Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Aug 24, 2020
45
5
1,535
Visit site
So what are the chances of one of these black holes slipping through the cracks so to speak, and ending up much closer to us than we might expect? Please tell me we have this covered, because I know that some employees at NASA have one job and one job only. That is to monitor any object like an asteroid that is headed in our direction.
This also brings up two more questions about these black holes that the shows on TV do not talk about?

1) Do these black holes actually move? And if so, what propels them? Is it their own gravity somehow?

2) Is a black hole a perfect and complete sphere? Or is it just a flat circle like they appear on TV. The recent artistic examples of how they appear are interesting. They look like the pupil of an eye with all of that warping imagery moving around it.
 
So what are the chances of one of these black holes slipping through the cracks so to speak, and ending up much closer to us than we might expect? Please tell me we have this covered, because I know that some employees at NASA have one job and one job only. That is to monitor any object like an asteroid that is headed in our direction.
Since we probably have billions of rouge planets in our galaxy we probably have billions of black holes also.
Most are stable beasts sitting quietly but a good % are not that got flung in encounters with others.
Chances one comes within 1 ly a small for sure.
First sign that one was getting close would be and planet changing orbit some %.
With all the asteroids and comets in our solar system any planet changing orbit would cause them all to change orbit and cause chaos across the solar system.

Doesn't take much gravity interaction to mess up a solar system especially for planets with life on them.
 
So what are the chances of one of these black holes slipping through the cracks so to speak, and ending up much closer to us than we might expect? Please tell me we have this covered, because I know that some employees at NASA have one job and one job only. That is to monitor any object like an asteroid that is headed in our direction.
It’s very doubtful any close bh would be missed. They aren’t that hard to see indirectly since background stars reveal their presence. We have even discovered rogue interstellar traveling planets relatively close to us.
 
It’s very doubtful any close bh would be missed. They aren’t that hard to see indirectly since background stars reveal their presence. We have even discovered rogue interstellar traveling planets relatively close to us.
Yep pretty low chance of it happening.
If it did though first indication is we are screwed lol
A star is headed in our direction but around 3 million years way from causing a gravity interaction so we probably got until then at least :)
 
Aug 24, 2020
45
5
1,535
Visit site
It’s very doubtful any close bh would be missed. They aren’t that hard to see indirectly since background stars reveal their presence. We have even discovered rogue interstellar traveling planets relatively close to us.
If those planets enter the solar system will they disrupt the orbits of our planets, or would they just assume a permanent orbit around the sun like us? If more planets did orbit the sun would it be disruptive or not?
If there was no effect on us at all the only thing we would have to do is rewrite the textbooks, because we would then have more planets. I wonder who would get to name them?
 
First sign that one was getting close would be and planet changing orbit some %.
IMO, this would not be the first.
If those planets enter the solar system will they disrupt the orbits of our planets, or would they just assume a permanent orbit around the sun like us? If more planets did orbit the sun would it be disruptive or not?
Yes, but it's not a matter of if, but how much would it affect the orbits. That would depend on how close it came and how massive it was. Our system extends to about 1 lyr. radius (~ 6 trillion miles). IIRC, about 75,000 years ago a star came that close to us and it had, apparently, no real affect on the orbits. Perhaps a shower in a million years or so will come upon us from that encounter, but we know too little, IMO, to say what will happen; no Oort Cloud objects has ever been found.

Consider the effects of Planet 9 expected to be about 6x that of Earth and only ~ 1/100 of a light year from us. If it could effect our known planets, why haven't we noticed? We only infer its existence because something seems to be affecting the orbits of some Kuiper Belt objects.
 
IMO, this would not be the first.
Yes, but it's not a matter of if, but how much would it affect the orbits. That would depend on how close it came and how massive it was. Our system extends to about 1 lyr. radius (~ 6 trillion miles). IIRC, about 75,000 years ago a star came that close to us and it had, apparently, no real affect on the orbits. Perhaps a shower in a million years or so will come upon us from that encounter, but we know too little, IMO, to say what will happen; no Oort Cloud objects has ever been found.

Consider the effects of Planet 9 expected to be about 6x that of Earth and only ~ 1/100 of a light year from us. If it could effect our known planets, why haven't we noticed? We only infer its existence because something seems to be affecting the orbits of some Kuiper Belt objects.
I agree it's mainly the asteroids, comets that could cause a serious problem.
A stellar mass object at 1 ly would be more than enough to disturb them.

Planet 9 if it exists probably in an odd orbital plain so disturbance when it got close probably not a big deal on orbital change, it getting close to asteroids or comets different story.

planet 9 6x mass, star 1 million x mass,
150 x the distance of planet 9 to cause the same disturbance. guess 1/2 ly
Also comes down to a star location vs the orbital plain to how much disturbance also.
 
Planet 9 if it exists probably in an odd orbital plain so disturbance when it got close probably not a big deal on orbital change, it getting close to asteroids or comets different story.

planet 9 6x mass, star 1 million x mass,
150 x the distance of planet 9 to cause the same disturbance. guess 1/2 ly.
If we compare the one (Scholtz's star) that, per my questionable math, came just inside the Suns' sphere of influence (~ 1lyr), about 70k years ago, with that of the hypothetical Planet 9, you will find that Planet 9 has twice the gravitational force than the star. If Scholtz, a red dwarf, would have been a solar mass sized object, however, then it would have had 6x the influence of Planet 9.

