A note to stars: Beware the Piranha

At the risk of sounding partiularly (i.e more than usual) stupid....

what happens next... that is to say... assuming a black hole has eaten everything accessible, what does it do? does it just sit there, presumably not emitting anything?

And then assuming that this has occured throught the universe do we just end up with a scattering of black holes all sitting doing now't? But then I spos'e they'd slowly come together for one final coalescence...or is that the next big bang?

Or is the end of it all one big (joke...obviousl V small!?) black hole, as silent as a wet suday evening in Scunthorpe?

Hi Del.

Fortunately, the central giant black holes are 'stationary' relative to the mother galaxy, almost like flesh-eating plants that are luckily static relative to the land. They can only eat what happens to pass by very closely, where their 'web' of gravity can catch things. Most of the dust and stars in a galaxy orbit at safe distances from the central black hole.

However, when galaxies collide, at lot of new matter may fall prey to the combined black holes...

Jorrie

Thanks...

I can go and play golf now with an easy mind....although I won't stray too near the holes just in case!

Can we tell how old or date supermassive black holes by energy signatures ? Or are there remnants of "dying" black holes ? (is there such a thing ?)

Hi again csoulpro. You wrote: "Can we tell how old or date super-massive black holes by energy signatures ?"

Not really; we know their rough ages by the ages of the galaxies that they inhabit.

"Or are there remnants of "dying" black holes ? (is there such a thing ?)"

We do not know of any 'dying black holes'. Black holes in old galaxies do get 'starved' of food, when they have 'eaten' most of what was available. There are probably still sporadic gas, dust and even stars that are caught by them and 'eaten'.

Despite the possibility of Hawking radiation, large black holes will invariable have more to eat than what they radiate. It is only in the 'impossibly far future', like ~10²⁰ years from now that they may perhaps degenerate and disappear. But that is a lo...ong story.

Jorrie

PBS aired a special program on this (which I caught twice), called "Monster of the Milky Way" .... apparently, according to the program, EVERY galaxy has such a black hole at its center...(!!!)

Buy the DVD of the program at :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/

Hi ndt-tom. Thanks for the link.

"... apparently, according to the program, EVERY galaxy has such a black hole at its center...(!!!)"

It is not certain that small or 'dwarf' galaxies (like the clouds of Magellan) contain super-massive black holes at their centers, but is possible that they are just 'quiet' and hence not easily detectable.

Jorrie

Interestingly enough, most matter finds stable orbits around the black hole, destined never to fall in. On the other hand, some of these orbits are at relativistic speeds - and such was how the second form of stellar creation was discovered. Gas and dust can fly so fast around the black hole that it smashes together in shockwave-like fashion to create massive stars!

Right, Jorrie?

Hi vermin, you wrote: "Gas and dust can fly so fast around the black hole that it smashes together in shock wave-like fashion to create massive stars!"

Haven't heard of this. Can you give me some reference where I can get more info?

My knowledge is that gas and dust would normally all swirl around a black hole in the same direction. The orbital speed is different at different radial distances and the ensuing friction between particles of dust and molecules of gas robs them of orbital energy. The energy loss forces the dust and gas into lower and lower orbits until the minimum stable orbital radius (r=4GM/c²) is reached. The matter then rapidly spirals into the black hole.

My guess is that collisions will also cause the gas and dust to rather fall in than create stars, but I may be wrong!

Jorrie

A question in response to "Gas and dust can fly so fast around the black hole that it smashes together in shock wave-like fashion to create massive stars!" It seems possible, doesn't it ? The gravity of a supermassive (or "standard" black hole) is dependent on the mass of the original star that collapsed right ? So any matter in its vicinity including gases may even react with each other igniting itself, etc., but will most likely be absorbed into the black hole regardless, especially the closer it is to the event horizon. there are probably millions of reactions like this that we don't see or can detect i guess with all the pressure and heat associated with them. The ones we can must emit huge amounts of energy like the gamma bursts that allowed us to discover supermassive black holes in the first place no ? So many questions, so little time....

Yeah, I think I read this in SCI-AM. The surprise was that until the time of the article, astrophysicists thought that stellar formation could happen only in relatively quiescent areas of the galaxy. Then, they started finding new, large, and very hot stars near the center of the galaxy, and concluded that these stars were the result of massive traffic-jams of dust and gas. Sort of like star creation by traffic pileup!

I'll see if I can hunt down the info.

Is there any favourite way for stars to form?

Isn't it at any occurrence where some critical mass of matter start to collide into itself by it's own collective gravity, to a point where the pressure and temperature ignite fusion?

Up until recently, what you described as star formation is rather delicate at the beginning. A lot of galactic space is too violent for the slow beginnings to happen. That is why astrophysicists believed that stars could form only is relatively quiet and calm areas in the galaxy.

