Home Page Science Frontiers
ONLINE

No. 99: May-Jun 1995

Issue Contents





Other pages


Other Interesting Sites


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

Where have all the black holes gone?

Like the Big Bang, black holes are an astronomical staple. Most scientists and laymen assume that black holes are proven, well-observed denizens of the cosmos. Certainly the media entertains no doubts! Let us take a skeptical look.

Does theory require black holes? In 1939, R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder showed on paper that a massive star could collapse and create a black hole, assuming the correctness of stellar theories and General Relativity. Initially, scientists were skeptical about black holes because of their bizarre properties: They emit no light and inhale unwary starships. Black holes are also singularities, and singularities make scientists nervous. In the black-hole singularity, thousands of stars are swallowed and compressed into an infinitesimally small volume. (Ref. 1) This grates against common sense.

The philosophical uneasiness about black holes is worsened by the discovery that they:

"...threaten the universe with an irreversible loss of information, which seems to contradict other laws of physics." (Ref. 2)

Adding to these problems are nagging doubts about General Relativity, which underpins black-hole theory. Recently, some theorists have shown that General Relativity requires that two bodies of approximately equal size not attract one another! (Ref. 2)

Despite all these qualms, black holes have become a fixture of astronomy because they promise to explain the incredibly powerful energy sources seen in the cores of galaxies.

Do astronomers really observe black holes? The answer is: MAYBE. And even if YES, there are not nearly enough of them to satisfy theory.

To illustrate, according to present theory, when stars weighing in at less than three solar masses collapse, they become neutron stars; if larger, the stars turn into small black holes. Theoretically, there should be one small black hole for every three neutron stars. But with some 500 neutron stars already pin-pointed, only 3 "possible" small black holes have been given votes of confidence; namely, Cyg X-1, LMC X-3, and AD 620-00. All objects previously proclaimed to be small black holes have instead turned out to be neutron stars. (Ref. 1)

The case for massive black holes weighing in at millions of solar masses is not overwhelming either. These are supposed to lurk in the centers of galaxies. To find them, astronomers look for intensely bright spots in galaxies, around which swirl stars at speeds approaching the speed of light as they are sucked into the black hole's maw. Such fantastic celestial maelstroms do seem to exist, as evidenced by "something" in the giant elliptical galaxy M87. (Ref. 1)

New claims for massive black holes are always being put forward. The spiral galaxy NGC 4328, for example, is thought to harbor a supermassive black hole weighing in at 40 million solar masses! (Ref. 3) However, claims for massive black holes are also being shot down all the time. Several have thought they had found a massive black hole at the center of our own galaxy. This no longer seems likely. (Ref. 4)

Conclusion. Don't be too quick to accept such bizarre constructs as black holes, whether small or massive.

References

  1. Parker, Barry; "Where Have All the Black Holes Gone?" Astronomy, 22: 36, October 1994.
  2. Flam, Faye; "Theorists Make a Bid to Eliminate Black Holes," Science, 266:1945, 1994.
  3. Cowen, R.; "New Evidence of a Galactic Black Hole," Science News, 147:36, 1995.
  4. Goldwurm, A., et al; "Possible Evidence against a Massive Black Hole at the Galactic Center," Nature, 371:589, 1994.

From Science Frontiers #99, MAY-JUN 1995. 1995-2000 William R. Corliss

Science Frontiers Sourcebook Project Reviewed in:

Quotes

  • "A sourcebook of unexplained phenomena is therefore a valuable addition to a collection of scientific literature. William R. Corliss has provided this in the past with his source books of scientific anomalies in several subjects, and now he has provided it for astronomy. He has done an excellent job of collecting and editing a large amount of material, taken in part from scientific journals and in part from scientific reporting in the popular or semi-scientific press." -- "The Mysterious Universe: A Handbook of Astronomical Anomalies", reviwed by Thomas Gold, Cornell University, in Icarus, vol.41, 1980

  • "An interesting, systematic presentation of unusual weather [..] This book is recommended for a general audience" --"Corliss, William R., Tornados, Dark Days, Anomalous Precipitation, and Related Weather Phenomena, Sourcebook Project, 1983.", revieweed in Choice, September 1983
  • "..the science is necessarily somewhat speculative, but Corliss's symthesis is based on reputable sources." -- "Corliss, William R. (Compiler). Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous Phenomena" reviwed by Joseph M. Moran, Univ. of Wisconsin in Science Books and Films, Sep/Oct 1983

  • "Before opening the book, I set certain standards that a volume which treads into dangerous grounds grounds like this must meet. The author scrupulously met, or even exceeded those standards. Each phenomenon is exhaustively documented, with references to scientific journals [..] and extensive quotations" -- "Book Review: The moon and planets: a catalog of astronomical anomalies", The Sourcebook Project, 1985., Corliss, W. R., Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 81, no. 1 (1987), p. 24., 02/1987