Also comes down to a star location vs the orbital plain to how much disturbance also.
Yes, that's likely a good point. The odds greatly favor a pass not in the ecliptic plain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
If we compare the one (Scholtz's star) that, per my questionable math, came just inside the Suns' sphere of influence (~ 1lyr), about 70k years ago, with that of the hypothetical Planet 9, you will find that Planet 9 has twice the gravitational force than the star. If Scholtz, a red dwarf, would have been a solar mass sized object, however, then it would have had 6x the influence of Planet 9.

Yes, that's likely a good point. The odds greatly favor a pass not in the ecliptic plain.

Difficult to throw math at a planet we really have no true mass or even if it exists. giant guess for both of us :)
We can take a pretty good guess that any star visiting at <1ly is trouble and if we are unlucky lots of trouble.
You can imagine the center bulge of the galaxy and how chaotic it must be.
Doesn't hold well for any advanced life in 75% of the stars in a galaxy.
That and the neighbors occasionally going nova.
 
We can take a pretty good guess that any star visiting at <1ly is trouble and if we are unlucky lots of trouble.
It boils down to how massive the star is and how close it comes as to whether or not it would affect our orbit much at all.

What could be worse in such an encounter is how many Oort Cloud objects would be sent raining-down on the inner solar system, though perhaps the vast majority would have large perihelions and never get close to Earth.
 
It boils down to how massive the star is and how close it comes as to whether or not it would affect our orbit much at all.

What could be worse in such an encounter is how many Oort Cloud objects would be sent raining-down on the inner solar system, though perhaps the vast majority would have large perihelions and never get close to Earth.
For sure if the star is much bigger than ours it's trouble.
Gravity slots.
Sure our orbit might change little but something with even a 10% influence of the sun on the ort of asteroids would be trouble for earth sooner or later.
A closer encounter IMO = disaster for little planets like ours.
Lord help us if a star or bh 5 or 10x our sun mass got semi close.
 
Jun 29, 2020
1
0
10
Visit site
Good thinking. I believe it also possible to create a dumb bell like universe which breaks symmetry by parts going in opposite directions. Also I believe that gravity, dark energy, and maybe space time are parts of the same force.
 
Jul 24, 2020
24
8
1,515
Visit site
What is so-called ''black hole'' ?
------
1 - A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
2 - A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking
temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less
than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
3 - A black hole of one solar mass (M☉) has a temperature
of only 60 nanokelvins (60 billionths of a kelvin)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
4 - Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes
suggested that the terminology used to describe
“gravitational point sources” is highly speculative:
space/time, singularities, and infinite density are abstract concepts,
precluding a realistic investigation into the nature of the Universe.
/ Black hole theory contradicts itself, by Stephen Smith. Oct 12, 2011 /
5 - Book: ''' Stephan Hawking, A life in science,''
/ by Michael White and John Gribbin./
#
''Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking
wrote a paper, published in Communications in Mathematical
Physics , pointing out . . . . . the team commented,
'' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is
absolute zero . . . . No radiation could be emitted from the hole.''
/ page 156./
But later (!) , . . using the concept of entropy and
Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations (!)
Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit
( Hawking radiation )
#
So, in the beginning (according to calculations) the ''black hole''
had absolute zero temperature T=0K but . . . thanks to entropy,
HUP and quantum fluctuations ''Hawking radiations'' were arisen.
In others words:
''black holes'' are micro- schemes of absolute zero vacuum: T=0K
''black hole'' is only another name of the ''true/perfect vacuum'' : T=0K
===
The temperature T=0K belongs to the theory of ''Ideal Gas''
and therefore using the laws of thermodynamics of ''Ideal Gas''
we can understand the structure of so-called ''black holes'' aka vacuum.
========
 
Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW
Definitely , there exist multiple universes and many baby universes are in the making. Big-Bang is NOT the start of the universe. Before the Big-Bang, there existed a prior universe that gave birth to the current universe. Big-Bang is just one of the events that happen usually in this multi-verse.
Black holes are the seeds of a universe. every galaxy contains a massive black hole at its center and clusters of galaxies rotate around another massive black hole. So black holes contain the event horizon where the universe progression is scripted.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Definitely , there exist multiple universes and many baby universes are in the making. Big-Bang is NOT the start of the universe. Before the Big-Bang, there existed a prior universe that gave birth to the current universe. Big-Bang is just one of the events that happen usually in this multi-verse.
Black holes are the seeds of a universe. every galaxy contains a massive black hole at its center and clusters of galaxies rotate around another massive black hole. So black holes contain the event horizon where the universe progression is scripted.
"Scripted"? How so?
 
Nov 6, 2020
59
18
45
Visit site
Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW
Define "Universe". I define it as everything that exists, known or unknown. If your speaking of "local" events then it is not a universe that is being created but just a "local event". Regardless of it's size, if it does not encompass "everything", it's not a new universe but a local event within this one.

The Big Bang was not an explosion but a sudden expansion. Now, if the universe has enough mass to eventually cause a contraction through it's collective gravity (once the expansion slows down), then it could be cyclical. But it has been estimated that it does not.

Just what is an unstable black hole? The more massive it gets, the stronger its gravity field becomes. Your posit implies that the expansion of the universe is caused by a sudden loss of gravitational "strength" of a universal-sized black hole. How does that happen when it has sufficient mass to be a black hole of that particular size? Black hole collisions cause mergers not instability. When a black hole is formed, it has sufficient gravitational strength to become one. And as it acquires more mass, it's gravity strength grows proportionately.

