[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Black Holes

Sep 05, 1997 04:26 PM
by Tim Maroney

>Dennis, I enjoyed your comments on Black Holes. But I
>can't agree with everything (so what else is new? :-) )
>A Black Hole takes in matter and gives off radiation and
>heat (at least according to Steven Hawking--personally
>I don't follow all the math).

The Hawking black-hole radiation process is actually not all that 
complicated as explained in Scentific American and physics popularizers, 
but it involves some unusual entities. In empty space with no energy 
there is a constant process of virtual particle/anti-particle pair 
formation, including pairs where one virtual particle has a positive 
energy and the other negative. Due to the nature of the event horizon, 
sometimes it happens that a negative particle that would otherwise be 
reabsorbed with its counterpart into nothingness falls in the hole 
instead, but its companion does not, with the result that the positive 
particle wanders off as radiation. I don't know why this isn't a zero-sum 
process but in any case it is now generally agreed by physicists that 
black holes radiate, and that they radiate faster the smaller they are. A 
big black hole like the one at the center of our galaxy will last for 
trillions of years, but ultimately they will all peter out into 
radiation, leaving the universe in a classical heat-death state, uniform 
and cold everywhere, with no lumps like black holes, stars, planets, 
rocks, clouds or people.

>This is my definition of a device
>that converts matter to energy (alias spirit). If they exist,
>then their polar counterparts--White Holes-- must also
>exist. White Holes would give off matter and take in radiation
>and heat, just the opposite of Black Holes. If we allow
>that this is so, then I can't help but see a mighty large
>connection between White Holes and HPB's laya

Let's not forget the clear geological connection to Old Faithful, proving 
that there must exist in the world geysers and anti-geysers chained 
together and spewing not only water but that pure cosmic substance that 
is the stuff of the spiritual world. Seriously, I've never understood why 
this kind of completely unfounded scientific speculation would have any 
appeal outside science fiction. Because such statements deal with 
scientific matters but lack any empirical grounding, they are almost 
certain to be wrong. Can you explain the appeal In expressing factual 
claims of this kind?

Tim Maroney

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application