From: hillp@ecf.toronto.edu (HILL Peter)
Subject: BLACKHOLES IN THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:56:44 GMT


BLACKHOLES IN THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, THE SUN AND OTHER OBJECTS.
 
Author: Peter Collin Hill
 
Version 1- 27 /7/1992
 
Objective:  To open discussion of this topic.  To develop concepts
presented.
 
Abstract:  Miniature blackholes, remnants of the Big Bang, are
predicted by Steven Hawking in his book " A brief History of Time", to
be still in existence.  If indeed this is true it is argued that they
are at the center of the earth, other planets and the Sun.  It is
proposed that their magnetic field explains the origin of the earth's
and other planet magnetic field and that occasional
blackhole-blackhole collisions may cause core explosions that may
explain the origin of the moon, the asteroid belt and other
astronomical features - possibly the missing neutrino problem.
 
Authors note:  I find the 'hole' thing a bit wild, but it is a good
exercise in developing understanding.  I have so far not been able to
conclusively disprove these propositions and therefore offer it for
open discussion.
 
 
Current day explanations of terrestrial magnetic fields are
sufficiently weak, and our understanding of blackhole sufficiently
sketchy, that a possible theory combining the two may prove hard to
disprove.
 
Miniature blackhole are predicted to be remnant from the big bang.
Back of the envelope calculations have suggested that there may be
sufficient numbers of them within the solar system for their
gamma-rays to be detected . .
 
The black holes may be the mass of mountains and have a 'radius' of a
grain of sand or less. They would fall into the center of planets and
suns but take billions of years to eat up their hosts.  No structure
would be strong enough to stop such a hole from falling in to the
center of the planet.  
 
There is no information available about the magnetic fields of black
holes.  Neutron stars, however, display a strong field in the now
familiar manifestation of pulsars.  The magnetic field of the
collapsing field is pinned to the conducting surface of the star, and
by Gauss's law intensified on the contracted surface.  Conservation of
angular momentum lead to  their current very high rate of spin. It
would not be unreasonable to assume blackholes also have strong
magnetic fields.
 
The earliest theory of the Earths magnetic field, put forward by the
P.M.S Blackett school, proposed some large scale law of physics that
would apply for very large bodies and not for the standard lumps of
metal we observe around us.  As no simple scaling law could account
for the size of magnetic fields in bodies such as the sun and other
magetic stars so the theory was abandoned in favour of the dynamo
theory.  The suggestion that the core of planets and stars could be by
some wierd physics superconducting is in a sence a throw back to the
"something different about large bodies - Blackett theories".  This
"black hole in the centre" idea is of the same gendre but may be
equally credible.
 
What is wrong with the dynamo theory, in which motion of a conductor
through a magnetic field provides the current that inturn sustains the
magnetic field?  Terrestrial magnetic fields suffer from the problem
that dynamo is electrically shorted.  As the inner core is conducting
the establishment of polloidal and torroidal currents are necessary to
run magnet-earth but conceptually very difficult to achieve.  Currents
and fields can be initiated by chemical effects and in the case of
massive bodies gravitational separation of charges.  There is a
possibility of the magnetic field building on itself(Currents -
leading to fields-leading to currents)  over millions of years all the
time powered by thermal convective forces.  A theory sufficiently
general to explain all planetary magnetic fields and to overcome the
obstacle electrical shorting is yet to be developed.  
 
It is noteworthy that nuclear powered convective currents and
blackholes, are philosophically speaking very similar explanations:
one relies on the energy stored billions of years ago in a supernova
that produced the radioactive fuel, while the other relies has is
origins not that much further in the past event -- the beginning of
time.
 
It is proposed that backhole in the center of the earth are the cause
of our magnetic field.  Two orbiting holes in the center of earth may
be sufficiently unstable or chaotic to explain the chaotic change in
direction of the poles, but the relatively stable intensity of the
field.
 
Billions of years ago when two holes in the center of the Earth
collided the core explosion could have shed the crust, providing and
alternative explanation for the origin of the moon.  This theory might
not be as parameter ridden as the collision theory.  As the moon is
made of material that does not contain blackholes, it has a very low
magnetic field.
 
A core explosion of a planet outside the orbit of Mars may explain the
asteroid belt.
 
Finally, the missing neutrinos may be due to blackholes in the sun.
 
I would appreciate information and discussion of such things as the
magnetic fields of other planets and the nature of blackholes.

Newsgroups: sci.physics