The BIG BAD BLACK HOLE

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

So, I've been doing some reseacrch on black holes and have seen some more programs on them and I have a theory about them. So here it is:

If the Big Bang is true, then perhaps the universe started off as a black hole, as the Big Bang states that all of the universe started off as a singularity. If all the matter in a black hole becomes nothing more than a singularity, then perhaps that's how the universe started. Also, there are indeed (or at least I have heard) black holes that spontaniously decombust so, that's where the explosion may have come from. The black hole at the center of every galaxy could be one of the smaller remnants of a black hole of 10 to the power of 150 proportions (just to give you an idea). As you may know, large black holes can sometimes come into existance from smaller black holes merging together, so that's where this idea of a supermassive black hole x4.5 million would come from.

Once again it's just a theory, but it makes sense to me. What do you think :?:

 

[SteveCNC]

What your referring to used to be known as a closed loop system universe I believe, in which the big bang occurs which begins expansion of the universe and at some point the universe stops expanding and starts collapsing back into a singularity only to start over again . Many people believe in this idea , I think because it semi rationalizes that this has been going on forever which solves the question of where did it start , sort of . Growing up in the 60s I have read about 3 different views of the universe closed loop being one of them , my problem is that a lot of ideas that were being tossed around back then (ether anyone ?) have since been proven wrong but I still have them floating around up there somewhere .

I'd say it's possible that a black hole could reach a maximum matter point before it exploded but then again I'm not Stephen Hawking so take it for what it's worth . Also IMO if a black hole did contain the universe it would be broken down into it's constituent parts and would recombine until it reached atomic level at the big bang .

 

[yevaud]

Well, BHA, that's not precisely a new idea, though it was once a fairly popular one: The concept of a cyclical universe, the Big Bang --> Expansion --> Contraction --> Big Crunch.

Remember one thing (yes, I know, I point this same thing out a fair amount here): the term "Singularity" means "where our ability to explain/model/understand a mechanism breaks down." It doesn't, per se, imply the original Singularity that was pre-Big Bang (known for many years as the "Primordial Monobloc") is the same deal as a Singularity ("Black Hole," a term popularized by John Archibald Wheeler in the 1960s). We just cannot say for certain.

The mechanism you're referring to, that of a Black Hole "Decombusting" is more properly known as "Evaporating" in scientific terms. It loses energy via Hawking Radiation and random tunneling events, until it possesses not sufficient mass/energy to maintain itself. It effectively detaches from our spacetime, seeya later.

Now if some theorists are correct (again, no way to tell), then what was once conceived as a White Hole (a Black Hole that operates in reverse, spewing out matter and energy like a cosmic firehose) does exist - but it's at the other end of whatever a Singularity is. Likely in another separate universe within the Multiverse. This may be what causes a Big Bang elsewhere. Can't say.

I personally believe (at least as far as current evidence goes) that this isn't the case. Since our universe would be unremarkable among an infinite number of universes, then where are the visible White Holes here? The terminus of whatever (Einstein-Rosen Bridge?) is a Black Hole must not just inspire universal creation; if it terminates in an already established universe, then it would be merely a White Hole.

 

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

Well then.... Perhaps this singularity came from another source? Because it had to have come from something. Everything has a beginning. Right?

 

[indepth]

Now if some theorists are correct (again, no way to tell), then what was once conceived as a White Hole (a Black Hole that operates in reverse, spewing out matter and energy like a cosmic firehose) does exist - but it's at the other end of whatever a Singularity is. Likely in another separate universe within the Multiverse. This may be what causes a Big Bang elsewhere. Can't say.

I personally believe (at least as far as current evidence goes) that this isn't the case. Since our universe would be unremarkable among an infinite number of universes, then where are the visible White Holes here? The terminus of whatever (Einstein-Rosen Bridge?) is a Black Hole must not just inspire universal creation; if it terminates in an already established universe, then it would be merely a White Hole.

So if a white hole exists, (and by theory) causes 'big bangs' creating seperate universes, then we wouldn't be able to observe any other white holes besides the one that started our universe, right? No other visable white holes in our universe.

 

[yevaud]

No other visable white holes in our universe.

None that have ever been observed. It's even questionable if they could exist.