Now breath, and focus on your third chakra.

H,

slow star formation in calm regions is one part of the total situation, much faster is the compression of "cold dark matter " by the shock waves of supernovas. So why not within higher density areas and turbulence ? Pure speculation I admit, somebody else to calculate this. The violence you mention is working in low density gas to dissipate any agglomeration. But in higher density with sufficient shear velocity to generate mass concentrations. If big enough these may ignite.

What about magnetic and electrostatic forces?

RHABE

This is just a semi-educated guess, but...

1. Cold dark matter hasn't been really nailed down to actually exist, much less being turned into stars around supernovae. Yes, they think it should exist, they hope it exists, but it has yet to be proven.
2. The area around a single star super-giant supernova, is probably fairly quiet a few million years after the event. Quiet and lots of unburned nuclear fuel and dust available. Great place for a star nursery.
3. I believe that the space around the galactic black hole is rather dense with gas and dust. Again, like a traffic pileup, the collision of all this stuff can become compiled into large, hot, young stars.
4. The interesting thing about magnetic and electrostatic forces is they don't just exist in space by themselves. These forces emanate from matter. So, the larger these forces get, it's a good bet that there's lots of stuff around, especially in the case of the electrostatic force.

Sorry about the numbered paragraphs, but it made it easier for me to lay my thoughts down.

Your (2.) is what's thought to be the origin of our Solar System, as a third-generation star and it's surrounding matter

Jorrie, I have to agree with you. I can see the gas and dust being accelerated to very high speeds in an accretion disc, and both friction and impacts creating X-rays, etc. But as for creating new massive stars.... I believe that the shock waves from events such as novas and supernovas, and their effect on vast gas clouds, are the breeding grounds for new stars. Astonomers see these breeding grounds frequently. In this month's Astronomy magazine, there is a brief article on rogue stars that get tossed out of their orbits and wander thru the localized neighborhoods of a galaxy. Sort of like wandering mini black holes, etc. Scary! By the way, can you give us a better address for Science@NASA? I don't connect at that address. Thanks!

Hi Cardio07, "By the way, can you give us a better address for Science@NASA? I don't connect at that address."

Sorry, the editor (or perhaps MS Word) somehow converted my link to an email address looking thing! => Here's the correct link.

Jorrie

Jorrie,

Check this link out regarding black hole star formation. There are others out there, as well.

vermin-

Hi vermin, thanks for the link. I was surprised too.

I searched for more recent ones and found a short 2007 paper by one of the authors of the original 2005 paper, confirming the issue. See download at Stellar Processes near AGN.

Jorrie

Yes, yes. I saw that too. It was quite the story.

Jorrie... I wonder.... I remember talk of black holes which are prevelent in every solar system even from the likes of hawking, and I believe them to be a crucial destructive force, and to me a proponent for the growth of our universe. Let me explain. Assuming that our universe is "flat", I have seen illustrations of a parallel universe which appears to be below us. Are these two concepts related ? Supermassive black holes (black holes in general) are ubiquitous in our universe, but I have a question for you. I heard that initial theories had black holes sucking all matter in its gravitational pull into its funnel shape yes, in a rotation, but ended in a "dot" (lack of a better word- is it quantam dot ?). I think hawking changed his theory in the end. I believe all of the matter absorbed in black holes do not end up "nowhere". Is it possible that such massive amounts of matter are taken from one place and distributed in another ? Those illustrations of a paralell universe (say below us) seems to me to be a possible byproduct of such forces and vice versa. I feel as though such black holes starve their solar systems of matter and energy, absorb and crush it, and then distribute it elsewhere, allowing at the end of such a vortex to be spilled out into space somewhere else leaving such matter to be integrated and interact with each other later. Given that black holes can warp space and time itself, these forces are trumendous, but I feel that the universe is so vast, (soooo much dark matter) that these black holes only seem to affect nearby matter and there must be a limit to where they distribute it in the end. The matter absorbed must even change, but to what ? Do elements and energy reform on the other end ? I guess I have too many questions. I just envision that black holes destroy one aspect of our universe but may build another since my guess and yes it is a guess that the funnel of black holes must lose their kinetic energy at some point, possibly allowing the reintegration of matter on the other side. I hope you have the time to answer my silly questions, csoul...

Hi csoulpro, you're welcome!

Just a few general comments:

(i) Try to break your posting into paragraphs - it looks very daunting to read one lo...ong paragraph on a screen. 'White space' makes it much more reader-friendly.

(ii) Try and get you terms as correct as possible; otherwise the replies may be way off the mark, e.g. "I remember talk of black holes which are prevalent in every solar system...". There are black holes in galaxies, not in solar systems...

With that out of the way, you asked: "Is it possible that such massive amounts of matter are taken from one place and distributed in another?"

