In August I wrote about the launch of a micro satellite from the orbiting International Space Station (ISS), (The Big Toss, August 23, 2018). An astronaut launched the small satellite by throwing it into space, to be accepted by Earth’s gravity, and to orbit the planet until its orbit decays and the tiny satellite plunges to its fiery end. Now there is another toss to discuss. This toss is a thought experiment. The actual toss is not something that an astronaut can participate in now or ever. This “other toss” is a hypothetical toss of a tiny particle into a black hole. Yes, a black hole! One of those “ginormous” (as described by Douglas Stanford of Stanford University who is the subject of this post), swirling, end-of-all events that spurs our imaginations and haunts our dreams as they churn at the center of their galaxies.
These events consume all that comes within their reach. And that is where Douglas Stanford’s and Stephen Shenker’s hypothesis rests. However, “rest” might be an inappropriate description as the particle that is tossed, as pictured above, from Stanford’s sailboat does not rest as it plummets into the never-return zone of the black hole.
The picture is taken from the cover of the October 13, 2018 edition of Science News Magazine (SN). The issue profiles ten scientists to watch. These scientists include those working in planetary science, biology, chemistry, sustainable energy and other fields. I was drawn to the description of Stanford’s and Shenker’s work, and intrigued by the picture on the cover of SN of a young Stanford standing in a sailboat and tossing a particle into the imagined immensity of a black hole. According to SN, Stanford spent his younger years on a sailboat with his parents and siblings. The picture on the cover brings the young-Stanford together with the now-Stanford picturing the toss of a tiny particle into the black hole.
In my previous post, the acceleration of the tiny satellite from the ISS was described as being “flung” out into space. There seemed to have no aiming in that fling but a general understanding that whatever was tossed from the ISS would assume an orbit around the Earth. When we consider a black hole and a sailboat sitting near the edge of the black hole we must suspend reality and allow the sailboat to be a stable platform, unaffected by the pull of the black hole and always at a distance from the black hole’s event horizon that allows continuous observation of the passing stream of particles into the black hole. The event horizon defines the limit of correspondence or awareness of a physical item as it passes from the space around the black hole to being absorbed into the mass of the black hole and becoming part of it. On this side of the event horizon the particle can be observed. On the far side of the event horizon, inside the black hole, the particle can no longer be observed.
So we suspend reality and assume that the sailboat is not affected by the tidal pulls of the black hole or the material that is flowing in an endless stream into its unseen maw.
I can only imagine that the scientist standing in the stable sailboat preparing to toss the particle into the black hole, unlike the astronaut preparing to fling a micro satellite, has some aiming in mind. Of course, the intent is different. The astronaut wants the tiny satellite that is being flung to establish an orbit around the Earth. On the other hand, Stanford as he stands in his sailboat, is aiming at the black hole. Of course anything that is tossed outwards from this stable platform will be pulled into the black hole. But I can imagine if it were me looking into that which cannot be seen, I would say to myself, “I think I will aim at the middle (wherever that is)”. Further, I might wonder if I could skip the particle along the surface of the black hole like a stone on a lake? This last is of course beyond reason as once the particle has touched the event horizon the particle is consumed and cannot come back out – even in a skip. But when the particle hits the surface of the black hole will it make ripples?
But this isn’t the point of the SN article. Stanford and Shenker have hypothesized that a tiny particle, when it is consumed by the black hole, will cause a chaotic reaction in the black hole. The black hole will increase in size and there will be a change in the Hawking Radiation. If I eat too much pie, I feel full. When a black hole consumes a particle, the black hole expands. It’s event horizon moves outward. Maybe it expands only by the tiniest degree, but it is hypothesized to expand. In addition, when the tiny particle is consumed there is an alteration of the Hawking Radiation emitted by the black hole.
What then of another particle that is sitting outside the event horizon of the black hole and has not yet been consumed? And what if this other particle – we are again suspending reality – is as stable as the sailboat and is not caught in the flow of material that is rushing into the black hole, although this particle is bathed in the Hawking Radiation emitted from the black hole. Now that the first particle that was tossed into the black hole has been consumed, and as a result the black hole has expanded, it may expand to the point that its event horizon now encompasses the second particle. The second particle is now consumed.
The SN article states, “A seemingly insignificant alteration has ballooning effects – the definition of chaos.” The outcome for a system (the black hole) has become highly sensitive to potential massive change generated from an initial, minute change. A tiny initial condition may result in – who knows what? The black hole is ballooned outward, and it consumes more. The ballooning affects the amount of Hawking Radiation. The tiny particle has multiple effects on the black hole. It was swallowed into an imperceptible hard but tarry pool that will not release what has fallen in. The Hawking Radiation might tell a tale, but what comes out is not what went in.
The SN Magazine may be found at https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sn-10-scientists-to-watch-2018?tgt=nr