When a black hole has cleared it's local area of all matter, as even planets do - it's going to find itself very alone. It has swallowed up all other matter including the smaller black holes in its local area. It will roam for eons, until it encounters more matter. Then it will either eat some more or be eaten by something bigger. When does this instability you speak of occur? I don't mean to sound facetious but, there is no same-exact-sized ultra-massive black hole meeting place where monster-sized black holes get together in a universal MMA fight to try and destabilize each other that I'm aware of. Is there? These giants would be very, very, very, far apart. They'd have to be - to have cleared out their respective "local areas". And to be that size, their local areas would be unimaginably vast. But even if they could meet, wouldn't one eventually win the fight and swallow the other? They both start out with sufficient mass, and as they acquire more they proportionately acquire more gravitational strength to hold the added mass, until eventually one doubles in size and strength and the other one is gone.

"Unstable at a certain size". Again, if a black hole is a black whole, it is because it is strong enough to be. As it gains matter it gets stronger, never weaker. So I do not see how size could ever effect its stability.

Now, if there are physics we do not understand. And I know there are - your idea could be true, at least on the unstable black hole stuff. But the physics we know are not conducive to your hypothesis. As for local universes being created within this one, I don't see how it could be a separate universe since it is contained within this one. If I'm understanding you correctly.

As I understand the Big Bang, it was caused by a sudden expansion of space. The expansion continues today and is speeding up. And they have concluded that there is insufficient mass, ergo gravity, in the known universe to cause a contraction. Some other mechanism must recreate/renew the universe from the ashes of the old for it to be cyclical.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

IMO, the Universe is cyclical. But not because of black holes. Dark matter (27%) and dark energy (68%) make up a large percentage of the Universe and all we dwell on is the stuff we can see (5%). There is a "force" that is causing the expansion - what is it? Dark energy? Sure, let's go with that. At some point that energy will dwindle or be converted (perhaps into dark matter?) and the expansion will cease. Maybe all that extra dark matter will be enough to contract the Universe back to its primordial state and then, bang! It starts all over again.
 
Last edited:
Oct 9, 2023
23
2
15
Visit site
I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also that, because infinite exists, then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity more) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity more), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity more). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what, YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (an extremely unique type, as every individual of every species or kind of life is). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else, or anything else, but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in, in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

(*I found an article on "Mirror Universe hiding in Space-Time" that made me think I might have left out some things from my own look of BB, while getting the direction of time backward, maybe, from even own previous descriptions. My universe traveler would neither see nor time travel the times as I tried to describe them here. So I scrapped my BB description. David is still right in my opinion in what he says above on this particular matter of BB that got me started. And in the article I cited as having found and read, there are too few dimensions and too little Universe for me. They think they see so much and I feel sorry for them, but what they see is practically barren. I like richer more dimensional paintings, not flat dark age-like poverty stricken ones. Some things in the article showed me I'm on a right track for my own realization and satisfaction, but I'm just not there yet. The material substance of my mirror doing the mirroring, as I see it, is gravity's waves.*)
It's an intriguing perspective, and it echoes themes found in discussions about the nature of the universe, the structure of spacetime, and the potential existence of multiple universes. Concepts like singularity and duality often come up in theoretical physics when exploring extreme conditions or the very fabric of spacetime.
 
Jan 2, 2024
66
6
35
Visit site
Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW
Yes
  • Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

    I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

    With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

    Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

    It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

    A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

    It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

    The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

    The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

    Any comments on the scenario presented?


    Thank you,

    KRW
    Yes
  • The Black hole may (see Carlo Rovelli) approach the singularity near the Plank level) result in a White Hole
  • Rovelli explains how - loop quantum gravity/tunnelling - a mega quantum leap!
  • The idea, I suggest, is that we are a White Hole but 'serviced by a black hole.
  • Rovelli does not seem to agree with this (his white holes peter out) but I think he has made a mistake in his assumed shape of spacetime both in approaching his Plank Star and in the emergence of a White Hole.
 
Jan 28, 2024
15
0
10
Visit site
Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW
I have theory of How the Universe Works that makes the same assumption as you have suggested and eliminates the need for a Big Bang as currently conceived. If there is some way for me to post my theory (15 pages) I would be happy to do so. It has an illustration that shows the interrelationship between Dark, Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes and results in cyclical process that does not require infinities, rapid expansion or multiple universes. Let me know if you are interested.
 
Jan 28, 2024
15
0
10
Visit site
I have theory of How the Universe Works that makes the same assumption as you have suggested and eliminates the need for a Big Bang as currently conceived. If there is some way for me to post my theory (15 pages) I would be happy to do so. It has an illustration that shows the interrelationship between Dark, Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes and results in cyclical process that does not require infinities, rapid expansion or multiple universes. Let me know if you are interested.
 
