MARK GARLICK / GETTY
Here is something to think about. This year, Peter Hintz, a UC Berkeley mathematician, theorized that the universe
that not only collapse and crack and shatter the normal (or normal for us) laws of physics (space-time) but, under the right conditions, a human could enter without being crushed into a stream of matter, but instead be stuck in a kind of state that appears to be ghostly. But this is a very strange spook. It is one with no past but instead is stuck for lord knows how long in futures that have no (or are determined by any) past. You only move forward in a cloud of potentials (Delueze’s virtual). You are a ghost of yets-to-come. You do not relate with what you have been but only what you can become. Your giveness is perpetually a giveness linked to no objectified or coalesced (or, to use a Whiteheadian term,
) former given. What kind of ghost is this? The ones in our world are, of course, stuck in the past like an insect in a cube of glass. Or an object entering the eternal birth of the universe.
[G]iven the past and present, the physical laws of the universe do not allow more than one possible future… But, says UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow Peter Hintz, mathematical calculations show that for some specific types of black holes in a universe like ours, which is expanding at an accelerating rate, it is possible to survive the passage from a deterministic world into a non-deterministic black hole.
In Hintz’s mathematics, these “benign black hole” can break with what is called the Strong Cosmic Censorship (SCC). This rule, which was imposed 50 years ago by the physicist Roger Penrose, and is certainly in the spirit of the great thinker and Spinozist Albert Einstein (he hated black holes and ghosts), is basically a stop sign on what’s called the Cauchy horizon, a horizon within a black holes’ event horizon, and the point at which Einstein’s universe breaks down completely, and the past is detached from the future (the grund of mainstream physics from Newton on).
The thinking is that an encounter with the Cauchy horizon will be physically catastrophic. Nothing can survive such an experience because black holes are nothing but bad news. For one, “the tidal forces close to the event horizon are enough to spaghettify anything: that is, stretch it until it’s a string of atoms.” Secondly, you could never return to the normal universe and share the experience on Instragram. It is also theorized that once in this zone of the black hole, a person would be overwhelmed by all the energy that the black hole has recorded during the entire process of the universe’s evolution. It would be there not in stages (or as a cosmic history) but all at once (all the energy that has ever been). Hintz and others are now challenging SCC, which, according to Hintz, has been based on a thinking that did not include or appreciate properly the accelerating expansion of the universe.
With this other understanding, it’s possible for the whole history (as one) universe not to be there, in a black hole. The universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. The further something is away from us, the faster is the expansion of space. Under the right conditions, and with the right black hole, this might present an opening into the ghostly world that snaps what has been from what could be.
Professor Hintz, in a post by Berkeley News:
No physicist is going to travel into a black hole and measure it. This is a math question. But from that point of view, this makes Einstein’s equations mathematically more interesting… This is a question one can really only study mathematically, but it has physical, almost philosophical implications, which makes it very cool.
The keywords here “almost philosophical implications.” Hintz knows very well the dangerous game he is playing with this form of mathematical speculation, and it points directly to another reason Penrose placed the stop sign (SCC) on the Cauchy horizon.
One of the main enemies of scientific reasoning has been, from its beginning (with Galileo and others of his time), that bastard metaphysics (or speculative philosophy). Even philosophy (the love of all wisdom) adopted this (and has been largely conditioned by) a form of reasoning, logical positivism, that emerged in the 1920s in Vienna (the Vienna Circle). The essential reasoning is this: Because metaphysical propositions cannot be verified, they are nothing but nonsense. Metaphysics, which attempts to grasp a total and fundemental picture of “the all,” to link everything with everything (particularly the best metaphysics that’s out there, Whitehead’s philosophy of organism) became rather dishonorable. And we can see in Penrose’s SCC the attempt to keep out metaphysical speculations of any kind from this obviously messy region of scientific research. It’s vulnerable to it. It’s asking for it. It’s begging for it. Anyone can enter the area and think as much and as freely as they wish. Here, poetry can even flourish. And poetry is only worse than speculative philosophy.
But here is one more thing to consider, and is connected with the possibility of surviving a Cauchy horizon because the danger of the entire history of the universe’s energy has been reduced by the universe’s expansion: The fact that we can see light that left galaxies 13 billion light-years ago—galaxies that are so close in time to the birth of this universe, they are still in the early stages of formation (they’re fuzzy masses of gravity-gathering gas and dust), should make us wonder: why now? Why can we see so much of the universe, observe it almost to the beginning of its inflation? Why are we not at a later time when the light from distant galaxies has been overwhelmed by the expansion of space and therefore can never reach and be seen by any human instrument (organic or otherwise)? This is weird, no? We are conscious of the universe at exactly the right time. There must be a connection.