Now that those of us with a lively but an amateur interest in cosmology have sort-of gotten our heads around the idea of a black hole, we have to wrestle with an odd variant, the "naked black hole" -- i.e the black hole that can be observed from outside.
We amateurs understand or think we understand that the inner workings of a black hole cannot be observed from outside its boundary, formally known as its "event horizon". Hence the adjective "black". Yet the James Webb telescope seems now to be saying -- yes, maybe we can. Perhaps sometimes we can observe the singularity, the point at the Senate where gravity becomes infinite and all laws seem to break down.
Here is one take on this.
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2025/09/this-naked-black-hole-shouldnt-exist.html
One thing that us amateurs think we know about black holes is that they form from the collapse of a star in upon itself. Hossenfelder says that the naked black holes did not form that way, they are too "primordial" for that. She also indicates that they may satisfy a prediction of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND), a theory I expounded briefly in this very blog a couple of weeks ago.
But I haven't wrapped my own head around any of this yet so I'll just leave this post as an IOU to myself.
I have heard of SH, whether with esses or aitches. I wonder: how far back must we go to exceed the farthest reaches of the primordial? Inquiring minds want to know. I too, am trying to wrap my mind around some far reaches, though those appear to be more practical goals than establishment of boundary(ies) for naked black holes. Granted, I am not a physicist, theoretical or otherwise. Perhaps, only perhaps, *primordial* is the wrong quadrant of time for the characterization SH sought.? Maybe, extraterrestrial? Or, as a practical matter, it is tout le meme chose? Can't ask a dinosaur. They are not talking. Well, maybe metaphorically? Hmmmmm...
ReplyDelete