Jan 28, 2024
15
0
10
Visit site
Cosmological Concept for Evolution of the Universe

Includes New Dark Energy & Dark Matter Concepts

By Joseph G Intille CPL

Rationale for the Theory: Over the past eleven or so years, the well-respected PBS TV Network has broadcast a science series called “How the Universe Works”. At least four episodes of this series addressed the issue of how the universe was formed. These episodes were called: 1) “The Big Bang” in season 1 episode; 2) “The First Second of the Big Bang” in season 3 episode; 3) “Did the Big Bang Really Happen” in season 7 episode 6; and 4) “Hunt for the Universe’s Origin” in season 10 episode. All sounded more like a religious belief based on faith rather than a than a scientific theory developed using the scientific method. I was truly shocked and disappointed that a cadre of respected scientists and institutions were proposing unprovable and highly speculative rationale for a process that was no more likely to be true than most religious beliefs. They suggested that the entire universe evolved from a singularity that is smaller than an atom. They also offered a theory for a miraculous Rapid Growth Phase that occurs in the first second after the “Big Bang” because it was necessary to fit with currently gathered, scientifically measured data in the universe today. They also suggested that multiple universes may actually exist even though there is no current data to support it, and there will probably never be a way to prove their existence. These and many other ideas were offered as valid rationale for how things could have happened simply because someone felt that they could have happened, even though they violate many of our established and accepted laws of physics. One could also use this approach as proof for the existence of one or more gods, a happy hunting ground, the existence of a sole, performance of miracles which also violate the laws of nature, and even life after death. This revolution caused me to develop an alternative concept that does not violate established laws of physics and should be provable with properly designed scientifically experiments performed on actual things that exist in the universe today or have happen in the observable past for the current universe.

Proposed Process Summary. My theory is based on the simple assumption that the evolution of the universe is cyclical and that Einstein’s equation of E=MC2 is the driving force for the universe’s evolution. It assumes that there is a fixed amount of Matter and Energy in the universe and that the combined total of these components is unchanging. It assumes that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed but can only be converted from one form to the another and that singularities, infinities and creation of matter from nothing do not exist. Therefore, my cyclical process for the universe assumes that what cycles is the ratios of various types of energy and matter over time. These changes cause the universe to expand and contract in order to accommodate the results of changes. The cycle starts at the “Big Bang” which is neither big nor causes a bang. It represents a universe that is relatively small in size (to be defined later) and consists of Dark Energy (to be defined later), Gravity, and all of the matter in the universe in the form of highly consolidated Dark Matter (also to be defined later). There is no Conventional Matter (which is fully formed atoms like hydrogen, helium, etc.) in the universe at this time. This huge amount of Dark Energy, Dark Matter and its corresponding Gravity was confined into a relatively small space which was a huge, single Black Hole (also to be defined later). This starts the process of expansion, which is caused when portions of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter are converted into Conventional Matter (which at this time is Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium atoms). The creation and expansion of space/time increases at an ever-increasing rate because the ratio of Dark Energy to Conventional Matter in space is greatly in favor of Energy and the force that confined them no longer exists (for reasons to be defined later). See Figure for a graph that shows the percentage relationships between various forms of Matter and Energy over time.

My theory states that the current universe is still in this increasing-expansion phase of the cycle because the ratio of Dark Energy (to be defined later) to Dark Matter Light (to be defined later) in empty space has not yet reached 50% to 50%. As described above, the expansion of space/time is caused by gradual conversion of Dark Matter Light (DML) into Conventional Matter (CM) by Dark Energy (which is a property of Dark Energy (DE) to be described later). The rate of expansion starts to decrease when the ratio shifts from DE toward the DML side. During the entire expansion and compression processes, CM becomes sequestered in Black Holes (to be defined later) reducing the amount of CM in empty space. It should be noted that BHs are totally composed of High-Density Dark Matter (to be defined later), CE and Gravity. During this stage of the process, Black Holes (BH) merge together due to gravitational effects on them and the Galaxies may be aligned with. The expansion process stops and reverses. when the ratio of DML to CM in space shifts toward CM. It should be noted that the amount of CM in BHs reduces the amount of CM in space at the same time the increase in CM is being caused by DE conversion from DML. At some point the amount of CE sequestered in BHs becomes greater than the slowed down expansion process. Eventually the ratio of DE to CM in space reverses toward CM causing expansion to stop entirely and begin to contract. Once contraction starts, it accelerates at an increasing rate, in much the same way that the expansion rate was increasing at an increasing rate (DE is decreasing and CM in space is decreasing at a faster rate because of increased consolidation of BHs due to higher concentration of CM). The contraction continues until all of the CM and CE in the universe becomes consolidated within BHs as High-Density Dark Matter (DMH), CE and Gravity. Contraction of space/time causes Black Holes to join together and increase in size, as the universe gets smaller. At the end of this process, the entire universe (including all Matter and Energy) is consolidated into one huge BH. At this point, a phase change (to be described later) occurs which causes all of the Energy (note in my theory Gravity is not a form of energy but is a field associated with all Matter, dark or conventional) in the BH to become DE and all of the Matter to change from DMH into expanding DML. Gravity is unaffected by the conversion because the amount of DMH and DML before and after the conversion are the same. At this point, the cyclical process starts all over again, where DE is converting small portions of the DM into CM and space/time starts increasing at an increasing rate. Note that during this process, the amount of Total Energy, Total Matter and Gravity are unchanged. It should also be noted that conversion of CM elements from on to another by fission or fusion does not create of create of destroy matter, it just converts energy used to form the CM elements from one of the three Energy forces to another (Strong Force, Weak Force, Electromagnetic Force). CM is basically composed of the subatomic particles that are defined in the Standard Model. These particles follow the rules defined by Quantum Mechanics where CM elements follow the rules defined by Traditional Physics as modified by Einstein’s theory or relativity.