Yes it is theoretically possible, via 'worm holes', but we are still detecting all that matter inside the black hole that 'swallowed' the matter. So, we cannot tell for sure if it has gone to somewhere else, wherever that may be.

The last paragraph of an article that I posted on my website speculates lightly about this possibility. Read it here => Quantum Cosmology.

Jorrie

White hole.... Interesting. Thank you for your patience and knowledge, I am exploring the website now, csoul...

Hi, Scoulpro... I agree with Jorrie that is a little difficult to read and follow your thoughts due to the way that you "built" your message (and many others have the same way of writting (without paragraphs, commas e.t.c.) that make it hard for others to clearly understand their messages)... But I know that some times this happens because we are trying to write so many things very fast...

You said: "I just envision that black holes destroy one aspect of our universe but may build another since my guess and yes it is a guess that the funnel of black holes must lose their kinetic energy at some point, possibly allowing the reintegration of matter on the other side."

Maybe, there is a kind of "umbilical cord", in some cases, between the black hole at the one end and a "white hole" (as you said) at the other end...In this way, such a pair of "black and white holes" that are situated at very distant places in the space, can connect these different places via a "worm-hole" which is a "path" outside our conventional, 3-dimensional space... Although, there is a problem: we cannot find "white holes" while we have, already, discovered a numerous black holes... If this was the usual scenario we should observe "white holes" as many as black holes... But this doesn't happen...

But even if this is happening (in some spacial cases) it is improbable that the "squashed" matter (in the center of a black hole) could be recontructed at the "exit" of a white hole in its previous form... If an astronaut falls into a black hole he cannot hope that he will come out of a white hole as an astronaut... Likely he will come out as some kind of energy or dispersed particles...

Furthermore if such a warm-hole is established, it's very unstable... This means that, very soon, will be collapsed... Actually, the astronaut himself will cause the collapse of the worm-hole before he succeed to pass through it...

Although, there is a possibility in very, very massive black holes (like these ones in the center of galaxies) that such a worm-hole could be stable and large enough so an astronaut could pass through it succesfully (and may be without feeling something special)... But this is an unconfirmed scenario...

Hi George,

You said "we cannot find "white holes" while we have, already, discovered a numerous black holes".

If the theory, i.e., black holes give birth to white holes, perhaps in a different universe, that, in itself, describes why we would not be able to detect them; they are not in our sphere of knowledge or observation (not yet anyway).

Again, assuming the theory holds, the BIG BANG is, in fact, a WHITE HOLE, and therefore may actually be witnessed.

-John

Hi, JohnJohn... There are similarities with the Big Bang and a white hole... For example they produce energy and particles from "nothing"... But I tend to consider the Big Bang as something essentially different than a white hole... A white hole is supposed to curve intensely the existing space-time (in an "opposite way" than a black hole) while the Big Bang, actually, produced the space-time itself... A white hole is supposed to continuously produce energy and particles while the Bing Bang produced (in an explosive way) all the energy and matter of the universe once (about 15 billion years ago)...

Considering the opinion that, maybe, all the energy and matter that is absorbed by a black hole is extracted from a white hole that exists in another (say a kind of a parallel) universe, this, in a first place, seems to explain why white holes don't exist in our universe... But someone could assume that there are also black holes in this "other universe" so they must have their "partners" (i.e. white holes) in our universe (assuming that this "other universe" has the same laws of physics which permit the creation of black holes, white holes e.t.c.)... Hence, again, we should observe white holes in our universe too...

Maybe, the black holes have not their "exit" (in the form of white holes) in our universe or in another universe, but, instead, they "create" bubbles outside our space (something like baby-universes)... And, afterall, the white holes are just theoretical possibilities... This doesn't mean that they, really, exist...

Hi George.

It may be that the black holes spawn new universes parallel to ours as white holes (and that ours is just a white hole from some previous universe's black hole), like shown on the left.

It's from Prof. Roger Penrose's seminar on 7 November 2005 titled: Before the Big Bang? A new perspective on the Weyl curvature hypothesis, a very enjoyable listen.

The idea was apparently first written up by L. Smolin. I do not know if it spawns mini-universes or whether it 'creates' more space and time out of 'nothing'. However, the effects of the original mass that disappeared through the event horizon remains observable in our Universe.

Nice topic for speculation...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie, George and all

Nice discussion so far concerning the existence of white holes, but there is a basic thing that eludes an almost ignorant fellow like me:

How can we reconcile the notion of a white hole with the idea that gravity seems to always be attractive? I elaborate on this:

We know already that a black hole would suck mass/energy, due to the gravitational force (time-space wrap) around it, and consequently grow bigger and bigger.

