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
31
3
35
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.
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
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
31
3
35
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?
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
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.
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
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.
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
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
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
10
4
15
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
Apr 3, 2020
279
106
360
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
46
13
45
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:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts