tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5311425.post8055554230977945579..comments2024-03-27T00:13:35.570-07:00Comments on Editorials from Theslowlane: Is God Hiding in the Dark Matter or the Dimensions of String Theory?Theslowlane Robert Ashworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10082164332880198884noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5311425.post-74315128786405381112007-07-09T08:45:00.000-07:002007-07-09T08:45:00.000-07:00This mystery of the Universe is why I stick to Pan...This mystery of the Universe is why I stick to Pandeism, because Pandeism sensibly explains that God simply set out the basic physics to create the Universe. So, says Pandeism, all the planets and stars and galaxies, black holes, dark matter, all of that was just the result of using the right mix of physics at the outset to create a Universe in which life would be most likely to pop up eventually in some of those many star systems.<BR/><BR/>There's a video I've seen, I'm sure you can find it easily on the web, shows the results when the Hubble focused for a few days on a patch of sky that looks completely empty from Earth - and found tens of thousands of galaxies in that seeming barren patch! So, yeah, there's a lot out there that we don't know, but at least the Universe is suited to allow us to come into existence, so here we are to think about it all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5311425.post-44374807446574345102007-05-07T15:50:00.000-07:002007-05-07T15:50:00.000-07:00Whether we can observe a black hole, or not, depen...Whether we can observe a black hole, or not, depends on how one defines "observing." <BR/> <BR/>Early in black hole theory, the idea was basically just theory. As time goes on, we see more and more<BR/>evidence for black holes. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I think you are right, we don't really see the black hole itself. We just see evidence of it. In the past, maybe black holes were more in theory, but now we see more and more evidence. <BR/> <BR/>The main thing we seem to see is the giant whirlpool of matter going round and round and getting hotter<BR/>and hotter. It's kind of like water swirling down a drain. We don't really see where it swirls to. It just looks like a whirlpool with a real hot center. They assume the black hole is buried in there<BR/>somewhere. <BR/> <BR/>In theory, black holes have something called an<BR/>"event horizon." That is the radius where light can<BR/>no longer escape, theoretically. <BR/><BR/>I guess, from outside that "event horizon" one cannot see anything inside the event horizon. <BR/> <BR/>I remember an old song from around the 1920s (I think) that went "the music goes round and round and<BR/>it comes out here." Wonder if that was about the record, or the French horn?<BR/> <BR/>New spacecraft, such as the Chandra X-ray telescope, can detect real hot x-ray emissions from toward the<BR/>center of that whirlpool they say surrounds black holes. The higher frequency observations provide<BR/>information closer to what they say would be the event horizon. <BR/> <BR/>Yes, extra solar planets are only seen by their effects, so far. At least as far as I know. There<BR/>are better and better ways to see these effects. Even when I was in college, the wobble of some<BR/>nearby stars made people think there might be a planet there. Now they have some other ways of<BR/>detecting this as well, like the blocked light when a planet passes in front of its star. I might call<BR/>that the "you make a better door than window" effect. Still, it could be something else. Maybe<BR/>dark matter. That's an interesting idea.<BR/><BR/>In college astronomy, they said we have not yet even resolved the disk of another star, besides the sun. <BR/>We just see points of light. I am not sure if that is still true or not. The stars are far away, but<BR/>it's amazing what they can infer. <BR/><BR/>One spacecraft that looks for variability in light<BR/>from a star is called the Humble Space Telescope. That's a slang term as it's small, not much larger<BR/>than a suite case. I think it's really called MOST.<BR/>Interesting that it is a Canadian mission and the main center of operations, I think is at UBC in<BR/>Vancouver, BC.Theslowlane Robert Ashworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10082164332880198884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5311425.post-80960153894076152082007-05-07T15:47:00.000-07:002007-05-07T15:47:00.000-07:00There's a neat movie that was made several years a...There's a neat movie that was made several years ago called "What the bleep do we know?" that says a lot of the same things. It makes a lot of interesting points about the universe and even relationships. It spends quite a bit of time discussing the nature of addictions <BR/>of all kinds, including sex addiction. It seems to say <BR/>that each one of us is a sort of collection of little pieces that are themselves sort of like separate "organisms," and addiction is when those pieces get attached to certain things. <BR/><BR/>Here's another point that is related to what you said.<BR/>I have said to some people that the whole concept of "black holes" appears to be a theoretical construct rather than strictly a "fact" as we normally use the<BR/>term. The point is, since theoretically light cannot<BR/>escape black holes, it seems there's no way to observe<BR/>them directly. We infer them based on our theories. But it's interesting that everyone I've said that to has said, "oh, no, we've observed black holes." How<BR/>would that be possible? Are they right about that?<BR/><BR/>A related point is about planets in other solar systems. My understanding is that until the last several years, we had never actually SEEN one--rather,<BR/>we INFERRED them based on the wobbling of their stars,<BR/>assumed to be caused by the gravitational pull of<BR/>planets. In the last couple of years, we've actually<BR/>seen planets in other solar systems for the first time. Basically just breaks in the light from those<BR/>stars as we observed them. <BR/><BR/>But that's more than it seems would be possible for black holes: since light can't escape them, they are<BR/>unobservable. Unless the total absence of light in a certain part of space is an "observation," but even then the idea depends on our current theories. It's still a kind of inference, I think, rather than<BR/>observation. <BR/><BR/>I think the only way you'd observe a black hole is to be pulled into it!<BR/><BR/>Now that I think of it, even the claim to have seen those planets is somewhat in the same category.<BR/>Someone might say the break in light is caused by something else. Maybe dark matter!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com