Then, at some point (or in the beginning maybe?), an alleged wormhole is created and a white hole appears at the other end, which spawns the mass/energy that crosses the wormhole. The idea I got so far is that a white hole, being thus the counterpart of a black hole, is a spot in the universe where stuff gets constantly spit out and consequently accelerated at great speeds away from it. Therefore, to an observer it would appear - apart from being very bright! - as an excelent example of the existence of anti-gravitational forces! Am I right?

So, I repeat the question: Is it possible to have white holes in a universe where gravity seems to always be an attractive force? Otherwise, is there any reason why in some far far distant "corners" of this universe - where white holes are allegedly hosted - the laws of gravity have to be different that what we observe in our neighborhood? Moreover if the mass/energy that is cought by a black hole gets drained through the warmhole, then apparently, the black holes wouldn't grow bigger, at least after some point. Is this compatible with theory and observations?

Maybe there is no such thing as a white hole, after all. Or maybe Jorrie is right saying that a white hole creates a new universe, but then, it is not exactly the opposite of a black hole. That is, a black hole doesn't suck space-time! Am I wrong somewhere?

Tasos

Hi Tasos, you asked: "How can we reconcile the notion of a white hole with the idea that gravity seems to always be attractive?"

'Always attractive' is perhaps a little too strong a statement. Einstein's cosmological constant is in effect a repulsive force. It is quite reasonable to say that the cosmic expansion started with a very large repulsive energy.

At some early stage, the repulsive energy apparently got converted into radiation and matter and the 'runaway' accelerating expansion stopped. Then, billions of years later, a small residual repulsive energy per unit space started to accelerate the expansion of the cosmos again.

Implausible as it may sound, present physical cosmology effectively says just that. So why could there not be white holes which 'reverses' gravity? OK, I'm not a proponent of white holes - for one thing, apart from the big bang, we do not know of any other white holes in our universe.

The big bang does not quite fit the label 'white hole' either - Einstein's equations allow a time reversal of black holes, but then the white holes should more or less continually be pouring out matter and radiation. This is not what we think the big bang was...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie & Tasos... I agree with you that the Bing Bang and a white hole are not "same" things... As I wrote (as a responce to Johnjohn): "A white hole is supposed to curve intensely the existing space-time (in an "opposite way" than a black hole) while the Big Bang, actually, produced the space-time itself"... Also, the Bing Bang created all the energy (and matter) of the universe in a specific moment... I suppose that if the Bing Bang was a "kind of white hole" it should extract (or produce) energy (from nothing) during whole the time of the existence of the universe (even now)... So I don't know how right is to consider the Bing Bang as a "kind of white hole"...

The white hole, also, is supposed to excibit anti-gravity due to the intense curvature of geometry of the space-time (caused by the existence of the white hole... this curvature is the "opposite" than the curvature of a black hole...)... So, I think this is the main property of the white hole and this could help us to distinguish a white hole from other bright objects (like stars) in the universe...

By the way, thanks Jorrie for the link... I wish I can find the time to look at it... This must be very interesting...

Jorrie - I bow to your superior understanding in these matters -

apart from the big bang, we do not know of any other white holes in our universe

Could it be that there is only one white hole per universe, and that the absence of other white holes simply defines what a universe is? And that the other white holes cannot be observed because we cannot get outside our universe to observe them? And if we were to do so the other universe would simply become a part of our universe by the fact that we can observe it (if you follow my thinking)?

There's a link to the Anthropic Principles here somewhere that is making my brain hurt. Sorry if I'm not being very clear on this.

Hi Crabtree, I claim some understanding, but "superior understanding" certainly not!

I would not even call the BB a white hole, for reasons stated before. But then, the continuous creation of dark energy through the creation of space smacks somewhat like a long term white hole again.

Darn, now I can sense a headache coming too...

Jorrie

Wow, Jorrie, that was interesting... When I told that we cannot consider the Big Bang as a "white hole" I didn't consider the dark energy... Now I'm thinking of something else: What if the white hole extract only dark energy instead of real energy???... What if the real energy that is absorbed by a black hole is "transformed" (inside the black hole and/or during its "travel" to the white hole due to "unknown" physics) into dark energy which is extracted from the partner-white hole???... What if the white hole just produce space and dark energy (associated with this space)???... And if this happens the white hole maybe is "black" (as a black hole is) instead of "white" (as we were thinking) as the dark energy is not the usual energy that we can "see"... Maybe a white hole is "invisible" and it is only a source of dark energy... So, the only thing that we observe is the repulsion of the nearby objects (due to the curvature of the space)... Or we could assume that, locally, cause the expansion of the space (or "produce" space if you like)...

So, about the Big Bang and Universe: maybe another universe had collapsed (a kind of Big Crunch) "somewhere else" creating a kind of an "enormous black hole" (or we could imagine just a huge black "somewhere else" and not the destruction of a universe)... The squeezed energy had "transformed" into "space-dark energy" that was extracted (explosively) creating the begining of our universe... Then, soon enough, a part of this dark energy transformed into real energy and particles as the universe was expanded intensively (inflation)... Ever since (and till now) the energy that is absorbed at the "other side" appears in "our side" as expansion of the space and an continuously increased dark energy...