Besides, if one takes the Primordial Monobloc to be a sort of Singularity, it's not even required that it is the terminus of a White Hole. Simple random quantum fluctuations can lead to a Big-Bang like event.

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, BHA, that's not precisely a new idea, though it was once a fairly popular one: The concept of a cyclical universe, the Big Bang --> Expansion --> Contraction --> Big Crunch.

The other big problem with the Big Crunch, which you did not touch on, is that recent studies of distant galaxies suggest that the expansion of the universe is not only continuing, it is accelerating. This suggests two things: first, that the expansion is more than just the residual energy of a massive explosion (something has to be adding force for it to be accelerating), and second, that the Big Crunch will probably never happen. Instead, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, barring some presently undetectable force which reverses the current trend. Certainly, you can't extrapolate a Big Crunch from the available information anymore. If the acceleration continues, then eventually the universe will be expanding at greater than the speed of light, which means that gradually, the more distant galaxies will disappear from view. That process will continue, and we will see the observable universe actually *shrinking*, even as the universe itself continues to grow, as more and more objects pass beyond our visible horizon.

 

[orionrider]

At that point, we have a lot of theories and models, with various degrees of probability, but not the slightest proof, just second-hand evidence. Besides, we're still missing more than half of the universe and we still don't know if mass originates from a particle or something else entirely. You could say God made the big bang and no scientist could prove you wrong. In fact, many scientists believe He did. :?

 

[yevaud]

The other big problem with the Big Crunch, which you did not touch on,

No, true, I did not. As given the forum this is, it's assumed someone would know this already.

 

[mental_avenger]

Of course the first order of business is to prove whether or not so-called “black holes” (a terrible misnomer) actually exist as we imagine them.

 

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

Black Hole Visionary

If a black hole is invisible (I would imagine because of the fact that it's black in a black space) then shouldn't we just be able to use negative imagery to see it. Sure, we may not see the hole itself, but we should see it's event horizon :?:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Black Hole Visionary

First, a negative of black on black would be white on white and just as invisible.

Second, most black holes are obscured by the intense radiation from the accretion disk surrounding them, so are hidden anyway.

 

[ramparts]

Re: Black Hole Visionary

On top of that, even if a black hole were unobscured, the event horizon is so tiny compared to the vast distances to black holes (even ones in our own galaxy) that imaging the event horizon is quite a ways away. (Though not too far away if you use gravitational wave detectors.)

 

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

Re: Black Hole Visionary

Darn!!!There just has to be a way to see a black hole. Even if it is generally invisible.

 

[csmyth3025]

Of course the first order of business is to prove whether or not so-called “black holes” (a terrible misnomer) actually exist as we imagine them.

Is there serious debate in the scientific communtiy about whether there are objects so compact that they possess an event horizon from which light cannot escape? I realize that the nature of the singularity within the proposed event horizon is speculative since the laws of physics as we know them break down (the equations "blow up") at this point.

I suppose that by means of some physical laws unknown to us it's theoretically possible that the compact object might stop collapsing at the point of the event horizon or at some point within the event horizon. As far as I know, there's no way to prove or disprove this conjecture - so it's speculative.

Chris

 

[robnissen]

Well then.... Perhaps this singularity came from another source? Because it had to have come from something. Everything has a beginning. Right?

Probably not. The BB may have come from random quantum field fluctuations. Perhaps you believe that because everything must have come from something, there must be a god. That begs the question of where God came from. If you posit that God just is, and need not have a beginning, that hypothesis (its not a theory because there is no evidence to support it) is no better or worse, than the universe just is, it need not have a beginning.

There was once a religion that believed the earth stood on the back of a giant turtle. Which immediately raised the question of what the turtle stood on. The Answer: it is turtles all the way down. Maybe the answer as to why there is something instead of nothing: Its universes all the way down.

 

[csmyth3025]

Well then.... Perhaps this singularity came from another source? Because it had to have come from something. Everything has a beginning. Right?

As Robnissen points out, the idea that "everything has a beginning" is a man-centric concept that a lot of people try to impose on Nature. Even though the Standard Model says the universe evolved through expansion of the universe from a hot compact object, it doesn't say that this object was "the beginning" or that it came from something or somewhere else. Whatever might have existed before the first moments of the big bang is a matter of pure conjecture.

If you need a beginning, the Christian bible explains it as well as anything: "...God said 'Let there be light'...". Everything after that is the subject of scientific inquiry.

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Re: Black Hole Visionary

Depends what you mean by "see" There are lots of ways to potentially "see" a black hole indirectly, some of which - like the gravitational waves I mentioned - could be in the somewhat-near future. If you want to see optical light from a black hole - maybe one that's accreting matter and you want to see the event horizon - well, that's going to be very hard just because you're trying to image such a tiny area from so far away.

 

[MeteorWayne]

More or less duplicate topics merged.

 

[mental_avenger]

Is there serious debate in the scientific communtiy about whether there are objects so compact that they possess an event horizon from which light cannot escape? I realize that the nature of the singularity within the proposed event horizon is speculative since the laws of physics as we know them break down (the equations "blow up") at this point.

It’s a little more complicated than that. First, until something better comes along, the “black hole” theory is a handy way to explain several different observations. Personally, I like the term “hyperdensity” because it is more accurate.

The problem is that we can observe the presence of a very strong gravitational region indirectly by seeing its effects on light or other objects. Therefore, using what we know about physics, we have determined that the only way for the phenomenon to exist is as the result of extremely compacted matter. Of course it is possible that the strong gravitational region is the result of some phenomenon that we have no knowledge of.

Remember, there are things that we can see that have not been completely explained. Wave-Particle Duality of light is one of them. No one can explain it, so they say that light acts like a particle sometimes, and at other times it acts like a wave. It cannot be both, so it is likely that it is neither, but rather something we do not yet understand. Meanwhile, treating it as a wave or a particle, depending upon circumstances, allows us to work with light on a theoretical level and have all the equations balance. It is a handy tool, but it isn’t an explanation.

 

[csmyth3025]

The reason I pose the question about the debate on black holes is that there seems to be strong evidence that they do, in fact, exist. The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on supermassive black holes:

Astronomers are confident that our own Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, in a region called Sagittarius A*[8] because:

The star S2 follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest distance) of 17 light hours from the center of the central object.[9]
From the motion of star S2, we estimate the object's mass as 4.1 million solar masses.[10]
We also know that the radius of the central object is significantly less than 17 light hours, because otherwise, S2 would either collide with it or be ripped apart by tidal forces. In fact, recent observations[11] indicate that the radius is no more than 6.25 light-hours, about the diameter of Uranus' orbit.
The only known object which can pack 4.1 million solar masses into a volume that small is a black hole.
The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and UCLA Galactic Center Group[12] have provided the strongest evidence to date that Sagittarius A* is the site of a supermassive black hole,[8] based on data from the ESO[13] and the Keck telescope.[14] Our galactic central black hole is calculated to have a mass of approximately 4.1 million solar masses,[15] or about 8.2 × 10^36 kg.

Are there other explanations for these observations? Would an object this dense necessarily have an event horizon?

Chris

 

[mental_avenger]

Notice that the article says “The only known object which can pack 4.1 million solar masses into a volume that small is a black hole.” The statement makes two important points. First, it admits (by omission) that there may be an explanation which is not known to us. Second, it makes the assumption that we actually know that “black holes” (as conventional wisdom describes them) exist.

How often have you seen the phrase “inside a black hole, the laws of physics break down”? That indicates that either the “laws of physics” are wrong, or that we are wrong about the nature of black holes.

John Wheeler (originally Anne Ewing) did us all a great disservice by coining and using the misnomer “black hole”. IMO it is the nature of the phase that invites people to conjure up such absurd notions as “going through a black hole”. That is why I prefer the term “hyperdensity”.

To answer your questions, there is no currently theorized phenomenon which would explain those observations. But as long as we are just positing theories, perhaps the phenomenon is simply an object made of so-called “dark matter”, and that dark matter has normal density properties similar to a what a hyperdensity would have. Or maybe a black hole really is a hole, a hole in space-time to another universe in which matter is normally far denser than it is here.

 

[csmyth3025]

Notice that the article says “The only known object which can pack 4.1 million solar masses into a volume that small is a black hole.” The statement makes two important points. First, it admits (by omission) that there may be an explanation which is not known to us. Second, it makes the assumption that we actually know that “black holes” (as conventional wisdom describes them) exist...

What sort of observations would be needed to prove or disprove that hyperdense objects possess an event horizon? The Wikipedia article on black holes cites several lines of evidence suggesting that they exist. It can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole ... l_evidence

This same article also includes a short section on the possibility that they dont exist, as follows:

The evidence for stellar and supermassive black holes implies that in order for black holes not to form, general relativity must fail as a theory of gravity, perhaps due to the onset of quantum mechanical corrections. A much anticipated feature of a theory of quantum gravity is that it will not feature singularities or event horizons (and thus no black holes).[102] In recent years, much attention has been drawn by the fuzzball model in string theory. Based on calculations in specific situations in string theory, the proposal suggest that generically the individual states of a black hole solution do not have an event horizon or singularity (and can thus not really be considered to be a black hole), but that for a distant observer the statistical average of such states does appear just like an ordinary black hole in general relativity.[103]

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Well, first off, you'll be hard-pressed to find any working physicist or astrophysicist who straight-up doesn't believe that black holes exist. It's possible they don't, but there really just aren't any convincing alternatives out there, and there's really no major holes with positing the existence of black holes. So that's by far the most sensible explanation to adopt for phenomena like Sgr A*.

(Note: yeah, they have the problem that you can't explain what happens at the singularity, but that has nothing to do with the existence of an object which is packed within its event horizon, which is usually at a distance far enough away from the singularity that general relativity can describe what happens there just fine. If it's contained within a radius smaller than its horizon, it's a black hole by my book.)

The thing in science is that, since it's based on experiment, you can never actually prove anything, so you can always say "well, that's the best known explanation but there may be others." Sometimes that's healthy skepticism, sometimes that's going far overboard. Mental_avenger, saying (by omission or not) that there may be other explanations for a phenomenon is never an "admission." It's a tautology.

Side note: Chris, the best possible avenue for detecting an event horizon that I'm aware of is by studying gravitational waves. I've heard estimates that we'd be able to map out event horizons and test local black hole geometry even within the next decade, if all goes well. Here's hoping!

 

[ramparts]

mental_avenger, sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you but I'm reading through the last few posts and I want to clear up a couple of misconceptions about how scientists approach problems like this.

The problem is that we can observe the presence of a very strong gravitational region indirectly by seeing its effects on light or other objects. Therefore, using what we know about physics, we have determined that the only way for the phenomenon to exist is as the result of extremely compacted matter. Of course it is possible that the strong gravitational region is the result of some phenomenon that we have no knowledge of.

Everything hinges on this idea - yeah, it's possible that X is the result of some phenomenon that we have no knowledge of. That is true for any scientific theory X ever. Including gravity, or our explanation for the sky being blue.

Notice that the article says “The only known object which can pack 4.1 million solar masses into a volume that small is a black hole.” The statement makes two important points. First, it admits (by omission) that there may be an explanation which is not known to us. Second, it makes the assumption that we actually know that “black holes” (as conventional wisdom describes them) exist.

I already explained what's wrong with this logic: the fact that other explanations may exist isn't an admission, it's something all scientists know. But when there's no known viable explanations, and the explanation we have works fine, then there's not much more to say on the matter.

How often have you seen the phrase “inside a black hole, the laws of physics break down”? That indicates that either the “laws of physics” are wrong, or that we are wrong about the nature of black holes.

Um, yeah. In fact, the laws of physics have to be wrong, because the prediction of general relativity is that black holes form and we can't use our current theories to predict what happens once they do. So obviously something has to be off. Luckily a horde of very talented physicists are working on it.

To answer your questions, there is no currently theorized phenomenon which would explain those observations. But as long as we are just positing theories, perhaps the phenomenon is simply an object made of so-called “dark matter”, and that dark matter has normal density properties similar to a what a hyperdensity would have. Or maybe a black hole really is a hole, a hole in space-time to another universe in which matter is normally far denser than it is here.

Dude, it's not a theory if there are no details and no quantifiable predictions. Then it's just word salad. It's perfectly easy to say "oh, well, maybe it's just dark matter, and it magically has properties that would allow it to look like a black hole [sorry, 'hyperdensity']." It's much, much harder to actually come up with a theory that has a basis in established physics and makes testable predictions. Because that requires math, and math is, like, hard.