Process Details. At the start of the 20th century, conventional physics identified four types of energy and 98+ elements of matter. The four types of energy were also well understood and virtually all of their properties and characteristics were reasonably well understood. Matter was also well understood and comprised all the matter in the universe as we understood it. Both the four types of energy and all of the elements of matter were measurable on earth. Conventional science has studied these items for many years and has developed laws, generally accepted concepts, and properties for them. In the last century, the concept of Quantum Mechanics was developed and our ability to observe outer space has greatly increased.

These two events have called into question much of our understanding of how the universe works. Observations made in particle colliders have confirmed and increased our understanding of how matter is configured and can be created and changed over time. Telescopic observations made by the leap in telescope technology have greatly increased our understanding of how the universe developed, how matter has evolved, and how gravity has driven the evolution of matter.

My theory offers an improved cosmological concept for how the universe works that eliminates some of conundrums that exist in the currently accepted theories. It eliminates the need for infinities, singularities, the Big Bang, multiple universes and universal expansion faster than the speed of light. It also describes Dark Matter and Dark Energy; and answers some of the discrepancies between Quantum Mechanics and Conventional Physics. It is based on the premise that universe follows a cyclical process that causes it to expand and increase in time from time zero until conditions exist in the future that cause it to collapse back to time zero (See Figure 1). A new cycle then restarts the process over again. I use the term “Time Zero” as a starting point to describe the process but in fact there is no starting point because, in my theory, the cyclical process has always existed and there was no real start. Concepts like an inflation rate at faster than the speed of light, an infinitely expanding universe, infinitely deep black holes, and the creation of our entire universe from a singularity are unacceptable to me because they are not provable using the scientific method and were created based on unprovable assumptions. To me, this is no better than how primitive societies created theories based on religious beliefs that are also not provable. My theory is based on assumptions that have been either proven experimentally or can be directly observed now in real time and proven with properly designed experiments. Mathematical proofs that end with infinities or imaginary numbers are not acceptable. But I believe the mathematicians with more skills than me should be able to convert my theory and its assumptions into a mathematical model that supports my approach and has no infinities or imaginary numbers in the conclusion, in much the same way Einstein was able to do with E=MC2. Real world experiments can be performed by creative Physicists to prove my assumptions, in the same way this is being done for Einstein’s formula because my theory does not violate the basic laws of physics.

Initial Assumptions. An essential premise in all of physics was developed by Albert Einstein that addressed the relationship between Energy and Matter in the equation

E = MC2. Where: -​

Energy comes in four forms:-

Strong Nuclear Force which holds atomic nucleus together.

Weak Nuclear Force which controls radioactive decay of matter.

Electromagnetic Force which binds molecules.

Gravity which binds bulk matter.

Matter which is made of atoms that have Mass that is affected by gravity.

C2 represents the motion of the matter that determines how much energy is created by a given amount of matter in a particular state.

This equation makes the assumption that energy and matter can be converted from one form to the other but are not created from nothing, and that the speed of light is a fixed value.

The four types of energy were originally defined as forces that affect atoms in ways that are measurable and were well defined over the years. Early in the last century Einstein redefined gravity from a force to a field that governs time and space as a function of its mass. My concept assumes that Gravity is not a form of energe but a descrete characteristic of all Matter (Dark and Conventional). My concept also defines a new type of energy and a new type of matter, who’s effects that were not observable until late in the last century. Neither of these entities are well understood because they are not directly observable, so they are called Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM). However, with the advent of newer technologies in the last century, the effects of these entities are observable and measurable to some degree. My premise is that these entities are not different forms of the established types of energy and matter but are unique entities that have existed since the beginning of time and were just not included in earlier concepts because they were unknown until recent times. My theory assumes that DE and DM are different from conventional forms of matter and energy and have very different and unique characteristics and properties. It should be noted that Photons are required to make things observable and are not formed until Conventional forms of matter are formed. Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy in my theory are not observable because they do not interact with photons in the traditional way, but their effects are observable using currently available techniques and equipment.

Dark Energy. My definition of Dark Energy (DE) is the force that created the universe as we know it and has been the cause for its expansion since its inception. It fills and expands empty space at a specific rate (which I will define later in this description). It does this by converting portions of the DE and Dark Matter into Conventional Matter which fills space and creates time. DE does not contain or covert to Gravity, which is a discrete property of the DM and CM. In the cyclical process, I postulate that the process starts each cycle when time is equal to zero (or T=0). At this time, all of space (which is the entire universe with all of its Energy, Matter and Gravity) is very small but is much larger than the singularity used in current theories. It is the physical size required to encompass a single huge Black Hole that was merged for all of the Black Holes in the universe. (Note that BHs have been observed to have a size that is related to the amount of material it has ingested over time and that its size increases in direct proportion to the other BHs and CM (elements) it ingests). At T=0, all of the DE and DM in the universe is compressed into this very small space which has an extremely high temperature caused by the highly compressed DM.

Black Hole Event Horizon. An event horizon (EH) is transition point where Matter and Energy interact to transition one type to another. My theory defines two types of EHL: BH EH and outer space EH. Current theories define BH EH as a spherical outer boundary of a black hole considered to be its “surface”. At this point, the Gravitational influence of the BH is so great that nothing can escape. My theory also defines it as the point where the ratio of the Gravity of CM outside the BH is less than the Gravity of BML inside the BH. Because Gravity is not a force but us a field, its effect decrease with distance from the EH and increase as function of the difference. It also has rotational effect; in much the same way a toilet bowl draws water down the hole. It may also be wrong to assume that nothing can escape a BH, because large amounts of CE are known to emerge from BHs that merge or are ingest items that have a excess if CE to the CM it ingested.