Hi George, you wrote: "Ever since (and till now) the energy that is absorbed at the "other side" appears in "our side" as expansion of the space and an continuously increased dark energy..."

This is more or less what I pointed out in my article on quantum gravity (via my latest CR4 Blog posting). The 'bounce scenario' is just that, I think.

Jorrie

Jorrie, what do you think about the idea of the "transformation" (somehow) of the real energy (which is absorbed by the black hole) into dark energy during its trip to the white hole???... Does this seem reasonable???... Is this possible???... If this happens is very difficult to observe a white hole as it extracts only "invisible" dark energy instead of "vissible" real energy... Maybe that's why we cannot observe any white holes... The only effect that they produce is the repulsion of the matter & energy in their nearby area... What do you thing about this scenario???...

Hi George.

I gave the idea of "'... transformation' (somehow) of the real energy (which is absorbed by the black hole) into dark energy during its trip to the white hole???" some thought. I would say nay, not quite...

As far as we can tell (measure), all the energy of the black holes are still there in their own locale, doing their things as gravitating objects. Dark energy on the other hand is apparently spread out over the total cosmos and doing its anti-gravity thing. We need both to balance the cosmological books.

In the talk of Prof. Penrose that I referred to previously, he says something like: dark energy (the cosmological constant) may mean that gravity has a 'pull' action at short ranges and a 'push' action at very large scales. I don't quite buy that, because I can't see how it will balance the books, getting Ω so close to unity and giving the expansion curve that we observe.

Black holes and parallel universes may perhaps rather create the non-baryonic cold dark matter (CDM) effect. If there are plenty of universes parallel to ours, all hidden by the event horizons of black holes on our side (like the Prof's sketch), some of their gravity may 'leak' to our side. I think the 'branes' of M-theory consider this as a possibility.

This requires that the parallel universes 'create' their own energy, perhaps by borrowing from the vacuum, just like ours did. Why? Because the CDM effect is a lot stronger than the gravitation of the normal matter on our side, let alone just the black holes.

Jorrie

Good one, Jorrie!!!

Interesting! I know that what is dark is considered cold as well. However, is there a possibility that the "cold" could be removed from the CDM?

Hi vermin, you asked: "... is there a possibility that the "cold" could be removed from the CDM?"

The cold in CDM simply means slow moving particles, particularly non-baryonic, weakly interacting particles (WIMPs), of unknown structure.

Contrast that with non-baryonic 'hot dark matter' (DHM), which are ultra-fast moving particles like the neutrino. HDM is somewhat ruled out by cosmological structure formation problems.

I think the C or the H will never be dropped, because there are also ordinary baryonic dark matter, like black holes and other dead or 'failed stars' like brown dwarfs that radiate little observable energy.

Jorrie

Interesting. Even though neutrinos are assumed to move at c or near c, they, nevertheless interact with other matter via the electro-weak force, making them "almost" undetectable.

The need to find what would amount to a slow neutrino would seem to be a daunting task. Even with their vast numbers, nothing like that has been detected has it?

Hey Jorrie. I pose this question COMPLETELY AS A LAYMAN.

what is, is there a possibility that the 'other end of a black hole doesnt exist, ,per se. Rather we have two black holes linked opposite. Taking in all the energy/mass around them and, being connected, causing it all to slam together somewhere in the middle?

I bet you would need a pair of these

Hi CR3, you can bet on that!

The 'other end of the black hole' is in present day physics just a 'singularity'. Personally, I do not believe in such things - it's just a place where our known physics and math break down.

I'm eagerly awaiting 'quantum gravity' and 'quantum cosmology' that may just explain it...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

It seems to me that "singularity" implies an infinitely small point. To me, that defies all logic; that all that mass that's being sucked in to a black hole could condense into essentially nothing. As you say though, "it's just a place where our known physics and math break down". I guess that goes for logic and common sense as well.

I think G.K. has a good point. Perhaps the "output" of a black hole (which we've been calling a white hole) is all dark energy. If so, that could explain why we don't detect these things as white holes, per se. In your diagram here the top part of the bounce might just be all dark energy instead of "ordinary" matter.

Also, in your diagram would the Planck limit of contraction before expansion be considered a singularity point?

Again, your thoughts and comments appreciated.

P.S. Got your ebook yesterday. I've got a lot of studying to do.

-John

The electron's spatial dimension is also an infinitely small point.

Singularity, I tend to think, is a human concept (like that of 'time') which may or may not exist in reality, but displays a range of phenomena, indirectly, by reference to other objects, it influences.

