking's book 'A Brief History of Time', he postulates that on the black hole side of the event horizon, "time becomes space-like and space becomes time-like". I think he means by that; as one moves through space, the 'present time' of 'this new space' is different from the 'present time' of the 'space' you just came from. So moving 10 feet might mean moving 10 years in time. Regardless of how long it took you to move the ten feet, or in addition to the time to move 10 feet.

This is how space is time-like, and time is space-like; compared to how they are here; where as we move through space, time stays the same. In the sense of only the time to move is the difference between here and there.

As the escape velocity inside the event horizon is greater than the speed of light, I think that would imply that light speed events would be frozen and unable to move at all. Their velocity would be perhaps only able to go in one direction, backwards; or maybe tangentially or less. They could not go 'forwards' , (whatever direction that would be). Somehow their motions are under some kind of constraints.

As my favorite theory postulates; Inertia/Momentum is how Time enters this universe. Across the event horizon things become different and light speed events are constrained in some fashion. I think this is why time becomes space-like, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle's uncertainty of momentum formula is maxxed out by the faster than light speed requirement for forward time motion by light speed events, and this is the reason time becomes space-like.

In terms of your question about time going backwards at the singularity, I suspect one would have to go beyond the singularity to experience time going backwards. And this may be the principle of conservation in operation here that adds the required additional property of resistance necessary to keep the universe from turning inside out through a black hole, and also keeps black holes from actually forming. Like inertia prevents matter from actually reaching the speed of light. And magnetism bleeding off gravity energy in the black hole to force an infinite amount of mass to be necessary before gravity would be strong enough to actually form a black hole. Time is also adding its two cents to the resistance in forming a black hole in actuality. As nature abhors a vacuum, nature also abhors a black hole, as it is the opposite of a vacuum. And what is true for one, is also true for its opposite.

So as Polonius said to his daughter Ophelia, in Hamlet; "Neither a vacuum nor a black hole be, and to thine own self be true".

- - -

To go another yard or two in the thoughts. On the black hole side of the event horizon, inertia/momentum may become unbounded; the opposite of how it is on this side of the event horizon. Here inertia/momentum is bound up in the protons, upon which gravity acts. There it may become universal in its motion, like the electromagnetic spectrum is on this side, in how light speed events carry the information thru space. There inertia/momentum is unbounded and carries the information thru space, like light speed events carry the information thru space here. This is how angular momentum can be transmitted outside of the event horizon and the mechanism of how black holes, or whatever is on the other side of an event horizon, can evaporate !!! Angular momentum can move at faster than light speed inside of the event horizon, as it is not constrained by light speed due to its basic nature. Just as on this side of the event horizon, gravity information is transmitted faster than light speed. So gravity and inertia/momentum trade places as well on the black hole side of the event horizon, in this respect. And this may also be another additional resistance to a black hole forming in reality.

harry wrote:Hello All

It's only at the movies that time stops and different dimension occur when we go through a black hole.

Well, time never really stops, at least not for the traveller falling into the black hole. For the remote observer, there will be the appearance of time stopping for them, however. Extra dimensions are becoming quite popular in physics lately, by the way.

Most people see the black hole as a WELL sucking matter in. It is in a way,but not as in the movies. The so call WELL is a jet ejecting matter into space.

Actually, the 'well' you're speaking of, Harry, is an artifact of the two-dimensional analog of a black hole usually used to depict them on paper. It's pretty hard to actually imagine a 'three dimensional hole', since it would require a perspective embedded in four dimensions to actually perceive it in full.