Picture from Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider RHIC Black Holes
Philosophy Science Physics Technorati tags
On earth the horizon, or periphery of our vision is determined by the earth's curvature, and by altitude. Hence when you stand at sea level the horizon or periphery of vision is shorter than if you are on a plane at 30,000 feet, and shorter again than if you are on a satellite in geoorbit. Whereas this horizon limit is totally different if you are looking at earth from a telescope on the moon.
Cosmic Event Horizon
The Cosmic event horizon, is the periphery after which we cannot see beyond, with present instrumentation, and from where we 'stand'
Blackhole Event Horizon
By some (observers outside the event) attributed to be at the centre or 'hole' of a black hole, by others explained as the periphery of the space previously occupied by a Star or Sun which has exploded or imploded, gone supernova. ie: the debris & nebula surrounding the space where once the star or sun stood (existed).
A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole".
When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.
The rapid deceleration of RHIC ions as they smash into each other for a very short period of time (about 10^(-23) second) is similar to the extreme gravitational environment in the vicinity of a black hole. This means that RHIC collisions should emit a bunch of thermal particles similar to the “Hawking radiation” emitted by a black hole. Since Hawking radiation is the cause of black hole decay, not formation, its existence would be yet another reason that RHIC cannot produce a real gravitational black hole.
The Universe from a blackhole? ... hmmm
I am still not convinced that the Big Bang theory will give us a clear, real or true picture of the Universe. That it came from a blackhole would certainly fit in nicely and agree with Lee Smolin's view of blackholes leading to other 'pocket' universes.
I do not view The Cosmic Event Horizon as the same as the event horizon of a blackhole, ie we are not inside an atom, and the event horizon is not our 'physical' periphery, but our 'perceived' periphery, our instrumental periphery well beyond the range of the naked eye.
If you travelled to The Even Horizon you would still be able to see back to where you came from (halfways) and further on into the Cosmos, the event horizon effectively would be moving with you. In fact you would still be in the same Cosmos (Universe) just seeing a further section hidden to us (here) by the event horizon. And you will not see this additional portion of the cosmos inside a 'collider' but travelling space with 'probes' and eventually in manned spaceships. In the meantime we conduct experimental physics and theorize on the concepts as determined either by the limitations in knowledge of the observer, or the limitations of technology and present instrumentation.
I do not dispute the cosmos beyond the event horizon ...
I do not even dispute parallel worlds or 'pocket universes', terms used by both Susskind & Smolin, to describe the as yet 'unknown' or 'unseen' Universe. What I do dispute is that the cosmos beyond the event horizon are parallel universes, they are just more planets, galaxies & Cosmos, beyond the event horizon, in the One Universe or Susskind's Megaverse.
The 'other' dimensions' are around us. The snake does not see the world or 'dimensions' we SEE, the fly does not see the world or 'dimensions' we SEE, and creatures in the bottom of the Ocean probably have no idea whatsoever of the world we SEE, or the dimensions we live in.
Even the cells and DNA in our body ARE in a different dimension ... We are a veritable walking, talking, breathing pocket universe or Paradise Island, where these cells & DNA thrive in, or destroy through triggers or rebellion (cancer, fever, ageing...)
Blackholes: Holes or Singularities
We've established that blackholes, whether they be 'holes' or 'singularities' do not intrinsically or effectively affect (change) String Theory. Not forgetting of course that any thing or force in space, whether in a regular orbit or moving unpredictably randomly (chaotically) has en effect and does affect everything 'smaller' in its path, and those 'larger' to a lesser extent.
What I am trying to establish is whether a blackhole is a 'hole' or 'singularity'
If it is a hole, or some tornado like vortex moving through space moving matter (like cows or rooftops) from one place to another in SPACE, as tornadoes do on earth. Is its 'mouth' held in a regular or constant orbit, only its tail wipping around violently, or is the whole thing running loose, with no defined orbit or trajectory.
or is it a 'singularity' from which nothing not even light can escape, producing gravitational pull by its sheer mass and density. And is this singularity held in a constant or regular orbit, and therefore its coordinates can be established like static sea & ocean whirlpools, or are they moving too.
Blackholes or singularities, and their event horizon, are not to be confused with the Event Horizon of the known Cosmos, unless you believe we are living in a blackhole.
I repeat if we travel thru space towards the periphery, the periphery would move further out.
By all means, I love Lisa Randall's dimensions, but these do not prove Susskind's eggtray of pocket universes beyond himalayan ridges, nor Smolin's pocket universes thru blackholes that are holes.
Is Earth (or any other planet) a hole in the universe. Is a Star or a Sun. Then when they go supernova we have a space in that Space. Hole is an unfortunate and misleading term.
When a Star or Sun goes supernova, ie: explodes and/or implodes, the event horizon for the space vacated is the debri or nebulae circulating around the periphery of the space vacated, not the centre of the space vacated, regardless of whether you believe there is a singularity or not in this centre.
Is our 'cosmic' event horizon the centre of the earth, or the periphery of the known or visible (measurable) Cosmos?
We need to recognise in physics, that that which we believe or perveive to be true in our minds, can influence where we look or what we search for, but cannot ultimately impose itself on the 'physical' realty. Therefore if I believe that the centre of blackhole is a hole to some 'unseen' other world, I will inevitably look for evidence to prove the existence of that hole. However if I should find that the centre is a massive (of great mass) high density compressed remains of a previous Star or Sun gone supernova - this only effectively changes the evidence or perceived physics in that space in Space, and does not effectively alter the laws of physics around it in the greater Space.
One thing is to try and understand the laws of physics, beyond the known limits, by constructing models, graphics, simulations and experiments to aid us in our search or discovery. Another thing altogether is to create laws or formulae to fit our models, and theories which may not only be inconsistent with our 'perceived' reality, but actual physical reality.
Ultimately physics may have to reconsider its perceptions:
(A) That the laws of physics define parallel world or pocket universes into some of which humans cannot travel to, in human shape or form - though you can look down a microscope. You can miniaturise instruments, we have the beginings of nano-technology. But even if you can build a nano-spaceship, how do you miniaturise humans to fit into them?
(B) That the observable physical Universe may well be limited to a 3D Universe or Cosmos and 'almost infinite' planets and galaxies, into which some time in the future when knowledge and technology allows, man travels through T (TIME).
All that aside from what we search for at microscopic and subatomic level, and at the bottom of the Ocean. And incidentally, is it beyond our capabilities, did we give up on exploring the possibility of The Journey to the Centre of the Earth?