In the case if singularity, I would call it, the veil behind which the laws of physics disappear. It's where matter cease to take physical shape, and turn back into it's elementary constituents, namely, the four primordial forces (Strong N, Weak N, Electromagnetic, & Gravity) in their ethereal form, before matter was created by the formation of interactive (fermions and bosons) particles.

Of course, this is a wild conceptual extrapolation. I ask to be excused in advance.

Hi Yuval, you said: "The electron's spatial dimension is also an infinitely small point."

I guess you meant it is at the Planck size or there-abouts? In fact a single electron may be more like a wave thing, I suppose.

Jorrie

Yes, my analogy was to say that size doesn't matter

(Wave Function, De Broglie, a Cloud of Potential, all that taken into account, I just didn't think anybody would mind...)

- - - - - - - - -

What's would be your take on that Singularity is a 'bridge-concept' until a more descriptive one emerges?

A bit like Einstein's 'Cosmological Constant', until 'Dark Matter' was there to better explain Hubble's and Friedman's models.

After all, today we look at this constant as a major evasive ploy.

Hi again, Yuval.

Yep, I concur that 'singularity' is a 'bridge-concept', until quantum physics can come up with something better.

You wrote: "A bit like Einstein's 'Cosmological Constant', until 'Dark Matter' was there..." I guess you meant Dark Energy?

In a way, dark energy is still a 'bridge-concept', because it is not understood at all. Again quantum gravity/cosmology may or may not come to the rescue.

My perception is that it is the same 'vacuum energy' that gave us inflation in the beginning. During the phase transitions at the end of inflation that dumped a lot of energy into matter and radiation, a small amount of vacuum energy per cubic meter was left. The number of cubic meters of space are now so huge that vacuum energy is dominating the expansion.

This view eases some of the inevitable headaches...

Jorrie

"...I guess you meant Dark Energy..."

Sorry for that, it all seem to mash up lately

Hi John, you wrote: "It seems to me that "singularity" implies an infinitely small point."

No, it is rather a point of infinite density and may be of any size. However, this is probably also not quite right. Maybe nature prevents such bizarre things to exist.

"In your diagram here the top part of the bounce might just be all dark energy instead of "ordinary" matter."

The LQC theory says that a singularity is never reached, because there is a bounce due to huge anti-gravity at that time. The top part of the diagram replaces the bottom part, i.e., it's a previous and a current universe model. Some part of the top universe must be dark energy, but it must have all the (insignificant) baryonic matter in it that we observe today as well.

Finally, the Planck limit is not singular, as far as I know. It is just that normal gravitational physics do not work there any more. It is almost intuitive that things should not be able to compress to a singular point without violently resisting that. Hence quantum gravitational physics.

Jorrie

OK, so we believe with some certainty that gravity can be strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic-weak force and enter into the realm of the strong nuclear force, crushing protons and electrons together to form stable neutrons.

If true, what is the next step? Within a black hole, would you imagine the singularity to be a boson (obeying Bose-Einstein statistics) or a fermion (obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics)?

Hi CR3... I don't thing that the scenario of the "two black holes connected together" (via a wormhole I suppose) can give a reasonable solution to the problem... The problem was: where the mass-energy which is absorbed by a black hole goes???... And now the problem is: where the mass-energy which is absorbed by two black holes goes???... A white hole seems to be a kind of solution (as an exit)... But a second black hole seems to increase the problem (as a second entrance)... The "umbilical cord" that is supposed to connect these two black holes must be extremely narrow (as a singularity is extremely small)... Hence how all this energy can be contained in such an extremely narrow "tunnel" (even if it is very long)???... So, my opinion is that this scenario doesn't seem to solve the problem...

so imagine 2 bathtubs atop one another, drain pugs out. the bottomw of the tubs are flat. AS the energy exits the drain there is a collison and exceess energy escapes between the 2 bottoms. . .

I am so out of my ability to perceive here. But it' just so damn fascinating.

...any way the new universe create between my bath tubs is where my string theory tears into the bathtub bottom theory

Dude. I so wish I had more knowledge in this area. I could really annoy some proffesors.

cr3

Hi CR3,

I'm having a little trouble with your bathtubs (no, I'm not the plumber coming to fix them). You said "imagine 2 bathtubs atop one another, drain pugs out. the bottomw of the tubs are flat".

Are both tubs right side up or are the connected drain to drain (one upright, one upside down)? Are both tubs full of liquid, or is only the top one? Care to elaborate?

-John

touching bottom to bottom.

REMEMBER ------Im a layman. (as if it weren't obvoius, but some of you guys punch first and ask later!)

Not me CR3.

I'm a novice par excellence! However, I used to be a "layman". Just ask any of those girls I dated.

