7 ms·

I'm not a physicist. I imagine that if I were, this would be exciting news (that is, an exciting possibility). I am a literary critic, though, and I have to s

by sramsay 12y ago

I'm not a physicist. I imagine that if I were, this would be exciting news (that is, an exciting possibility). I am a literary critic, though, and I have to say that it's bittersweet news at best. Black holes are so much a part of the space-age imagination. The article mentions Hollywood, but black holes are woven deeply into our everyday metaphors and have been for decades. They have stood among the most wondrous things in the universe -- an awe-inspiring thing. It reminds me a bit of when the press reported that the Catholic Church had "gotten rid of Limbo" (the actual case was a bit more complex, and involved some fairly weighty theology). Then again, we all still talk of things "being in Limbo." Perhaps that next project will still be a black hole, even if it turns out that there's no such thing.

dhimes 12y ago
I imagine that the metaphor "black hole" will be here for a while. After all, we still use the term "big bang" for the 'first moment' of the creation of the universe, even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer.
- Ono-Sendai 12y ago
  Erm, the big bang theory is still the best theory for the history of the universe.
  - dhimes 12y ago
    No- it was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. They are different. You've kind of proved my point.
    - Ono-Sendai 12y ago
      As I understand it, inflation usually applies shortly after the big bang.
      - dhimes 12y ago
        My point is that the Big Bang Theory preceded the Inflationary Theory by decades. Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. We now still, however, refer to the big bang- as I am suggesting will happen with Black Holes even if the original Black Hole theories are replaced by something else. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341
        lutusp 12y ago
        > Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. Again, inflation does not replace the Big Bang theory, it complements it. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.
        dhimes 12y ago
        In the sense that Newton's laws are recovered from Special Relativity as c->infinity, yes. The Big Bang theory was more than just the idea that there was a "big bang" at the start of space-time. It was its own theory. And in the current theories, the 'big bang' at the start remains. But much else has changed. Since we've carried the thread so long, I'll relate something marginally off topic that you might find kinda cool. At the time (I was in grad school then), it was a big deal to make the from Big Bang to Inflation, for political reasons. The "Big Bang" theory, in order to explain the smoothness of the observed universe, required a very special Creation event. Natural law wouldn't do it. This was a comfortable place because 80-90% of Americans believe in a Creator, and science was saying it was necessary. So Church leaders and science got along (except for the batshit folks). When Inflation gained acceptance, this need for a Creator to explain the smoothness went away, and there was genuine concern in the field about the ability to continue to get funding from these Americans. So, really, I suspect that the 'really dark dense thing' will remain, and be called a 'black hole,' even if our understanding of 'Black Holes' significantly changes.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      No- it [the Big Bang theory] was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. This is false -- inflationary theory complements Big Bang theory, it does not replace it, as you claim. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence. It's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe' beginnings. Like all scientific theories, it's subject to replacement as new evidence appears and as new theories are crafted, but it's a good match at the moment.
  - acjohnson55 12y ago
    I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done right, then no, belief plays no part -- it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be science. > Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. Scientists aren't robots, but they are also not hothouse orchids. > They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. You have left the topic of science. The reason science exists is precisely because people are the way you describe them. Science is meant to be a counterpoint to natural human instincts, beliefs, passions, and other logical failings. > I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing. You're now confusing science with religion. In religion, you let sincere feelings guide you to a conclusion. In science, you let logic guide you to a conclusion. In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Much of scientific discipline is meant to guard against what we believe is true or want to be true. Experimental and control groups, the classic double-blinding precautions in human studies -- all are meant to minimize the corrosive, undermining influence of our beliefs. The perfect religious follower is guided by belief, hoping only that his work reflects his passion. The perfect scientist doesn't care what conclusion his work comes to, hoping only that it reflects reality to the best of his ability. Belief and science are in absolute opposition.

by sramsay 12y ago

dhimes 12y ago

I imagine that the metaphor "black hole" will be here for a while. After all, we still use the term "big bang" for the 'first moment' of the creation of the universe, even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer.

Ono-Sendai 12y ago
Erm, the big bang theory is still the best theory for the history of the universe.
- dhimes 12y ago
  No- it was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. They are different. You've kind of proved my point.
  - Ono-Sendai 12y ago
    As I understand it, inflation usually applies shortly after the big bang.
    - dhimes 12y ago
      My point is that the Big Bang Theory preceded the Inflationary Theory by decades. Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. We now still, however, refer to the big bang- as I am suggesting will happen with Black Holes even if the original Black Hole theories are replaced by something else. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. Again, inflation does not replace the Big Bang theory, it complements it. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.
        dhimes 12y ago
        In the sense that Newton's laws are recovered from Special Relativity as c->infinity, yes. The Big Bang theory was more than just the idea that there was a "big bang" at the start of space-time. It was its own theory. And in the current theories, the 'big bang' at the start remains. But much else has changed. Since we've carried the thread so long, I'll relate something marginally off topic that you might find kinda cool. At the time (I was in grad school then), it was a big deal to make the from Big Bang to Inflation, for political reasons. The "Big Bang" theory, in order to explain the smoothness of the observed universe, required a very special Creation event. Natural law wouldn't do it. This was a comfortable place because 80-90% of Americans believe in a Creator, and science was saying it was necessary. So Church leaders and science got along (except for the batshit folks). When Inflation gained acceptance, this need for a Creator to explain the smoothness went away, and there was genuine concern in the field about the ability to continue to get funding from these Americans. So, really, I suspect that the 'really dark dense thing' will remain, and be called a 'black hole,' even if our understanding of 'Black Holes' significantly changes.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    No- it [the Big Bang theory] was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. This is false -- inflationary theory complements Big Bang theory, it does not replace it, as you claim. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.
lutusp 12y ago
> even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence. It's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe' beginnings. Like all scientific theories, it's subject to replacement as new evidence appears and as new theories are crafted, but it's a good match at the moment.
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done right, then no, belief plays no part -- it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be science. > Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. Scientists aren't robots, but they are also not hothouse orchids. > They're humans with imaginations, beliefs, agendas, and egos, guided (hopefully) by a methodology that leads to discovery. You have left the topic of science. The reason science exists is precisely because people are the way you describe them. Science is meant to be a counterpoint to natural human instincts, beliefs, passions, and other logical failings. > I think belief is what drives science, and it's not all that bad of a thing. You're now confusing science with religion. In religion, you let sincere feelings guide you to a conclusion. In science, you let logic guide you to a conclusion. In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite. Much of scientific discipline is meant to guard against what we believe is true or want to be true. Experimental and control groups, the classic double-blinding precautions in human studies -- all are meant to minimize the corrosive, undermining influence of our beliefs. The perfect religious follower is guided by belief, hoping only that his work reflects his passion. The perfect scientist doesn't care what conclusion his work comes to, hoping only that it reflects reality to the best of his ability. Belief and science are in absolute opposition.