Outer Space Event Horizon. Outer space also has an event horizon at the space/time outer edge or limit. Inside this horizon, space and time exist because it contains CM, DM and their associated Gravity. Beyond the edge, space and time does not exist. However, as DE expands, this edge must expand to accommodate the added CM. When the expansion slows, the movement this horizon’s outward horizon slows and when contraction starts the horizon’s inward motion starts. When all of the BHs in the universe merge, there is no longer an event horizon for the BH or outer-space, Therefore, a phase change occurs the enables the cyclical process to restart. This enables DE to interact with the DM to form observable matter which expands and fills the newly established empty space. Observable matter is normal matter that consists of fully formed atoms.

Dark Matter. DM (by my definition) is composed of subatomic particles that make up the “particle soup” which will eventually be converted to Conventional Matter (atoms). At the start of the cyclical process, the newly converted DE and DM provides the material and energy needed for conversion to CM. The DM particle soup also fills empty space which is very small at the start of the cycle. Small portions of DE and DM are converted/combined into CM, which is l composed of positively and negatively charged atoms that pop into existence. This process had been demonstrated in particle colliders in recent years. Most of the newly created positively and negatively charged atoms are mutually annihilated shortly after that are created. However, random motion of the subatomic particles causes some newly formed positive atoms to be separated too far from their negative counterparts to mutually annihilate. As the positively charged atoms added to the local environment, time and space are proportionally exanded, the negatively charged atoms are reabsorbed back into the particle soup. My assumption is that gravity has little of no effect on negative atoms so they are reabsorbed as subatomic particles. As these new positive atoms are created, empty space expands and time increases to accommodate the newly formed atoms. This basically causes the Outerspace EH to move outward. This also causes the DE and DM to diminish slightly, while the ambient temperature reduces and the pressure within the particle soup is also reduced. It should be noted that properties of the subatomic particles which are eventually combined with newly converted CE has the properties and uses processes described by Quantum Mechanics to form atoms of Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium, which are observable. This begins the process of universe creation that is observable by recently invented optical and radio telescopes;


Gravity. Newton’s gravity states that gravity is a force that causes atoms to attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. This implied that gravity was an energy source like the other three forms of energy. It also implied that gravity would have little effect on large mass objects when they are separated by great distances and small or no mass objects such as subatomic particles. However, Einstein’s theory of gravity defines gravity more as a field that alters time and space as a function of matters mass, rather than a force that attracts objects. It does this by creating a depression in space-time that alters the path of other items that are in close proximity to the depression. It should be noted that even very small items like Photons, which may not have any mass but have a high velocity are affected by the gravity of large masses. This clearly demonstrates that gravity does have an effect on very small items as well as large mass items. However, my theory assumes that gravity does result from the mass of the subatomic particles in the particle soup.

Quantum Mechanics has shown that the Higgs Bosan provides?? mass for fully formed elements (CM). If this is true, it seems reasonable to me to assume that Higgs bosons are related to gravity in some way. I assume that CM, as well as DM (subatomic particles) which both have mass must also have Higgs Bosons. This means the invisible subatomic particle soup that fills empty space must also contain Higgs Bosons along with all of the other subatomic particles that make atoms. However, it should be noted that until CE is added to subatomic particles, electromagnetic force is not present to make it visible It is also reasonable to assume that particle soup within Black Holes (BH’s), has gravity. The difference between these two soups is that for the BH version, gravity is greater because the particles are densely packed within the hole. In this case, even photons cannot escape. Note this eliminates the need for infinitely deep holes or a singularity at the bottom of the hole. Experiments can be or have been performed to show the difference in size between a BH Gravity and a comparable of CM. This would or does strongly support my theory that universe size decreases when CM is sequestered in BHs and could predict the eventual size of a single huge BH that holds all the Energy and Matter in the Universe and provide a starting size for the cyclical process.

