Black holes may be the source of mysterious dark energy

[Admin]

Black holes may be the origin of dark energy, according to a study by a team of researchers led by the University of Hawaii.

Black holes may be the source of mysterious dark energy : Read more

 

[murgatroyd]

The "explainer" video in the article explained exactly ... nothing.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356


Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else. The so called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

 

[pertan]

Black Holes are the transformers of the universe. Works Like Vacuum Cleaners. It is a `Null` Energy. They balance the universal Yin/Yang Energy. What goes in generally negative energy and turns back into universe as positive energy. If the negative energy is stubborn to be transformed, it can stay in there as in an infinite loop. Can be called `Lost in Space` but it is a one way ticket. Because inside is Null energy, and vacuums the negative you cannot call it dark energy. It works for all positive.

 

[Lara]

Or: we don't understand gravity, and for that reason and others don't know how far away things really are and all of this is just nonsense

 

[VULVOX]

Black holes may be the origin of dark energy, according to a study by a team of researchers led by the University of Hawaii.

Black holes may be the source of mysterious dark energy : Read more

I don't understand how black holes would cause repulsion instead of pulling the universe closer together.

 

[DeclanTraill]

The new Theory that preceded this new observation


I would like to bring to your attention my paper on ResearchGate in 2018 about my idea that Dark Matter is actually caused by Black Holes.

The idea is that Black Holes consume the vacuum energy, which has the effect of drawing inwards all embedded matter (stars, planets etc) in the space surrounding the Black Holes. Thus an apparent extra inward acceleration which is constant with distance is produced and can explain Galaxy rotation rates.

It also explains other phenomena such as the apparent lopsided halos of dark matter that seem to exist. You can read about why this occurs and other details in my paper here:

An Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Rates without Requiring Dark Matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326988843_An_Explanation_for_Galaxy_Rotation_Rates_without_Requiring_Dark_Matter

Regards,
Declan Traill BSc (Melb)

 

[mbee1]

Black holes may be the origin of dark energy, according to a study by a team of researchers led by the University of Hawaii.

Black holes may be the source of mysterious dark energy : Read more

Dark energy is a theory, it is not been proved. Nobody has actually shown any dark energy on earth in any shape or form. The theory rests on observations of galaxies which have insufficient visible mass to account for the calculatied mass to hold them together. Nobody mentions that a lot of mass is not visible to our telescopes as it is not in stars and the whole mass thing is at best an educated guess bassed on a huge number of assumptions . This whole claim is based on a number of assumptions as well. Those large black holes could have been formed during the big bang and are simply sitting there ever since or black holes ran into one another and formed a large one, the possiblities are pretty large. The math is neat but that is always the case with good math types however the end result does not necessarily coorespond to reality.

 

[Mergatroid]

Black holes may be the origin of dark energy, according to a study by a team of researchers led by the University of Hawaii.

Black holes may be the source of mysterious dark energy : Read more

"the first time astronomers have obtained observational evidence to support the theory "

It really isn't. All they have is that old BHs seem to be more massive than they can account for.

Anything else at this point is pure speculation.

 

[Tinko]

I think that the core idea that “dark energy” is a “force” is wrong. Energy (no matter “dark” or “bright”) creates complex force fields in the universe, but so far there is no (trustworthy) measurement that proves how those forcefields interact with the gravity created by the bright” matter (the only one we can “see”/detect). We still don’t know anything about what is (the physics of) gravity and how it works, hence how the “force” (“dark” or “bright”) itself can “defeat” gravity.

 

[Mergatroid]

Dark energy is a theory, it is not been proved. Nobody has actually shown any dark energy on earth in any shape or form. The theory rests on observations of galaxies which have insufficient visible mass to account for the calculatied mass to hold them together. Nobody mentions that a lot of mass is not visible to our telescopes as it is not in stars and the whole mass thing is at best an educated guess bassed on a huge number of assumptions . This whole claim is based on a number of assumptions as well. Those large black holes could have been formed during the big bang and are simply sitting there ever since or black holes ran into one another and formed a large one, the possiblities are pretty large. The math is neat but that is always the case with good math types however the end result does not necessarily coorespond to reality.

"The theory rests on observations of galaxies which have insufficient visible mass to account for the calculatied mass to hold them together. "

That's Dark Matter, not Dark Energy. They speculate about Dark Energy because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and they can't find a reason, so they make up something called "Dark Energy".