I agree with you about it being a fascinating topic. Just trying to get your head around some of these things that cosmology entails is enough to give you a super headache.

Sure is fun though!

I don't know about the rest of you, but as for myself, always seeing black holes diagrammed a funnels leads me away from the fact that black holes are not two-dimensional. Rather, they are 3-dimensional objects - spheres.

If we could move up and over and around the center of our galaxy, the black hole would soon be apparent as a "black-ball." Mass and energy can fall into it (or be drawn in) from any angle. After crossing the event horizon, all paths lead to the same place, the center.

ahhhhh.

Hi vermin.

You're right, but the 'funnel' is still the best (only?) way to see the spacetime and light-cone relationships. One just pretend one space dimension isn't there...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

Now that I think about vermin's depiction of a BH really being a BB (black ball) how would the warping of space time take place around such a scenario? Wouldn't it appear differently since the event horizon exists in all directions?

I'm just trying to picture how the fabric of space time would appear around a spherical black ball.

Any comments welcome as always.

-John

Hi John.

A static, non-rotating BH is spherically symmetrical, so it doesn't matter from which direction you project its spacetime on a 2 -D surface - it looks the same

BH's that are either moving or rotating in the chosen reference frame have unsymmetrical spacetimes in such a projection. I loosely discussed Kerr (rotating) black holes in this Blog entry.

Jorrie

Thanks Jorrie. I'll keep studying and pondering.

Very good point vermin.

The black ball idea makes sense. By analogy, kinda like the earth's atmosphere being the event horizon, and all that matter is headed toward the core. That not withstanding, you've gone and done it now!

You've taken away, in one fell swoop, a place for a white hole, a wormhole, anything, anything at all to get out of this thing. Before vermin, we had a funnel-neck to which we could ascribe possibilities and outcomes. Now we're left with a "core" of despair. How ya gonna get out of a core? You can't even get a parallel universe out of that.

May I propose a slightly different model? Perhaps the hole/ball more closely mimics a Klein bottle.

Did you get the idea for a black ball while gazing into a mirror? Oops, maybe I was thinking of your cousin Floyd...

See, that's why I always have to slap myself around from time-to-time when thinking of black holes. That darn funnel diagram is so useful for certain things regarding black holes, but I have to remember it's only a tool - rather like thinking of electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom like planets orbiting the Sun.

When you want to really work with this stuff, you have to separate the useful models from the true situations.

"Sure is a bitch, isn't it"

-Rip Torn, The Men in Black

And, yes. I personally can see the merit of fiddling around with the idea that black holes might indeed be something like Kline bottles! Please let me know what you come up with.

Einstein's Klein Stein here.

Is this a Genus-Two version of a Mobius-Ring?

Depends on how drunk you get I suppose.

It's a 3-D version of a Mobius strip!

Here is a link to an architect's-forum, discussing a mobius ring turning into a klein-vessel.

They also discuss multi-genus topology, with 3D examples to boggle the mind with... Just scroll to the bottom.

That's way cool man.

I would dare to say that your described concept of a 'white-hole' at the other 'end' of a black-hole/worm-hole continuum, is a mathematical entity necessary for the maintenance of some conservation-laws.

In the history of science, such concepts are known serve as 'conceptual bridges', until a more likely description appear, better subject for testing and observation.

On the other hand, if the matter of a black hole is being blown into another universe, it would mean that our black holes would become less massive in a relatively short amount of time. Eventually, with not much to feed on, it would seem to me that black holes would wane and then disappear. This is not the case, however.

Our black holes seem to increase in mass. I'm guessing that no matter how weird it is over the event horizon, the mass still belongs to this Universe.

Hi, Vermin... Maybe we can "sense" the mass-energy which is absorbed by the black hole although this mass-energy might be dispersed in another "univesre"... Afterall, the mass-energy is "somewhere in there"... Maybe the gravity is the way to "conceive" this "other universe"...

At the the other hand, maybe, there aren't neither white holes nor other universes... Maybe, we cannot understand how a huge ammount of mass-energy can be compressed and squeezed in an infinite small space (which is called "singularity" and is supposed to exist in the center of the black hole)... In the same way the whole mass-energy of the universe existed in the primary singularity of the Big Bang... Maybe, some day, we will discover and understand the "special and exotic physics" that take place in such singularities...

Hey G.K. would you please respond to #45.

Thanks

CR3

Well, you may be right, you may be wrong= but I choose to believe in what I have found to be realistic- to my knowledge, black holes are still just theory.

Hi Neil, you are right: black holes are just theory, albeit a very persistent and successful theory. There's a lot of observational evidence which is hard to explain without invoking Einstein's theory of general relativity and its predicted black holes.

Jorrie

Jorrie, could you perhaps elaborate just a bit on this statement?

Thank you

CR3

Hi CR3.