Black Holes (BH). Another key element of my theory is the definition of BHs. BHs play a crucial role in my cyclical process for the universe. Classical theory states that BH’s are massive objects – collections of mass – with gravity so strong that nothing can escape, not even light. I’m not sure how this works for a field rather than a force but it’s interesting to consider. This super-strong gravity is created when the stellar mass is converted by a supernova explosion that was caused by the collapse of a massive star after all of its nuclear fuel is consumed. The most common types of BH’s are the stellar-mass BHs and supermassive BH’s. Stellar-mass BH’s are created when super-massive stars explode, leaving behind a BH with a mass of just a few hundred suns. Supermassive BH’s exist in the heart of galaxies and usually contain the mass equivalent of millions of suns. They also expand in size and mass when they join with other BHs to become even more massive. Recent observations have shown that a small number of super-super-BHs (SSBH) existed early in the universe’s creation. There are questions of how these SSBHs were able to grow so large in such a short time, but my theory allows several reasonable assumptions that enable this to happen and should be verifiable within the next few years. The massive gravitational influence of a BH distorts space and time in the nearby neighborhood. Material that gets too close to a BH is ingested in and can never escape. Material spirals into a BH through an accretion disk — a disk of gas, dust, stars, planets and other BHs that get too close to the BH and its huge gravity. The “point of no return” around a BH is called the “event horizon”. This is the region where the gravity of the BH overcomes the momentum of material spinning around it in the accretion disk. Once something crosses the event horizon, it is lost to BH’s gravity. Classical theory also states the all of the material in a BH is concentrated in a singularity at the center of the hole that is infinitely deep. My theory assumes that all of the matter in the BH is decomposed into its discrete components (subatomic particles) and are concentrated in a “particle soup” that I define as DMH. The particle soup has physical size and gravity that are proportionate to the amount of matter that was concentrated within it. This gravity is so great, that the CM and CE are compressed into an extremely high density. The gravity within the BH is so dense, that its effects (except for gravity) are not abserved outside the hole. This means that the TM density outside of the hole is not effected by the matter (DM) within the BH. It should be noted that the BH is an entity that has an event horizon, takes up space, and exists in time. Observations have shown that the size of the event horizon of BHs is proportional to the amount of matter in the BH. This is important to my theory, because as BHs combine over time and the amount of space filled by the consolidated BHs becomes extremely large. After the expansion of space/time stops expanding at an increasing rate and eventually reverses and starts contracting (the rationale for was explained earler), the universe starts to shrink which causes galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, and gas clouds to get closer together rather than further apart. As the universe gets smaller, more and more gas clouds, stars and galaxies get are consumed and BHs get combined. Eventually, all of the matter in the universe ends in a single huge and extremely hot BH that is large enough to hold all of the matter and energy in the universe. When the EH for this BH disappears as all external DM and DE are eliminated, a calm and uneventful phase change results which is equivalent to the Big Bang in current theories. This restarts the expansion process with an area that is large enough so that accelerated expansion is not needed agree with current size and time observations of today’s universe. Rather than starting from a singularity (used in current theories), my theory starts the process with conversion of all the matter in universe within this huge BH to become a relatively small area of high-density pressurized DM and DE. The physical size of the huge BH should provide plenty of space to handle the huge amount of DE and DM that is the entire universe at time T=0. This conversion is the start of another cycle instead of a Big Bang. The Big Bang described by conventional theory is not very big (a singularity) and does not have a bang because there was no medium for sound. The DM within the huge BH is composed of subatomic particles which have continuous random motion described in Quantum Theory, all the associated CE the matter contained, and all the Gravity associated with the DM. At his point, all of the CE becomes DE because there BH event horizon becomes an Open Space EH. All of the particles in the particle soup are in constant motion defined by Quantum Theory, therefore, conversion to CM is a process that is constantly changing. This also fits well with the observed background radiation and clumpy structure needed to create all of the stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters we observe now. It could also account for the huge cosmic web that appears to exist and is responsible for the shape of the universe. Nature has a way of growing things in random manor that seems to follow somewhat structured forms.

Dark Energy (DE) Theory The currently accepted theory of how the universe works defines DE in a very different way from my concept. The current theory states that DE is somehow related to the vacuum of empty space. This vacuum causes space to expand at an ever-increasing rate forever, which will cause the universe to become “infinitely” large. Galaxy clusters and galaxies will become so dispersed that someone in a star system would not be able to see any other stars. I assume that this means that the total amount of DE is more powerful than all of the gravity in the universe. My theory defines DE in exactly the opposite way. It assumes that DE decreases as space/time expands but it causes space/time to expand until the ratio of Total Energy (TE) density to Total Matter (TM) density in empty space decreases to 50% vs 50%. It is not the amount of DE that expands space/time at an increasing rate but the ratio of DE to the other forms of Energy, which is here after referred to as CE. (Note; my theory does not consider a form of Energy but is a field associated with all types of Matter. My theory also assumes that the expansion of space/time is caused by the ability of DE to convert portions of its DML particles and CE, into CM, which fills the expanding space. I repeat, this ability only occurs until the ratio of TE density in space to TM density in space decreases to 50% vs 50%, and only does this at an increasing rate as long as DE density is greater than CM density. These properties of DE are a few of the unique central premises of my theory. My theory does not directly address the issue of filaments of gas in space that form the fabric of space, which in turn, caused matter to clump together and form stars, BH’s, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. However, that concept is totally consistent with my rational for how space/time grows, how stars and galaxies are formed, and how BHs are formed and grow. It is also consistent with my concepts for how and why stars are formed as well as galaxies and galaxy clusters. In fact, it reinforces my concepts up until the time in my concept when the rate at which space/time growths slows down and reverses into contraction.

The currently accepted estimated ratios for TE and TM in the universe as well as their densities are also consistent with my concept, which assumes we have not yet reached the 50% to 50% ratio. Therefore, space is currently expanding at an increasing rate. The currently accepted concept assumes that the size of supermassive BH’s at the center of all galaxies grow at an increasing rate as the universe grows and contributes to galaxy formation. In my theory, this speeds the process in much the same way that DE causes expansion at an increasing rate until the ratio of DE density to DML density reaches 50% to 50%. This ratio is reached because DE density is decreasing, portions of DML areconverted to new CM, and some of the newly formed CM is sequested in BHs. This causes causes BHs to grow in number and size. It should be noted that the DMH is not included in the ratio because because the extreme gravity within the BH prevents DMH effects from being felt in the space outside of the BH. It should also be noted that gravity within BHs grows as more matter is captured within the BH. Gravity is not included in the DE to CE ratio because it is not a force of Energy and remains consistent with the ratio of DML to DMH. When DE density equals CM/CE density, the expansion rate for space/time will start to slow down and even stops when the ratio is 0% DE to 100% DML. Remember, the Energy in the BH (does not include Gravity) is the CE associated with the DML in the BH. This ratio results in a phase transition where all of Energy and DMH in the BH to be coverted to DE and DML.

