Friday, April 27, 2007

Black hole or worm hole?


A new study suggests that black holes and worm holes may be virtually indistinguishable from each other observationally. The sole observable difference is something called Hawking radiation, which should be found in the case of black holes but not with worm holes. The trouble is that Hawking radiation should be very hard to detect in the presence of many other energy sources. There is a very interesting article on the study and on black holes and worm holes in general at New Scientist.

An interesting thought is put foward that Hawking radiation may aid in future particle accelerator experiments where microscopic black holes might be produced, specifically to help identify whether what is created in the experiment is a black hole or a worm hole.

I've heard a little about these proposed experiments before, and really have to read more about them. What effect would a microscopic black hole have on its surroundings? Would it last a few nanoseconds and then vanish/collapse, or could it sustain itself? A worm hole would be preferable I think, since it does not have an event horizon like a black hole does! Which means something that goes in might be able to come back out.

I remember reading an alternate theory on black hole formation, function and form recently that I'm going to look around for and put up as yeti tracks if I can find it.

1 comment:

kenora said...

The astronomy geek in me is loving these entries. :) (I wanted to be an astronomer for a long time as a kid - space and all that's out there fascinated me. Still does, though I don't want to be an astronomer anymore.) Thank you!