New Scientist thinks so. You read and decide. It is free:
It sounds like the stuff of nightmares: feed a black hole, and it might just sprout hair. That’s the bizarre-sounding conclusion of calculations for the way black holes behave when they consume matter. Though the hair is metaphorical, the results could open a window into physics beyond the traditional picture of the universe.
Look, we were gonna do a cobra frite last Friday, but the dam cobra ended up on somebody’s endangered species list and got himself impounded and didn’t show up until yesterday when he made us find him sixteen grasshoppers, so we were busy. So this black hole frite will have to do.
Hey, wait a minute, you really NEED a cobra frite?
as to this comment from the article:
The first thing I noticed between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is not their inability to be reconciled but was a striking point of congruence between the two. In General Relativity, in what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, we find that the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon, and that every point is central to the expansion of the universe, and that every point IS central if that is where you live (to borrow Gil Dodgen’s phrase)!
Where this meshes with Quantum Mechanics is that Quantum Mechanics holds that conscious observation is central to wave collapse to its particle state:
If you hold that what was described in the preceding video cannot possibly be a true description of reality, you are not alone. Even the Nobel Prize winner who developed Leggett’s inequality, Anthony Leggett, which proved the claims of the preceding video true, refused to accept the results of his own experiment even though his inequality was violated by an astounding 80 orders of magnitude
There are other experiments, (Quantum Zeno Effect, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries & Wheeler’s Delayed choice) which all converge along with Leggett’s inquality to show us that the universe is centered on conscious observation and not on some material point ‘out there in the universe somewhere’. But this unambiguous result from quantum mechanics is so alien to what most people believe to be true about reality, of a reality separate from consciousness, that they are unable to understand it and/or accept it.
But anyways, to move on, and to reiterate the extremely interesting point of congruence between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:
That certainly is a very interesting point of congruence in my book, and, at first glance, one would think that they should be unified into a ‘theory of everthing’ fairly easily. But that was not to be. Now to look at where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics disagree sharply. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
Moreover, even if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics would have been able to be successfully united into a single mathematical ‘theory of everything’, Godel’s incompleteness shows that the truthfulness of that mathematical theory of everything would still be dependent on God so as to derive the truthfulness inherent within the equation (which should be readily apparent because of the centrality of consciousness in quantum mechanics):
But if we allow that God can play the role of person, as even Godel himself allowed when he chided Einstein’s notion of an abstract god,,,
,,, then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. A reconciliation into a ‘theory of everything’ that is truly a ‘complete theory’ since it also includes God within its formulation:
Verse and Music:
Blackholes, like multiverses and life on mars is poofery…….
no no. black holes are what cause unpoofery.