Note that with this process, total amount of TE, TM and Gravity are unchanged throughout the entire cycle. This restarts the process where small amounts of DE and DMH are converted to CE conventional atoms of Hydrogen, Helium and Deuterium, which causes the expansion of space/time. Remember, the starting point was a fairly large area needed to encompass all of the Energy, DML and Gravity in the universe that filled the single huge BH at the end of the contraction. This should be relatively consistent with the current size of the universe and the time it took to get this big. We are not starting from an infinitely small singularity, so super inflation in the first second or two of the process is not needed.

Quantum Mechanics Dilemmas. One assumption made by classical theory is that all of the material entering a BH converges in an infinitely deep singularity at the bottom of the hole. My theory is slightly different and eliminates the need for a singularity. It assumes that as Matter falls into the BH and is pulled apart into its subatomic by the shear force of its size. These particles are the ones defined in the standard model for matter. When they combine with conventional forms of energy, they form conventionally defined atoms of observable matter. Nuclear theory recognizes that atoms and molecules are made of atoms that are held together and function by the three of the classical forms of energy (CE). My theory states that the massive concentrated gravity tears the atoms into hadrons, leptons, quarks, etc. Eventually the particles turn into a “particle soup”, which is a high-density version of the “particle soup” that fills empty space. When this happens, the conventional forms of Energy need to reform the atoms must remain in the hole but cannot try to reform the atoms.. This results in a soup within all BH’s composed of particle soup and CE that is compressed into a very small space. The size of the BH and its accretion disk are a function of the amount of DM and CE contained in the BH. Note that amount of gravity of BH’s increases as the amount of matter it contains increases and the size of its accretion disk increases.

This process may provide a different set of assumptions to be used by particle physicists in calculating the amount of DE needed in the universe to fit their models. Currently, particle physics requires 1 in 10120 more DE in the universe than is currently predicted based on current experimental observations and theories. If this discrepancy can be resolved with a different set of assumptions derived from my theory, perhaps Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics can be unified mathematically. My theory also does not require an infinity large universe, which could mean a lot less DE is needed.

Verification of Assumptions. Most existing cosmological theories are based on assumptions that are not verifiable because they are not measurable in this universe. Some of these theories are based on assumptions like infinities, dimensions beyond the three or four we know, parallel universes we cannot reach, or spiritual intervention. My theory is based on assumptions that should be verified by experiments that are properly crafted and verified using the scientific method. This is because all of my assumptions are based on conditions that exist in our current universe but have not yet been measured. Assumptions I make like:

DE expands space and time expands at an increasing rate because of the density ratio between DE and CM is in DE’s favor. Observations could show that a slight decrease in this ratio over time is consistent with the increase in acceleration over the years, This is needed to infer the expansion is going to slow down eventually as space increases and DE decreases. A more difficult test would be to show that my assumption that the acceleration will slow down and/or eventually reverse is more difficult to prove because it will not happen for many millennia even if I am correct. Experiments to detect elements of “particle soup DMH and DML” which are not visible could be conceived based on my assumptions using other techniques like we have for other subatomic particles. Estimates of TM, TE and total Gravity over time could be conceived. Concepts for detection of a change in the nature of empty space at or near the edge of empty space/time. Size assumptions and characteristics of BHs and their accretion disks. and matter within a BH increases are proportional to each other; etc.



Figure 1. Evolution of Components over Time
 
Oct 9, 2023
23
2
15
Visit site
I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also that, because infinite exists, then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity more) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity more), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity more). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what, YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (an extremely unique type, as every individual of every species or kind of life is). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else, or anything else, but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in, in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

(*I found an article on "Mirror Universe hiding in Space-Time" that made me think I might have left out some things from my own look of BB, while getting the direction of time backward, maybe, from even own previous descriptions. My universe traveler would neither see nor time travel the times as I tried to describe them here. So I scrapped my BB description. David is still right in my opinion in what he says above on this particular matter of BB that got me started. And in the article I cited as having found and read, there are too few dimensions and too little Universe for me. They think they see so much and I feel sorry for them, but what they see is practically barren. I like richer more dimensional paintings, not flat dark age-like poverty stricken ones. Some things in the article showed me I'm on a right track for my own realization and satisfaction, but I'm just not there yet. The material substance of my mirror doing the mirroring, as I see it, is gravity's waves.*)
Your exploration sparks contemplation.
 
Jan 28, 2024
15
0
10
Visit site
Thank you for reading it. I am looking for comments on problems with some of the assumptions I have made in the concept. I tried to base it on all of the new information we have gotten in the recent past, but I am still a novice in the area and am not aware of most the new research being done.
 
Oct 9, 2023
23
2
15
Visit site
Thank you for reading it. I am looking for comments on problems with some of the assumptions I have made in the concept. I tried to base it on all of the new information we have gotten in the recent past, but I am still a novice in the area and am not aware of most the new research being done.
Best of luck to you Mr. Big Joe.
 
Jan 28, 2024
15
0
10
Visit site
Thank you for reading it. I am looking for comments on problems with some of the assumptions I have made in the concept. I tried to base it on all of the new information we have gotten in the recent past, but I am still a novice in the area and am not aware of most the new research being done.
 

Latest posts