The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Insight Welcome

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Apparently you don't get it, so I won't repeat after this. Clockwise or Counterclockwise relative to what? The terms clockwise and counterclockwise are meaningless. If you can't understand that, further conversation is useless.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Apparently you don't get it, so I won't repeat after this. Clockwise or Counterclockwise relative to what? The terms clockwise and counterclockwise are meaningless. If you can't understand that, further conversation is useless.

Perhaps it would help to point out that if you look at clock from behind (say one with a transparent face) the hands are moving counterclockwise.

This simply illustrates that your are quite correct, and before one can talk about clockwise of counterclockwise, one has to establish a viewpoint or reference frame. This is equivalent to picking a right-handed or left-handed reference frame (what is technically called an orentation) in which to do vector analysis. Until you do that the notion of, for instance, the vector cross-product is quite meaningless.

I fear this subtlety is lost on your "debating partner".

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

The reason I ask if all black holes move in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction might also help with unveiling whether they are attached to another black hole. (General relativity describes the possibility of configurations in which two black holes are connected to each other. Such a configuration is usually called a wormhole. In practice, such configurations, seem completely unfeasible in astrophysics, because no known process seems to allow the formation of such objects.) However the direction velocity of a black hole might indicate this existence. If general black holes say move in a counter-clockwise direction, then one that moves in an opposite direction should indicate an attachment (or exiting) to a standardly rotating black hole should it not?

Black holes need not spin. If they spin, the notion of clockwise or counterclockwise is, as MeteorWayne has tried to tell you, utterly meaningless without further qualification -- the selection of a specific reference frame. The direction of the angular momentum of an black hole can be anything, and there is no reason to believe that black holes are oriented with respect to one another.

A wormhole is NOT a connection between two black holes. I have no idea where you got that idea. Perhaps from Hollywood. Certainly not from a physics book.

The problem with wormholes is not only difficulty in their formation. It is an extreme problem with keeping one open if it should happen to exist for whatever reason. In order to maintain even a small wormhole open, in theory, you need a tremendous quantity of exotic negative energy. Even if such energy existed, and there is no clear evidence that it does, you would need to have a quantity that would be representative of the mass of a galaxy converted to energy to do the trick.

Your conjecture regarding the relationship between black holes having angular momenta in opposite directions is without basis and without merit.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

I won't lie. You have me completely lost on this one MeteorWayne. Usually I can keep up a fair bit. I guess the best way to describe it is by taking a look at this pic of our milky way:

In this image you can clearly see the direction of the rotation pattern of all the stars surrounding the galactic center no matter what direction you look at it from. I guess what your asking is in relation to the viewer? which wouldn't matter. I could be on the other side of this galaxy looking at it and it would appear to rotate around it's center in the same direction. My question is assuming that the singularity located at it's center seems to me would be rotating in the same direction along the galactic plain. If so, then do we see galaxies form in the opposite direction then what is shown in this image? (i.e the spiral arms draw closer to each other as they extend towards the galactic center indicates direction of motion of the center to which their bound.)

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

You just don't get that clockwise and counterclockwise have to have some reference to have any meaning. I give up.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Black holes need not spin. If they spin, the notion of clockwise or counterclockwise is, as MeteorWayne has tried to tell you, utterly meaningless without further qualification -- the selection of a specific reference frame. The direction of the angular momentum of an black hole can be anything, and there is no reason to believe that black holes are oriented with respect to one another.

Actually Dr. Rocket, my conclusion of the "spin" of the black hole came from your very own Einstein. I'm sorry you missed his chapter on Einstein-Rosen bridges. I know a little about Einstein, but not nearly as much as I assumed many of you do. Hence why I ask the questions.

A wormhole is NOT a connection between two black holes. I have no idea where you got that idea. Perhaps from Hollywood. Certainly not from a physics book.

Hollywood? Hardly. Lorentzian wormholes also known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through. However in this instance I am questioning to whether or not any singularity rotation from either end would interact with the rotation at the other.

The problem with wormholes is not only difficulty in their formation. It is an extreme problem with keeping one open if it should happen to exist for whatever reason. In order to maintain even a small wormhole open, in theory, you need a tremendous quantity of exotic negative energy. Even if such energy existed, and there is no clear evidence that it does, you would need to have a quantity that would be representative of the mass of a galaxy converted to energy to do the trick.

I totally agree with you. We haven't found any evidence of wormholes existing, however the theory predicts they may. Schwarzschild's wormholes had a stability problem which before they were apparent, it was proposed that quasars were white holes forming the ends of wormholes of this type. While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy). This is about my extent on the subject though. I just thought the galactic formation might indicate a direction of rotation for the singularity.

Your conjecture regarding the relationship between black holes having angular momenta in opposite directions is without basis and without merit.

I absolutely disagree. It is in the spiral galaxy formation we see how the stars remain in rotation around the galactic center. I know Dark Matter in affect helps keep these galaxies together, however is it not the momenta of the galactic center in the spiral galaxies early in their development (shortly after the big bang) that began and continues this rotation? For example Sa and SBa galaxies, have tightly wrapped arms, whereas Sc and SBc galaxies have very "loose" arms. Could this not be interpreted as either a stronger or weaker momenta from the galactic center in relation to the surrounding stars that make up these arms, or an increase/decrease in the amount of present dark matter?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

As I said, I have already given up. There's no point in discussing reality with those who can't get it.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

You just don't get that clockwise and counterclockwise have to have some reference to have any meaning. I give up.

The reference is the galactic center as to which direction (left or right) the stars & gases rotate around it. Other then that, lol I think we're both lost in trying to understand what each other is asking.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

As I said, I have already given up. There's no point in discussing reality with those who can't get it.

Well that's kind of rude don't you think? It's a misunderstanding we are having. I have given the best description I can. What you just said would be like me saying "If you don't understand that, how do you understand anything else?" But again, that would be quit rude. I obviously did my homework on the subject of various aspects of space, however there are still things that I yet need to grasp. This is again why I ask.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

You just don't get that clockwise and counterclockwise have to have some reference to have any meaning. I give up.

The reference is the galactic center as to which direction (left or right) the stars & gases rotate around it. Other then that, lol I think we're both lost in trying to understand what each other is asking.

Try this, even though the arms of a galaxy don't mean what you seem to think they mean -- they are like the blades of a propeller.

Take your little pitcure of the galaxy and print it out on a transparency. Then look at it from the back. You ought then be able to see that clockwise and counterclockwise are not iinvariant concepts.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Actually Dr. Rocket, my conclusion of the "spin" of the black hole came from your very own Einstein. I'm sorry you missed his chapter on Einstein-Rosen bridges. I know a little about Einstein, but not nearly as much as I assumed many of you do. Hence why I ask the questions.

Then you ought to know that Einstein rejected the very idea of the existence of black holes. He was wrong, of course.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy). This is about my extent on the subject though.

Thorne dreamed up that little ditty to help out Carl Sagan with a science fiction book that he was writing.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Hollywood? Hardly. Lorentzian wormholes also known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through. However in this instance I am questioning to whether or not any singularity rotation from either end would interact with the rotation at the other.

There is a small problem with that scenario. A "vacuum solution" to the Einstein field equations is a solution under the assumption that THE UNIVERSE IS COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MATTER. Those solutions are of some academic intereest, but they hardly apply to the universe in which, at least most of us, actually live.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Hollywood? Hardly. Lorentzian wormholes also known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through. However in this instance I am questioning to whether or not any singularity rotation from either end would interact with the rotation at the other.

There is a small problem with that scenario. A "vacuum solution" to the Einstein field equations is a solution under the assumption that THE UNIVERSE IS COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MATTER. Those solutions are of some academic intereest, but they hardly apply to the universe in which, at least most of us, actually live.

Okay, that is something I didn't know. Thank you Dr. Rocket for educating me on my lack of knowledge in respect to that bit of missing information. That would certainly make a big difference. I will remember that for future reference to that theory.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy). This is about my extent on the subject though.

Thorne dreamed up that little ditty to help out Carl Sagan with a science fiction book that he was writing.

Purhaps, however didn't Schwarzschild base his predictions off of Einsteins field equations? But as you said, that would only apply if the universe was void of matter. So how much of the prediction is fantasy, and how much is real science?

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Actually Dr. Rocket, my conclusion of the "spin" of the black hole came from your very own Einstein. I'm sorry you missed his chapter on Einstein-Rosen bridges. I know a little about Einstein, but not nearly as much as I assumed many of you do. Hence why I ask the questions.

Then you ought to know that Einstein rejected the very idea of the existence of black holes. He was wrong, of course.

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915? I know he also claimed at the same time they didn't exist, but that almost doesn't make any sense from a man of his brain capacity. It was Karl Schwarzschild who later released the equation which proved that the existence of black holes.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Seeing as Kip Thorne was a theoretical physicist, known for his prolific contributions in gravitation physics and astrophysics and for having trained a generation of scientists (though a longtime friend and colleague of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan) he was one of the world’s leading experts on the astrophysical implications of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. I've read his predictions on worm holes & black holes. As I said, it's very hard to believe his predictions were just simply to satisfy Sagan.

 

[derekmcd]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Not really; the direction of a black hole spin would be random. Now there may be a correlation between supermassive black holes at galaxy centers and the direction of spin of the galaxy...or not. AFAIK, there's know way to measure the spin direction of a black hole. As far as the infalling material, it's spin diection is determined by the angular momentum of the infalling material, I would think.

There is definitely a correlation between a super massive black hole and the rotation of the host galaxy. It all has to do with the conservation of angular momentum of the original 'cloud' of matter that formed the galaxy as it collapsed. The age-old ice skater analogy. With that said, though... occasional catastrophic event can toss individual stars in random directions, but I would still bet that those stars velocity are still relative to the spin of the galaxy.

Considering a black hole can not be directly detected, the indirect detection methods can easily determine its spin once the black hole has been detected. Obviously, the main detection method is the accretion disk. We all know that most stars in a galaxy are binary and generally formed from the same cloud. Thus their angular momentum will have a similar vector quantity concerning their rotation and orbits. When one of the companions collapses to form a black hole, the other (assuming it is within the roche limit) will break up and create an accretion disk that follows the rotation of the black hole.

Let's assume that a rogue star falls into this system that begins with a retrograde orbit about the black hole. As the star falls within the roche limit and matter is torn away from it, that matter will interact with the existing accretion disk. Through friction, it will tend to follow the same path. Given a substation period of time, the tidal effects between the disk and rogue star would alter its orbit and spin. Essentially, even a star in retrograde will eventually succumb to the rotation of the black hole.

What about a rogue star with a retrograde orbit that approaches a black hole with no accretion disk you ask? There's always frame dragging to fix that. A rotating black hole twists space as it rotates. The infalling matter will follow this rotation.

 

[derekmcd]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Actually Dr. Rocket, my conclusion of the "spin" of the black hole came from your very own Einstein. I'm sorry you missed his chapter on Einstein-Rosen bridges. I know a little about Einstein, but not nearly as much as I assumed many of you do. Hence why I ask the questions.

Then you ought to know that Einstein rejected the very idea of the existence of black holes. He was wrong, of course.

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915? I know he also claimed at the same time they didn't exist, but that almost doesn't make any sense from a man of his brain capacity. It was Karl Schwarzschild who later released the equation which proved that the existence of black holes.

DrRocket, quite correctly, pointed out the flaw in relying on vacuum solutions. I'd also like to point out that Schwarzschild black holes don't exist. I should say, that I can't fathom a reason they would exist naturally or without some very extraordinary circumstances. Schwarzschild black holes are non-rotating. As far as we know, every massive body has angular momentum... all of them. From a heuristics standpoint, the Schwarzschild metric is quite useful.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915?

No, not really. Those were predictions of later theorists.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

There is definitely a correlation between a super massive black hole and the rotation of the host galaxy. .

Definately? I don't think so. Do you have any evidence that backs that up? I suspect you will have trouble coming up with some

 

[derekmcd]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915? I know he also claimed at the same time they didn't exist, but that almost doesn't make any sense from a man of his brain capacity. It was Karl Schwarzschild who later released the equation which proved that the existence of black holes.

No. Einstein did not predict black holes. Another misconception is that Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe. He was a pretty bright individual, but he didn't realize all the implications of his field equations. It took other mathematicians and astronomers to put his field equations to work and make these predictions. Another is frame dragging.

 

[derekmcd]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

There is definitely a correlation between a super massive black hole and the rotation of the host galaxy. .

Definately? I don't think so. Do you have any evidence that backs that up? I suspect you will have trouble coming up with some

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that supermassive black holes are the "source" of the rotation. Most definitely not. My point is all about the consveration of angular momentum of the original cloud of matter that formed the galaxy. You would be hard pressed to explain how a massive object that is some 10 million solar masses in the center of any closed system similar to our galaxy to be spinning retrograde to the rest of the system.

However, I do reserve the right to be wrong.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915? I know he also claimed at the same time they didn't exist, but that almost doesn't make any sense from a man of his brain capacity. It was Karl Schwarzschild who later released the equation which proved that the existence of black holes.

No. Einstein did not predict black holes. Another misconception is that Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe. He was a pretty bright individual, but he didn't realize all the implications of his field equations. It took other mathematicians and astronomers to put his field equations to work and make these predictions. Another is frame dragging.

Okay. I read a lot of predictions that refer to Einstein's General Relativity being used to predict Black holes, expansion of the universe, etc... Yes, frame dragging I also read. So in other words much of this information about Einstein's credit for these predictions is actually false, but rather his field equations having been used by others to make the predictions is true. Einstein himself couldn't apply his theories in computer models as we can today, thus making the man intellectually smarter then his time. I'm sure if Einstein was around today a lot of the mysteries of the universe would have been solved in a matter of weeks in his hands, lol. Your right though, it was indeed merely his equations that were used. He himself I'm sure couldn't fathom the implications his equations would have. However I believe Einstein should have credit for many of these predictions, as if it were not for his equations many physicists would still be in the dark.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that supermassive black holes are the "source" of the rotation. Most definitely not. My point is all about the consveration of angular momentum of the original cloud of matter that formed the galaxy. You would be hard pressed to explain how a massive object that is some 10 million solar masses in the center of any closed system similar to our galaxy to be spinning retrograde to the rest of the system.

However, I do reserve the right to be wrong.

No, I'm not saying the galactic center is the source of the rotation, however I am saying that perhaps it is the galactic center that keeps the momentum of the galaxies rotation going in the same direct as it did during the time of the original cloud. Then again, as the cloud condensed, it "could" have formed the supermassive black hole at it's center during the same time frame as the stars surrounding it. Kind of the same concept as when stars form, then the surrounding gases condense to form planets, asteroids, etc... (awaits for this theory to be beheaded by MeteorWayne) lol.