Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do away with them.

[Harry Costas]

We are consistently learning about everything.
But! do we really know.
Will the future scientist change the way we see things?

[Submitted on 29 Nov 2023 (v1), last revised 13 May 2024 (this version, v2)]

On the evolution of the volume in Loop Quantum Cosmology​

Beatriz Elizaga Navascués

The dynamics of the expectation value of the volume is one of the key ingredients behind the replacement of the Big Bang singularity by a bounce in Loop Quantum Cosmology. As such, it is of great importance that this quantity is mathematically well-defined in the space of physical states of the theory. A number of caveats have been raised about such a definition entering in conflict with the quantum evolution of states, motivated by the situation found in quantum geometrodynamics. We show that there are ways around these caveats, all of which are related to the existence of quantization prescriptions leading to a nondegenerate curvature operator in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Interestingly, the properties of the curvature operator that may allow for a good behavior of the volume are only possible thanks to the discreteness of the geometry characteristic of the loop quantization procedure.

 

[Harry Costas]

Nucleosynthesis is not a Big Bang action.
It is part of a cyclic event.

[Submitted on 30 Oct 2023 (v1), last revised 22 Jan 2024 (this version, v2)]

Constraining primordial black hole masses through f(R) gravity scalarons in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis​

Abhijit Talukdar, Sanjeev Kalita, Nirmali Das, Nandita Lahkar

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) is a strong probe for constraining new physics including gravitation. f(R) gravity theory is an interesting alternative to general relativity which introduces additional degrees of freedom known as scalarons. In this work we demonstrate the existence of black hole solutions in f(R) gravity and develop a relation between scalaron mass and black hole mass. We have used observed bound on the freezeout temperature to constrain scalaron mass range by modifying the cosmic expansion rate at the BBN epoch. The mass range of primordial black holes (PBHs) which are astrophysical dark matter candidates is deduced. The range of scalaron mass which does not spoil the BBN era is found to be 10−16−104 eV for both relativistic and non-relativistic scalarons. The window 10−16−10−14 eV of scalaron mass obtained from solar system constraint on PPN parameter is compatible with the BBN bound derived in this work. The PBH mass range is obtained as 106−10−14 M⊙. Scalarons constrained by BBN are also eligible to accommodate axion like dark matter particles. The problem of ultra-light PBHs (M≤10−24 M⊙) not constrained by the present study of BBN is still open. Estimation of deuterium (D) fraction and relative D+3He abundance in the f(R) gravity scenario shows that the BBN history mimics that of general relativity. While the PBH mass range is eligible for non-baryonic dark matter, the BBN bounded scalarons provide with an independent strong field test of f(R) gravity. The PBH mass range obtained in the study is discussed in relation to future astronomical measurements.

 

[Atlan0001]

The saying is, "nature abhors a vacuum, so along with, in, "emergent SPACE," one gets all the package, such as emerging mass matter and energy in proportionality, and a balanced conservation of both in the accelerating expansion of potentials to infinities already broadly and deeply fulfilled! E=mc^2.

Who says the Universe (U) can't have it both ways and all ways, a multi-dimensional MULTIVERSE Universe?! That cosmopolis up and out there, and down and in there, sure isn't us!

 

[Questioner]

Inside the event horizon space is contracted/reduced so that any light trajectories can only orbit [mostly?] within it.
How concentrically organized i wouldn’t guess.
I do wonder if there could be light orbits that elliptically cross back & forth either side of the event horizon.

 

[Atlan0001]

Inside the event horizon space is contracted/reduced so that any light trajectories can only orbit [mostly?] within it.
How concentrically organized i wouldn’t guess.
I do wonder if there could be light orbits that elliptically cross back & forth either side of the event horizon.

Inside the event horizon, space is limitless (infinite / infinitesimal / non-finitely one an the same). Inside the event horizon there is accelerating expansion in opening.

 

[billslugg]

I'll take your word for conditions inside the event horizon. I'm not going there.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Some think we are already inside one.

 

[Harry Costas]

Imagination can play trick on what we think.

What will prevent EMR from escaping?
What type of matter can cause such vector forces?
Quark matter core?
Partonic Matter core?
Axion Matter Core?

As for time and space that's another issue for imagination and movie goers.

 

[Atlan0001]

All of you know very well that any black hole is universe(s) within universe(s). If nothing else, and there is plenty of "else," you properly sense it!

 

[Harry Costas]

We have SPACE.
We have the UNIVERSE.
We have matter and energy.

You cannot have a Universe within a Universe

Since we cannot tell accurately what a Black Hole is, we cannot say a Universe within.

 

[Atlan0001]

We have SPACE.
We have the UNIVERSE.
We have matter and energy.

You cannot have a Universe within a Universe

Since we cannot tell accurately what a Black Hole is, we cannot say a Universe within.

Sure we can have universe bubbles within universe bubbles and say there are universes within black holes (through the portals of black holes), until you prove for a fact the negative you imply to be the fact, Harry!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Harry, how would we know if what we currently perceive as our universe is actually a black hole inside something else?

Because light and matter could still come into our "universe" from the outside, but we could not send anything outside, we could still call whatever it is on the outside of our event horizon (from the outside) part of our universe, and just say that some parts of our total universe would never be observable because they are moving away too fast. Sort of sounds like the BBT version, doesn't it?

So, this really gets down to semantics about the definition of our word "universe".

Clearly, what is inside what we perceive as a black hole is outside our "observable universe", as is anything that is moving away from us at the high differential speeds theorized by the BBT.

So, anything outside our "observable universe" will remain as a "theorized universe" that we are unlikely to ever completely understand, because we can never observe it to verify any theory.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Unclear Eng

Well, what can I say?
Imagination is a powerful tool