Black Holes etc.
Why is there a need for a string theory that tries to unify all physical forces in a single theory? Has the theory of relativity, for example, already been researched and understood so well that one can already try to attempt unifying theories based on it?
Regardless of whether our current idea of the origin of our universe or of black holes is correct, one can still accept these vague structures as the best working hypothesis currently available.
It is actually obvious that there must be a connection between the Big Bang and black holes – one as the antithesis of the other. The former is light, the latter rather dark – at least from our point of view.
Where is the synthesis?
In the creation of both, there is talk of an unimaginable amount of energy, which is said to have been concentrated in a very small space, so that the word "singularity" is even used in this context (although one would rather and perhaps should avoid this).
So we prefer to jump from the point in time of its formation to an already existing black hole and speculate about what is happening away from its center, on the "edge", a so-called event horizon – also known as the Schwarzschild radius [1].
So how much "space" is hidden behind this horizon? According to Einstein, matter influences space. The more matter, the greater gravitation and space curvature. In a curved space, the shortest connection from point A to B is not a straight line, but a geodesic. The mass of a black hole bends space so much that – once trapped – not even light can escape. Hence the name.
After all, we know via indirect evidence that objects actually exist that – at least at the edge – are so strongly curved that even light does not escape and that are therefore "black". Some known black holes are listed in [2].
Wrong assumptions?
But why should we be able to tell with our external perspective how much space is actually available "in there"? Just because we can calculate the geometric volume that the hole and the event horizon occupy in our universe does not necessarily mean that there is only so and so much space "in there".
We humans struggle with the idea of curved space and struggle with the space-time of general relativity. This is no wonder, because we are naturally used to three Euclidean spatial dimensions. Everything else has not been important to our evolutionary development until now.
Thanks to space-time, there could be more space "in there" than it appears from the outside – maybe even enough for a whole universe? Unfortunately, that's pure speculation ...
Regardless of whether our current idea of the origin of our universe or of black holes is correct, one can still accept these vague structures as the best working hypothesis currently available.
It is actually obvious that there must be a connection between the Big Bang and black holes – one as the antithesis of the other. The former is light, the latter rather dark – at least from our point of view.
Where is the synthesis?
In the creation of both, there is talk of an unimaginable amount of energy, which is said to have been concentrated in a very small space, so that the word "singularity" is even used in this context (although one would rather and perhaps should avoid this).
So we prefer to jump from the point in time of its formation to an already existing black hole and speculate about what is happening away from its center, on the "edge", a so-called event horizon – also known as the Schwarzschild radius [1].
So how much "space" is hidden behind this horizon? According to Einstein, matter influences space. The more matter, the greater gravitation and space curvature. In a curved space, the shortest connection from point A to B is not a straight line, but a geodesic. The mass of a black hole bends space so much that – once trapped – not even light can escape. Hence the name.
After all, we know via indirect evidence that objects actually exist that – at least at the edge – are so strongly curved that even light does not escape and that are therefore "black". Some known black holes are listed in [2].
Wrong assumptions?
But why should we be able to tell with our external perspective how much space is actually available "in there"? Just because we can calculate the geometric volume that the hole and the event horizon occupy in our universe does not necessarily mean that there is only so and so much space "in there".
We humans struggle with the idea of curved space and struggle with the space-time of general relativity. This is no wonder, because we are naturally used to three Euclidean spatial dimensions. Everything else has not been important to our evolutionary development until now.
Thanks to space-time, there could be more space "in there" than it appears from the outside – maybe even enough for a whole universe? Unfortunately, that's pure speculation ...
Comments
Post a Comment