It's supposedly "Dark Matter" that is holding galaxies together.

 

[Mergatroid]

I think that the core idea that “dark energy” is a “force” is wrong. Energy (no matter “dark” or “bright”) creates complex force fields in the universe, but so far there is no (trustworthy) measurement that proves how those forcefields interact with the gravity created by the bright” matter (the only one we can “see”/detect). We still don’t know anything about what is (the physics of) gravity and how it works, hence how the “force” (“dark” or “bright”) itself can “defeat” gravity.

Really? What "forcefield" does a photon make? How about the Strong Nuclear Force? What "forcefield" does it make? How about the weak nuclear force?

I don't think you know how energy works or what it creates.

 

[mbee1]

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356


Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else. The so called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

Photon velocity has been measured in vaccuum and in gases solids etc. Your idea of slowing should be testable. How do you propose to do that as the slowing is pretty small over lengths we could test at? Bouncing a beam off a deep space object and measuring the round trip should be possible to test your idea after adjusting for redhshift and blue shift due to gravity and motion. The moon is to close as far as I can determine even though we have a reflector on the surface. Radio waves from a deep space probe might work but how to determine the actual starting frequency to make the correct redshift and blueshift adjustments is unknown to me.

 

[mbee1]

"The theory rests on observations of galaxies which have insufficient visible mass to account for the calculatied mass to hold them together. "

That's Dark Matter, not Dark Energy. They speculate about Dark Energy because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and they can't find a reason, so they make up something called "Dark Energy".

It's supposedly "Dark Matter" that is holding galaxies together.

Dark energy is simply the other side of that coin. You need both. Both are math inventions to explain observation about galaxies and how they are formed and seen. Dark energy enables one to invent universe expansion and the Big Bang, dark matter enables one to invent a theory of how the galaxies should look without it. The chinese Ying and Yang come to mind as an imperfect metaphor. Niether has actually been demonstrated here on earth. Both come from those same observations. Without dark matter you cannot have dark energy.

 

[mbee1]

Really? What "forcefield" does a photon make? How about the Strong Nuclear Force? What "forcefield" does it make? How about the weak nuclear force?

I don't think you know how energy works or what it creates.

Nobody has shown how gravity is created and works over instellar distances of billions of light years as it appears to be instaneous. nor how quantum effects actually work except they do over distances apparently instanterously as well. The various candiates for a particle are not actually proving anything except the budgets for the nuclear accelerators need to be increased. Our actual knowledge of reality is pretty small.

 

[Classical Motion]

We can only understand gravity like we understand mass and matter. By that I mean that we can only observe and measure how gravity affects/effects......not what it is. Just like we do with mass and matter. We can observe, measure and describe how it affects.......BUT not what it is.

We use math to ratio these affects/effects and properties. And please remember that math and numbers are self-related. We imprint a math relationship.....when we use math.

No one knows what mass and matter is. And today, the thinking is that mass and matter came from light. But we all know that light and gravity can only come from mass and matter. And we know that mass and matter have a minimum size. When we attempt to grind it smaller.....it dissolves. It will NOT superposition. CERN.

Which came first?.....light or matter? What about space? When did space come? Does space need to be created?

This created and selective expanding space they postulate seems to be a VERY custom material.

It seems to work just right, at the right places and at that right time to explain our modern mathematical theories.

High technology and precise measurements will and does lead only to more speculation. We need to recheck and verify our fundamentals.

For instance, we spend billions on cosmos(large) and particle(small) research, yet fail to verify one path light c. We base ALL science and theory on c. We need to verify it.

What if c is not what we think it is? Do we start over?

Does time and length set velocity, or does velocity set time and length? Which way does physicality work?

 

[edoskotch]

Maybe instead of asking, 'why is the universe expanding?', we ask 'why do the telescopes see an increasing redshift toward the edges of the universe?'. Maybe the massive gravitational force of black holes, dark matter, and all other matter, is putting tension on the fabric of spacetime, stretching it more at the edges of the universe because out there the force of gravity is pulling in one direction, (towards the center of the universe, beyond is void and empty), resulting in stretched, redshifted light being detected by telescopes. So black holes, and all matter, not dark energy, would be the cause of this perceived expansion. Laws should still hold up, I don't know. Would entropy still be increasing?

 

[Lara]

I don't understand how black holes would cause repulsion instead of pulling the universe closer together.

Quantum stuff.