What I meant is that theory is never fact or reality, it remains theory. Theory can also never be absolutely proven, it can only be absolutely falsified by observation. So far, neither Einstein's theory, nor the black hole implications have been falsified by observation. And there is a lot of supporting evidence.

Jorrie

Hi,

a very simplified model may be the vortices that develop in shearing gas .

We see it in our atmosphere being driven by shear winds, we see it in the atmosphere of Jupiter with its strong but not too turbulent vortices.

The infalling gas into the black hole (any size) is speeding up with lower orbit so there is considerable shear.

I have no idea about density and apparent viscosity to calculate Reynolds number or the equivalent total energy in a circulating gas patch related to its energy loss per revolution.

To calculate the size of an individual vortex will be pretty difficult (as in tropical storms growing on its ways to develop to hurricanes or in the circumpolar jet streams) and to calculate the deviation from mean size will be more demanding.

So I assume that these vortices will evolve until stars are formed .

Some are then heavily sheared to nonexistence but some will be ejected by the accelerating actions of a multi-mass situation.

Some may orbit the black hole for some time (cosmic time scale) and some may be ejected into the black hole.

This must not interfere with the fast jets as these are perpendicular to the accretion disc.

People that calculate astrophysics (Ruder) have discussed models that the merging of two simple black holes inside our galaxy will produce enough gamma rays to roast us within a few hours. And they have a candidate pair estimated to merge in around 80 million years.

But if the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is producing supermassive stars at a high rate these will develop to be small black holes in a short time (10 to 100 million years.) May be some of these - if existing - will generate the same severe trouble to our life.

Have fun until then!

RHABE

to clarify #63

the tubs are bottom to bottom in space (upside down to one another) and filled with water and are some small distance apart, near touching, drains over one another and open.

the tubs represent the galaxy, the water represents the mass and energy and the drains black holes.

The water would pass through the drain, collide with the water from the opposing drain, with some force, and fill the vacant space between the tubs. The two open drains are in this case opposite ends of one black hole system.

thanks for entertaining such notions, I really am very curious to a response.

CR3

Hi CR3.

Your 'bath tubs' look somewhat similar to the quantum cosmology picture that I posted here. The difference is that it is a spacetime diagram and the vertical axis is time, not space. So the bottom 'tub' empties into the top 'tub'...

Jorrie

In space, you don't really have 'up' or 'down', unless 'down' is always towards the pull of gravity...

Good "down to earth" point Yuval. Makes as much sense as anything else in this warped universe.

Hi again Yuval.

Agreed for space, but in time we have a definite forward and backward. In spacetime diagrams, that is usually up and down.

Jorrie

Point taken

i see 2 seperate galaxies with the force of each black hole 'sucking' in E and M where they collide at the joining place My imagination mind you.

That is soo cool. I love it when my ideas aer actually based on concepts that geat minds have pondered. I never know how absurd some concepts might be. It is very refreshing for a humble man to have some inherent 'understanding'.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage the ideas of a novice such as myself. As I said though; it is very reassuring to know that I, and thus we, have some concepts which are perceivable within in our earth bound brains. A true gift from...well you know.

CR3

Hello Jorrie,

I have one devises totally crazy:

On the BH, theory M (Membranes - Brana's), and temporary before the BB.

According to I have been able to understand, there is like eleven dimensions plus time, one thinks that the universe in which we existed is the creation (BB) of the encounter of two of them, and that a time previous to this event existed, and we lived within a bubble that is our temporary space and observable limit, and one thinks of universes that parallelling coexist in their own bubbles or Brana's; the cords or super-cords are not as the word suggests it, if not like undulations that exist parallelling without touching themselves, when they are united they can create universes (BB) with physical parameters different from ours and the BH feed these forces somehow, since the matter that enters these BH does not go out, single we see its end in X-rays form of these planetary systems that are devoured. Will be the nexus between universes the BH!

Tengo una idea totalmente descabellada:

Sobre los BH, la teoría M (Membranas – Branas), el tiempo antes del BB.

Según he podido entender, hay como once dimensiones mas una temporal, se piensa que el universo en el cual existimos es la creación (BB) del encuentro de dos de ellas, y que existió un tiempo anterior a este evento, y vivimos dentro de una burbuja que es nuestro espacio temporal y límite observable, y se piensa de universos que coexisten paralelamente en sus propias burbujas o branas; las cuerdas o supercuerdas no son como la palabra lo sugiere, si no como ondulaciones que existen paralelamente sin tocarse, cuando se unen pueden crear universos (BB) con parámetros físicos diferentes al nuestro y los BH alimentan de alguna manera a estas fuerzas, ya que la materia que entra a estos BH no sale, solo vemos su fin en forma de Rayos X de estos sistemas planetarios que son devorados. ¡Será el nexo entre universos los BH!

Tomas