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, ...
Posts
Are black holes philosophically interesting? And, if so, why? I submit that they are. They seem to be central to the development of cosmology, the branch of physics that asks the Big Questions: where did the universe come from? why does it have the laws that it has? (for example, why does gravity have the force that it has)? Do the laws of nature themselves have a history? However much impressive and, for many of us, impenetrable the mathematics that may be thrown at such problems, they retain their philosophy-adjacent pull. Why are black holes central to cosmology? In part because the natural way to understand black holes involves the notion of a singularity -- a place (perhaps a mathematical point) where laws cease to apply. Take a simple point from some of the math I just mentioned. Whenever there is a value defied as 1/x= V, then the value goes to infinity as X goes to zero. You can think x as the distance between an objec...
I've heard that Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism, used the issue of the chemical composition of the Sun to illustrate his idea of questions that could not be answered. Since it is obvious (in Comte's view) that we can never get a sample from the inside of the sun to test, we can never know what it is made of, and such an inquiry should be written off as "metaphysical," not positive. Silly philosophers, eh? It is very easy in hindsight to say that Comte shouldn't have been so dogmatic about the possible reach of human knowledge, or the specific means by which chemical composition can be determined. What about the inside of a black hole? Can we say anything definitive about THAT? If so ... how? since we can't go there? Or, if anyone of us could get within the "event horizon" for a time, we couldn't get information back. In a recent blog post, a physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, considers whether the question of the contents of a bl...
We discussed quantum theory yesterday. Now it is time to remind ourselves of the other half of our proposed mash-up. 'Bayesianism' is an approach to probability theory that begins with subjectivity, with somebody's guess about what is the likelihood of an event. It then discusses how an individual having certain circumstances may change his beliefs rationally, and (assuming he has beliefs on more than one question) may keep them consistent with one another -- or, in other words, how he may keep his view of the world coherent. The chief rival of Bayesianism is "frequentism." This treats probability as an objective fact in the world, another name for the frequency of some outcomes vis-a-vis others. I've discussed this difference before. But ... what does it have to do with quantum theory? Collapse the Function for your own Damned Self With a Bayesian approach we get a take on quantum theory that doesn't shrug its shoulders at the "what is rea...
"The great theories of 20th century physics -- relativity, quantum theory, and the Standard Model [of subatomic particles] -- represent the highest achievements of physical science. They have beautiful mathematical expressions that result in precise predictions for experiments, which have been confirmed in many cases to great accuracy. And yet I have just argued that nothing along the lines of these theories can serve as a fundamental theory. This is an audacious claim in the light of their success." Another quote from the Lee Smolin book. I like the audacity. In fact, if I understand him at all, Smolin has delivered me from an intellectual cul de sac in which I have been stuck. I've been unable to accept the Big Bang as an absolute cosmic beginning, given the huge something-from-nothing stumbling block. So I have said -- in this blog and elsewhere -- that I believe some patching up of the old Steady State theory will again have its innings. But the advocates of ...
My black hole, that is. A moment for Dr. Who fans. But complicated ish